Well, for the record, I am absolutely against the US/NATO doing anything that might risk the war to spread, or (obviously) go nuclear. The best thing would be if they agreed on some sort of settlement. Putin could give up a decent portion of what they have won but keep just enough to save face. I would gladly throw him a bone and have us agree to a stipulation that Ukraine would never join NATO. Ukraine would have to agree to all of this, of course (except the NATO part).

Big C said:

---

Well, for the record, I am absolutely against the US/NATO doing anything that might cause the war to spread, or (obviously) go nuclear. The best thing would be if they agreed on some sort of settlement. Putin could give up a decent portion of what they have won but keep just enough to save face. I would gladly have us make a stipulation that Ukraine would never join NATO. Ukraine would have to agree to all of it, of course.

---

Like this, west to east: Ukraine, Blackrocklandia, & Russia (Donbas region)?

Will Blackrocklandia be neutral?

bearister said:

---

His uncle, in consultation with his dad, didn't back down from the Russians.

---

Russia isn't in Cuba. And to be clear, NATO, the USA, and the C-A have been marching towards Russia for decades.

….and Putin is on the march too. I can't remember, are you also one of the espousers of the Alt Right theory du jour that Winston Churchill was the real villain of WWII? It is part of the bundled beliefs program.

movielover said:

---

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

Trump makes a point that I hope everyone hears: Russia has nuclear weapons. The Biden administration’s policy of maximum confrontation, seeking Russia’s humiliating defeat and regime change, is a recipe for nuclear immolation. #Debate2024

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) September 11, 2024

---

RFK Jr, you are full of it. The US has gone out of its way not to have "maximum confrontation". Examples...

- no boots on the ground
- not letting Ukraine have our very best weapons
- generally not letting Ukraine use our weapons for offensives deep into Russia

If we were to have "maximum confrontation" with Russia, we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter. The reason we don't is the risk that things might go nuclear (plus, putting US boots on the ground wouldn't be too popular).

Just think, RFK Jr, this might have been the year for you, instead of VP Harris, if only you didn't have whack job ideas.

---

Exactly how? Please be specific. Would you send the LGBTQ brigade over on an aircraft carrier?

---

You must be beaming with pride at this very witty and classy post!

It's interesting to watch the neocon apologists. What would have been considered ridiculous and unwelcome a year ago--Ukraine concessions on territory, major escalation of the war involving NATO, risk of nuclear, etc--is now brushed off as no big deal. Funny how the Overton Window works for those who can't admit they are wrong.

Zippergate said:

---

It's interesting to watch the neocon apologists. What would have been considered ridiculous and unwelcome a year ago--Ukraine concessions on territory, major escalation of the war involving NATO, risk of nuclear, etc--is now brushed off as no big deal. Funny how the Overton Window works for those who can't admit they are wrong.

---

I can't speak for the neocons, as I am not one. But my position on this conflict has been consistent since long before Russia invaded Ukraine:

1. NATO never should have talked about bringing in Ukraine as a member.

2. Russia considers Ukraine to be part of their "vital interests". We do not consider it to be part of ours.

3. If Ukraine wants NATO assistance to defend against invading Russia (not counting boots on the ground), fine.

4. The two things we do not want are for the Russia/Ukraine conflict to spread westward or it to risk going nuclear.

Does everyone here have purposeful amnesia?

1. We armed and trained Ukraine, this is going back at least to 2004?
2. We expanded NATO eastward, though we initially committed to not doing so.
3. We directly contributed to a civil war. (I'll let others answer if we were the primary instigators.)
4. We toppled a newly elected president.
5. Kiev treated their culturally Russian citizens as third-class citizens.
6. NATO continually violated Minsk Accords I and II.
7. Putin detailed his serious concerns repeatedly, which we ignored.
8. Putin sent a serious list of demands months before his SMO. We again ignored him.
9. Months after his incursion, a peace deal was reached in Turkey. We nixed it.
10. Biden has never spoken to Putin, and we don't even have a standing peace negotiator for Russia.
11. Ukraine forces killed their peace negotiator.
12. It was revealed our C-A built 12 'secret' buildings on the border between Ukraine and Russia.
13. Some allege we had dozens of bio weapons labs in Eastern Ukraine.
14. Blackrock runs the Biden White House, is a major player in the MIC and BigAg, and is now acquiring vast amounts of ag land in Ukraine (used to fund their own national suicide).

FAFO.

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

You wrote: "If we were to have "maximum confrontation" with Russia, we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter. The reason we don't is the risk that things might go nuclear (plus, putting US boots on the ground wouldn't be too popular).

movielover said:

Exactly how? Please be specific.

---

How we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter? Is that what you're asking?

The US would destroy Russia in any sort of conventional war. Russia has a huge army, but we saw how good they are when they tried to invade Ukraine. Two reasons why we don't want to engage Russia directly:

1. They have a ton of nukes and could destroy us with those. Of course, we would destroy them, too, but why do all that?
2. We don't have a sufficient reason to engage Russia in an all-out conventional war in the first place. No reason.

---

You didn't answer my question and you ignore history.

Yes, Russia started slow. They've now eviscerated Ukraine and NATO in a lopsided standoff artillery war, augmented by drones, glider bombs, and using integrated air defense. They own the skies, and they appear to jam 90-95 % of incoming aerial attacks.

We - US, NATO, EU - can't even produce adequate ammunition.

They've upgraded much of their weaponry, and are working intimately with Iran and North Korea. They now also have a million-plus experienced military while we put kotex in men's restrooms.

P.S. We've lost nearly every military conflict since WWII.

The Republican Empathy Net is widening:

1. Concern over Biden being unfairly squeezed out: Check

2. Concern over Ukrainian soldiers being slaughtered while being armed with American ordance: Check

3. Concern over Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza: Check

4. Concern over Tim Walz mistreating his special needs son: Check

5. Concern over voters who were misled Beyonce was going to appear at the DNC: Check

6. Concern over Black people being exploited by Democrats: Check

7. Concern over Democrats besmirching RFK Jr.'s impeccable reputation: Check

8. Concern over Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Check

9. Concern over Bernie Sanders being treated unfairly by the Democratic Party: Check

10. Concern over tRump being Fact Checked during the debate every time he told a demonstrable lie: Check

11. Concern over the unfairness of Taylor Swift endorsing Harris: Check

12. Concern for the welfare of all missing cats, dogs, geese and any pet in Springfield, Ohio: Check

Who cares about compulsive liar Tim Walz, who allowed Minneapolis to burn for three nights, allows the call to prayer 5x a day in the state capital, and changed the state flag to mimic the Somalian flag?

His wife, who missed the smell of burning businesses and lives, might be more evil.

🇺🇦‼️🚨 Demographic catastrophe in Ukraine!

“Ukraine stopped providing consular services (renew passport) to enforce citizens to return to Ukraine,

But Ukranians abroad simply renounce their citizenships!”

— Ukrainian MP Mykola Kniazhitsky

They will NEVER return home!

1/ pic.twitter.com/lqivKqFOCk

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) September 13, 2024

bearister said:

---

The Republican Empathy Net is widening:

1. Concern over Biden being unfairly squeezed out: Check

2. Concern over Ukrainian soldiers being slaughtered while being armed with American ordance: Check

3. Concern over Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza: Check

4. Concern over Tim Walz mistreating his special needs son: Check

5. Concern over voters who were misled Beyonce was going to appear at the DNC: Check

6. Concern over Black people being exploited by Democrats: Check

7. Concern over Democrats besmirching RFK Jr.'s impeccable reputation: Check

8. Concern over Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Check

9. Concern over Bernie Sanders being treated unfairly by the Democratic Party: Check

10. Concern over tRump being Fact Checked during the debate every time he told a demonstrable lie: Check

11. Concern over the unfairness of Taylor Swift endorsing Harris: Check

12. Concern for the welfare of all missing cats, dogs, geese and any pet in Springfield, Ohio: Check

---

1. Process matters. Why are you against this? Some democrat.
2. Senseless slaughter? Why are you for this? Some humanitarian.
3. Complex issue but yeah, haven't we all seen enough to know that this is inhumane? Why aren't you opposed to this?
6. Exploitation is wrong. Why aren't you against Dem policies which crush the black community in the areas of border, education, policing, and judicial capture by Soros candidates which keep dangerous criminals on the street.
7. Siding with powerful, corrupt corporate interests who exploit the little guy over the one guy with the courage to stand up to them. Well done.
8. Is this even controversial?
10. Clown show. All those "fact checks" were debunked. Meanwhile Kamala lied constantly because she was told ahead of time that she would not be fact checked. Affidavit from an insider confirms it all. Lie to yourself if you want but we're not going let those lies slide by unchallenged.
12. So typical. It's all good until it's your pet on the BBQ. Then the Left goes nuclear.
Couldn't care less about the other items on your list. Shall we make a list for the radical progressive Left that controls your party? I don't think it would be flattering.

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

You wrote: "If we were to have "maximum confrontation" with Russia, we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter. The reason we don't is the risk that things might go nuclear (plus, putting US boots on the ground wouldn't be too popular).

movielover said:

Exactly how? Please be specific.

---

How we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter? Is that what you're asking?

The US would destroy Russia in any sort of conventional war. Russia has a huge army, but we saw how good they are when they tried to invade Ukraine. Two reasons why we don't want to engage Russia directly:

1. They have a ton of nukes and could destroy us with those. Of course, we would destroy them, too, but why do all that?
2. We don't have a sufficient reason to engage Russia in an all-out conventional war in the first place. No reason.

---

Ukraine in 2022 was the 4th best army in the world. It was decimated by the Russians, who basically fought them with one hand tied behind their back, for several reasons:
- to limit their own casualties
- to limit risks of escalation with NATO
- to limit hardships and losses of civilian lives in Ukraine - less than 4% of Ukrainians killed by Russia are civilians. Contrast with around 80%-90% in US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan.
- to limit the economic impact of the war at home

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/strong-military

Russia has the strongest land army in the world today. They are also the best in the world at electronic warfare, anti-air systems (both in quality and quantity), drone warfare and stand-off weapons (missiles, gliding bombs etc). They also have the 2nd largest military industrial base after China, producing more tanks and ammunition than all of NATO, Japan and S. Korea combined.

NATO/the US' main edge over Russia is in our larger air force and navies. This advantage however is negated by Russia's strengths above. In an all out conventional war, they can bomb every 2km concrete air strip within 1,000 mile of a Russian border, or sink at will any ship in the Baltic or eastern Mediterranean. That is why Sweden has designed its air force around small hidden bases spread near highway strips, and their Saab jets need less maintenance and can operate out of shorter strips - as do most Russian jets, which can even use improvised dirt strips.

I agree with your other points.

Ukraine is being wrecked, its soul is being destroyed.

Half of all the prostitutes in Berlin are young refugee women from Ukraine.

Slava Ukraini. pic.twitter.com/OQ7zadyU5J

— S.L. Kanthan (@Kanthan2030) September 14, 2024

Colonel McGregor says w the advent of drones, there are two kinds of ships: submarines and targets.

How far off do aircraft carries now have drop anchor?

Cal88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

You wrote: "If we were to have "maximum confrontation" with Russia, we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter. The reason we don't is the risk that things might go nuclear (plus, putting US boots on the ground wouldn't be too popular).

movielover said:

Exactly how? Please be specific.

---

How we would go through those Rooskies like a hot knife through butter? Is that what you're asking?

The US would destroy Russia in any sort of conventional war. Russia has a huge army, but we saw how good they are when they tried to invade Ukraine. Two reasons why we don't want to engage Russia directly:

1. They have a ton of nukes and could destroy us with those. Of course, we would destroy them, too, but why do all that?
2. We don't have a sufficient reason to engage Russia in an all-out conventional war in the first place. No reason.

---

Ukraine in 2022 was the 4th best army in the world. It was decimated by the Russians, who basically fought them with one hand tied behind their back, for several reasons:
- to limit their own casualties
- to limit risks of escalation with NATO
- to limit hardships and losses of civilian lives in Ukraine - less than 4% of Ukrainians killed by Russia are civilians. Contrast with around 80%-90% in US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan.
- to limit the economic impact of the war at home

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/strong-military

Russia has the strongest land army in the world today. They are also the best in the world at electronic warfare, anti-air systems (both in quality and quantity), drone warfare and stand-off weapons (missiles, gliding bombs etc). They also have the 2nd largest military industrial base after China, producing more tanks and ammunition than all of NATO, Japan and S. Korea combined.

NATO/the US' main edge over Russia is in our larger air force and navies. This advantage however is negated by Russia's strengths above. In an all out conventional war, they can bomb every 2km concrete air strip within 1,000 mile of a Russian border, or sink at will any ship in the Baltic or eastern Mediterranean. That is why Sweden has designed its air force around small hidden bases spread near highway strips, and their Saab jets need less maintenance and can operate out of shorter strips - as do most Russian jets, which can even use improvised dirt strips.

I agree with your other points.

---

Was Ukraine the 4th best army in the world in the AP poll, or the coaches' poll?

I didn't know their military was that big, I gather we've been building them up for two decades in anticipation of this conflict. Ugh.

So Ukraine and NATO are gutted.

I rarely, if ever, tweet about what Putin says but this is something that folks in NATO countries might want to be aware of: Putin says decision to allow long-range strikes into Russia changes everything, and means direct war between Russia and NATO pic.twitter.com/ptV60NTRAg

Exact…

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) September 13, 2024