Best guess: 10-25% higher depending on who you ask.

— Brynn Tannehill (@BrynnTannehill) May 29, 2023

But this is really only something we will discover after the war

— Phillips P. OBrien (@PhillipsPOBrien) May 29, 2023

What makes these losses astounding, is that they occurred while the Russians have been unable to do the one thing that many in the analytical community claimed they could do--move fast and exploit breakthroughs. The Russians have barely moved forward for a year.

— Phillips P. OBrien (@PhillipsPOBrien) May 29, 2023

⚡️Ukrainian officials speculate that the missile attack on targets in Kyiv was carried out by ballistic or aeroballistic missiles (Iskander or Kinzhal).

Here is a picture of debris from Patriot interceptors. pic.twitter.com/Se13HlJUZV

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) May 29, 2023

The air-launched Storm Shadow missiles, jointly developed by Great Britain and France and capable of hitting targets at a distance of more than 250 kilometers, were delivered to Ukraine on May 12 from the UK, CNN reported.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) May 28, 2023

An intercepted call published by GUR reveals that Russian soldiers predominantly go to war to earn money. A woman is speaking to her mobilised husband, who is audibly depressed, about an "unsuccessful" assault that saw 60 members of the "Storm" unit killed. Man says he could be… pic.twitter.com/nJX8zQxVQU

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) May 29, 2023

As a Finnish citizen I want to say that arming Ukraine is the single best use of tax payer money for decades. My only criticism is that the west aren’t sending enough, fast enough. Ukraine is paying for political posturing with the lives of their sons and daughters. Do more now!… pic.twitter.com/bJOge1bixp

— COMBNKRSQRBALT 🇺🇦🦝 (@KreusHarri) May 29, 2023

1/ Sergei Shoigu's chestful of medals has been highlighted by @rshereme, who points out that the Russian Defence Minister has never served in the military despite his uniform and decorations. But the full story is both ridiculous and revealing. ⬇️https://t.co/WgUf3nTesJ

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 28, 2023

25/ Russian investigative journalists discovered that the contract for the medals was advertised as early as December 2013, only a month after the Euromaidan protests began in Kyiv, and were concluded on 13 January 2014, with Mosshtamp Plant LLC awarded the contract. pic.twitter.com/CfV8O4boc5

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 28, 2023

26/ This suggests that Russia was planning to seize Crimea well before Yanukovych was deposed on 22 February, and probably intended to seize it whatever the outcome of the protests and the 'referendum'. Russian propaganda had claimed Crimean was Russian since as early as 2001.

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 28, 2023

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Ukrainian official Denis Kireev found dead after being accused of committing 'treason' and working for Russia

Barely a week after attending the first round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, images of Denis Kireev's lifeless body began circulating.

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Russia did not stop with Crimea and there is no reason to believe they will stop with Donbass. There is nothing in Putin's stated views on the west or USSR that would reasonably convince me that he would stop.

But even apart from that, how much appeasement of Russia would still serve as a deterrent for a much more powerful China and Asia?

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

Big C said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Some Memorial Day updates.

Best guess: 10-25% higher depending on who you ask.

— Brynn Tannehill (@BrynnTannehill) May 29, 2023

But this is really only something we will discover after the war

— Phillips P. OBrien (@PhillipsPOBrien) May 29, 2023

What makes these losses astounding, is that they occurred while the Russians have been unable to do the one thing that many in the analytical community claimed they could do--move fast and exploit breakthroughs. The Russians have barely moved forward for a year.

— Phillips P. OBrien (@PhillipsPOBrien) May 29, 2023

Russia continues to launch missile and drone attacks at Kyiv despite the shills breathlessly claiming that Putin isn't trying to destroy Ukraine but merely wants Crimea. Fortunately, Ukrainian defenses continue to be better than Russian offenses. Still civilians are subjected to missile debris from interceptor missiles and drones and are being forced to spend time in bomb shelters to avoid the criminal attacks.

⚡️Ukrainian officials speculate that the missile attack on targets in Kyiv was carried out by ballistic or aeroballistic missiles (Iskander or Kinzhal).

Here is a picture of debris from Patriot interceptors. pic.twitter.com/Se13HlJUZV

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) May 29, 2023

Fortunately, it looks like the storm shadows are able to defeat Russian defenses.

The air-launched Storm Shadow missiles, jointly developed by Great Britain and France and capable of hitting targets at a distance of more than 250 kilometers, were delivered to Ukraine on May 12 from the UK, CNN reported.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) May 28, 2023

And, despite all of the pretense about defending Russia or country or glory or any of that BS, it's pretty clear that Russians are only fighting for money - whether they are employed as mercs for Wagner or otherwise - this is the only way they feel like they can make a living in the corrupt petro-state kleptocracy.

An intercepted call published by GUR reveals that Russian soldiers predominantly go to war to earn money. A woman is speaking to her mobilised husband, who is audibly depressed, about an "unsuccessful" assault that saw 60 members of the "Storm" unit killed. Man says he could be… pic.twitter.com/nJX8zQxVQU

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) May 29, 2023

As I noted on the debt-ceiling debate, and time and time again in this thread, the military support for Ukraine has a very high ROI.

As a Finnish citizen I want to say that arming Ukraine is the single best use of tax payer money for decades. My only criticism is that the west aren’t sending enough, fast enough. Ukraine is paying for political posturing with the lives of their sons and daughters. Do more now!… pic.twitter.com/bJOge1bixp

— COMBNKRSQRBALT 🇺🇦🦝 (@KreusHarri) May 29, 2023

And here is a really interesting story. The punchline is that there is evidence that Russia was planning to take Crimea even before Yanukovych (the Russian puppet president of Kyiv that Manafort corruptly helped into power with Russian oligarch backing) was deposed.

1/ Sergei Shoigu's chestful of medals has been highlighted by @rshereme, who points out that the Russian Defence Minister has never served in the military despite his uniform and decorations. But the full story is both ridiculous and revealing. ⬇️https://t.co/WgUf3nTesJ

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 28, 2023

25/ Russian investigative journalists discovered that the contract for the medals was advertised as early as December 2013, only a month after the Euromaidan protests began in Kyiv, and were concluded on 13 January 2014, with Mosshtamp Plant LLC awarded the contract. pic.twitter.com/CfV8O4boc5

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 28, 2023

26/ This suggests that Russia was planning to seize Crimea well before Yanukovych was deposed on 22 February, and probably intended to seize it whatever the outcome of the protests and the 'referendum'. Russian propaganda had claimed Crimean was Russian since as early as 2001.

— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) May 28, 2023

---

Sincere question for my guy U2S: How long did it take you to put the above post together? However long it was, it must've been 10x faster than it would've taken me!

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

Sincere question for my guy U2S: How long did it take you to put the above post together? However long it was, it must've been 10x faster than it would've taken me!

---

Not that long - just a few minutes. I have a decent memory and after blasting through tweets sent by friends, family, etc. it doesn't take very long to recall the interesting ones and post them with some commentary.

I know not everyone is interested in the daily back and forth so I don't put that much into it. Things should get interesting again for a short period during the upcoming counter offensive. I expect even more Kremlin propaganda than usual to crop up during that period.

Then there will be a lull where Russia pretends like it's going to have a real offensive and the shills will pretend like everything is going to plan and that Russia isn't further from victory than they were 3 days into the war.

Once Putin loses control of the domestic narrative in Russia, he will be forced with some difficult choices. Assuming his weird health problems don't get him first and that he doesn't accidentally fall out of a window or drink the wrong tea, of course.

---

You live in a fantasy world if you believe that Putin is going to be unseated from the Kremlin. Unfortunately, you are not alone, and are probably even in the majority who are being gaslighted on this war. There is a very strong appeal to this Hollywood narrative of Luke Zelensky vs Palputin that resonates with the western and American public. While the smarter elements in the general public are beginning to understand that there is no military solution for Ukraine, the majority are still buying the Star Wars storyboarding wholesale...

You can say a lot of things about Putin, but objectively speaking, he did come in and righted the Russia ship in the late 90s, which was a disastrous decade for that country, during which almost half of its population was pushed into abject poverty and social misery, with the country's wealth and resources being syphoned off by a western-allied kakistocratic oligarchy.

Russians who have lived through the 90s are very grateful for Putin's leadership, he lifted the country out of poverty, paid off its foreign debt breaking the classic third world debt death spiral, rebuilt the country's infrastructure, and yes, rebuilt their pride. Russia today is mostly a lower/mid middle class country with a functioning bureaucracy, a growing bourgeoisie and a shrinking poverty rate, currently at 12% and still dropping, a poverty rate already lower than that of the US, Germany, France, UK or Sweden, where poverty is now growing.

The trouble with Putin and his bureaucrats is that it turns out they are fairly efficient at running their country. They've anticipated the sanctions years ago and have worked to shield their economy.

Financial Times - How Putin's technocrats saved the economy
https://www.ft.com/content/fe5fe0ed-e5d4-474e-bb5a-10c9657285d2

The Russians have prepared for this war as well as they have prepared for the sanctions, which NATO thought would cripple Russia and destabilize the country enough to usher a regime change. NATO miscalculated both the success of their economic shock and awe campaign and that of Ukraine's military campaign, placing too much faith into high end wonder weapons that it can't produce in large quantities and whose efficiency was never tested against peer adversaries, while the Russians understood that artillery is king in the absence of air superiority, and have closed the gap in drone tech while developing their own wonder-weapons.

Currently Putin's domestic popularity is around 80% - 85%. Since 1999, his approval rate has fluctuated between 60% and 90%. Russia is winning the war of attrition without their economy skipping a beat, it's unrealistic to think that Putin's position at home is threatened.

---

Unit said:

---

I know not everyone is interested in the daily back and forth so I don't put that much into it. Things should get interesting again for a short period during the upcoming counter offensive. I expect even more Kremlin propaganda than usual to crop up during that period.

Then there will be a lull where Russia pretends like it's going to have a real offensive and the shills will pretend like everything is going to plan and that Russia isn't further from victory than they were 3 days into the war.

Once Putin loses control of the domestic narrative in Russia, he will be forced with some difficult choices. Assuming his weird health problems don't get him first and that he doesn't accidentally fall out of a window or drink the wrong tea, of course.

---

Big C said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

Sincere question for my guy U2S: How long did it take you to put the above post together? However long it was, it must've been 10x faster than it would've taken me!

---

Not that long - just a few minutes. I have a decent memory and after blasting through tweets sent by friends, family, etc. it doesn't take very long to recall the interesting ones and post them with some commentary.

I know not everyone is interested in the daily back and forth so I don't put that much into it. Things should get interesting again for a short period during the upcoming counter offensive. I expect even more Kremlin propaganda than usual to crop up during that period.

Then there will be a lull where Russia pretends like it's going to have a real offensive and the shills will pretend like everything is going to plan and that Russia isn't further from victory than they were 3 days into the war.

Once Putin loses control of the domestic narrative in Russia, he will be forced with some difficult choices. Assuming his weird health problems don't get him first and that he doesn't accidentally fall out of a window or drink the wrong tea, of course.

---

You live in a fantasy world if you believe that Putin is going to be unseated from the Kremlin. Unfortunately, you are not alone, and are probably even in the majority who are being gaslighted on this war. There is a very strong appeal to this Hollywood narrative of Luke Zelensky vs Palputin that resonates with the western and American public. While the smarter elements in the general public are beginning to understand that there is no military solution for Ukraine, the majority are still buying the Star Wars storyboarding wholesale...

You can say a lot of things about Putin, but objectively speaking, he did come in and righted the Russia ship in the late 90s, which was a disastrous decade for that country, during which almost half of its population was pushed into abject poverty and social misery, with the country's wealth and resources being syphoned off by a western-allied kakistocratic oligarchy.

Russians who have lived through the 90s are very grateful for Putin's leadership, he lifted the country out of poverty, paid off its foreign debt breaking the classic third world debt death spiral, rebuilt the country's infrastructure, and yes, rebuilt their pride. Russia today is mostly a lower/mid middle class country with a functioning bureaucracy, a growing bourgeoisie and a shrinking poverty rate, currently at 12% and still dropping, a poverty rate already lower than that of the US, Germany, France, UK or Sweden, where poverty is now growing.

The trouble with Putin and his bureaucrats is that it turns out they are fairly efficient at running their country. They've anticipated the sanctions years ago and have worked to shield their economy.

Financial Times - How Putin's technocrats saved the economy
https://www.ft.com/content/fe5fe0ed-e5d4-474e-bb5a-10c9657285d2

The Russians have prepared for this war as well as they have prepared for the sanctions, which NATO thought would cripple Russia and destabilize the country enough to usher a regime change. NATO miscalculated both the success of their economic shock and awe campaign and that of Ukraine's military campaign, placing too much faith into high end wonder weapons that it can't produce in large quantities and whose efficiency was never tested against peer adversaries, while the Russians understood that artillery is king in the absence of air superiority, and have closed the gap in drone tech while developing their own wonder-weapons.

Currently Putin's domestic popularity is around 80% - 85%. Since 1999, his approval rate has fluctuated between 60% and 90%. Russia is winning the war of attrition without their economy skipping a beat, it's unrealistic to think that Putin's position at home is threatened.

---

Cal88, I don't absolutely disagree with all of your points about Russia (and part of that is that, frankly, I haven't been super up on the situation there the past couple of decades), but Putin's polling numbers?!? Yeah, sure, a "pollster" calls up some Rooskie, or shows up on his doorstep, and the guy is going to respond that he thinks Putin sucks. Sure.

One thing I can say for sure is that the Russian people have a centuries-long tradition of meekly accepting anti-democratic regimes, so yes, Putin might well be safe (though I wouldn't want to be one of his food tasters).

Props to that anti-Putin dissident, Navalny. Dude's got balls.

---

Kremlin today for the first time annunced a strike on one of the decision-making centers in Kiev on Sunday. We can only guess where exactly it arrived.

Ukrainian publicists write about the closure of traffic on the Havana Bridge, which connects Rybalsky Island with Podol. pic.twitter.com/NKNf1CFctI

— Trollstoy (@Trollstoy88) May 30, 2023

WWIII incoming.

Another Strike on Vladimir Putin? Over Two Dozen Suspected Ukrainian Kamikaze Drones Hit Wealthy Moscow Region Within 'Earshot' of Putin's Official Residence – Several Injuries Reported (VIDEO) https://t.co/p6KSQ4mzSY #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 30, 2023

Here’s the Biden Administration’s plan to pilot those ‘game changing’ F-16s… https://t.co/SHO7XFHGAa

— Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) May 30, 2023

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

He wants Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We know that for sure.

---

3. Ukraine de-Nazified - or Russia will have to re-fight this battle every 5 or so years.

4. A neutral Ukraine with no NATO bases / military.

---

Cal88 said:

---

If Reagan had skimmed $100 million from state diesel fuel deals, you would have known about it.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

He wants Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We know that for sure.

---

3. Ukraine de-Nazified - or Russia will have to re-fight this battle every 5 or so years.

4. A neutral Ukraine with no NATO bases / military.

---

Did Russia have to fight a "Nazified" Ukraine every 5 years before 2014 or were there no Nazis there before 2014?

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

He wants Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We know that for sure.

---

3. Ukraine de-Nazified - or Russia will have to re-fight this battle every 5 or so years.

4. A neutral Ukraine with no NATO bases / military.

---

Did Russia have to fight a "Nazified" Ukraine every 5 years before 2014 or were there no Nazis there before 2014?

---

Russia did not have to fight a Nazified Ukraine every 5 years before 2014. The Nazis gained power in 2014 during the Maidan Revolution (where they helped oust the Russian friendly government and helped install the NATO friendly government). Thanks!

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

He wants Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We know that for sure.

---

3. Ukraine de-Nazified - or Russia will have to re-fight this battle every 5 or so years.

4. A neutral Ukraine with no NATO bases / military.

---

Did Russia have to fight a "Nazified" Ukraine every 5 years before 2014 or were there no Nazis there before 2014?

---

Russia did not have to fight a Nazified Ukraine every 5 years before 2014. The Nazis gained power in 2014 during the Maidan Revolution (where they helped oust the Russian friendly government and helped install the NATO friendly government). Thanks!

---

And then they elected their preferred Jewish president.

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

He wants Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We know that for sure.

---

3. Ukraine de-Nazified - or Russia will have to re-fight this battle every 5 or so years.

4. A neutral Ukraine with no NATO bases / military.

---

Did Russia have to fight a "Nazified" Ukraine every 5 years before 2014 or were there no Nazis there before 2014?

---

Russia did not have to fight a Nazified Ukraine every 5 years before 2014. The Nazis gained power in 2014 during the Maidan Revolution (where they helped oust the Russian friendly government and helped install the NATO friendly government). Thanks!

---

And then they elected their preferred Jewish president.

---

Yes, the majority of Ukrainians elected Zelensky, Russia took Crimea, and the Donbass rebelled. I don't know what candidates the Nazi militias specifically voted for.

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

I think the different state is not accurate. Crime rate in Florida has no real impact on me. Deterioration of the EU in favor of reviving the USSR has a significant impact on our quality of life.

The Eastern European NATO countries are spending the 2% and, in fact, are pushing to raise the target to 2.5%.

Not sure what you mean by the third point. Are you saying that the puppet government in Ukraine that used to be like Belarus and just another extension of Russia despite our promise that they would have complete freedom once they got rid of their nuclear weapons decided on their own to rather align with the West? If Hungary starts aligning more and more with Russia, does that mean they can also be invaded by EU?

---

European Countries, with the exception of Greece, did not spend the agreed upon 2% of GDP on their military until they convinced their neighbor to stop being allies with what they perceive as a gang. They are finally starting to spend and build a military because of the threat on their border created by Ukraine leaving Russia's influence. This also coincided with Trump asking them to pay for their defense. Obviously, you clearly think Russia won't stop at an "independent" Donbass and Russia being given Crimea, where Russia house their fleet that connects to the Mediterranean. I disagree. However, like I said previously, if they break this treaty (which they would clearly be a party to), NATO should make them pay dearly.

---

Kind of agree. I think Putin really wants Ukraine. Now, would he sorta like to annex some other countries? Possibly, if he could, but I think he knows he probably can't and doesn't really want them all that badly anyway. This is where the Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn't work, for me. I recognize that others may disagree, but I think what Putin wants is a country that looks like the old USSR, from the nostalgic days of his youth.

---

He wants Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We know that for sure.

---

3. Ukraine de-Nazified - or Russia will have to re-fight this battle every 5 or so years.

4. A neutral Ukraine with no NATO bases / military.

---

Did Russia have to fight a "Nazified" Ukraine every 5 years before 2014 or were there no Nazis there before 2014?

---

Russia did not have to fight a Nazified Ukraine every 5 years before 2014. The Nazis gained power in 2014 during the Maidan Revolution (where they helped oust the Russian friendly government and helped install the NATO friendly government). Thanks!

---

And then they elected their preferred Jewish president.

---

Yes, the majority of Ukrainians elected Zelensky, Russia took Crimea, and the Donbass rebelled. I don't know what candidates the Nazi militias specifically voted for.

---

No no no, this was part of the Nazi NATO coup. Haven't you been paying attention?

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I agree that the US paying to defend Ukraine indeed is a good ROI for countries bordering Russia. They spend way less money begging for aid and funding US politicians than it would cost to defend themselves.

---

I kind of view it this way.

Let's assume that you live in a small neighborhood. You have a massive arsenal and gates that will ensure that it would be difficult for any one to penetrate your defenses to commit a crime in your house. However, your neighbors do not have the means or ability to defend themselves while they are spending the amount that you, as a community agreed they would spend. There is a gang that wants to burglarize houses, rape the women living in the neighborhood, and run their drug operations in your neighbors' houses. You can just turn a blind eye and live with the consequences of your quality of life, safety, and home prices plummet while taking comfort that the gang members are staying away from your house since there are easier targets. Or you can band together, even contributing more of your resources, to protect your neighborhood. I would rather not live in a gang and crime infested neighborhood even if I have armed my house to the teeth and my house is relatively safe.

---

Can we make this more realistic and add the following facts?

1) the "neighbors" are actually in a different state altogether. In fact, you are separated by a handful of states and have to fly to get there.
2) the "neighbors" absolutely did not spend the amount of money the community agreed upon.
3) the "neighbors" have just convinced one of their actual neighbors, who was aligned with the gang, to break away from the gang.
4) now, you are giving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and weapons to help your neighbors defend their neighbor from the gang.

---

The calculus is extraordinarily simple. Spend money now for Ukraine to fight or have American's die later in former Soviet satellite states that are now NATO members when Putin invades them.

If we are really worried about the money then make this a Lend Lease Program with extraordinarily generous terms for Ukraine to pay us back.

---