There was a reply to this comment that I was partway through reading when it got removed. Is seemed like a comment about the Prime Minister of the UK before Churchill (Chamberlain), and I'm curious why it got removed.
I'm not a historian, but it didn't seem like the sort of comment that would be removed - and I was enjoying reading it. Did anyone have any insight into why it was removed? It could have gone sideways partway through, but I wasn't able to finish it before then.
>"You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."
OK, I have a huge issue with this.
**First**, [this is a fake quote](https://www.quora.com/Churchill-purportedly-wrote-to-Chamberlain-You-were-given-the-choice-between-war-and-dishonour-You-chose-dishonour-and-you-will-have-war-What-was-the-surrounding-context-of-the-letter-and-the-greater-historical). Churchill and Chamberlain supported each other (in fact, Churchill was appointed a PM at Chamberlain's recommendation!).
The actual quote was:
>*I think we shall have to choose in the next few weeks between war and shame, and I have very little doubt what the decision will be*
**Second**, it's a BS take anyway.
For all the crap Neville Chamberlain got, he only "appeased" Hitler to **ramp up airplane production [from 200/mo to 800/mo](https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction-IV.html) in a year**, build a few [aircraft carriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(91\)) (including the one that [sank the Bismarck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_battle_of_Bismarck)), set up the [first operational radar system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home) in the world along the British coast line, and then **still declare the fucking war** *before* being attacked — all in **one** goddamn year.
He took another year to bring the production capacity to **1200/mo**, and then, just before dying of cancer, leaving all that arsenal and production capacity in the hands of the most rabid pro-war foaming-at-the-mouth genocidal bulldog Churchill, **whom Chamberlain picked as a replacement**, who did **not** have a reputation of being either a good tactician or strategist, but sure as fuck could be trusted to **use** everything he got to deliver the **FO** part of the **FAFO** from the bomb bays of the Halifax long-range bombers that Neville left him.
Oh, and here's the best part. In May 1940, [Churchill didn't have enough power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_British_war_cabinet_crisis) to convince the government to continue the war as Lord Halifax (aka Edward Wood) was pushing for **apeasing** Mussolini to negotiate peace.
The deciding moment was when the Leader of the Tories stood up and said, quote:
>I do not see what could be lost by **deciding to fight on to the end**. The **alternative** to fighting on nevertheless involves a **considerable gamble**.
That settled the matter, Britain dug its teeth in. The leader of the Tories at the time? **Neville fucking Chamberlain**.
**That's** the quote you should remember him by.
Neville Chamberlain was the man who built Britain's aresnal of democracy in [shadow factories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_shadow_factories) that he personally oversaw.
His notion of "peace" was "...**by having superior firepower**". Britain had less than half of Germany's aircraft in 1937, by the time battle of Britain RAF has [outnumbered Luftwaffe](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-britain-not-so-few).
Chamberlain struck a deal with Hitler when Britain was in no shape to fight. France didn't fold because the Maginot line was stupid; it folded because **it didn't have a modern air force**. Neither did Britain in 1937, but Britain had Chamberlain, who oversaw the [largest peacetime rearmament program Britain ever saw](https://books.google.com/books?id=pfx9BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Britain%27s+rearmament+in+the+1930s+was+the+largest,+most+expensive+program+of+any+kind+ever+undertaken+by+a+British+government+in+time+of+peace&source=bl&ots=Tn3RxjtIqb&sig=ACfU3U1HwQF-_B2FOkWnkPBW7F8TSJkfeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjK9dDUhraDAxUrEkQIHetnDjIQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=Britain's%20rearmament%20in%20the%201930s%20was%20the%20largest%2C%20most%20expensive%20program%20of%20any%20kind%20ever%20undertaken%20by%20a%20British%20government%20in%20time%20of%20peace&f=false) while Hitler was busy with the annexations.
And having **built** all those airplanes (yes, including [the Spitfire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire), whose production started in 1938, and [Hurricane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane#Development) - of which Britain had about a dozen pre-Munich), Chamberlain's **decisive** words [were](https://diplomatmagazine.com/cabinets-finest-hour/):
# Peace is a gamble too. Fight till the end.
Remember him thusly.
____
^(**PS:** This only came to light after the national archives were declassifeid. Until then, historians went by Churchill's autobigraphy, written after Neville Chamberlain's death. It was... a bit biased.)
^(**PPS:** Ukraine has its Churchills. But if it had its Chamberlain, we'd have **our own** weapons and ammo produced in the 2014-2022 period to fight off the inevitable full-scale invasion with.)
____
#TL;DR: Chamberlain brought peace by superior firepower, not appeasement.
Having tried to fight this fight many times before, I could kiss you.
People hear a tiny bit of information about Chamberlain and write him off as a naive fool without looking at the hand he got dealt and the limited options he had.
Churchill inherited a nation far better equipped to handle the war than he would have done if Chamberlain was actually a clueless dolt like so many portray him as.
Thank you for fighting the good fight!
If people understood that part of history, I feel the EU wouldn't be [struggling to produce ammo](https://apnews.com/article/eu-ukraine-ammunition-russia-war-6e0be2d27201bc7ea205ffac7d7a7693) 2 years **into** today's war of a comparable scale.
They went all Churchill, no Chamberlain, and backed Ukraine in a war they don't have the gear or the ammo to fight with.
Thank you. The problem is that Chamberlain died during the war before he had a chance to write any memoirs so we can only speculate what was in his head. It is also important to know that unlike many at the time, he was no closet fascist. The facts of readiness are well known now. Heck, the RAF had mostly biplanes as fighters back in those days.
I’m a bit embarrassed to admit that although I instantly recognize the name I couldn’t have told you who Neville Chamberlain even was
So as someone who like learning in small doses I appreciate you
I wish awards were still a thing, thank you brother. There is a movie about nevilles decision as well, I forget the name offhand, but there was a german spy who was able to convince him appeasing germany would not work.
> In fairness Churchill came after Chamberlain
Not only that. Churchill became the PM **at Chamberlain's personal recommendation**, and had sway *because* of Chamberlain's support.
When Lord Halifax (aka Edward Wood) wanted to negotiate with Mussolini, Chamberlain said:
>I do not see what could be lost by deciding to **fight on to the end**. The alternative to fighting on nevertheless involves a considerable gamble.
**This** was the decisive moment. And let's not forget the Chamberlain was the one to declare war on Hitler - the first world leader to do so (while Stalin was Hitler's military ally).
Oh, and that's before we get to the fact that nearly **all** air force that Britain had by the Battle of Britain was built by Chamberlain in [shadow factories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_shadow_factories) *after* that Munich agreement.
During Chamberlain's time, the aircraft production increased from **200/mo** to **1200/mo**. Read that again. That's before we get to things like aircraft carriers and radar installations.
Chamberlain built all that, and then **stepped down** to leave all that arsenal in the hands of the wardog Churchill. It was Chamberlain's call.
He was not popular, but he had power. And he had good reasons to step down: he was dying of cancer.
Had he not pushed Churchill to lead Britain, his likely successor would have been [Lord Halifax, aka Edward Wood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax#Foreign_policy) - the actual person pushing for appeasement all the time:
>Writing to Baldwin on the subject of the conversation between Karl Burckhardt and Hitler, Halifax said: "Nationalism and Racialism is a powerful force but I can't feel that it's either unnatural or immoral! I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same!"
>In December 1937, Halifax told the Cabinet that "we ought to get on good terms with Germany"
So Chamberlain made sure **that** guy wouldn't take over.
He got completely fucker over by history for that.
Firebombs civilians who launch V2 rockets at civilians and genocide people.
War is shit. And anyone who wants it is shit. But Nazi germany was the most shit the world had ever seen.
One would think the GOP fully support the military industrial complex and all the money and Innovation that sector is gaining from this. They always did before.
Something fishy going on. Better check all their offshore bank accounts.
No, *we* don't want them to close on Sundays at freeway rest stops because (as the name suggests) they serve as rest stops and that's part of what the companies agree to when they sign the contract. It's also about fairness to any other firms who honor those contracts and stay open even at less profitable hours.
People like no bank account Mike want them to close because contracts don't matter to them, your word doesn't matter, and fairness doesn't matter, all while claiming to be "religious" and therefore "superior".
I thought this must be a joke, so I googled it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/07/mike-johnson-speaker-bank-account-mystery/
> A teeny fraction of American households don’t have a bank account. In recent days, it appeared that one such household might belong to the man second in line for the presidency: House Speaker Mike Johnson.
>
> Johnson’s recent launch from obscure congressional backbencher to one of the most powerful people in the country has come with a wave of scrutiny. Reporters are combing through his past and finding weird stuff — his curious arrangement with his son to monitor each others’ digital devices for porn, for instance.
>
> One less salacious but perhaps more consequential discovery involves his finances. In his most recent annual financial disclosures, released last year, Johnson (R-La.) reports no assets at all.
>
> Zero.
>
> There are no retirement accounts, no money-market funds, no stocks, no crypto, not even a basic checking or savings account. Even more peculiar, his disclosures have never listed any checking or savings accounts on any of the forms he has filed going back to 2016, the year he was elected to Congress.
>
> This is confusing. Where is his congressional salary being deposited? How is he paying his bills?
sounds perfectly normal to me /s
Mike Johnson is basically the most punchable fucking jerkoff you can imagine in real life. My guess is the most conservative LA Republicans pinch their nose to vote for that smarmy fuck.
There was a report that showed pretty much every congressional district was benefiting from the war machine.
So. They can’t have people doing well locally during an election year. That wouldn’t be good for republicans.
This I agree with....MIC does make sure that most congressional seats have some benefit..even if miniscule. So all the Congress people have a ostensible reason for always voting to spend more and more money on tanks we don't need etc etc. Heck..often, the appropriation is more than what pentagon requests
Maybe this is a way to make Biden look bad in an election year....as the guy that lost Ukraine
Not really. It's not an accident that a lot of the Neocons have switched to democrats since the GOP has drifted closer to the Ron Paul/ isolationist wing.
Aren't they still happy to send 16billion to Israel.
Lots of neocons are in both parties ..and I guess half of them have moved over to MSNBC and NYTimes etc. :-)
Don't think even Ron Paul believes the republican party has moved closer to his views I think :-)
I mean Nikki Haley and Lindsey graham cannot remember all the middle eastern countries they want to bomb/keep forces in etc etc.
There’s a much simpler explanation than offshore bank accounts. Remember when [the RNC was hacked by Russians in 2016 and nothing was ever released?](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html) There’s even a great word for it: Kompromat.
That’s the only reason I can think of for a bunch of GOP clowns to fly to Russia on the 4th of July.
That's why we're getting anything for Ukraine
The more establish GOP Pols in the Senate are mostly with the MIC While less so in the House are more in tune with Poopin
That said as someone from Detroit with a History background, watching this war there is a major flaw with the modern MIC vs our old school ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY. That being production volume, we've seen now in Ukraine that for all the talk or smart weapons and precision BS once the bullets start to fly you run out of munitions FAST, and the bloated 2-3 companies that make up the MIC lack the raw production volume to keep up.
That's a symptom of lean/just-in-time manufacturing. They minimize the overhead, they minimize waste, and they max out what they can do with the tools they've got. It's fine if you have a relatively constant demand, but if there are hiccups in the supply chain, or any sudden demand for what you're making, everything is *completely fucked*.
And they're not expanding production volume, either. They're sticking with the same bullshit MBA principles that got them into this mess, because it's nothing but a business, and bottlenecks mean they can charge more.
Know what the Pentagon doesn't do? LEAN. They have capacity contracts. Yep, paid to purchase, install, run and maintain tooling, machines, warehouses, etc to be able to produce X amount of whatever explodey thing...but not actually build anything. So when we throw down against an enemy that actually shoots back, we can win the logistics war by going from 100,000 boom things per month to 100,000,000 at a flip of the switch.
Exactly. The problem is that the Pentagon never thought to make those kinds of preparations for 155 mm shells-- because why the hell would the US ever need massive quanitities of a kind of artillery shell NATO systems can't even fire?
So we're scrambling to establish the same kind of manufacturing base for them today. Even with the government throwing unlimited money at the problem, you can't just snap your fingers and have a shell factory pop into being. Building the actual factory, sourcing the materials you'll need to build your shells, hiring and training workers-- all that shit takes time.
> , we've seen now in Ukraine that for all the talk or smart weapons and precision BS once the bullets start to fly you run out of munitions FAST
I mean kind of. If the USA needed to defend the USA production from a war time economy perspective would dwarf what we produce now. Also Iraq wasn't too far back and the USA never ran into a cast shortage from overwhelming use of precision weapons.
Ukraine isn't an army designed for the use of precision weapons. The US reliance on dominating the air allows for those precise weapons to consistently hit where they need. Ukraine is limited to striking targets of opportunity with little means of capitalizing on created openings
It's a game. Every time new-GOP people say that communism is evil OR do something to directly support communism, you have to drink. If a GOP person starts ranting about socialists or Obama, you have to take a shot.
Many people have adopted this game already, just as a means to make it thru the crazy AF days.
In 50 years we're going to have some massive info dump or declassification of documents or whatever, and all the idiots who caused this will be dead and 60% of the elderly population will say "yeah we fucking know Russia was simply paying off one of the major political parties to ruin our country since they knew they couldn't actually take us on, militarily or economically"
We all know, it's clear as fucking day what they're doing, but they weasel their way out of any consequences of half the government being Russian assets.
I think the most shocking part is usually how cheap these politicians are. When numbers so come out it's really not that impressive. Like if you're going to sell out your country at least do it well.
Also, the carrot itself turns into another stick once you take the first bite.
Russia can make the first bribe exorbitant, but from then on they can force the Congresspeople to do whatever htey want for chump change-- because if they don't, they'll let the FBI know about that first bribe they took. Their careers will be over, and they'll likely be going to prison.
That’s literally the plan outlined in Aleksandr Dugin’s Foundations of Geopolitcs. It’s almost like the USSR didn’t really collapse and has been playing the long game this entire time.
I cant believe I was dumb enough to wonder why all my right winger friends started being cool with Russia and then realized ...oh yeah, because the Russians are helping them get elected and would also love a dictator. Wild times.
People forget Trump was first impeached because by keeping weapons from them for Hunter information. The war is probably because Trump weakened the US’s ability to keep Putin at bay. If Ukraine was in NATO or was supported before the invasion by the US this wouldn’t have happened. Putin got too much confidence from Trump and the US being weak. In a way Putin is winning this Cold War Revival battle. Just not the war.
People forget that President Bush (a Republican) wanted Ukraine to be in NATO but some European leaders didn't want them in NATO. If Ukraine was in NATO then Putin would have never been able to do what he has done.
You can't change the past. Putin needs to be stopped now so we can change the future
[The pro-Russia faction of the GOP is a unique element that started with the Ron Paul "revolution" around 2007 and grew from there, spreading into the Tea Party and eventually MAGA.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/louis-anslow-asks-did-russia-putin-and-jesse-benton-astroturf-the-libertarian-ron-paul-revolution)
If you knew were to look, you'd recognize the movement slowly growing out of chan boards and white supremacist forums in the late 2000s, then spreading throughout other social media pages slowly over time. Early arr politics used to be filled with Ron Paul spam, and there's early botnetworks from the era that were found to have Russian ties.
Then, surprise surprise, Ron Paul became one of the early "Tea Party" founders, which essentially pushed the party further into reactive populism, and eventually, directly into Trump and MAGA territory.
They essentially manufactured a populist movement to take over the party and support their own interests. It happened slowly at first, then much more effectively as new technology made it easier to spread bad faithed arguments and propaganda in the GOP's favor, and divide and distract everyone else over culture war issues. If you pay attention, you can see a timeline of reactionary movements that culminated nicely with Putin's 3rd term onward, all the way into the war in Ukraine.
[https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ron-paul-spam-u/](https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ron-paul-spam-u/)
[https://www.secureworks.com/research/srizbi](https://www.secureworks.com/research/srizbi)
There's the smoking gun. The first discoveries about this date back to news articles from 2007.
Anyone who remember the initial rise of "Ron Paul" culture in the year or so after this should remember how weirdly inorganic it all became, and how rapidly it spread.
Also, research just about any topic by Anna Polyanskaya. She spoke on the topic of Russia anti-democratic trolls extensively in the 2000s, reporting the earliest attempts to perfect these techniques within Russia's own internet culture, and the techniques used precisely match techniques used to cause division by the far right trolls. Most notably, they're designed to disrupt pro democratic forums and make ethnical debates next to impossible.
[https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-kremlins-virtual-squad/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-kremlins-virtual-squad/)
> People forget that President Bush (a Republican) wanted Ukraine to be in NATO but some European leaders didn't want them in NATO
Ukraine was completely different back then, the government was incredibly pro-Russian. Kuchma was an incredibly corrupt president with Soviet ties. NATO membership was absolutely not an option even if the US wanted it.
Don't forget that the Ukrainian people didn't violently oust their pro-Russian government until 2014, which directly led to the annexation of Crimea when Russia saw they were going to lose their puppet government.
There was also the 2004 revolution which was largely peaceful and pro-EU integration. As a Ukrainian, I agree with you though. The country was not ready or suitable for NATO membership. The military before 2014 was small in numbers, ill equipped, and had nowhere near the training and discipline they have today.
2014? You mean when Obama was President and didn't do anything about what was happening in Ukraine?
All the recent American Presidents could have either helped or be blamed for what's happening in Ukraine
You mentioned Bush wanted Ukraine to be in NATO, I'm just saying that was impossible at the time as they were a Russian puppet state. So playing "what if" makes no sense.
You're wrong.
Ukraine had two revolutions. 2005 and 2014.
Ukrainian President in 2005, was Yushenko who run on the platform of joining the EU and NATO.
Bush Jr. Was president until 2009, so they had plenty of time to work it out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko
Ukraine was still very weak and corrupt in 2014 due to Putins boy corrupting it from within.
Putins boy who had his election campaign ran by same guy that ran Trumps. And was later convicted on working w Russian spies despite the "no collusion"
Crowds best arguments.
But 2014 Ukriane would've been steam rolled and Obama knew it. But what he DID do was help start training and arming them and getting them harmonized w US/NATO training and planning and Intel sharing. Which allowed them to survive when Putin finally rolled on in force.
The Orange God King has a hardon for Putin which means the GOP does. Add to that Trump’s 1st impeachment was because of a call to Zelenskyy and it guarantees zero GOP support for something the GOP knows it should and would support if not for Trump.
It’s incredible how much damage one self obsessed narcissist can cause.
when Trump got the GOP Nomination in SUMMER 2016 he forced the national GOP to change their official platform language on Ukraine to water it down and remove any power in it. This was one of his first acts before officially accepting the nomination. He weakened the Republican's Party and strengthened Putin's hand, on Day 1, as a condition of being their Presidential Candidate, and the whole GOP Party rolled over, for Trump, and for Putin.
To be their bitches, for some reason... (insert all the obvious known reasons of corrupt, power, money, blackmail, hacked emails, that they pretend everyone doesnt know about...etc...)
and Biden, one of the greatest NATO champions ever, has been fighting them every step of the way, to stop Putin.
WTF is going on
It was also the *only* change Trump's team asked the GOP to make to their platform!
While we're on the subject: Trump's campaign manager in 2016 was a guy called Paul Manafort. His previous job? Working as the right-hand man for Ukraine's corrupt Russian-backed president, the one who got ousted in the 2014 revolution.
Some of Manafort's daughters' texts were leaked a few years ago. And one of them, his oldest daughter said she's convinced her dad was involved in the corrupt president's decision to open fire on nonviolent protestors with live ammunition. 100 people died.
*That's* the guy Donald Trump hired as his campaign manager, kept on as a top adviser until he was arrested on corruption charges in 2018, and then pardoned on his way out the door.
I only want to be a dictator for one day, so I can announce the annexation of the American oblast by the second greatest man alive, Vladimir Putin - Trump, probably.
I wouldn't put it past him to surrender America for a quid pro quo on legislative immunity at this point.
I’ve read that the email leaks that happened years ago is why the republicans are meat puppets to Putin. Russia released all the dirt on the democrats when Hilary was in the race to become president but for some reason nothing came out of republicans.
They’re compromised or complicit at this point.
Even if that was an effective deterrent in 2016, it hasn't been for a while. Republican voters just don't care about Republican scandals. Roy Moore almost became a Senator even though he was a known pedophile. Donald Trump is the leading candidate for President for the GOP despite all his scandals and 91 felony indictments. Lauren Boebert was kicked out of a family-friendly musical for vaping and groping her date in front of kids, and just switched to a district she doesn't live in to guarantee she gets reelected in 2024. Heck, George Santos would still be a GOP Congressman if he hadn't switched to fleecing the big money donors and his own colleagues' families. The party of "family values" and "law and order" just doesn't care how dirty their politicians are any more.
Putin hacked both the DNC and GOP. They spilled all the beans with the DNC information. But we never heard anything about the GOP hack. And it wasn't long after that the GOP became very, almost Pro-Putin 🤔
Edit: word
Polievre is soooo scary. He's a wildcard. He doesn't even align with true conservative ideology, just like Trump, he has his own way of doing politics. Once he get on top, shit will hit the fan for real.
Biden cannot unilaterally make that call. He's been on his knees begging Congress to approve more aid since October, but powermad goblin Mike Johnson refuses to even hold a vote on the matter.
Ironically he just unilaterally sent 155 shells to Israel under an emergency authorization (not subject to congressional review). Apparently the situation in Ukraine does not qualify as an 'emergency' to him.
https://apnews.com/article/us-israel-gaza-arms-hamas-bypass-congress-1dc77f20aac4a797df6a2338b677da4f
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3627204/dod-announces-aid-package-for-ukraine/#:~:text=The%20Defense%20Department%20today%20announced,to%20counter%20Russia's%20unprovoked%20invasion.
Doesn't take much to look. Literally a few days ago.
The war in Ukraine is horrible, but that's a very simplistic view on things.
We're talking about actual Nuclear war vs wars that happen all the time.
I am in no way defending Russia's war or occupation of Ukraine, but this level of warfare has happened quite often since WW2.
A nuclear war has never happened. Japan was bombed with nukes, but now we have multiple nations with them and they are far stronger than they were back then. Nuclear war could literally end civilization as we know it.
We're basically dealing with 'Cold War' mentalities with a war like this. Sure, it's Russia vs the EU and America from a support stance, but we're all able to hide behind the fact that America and the EU aren't 'actually' at war with Russia. Once that happens, so many worse things could happen.
The big lesson I learned from this war is that every country should arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The Russia would never have invaded if Ukraine still had it's nukes. Especially Poland and the Baltics are going to have to invest in nuclear weapons if we ever want to keep the Russia behind their own border.
Absolute insanity but apparently the only way to peace is through MAD
We risk the humiliation of being ruled by terrorists or we risk war. Russians are forcing us to decide between our dignity and our lives. I would choose war because that’s how we beat Hitler and the Nazis
Yes.
Because Putin's a cockroach. A survivor. Remember, this guy was KGB and later FSB. He worked intel for the commies and the people that replaced them. Then led those people. He weathered a ton of corruption and mess inherited from Yeltsin's fuckups; either turning it all to work for him or obliterating it.
My point being he's not a "die in a blaze of glory" kind of person. He's not going to pull that trigger because the moment he does, Russia stops existing. Even if he somehow survives, his country doesn't. And he WANTS that country. He wants that power. He can't rule over a dead wasteland. He'll bluster as much as it takes to keep the west off his back, but he won't risk losing everything he wants.
Really all we needed to do was at the start of this mess invite Ukraine into NATO, roll up to the border with an army or two, and say
"fuck off". The only reason it's gotten this far is the world's done nothing but appease the bastard and tap his wrists with meaningless sanctions that he evaded half the time anyway.
The best but unrealistic solution would be if the EU forms an army and goes in, to at least secure air superiority. The US can back up the operation with material and intelligence services. This way, the NATO wouldn't be involved and it's rather unlikely that Russia uses nuclear weapons as long as the war stays on Ukrainian land. A proactive NATO involvement is very unlikely and also rather dangerous because it's almost guaranteed to escalate rather quickly.
I'm not an expert at all in international diplomacy, but it would also be a good solution to split up the BRICS table. Very unlikely for China but countries like South Africa, India and Brazil always wanted their place at the big table and got denied, which was a big but not completely undoable mistake. Russia only can do what it does because it still has too many international connections. We need a new international order which ensures human rights and borders without any compromises.
Ukraine can't win with one hand tied behind its back. Limited range weapons supply is not going to stop long-range missile launches. Time to give Ukrainians the weapons they need to attack Moscow and St. Petersburg area bases. The army wives are angry in Russia, time to make the citizens aware that Putin is lying about how well the war is going. It's an election year in Russia, too, time to make Putin uncomfortable. The west needs to resolve this conflict as a priority. The Israeli outcome is not in question.
The only question is who wants the attention of the US Navy and European countries that relies on the Suez canal for global trade. I hope they do the calculations before they act. Ward Carroll YouTube latest has an interesting take on this.
People forget that Obama and Biden had a completely different approach to the ME on a Macro level. They wanted stability in the region and worked hard to bring Iran to the table. The Saudi’s didn’t like that. So they went and funded Trump to tear up the Nuclear agreement.
I think Iran would have behaved the same way regardless. During the nuclear agreement, Iran continued to fund the Houthis and their efforts in Syria. The nuclear agreement was a failure in terms of changing Iran's foreign policy unfortunately. And the sanctions seem to have prevented them from getting nukes.
Not really. Money and industrial capacity are finite, fungible resources. Rockets, cash, and ammo we send to Israel are rockets, cash, and ammo that could've gone to Kiev.
Is it also a matter of stop drip feeding the munitions aid just enough to not be defeated and just give Ukraine the weapons and munitions it really needs to eliminate the Russian soldiers in Ukraine?
Note: that’s just my layman’s thoughts so could be very wrong.
Luckily Ukraine busy upscaling the greatest war time production of Drones the world has ever seen.
Then it gets interesting as those drones integrate w NATO Intel rt
Give Ukraine the hardware and let them off the chain to start attacking Russia. It's that or try to keep waiting for Russia to run out of people to send to the front lines, which is going to take awhile.
I wonder sometimes if this war is going exactly how NATO wants. Slowly draining Russia of soldiers, equipment and money. Waiting for regular Russians to revolt. NATO wants Putin to lose everything.
A quick decisive victory would still leave Russia fairly strong.
We will run out of people before Russia does. We have the same exact age distribution pyramid, but they have 140 million people and we only have 40 million. Even counting that the attackers normally lose more people than the defenders, it still doesn't look good.
It's pretty clear by now that Russians aren't going to revolt with the current status quo. Sanctions and having tons of their working-age male population conscripted haven't done it there aren't any signs that's going to change.
Wouldn't it be more likely that russians revolt when they actually you know lose? Like Russian-Japanesse war, which was one of the reasons 1917 revolution happened, i don't think if Russia had occupied part of Japan in that war, the revolution would have started.
Where exactly on the scale of "Thoughts and prayers" to "NATO enforced no-fly zone" exactly must Putin be stopped?
Don't get me wrong, the Dems have done a lot to protect Ukraine and the free world from Russia while the "Warhawk party of Reagan" cowers in fear and obedience to Putin, and does everything they can to help Russia, but this rhetoric at this point in time is not doing a lot.
I'd be for stepping up funding and weapons systems delivered. Provide them with battery systems to shoot down missiles and more advanced aircraft. I believe they're being trained to use f-16s. From my understanding if you're familiar with f16s it's easier to use more advanced fighters like f22 and f35 than it would be being familiar with older soviet planes. Not even close to saying we need American soldiers on the ground though.
Literally no other country gets to use the F-22, so it would be stunning if those were ever given. I think the next step up from the F-16s would be F-18 Super Hornets.
not enough. we give them small batches of old stuff. meanwhile, Israel gets attacked and we sent them just about whatever they wanted. considering ukraine gave up their nukes AND other weaponry in the Minsk agreement, we minimally need to provide them with the tools they need to fight their aggressor that we forced them to sign the agreement with. our hands aren't clean in this and arming them is minimally what we need to do.
we need to get them jets as quickly as possible. longer range missiles. try a LOT harder to source and create more artillery
Israel already has troops trained on this equipment, and has worked with western equipment for decades. There is also zero risk that any of the more sensitive equipment will be captured by hostile adversaries.
I agree that support for Ukraine must be very sharply increased and very soon. But Israel is a completely different situation (even if it's actually just another aspect of the same broader conflict with the Russian/Iranian axis).
yes, this I know, but I mean things like longer range variants of things they're already using. we give toys to ukraine but tell them not to attack the aggressor. I understand why, but it's frustrating to seem them in this shitty position
>There is also zero risk that any of the more sensitive equipment will be captured by hostile adversaries.
Wasn't it found out that Israel sold high tech weapons/plans to the Chinese trying to hide it from the Americans
"Dems have done a lot to protect Ukraine"
Not enough ( 20 ATACMS, no 300KM ATACMS, not hitting russian territory, no F-16s ) and not at the right time ( before the end of 2022 when there were no fixed defenses ).
Yeah...I'm a fair bit more hawkish than mainstream Democrats. I feel that direct and decisive intervention should have already occurred and that the airspace over Ukraine should not be contested at all. A lot of the aid that's been given is tech that was designed for a NATO combined arms strategy that hasn't been allowed to be implemented.
I also feel that the war should have been taken directly to Russian outposts in Syria, Africa, and elsewhere. It is stupid to oppose them in Ukraine but not elsewhere. They must be opposed in principle. Had we punished their military adventurism, we could likely have prevented such adventurism on the part of Venezuela and sent a clear message to China about Taiwan.
Unlike the "WW3 PANIK" peeps replying to you, I'll reply in agreement. There should have been an intervention a long time ago, if not *immediately* back in Feb 2022. Having failed that, best time is now.
Air support of Ukraine, and bombing any Russian assets not within Russia's borders, no need for infantry on infantry engagements. Any statements on the matter should be mere and terse "the bombing will stop when Russia leaves the 1991 Ukrainian borders, then we can have peace negotiations". Any screeching by Russian officials should be ignored, or met by the same message on a loop.
Given the missile strikes into Ukraine often come from within Russia and Belarus, you can throw in "any strategic bombers will be intercepted by stealth fighters", if that is even technically feasible. Probably not.
And yes, I am willing to risk the chance of escalation. Because I believe that if Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, if it isn't left with a ruined military and Putin's regime with its image destroyed... it will get worse. Russia will just keep going. And who knows if the next Russia imperialistic adventure won't stay contained inside the next victim country? There is also all the other authoritarian regimes emboldened by the West having demonstrated weakness.
I can take a low risk of WW3 over a *guaranteed* WW3 in the future.
I would have been less militant if the West wasn't half-assing this. Russia basically presented its butt-cheeks, to be militarily ruined without a single Western soldier being risked, and with absolute moral superiority. A perfect combination of geopolitical and morality. But it is being squandered. Several countries have done a lot, but the US being gridlocked by Putin's agents in Congress, with no real solution in sight, is just embarassing.
Winning this will take more than military tactics.
Which is why Biden and the Dems have also used economic sanctions and political tactics to ratchet up internal pressures across the Russian societal spectrum while they watch hundreds of thousands slaughtered.
Takes more than bullets and Biden seems to know this
Theyve given more tanks to Ukraine, more Patriot SAM systems (American-made system), and in recent months theyve given more money. America has barely done anything in 2023.
The problem with NATO enforced no-fly zone is that… well… it will be transgressed by Russia, and transgression means there needs to be an answer… and once there is an answer, Putin has no reason to hold back, and he has nukes, and while he may not be actually crazy enough to use them, we thought about that regarding full fledged invasion of Ukraine too.
The response is NATO forces destroying the Russian element that breached the no-fly zone, so that isn't complicated.
What you fail to account for is that Putin is not a magnanimous, generous leader who wants to protect his people. Putin is a psychopath who acts in the interests of only one person, Putin.
Putin will take no action that does not benefit him. Putin knows that dying in a thermonuclear exchange does not benefit him. Putin will not use nukes.
Well, my first thought after spotting Russian forces on Ukrainian border was. “Wait, what? Is he stupid? Naaah, he’s not stupid… he’s just mounting pressure…” but here we are, so at this point I’m willing to believe anything is possible from him, no matter how unhinged it looks.
The US is firmly in the “dove” camp
Vis-a-vis-Ukraine vs Russia; favouring a more cautious approach and a return to normalcy as soon as politically palatable.
If you gave the United Kingdom, Poland, or the Baltics the resources available to the United States; Zelensky would have been eating his Christmas dinner off of Putin’s ridiculously long table.
This whole affair has made America come across as a weak and unreliable ally. If Russia is allowed to win, our friends will no longer trust us and our enemies will no longer fear us. It will be the end of US superpower status.
Putin is a barbarian. I just saw a video of a little girl screaming while windows were shattered by a blast. USA and Europe must step up GOP obstructionism be damned.
Putin ‘must be stopped’
absolutely meaningless words , stopped where - current frontlines ? stopped when ? without American weapons ?
Russians must be kicked out of Ukraine, including Crimea
If only there was some more text with the full quote and more information somewhere. Real bummer we have to live with these short headlines here on Reddit.
> Putin ‘must be stopped’
>
>
>
> absolutely meaningless words , stopped where - current frontlines ? stopped when ? without American weapons ?
>
>
>
> Russians must be kicked out of Ukraine, including Crimea
The full quote from the article you didn't read is
> “It is a stark reminder to the world that, after nearly two years of this devastating war, Putin’s objective remains unchanged. He seeks to obliterate Ukraine and subjugate its people. He must be stopped,”
So yes, that's what he's saying.
He’s right and the GOP is wrong. Any time there is a moral test the GOP chooses assholery. Damn straight this is a factor at voting time. What a shit look for a US politician to side with genociders.
Send all the help Ukraine needs and even more. Long range missiles, F-16 and more artillery shells. Do it now so others will not have to fight ruzzia later on.
The first world countries have the biggest economies and the best militaries, so mobilize production and bury every single Russian soldier that steps outside Russia.
Each one destroyed makes the world a better place.
Then send more weapons, Joe. Use your presidential powers to send whatever is necessary to stop the Russian aggression and make them pay the price they can’t afford.
The GOP republicans in congress have decided they’re not going to send any aid to Ukraine unless they get funding for a border wall. It’s not Biden who is incapable of it. It’s the republicans in congress playing games with national security.
Why is Libya a better place now than before ? Biden can wave his finger but he knows Putin is better then the alternative Putin is a moderate compared to who comes after him
Act like it then, dammit! Why don't US send F-35s to Ukraine? Why US don't even participate in F-16 sending? Where are ATACMS? Why Ukrainians aren't allowed to strike targets on Russian territory, including those airfields from which these bombers take off? Why North Korea sends more artillery shells to Russia than US-led coalition sends to Ukraine?
>Why don't US send F-35s to Ukraine?
Many reasons. But a few would be; No pilots to fly them. Every F-35 being built is already spoken for. Germany hasn't got a single F-35 they ordered yet. It's our most advanced technology and our biggest advantage in a WW3 scenario. We expended incredible efforts to prevent China from recovering the one that fell off a carrier.
>Why US don't even participate in F-16 sending?
We did. Denmark and the Netherlands were retiring their F-16s anyways. They had no use for them. The U.S. approved their transfer to Ukraine and helped train Ukrainian pilots in the U.S.
>Where are ATACMS?
Ukraine definitely has some. They were part of aid packages back in the fall. Why Ukraine hasn't used them yet is beyond yours and myself's security clearance.
>Why Ukrainians aren't allowed to strike targets on Russian territory, including those airfields from which these bombers take off?
Simply to prevent WW3
>Why North Korea sends more artillery shells to Russia than US-led coalition sends to Ukraine?
The U.S. has sent 3 million, plus borrowed another 500k from South Korea. North Korea sent 1 million. The U.S. sent 3.5x as many shells as North Korea
"Ukraine definitely has some. They were part of aid packages back in the fall. Why Ukraine hasn't used them yet is beyond yours and myself's security clearance."
Ukraine got short-range cluster ATACMS and they have used them to bomb some airfields and forces concentrations. They haven't received the long-range ATACMS they need.
Because we only send export model tanks to other countries. Those 31 tanks were built specifically for Ukraine. General Dynamics can only produce 12 tanks per month at max capacity so once the decision was made to give Ukraine Abrams, it took a good 3-4 months to build them.
Not even our closest allies that get the latest M1A2 SEPv3 model get the top secret depleted uranium armor package. The tanks chosen for Ukraine were actually older M1A1 hulls with some modern goodies. The Pentagon said these were chosen because they would be faster to build, I imagine that the fear of some of these tanks ending up in Moscow had something to do with the decision also. Russia has already captured perfect running, prime examples of the CV90 and the Bradley. The Bradley is about to be replaced soon so that doesn't matter too much but Abrams will be our MBT for at least the next 25 years. Don't want a U.S. model being examined and reverse engineered by Russia
Then stop f$)!ing around and stop him! I’m looking at you NATO!! And the GOP. If these republicans were in charge in 1941 they would have ceded Hawaii to Japan.
First step is for congress to get their act together, they should have done this well before the holidays. They really shouldn't take long holidays during a time of crisis..
Better "pushed back to 1991 borders".
There was a reply to this comment that I was partway through reading when it got removed. Is seemed like a comment about the Prime Minister of the UK before Churchill (Chamberlain), and I'm curious why it got removed. I'm not a historian, but it didn't seem like the sort of comment that would be removed - and I was enjoying reading it. Did anyone have any insight into why it was removed? It could have gone sideways partway through, but I wasn't able to finish it before then.
if you click on a permalink and then change the url from reddit to reveddit you will see a lot of the removed content, hth
[удалено]
>"You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war." OK, I have a huge issue with this. **First**, [this is a fake quote](https://www.quora.com/Churchill-purportedly-wrote-to-Chamberlain-You-were-given-the-choice-between-war-and-dishonour-You-chose-dishonour-and-you-will-have-war-What-was-the-surrounding-context-of-the-letter-and-the-greater-historical). Churchill and Chamberlain supported each other (in fact, Churchill was appointed a PM at Chamberlain's recommendation!). The actual quote was: >*I think we shall have to choose in the next few weeks between war and shame, and I have very little doubt what the decision will be* **Second**, it's a BS take anyway. For all the crap Neville Chamberlain got, he only "appeased" Hitler to **ramp up airplane production [from 200/mo to 800/mo](https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction-IV.html) in a year**, build a few [aircraft carriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(91\)) (including the one that [sank the Bismarck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_battle_of_Bismarck)), set up the [first operational radar system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home) in the world along the British coast line, and then **still declare the fucking war** *before* being attacked — all in **one** goddamn year. He took another year to bring the production capacity to **1200/mo**, and then, just before dying of cancer, leaving all that arsenal and production capacity in the hands of the most rabid pro-war foaming-at-the-mouth genocidal bulldog Churchill, **whom Chamberlain picked as a replacement**, who did **not** have a reputation of being either a good tactician or strategist, but sure as fuck could be trusted to **use** everything he got to deliver the **FO** part of the **FAFO** from the bomb bays of the Halifax long-range bombers that Neville left him. Oh, and here's the best part. In May 1940, [Churchill didn't have enough power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_British_war_cabinet_crisis) to convince the government to continue the war as Lord Halifax (aka Edward Wood) was pushing for **apeasing** Mussolini to negotiate peace. The deciding moment was when the Leader of the Tories stood up and said, quote: >I do not see what could be lost by **deciding to fight on to the end**. The **alternative** to fighting on nevertheless involves a **considerable gamble**. That settled the matter, Britain dug its teeth in. The leader of the Tories at the time? **Neville fucking Chamberlain**. **That's** the quote you should remember him by. Neville Chamberlain was the man who built Britain's aresnal of democracy in [shadow factories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_shadow_factories) that he personally oversaw. His notion of "peace" was "...**by having superior firepower**". Britain had less than half of Germany's aircraft in 1937, by the time battle of Britain RAF has [outnumbered Luftwaffe](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-britain-not-so-few). Chamberlain struck a deal with Hitler when Britain was in no shape to fight. France didn't fold because the Maginot line was stupid; it folded because **it didn't have a modern air force**. Neither did Britain in 1937, but Britain had Chamberlain, who oversaw the [largest peacetime rearmament program Britain ever saw](https://books.google.com/books?id=pfx9BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Britain%27s+rearmament+in+the+1930s+was+the+largest,+most+expensive+program+of+any+kind+ever+undertaken+by+a+British+government+in+time+of+peace&source=bl&ots=Tn3RxjtIqb&sig=ACfU3U1HwQF-_B2FOkWnkPBW7F8TSJkfeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjK9dDUhraDAxUrEkQIHetnDjIQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=Britain's%20rearmament%20in%20the%201930s%20was%20the%20largest%2C%20most%20expensive%20program%20of%20any%20kind%20ever%20undertaken%20by%20a%20British%20government%20in%20time%20of%20peace&f=false) while Hitler was busy with the annexations. And having **built** all those airplanes (yes, including [the Spitfire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire), whose production started in 1938, and [Hurricane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane#Development) - of which Britain had about a dozen pre-Munich), Chamberlain's **decisive** words [were](https://diplomatmagazine.com/cabinets-finest-hour/): # Peace is a gamble too. Fight till the end. Remember him thusly. ____ ^(**PS:** This only came to light after the national archives were declassifeid. Until then, historians went by Churchill's autobigraphy, written after Neville Chamberlain's death. It was... a bit biased.) ^(**PPS:** Ukraine has its Churchills. But if it had its Chamberlain, we'd have **our own** weapons and ammo produced in the 2014-2022 period to fight off the inevitable full-scale invasion with.) ____ #TL;DR: Chamberlain brought peace by superior firepower, not appeasement.
Having tried to fight this fight many times before, I could kiss you. People hear a tiny bit of information about Chamberlain and write him off as a naive fool without looking at the hand he got dealt and the limited options he had. Churchill inherited a nation far better equipped to handle the war than he would have done if Chamberlain was actually a clueless dolt like so many portray him as.
Thank you for fighting the good fight! If people understood that part of history, I feel the EU wouldn't be [struggling to produce ammo](https://apnews.com/article/eu-ukraine-ammunition-russia-war-6e0be2d27201bc7ea205ffac7d7a7693) 2 years **into** today's war of a comparable scale. They went all Churchill, no Chamberlain, and backed Ukraine in a war they don't have the gear or the ammo to fight with.
Who cares about actual history when you can comment reductive feel-good quotes that are misleading without nuance or context?
Thank you. The problem is that Chamberlain died during the war before he had a chance to write any memoirs so we can only speculate what was in his head. It is also important to know that unlike many at the time, he was no closet fascist. The facts of readiness are well known now. Heck, the RAF had mostly biplanes as fighters back in those days.
I’m a bit embarrassed to admit that although I instantly recognize the name I couldn’t have told you who Neville Chamberlain even was So as someone who like learning in small doses I appreciate you
Well written and easily understood. Thank yuou.
I wish awards were still a thing, thank you brother. There is a movie about nevilles decision as well, I forget the name offhand, but there was a german spy who was able to convince him appeasing germany would not work.
Churchill had the gift of speech indeed! Churchill could make a fart story sound epic.
In fairness Churchill came after Chamberlain so it was easy for him to take advantage of someone's shortcomings to make a name for himself.
> In fairness Churchill came after Chamberlain Not only that. Churchill became the PM **at Chamberlain's personal recommendation**, and had sway *because* of Chamberlain's support. When Lord Halifax (aka Edward Wood) wanted to negotiate with Mussolini, Chamberlain said: >I do not see what could be lost by deciding to **fight on to the end**. The alternative to fighting on nevertheless involves a considerable gamble. **This** was the decisive moment. And let's not forget the Chamberlain was the one to declare war on Hitler - the first world leader to do so (while Stalin was Hitler's military ally). Oh, and that's before we get to the fact that nearly **all** air force that Britain had by the Battle of Britain was built by Chamberlain in [shadow factories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_shadow_factories) *after* that Munich agreement. During Chamberlain's time, the aircraft production increased from **200/mo** to **1200/mo**. Read that again. That's before we get to things like aircraft carriers and radar installations. Chamberlain built all that, and then **stepped down** to leave all that arsenal in the hands of the wardog Churchill. It was Chamberlain's call. He was not popular, but he had power. And he had good reasons to step down: he was dying of cancer. Had he not pushed Churchill to lead Britain, his likely successor would have been [Lord Halifax, aka Edward Wood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax#Foreign_policy) - the actual person pushing for appeasement all the time: >Writing to Baldwin on the subject of the conversation between Karl Burckhardt and Hitler, Halifax said: "Nationalism and Racialism is a powerful force but I can't feel that it's either unnatural or immoral! I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same!" >In December 1937, Halifax told the Cabinet that "we ought to get on good terms with Germany" So Chamberlain made sure **that** guy wouldn't take over. He got completely fucker over by history for that.
[удалено]
He said 'must', not 'will'
[удалено]
[удалено]
Firebombs civilians who launch V2 rockets at civilians and genocide people. War is shit. And anyone who wants it is shit. But Nazi germany was the most shit the world had ever seen.
As soon as the GOP drops its opposition
“Somebody do something!”
"GOP, stop tying our hands"
If only the f'ing GOP would stop bending over for putin.
One would think the GOP fully support the military industrial complex and all the money and Innovation that sector is gaining from this. They always did before. Something fishy going on. Better check all their offshore bank accounts.
Mike Johnson "doesn't have a bank account." I'd personally like to know how he pays his bills...
[удалено]
So that's why they don't want them to close on Sundays
No, *we* don't want them to close on Sundays at freeway rest stops because (as the name suggests) they serve as rest stops and that's part of what the companies agree to when they sign the contract. It's also about fairness to any other firms who honor those contracts and stay open even at less profitable hours. People like no bank account Mike want them to close because contracts don't matter to them, your word doesn't matter, and fairness doesn't matter, all while claiming to be "religious" and therefore "superior".
Quiznos ?!
His 'treat-yo-self' bill probably come to about 10 bucks or 6 Dairy Queen coupons.
I thought this must be a joke, so I googled it https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/07/mike-johnson-speaker-bank-account-mystery/ > A teeny fraction of American households don’t have a bank account. In recent days, it appeared that one such household might belong to the man second in line for the presidency: House Speaker Mike Johnson. > > Johnson’s recent launch from obscure congressional backbencher to one of the most powerful people in the country has come with a wave of scrutiny. Reporters are combing through his past and finding weird stuff — his curious arrangement with his son to monitor each others’ digital devices for porn, for instance. > > One less salacious but perhaps more consequential discovery involves his finances. In his most recent annual financial disclosures, released last year, Johnson (R-La.) reports no assets at all. > > Zero. > > There are no retirement accounts, no money-market funds, no stocks, no crypto, not even a basic checking or savings account. Even more peculiar, his disclosures have never listed any checking or savings accounts on any of the forms he has filed going back to 2016, the year he was elected to Congress. > > This is confusing. Where is his congressional salary being deposited? How is he paying his bills? sounds perfectly normal to me /s
He and his son have an Only Fans account. Jackin' For Jesus it's called.
Oh yeah, I remember hearing about that.
Mike Johnson is basically the most punchable fucking jerkoff you can imagine in real life. My guess is the most conservative LA Republicans pinch their nose to vote for that smarmy fuck.
> Mike Johnson "doesn't have a bank account. [in America]"
He's paid in cash in unmarked cases, and he doesn't ask who's paying him
Yeah... interesting that the republicans are suddenly for not spending more money on MIC
There was a report that showed pretty much every congressional district was benefiting from the war machine. So. They can’t have people doing well locally during an election year. That wouldn’t be good for republicans.
This I agree with....MIC does make sure that most congressional seats have some benefit..even if miniscule. So all the Congress people have a ostensible reason for always voting to spend more and more money on tanks we don't need etc etc. Heck..often, the appropriation is more than what pentagon requests Maybe this is a way to make Biden look bad in an election year....as the guy that lost Ukraine
But every republican is obviously pro Russian? How would they shake off the stink of taking bribes from our adversaries?
Not really. It's not an accident that a lot of the Neocons have switched to democrats since the GOP has drifted closer to the Ron Paul/ isolationist wing.
Aren't they still happy to send 16billion to Israel. Lots of neocons are in both parties ..and I guess half of them have moved over to MSNBC and NYTimes etc. :-) Don't think even Ron Paul believes the republican party has moved closer to his views I think :-) I mean Nikki Haley and Lindsey graham cannot remember all the middle eastern countries they want to bomb/keep forces in etc etc.
Their money is tied up in Israel.
There’s a much simpler explanation than offshore bank accounts. Remember when [the RNC was hacked by Russians in 2016 and nothing was ever released?](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html) There’s even a great word for it: Kompromat. That’s the only reason I can think of for a bunch of GOP clowns to fly to Russia on the 4th of July.
Hmm, that's odd. It seems a lot of their donors' accounts are frozen. Odd coincidence.
That's why we're getting anything for Ukraine The more establish GOP Pols in the Senate are mostly with the MIC While less so in the House are more in tune with Poopin That said as someone from Detroit with a History background, watching this war there is a major flaw with the modern MIC vs our old school ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY. That being production volume, we've seen now in Ukraine that for all the talk or smart weapons and precision BS once the bullets start to fly you run out of munitions FAST, and the bloated 2-3 companies that make up the MIC lack the raw production volume to keep up.
That's a symptom of lean/just-in-time manufacturing. They minimize the overhead, they minimize waste, and they max out what they can do with the tools they've got. It's fine if you have a relatively constant demand, but if there are hiccups in the supply chain, or any sudden demand for what you're making, everything is *completely fucked*. And they're not expanding production volume, either. They're sticking with the same bullshit MBA principles that got them into this mess, because it's nothing but a business, and bottlenecks mean they can charge more.
The army is upping 155mm to 40k/mo by 2025 from 14k/mo in early 2022.
Know what the Pentagon doesn't do? LEAN. They have capacity contracts. Yep, paid to purchase, install, run and maintain tooling, machines, warehouses, etc to be able to produce X amount of whatever explodey thing...but not actually build anything. So when we throw down against an enemy that actually shoots back, we can win the logistics war by going from 100,000 boom things per month to 100,000,000 at a flip of the switch.
Exactly. The problem is that the Pentagon never thought to make those kinds of preparations for 155 mm shells-- because why the hell would the US ever need massive quanitities of a kind of artillery shell NATO systems can't even fire? So we're scrambling to establish the same kind of manufacturing base for them today. Even with the government throwing unlimited money at the problem, you can't just snap your fingers and have a shell factory pop into being. Building the actual factory, sourcing the materials you'll need to build your shells, hiring and training workers-- all that shit takes time.
> , we've seen now in Ukraine that for all the talk or smart weapons and precision BS once the bullets start to fly you run out of munitions FAST I mean kind of. If the USA needed to defend the USA production from a war time economy perspective would dwarf what we produce now. Also Iraq wasn't too far back and the USA never ran into a cast shortage from overwhelming use of precision weapons. Ukraine isn't an army designed for the use of precision weapons. The US reliance on dominating the air allows for those precise weapons to consistently hit where they need. Ukraine is limited to striking targets of opportunity with little means of capitalizing on created openings
A tip of the hat to D. Rumsfeld.
They will support it when it benefits them in power They really embrace the “opposite” in opposition as policy
As someone who remembers the Reagan era, this is so fucking bizarre.
Or even old enough to remember the debate between Obama and Romney.
It's a game. Every time new-GOP people say that communism is evil OR do something to directly support communism, you have to drink. If a GOP person starts ranting about socialists or Obama, you have to take a shot. Many people have adopted this game already, just as a means to make it thru the crazy AF days.
This will require a liver donation for any participant come the RNC
In 50 years we're going to have some massive info dump or declassification of documents or whatever, and all the idiots who caused this will be dead and 60% of the elderly population will say "yeah we fucking know Russia was simply paying off one of the major political parties to ruin our country since they knew they couldn't actually take us on, militarily or economically" We all know, it's clear as fucking day what they're doing, but they weasel their way out of any consequences of half the government being Russian assets.
I think the most shocking part is usually how cheap these politicians are. When numbers so come out it's really not that impressive. Like if you're going to sell out your country at least do it well.
you only hear about the carrot, we don't get to know about the stick
Also, the carrot itself turns into another stick once you take the first bite. Russia can make the first bribe exorbitant, but from then on they can force the Congresspeople to do whatever htey want for chump change-- because if they don't, they'll let the FBI know about that first bribe they took. Their careers will be over, and they'll likely be going to prison.
Yes. Exactly but hopefully sooner.
That’s literally the plan outlined in Aleksandr Dugin’s Foundations of Geopolitcs. It’s almost like the USSR didn’t really collapse and has been playing the long game this entire time.
This! This is the problem. They are beholden to Putin and his lackey, Trump.
They can't. You invite a guy to your country, give him a teenager to bang, secretly record it, they're your stooge for life.
EPSTIEN - remember the name and the name allikes
Putin does a lot of internet marketing for them though. One hand washes the other.
Putin helps Republicans get elected, Republicans help Putin kill Ukrainians.
I cant believe I was dumb enough to wonder why all my right winger friends started being cool with Russia and then realized ...oh yeah, because the Russians are helping them get elected and would also love a dictator. Wild times.
Pre Reagan GOP = Grand Old Party (laughable). New GOP = Gargling on Putin.
People forget Trump was first impeached because by keeping weapons from them for Hunter information. The war is probably because Trump weakened the US’s ability to keep Putin at bay. If Ukraine was in NATO or was supported before the invasion by the US this wouldn’t have happened. Putin got too much confidence from Trump and the US being weak. In a way Putin is winning this Cold War Revival battle. Just not the war.
People forget that President Bush (a Republican) wanted Ukraine to be in NATO but some European leaders didn't want them in NATO. If Ukraine was in NATO then Putin would have never been able to do what he has done. You can't change the past. Putin needs to be stopped now so we can change the future
[The pro-Russia faction of the GOP is a unique element that started with the Ron Paul "revolution" around 2007 and grew from there, spreading into the Tea Party and eventually MAGA.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/louis-anslow-asks-did-russia-putin-and-jesse-benton-astroturf-the-libertarian-ron-paul-revolution) If you knew were to look, you'd recognize the movement slowly growing out of chan boards and white supremacist forums in the late 2000s, then spreading throughout other social media pages slowly over time. Early arr politics used to be filled with Ron Paul spam, and there's early botnetworks from the era that were found to have Russian ties. Then, surprise surprise, Ron Paul became one of the early "Tea Party" founders, which essentially pushed the party further into reactive populism, and eventually, directly into Trump and MAGA territory. They essentially manufactured a populist movement to take over the party and support their own interests. It happened slowly at first, then much more effectively as new technology made it easier to spread bad faithed arguments and propaganda in the GOP's favor, and divide and distract everyone else over culture war issues. If you pay attention, you can see a timeline of reactionary movements that culminated nicely with Putin's 3rd term onward, all the way into the war in Ukraine.
Looking back now, I am 100% convinced that the Ron Paul campaign was boosted by Russia on the internet.
[https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ron-paul-spam-u/](https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ron-paul-spam-u/) [https://www.secureworks.com/research/srizbi](https://www.secureworks.com/research/srizbi) There's the smoking gun. The first discoveries about this date back to news articles from 2007. Anyone who remember the initial rise of "Ron Paul" culture in the year or so after this should remember how weirdly inorganic it all became, and how rapidly it spread. Also, research just about any topic by Anna Polyanskaya. She spoke on the topic of Russia anti-democratic trolls extensively in the 2000s, reporting the earliest attempts to perfect these techniques within Russia's own internet culture, and the techniques used precisely match techniques used to cause division by the far right trolls. Most notably, they're designed to disrupt pro democratic forums and make ethnical debates next to impossible. [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-kremlins-virtual-squad/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-kremlins-virtual-squad/)
> People forget that President Bush (a Republican) wanted Ukraine to be in NATO but some European leaders didn't want them in NATO Ukraine was completely different back then, the government was incredibly pro-Russian. Kuchma was an incredibly corrupt president with Soviet ties. NATO membership was absolutely not an option even if the US wanted it. Don't forget that the Ukrainian people didn't violently oust their pro-Russian government until 2014, which directly led to the annexation of Crimea when Russia saw they were going to lose their puppet government.
There was also the 2004 revolution which was largely peaceful and pro-EU integration. As a Ukrainian, I agree with you though. The country was not ready or suitable for NATO membership. The military before 2014 was small in numbers, ill equipped, and had nowhere near the training and discipline they have today.
2014? You mean when Obama was President and didn't do anything about what was happening in Ukraine? All the recent American Presidents could have either helped or be blamed for what's happening in Ukraine
You mentioned Bush wanted Ukraine to be in NATO, I'm just saying that was impossible at the time as they were a Russian puppet state. So playing "what if" makes no sense.
You're wrong. Ukraine had two revolutions. 2005 and 2014. Ukrainian President in 2005, was Yushenko who run on the platform of joining the EU and NATO. Bush Jr. Was president until 2009, so they had plenty of time to work it out. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko
Ukraine was still very weak and corrupt in 2014 due to Putins boy corrupting it from within. Putins boy who had his election campaign ran by same guy that ran Trumps. And was later convicted on working w Russian spies despite the "no collusion" Crowds best arguments. But 2014 Ukriane would've been steam rolled and Obama knew it. But what he DID do was help start training and arming them and getting them harmonized w US/NATO training and planning and Intel sharing. Which allowed them to survive when Putin finally rolled on in force.
The Orange God King has a hardon for Putin which means the GOP does. Add to that Trump’s 1st impeachment was because of a call to Zelenskyy and it guarantees zero GOP support for something the GOP knows it should and would support if not for Trump. It’s incredible how much damage one self obsessed narcissist can cause.
when Trump got the GOP Nomination in SUMMER 2016 he forced the national GOP to change their official platform language on Ukraine to water it down and remove any power in it. This was one of his first acts before officially accepting the nomination. He weakened the Republican's Party and strengthened Putin's hand, on Day 1, as a condition of being their Presidential Candidate, and the whole GOP Party rolled over, for Trump, and for Putin. To be their bitches, for some reason... (insert all the obvious known reasons of corrupt, power, money, blackmail, hacked emails, that they pretend everyone doesnt know about...etc...) and Biden, one of the greatest NATO champions ever, has been fighting them every step of the way, to stop Putin. WTF is going on
It was also the *only* change Trump's team asked the GOP to make to their platform! While we're on the subject: Trump's campaign manager in 2016 was a guy called Paul Manafort. His previous job? Working as the right-hand man for Ukraine's corrupt Russian-backed president, the one who got ousted in the 2014 revolution. Some of Manafort's daughters' texts were leaked a few years ago. And one of them, his oldest daughter said she's convinced her dad was involved in the corrupt president's decision to open fire on nonviolent protestors with live ammunition. 100 people died. *That's* the guy Donald Trump hired as his campaign manager, kept on as a top adviser until he was arrested on corruption charges in 2018, and then pardoned on his way out the door.
I only want to be a dictator for one day, so I can announce the annexation of the American oblast by the second greatest man alive, Vladimir Putin - Trump, probably. I wouldn't put it past him to surrender America for a quid pro quo on legislative immunity at this point.
I’ve read that the email leaks that happened years ago is why the republicans are meat puppets to Putin. Russia released all the dirt on the democrats when Hilary was in the race to become president but for some reason nothing came out of republicans. They’re compromised or complicit at this point.
In fact, the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United basically allows Russia to fund the Republicans.
Even if that was an effective deterrent in 2016, it hasn't been for a while. Republican voters just don't care about Republican scandals. Roy Moore almost became a Senator even though he was a known pedophile. Donald Trump is the leading candidate for President for the GOP despite all his scandals and 91 felony indictments. Lauren Boebert was kicked out of a family-friendly musical for vaping and groping her date in front of kids, and just switched to a district she doesn't live in to guarantee she gets reelected in 2024. Heck, George Santos would still be a GOP Congressman if he hadn't switched to fleecing the big money donors and his own colleagues' families. The party of "family values" and "law and order" just doesn't care how dirty their politicians are any more.
Putin hacked both the DNC and GOP. They spilled all the beans with the DNC information. But we never heard anything about the GOP hack. And it wasn't long after that the GOP became very, almost Pro-Putin 🤔 Edit: word
Well they are under Russians payroll so hard for them to stop
And Orban and, in Canada, the likely next leader, Pierre Poilievre. Edit: typo
Trump is a cancer; Poilievre is its metastasis.
Well said. And Harper is feeding the horror.
Fuck Harper
Polievre is soooo scary. He's a wildcard. He doesn't even align with true conservative ideology, just like Trump, he has his own way of doing politics. Once he get on top, shit will hit the fan for real.
[удалено]
And Trump.
GOP has a price. Putin has the money to buy GOP for his purpose.
The transaction has been made and pootin has the receipt.
If Biden and NATO want Ukraine to win, then arm Ukraine to win.
Biden cannot unilaterally make that call. He's been on his knees begging Congress to approve more aid since October, but powermad goblin Mike Johnson refuses to even hold a vote on the matter.
Ironically he just unilaterally sent 155 shells to Israel under an emergency authorization (not subject to congressional review). Apparently the situation in Ukraine does not qualify as an 'emergency' to him. https://apnews.com/article/us-israel-gaza-arms-hamas-bypass-congress-1dc77f20aac4a797df6a2338b677da4f
I suspect its a little bit more complicated than "just send every weapon to ukraine under an emergency authorization"
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3627204/dod-announces-aid-package-for-ukraine/#:~:text=The%20Defense%20Department%20today%20announced,to%20counter%20Russia's%20unprovoked%20invasion. Doesn't take much to look. Literally a few days ago.
Or just take care of it for them. Think of it as a field test and inventory rebalancing adjustment
And what's your intel on Russia's threat to use nuclear weapons if another country joins the fighting? Empty threat?
If all it takes to invade any country they want is the threat of nukes, then the whole world is theirs.
The war in Ukraine is horrible, but that's a very simplistic view on things. We're talking about actual Nuclear war vs wars that happen all the time. I am in no way defending Russia's war or occupation of Ukraine, but this level of warfare has happened quite often since WW2. A nuclear war has never happened. Japan was bombed with nukes, but now we have multiple nations with them and they are far stronger than they were back then. Nuclear war could literally end civilization as we know it. We're basically dealing with 'Cold War' mentalities with a war like this. Sure, it's Russia vs the EU and America from a support stance, but we're all able to hide behind the fact that America and the EU aren't 'actually' at war with Russia. Once that happens, so many worse things could happen.
The big lesson I learned from this war is that every country should arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The Russia would never have invaded if Ukraine still had it's nukes. Especially Poland and the Baltics are going to have to invest in nuclear weapons if we ever want to keep the Russia behind their own border. Absolute insanity but apparently the only way to peace is through MAD
We risk the humiliation of being ruled by terrorists or we risk war. Russians are forcing us to decide between our dignity and our lives. I would choose war because that’s how we beat Hitler and the Nazis
Yes. Because Putin's a cockroach. A survivor. Remember, this guy was KGB and later FSB. He worked intel for the commies and the people that replaced them. Then led those people. He weathered a ton of corruption and mess inherited from Yeltsin's fuckups; either turning it all to work for him or obliterating it. My point being he's not a "die in a blaze of glory" kind of person. He's not going to pull that trigger because the moment he does, Russia stops existing. Even if he somehow survives, his country doesn't. And he WANTS that country. He wants that power. He can't rule over a dead wasteland. He'll bluster as much as it takes to keep the west off his back, but he won't risk losing everything he wants. Really all we needed to do was at the start of this mess invite Ukraine into NATO, roll up to the border with an army or two, and say "fuck off". The only reason it's gotten this far is the world's done nothing but appease the bastard and tap his wrists with meaningless sanctions that he evaded half the time anyway.
Amen.
Considering that they make such threats every time a new weapon system is announced for delivery to Ukraine, yes, it is an empty threat.
The best but unrealistic solution would be if the EU forms an army and goes in, to at least secure air superiority. The US can back up the operation with material and intelligence services. This way, the NATO wouldn't be involved and it's rather unlikely that Russia uses nuclear weapons as long as the war stays on Ukrainian land. A proactive NATO involvement is very unlikely and also rather dangerous because it's almost guaranteed to escalate rather quickly. I'm not an expert at all in international diplomacy, but it would also be a good solution to split up the BRICS table. Very unlikely for China but countries like South Africa, India and Brazil always wanted their place at the big table and got denied, which was a big but not completely undoable mistake. Russia only can do what it does because it still has too many international connections. We need a new international order which ensures human rights and borders without any compromises.
Do you have a plan?
Ukraine can't win with one hand tied behind its back. Limited range weapons supply is not going to stop long-range missile launches. Time to give Ukrainians the weapons they need to attack Moscow and St. Petersburg area bases. The army wives are angry in Russia, time to make the citizens aware that Putin is lying about how well the war is going. It's an election year in Russia, too, time to make Putin uncomfortable. The west needs to resolve this conflict as a priority. The Israeli outcome is not in question.
[удалено]
The only question is who wants the attention of the US Navy and European countries that relies on the Suez canal for global trade. I hope they do the calculations before they act. Ward Carroll YouTube latest has an interesting take on this.
People forget that Obama and Biden had a completely different approach to the ME on a Macro level. They wanted stability in the region and worked hard to bring Iran to the table. The Saudi’s didn’t like that. So they went and funded Trump to tear up the Nuclear agreement.
I think Iran would have behaved the same way regardless. During the nuclear agreement, Iran continued to fund the Houthis and their efforts in Syria. The nuclear agreement was a failure in terms of changing Iran's foreign policy unfortunately. And the sanctions seem to have prevented them from getting nukes.
Have you seen what the public sentiment of the Iranians is to the US recently? You think them having nukes is a good idea???
That's unrelated to US military aid to Israel. Ukraine victory is completely related.
Not really. Money and industrial capacity are finite, fungible resources. Rockets, cash, and ammo we send to Israel are rockets, cash, and ammo that could've gone to Kiev.
Is it also a matter of stop drip feeding the munitions aid just enough to not be defeated and just give Ukraine the weapons and munitions it really needs to eliminate the Russian soldiers in Ukraine? Note: that’s just my layman’s thoughts so could be very wrong.
Luckily Ukraine busy upscaling the greatest war time production of Drones the world has ever seen. Then it gets interesting as those drones integrate w NATO Intel rt
bros, can we just Iran contra 2.0 this? please, we'll make it ethical this time
Give Ukraine the hardware and let them off the chain to start attacking Russia. It's that or try to keep waiting for Russia to run out of people to send to the front lines, which is going to take awhile.
I wonder sometimes if this war is going exactly how NATO wants. Slowly draining Russia of soldiers, equipment and money. Waiting for regular Russians to revolt. NATO wants Putin to lose everything. A quick decisive victory would still leave Russia fairly strong.
We will run out of people before Russia does. We have the same exact age distribution pyramid, but they have 140 million people and we only have 40 million. Even counting that the attackers normally lose more people than the defenders, it still doesn't look good.
It's pretty clear by now that Russians aren't going to revolt with the current status quo. Sanctions and having tons of their working-age male population conscripted haven't done it there aren't any signs that's going to change.
Wouldn't it be more likely that russians revolt when they actually you know lose? Like Russian-Japanesse war, which was one of the reasons 1917 revolution happened, i don't think if Russia had occupied part of Japan in that war, the revolution would have started.
Where exactly on the scale of "Thoughts and prayers" to "NATO enforced no-fly zone" exactly must Putin be stopped? Don't get me wrong, the Dems have done a lot to protect Ukraine and the free world from Russia while the "Warhawk party of Reagan" cowers in fear and obedience to Putin, and does everything they can to help Russia, but this rhetoric at this point in time is not doing a lot.
I'd be for stepping up funding and weapons systems delivered. Provide them with battery systems to shoot down missiles and more advanced aircraft. I believe they're being trained to use f-16s. From my understanding if you're familiar with f16s it's easier to use more advanced fighters like f22 and f35 than it would be being familiar with older soviet planes. Not even close to saying we need American soldiers on the ground though.
Literally no other country gets to use the F-22, so it would be stunning if those were ever given. I think the next step up from the F-16s would be F-18 Super Hornets.
We weren't even willing to give them A-10s let alone F-22s
We can’t even detect f-22, no way we risk them being given to Russia
not enough. we give them small batches of old stuff. meanwhile, Israel gets attacked and we sent them just about whatever they wanted. considering ukraine gave up their nukes AND other weaponry in the Minsk agreement, we minimally need to provide them with the tools they need to fight their aggressor that we forced them to sign the agreement with. our hands aren't clean in this and arming them is minimally what we need to do. we need to get them jets as quickly as possible. longer range missiles. try a LOT harder to source and create more artillery
Israel already has troops trained on this equipment, and has worked with western equipment for decades. There is also zero risk that any of the more sensitive equipment will be captured by hostile adversaries. I agree that support for Ukraine must be very sharply increased and very soon. But Israel is a completely different situation (even if it's actually just another aspect of the same broader conflict with the Russian/Iranian axis).
yes, this I know, but I mean things like longer range variants of things they're already using. we give toys to ukraine but tell them not to attack the aggressor. I understand why, but it's frustrating to seem them in this shitty position
>There is also zero risk that any of the more sensitive equipment will be captured by hostile adversaries. Wasn't it found out that Israel sold high tech weapons/plans to the Chinese trying to hide it from the Americans
"Dems have done a lot to protect Ukraine" Not enough ( 20 ATACMS, no 300KM ATACMS, not hitting russian territory, no F-16s ) and not at the right time ( before the end of 2022 when there were no fixed defenses ).
Still more than GoP
Still needs way more to actually stop putin
Agreed.
kinda very low bar though
Yeah...I'm a fair bit more hawkish than mainstream Democrats. I feel that direct and decisive intervention should have already occurred and that the airspace over Ukraine should not be contested at all. A lot of the aid that's been given is tech that was designed for a NATO combined arms strategy that hasn't been allowed to be implemented. I also feel that the war should have been taken directly to Russian outposts in Syria, Africa, and elsewhere. It is stupid to oppose them in Ukraine but not elsewhere. They must be opposed in principle. Had we punished their military adventurism, we could likely have prevented such adventurism on the part of Venezuela and sent a clear message to China about Taiwan.
Unlike the "WW3 PANIK" peeps replying to you, I'll reply in agreement. There should have been an intervention a long time ago, if not *immediately* back in Feb 2022. Having failed that, best time is now. Air support of Ukraine, and bombing any Russian assets not within Russia's borders, no need for infantry on infantry engagements. Any statements on the matter should be mere and terse "the bombing will stop when Russia leaves the 1991 Ukrainian borders, then we can have peace negotiations". Any screeching by Russian officials should be ignored, or met by the same message on a loop. Given the missile strikes into Ukraine often come from within Russia and Belarus, you can throw in "any strategic bombers will be intercepted by stealth fighters", if that is even technically feasible. Probably not. And yes, I am willing to risk the chance of escalation. Because I believe that if Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, if it isn't left with a ruined military and Putin's regime with its image destroyed... it will get worse. Russia will just keep going. And who knows if the next Russia imperialistic adventure won't stay contained inside the next victim country? There is also all the other authoritarian regimes emboldened by the West having demonstrated weakness. I can take a low risk of WW3 over a *guaranteed* WW3 in the future. I would have been less militant if the West wasn't half-assing this. Russia basically presented its butt-cheeks, to be militarily ruined without a single Western soldier being risked, and with absolute moral superiority. A perfect combination of geopolitical and morality. But it is being squandered. Several countries have done a lot, but the US being gridlocked by Putin's agents in Congress, with no real solution in sight, is just embarassing.
> if not immediately back in Feb 2022 How about Feb 2014, the FIRST time Russia invaded Ukraine and got away with it.
Fear of escalation is what Putin is counting on.
Winning this will take more than military tactics. Which is why Biden and the Dems have also used economic sanctions and political tactics to ratchet up internal pressures across the Russian societal spectrum while they watch hundreds of thousands slaughtered. Takes more than bullets and Biden seems to know this
and then we germans get told "You don't do enough!" despite having a tiny war industry compared to america
Theyve given more tanks to Ukraine, more Patriot SAM systems (American-made system), and in recent months theyve given more money. America has barely done anything in 2023.
"Chicken hawk" is a better name. Its fits Putin too
The problem with NATO enforced no-fly zone is that… well… it will be transgressed by Russia, and transgression means there needs to be an answer… and once there is an answer, Putin has no reason to hold back, and he has nukes, and while he may not be actually crazy enough to use them, we thought about that regarding full fledged invasion of Ukraine too.
The response is NATO forces destroying the Russian element that breached the no-fly zone, so that isn't complicated. What you fail to account for is that Putin is not a magnanimous, generous leader who wants to protect his people. Putin is a psychopath who acts in the interests of only one person, Putin. Putin will take no action that does not benefit him. Putin knows that dying in a thermonuclear exchange does not benefit him. Putin will not use nukes.
Well, my first thought after spotting Russian forces on Ukrainian border was. “Wait, what? Is he stupid? Naaah, he’s not stupid… he’s just mounting pressure…” but here we are, so at this point I’m willing to believe anything is possible from him, no matter how unhinged it looks.
The US is firmly in the “dove” camp Vis-a-vis-Ukraine vs Russia; favouring a more cautious approach and a return to normalcy as soon as politically palatable. If you gave the United Kingdom, Poland, or the Baltics the resources available to the United States; Zelensky would have been eating his Christmas dinner off of Putin’s ridiculously long table. This whole affair has made America come across as a weak and unreliable ally. If Russia is allowed to win, our friends will no longer trust us and our enemies will no longer fear us. It will be the end of US superpower status.
Putin is a barbarian. I just saw a video of a little girl screaming while windows were shattered by a blast. USA and Europe must step up GOP obstructionism be damned.
The video from Gaza?
Putin ‘must be stopped’ absolutely meaningless words , stopped where - current frontlines ? stopped when ? without American weapons ? Russians must be kicked out of Ukraine, including Crimea
If only there was some more text with the full quote and more information somewhere. Real bummer we have to live with these short headlines here on Reddit.
i think i've heard the same phrase every 3 days
> Putin ‘must be stopped’ > > > > absolutely meaningless words , stopped where - current frontlines ? stopped when ? without American weapons ? > > > > Russians must be kicked out of Ukraine, including Crimea The full quote from the article you didn't read is > “It is a stark reminder to the world that, after nearly two years of this devastating war, Putin’s objective remains unchanged. He seeks to obliterate Ukraine and subjugate its people. He must be stopped,” So yes, that's what he's saying.
Republicans are supporting Russia indirectly. Shame on you all.
He’s right and the GOP is wrong. Any time there is a moral test the GOP chooses assholery. Damn straight this is a factor at voting time. What a shit look for a US politician to side with genociders.
Then, actually do something that amounts to more than "thoughts and prayers."
Republicans are busy bending over backwards for Putler, sorry.
> Republicans are busy bending over backwards They've got their ankles crossed behind their heads for Putin.
Transfer all seized Russian assets to Ukraine is the best response. Russia acts barbarously and must be taught a lesson.
Said the man backing Israeli bombing of gaza
They are allies so shhh 🤫 so hypocritical
Well the Gazan civilians deserve it because they are brown, duh.
At least we know he’ll bypass congress for Israel 🙄
Then fucking do something about it
Send all the help Ukraine needs and even more. Long range missiles, F-16 and more artillery shells. Do it now so others will not have to fight ruzzia later on.
People don’t realize it’s us giving our surplus and older stuff so we can get more modern and newer stuff. It’s not a waste of money.. it’s win win
The first world countries have the biggest economies and the best militaries, so mobilize production and bury every single Russian soldier that steps outside Russia. Each one destroyed makes the world a better place.
[удалено]
Then send more weapons, Joe. Use your presidential powers to send whatever is necessary to stop the Russian aggression and make them pay the price they can’t afford.
The GOP republicans in congress have decided they’re not going to send any aid to Ukraine unless they get funding for a border wall. It’s not Biden who is incapable of it. It’s the republicans in congress playing games with national security.
[удалено]
Libya is not a good example of wise foreign policy.
Thanks for showing what western interference does. Libya is fucked beyond repair now.
Why is Libya a better place now than before ? Biden can wave his finger but he knows Putin is better then the alternative Putin is a moderate compared to who comes after him
Act like it then, dammit! Why don't US send F-35s to Ukraine? Why US don't even participate in F-16 sending? Where are ATACMS? Why Ukrainians aren't allowed to strike targets on Russian territory, including those airfields from which these bombers take off? Why North Korea sends more artillery shells to Russia than US-led coalition sends to Ukraine?
>Why don't US send F-35s to Ukraine? Many reasons. But a few would be; No pilots to fly them. Every F-35 being built is already spoken for. Germany hasn't got a single F-35 they ordered yet. It's our most advanced technology and our biggest advantage in a WW3 scenario. We expended incredible efforts to prevent China from recovering the one that fell off a carrier. >Why US don't even participate in F-16 sending? We did. Denmark and the Netherlands were retiring their F-16s anyways. They had no use for them. The U.S. approved their transfer to Ukraine and helped train Ukrainian pilots in the U.S. >Where are ATACMS? Ukraine definitely has some. They were part of aid packages back in the fall. Why Ukraine hasn't used them yet is beyond yours and myself's security clearance. >Why Ukrainians aren't allowed to strike targets on Russian territory, including those airfields from which these bombers take off? Simply to prevent WW3 >Why North Korea sends more artillery shells to Russia than US-led coalition sends to Ukraine? The U.S. has sent 3 million, plus borrowed another 500k from South Korea. North Korea sent 1 million. The U.S. sent 3.5x as many shells as North Korea
"Ukraine definitely has some. They were part of aid packages back in the fall. Why Ukraine hasn't used them yet is beyond yours and myself's security clearance." Ukraine got short-range cluster ATACMS and they have used them to bomb some airfields and forces concentrations. They haven't received the long-range ATACMS they need.
Since you have all the answers, why the mighty USA sent only 31 Abrams tanks when they have thousands in on the fields that are rust under the sun?
Because we only send export model tanks to other countries. Those 31 tanks were built specifically for Ukraine. General Dynamics can only produce 12 tanks per month at max capacity so once the decision was made to give Ukraine Abrams, it took a good 3-4 months to build them. Not even our closest allies that get the latest M1A2 SEPv3 model get the top secret depleted uranium armor package. The tanks chosen for Ukraine were actually older M1A1 hulls with some modern goodies. The Pentagon said these were chosen because they would be faster to build, I imagine that the fear of some of these tanks ending up in Moscow had something to do with the decision also. Russia has already captured perfect running, prime examples of the CV90 and the Bradley. The Bradley is about to be replaced soon so that doesn't matter too much but Abrams will be our MBT for at least the next 25 years. Don't want a U.S. model being examined and reverse engineered by Russia
They can strike those targets with home grown capabilities. F-35 logistical package makes it overkill. I agree we should give them ATACMS.
so the GOP’s beloved right to bear arms’ doesn’t really apply to european terrorist dictators, just for killing your own kids
Who is going to stop him Biden
Then stop f$)!ing around and stop him! I’m looking at you NATO!! And the GOP. If these republicans were in charge in 1941 they would have ceded Hawaii to Japan.
Hawaii was a domestic attack, Ukraine is not in the USA
First step is for congress to get their act together, they should have done this well before the holidays. They really shouldn't take long holidays during a time of crisis..