War in Ukraine

[Rasputin_Vol]

I think Trump wanted to be buddies. IMO Trump admired the oligarch system and would loved to have been a member of the club. He probably envisioned Trump properties in Russia and Russian investment in Trump. Everything Trump does is for Trump.

Let's run with that angle. If Trump would have had receipts/evidence of business ties between himself and Russia, would you have been more skeptical about any decisions about war or sanctions that he would have made regarding Russia?

 

[BeardedVol]

We shipped our semiconductor mfg ti Taiwan starting in the mid 1980s/early 1990s, so my point is that we did this to ourselves. So now our justification for going to war with China is a result of our own foolishness?

You (willfully?) have no concept of the reality of the semiconductor industry, and TSMC's place in it.
Why Making More Chips Is So Hard

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Russia clearly doesn't understand that such actions only galvanize US opinion against it.

Vlad is a genius.

So to be clear, The West doesn't detain journalists? Only those mean Ruskies do that, right?

 

[NorthDallas40]

So to be clear, The West doesn't detain journalists? Only those mean Ruskies do that, right?

Can you provide a case where a journalist petitioned the Russian state that their 1A rights had been violated and the Russian Supreme Court agreed with that petition Moe? Damn what a stupid ass whataboutism

 

[evillawyer]

Can you provide a case where a journalist petitioned the Russian state that their 1A rights had been violated and the Russian Supreme Court agreed with that petition Moe? Damn what a stupid ass whataboutism

Go easy on Ras' whataboutisms. He's just doing as he was taught. From wikipedia on the history of whataboutisms as a rhetorical device:

Although the term whataboutism spread recently, Edward Lucas's 2008 Economist article states that "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a 'What about...' (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth)." Lucas recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and government.[17]

Following the publication of Lucas's 2007 and 2008 articles and his 2008 book The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West, which featured the same themes,[19] opinion writers at prominent English language media outlets began using the term and echoing the themes laid out by Lucas, including the association with the Soviet Union and Russia. Journalist Luke Harding described Russian whataboutism as "practically a national ideology".[20] Writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition",[21] while The New Yorker described the technique as "a strategy of false moral equivalences".[22] Julia Ioffe called whataboutism a "sacred Russian tactic",[23][24] and compared it to accusing the pot of calling the kettle black.[25]

Several articles connected whataboutism to the Soviet era by pointing to the "And you are lynching Negroes" example (as Lucas did) of the 1930s, in which the Soviets deflected any criticism by referencing racism in the segregated American South. The tactic was extensively used even after the racial segregation in the South was outlawed in the 1950s and 1960s. Ioffe, who has written about whataboutism in at least three separate outlets,[26][24][27] called it a "classic" example of whataboutism.[28] Some writers also identified more recent examples when Russian officials responded to critique by, for example, redirecting attention to the United Kingdom's anti-protest laws[29] or Russians' difficulty obtaining a visa to the United Kingdom.[30] In 2006, Putin replied to George W. Bush's criticism of Russia's human rights record by stating that he "did not want to head a democracy like Iraq's," referencing the US intervention in Iraq.[31] In 2017, Ben Zimmer noted that Putin also used the tactic in an interview with NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly.[32]

The Soviet government engaged in a major cover-up of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. When they finally acknowledged the disaster, although without any details, the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) then discussed the Three Mile Island accident and other American nuclear accidents, which Serge Schmemann of The New York Times wrote was an example of the common Soviet tactic of whataboutism. The mention of a commission also indicated to observers the seriousness of the incident,[33] and subsequent state radio broadcasts were replaced with classical music, which was a common method of preparing the public for an announcement of a tragedy in the USSR.[34]

The term receives increased attention when controversies involving Russia are in the news. For example, writing for Slate in 2014, Joshua Keating noted the use of "whataboutism" in a statement on Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, where Putin "listed a litany of complaints about Western intervention."[35]

 

[NorthDallas40]

Go easy on Ras' whataboutisms. He's just doing as he was taught. From wikipedia on the history of whataboutisms as a rhetorical device:

Although the term whataboutism spread recently, Edward Lucas's 2008 Economist article states that "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a 'What about...' (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth)." Lucas recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and government.[17]

Following the publication of Lucas's 2007 and 2008 articles and his 2008 book The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West, which featured the same themes,[19] opinion writers at prominent English language media outlets began using the term and echoing the themes laid out by Lucas, including the association with the Soviet Union and Russia. Journalist Luke Harding described Russian whataboutism as "practically a national ideology".[20] Writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition",[21] while The New Yorker described the technique as "a strategy of false moral equivalences".[22] Julia Ioffe called whataboutism a "sacred Russian tactic",[23][24] and compared it to accusing the pot of calling the kettle black.[25]

Several articles connected whataboutism to the Soviet era by pointing to the "And you are lynching Negroes" example (as Lucas did) of the 1930s, in which the Soviets deflected any criticism by referencing racism in the segregated American South. The tactic was extensively used even after the racial segregation in the South was outlawed in the 1950s and 1960s. Ioffe, who has written about whataboutism in at least three separate outlets,[26][24][27] called it a "classic" example of whataboutism.[28] Some writers also identified more recent examples when Russian officials responded to critique by, for example, redirecting attention to the United Kingdom's anti-protest laws[29] or Russians' difficulty obtaining a visa to the United Kingdom.[30] In 2006, Putin replied to George W. Bush's criticism of Russia's human rights record by stating that he "did not want to head a democracy like Iraq's," referencing the US intervention in Iraq.[31] In 2017, Ben Zimmer noted that Putin also used the tactic in an interview with NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly.[32]

The Soviet government engaged in a major cover-up of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. When they finally acknowledged the disaster, although without any details, the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) then discussed the Three Mile Island accident and other American nuclear accidents, which Serge Schmemann of The New York Times wrote was an example of the common Soviet tactic of whataboutism. The mention of a commission also indicated to observers the seriousness of the incident,[33] and subsequent state radio broadcasts were replaced with classical music, which was a common method of preparing the public for an announcement of a tragedy in the USSR.[34]

The term receives increased attention when controversies involving Russia are in the news. For example, writing for Slate in 2014, Joshua Keating noted the use of "whataboutism" in a statement on Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, where Putin "listed a litany of complaints about Western intervention."[35]

It’s just never ending and lately the merit of the whataboutism plays is just lousy. I guess Prig shutting down his media group is cutting their access to suitable whataboutism material to the bone. Sad!

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Does Russia has the right intellect and the right structure to do that? You are talking a country that went from serfdom to communism and never really developed or understood capitalism after the USSR collapsed.

WTF are you babbling about? The transition from the USSR to Yeltsin was a disaster in the 1990s, but you cannot even lie and say that since Putin took over that Russia hasn't picked itself up and been FAR more of a free market/capitalistic economy than the United States (same goes for China in that same time period, btw). Go ahead... come up with your best lie and tell me in 2023 that the US economy is better than Russia's or China's. We stopped being a physical economy that made real world products and started engaging in financialization, propping up real estate to give people a "wealth effect" in home prices and handed millennials/Gen-Z a service economy where Boomers can talk s#!t about them and ask why are they not moving out of the basement, buying their own homes and starting families.

It's a country seeming dominated by the remnants of the wealthy Soviet regime, mafias, and oligarchs ... with all those overlapping.

There are still remnants of that in their economy. But not to the severity you believe, Had it been as corrupt as you are suggesting, there is no way that Russia's economy would be as vibrant as it is right now under sanctions... or even without sanctions.

I'm not sure that even with an abundance of natural resources you can do anything with that kind of corruption and centralized greed. An honest entrepreneur isn't going to have much chance to start anything, and the people in position to build something will only exploit the resources (natural and people) for themselves.

It is interesting that you acknowledge right here that people and nature are obvious resources... yet you believe that Russians would willingly plan to destroy their land with a ZNPP nuclear attack or kill the human resources they have in an indiscriminate manner.

I'm not sure that even with an abundance of natural resources you can do anything with that kind of corruption and centralized greed.

Here you are popping all of this s#!t about Russia while you just witnessed yourself here in America Joe Biden shutting down Keystone Pipeline in his first few days in office and going about de-industrializing America in other ways. You hate Russia more than you love your own damn country. Your anger and fury is misdirected at someone halfway around the world rather than where it needs to be placed at. Again, you Boomers have a problem with carrying over this hatred from the Cold War and ignore the destruction that your friends and neighbors are doing right here at home. Just a bunch of ideologically driven idiots.

An industrial revolution built on what more or less amounts to slavery with the wealth never distributed is never going to equal an industrial revolution where the workers benefit and become real consumers.

And I agree with every word you typed here. But here is the problem. Which economy looks more like the one you are describing here in this rant: Russia's or America's? Hell, you are on record complaining about American wages, even though wages haven't shown real growth (adjusted for inflation) since 1980. You Boomers have one foot in the grave (so you DGAF) and the other foot firmly planted in the Cold War... when the USSR was run by communists, atheists and propagandists.

Russia can import foreign companies like Shell to do something with the resources, but the profits don't profit the country ... only the ultra rich. You can bet even the land with the resources won't be owned by anyone not already rich and with connections or by the crooked government. It's our version of the Robber Barons only they own the government and organized crime, too.

MFer have you looked above your morning coffee and newspaper and seen the country you live in right now? If Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, etc isn't a corrupt oligarchy/robber barons here in America, then WTF is it? You sound goofy right now.

You'd need a revolution by the very people who never knew what freedom is ... hard to imagine and work for something you know nothing about.

And your Boomer azz sits here and wonders why the millennials and Gen-Z generation polling shows them embracing socialism. Talk about being tone deaf. The country you live in right now is WTF you are perfectly describing, not Russia... or even communist China.

They would have to overthrow the very people that handle all the power and control all the resources, and it's not like our revolution where we defeated a power from across the sea in the days of sail.

Well, spoken like a true American... just overthrow foreign regimes that don't go along with our agenda. OK... but you MFers don't have that same smoke or energy when it comes to the leadership right here at home... now do you? You MFers (Boomers, MAGA, 2A, etc) sat back with your guns and your Constitution while this govt right here in America shut down businesses, locked people down, arrested them for not complying to arbitrary rules (mask mandates) and have allowed this govt to molest your grandma at the airports (TSA) and commit literal highway robbery thanks to civil asset forfeiture brought on by our alleged wars on drugs and terrorism.

Again, you hate Russia more than you love America, Boomer.

 

[NorthDallas40]

@AM64 you clearly struck a nerve. Bravo well done!

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

 

[MontyPython]

Want your input...

What if the US backs the admission of Ukraine to NATO on a date certain - say January 1, 2025. Let it be known that in the event that Russia is attacking Ukraine on that date, Article 5 is invoked and NATO automatically declares war on Russia.

This would seemingly force one of two outcomes:

(1) Putin recognizes that NATO would wipe out Russian forces in Ukraine in a conventional war, and thereby retreats all forces; or

(2) Putin throws the nuclear card, and declares that it will launch tactical and/or strategic nuclear weapons to defend its "homeland" areas within Ukraine.

In Scenario 1, Russia loses.

In Scenario 2, Russia loses, as it's on the receiving end of reciprocal nukes. Also: the world potentially ends.

What say ye?

 

[AM64]

WTF are you babbling about? The transition from the USSR to Yeltsin was a disaster in the 1990s, but you cannot even lie and say that since Putin took over that Russia hasn't picked itself up and been FAR more of a free market/capitalistic economy than the United States (same goes for China in that same time period, btw). Go ahead... come up with your best lie and tell me in 2023 that the US economy is better than Russia's or China's. We stopped being a physical economy that made real world products and started engaging in financialization, propping up real estate to give people a "wealth effect" in home prices and handed millennials/Gen-Z a service economy where Boomers can talk s#!t about them and ask why are they not moving out of the basement, buying their own homes and starting families.


There are still remnants of that in their economy. But not to the severity you believe, Had it been as corrupt as you are suggesting, there is no way that Russia's economy would be as vibrant as it is right now under sanctions... or even without sanctions.


It is interesting that you acknowledge right here that people and nature are obvious resources... yet you believe that Russians would willingly plan to destroy their land with a ZNPP nuclear attack or kill the human resources they have in an indiscriminate manner.


Here you are popping all of this s#!t about Russia while you just witnessed yourself here in America Joe Biden shutting down Keystone Pipeline in his first few days in office and going about de-industrializing America in other ways. You hate Russia more than you love your own damn country. Your anger and fury is misdirected at someone halfway around the world rather than where it needs to be placed at. Again, you Boomers have a problem with carrying over this hatred from the Cold War and ignore the destruction that your friends and neighbors are doing right here at home. Just a bunch of ideologically driven idiots.


And I agree with every word you typed here. But here is the problem. Which economy looks more like the one you are describing here in this rant: Russia's or America's? Hell, you are on record complaining about American wages, even though wages haven't shown real growth (adjusted for inflation) since 1980. You Boomers have one foot in the grave (so you DGAF) and the other foot firmly planted in the Cold War... when the USSR was run by communists, atheists and propagandists.


MFer have you looked above your morning coffee and newspaper and seen the country you live in right now? If Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, etc isn't a corrupt oligarchy/robber barons here in America, then WTF is it? You sound goofy right now.


And your Boomer azz sits here and wonders why the millennials and Gen-Z generation polling shows them embracing socialism. Talk about being tone deaf. The country you live in right now is WTF you are perfectly describing, not Russia... or even communist China.


Well, spoken like a true American... just overthrow foreign regimes that don't go along with our agenda. OK... but you MFers don't have that same smoke or energy when it comes to the leadership right here at home... now do you? You MFers (Boomers, MAGA, 2A, etc) sat back with your guns and your Constitution while this govt right here in America shut down businesses, locked people down, arrested them for not complying to arbitrary rules (mask mandates) and have allowed this govt to molest your grandma at the airports (TSA) and commit literal highway robbery thanks to civil asset forfeiture brought on by our alleged wars on drugs and terrorism.

Again, you hate Russia more than you love America, Boomer.

Wow, take a breath. You certainly have a vivid imagination regarding what we boomers think and have done. You should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not a biden fan, and find his policies - particularly energy policies - about as stupid as it gets. I certainly don't worship Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg ... and you left out Musk while you were naming the despicable.

I'll agree the USSR failure and Russian transition to something was abject failure ... and still is.

Lighten up, Francis. You know, when you aren't all knotted up about boomers and how this country is the scourge of the world, we actually have had some decent discussions.

 

[AM64]

Want your input...

What if the US backs the admission of Ukraine to NATO on a date certain - say January 1, 2025. Let it be known that in the event that Russia is attacking Ukraine on that date, Article 5 is invoked and NATO automatically declares war on Russia.

This would seemingly force one of two outcomes:

(1) Putin recognizes that NATO would wipe out Russian forces in Ukraine in a conventional war, and thereby retreats all forces; or

(2) Putin throws the nuclear card, and declares that it will launch tactical and/or strategic nuclear weapons to defend its "homeland" areas within Ukraine.

In Scenario 1, Russia loses.

In Scenario 2, Russia loses, as it's on the receiving end of reciprocal nukes. Also: the world potentially ends.

What say ye?

First I wouldn't back Ukraine's admission to NATO until there's normalcy and we see how Ukraine functions as a country - probably not before 2030 at best. And second even if NATO invited and accepted Ukraine into the fold, I don't see using Article 5 for a preexisting condition. NATO might continue "dating" Ukraine, but take a real hard look before marriage is on the table.

 

[MontyPython]

First I wouldn't back Ukraine's admission to NATO until there's normalcy and we see how Ukraine functions as a country - probably not before 2030 at best. And second even if NATO invited and accepted Ukraine into the fold, I don't see using Article 5 for a preexisting condition. NATO might continue "dating" Ukraine, but take a real hard look before marriage is on the table.

Respect your opinion greatly.

So what are we afraid of... corruption within Ukraine and/or escalation with Russia? Technically, Ukraine has crossed the hurdles of joining NATO. What else In our 'dating' do we need to see?

...

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A NATO MEMBER?

NATO says it has an “open door policy” for members to join. “Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council,” NATO says on their website.

“NATO’s line has always been, the door to membership to NATO is open to any state that chooses that it wants to join NATO. If it makes that choice independently, then there is a process and criteria to follow,” Sean Monaghan, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who’s focused his career on international defense policy, including NATO, told McClatchy News.

Countries who wish to join NATO need to meet “certain political, economic, and military goals.”

In 1995, the Alliance published requirements that countries seeking NATO membership should fulfill. “These include:

• a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
• the fair treatment of minority populations;
• a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
• the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
• a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.”

“So the basic point is that it is Ukraine’s choice. Now, in practical terms, absorbing a nation with a simmering conflict with unresolved territorial disputes would obviously be difficult for NATO because NATO then absorbs that conflict,” he added

 

[AM64]

Respect your opinion greatly.

So what are we afraid of... corruption within Ukraine and/or escalation with Russia? Technically, Ukraine has crossed the hurdles of joining NATO. What else In our 'dating' do we need to see?

...

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A NATO MEMBER?

NATO says it has an “open door policy” for members to join. “Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council,” NATO says on their website.

“NATO’s line has always been, the door to membership to NATO is open to any state that chooses that it wants to join NATO. If it makes that choice independently, then there is a process and criteria to follow,” Sean Monaghan, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who’s focused his career on international defense policy, including NATO, told McClatchy News.

Countries who wish to join NATO need to meet “certain political, economic, and military goals.”

In 1995, the Alliance published requirements that countries seeking NATO membership should fulfill. “These include:

• a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
• the fair treatment of minority populations;
• a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
• the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
• a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.”

“So the basic point is that it is Ukraine’s choice. Now, in practical terms, absorbing a nation with a simmering conflict with unresolved territorial disputes would obviously be difficult for NATO because NATO then absorbs that conflict,” he added

I'm not convinced the current Ukrainian government is corrupt just because previous ones were, but it's hard to evaluate at this point. Ukraine is actually taking the military aid provided and doing something positive which is far more than most counties we or NATO or the UN have supported in the past have done. It's a far cry from Vietnam and Afghanistan, so that's a positive. We'd probably see things happening quite differently with S Vietnamese style corruption selling out and holding Ukrainian forces back. In the end though we need to see what happens, and when the fighting is over, assess and then monitor Ukraine ... the five points above would be a good basis. It's one thing to assess in crisis and another to see how things progress in a normal setting - both matter. Ukraine is doing a decent job of fighting when starting from behind, but what will they do when the pressure is off?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Wow, take a breath. You certainly have a vivid imagination regarding what we boomers think and have done. You should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not a biden fan, and find his policies - particularly energy policies - about as stupid as it gets. I certainly don't worship Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg ... and you left out Musk while you were naming the despicable.

I'll agree the USSR failure and Russian transition to something was abject failure ... and still is.

Lighten up, Francis. You know, when you aren't all knotted up about boomers and how this country is the scourge of the world, we actually have had some decent discussions.

1. I originally was going to add Musk to that list, but as of now, I cannot really call him an enemy to humanity or free speech. Now, having said that, his choice of Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO is a cause for concern. But for now, I will cut him a bit of slack for now.

With regards to Russia's economy being an abject failure right now... that is a total lie and you know it. 40 years ago, when I was in elementary school, we laughed about Russians using single ply toilet paper or no toilet paper at all. But 3 years ago in your romanticized America, we literally couldn't wipe our azzes because we didn't have the production capacity/not tooled to make more toilet paper. And keep in mind... that was just toilet paper, not high tech military equipment.

Lastly, all I am doing is pointing out the clear hypocrisy that you all exhibit. Most of you guys saw clearly through the media lies about Russiagate, the pandemic and the 2020 elections... but now you same guys are willing for some reason (I think I know the reason) to side with these same media groups and even lying azz Joe Biden himself to support a war that you can clearly see was initiated by the US/NATO and that we are clearly losing.

Let me ask you one thing, just to see if I should take you seriously anymore or if I should completely ignore you: Is Joe Biden admitting that the Kyiv regime and the US/NATO is running out of ammunition a sign of them winning or a sign of them losing? Don't pull out some one off events from history or some exceptional circumstance from wherever. Just tell me is one side of a conflict running out of ammunition a sign of them winning or losing?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

First I wouldn't back Ukraine's admission to NATO until there's normalcy and we see how Ukraine functions as a country - probably not before 2030 at best. And second even if NATO invited and accepted Ukraine into the fold, I don't see using Article 5 for a preexisting condition. NATO might continue "dating" Ukraine, but take a real hard look before marriage is on the table.

WTF would Ukraine need to join NATO right now if NATO is supporting them anyways?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm not convinced the current Ukrainian government is corrupt

They are jailing and disappearing media, political rivals, and critics. They are shutting down and looting Orthodox churches that are hundreds of years old. And they are barring the use of "foreign" languages.

You are looking like a clown right now.

Ukraine is actually taking the military aid provided and doing something positive which is far more than most counties we or NATO or the UN have supported in the past have done. It's a far cry from Vietnam and Afghanistan, so that's a positive.

You mention Vietnam and Afghanistan, but don't mention the other successful actions in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Our track record of arming and supporting insurgencies is horrible. WTF makes you think Ukraine will be any different? Especially now that we see that Ukraine is out of ammo?

We'd probably see things happening quite differently with S Vietnamese style corruption selling out and holding Ukrainian forces back.

Dude, we've already known for years that Ukraine was the biggest arms trafficker in Europe and we've already seen these arms showing up in Africa. WTF are you talking about with regards to corruption in Ukraine? Do you really believe the Kyiv regime is straight as an arrow?

Something else I thought about this afternoon... but if the US does send cluster munitions to Ukraine, what are the odds that these munitions end up on the black market and (possibly) end up in the hands of Mexican cartel leaders?

In the end though we need to see what happens, and when the fighting is over, assess and then monitor Ukraine ... the five points above would be a good basis. It's one thing to assess in crisis and another to see how things progress in a normal setting - both matter. Ukraine is doing a decent job of fighting when starting from behind, but what will they do when the pressure is off?

When starting from behind? They were always going to be behind and will be after this conflict. There was 0% possibility of them ever winning this.

With all of the s#!t that you guys talk about Russia, Russia is doing more in 17 months than the US has been able to do in a decade in Syria or 20 years in Afghanistan.

 

[AM64]

1. I originally was going to add Musk to that list, but as of now, I cannot really call him an enemy to humanity or free speech. Now, having said that, his choice of Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO is a cause for concern. But for now, I will cut him a bit of slack for now.

With regards to Russia's economy being an abject failure right now... that is a total lie and you know it. 40 years ago, when I was in elementary school, we laughed about Russians using single ply toilet paper or no toilet paper at all. But 3 years ago in your romanticized America, we literally couldn't wipe our azzes because we didn't have the production capacity/not tooled to make more toilet paper. And keep in mind... that was just toilet paper, not high tech military equipment.

Lastly, all I am doing is pointing out the clear hypocrisy that you all exhibit. Most of you guys saw clearly through the media lies about Russiagate, the pandemic and the 2020 elections... but now you same guys are willing for some reason (I think I know the reason) to side with these same media groups and even lying azz Joe Biden himself to support a war that you can clearly see was initiated by the US/NATO and that we are clearly losing.

Let me ask you one thing, just to see if I should take you seriously anymore or if I should completely ignore you: Is Joe Biden admitting that the Kyiv regime and the US/NATO is running out of ammunition a sign of them winning or a sign of them losing? Don't pull out some one off events from history or some exceptional circumstance from wherever. Just tell me is one side of a conflict running out of ammunition a sign of them winning or losing?

First, I don't think much of "news" stories making speculative claims, Second, if we are running out of munitions, there are several issues involved. Are we guilty of poor preparation, or do we have a lot of stuff prepositioned that doesn't enter the accounting because of security concerns? There does appear to be one glaring issue of defense industry consolidation; particularly when one plant (that had a major explosion) seems to the the only one producing the stuff that goes bang. As far as what a supposed shortage of munitions says about Ukraine, to me it says there's still a war going on and Ukraine isn't backing down ... I don't see that you can draw a conclusion about "winning" or "losing" beyond the fact that Russia didn't win a three day special operation.

More about a "shortage" of weapons. Is there a supposed shortage of weapons or a shortage of specific weapons used in Ukraine? As we've developed new platforms (aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery, etc) have we shifted toward some munitions and have depleting stocks of "obsolete" munitions that we had no future plans for? Are some mentions sent to Ukraine in short supply because we were drawing them down and Ukraine doesn't have a need for the replacement stuff (not adaptable to a MiG-29 or whatever)? These are all questions based on supposition by media prognosticators, and things none of us here have facts to apply. Whatever the case is I would hope (and even, more hope to assume) that the right people are looking at this war, stockpiles, and adjusting expectations as warranted.

The final thing is that you should know from past posts that I don't think much of our weapons planning and acquisition. Too little of overly complex and under reliable systems. As I said a day or so ago "Congrats to the US military for making war too expensive to fight" and can we hope any future opponents fall into the same trap.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

First, I don't think much of "news" stories making speculative claims

I'm not sure what this comment is in reference to???

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

More about a "shortage" of weapons. Is there a supposed shortage of weapons or a shortage of specific weapons used in Ukraine? As we've developed new platforms (aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery, etc) have we shifted toward some munitions and have depleting stocks of "obsolete" munitions that we had no future plans for? Are some mentions sent to Ukraine in short supply because we were drawing them down and Ukraine doesn't have a need for the replacement stuff (not adaptable to a MiG-29 or whatever)? These are all questions based on supposition by media prognosticators, and things none of us here have facts to apply. Whatever the case is I would hope (and even, more hope to assume) that the right people are looking at this war, stockpiles, and adjusting expectations as warranted.

Supposed shortage??? Really? The commander-in-chief just said out of his own mouth we were short of 155mm shells. Like 3-4 months ago we were begging South Korea and Israel for 155mm shells. WTF are you talking about "supposed"? And not just those shells, but NATO has been going as far as South America to get weapons and ammo. What you are seeing right now is the total opposite of what NATO intended. Instead of Russia being dragged into a quagmire that drains their resources, it is the US & NATO that are being drained. The only way possible for NATO to win is to hope for a win in a nuclear conflict. And of course, that would be a Hail Mary because the Russians have more nukes and a nuclear war between the US and Russia will end life as we know it.

 

[evillawyer]

In related news, 68% of Russians also believe defenestration would be a terrible way to die.

 

[MG1968]

In related news, 68% of Russians also believe defenestration would be a terrible way to die.

Seems legit.

 

[volbound1700]

I am currently stuck in Liberia waiting on final Visa to take my adopted daughter home (we got final approve recently). Interesting how some on here hate America but talking to Liberians here, they would do anything to come to USA. Perhaps travel more Rasputin and it may give you a clearer mind.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I am currently stuck in Liberia waiting on final Visa to take my adopted daughter home (we got final approve recently). Interesting how some on here hate America but talking to Liberians here, they would do anything to come to USA. Perhaps travel more Rasputin and it may give you a clearer mind.

Why are my honest assessments on the direction this country is headed in and the decisions we make considered hate? It is a critique, not hate. We can do a lot better than what we are doing right now.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I am currently stuck in Liberia waiting on final Visa to take my adopted daughter home (we got final approve recently). Interesting how some on here hate America but talking to Liberians here, they would do anything to come to USA. Perhaps travel more Rasputin and it may give you a clearer mind.

Congrats on the adoption.