quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The Biden regime is like the tenant that just got evicted and is going to trash and burn the place on the way out.

I really pray to God that Trump is working behind the scenes to tell Biden's handlers to knock this shit off ASAP before we do end up in a shooting war with a nuclear armed Russia.

This is his definition of a "peaceful transition."

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The Biden regime is like the tenant that just got evicted and is going to trash and burn the place on the way out.

I really pray to God that Trump is working behind the scenes to tell Biden's handlers to knock this shit off ASAP before we do end up in a shooting war with a nuclear armed Russia.

Biden's "Scorched Earth policy"? I hope not.

Putin has stated a decade back, he is the only man on the planet who can destroy the United States in 30 minutes. We are forever this mans rival. He has a little dick and he knows it. In his interest to stay alive, no telling what he may do. The ATACMS which Ukraine has are limited to 188 mile range. Screw metrics, it's 188 miles. Further, none are equipped with HE war heads. All are cluster munitions do Ukraine won't be knocking down any bridges with these. Putin hasn't suffered so much as a bloody nose in his shit hole of a country. But, he can plaster Ukrainian towns and cities with all manner of missles and glide bombs, killing civilians every day. Yeah Biden is a total piece of trash. But this monster, hiding in his bunker in Moscow needs to be taken out by his own people.

quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:


The ATACMS which Ukraine has are limited to 188 mile range.

I don't give a shit if it's 188 miles or 1,888 miles. We are now launching American missiles into Russia. How would you feel if they parked a ship off the east coast of the US and started firing missiles 188 miles into our country?

The Biden regime needs to stop with this shit now.

There is a good possibility, Ukraine may get cruise missles from France and the UK. Therein lies a reason to worry a lot more than ATACMS. I don't agree with anything about this little war but I do know that effd up coward Russian could stop this as fast as Trump. However, there remains a country destroyed by him, for no good reason, which needs to be replaced. Putin is just the latest dictator which needs to be relieved of breathing. A risky flight by a couple Falcons and a few JDAMS could fix this matter. He needs to go.

Listen to what President Trump says:

https://x.com/LegitTargets/status/1858752068057788765







Full video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go--8rh8Kx0

Many years ago Henry Kissinger wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine in which he analyzed all of the conflicts since WW II. His conclusion was that "creeping gradualism" is always a bad idea and leads to more conflict and more death. The only way to wage a conflict is to go "all in" from the very beginning. It's always a mistake to do otherwise. I think his analysis was correct. This creeping gradual escalation has only given Putin more time to reinforce and change tactics to meet each gradual escalation. Putin is a thug who is on par with Hitler. Do I think that if he were to win in Ukraine, will he eventually attack more former Soviet block nations like the Baltics or even Poland. Yes I do.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The Biden regime is like the tenant that just got evicted and is going to trash and burn the place on the way out.

I really pray to God that Trump is working behind the scenes to tell Biden's handlers to knock this shit off ASAP before we do end up in a shooting war with a nuclear armed Russia.

Biden's "Scorched Earth policy"? I hope not.

It's not Biden.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Many years ago Henry Kissinger wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine in which he analyzed all of the conflicts since WW II. His conclusion was that "creeping gradualism" is always a bad idea and leads to more conflict and more death. The only way to wage a conflict is to go "all in" from the very beginning. It's always a mistake to do otherwise. I think his analysis was correct. This creeping gradual escalation has only given Putin more time to reinforce and change tactics to meet each gradual escalation. Putin is a thug who is on par with Hitler. Do I think that if he were to win in Ukraine, will he eventually attack more former Soviet block nations like the Baltics or even Poland. Yes I do.

So you're saying that the problem with the War in Ukraine is NOT that it's entirely misguided, or lacks any justification under the guise of defending the National Security interests of the U.S., AND that it risks a larger (global?) conflict with a NUCLEAR ARMED Russia, but rather that we should've gone 'all in' from the beginning to take the fight to the Russians because Putin?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nhracecraft,

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Many years ago Henry Kissinger wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine in which he analyzed all of the conflicts since WW II. His conclusion was that "creeping gradualism" is always a bad idea and leads to more conflict and more death. The only way to wage a conflict is to go "all in" from the very beginning. It's always a mistake to do otherwise. I think his analysis was correct. This creeping gradual escalation has only given Putin more time to reinforce and change tactics to meet each gradual escalation. Putin is a thug who is on par with Hitler. Do I think that if he were to win in Ukraine, will he eventually attack more former Soviet block nations like the Baltics or even Poland. Yes I do.

So you're saying that the problem with the War in Ukraine is NOT that it's entirely misguided, or lacks any justification under the guise of defending the National Security interests of the U.S., AND that it risks a larger (global?) conflict with a NUCLEAR ARMED Russia, but rather the we're should've gone 'all in' from the beginning to take the fight to the Russians because Putin?

that's how I read it too. just wow.

The Democrats are literally willing to blow up the world to make things even more difficult for President Trump.

No reasonable, rational person past the age of 21 who is familiar with the facts believes that the Russians will deploy nuclear weapons in these circumstances.

How many times has Putin issued this bluff?

Think about the consequences for Russia and especially for Putin's rule of his country.

There's an old saying- Rattlesnakes don't commit suicide.

All this shit about invoking the Twenty-Fifth- please. We didn't attack Russia. Ukraine attacked Russia with US-supplied missiles. How long have we been providing material aid to Ukraine?

That old bastard will be out of office in two months. Removing him would give greater advantage to the Democrats that to us.

Once Donald Trump is back in the White House, the gravy train rolls to a stop and Zelenskyy will have to accept terms.

Many SF forum readers obviously disagree with me about Ukraine. I'll address a few points raised, then bow out of this thread. I respect those who have different points of view. I get the impression that since Putin has nuclear weapons, many think we should avoid supporting any country that he invades. He gets a free pass since he has nukes. I don't support US troops in Ukraine, but that's not what we are doing. I think Putin's invasion was misguided, not our support for Ukraine. Obama gave Ukraine MREs and blankets. The first President to provide Ukraine with lethal aide was Donald Trump. He provided anti-tank munitions to Ukraine. So if your position is that it was wrong to support Ukraine with munitions, that I have to assume that you feel Trump was wrong to begin the process of supporting Ukraine militarily.

I do not think that supporting Ukraine is in the short term National Security interests of the United States. I DO think that supporting Ukraine is in the LONG TERM security interests of the United States. These are the recent areas that Putin has invaded. In Moldova: Transnistria (1), since 1992. In Georgia: Abkhazia (2) and South Ossetia (3), since 2008. In Ukraine: Crimea (4) and parts of Luhansk Oblast (5) and Donetsk Oblast (6), since 2014; and parts of Zaporizhzhia Oblast (7) and Kherson Oblast (8), since 2022.

I do not think that Putin plans to stop. He already has designs on the Baltics. I think that President Trump was right to begin providing military aide to Ukraine. I support his decision. I don't need to lay out the beginnings of World War II in Europe here. I do see similarities. Over and out.

You don't need to bow out, man.

As a matter of fact, I expect to see you in this thread again soon.

There are only two members you need to be concerned with in terms of participation in this forum, and I'm one of them. You're fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
I do not think that Putin plans to stop. He already has designs on the Baltics. I think that President Trump was right to begin providing military aide to Ukraine. I support his decision. I don't need to lay out the beginnings of World War II in Europe here. I do see similarities. Over and out.

Same rationale for us getting involved in Vietnam (who was every bit as corrupt as Ukraine), stop the Red Menace or Southeast Asian countries will topple like dominoes. The infamous Domino Theory. When we got into Vietnam big time there were exactly two communist countries in Southeast Asia: Laos and North Vietnam. After spending a ton of blood and treasure to stop the Red Menace (and the US losing) there are now exactly two communist countries in Southeast Asia: Laos and Vietnam. Think there will be any parallels once Ukraine runs out of suitable military aged males?

NATO provoked Russia by continuing to encroach on them despite promising not to.

We shouldn't hang Ukraine out to dry because Russia has nukes. We should hang Ukraine out to dry because it's a corrupt shithole that our own government uses to steal from us. Ironically, congress cares less about Ukranian lives than anyone, probably even Putin.

I can't wait for the bleeding to stop.

Weapons and Strategy

https://weapons.substack.com/p...rue&utm_medium=email

​Biden Got Trump Out of a Jam

The Biden ATACMS Decision Ends All Negotiation Possibilities



Joe Biden has got Donald Trump out of a bind. In his Presidential campaign Trump claimed he could quickly bring an end to the Ukraine war and force a negotiation between Kiev and Moscow.

That pledge is now by the board now thanks to Joe Biden's decision to unleash ATACMS missiles on Russia.

On the night of November 18, only hours after the public announcement allowing strikes inside Russian territory, the Ukrainians fired five or six ATACMS missiles at the Bryansk area of Russia, around 75 miles inside the Russian border with Ukraine.

The Russians say that they destroyed 5 of the six missiles, with one missile hit but not completely destroyed. That missile, according to the Russians, fell to the ground and exploded, but caused minimal damage. The Ukrainians say that the middle hit an ammunition depot and blew it up.

The Russians used their air defenses, most notably the S-400 and Pantsir. The S-400 has long range; Pantsir was probably used to go after missiles that the S-400 did not intercept.

ATACMS is a large missile. The US HIMARS launch system can fire only one ATACMS at a time and then has to be reloaded. The missile weighs 3,690 lbs. and travels at a speed of around Mach 3 (2,300 mph), making it faster than conventional jet fighters.

In 2021 dollars an ATACMS missile costs $1.7 million, meaning that a replacement cost would be more than $2 million per copy. However, the US plans on replacing ATACMS with the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) which will have longer range. ATACMS can reach 190 miles; PrSM can reach 250 miles, a modest but expensive improvement since the replacement missile cost will be over $3 million a copy. Using AI-supported math (just kidding), replacing 6 missiles will cost US taxpayers $30 million or more.

The idea of using ATACMS is intentionally provocative and is used by the Biden administration to block negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Biden's intention is to prolong the war, and to make it impossible, or nearly so, for Trump to make a deal.

We do not know how may ATACMS missiles are in Ukraine. Probably not more than a couple of dozen, although there is no confirmed information.

The current administration has a right hand left hand problem. A part of the administration, namely the State Department and elements in the CIA, allegedly want to replace Zelensky in Ukraine with a more "democratic" leader and start talks with the Russians. The other part of the administration wants to prolong the war and screw Trump. That explains the remarkably ambivalent posture yesterday on the question of the use of ATACMS against Russia. Nonetheless, it is well to keep in mind that the Europeans were briefed in advance about the Biden decision, which is why German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who heads a failed government, called Putin and, on the day of the public announcement of ATACMS authorization, said Germany would not supply Taurus missiles to Ukraine, notwithstanding the US decision on ATACMS.

From a war fighting point of view the use of ATACMS will not have any dramatic impact on the war. In fact, the decision to attack targets in the Bryansk region, and not (at least so far) in Kursk, which is where really tough fighting is going on, and where the administration insists North Koreans are fighting alongside Russian troops, highlights the fact that firing ATACMS has nothing really to do with the war, at least not yet. Could the Bryansk attack be a warning to the Russians? Maybe, but wasting $30 million on a warning seems nonsensical.

The Russians, of course, have their own long range missiles. They could be used against targets in Europe just as easily as they are being used against targets in Ukraine. One presumes that Biden knows this, and probably hopes it will trigger a wider war and subsequent NATO intervention in Ukraine. That is part of the White House calculus.

It is doubtful Russia will attack Europe right now in retaliation. There are plenty of good targets in Ukraine for the Russians to respond.

Mr. Trump's nominated National Security advisor, Mike Waltz, says that the Biden decision will not help Mr. Trump end the Ukraine war. Waltz says that he was not briefed by the Biden administration on the ATACMS decision, a breach of normal protocol where incoming officials are briefed on national security matters and often asked for their views. Biden and his people did neither, and on purpose.

Mr. Trump now has an excuse that he cannot solve the Ukraine problem so long as ATACMS missiles and other weapons are used by Ukraine, with help from NATO technicians and intelligence assets. Perhaps after January 20 he can try and roll that decision back, but a lot can happen between now and then that could well foreclose negotiations of any sort, namely that Ukraine is defeated and the Zelensky government collapses.

It now seems Biden will do whatever he wants without conferring with Mr. Trump. The promise of a smooth transition of government made by Biden turns out to be insincere and deceptive.

Fed161

quote:

I do not think that Putin plans to stop. He already has designs on the Baltics. I think that President Trump was right to begin providing military aide to Ukraine. I support his decision. I don't need to lay out the beginnings of World War II in Europe here. I do see similarities. Over and out.

If history can be a guide on Russian behavior take a look at the times Russia invaded Western Europe.

1. When they were attacked by Napoleon, they counter attacked and entered France. They withdrew back to Russia on their own accord and were not militarily forced out.

2. When they were attacked by Adolph Hitler, they counter attacked and entered Germany. They withdrew back to Russia on their own accord and were not militarily forced out.

I truly believe that this war between Russia and Ukraine would not have evolved without NATO expansion, and pressure on Russia.

Remember when the Russians were going to put missiles in Cuba and the world almost blew up?

Russia can't accomplish what it said it would do 1,000 days ago, at least not without outside help, and Ukraine can't kick out Russia or retake Crimea without lots of outside help.

So how does this end?

Biden allowed the use of missiles that he previously said he wouldn't allow, and he now has also allowed the use of anti-personnel miles that he also refused to allow. Would this have made a difference 2 year ago? Doubtful because we don't have enough of the fancy pants missiles to make a difference. And if the NorKs weren't in Russia, we probably wouldn't have.

Russia isn't going to launch nukes, but uses the idea to saber rattle and introduce new nuke doctrines. It's all for show.

Throwing more money at the war by any side isn't going to win it, although Russia seems to be on war time footing and is devoting everything to the war effort.


I'm not sure what Trump can offer to Russia and Ukraine to end this. Giving Russia any land would seem to be a loss for Ukraine and going back to the pre-invasion border would seem to be 1,000 day waste by Russia.

Maybe Russia accepts land acquired and Ukraine will be allowed into NATO as a deterrence? I'm not sure there's a resolution that won't seem like a defeat for one or both sides.

I depend on SigForum for intelligent, knowledgeable analysis of all sorts of things I don't understand. This is one of innumerable examples. If I can just take a moment to say "Thank you, Para" for having originated this site, and for keeping it going on such a high level.