Some of the most ridiculous discussion I’ve seen thus far, and that bar has become very high.

The British supported a country in WW II that had not only actual I-support-Hitler-and-National-Socialism Nazis, but also members of the Ku Klux Klan (a lot of the latter)! Should the UK have refused to support that country?* How about our support of the UK that had its own Nazis of the same type, not to mention a healthy supply of Communists and other socialists? Should we have refused to support them against the Germans? What should be an obvious fact: supporting a nation or other jurisdiction where a small number of undesirables live is not the same as supporting the undesirables or their goals.

* Hint: Don’t look very far to find it.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

I'm pretty ok with being on the side of no Nazi support.

Well, when you get there, let us know. Or does Russia's single most effective combat unit in Ukraine - Wagner PMC - not count?

http://informnapalm.org/en/rus...-ranks-of-wagner-pmc

http://en.respublica.lt/signs-...-russian-mercenaries

My position from the start, February 2022, has been completely isolationist. Not our battle. But there’s way too much money to be made selling weapons to Ukraine and oil to Europe for the USA to take that position.

What this boils down to, in the simplest of terms, is morality. Absolute right and absolute wrong,

Russia immorally invaded a sovereign nation and has slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians. There is no justification for this action. None. Ukraine posed zero threat to Russia.

Absolute wrong. And it is the responsibility of the free world to resist this at any cost.

The Nazism argument holds no water and the corruption issue is moot as every nation in the world is corrupt (ours being perhaps the most corrupt).

And we're about 100 years past having isolationism as a viable foreign policy. Like it or not, WE are the leaders and the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong in this world. We are also the muscle, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

^^^^^^^^
Well said.

Where’s the morality in saddling our future generations with a level of debt that will be nearly impossible to pay? Where’s the morality in antagonizing our nuclear enemies to the brink of mass destruction?

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:
Where’s the morality in saddling our future generations with a level of debt that will be nearly impossible to pay?

WAY down on the list. As I said, "At any cost". There is far more at stake here, morally, than you seem to grasp. That's OK, but I hope that you can think about it come around to the fact that what is "right" is priceless.

quote:

Where’s the morality in antagonizing our nuclear enemies to the brink of mass destruction?

"Global thermonuclear war" or "mass destruction" is NOT going to happen. It just isn't. Even the insane are not so insane as to do this. It. Ain't. Going. To. Happen. Yeah, in our lifetime some nutjob in Tehran or Pyongyang might set one off offensively, but they will be demolished for doing so. Rubble. It will never happen amongst superpowers.

NEVER say Never...

Very well said in very few words! No lying by Putin can change this.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
What this boils down to, in the simplest of terms, is morality. Absolute right and absolute wrong,

Russia immorally invaded a sovereign nation and has slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians. There is no justification for this action. None. Ukraine posed zero threat to Russia.

Absolute wrong. And it is the responsibility of the free world to resist this at any cost.

The Nazism argument holds no water and the corruption issue is moot as every nation in the world is corrupt (ours being perhaps the most corrupt).

And we're about 100 years past having isolationism as a viable foreign policy. Like it or not, WE are the leaders and the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong in this world. We are also the muscle, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
LOL Who is his audience for this PR war? Who did he sway with this visit while donning this costume? Did he need to make a visit or need to sway anyone?

I'm going to assume that wasn't a rhetorical question.

Uh, the people who are giving him billions of dollars? Sounds like an audience.

Do you honestly think that if the Ukraine was lead by some uncharismatic schlub--like an Angela Merkel--that we'd see half the support for them that we do now?

And of course he's winning PR. If you don't see the fact that every halfwit out there has hung up a Ukrainian flag in their yard or changed their Twitter bio to "stand with Ukraine", you clearly don't get out much. Without widespread public support, they're not going to keep spending money--at least not at the rate they currently are.

Who cares what you think or what I think, the fact that nearly a plurality of Americans support this nonsense shows how successful the guy has been at drumming up support for this war.

A relatively recent poll by the Ronald Reagan Institute shows 57% of Americans want to keep giving them money. 82% think Russia is the bad guy (I mean, no shit Sherlock, but still a unanimous result). 76% consider the Ukraine an ally, which is like 30% higher than when the same question was asked a year earlier.

Again, who cares what you think, because Zelensky has been highly successful at crafting an image of himself and giving Western publics a figure to glom onto.

He knows exactly what he's doing, regardless of what you think, and he's doing it very, very successfully because A) he's still in power, B) we're still pouring billions of dollars into that place, C) Russia's more or less losing.

From my point of view it's not that Zelensky is a master at public relations but rather that our Leftist media saw an opportunity to incessantly report on a war and profit from it not only financially but also by using it to distract the American populace from pressing issues here at home. Mainstream Media would have found, or made up, anything to give cover for the current administration. No matter how small the issue - White Supremacists, for example - our Pravda-like press would have embellished it out of all proportion. It wouldn't matter who is in charge of Ukraine because the war is a godsend to "journalists" and talking heads on television that they use to cloak what their masters are perpetrating on the American public.

In addition to the mainstream media, the war is also a good thing for Biden, the Democrats, the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about, and a host of other parasitic entities that aren't as obvious - each for their own, and sometimes overlapping, reasons. What I'm seeing in this discussion is that those that don't want to see the U.S. entangled in this mess are not for Russia, but rather would prefer the nations in that region use their GDP and arsenals to provide the funding and weaponry to their neighbor - or at least the major portion of any aid and assistance.

I see this situation as if it's a house fire where a fire station on the other side of the city is told to answer the call while the departments right next door to the blaze keep their trucks parked and give encouraging words but provide no meaningful help. A simplistic analogy, sure, but an apt one to me.

My thinking is that, at a minimum, if it's us that are doing the providing and funding then controls and safeguards need to be in place beforehand to ensure that at least the majority of what we send gets into the right hands and is used as intended - not to have millions of dollars come back to fund Democrat re-election campaigns and weapons possibly winding up in the hands of The Taliban and their ilk. Like I posted a while back, though, we've done the same for Korea, Vietnam, a bunch of South American countries, a bunch of countries in the Middle East, etc., - all of which had corrupt regimes - so why change now.



Anyway, a bit of a ramble but to the point of Zelensky - it could be a crispy Cheetoh in his seat and it would receive the same news coverage. From what I've seen he is no PR guru, just a different face of corruption and a convenient tool for the press.

quote:

What this boils down to, in the simplest of terms, is morality. Absolute right and absolute wrong,

Russia immorally invaded a sovereign nation and has slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians. There is no justification for this action. None. Ukraine posed zero threat to Russia.

Absolute wrong. And it is the responsibility of the free world to resist this at any cost.

The Nazism argument holds no water and the corruption issue is moot as every nation in the world is corrupt (ours being perhaps the most corrupt).

And we're about 100 years past having isolationism as a viable foreign policy. Like it or not, WE are the leaders and the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong in this world. We are also the muscle, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

The only word I disagree with is the use of the word Russia instead of the word Putin. Those who are against our involvment do not understand the basic fact that Putin invaded Ukraine because he lost control of Ukraine & will not stop at Ukraine unless he defeated.

Actually, while the US is by far the largest single donor to Ukraine in this war - particularly in specifically military aid, where it contributes nearly 56 percent of overall value - it accounts for a little over 42 percent of total bilateral commitments, so others are doing their part. Maybe not as much as they could, but then as a share of GDP it's hard to beat Ukraine's immediate neighbors Poland and the tiny Baltic States which are punching at three to six times their weight compared to the US. Per the Ukraine Support Tracker of IFW Kiel (in Euro, not yet including recent 18-billion EU aid package pledged on 7 December for next year):

US: 47.82 bn (0.23 % of GDP)

EU institutions: 34.99 bn

UK: 7.08 bn (0.26 % of GDP)

Germany: 6.44 bn (0.14 % of GDP + 0.19 EU share = 0.33 %)

Canada: 3.78 bn (0.23 % of GDP)

Poland: 3.00 bn (0.50 % of GDP + 0.25 EU share = 0.75 %)

France: 1.41 bn (0.05 of GDP + 0.23 EU share = 0.28 %)

Norway: 1.21 bn (0.34 % of GDP)

[...]

Estonia: 0.33 bn (1.10 % of GDP + 0.22 EU share = 1.32 %)

Portugal: 0.33 bn (0.15 % of GDP + 0.22 % EU share = 0.37 %)

Australia: 0.32 bn (0.02 % of GDP)

Latvia: 0.30 bn (0.93 % of GDP + 0.21 % EU share = 1.14 %)

Lithuania: 0.21 bn (0.46 % of GDP + 0.20 EU share = 0.66 %)

quote:

Originally posted by Anush:

quote:

What this boils down to, in the simplest of terms, is morality. Absolute right and absolute wrong,

Russia immorally invaded a sovereign nation and has slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians. There is no justification for this action. None. Ukraine posed zero threat to Russia.

Absolute wrong. And it is the responsibility of the free world to resist this at any cost.

The Nazism argument holds no water and the corruption issue is moot as every nation in the world is corrupt (ours being perhaps the most corrupt).

And we're about 100 years past having isolationism as a viable foreign policy. Like it or not, WE are the leaders and the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong in this world. We are also the muscle, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

The only word I disagree with is the use of the word Russia instead of the word Putin. Those who are against our involvement do not understand the basic fact that Putin invaded Ukraine because he lost control of Ukraine & will not stop at Ukraine unless he defeated.

You both make strong points and I respect that view.

However, after wasting an entire generation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and watching the devolution of our own military into "woke" cultural marxism, I've lost my appetite for most of our foreign entanglements.

I think it's time to defend our own borders.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
LOL Who is his audience for this PR war? Who did he sway with this visit while donning this costume? Did he need to make a visit or need to sway anyone?

I'm going to assume that wasn't a rhetorical question.

Uh, the people who are giving him billions of dollars? Sounds like an audience.

Do you honestly think that if the Ukraine was lead by some uncharismatic schlub--like an Angela Merkel--that we'd see half the support for them that we do now?

And of course he's winning PR. If you don't see the fact that every halfwit out there has hung up a Ukrainian flag in their yard or changed their Twitter bio to "stand with Ukraine", you clearly don't get out much. Without widespread public support, they're not going to keep spending money--at least not at the rate they currently are.

Who cares what you think or what I think, the fact that nearly a plurality of Americans support this nonsense shows how successful the guy has been at drumming up support for this war.

A relatively recent poll by the Ronald Reagan Institute shows 57% of Americans want to keep giving them money. 82% think Russia is the bad guy (I mean, no shit Sherlock, but still a unanimous result). 76% consider the Ukraine an ally, which is like 30% higher than when the same question was asked a year earlier.

Again, who cares what you think, because Zelensky has been highly successful at crafting an image of himself and giving Western publics a figure to glom onto.

He knows exactly what he's doing, regardless of what you think, and he's doing it very, very successfully because A) he's still in power, B) we're still pouring billions of dollars into that place, C) Russia's more or less losing.

I do not agree at all with the premise that Zelensky is some kind of appealing, clever public relations mastermind marshaling popular support and funding. It is a cliche David and Goliath scenario that has mostly been seized upon by NATO and the US swamp to piss away billion$..."as much as it takes".

The ringmasters invited him over as a pretext to validate the aid, which is something easily recognized by anyone paying attention. It was a circus featuring a performance by the marquee animal in the center ring. Laughable. Would not care to elaborate further.

^^^^^^^^
Re: “Would not care to elaborate further.”

Promise?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
the Ukraine Support Tracker of IFW Kiel

Thank you for posting this, Banshee. It is interesting and enlightening information.

I'm still a cynic about it all, though, and believe it would be useful to know the final destination and actual use of all the donated funds and gear. At this stage I don't believe there is any accurate and trustworthy source for this data, but I do know that if there is you will be the one to find it.

Thanks again for the numbers. It is good to see and heartening to know.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
What this boils down to, in the simplest of terms, is morality. Absolute right and absolute wrong,

Russia immorally invaded a sovereign nation and has slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians. There is no justification for this action. None. Ukraine posed zero threat to Russia.

Absolute wrong. And it is the responsibility of the free world to resist this at any cost.

The Nazism argument holds no water and the corruption issue is moot as every nation in the world is corrupt (ours being perhaps the most corrupt).

And we're about 100 years past having isolationism as a viable foreign policy. Like it or not, WE are the leaders and the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong in this world. We are also the muscle, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Well there's something you and I agree on.

Russia probably won't stop with Ukraine.
And it's nice having more real-estate between NATO and Russia.
This is far cheaper than fighting them ourselves AND there is an end goal here unlike the shitstorm that was Afganastan.

Zelensky was brought into the USA to distract you from the Christmas Eve vote on nearly $2 trillion of bullshit.

He will end up like all the other “leaders” who’ve attempted that fucking congressional stunt… South Vietnam, Iraq … long list.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Thank you for posting this, Banshee. It is interesting and enlightening information.

I'm still a cynic about it all, though, and believe it would be useful to know the final destination and actual use of all the donated funds and gear. At this stage I don't believe there is any accurate and trustworthy source for this data, but I do know that if there is you will be the one to find it.

Thanks again for the numbers. It is good to see and heartening to know.

What we can assume is that the share designated "financial aid" is going mostly to the Ukrainian government directly; recently read that the US is providing about 13 bn Dollar via USAID, which at the current exchange rate would be about 12.26 bn Euro out of the 15.1 given by IFW. Humanitarian and military aid OTOH will be mostly in material - medical equipment, blankets etc. for the former, weapon stocks or paying US makers or third countries for supplying stuff for the latter. The US government has been shopping for ex-Soviet arms and ammunition which Ukraine can readily use around the world, most recently T-72 tanks from Morocco.

For Germany, there's a government website detailing finished and some planned military deliveries (including cooperative projects like upgrading Danish M113 APCs or buying Slovakian Zuzana 2 SPHs for Ukraine along with Denmark and Norway). The current value of weapons export licenses granted is given as about 2.26 bn Euro, also close to the 2.34 stated by IFW.

At EU level, you have mostly direct financial aid, and what military stuff there is is generally paying others for delivery since the Union has no defense material of its own to give away. The recently-agreed 18-billion package for next year has the form of loans to be repaid not before ten years from now, with interest largely taken over my the member states and guarantees shared between the latter and the EU budget.

Russia is concerned a Ukrainian S-300 landed in Belarus. OK. They did admit it was trying to intercept rockets they launched at Ukraine. That is something. But when you look on the map where this SAM landed, maybe Russia shouldn't be launching rockets from western Belarus at Ukraine if they are so concerned about Belarus or the people there. Hint: The spot the SAM landed is a lot closer to Poland than it is to Russia...

Russia extremely concerned...

quote:

Russia says it is extremely concerned by Ukrainian missile downed over Belarus
Fri, December 30, 2022 at 6:34 AM EST

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Friday it was extremely concerned about a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile that was shot down after flying into the air space of its close ally Belarus on Thursday.

Belarus' defence ministry said on Thursday its air defence forces had shot down a Ukrainian S-300 surface-to-air missile near the village of Harbacha in the Brest region, some 15 km (9 miles) from the Belarus-Ukraine border.

It happened while Russia was firing dozens of missiles at cities across Ukraine in one of the biggest waves of strikes of the conflict.

"This is an incident that causes extreme concern, not only for us, but for our Belarusian partners," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday in Moscow's first public comment on the incident, which occurred around 10 a.m. (0700 GMT) on Thursday.

The S-300 is a Soviet-era air defence system used by both Russia and Ukraine. In November, an S-300 believed to have strayed after being fired by Ukrainian air defences - also during Russian air raids - landed on the territory of NATO-member Poland, triggering fears of an escalation that were rapidly defused.

Belarus allowed Moscow to use its territory in February as a staging post for Russian troops and equipment at the start of what Russia calls its "special military operation" in Ukraine.

There has also been a growing flurry of Russian and Belarusian military activity in Belarus in recent months.

Peskov on Friday stressed the close military ties between the two countries, saying they were in "constant dialogue and constant coordination".

Minsk has, however, insisted that it is not participating in the conflict in Ukraine, and will not participate unless its own security is threatened by Ukraine or Ukraine's Western allies.

(Reporting by Reuters; Writing by Jake Cordell; Editing by Kevin Liffey)