Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread
861,869 Views |
9883 Replies |
Last: 20 hrs ago by sycasey
I would agree. I would also note for Big C that Russia is first and foremost a corrupt kleptocracy. Putin has amassed a huge fortune (perhaps tens of billions if not a hundred billion or more) off the backs of his people through the systems in his sh(thole petrostate and that hasn't gone unnoticed.tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
This war is extremely unpopular in Russia and even more unpopular amongst the Oligarchs who keep finding themselves falling from open windows. No one should be surprised if at some point Putin accidentally falls out of a window and another leader emerges - one who is favored by the remaining oligarchs and who would be able to exit from this idiotic war which has humbled the country and revealed their military to be an embarrassment. That leader would claim that Russia would benefit from peaceful prosperity and would tell the world it's a new Russia looking for comity for the betterment of the world while making sure the people of Russia know that he is committed to rooting out corruption and restoring the country's once proud military.
Of course in reality, it would just be a new corrupt kleptocrat who leapt into power in order to steal billions and keep the Oligarchy enrobed in gold and dancing on their yachts.
I don't see any hardliner having the juice to take over because if Russia wanted a hardliner who was bent on stupid acts of aggression they already have one in Putin. Putin's biggest risk right now is certainly from within as everyone with any level wealth or power in Russia knows that he is the biggest risk to their wellbeing (both financial and personal) and that they won't have to fear windows once Putin is gone. The US and NATO have no need to push for regime change at this point because that is most likely to result from Russia's continued struggles under Putin and the fact that Oligarchs seem to be struck with sudden death syndrome.
tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Unit2Sucks said:I would agree. I would also note for Big C that Russia is first and foremost a corrupt kleptocracy. Putin has amassed a huge fortune (perhaps tens of billions if not a hundred billion or more) off the backs of his people through the systems in his sh(thole petrostate and that hasn't gone unnoticed.tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
This war is extremely unpopular in Russia and even more unpopular amongst the Oligarchs who keep finding themselves falling from open windows. No one should be surprised if at some point Putin accidentally falls out of a window and another leader emerges - one who is favored by the remaining oligarchs and who would be able to exit from this idiotic war which has humbled the country and revealed their military to be an embarrassment. That leader would claim that Russia would benefit from peaceful prosperity and would tell the world it's a new Russia looking for comity for the betterment of the world while making sure the people of Russia know that he is committed to rooting out corruption and restoring the country's once proud military.
Of course in reality, it would just be a new corrupt kleptocrat who leapt into power in order to steal billions and keep the Oligarchy enrobed in gold and dancing on their yachts.
I don't see any hardliner having the juice to take over because if Russia wanted a hardliner who was bent on stupid acts of aggression they already have one in Putin. Putin's biggest risk right now is certainly from within as everyone with any level wealth or power in Russia knows that he is the biggest risk to their wellbeing (both financial and personal) and that they won't have to fear windows once Putin is gone. The US and NATO have no need to push for regime change at this point because that is most likely to result from Russia's continued struggles under Putin and the fact that Oligarchs seem to be struck with sudden death syndrome.
I think there are opportunities to end the war in what you are saying. Putin needs an off-ramp that protects HIS interests - namely political security and saving face. That means peace terms don't have to be substantively beneficial to Russia they just have to be sellable to the Russia oligarchs and populace.
Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
QUESTION: " I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate."
ANSWER: Because the Donbas has a large pro-Russia population; bc of 10 or more years of suppression and civil war there; bc of suppression of Russian culture and language; bc of continued NATO threats and expansion; and to create a buffer zone. We didn't allow Russia to set up a puppet state in Cuba.
Do you think ignoring these realities makes them go away?
Maybe McGregor and Ritter are lying, but apparently Ukraine and the EU are running low on equipment and ammunition: and Russia is training 200,000 fresh new troops.
On top of this, Russia is apparently ready to launch either a winter or spring offensive, a traditional mass military war. Ukraine has lost approximately 150,000 men. These facts seem to evade you.
I'm not cheering Putin, I'm looking at reality. A smaller, poor, corrupt state is being used for a proxy war against arguably the #3 most powerful country on earth. And Russia now is improving ties with China, conducts military exercises with them, and probably is working with Iran and North Korea (China hostage). Europe is war weary and let's us do the heavy lifting.
QUESTION: "I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes."
ANSWER: And NATO, Blinken, and our corrupt, incompetent State Department went too far, too long. The open plan is to "weaken Russia". No acknowledgement of 150m dead, eviscerated Ukraine, and Russia's growing ties with China.
Will we declare war and institute a draft? Or is Poland going to offer 200,000 men up for slaughter?
I don't see our end game beyond fantasy. You really think Putin is going to "lose"? How does that look?
*******
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Right. Because just like us with Putin now, you have to with the probability the speaking person actually is nuts enough to do what they are threatening, and that probability is pretty much never zero.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Cal88 said:
Russia is going to win the war, and what you or I think or want has no impact on this outcome.
Not when they are so f-ing dumb as to store ammunition in the same building as a barracks.
And Russian military equipment being stored there, uncamouflaged.
How dumb can you be?
Anger in Russia as scores of troops killed in one of war's deadliest strikes (yahoo.com)
A pro nationalist blogger claimed roughly 70 soldiers had died and more than 100 wounded.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
One thing that is fascinating about this conflict is how divergent the news is based on which sources your read. movielover and 88's sources have produced info that we are all familiar with. But Google "Ukraine war today" and see reports that Ukraine has advance to and is making real progress to 3 key strategic cities, that Russia is almost out of munitions, is low on troops, that Wagner is struggling, etc. A month or two ago that same class of sources showed Russia advancing those same front lines west and having success, so I'm inclined to trust them. But as they are Englsih speaking they are likely western so I guess you never know.
tequila4kapp said:Right. Because just like us with Putin now, you have to with the probability the speaking person actually is nuts enough to do what they are threatening, and that probability is pretty much never zero.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Your response isn't clear.
At the time I thought Trump dropping bombs down a terrorist hole while entertaining Chairman Xi at Mar-a-lago was disrespectful.
In retrospect, it was brilliant. He was unpredictable.
The movielover/88 sources have been consistently wrong on this topic and the Western mainstream sources consistently right, but maybe one of these days the reverse will be true.tequila4kapp said:
One thing that is fascinating about this conflict is how divergent the news is based on which sources your read. movielover and 88's sources have produced info that we are all familiar with. But Google "Ukraine war today" and see reports that Ukraine has advance to and is making real progress to 3 key strategic cities, that Russia is almost out of munitions, is low on troops, that Wagner is struggling, etc. A month or two ago that same class of sources showed Russia advancing those same front lines west and having success, so I'm inclined to trust them. But as they are Englsih speaking they are likely western so I guess you never know.
My response is that being irrational is multiple things. It can be wildly effective. It can be very dangerous. It can be provocative.movielover said:Your response isn't clear.tequila4kapp said:Right. Because just like us with Putin now, you have to with the probability the speaking person actually is nuts enough to do what they are threatening, and that probability is pretty much never zero.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
At the time I thought Trump dropping bombs down a terrorist hole while entertaining Chairman Xi at Mar-a-lago was disrespectful.
In retrospect, it was brilliant. He was unpredictable.
Since Trump is no longer in office we can assess that his irrational language and threats were short term effective (one might argue his belligerence spurs on aggressive behavior after he leaves).
Putin's blustery threats are largely - IMO - short term effective also. For as much support as we have provided we have actually been pretty measured in our response, in large part out of a desire to heed Putin's warnings and not escalate. His irrational threats have worked.
Exactly. ML believes Kremlin propaganda that they are "training" troops whereas there is evidence they are sending people to the front lines with zero training or supplies (families are using their hard-earned savings as victims of a corrupt kleptocracy to provide protective equipment, food and other necessary supplies that Russia can't provide any more) and that Russia has reportedly resorted to the occasional forcible roundup as well.sycasey said:The movielover/88 sources have been consistently wrong on this topic and the Western mainstream sources consistently right, but maybe one of these days the reverse will be true.tequila4kapp said:
One thing that is fascinating about this conflict is how divergent the news is based on which sources your read. movielover and 88's sources have produced info that we are all familiar with. But Google "Ukraine war today" and see reports that Ukraine has advance to and is making real progress to 3 key strategic cities, that Russia is almost out of munitions, is low on troops, that Wagner is struggling, etc. A month or two ago that same class of sources showed Russia advancing those same front lines west and having success, so I'm inclined to trust them. But as they are Englsih speaking they are likely western so I guess you never know.
What's interesting about tonight's mass arrests in Moscow is that no one seems to know why they're being arrested...and they really don't care why.
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) December 31, 2022
"We are slaves. Take me to Ukraine". pic.twitter.com/jaxjxqqW3w
And they still have exploding tank turrets lol.
15 sec from Russian mobic life pic.twitter.com/0fOZwPXEv9
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔇𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝔇𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 (@TheDeadDistrict) December 23, 2022
There are a lot of different sources out there but you have to try really hard to believe the Kremlin propaganda. The irony is that ML recently claimed "I can make the needed judgements" but there is no one here who more frequently is conned by dubious sources. There are certainly other people who share and amplify misinformation (particularly the usual suspect in this thread) but they do so knowingly. ML more closely aligns with the useful idiots that the USSR liked to cultivate during the cold war.
FWIW, our recent military experience is different than what is transpiring in Ukraine. We're used to fighting tribal people's with IEDs.
movielover said:
FWIW, our recent military experience is different than what is transpiring in Ukraine. We're used to fighting tribal people's with IEDs.
We're used to utilizing air power which Russia has failed to do in spectacular fashion.
Edit to add link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/09/12/russias-air-force-goes-missing-at-the-worst-possible-time-during-ukraines-counteroffensive/?sh=412ec5d73838
LOL I missed this earlier.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Putin gave Trump orders, not the other way around. We should know what happened when they talked but Trump made sure that there were no transcripts available for his own administration to be aware of and the only record of those discussions is whatever Russia maintained.
I don't know why anyone would take anything Trump had to say about those conversations seriously - there is a reason Trump didn't want anyone to know what happened and it's not because he used some idiotic mob style threat. Trump was a lapdog and didn't want anyone outside of Russia to see how he [redacted] with Putin.
In fact, Trump is so weak that his team omitted part of the transcript of a press conference with Putin.
dimitrig said:movielover said:
FWIW, our recent military experience is different than what is transpiring in Ukraine. We're used to fighting tribal people's with IEDs.
We're used to utilizing air power which Russia has failed to do in spectacular fashion.
Because Ukraine + NATO is superior anywhere west of Russian controlled territory. We don't really have that problem when we invade the third world / smaller countries.
Agreed. Didn't we used to have actual journalists on the ground? I guess now they surf twitter.
Unit2Sucks said:LOL I missed this earlier.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Putin gave Trump orders, not the other way around. We should know what happened when they talked but Trump made sure that there were no transcripts available for his own administration to be aware of and the only record of those discussions is whatever Russia maintained.
I don't know why anyone would take anything Trump had to say about those conversations seriously - there is a reason Trump didn't want anyone to know what happened and it's not because he used some idiotic mob style threat. Trump was a lapdog and didn't want anyone outside of Russia to see how he [redacted] with Putin.
In fact, Trump is so weak that his team omitted part of the transcript of a press conference with Putin.
And your proof is what, Mother Jones?
We know these FACTS:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine under President Trump
2. The US didn't enter new wars under President Trump
3. We had saber rattling with Chairman Kim with some very culturally specific threats ('fire and fury like never seen before') - before he backed down and we had numerous peace talks
4. POTUS Trump had a picture of the secret home of a top ME leader sent to said leader. He asked President Trump, "Why did you send me this picture?" Trump replied, "Figure it out. ... you will harm no American military, or else." No one was harmed.
5. POTUS Trump sent javalina missiles to Ukraine
6. President Trump, the GOP, and Democrats all offered and passed various sanctions against Russia
7. Trump goaded and pushed NATO countries to pay their fair share; Funds flooded in
8. President Trump stregthened our Military - his doctrine of peace through strength
9. President Trump tried to reduce our Military footprint in Africa and elsewhere, and the DOD lied to him about force and personnel reduction
10. President Trump also sold Military equipment to Taiwan and South Korea
11. President Trump achieved five peace deals in the Middle East. He should get a real Nobel Peace Prize for this
oski003 said:dimitrig said:movielover said:
FWIW, our recent military experience is different than what is transpiring in Ukraine. We're used to fighting tribal people's with IEDs.
We're used to utilizing air power which Russia has failed to do in spectacular fashion.
Because Ukraine + NATO is superior anywhere west of Russian controlled territory. We don't really have that problem when we invade the third world / smaller countries.
As the link I posted mentions, this is more about doctrine.
Russia should have air superiority by now. They aren't even fighting a modern war. They are fighting WW2 again with waves of infantry, tanks, and artillery.
Why are they using drones supplied by other nations? Where are theirs?
The US would have worked to obliterate Ukraine's command, control, radar, and logistics from the air before a single soldier went into combat on the ground. They would shoot down any Ukrainian planes that tried to take off. Russia has a large numerical advantage they are not exploiting.
Russia didn't do this for several reasons.
One, it is not clear that they can. Their tactics are outdated and their most advanced weapons systems have mostly been sidelined.
Two, that sort of war would take time because it would have to be conducted from high altitudes. Russia was hoping to end the conflict quickly. Only now are they realizing they need to change tactics. Russia should have bombed Ukraine for a month to degraded its air defenses and logistics capabilities. Instead, they let weapons pour in from Poland.
Three, it is expensive. Russia was not prepared to commit a trillion dollars to this war like the US did in Iraq. They really did think this would be quick and easy. The military was not prepared to fight this war. The decision appears to have been made without much planning.
Four, Russia has no clear goals in the campaign. It is hard to win a conflict when you don't know what you are trying to achieve. Russia has for the most part tried to avoid harming too many civilians. They should have cut off all power in Ukraine in the first week of the war using air power. However, Russians see Ukraine as their own territory and they don't want to wreck it completely nor spend the money to rebuild it.
oski003 said:dimitrig said:movielover said:
FWIW, our recent military experience is different than what is transpiring in Ukraine. We're used to fighting tribal people's with IEDs.
We're used to utilizing air power which Russia has failed to do in spectacular fashion.
Because Ukraine + NATO is superior anywhere west of Russian controlled territory. We don't really have that problem when we invade the third world / smaller countries.
Ukraine is a lot smaller and less powerful than Russia. In addition it shares a border so supply lines should be easy to maintain. The US can conduct a better campaign thousands of miles from the US mainland with an ocean in-between.
"Four, Russia has no clear goals in the campaign. It is hard to win a conflict when you don't know what you are trying to achieve. Russia has for the most part tried to avoid harming too many civilians. They should have cut off all power in Ukraine in the first week of the war using air power. However, Russians see Ukraine as their own territory and they don't want to wreck it completely nor spend the money to rebuild it. "
*******
Russia allegedly has adjusted. You're correct that they went in smaller, thought they would have less resistance, and didn't. Russia now has military men with 10 months experience.
They're now ready to add 200,000 new troops. Russia has a much smaller economy, but is reportedly sourcing drones from Iran. They have a new general who is now pounding infrastructure and is preparing a massive offensive. Russia is now committed long term to build a 1.5 Million man military.
Ukraine hit a building and killed between 70 and 400 Russian troops today. Also some ammo taken out.
The Russian general likely waiting until the ground freezes in the south to make any big moves.
The goals likely include:
1. Crush Ukraine military
2. Prevent Poland from entering from the east
3. Solidify the Donbas
4. Change leadership on Kiev
P.S. Zelensky has an Oscar from Sean Penn for good luck.
*******
Russia allegedly has adjusted. You're correct that they went in smaller, thought they would have less resistance, and didn't. Russia now has military men with 10 months experience.
They're now ready to add 200,000 new troops. Russia has a much smaller economy, but is reportedly sourcing drones from Iran. They have a new general who is now pounding infrastructure and is preparing a massive offensive. Russia is now committed long term to build a 1.5 Million man military.
Ukraine hit a building and killed between 70 and 400 Russian troops today. Also some ammo taken out.
The Russian general likely waiting until the ground freezes in the south to make any big moves.
The goals likely include:
1. Crush Ukraine military
2. Prevent Poland from entering from the east
3. Solidify the Donbas
4. Change leadership on Kiev
P.S. Zelensky has an Oscar from Sean Penn for good luck.
Maybe it's time to stop collecting facts from Trump fundraising emails.movielover said:Unit2Sucks said:LOL I missed this earlier.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Putin gave Trump orders, not the other way around. We should know what happened when they talked but Trump made sure that there were no transcripts available for his own administration to be aware of and the only record of those discussions is whatever Russia maintained.
I don't know why anyone would take anything Trump had to say about those conversations seriously - there is a reason Trump didn't want anyone to know what happened and it's not because he used some idiotic mob style threat. Trump was a lapdog and didn't want anyone outside of Russia to see how he [redacted] with Putin.
In fact, Trump is so weak that his team omitted part of the transcript of a press conference with Putin.
And your proof is what, Mother Jones?
We know these FACTS:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine under President Trump
2. The US didn't enter new wars under President Trump
3. We had saber rattling with Chairman Kim with some very culturally specific threats ('fire and fury like never seen before') - before he backed down and we had numerous peace talks
4. POTUS Trump had a picture of the secret home of a top ME leader sent to said leader. He asked President Trump, "Why did you send me this picture?" Trump replied, "Figure it out. ... you will harm no American military, or else." No one was harmed.
5. POTUS Trump sent javalina missiles to Ukraine
6. President Trump, the GOP, and Democrats all offered and passed various sanctions against Russia
7. Trump goaded and pushed NATO countries to pay their fair share; Funds flooded in
8. President Trump stregthened our Military - his doctrine of peace through strength
9. President Trump tried to reduce our Military footprint in Africa and elsewhere, and the DOD lied to him about force and personnel reduction
10. President Trump also sold Military equipment to Taiwan and South Korea
11. President Trump achieved five peace deals in the Middle East. He should get a real Nobel Peace Prize for this
The important foreign policy facts are that Trump's decision to terminate the Iran nuclear deal directly led to an escalation in hostilities with them including the largest ballistic missile attack on the US in history (which Trump lied about - claiming that no service members were seriously injured and mischaracterizing traumatic brain injury as headaches) and now Iran is arming Russia in their attack against Ukraine. Neither of those would have happened if the Iran deal were still in place. It was a huge foreign policy disaster and the GOP will never own up to it.
And as for new wars, Trump massively increased the drone wars and expanded into new areas that Obama hadn't targeted. He also eased the restrictions the Obama administration had in place to limit civilian casualties and eliminated all accountability. We don't know the full extent of the damage Trump did, but I've seen estimated of civilian deaths as high as 7,500 for just his first 2 years in office. More here. According to fictional movies I've seen, this will lead to terrorist threats in a few years.
Russia didn't invade Ukraine under Trump because their top priority was having Trump destroy NATO from within and they knew that attacking Ukraine would be counter-productive. Once Trump was gone and couldn't damage NATO, they went back to plan A to prevent Black Sea NG from reaching the market and reducing demand for Russia's petro resources.
ROTFLMAO - Trump destroyed NATO.
Bloomberg: NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump
Eleven allies met 2% guideline on defense expenditures in 2020
The Heritage Foundation: NATO Allies Now Spend $50 Billion More on Defense Than in 2016
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016
NPR: Trump Hectors NATO But Boosts Both Money and Troops
Under Trump, NATO Nations Get More U.S. Troops And Military Spending
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/784444270/under-trump-nato-nations-get-more-u-s-troops-and-military-spending
Reuters: Pressed by Trump over defense, Germany says can pay more for NATO running costs
Bloomberg: NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump
Eleven allies met 2% guideline on defense expenditures in 2020
The Heritage Foundation: NATO Allies Now Spend $50 Billion More on Defense Than in 2016
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016
NPR: Trump Hectors NATO But Boosts Both Money and Troops
Under Trump, NATO Nations Get More U.S. Troops And Military Spending
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/784444270/under-trump-nato-nations-get-more-u-s-troops-and-military-spending
Reuters: Pressed by Trump over defense, Germany says can pay more for NATO running costs
You really are so resistant to facts that you've constructed an alternate universe.movielover said:
ROTFLMAO - Trump destroyed NATO.
Bloomberg: NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump
Eleven allies met 2% guideline on defense expenditures in 2020
The Heritage Foundation: NATO Allies Now Spend $50 Billion More on Defense Than in 2016
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016
NPR: Trump Hectors NATO But Boosts Both Money and Troops
Under Trump, NATO Nations Get More U.S. Troops And Military Spending
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/784444270/under-trump-nato-nations-get-more-u-s-troops-and-military-spending
Reuters: Pressed by Trump over defense, Germany says can pay more for NATO running costs
Trump campaigned on his criticism of NATO and you and your fellow Trumpists loved it. Throughout his administration, there was reporting about Trump talking about withdrawing from NATO. As Bolton said, Putin was waiting for it.
Trump famously talked about not adhering to Article 5 before ultimately tucking tail.
Now you're pretending like Trump tried to make NATO stronger? LOL, what planet are you from?
Quote:
LONDON Donald Trump set off alarm bells in European capitals Thursday after suggesting he might not honor the core tenet of the NATO military alliance.
Trump said the U.S. would not necessarily defend new NATO members in the Baltics in the event of Russian attack if he were elected to the White House.
...
Trump's comments were perceived by some analysts as carte blanche for Russia to intimidate NATO allies and a potential harbinger of the alliance's collapse were Trump to be elected.
Quote:
President Donald Trump has long criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, frequently bellyaching that the international military partnership has been "very unfair" to the United States, and castigating American allies as deadbeats for, in his eyes, failing to pull their weight. However, it appears Trump's attacks on NATO are more than bluster. Citing senior administration officials, The New York Times reported late Monday that at several points in 2018, Trump discussed withdrawing the U.S. from the international organization, a move that would effectively doom the 29-nation alliance and empower Russia, which has spent years seeking to weaken it.
"It would destroy 70-plus years of painstaking work across multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic, to create perhaps the most powerful and advantageous alliance in history," Michle A. Flournoy, an under secretary of defense under Barack Obama, told the Times. "And it would be the wildest success that Vladimir Putin could dream of."
Quote:
Bolton, in an interview with Post opinions editor at large Michael Duffy, said the former president came close to pulling the United States out of NATO in 2018, a claim he originally made in a memoir published in 2020. In his book, Bolton wrote that he had to convince Trump not to quit NATO in the middle of a 2018 summit.
On Friday, Bolton, who served as a top Trump adviser from 2018 to 2019, offered more details on their conversations that day, saying he "had my heart in my throat at that NATO meeting."
"I didn't know what the president would do," Bolton said. "He called me up to his seat seconds before he gave the speech. And I said, look, go right up to the line, but don't go over it. I sat back down. I had no idea what he'd do."
Bolton said he thought Trump would "put his foot over it, but at least he didn't withdraw then."
"In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO," Bolton said. "And I think [Russian President Vladimir] Putin was waiting for that."
Quote:
BRUSSELS President Trump did not explicitly endorse the mutual-aid clause of the North Atlantic Treaty at the NATO summit on Thursday despite previous indications that he was planning to do so, keeping in place the cloud of ambiguity hanging over the relationship between the United States and the alliance.
Speaking in front of a 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial at the new NATO headquarters, Trump praised NATO's response to the 9/11 attacks and spoke of "the commitments that bind us together as one."
The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening that Trump would use the speech to finally endorse Article 5. Though top members of his administration, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence have done so, Trump's refusal has shaken NATO allies.
Trump has been a harsh critic of NATO overall, at one point calling it "obsolete." He has repeatedly criticized other allies for not paying their fair share of the defense burden of the alliance. He has pushed the alliance to do more to combat terrorism. At the NATO leaders summit, counter-terrorism and burden-sharing will dominate the agenda not Russia.
It's pretty easy to negotiate peace deals when you just work with the Israelis and don't include the Palestinians. As for the Israel-UAE peace deal, that was good, but it's sort of like working out a peace deal between Panama and Brazil. They aren't really neighbors and their possibilities for direct conflict are very limited.movielover said:Unit2Sucks said:LOL I missed this earlier.movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Big C said:tequila4kapp said:Russian's - even their seemingly crazy leaders - want to survive just as much as Americans and Europeans. We still live in a world of mutual nuclear annihilation. Russia can't nuke us without threat of ending the world any more than we can nuke them. .Big C said:
Just about the absolute last thing we want is for this war to escalate, given that Putin's rationality is in question (at least according to me) and the use of nukes could come into play.
Even If Putin were to fall, supposedly many of his likely successors are at least as hard line and I sure as hell don't want to see these people in power in a major nuke country, when they become desperate.
I hope you're right and it was mutually-assured-destruction that got us through the Cold War. However, to me, Putin has proven himself to be irrational and isolated from sound advice.
I mean, why invade Ukraine? This has been a disaster for Russia. He invaded because he overestimated his own military power and underestimated our power and our resolve. And this is when he wasn't desperate; now he's desperate. I could imagine him still thinking that he can escalate -- perhaps even with the limited use of nukes -- and scare us off. Wasn't it Obama who said, "Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia, but not to America." (or something like that) Obama was correct and Putin was taking notes.
Unit2Sucks, from our perspective, Russia's next leader would have to be the anti-Putin. Russia is in a bad situation and it is their own doing. But maybe that isn't how they see it, or maybe -- more likely -- the Russian people tend to accept the leadership that is foisted upon them. The fact that Putin's successor might well be more hard line than he is... that must be true: I read it on the Internet somewhere.
Because he thought he could. Putin was told it would be quick and he believed NATO was fractured and ineffective.
Recall that Trump acted and sounded crazy when he made threats about use of force. There was a lot of blustery statements that made him seem unstable. But notice the use of force never happened. Just like Putin has never used his nukes
President Trump reportedly told Putin if he invaded Ukraine he would bomb Moscow. Putin didn't invade.
No proxy war under President Trump, no new wars under President Trump, no additional Trillions for the MICC for war games.
Putin gave Trump orders, not the other way around. We should know what happened when they talked but Trump made sure that there were no transcripts available for his own administration to be aware of and the only record of those discussions is whatever Russia maintained.
I don't know why anyone would take anything Trump had to say about those conversations seriously - there is a reason Trump didn't want anyone to know what happened and it's not because he used some idiotic mob style threat. Trump was a lapdog and didn't want anyone outside of Russia to see how he [redacted] with Putin.
In fact, Trump is so weak that his team omitted part of the transcript of a press conference with Putin.
And your proof is what, Mother Jones?
We know these FACTS:
11. President Trump achieved five peace deals in the Middle East. He should get a real Nobel Peace Prize for this
Unit2Sucks said:
You really are so resistant to facts that you've constructed an alternate universe.
Trump campaigned on his criticism of NATO and you and your fellow Trumpists loved it. Throughout his administration, there was reporting about Trump talking about withdrawing from NATO. As Bolton said, Putin was waiting for it.
Trump famously talked about not adhering to Article 5 before ultimately tucking tail.
Now you're pretending like Trump tried to make NATO stronger? LOL, what planet are you from?Quote:
LONDON Donald Trump set off alarm bells in European capitals Thursday after suggesting he might not honor the core tenet of the NATO military alliance.
Trump said the U.S. would not necessarily defend new NATO members in the Baltics in the event of Russian attack if he were elected to the White House.
...
Trump's comments were perceived by some analysts as carte blanche for Russia to intimidate NATO allies and a potential harbinger of the alliance's collapse were Trump to be elected.Quote:
President Donald Trump has long criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, frequently bellyaching that the international military partnership has been "very unfair" to the United States, and castigating American allies as deadbeats for, in his eyes, failing to pull their weight. However, it appears Trump's attacks on NATO are more than bluster. Citing senior administration officials, The New York Times reported late Monday that at several points in 2018, Trump discussed withdrawing the U.S. from the international organization, a move that would effectively doom the 29-nation alliance and empower Russia, which has spent years seeking to weaken it.
"It would destroy 70-plus years of painstaking work across multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic, to create perhaps the most powerful and advantageous alliance in history," Michle A. Flournoy, an under secretary of defense under Barack Obama, told the Times. "And it would be the wildest success that Vladimir Putin could dream of."Quote:
Bolton, in an interview with Post opinions editor at large Michael Duffy, said the former president came close to pulling the United States out of NATO in 2018, a claim he originally made in a memoir published in 2020. In his book, Bolton wrote that he had to convince Trump not to quit NATO in the middle of a 2018 summit.
On Friday, Bolton, who served as a top Trump adviser from 2018 to 2019, offered more details on their conversations that day, saying he "had my heart in my throat at that NATO meeting."
"I didn't know what the president would do," Bolton said. "He called me up to his seat seconds before he gave the speech. And I said, look, go right up to the line, but don't go over it. I sat back down. I had no idea what he'd do."
Bolton said he thought Trump would "put his foot over it, but at least he didn't withdraw then."
"In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO," Bolton said. "And I think [Russian President Vladimir] Putin was waiting for that."Quote:
BRUSSELS President Trump did not explicitly endorse the mutual-aid clause of the North Atlantic Treaty at the NATO summit on Thursday despite previous indications that he was planning to do so, keeping in place the cloud of ambiguity hanging over the relationship between the United States and the alliance.
Speaking in front of a 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial at the new NATO headquarters, Trump praised NATO's response to the 9/11 attacks and spoke of "the commitments that bind us together as one."
The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening that Trump would use the speech to finally endorse Article 5. Though top members of his administration, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence have done so, Trump's refusal has shaken NATO allies.
Trump has been a harsh critic of NATO overall, at one point calling it "obsolete." He has repeatedly criticized other allies for not paying their fair share of the defense burden of the alliance. He has pushed the alliance to do more to combat terrorism. At the NATO leaders summit, counter-terrorism and burden-sharing will dominate the agenda not Russia.
It's pretty clear that Movielover is in a cult.
This is what happens when all of the Kool-Aid is gone.
Jonestown, 1978
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Yes, he threatened to leave NATO and ridiculed them for not meeting their financial obligations - 2% of GDP. They essentially use us, pimp us out to protect them... our Military, our men, we subsidize their social programs, etc.
President Trump's approach worked, and tens of Billions of dollars flowed into NATO, including increased contributions from Germany.
Trump rightly asked, where do we go to get repaid for carrying NATO / Europe for all of these years?
He said he spoke to one European leader, when he was asked about where their contributions were, claimed no one had ever called and asked them to contribute to their required commitment level.
President Trump's approach worked, and tens of Billions of dollars flowed into NATO, including increased contributions from Germany.
Trump rightly asked, where do we go to get repaid for carrying NATO / Europe for all of these years?
He said he spoke to one European leader, when he was asked about where their contributions were, claimed no one had ever called and asked them to contribute to their required commitment level.
From The Guardian: "On Wednesday evening he [Trump] tweeted: "The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to belittle my VERY successful trip to London for NATO. I got along great with the NATO leaders, even getting them to pay $130 Billion a year more, & $400 Billion a year more in 3 years. No increase for U.S., only deep respect!" "
Maybe you should get some quotes from the NATO leaders rather than posting quotes where Trump pats himself on the back.movielover said:
From The Guardian: "On Wednesday evening he [Trump] tweeted: "The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to belittle my VERY successful trip to London for NATO. I got along great with the NATO leaders, even getting them to pay $130 Billion a year more, & $400 Billion a year more in 3 years. No increase for U.S., only deep respect!" "
Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2018
Eastern Oregon Bear said:Maybe you should get some quotes from the NATO leaders rather than posting quotes where Trump pats himself on the back.movielover said:
From The Guardian: "On Wednesday evening he [Trump] tweeted: "The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to belittle my VERY successful trip to London for NATO. I got along great with the NATO leaders, even getting them to pay $130 Billion a year more, & $400 Billion a year more in 3 years. No increase for U.S., only deep respect!" "
He got laughed at in front of the United Nations General Assembly while patting himself on the back, while slamming past U.S. presidents.
I dont think that I've ever seen ANY U.S. President laughed at, at the UN General Assembly.
He literally criticized the leaders of Iran, China, and Germany . . . while complimenting North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
You just cant make this stuff up!
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
movielover said:
Yes, he threatened to leave NATO and ridiculed them for not meeting their financial obligations - 2% of GDP. They essentially use us, pimp us out to protect them... our Military, our men, we subsidize their social programs, etc.
President Trump's approach worked, and tens of Billions of dollars flowed into NATO, including increased contributions from Germany.
Trump rightly asked, where do we go to get repaid for carrying NATO / Europe for all of these years?
He said he spoke to one European leader, when he was asked about where their contributions were, claimed no one had ever called and asked them to contribute to their required commitment level.
movielover said:
From The Guardian: "On Wednesday evening he [Trump] tweeted: "The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to belittle my VERY successful trip to London for NATO. I got along great with the NATO leaders, even getting them to pay $130 Billion a year more, & $400 Billion a year more in 3 years. No increase for U.S., only deep respect!" "
movielover said:Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2018
Like Trump, you literally have no idea what NATO is or how it works. None of the money you are talking about flowed into NATO - it represents a promise to increase military spend. Sometimes I marvel at how ignorant his base can be.
We don't spend too much on our military because of NATO, we do it because it's Republican welfare. We do it because of the MIC which you sometimes choose to criticize, except when Trump is supporting it. Other NATO countries were below their suggested military spend but the notion of reimbursement is idiotic. Of course, since Trump is a fraud who cheats on his taxes and plays games with "reimbursements" I am not surprised he would misunderstand it. He's an idiot and a cheat - what's your excuse?
Here are a few articles, not that you will read them or understand them if you did. But in case anyone else wants to be reminded how stupid Trump is and how little he understands the institutions he criticizes or why the US is invested in them to begin with.
Quote:
It seems Trump still doesn't understand how NATO funding works. (We've spelled this out multiple times before.) Daniel Fried, former assistant secretary of state for Europe, told the Fact Checker via email, "The notion that the allies owe the U.S. back dues" is wrong. Former deputy secretary general of NATO, Alexander Vershbow, said, "There are no arrears owed to the U.S. or NATO. President Trump is under the delusion that Allies pay the U.S. for protection, or is feigning ignorance on how NATO works."
Member countries fund NATO directly and indirectly. The majority of NATO funds are indirect. "NATO isn't a private club like Mar-a-Lago" where countries owe dues, Derek Chollet, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, pointed out. If a country meets the 2 percent guideline, it is spending at least 2 percent of GDP on its own defense not picking up another country's tab.
Russia says dozens of its troops killed in attack in eastern Ukraine | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/defiant-ukrainians-cheer-new-year-drones-blasted-skies-2023-01-01/
*Well, I'd say surrender is definitely off the table. In the absence of Putin caving or a negotiated peace, it's Custer's Last Stand/Davy at the Alamo.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/defiant-ukrainians-cheer-new-year-drones-blasted-skies-2023-01-01/
*Well, I'd say surrender is definitely off the table. In the absence of Putin caving or a negotiated peace, it's Custer's Last Stand/Davy at the Alamo.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Take Down USC
by Cal Athletics
Golden Bears Get Golden Goal, Defeat No. 22 Pepperdine 2-1
by Cal Athletics
Bears Sign Highly Rated Recruiting Class
by Cal Athletics