For Those Who Might Be Wondering Why We Might Be In Ukraine

[icanhelp1]

Of course they are and that's exactly why Anduril's products are kicking ass. Or Lockheed-Martins AGM-158 ($150,000).

The only reason the Tomahawk is still in the inventory is because they're already bought and paid for.

Tomahawks are part of our nuclear triad. Tomahawks can be sea launched, air launched and are deadly accurate, can carry a nuclear payload.. We have the B-2 Spirit, B-1 Lancer and B-52s that can lob 2,000 lb JDAM bombs as well as tomahawks.. The F-35 can carry six 2,000 pounders with full stealth capability.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Senile old man tells irrelevant untrue story about how he made DC safer for a guy's son to a country leader who is fighting our former enemy.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1483092839779944/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

 

[ChloeTzang]

Tomahawks are good but expensive and we won't sell them to Ukraine.

Ukraine now has a cheap alternative they can build themselves in large quantities.

The Chinese have a factory that has the capacity to produce the components for 1,000 cruise missiles/day if running 24/7. Quantity has a quality all of irs own.

 

[Rightguide]

Fuck off with your bullshit. Had Obama and Biden done their jobs in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

The only thing Biden did is what democrats luv to do...throw money at it and maybe it will go away!

Let us not forget the contributions to the present Ukrainian war by the Democrats. Bill Clinton disarmed the Ukrainians of their nuclear weapons, Obama stood by while Russia seized Crimea and massed troops on the border, and Joe Biden practically gave Putin a green light by suggesting a ‘minor incursion’ would be tolerated.

 

[ChloeTzang]

ENTIRE Russian Fuel Train ELIMINATED by Drones​

 

[ChloeTzang]

Ukraine GUTS Russia’s Energy Backbone in 3 Weeks...13.5% Capacity GONE​

Ukraine just delivered a devastating blow to Russia’s energy backbone. In only 3 weeks, Ukrainian drone strikes wiped out 13.5% of Russia’s oil refining capacity—crippling supply lines, sparking massive fires, and sending fuel prices soaring. From fuel trains in Zaporizhzhia to the Volgograd refinery, Russia’s logistics are burning. With sanctions delaying repairs, every strike pushes Putin’s war machine closer to collapse. Watch how Ukraine’s campaign is reshaping the battlefield.

And Ukraine is only getting started....

 

[ll74]

Do you? Because your buddies in the DNC already tried that and failed. TWICE.

So you understand impeachment doesn't need me to travel to DC?

 

[Baztrachian]

So you understand impeachment doesn't need me to travel to DC?

Since impeachment ain't happening any time soon what do you propose to do to 'remove' DJT as President?

 

[Baztrachian]

Ukraine GUTS Russia’s Energy Backbone in 3 Weeks...13.5% Capacity GONE​

Ukraine just delivered a devastating blow to Russia’s energy backbone. In only 3 weeks, Ukrainian drone strikes wiped out 13.5% of Russia’s oil refining capacity—crippling supply lines, sparking massive fires, and sending fuel prices soaring. From fuel trains in Zaporizhzhia to the Volgograd refinery, Russia’s logistics are burning. With sanctions delaying repairs, every strike pushes Putin’s war machine closer to collapse. Watch how Ukraine’s campaign is reshaping the battlefield.

And Ukraine is only getting started....

It should be pointed out that Russia's refineries were already hurting due to breakdowns and their inability to secure parts from the West.

 

[ll74]

Since impeachment ain't happening any time soon what do you propose to do to 'remove' DJT as President?

Ok, and yet you understand that I don't need to travel there for impeachment?

Or do you need me to hold your hand as we.discuss the Constitution? I propose removing the President via impeachment.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Arpy, that's so misguided and how you believe that is a good thing is a bit surprising for a fellow of your high intellect.

Trump isn’t offering “Article 5 protections” if it is just the USA offering something akin to it. Article 5 means all NATO nations defend each other. If Russia attacked Poland or the Baltics, they’d face the U.S., Britain, France, Germany—everyone—at once. That’s why Putin has never dared to test NATO.

What Trump floats instead is the U.S. making one-on-one deals. That’s not Article 5; it’s a knockoff. Instead of 30 allies standing together, America is alone, making it easier for Russia to divide and pressure countries. But in reality, weakening NATO and substituting bilateral promises plays directly into Putin’s strategy, because it fractures collective defense and isolates America.

Trump is so... bad at diplomacy. Those who initially supported his bravado and lunacy are now backpedaling away. When Trump can't and hasn't taken a firm presidential stance that he said he would against Russia, can you blame anyone for not supporting him?

I haven’t seen any specific security offer from Trump at this point in time. I’ve heard the term “Article 5 like” guarantees, presumably meaning similar to the Article 5 provisions under NATO, but not the same thing. Other than pledging some form of US support as a “backstop” (the term European leaders are using), Trump is has been vague about exactly what the US is willing to provide. He’s ruled out boots on the ground in past statements, and reiterated that yesterday. I suppose some American personnel in Ukraine is possible, but if so it would be non-combat rolls. Most observers are assuming US would provide air support, air defense systems, logistics and intelligence support. But right now Trump is playing his cards close to the vest.

 

[ll74]

I haven’t seen any specific security offer from Trump at this point in time. I’ve heard the term “Article 5 like” guarantees, presumably meaning similar to the Article 5 provisions under NATO, but not the same thing. Other than pledging some form of US support as a “backstop” (the term European leaders are using), Trump is has been vague about exactly what the US is willing to provide. He’s ruled out boots on the ground in past statements, and reiterated that yesterday. I suppose some American personnel in Ukraine is possible, but if so it would be non-combat rolls. Most observers are assuming US would provide air support, air defense systems, logistics and intelligence support. But right now Trump is playing his cards close to the vest.

If NATO is offering security, then the US is involved.

Interesting sidenote - we are part of NATO

 

[ChloeTzang]

If NATO is offering security, then the US is involved.

Interesting sidenote - we are part of NATO

And without US boots on the ground, any security guarantees are worthless.

Ukraine had security guarantees in 1994. They have not been lived up too.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

If NATO is offering security, then the US is involved.

Interesting sidenote - we are part of NATO

Is NATO offering security? My understanding is that while NATO members such as Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Finland and perhaps some other countries will be providing security, it is not a NATO initiative. I could be wrong though.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

And without US boots on the ground, any security guarantees are worthless.

Ukraine had security guarantees in 1994. They have not been lived up too.

The US is not going to put combat troops in Ukraine.

 

[ll74]

Is NATO offering security?

Yes

My understanding is that while NATO members such as Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Finland and perhaps some other countries will be providing security, it is not a NATO initiative. I could be wrong though.

Yes

 

[ChloeTzang]

The US is not going to put combat troops in Ukraine.

Then there won't be any peace agreement with Russia and Ukraine will provide its own guarantees and build nukes.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Lavrov at least has been very clear. He also wants Russia to be one of Ukraine’s security guarantors. He thinks then the guarantees will be "truly reliable."

 

[HisArpy]

The US is not going to put combat troops in Ukraine.

I actually think one of the best guarantees we could offer would be to place a military base in Eastern Ukraine.

Think about it, it would give us a forward base in the event China tries to attack Taiwan or enforce the 9 dash line, act as a deterrent to future incursions by Russia, and provides a guarantee of US support without Ukraine needing NATO membership or proliferating nukes.

It would also protect US interests in the region for valuable resources as well as giving stability to the Black sea and surrounding areas along with letting the Taliban in Afghanistan know we're still watching them.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Then there won't be any peace agreement with Russia and Ukraine will provide its own guarantees and build nukes.

Interesting take. Have my doubts that Ukraine can achieve that without extensive external support but if they can, great!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I actually think one of the best guarantees we could offer would be to place a military base in Eastern Ukraine.

Think about it, it would give us a forward base in the event China tries to attack Taiwan or enforce the 9 dash line, act as a deterrent to future incursions by Russia, and provides a guarantee of US support without Ukraine needing NATO membership or proliferating nukes.

It would also protect US interests in the region for valuable resources as well as giving stability to the Black sea and surrounding areas along with letting the Taliban in Afghanistan know we're still watching them.

Do you think the American public would support that? Perhaps 30 years ago, but I sure don’t believe they would today.

If the possibility of US boots on the ground does come into play in the weeks and months ahead, I’m sure we’ll see some polling that will give an indication of American’s sentiment on that question.

 

[HisArpy]

Do you think the American public would support that? Perhaps 30 years ago, but I sure don’t believe they would today.

If the possibility of US boots on the ground does come into play in the weeks and months ahead, I’m sure we’ll see some polling that will give an indication of American’s sentiment on that question.

I think that if it was packaged properly, it would sell to the public. It would have to be done to emphasize that the purpose was to prevent war, not provoke one.

Project it as peace through strength. Wars aren't fought where the US is established, and if someone tries they get squashed faster than a housewife swats a fly. Just ask Syria how that worked out for them.

 

[Baztrachian]

I propose removing the President via impeachment.

Fat fucking chance.

 

[HisArpy]

Fat fucking chance.

They tried. Twice. They didn't succeed because Congress understood there's no Constitutional impeachment mechanism because of a Democrat temper tantrum.

 

[Baztrachian]

They tried. Twice. They didn't succeed because Congress understood there's no Constitutional impeachment mechanism because of a Democrat temper tantrum.

At this point the smart Democrats (all two of them) realize that any impeachment effort they make will result in galvanizing support for the President.