Post New

A lot of the left wing 'o verse was all aflutter at Keir Starmer's offer for 20k or so British troops as peacekeepers in the Ukraine. But can they even field that?

Doubtful.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/br...

Twenty-thousand troops? We only have 25 main battle tanks working at best
Left to rot in sheds, our equipment is either ancient, non-existent or yet to arrive, while ammunition stocks would not last a week if push came to shove, says defence expert Francis Tusa

And this is the sad sack state of NATO that you people are preening over. Grow up. The world isn't an episode of The West Wing no matter how hard you wish it was:

Now, the main battle tank (MBT) force is at a disastrous low. The Challenger 2 fleet (just over 400 were bought in the 1990s) has a notional strength of 213 tanks, after 14 were donated to Ukraine. However, these have been at the receiving end of “malign neglect” – maintenance regimes slashed in the 2000s and 2010s, spares not purchased, and supply chains disappearing as companies went bust. In 2023, it was reported that only around 160 of the fleet was in any fit state to be used on operations (after extensive, expensive work) – and the situation got worse.

The end result? The Royal Armoured Corps has not been able to deploy a realistic Challenger 2 regiment of 59 tanks for many years. Lack of available Challenger 2s has meant that the army’s ambition for MBTs has been at the 20 to 25 level, at the very best.

When Denmark and Sweden have more credible tank forces than the United Kingdom, you know there’s an issue.

I think the Texas Guard might have more.

It gets worse:

The Royal Artillery used to have a force of over 100 self-propelled AS90 artillery pieces. But much like the Challenger 2 fleet, this had been left to rot, with only a handful available even for training. Just before Covid, I sat next to a lieutenant colonel who was taking over an AS90 regiment: “I have 24 guns in the shed, no tracks, no engines. I will have to do a lot of work to stop morale falling.” That was over five years ago, and, again, the issues of no spares and defunct supply chains have not made this situation any better.

At least 32 AS90 have been gifted to Ukraine – an entirely sensible move. But this has left the army with little to no artillery. An interim batch of 14 Swedish Archer 155mm guns has been bought – but this is an incredibly limited number.

So the Brits have fewer soldiers than there are cops in New York City and have next to no heavy equipment.

Maybe it's starting to sink in that NATO is a battle force in name only. Then again, I doubt it.

Utter BS of course

https://www.army-technology.com/news/british-army-...

But then I do wonder how important battle tanks are to a modern army. I’m sure we’ve all seen the videos of cheap drones blowing the turrets off Russian tanks. And cheap RPGs making neat holes in US tanks.

A peacekeeping force in Ukraine will need armored personnel carriers (land mines/IEDs).

Utter BS of course

How many of those tanks run? That’s the point.

And yes. You need tanks and artillery.

How many of those tanks run?>/i>

The UK provided a squadron (14) of tanks to the Ukraine in 23, and to do that you need to furnish parts and supplies. It looks like 147 will be upgraded from CH 2 to 3, and the remainder kept for parts - so around 140 say vs the dismal 25 - unless they sell some to Oman.

The UK provided a squadron (14) of tanks to the Ukraine in 23, and to do that you need to furnish parts and supplies. It looks like 147 will be upgraded from CH 2 to 3, and the remainder kept for parts - so around 140 say vs the dismal 25 - unless they sell some to Oman.

And where do you think the parts for the tanks the Ukrainians are using are coming from?

Britain has 25…or 140, depending on the count. But they have a navy, even though it has been shrunk over the years, sufficient to bottle up Russia’s northern fleet. That’s Britain’s strength, diminished though it is. That’s the part Britain would play in any NATO response to a conflict with Russia

As for tanks, France has 222 Le Clerc main battle tanks in service and another 184 in storage. It also has a pile of oler tanks in storage- you know, the kind of older tanks that Russia is increasingly using on the battlefield as their newer tanks are destroyed by Ukrainian drones..

Similarly Germany- 310 active Leopard 2 tanks

Sweden has 110 active MBT’s

Finland- 239

Spain has 327


And then there’s…. whoah! Poland!! 612 active main battle tanks


And therein lies one of the value of NTo alliance.

It has been argued that Russia has thousands of tanks, and that would be true, but most of these were manufactured during the Cold War- many of them before 1965. The more modern tanks have been decimated by Ukrainian drones.


Have I mentioned drones? My bad. Or antitank missiles?

The majority of Russian tanks destroyed have been destroyed … first by antitank missiles manufactured by America as well as other NATO countries…but in the last two years- increasingly by cheaply produced anti-tank drones, which Ukraine alone is manufacturing in increasingly huge numbers. NATO countries have taken note and are upping their own drone production.

The days of fearing a huge Russian tank charge through the Fulda gap are over. Hell, last summer Ukraine launched a small attack of its own into Russia, capturing several hundred square kilometers of territory around the Russian city of Kursk- and they still hold much of that Kursk salient ( “Kursk salient”, my God, how history echoes).

And despite the expenditure of six months of time, tens of thousands of Russian and North Korean lives and hundreds of armored vehicles, Ukraine still holds a significant portion of their gains from last summer.


And Russia is going to charge into the heart of Europe through the Fulda gap?


The Baltics? Estonia, Latvia, Estonia and throw in Finland for good measure? Could be, but that would trigger NATOs mutual defense clause…


But much more likely……… Russia, which has been unable to recapture several hundred kilometers of it’s own territory in a war that Russia started……… is unable to defeat NATO militarily, so its propaganda is embarked on a strategy of convincing the rest of the world that its army is composed of echelons of rock-jawed, super-masculine behemoths (while not mentioning that they are being slaughtered in echelons in Ukraine) and that their hardware inventory contains multiple super weapons (while not mentioning that several of those “super-weapons” have not proven to be so “super” on the battlefield- the T-14 Armata tank, for instance, or its “game-changing” Iskander hyper-sonic missiles…. Both deadly, to be sure, but hardly “game-changing”.


Seen online this morning- not any sort of heavy analysis, but it does sum up the issue:


500 million Europeans and 350 million Americans are dreading a future death blow that will be inflicted by a country 140 million who haven’t been able to defeat a country of 40 million in three years

But they have a navy, even though it has been shrunk over the years, sufficient to bottle up Russia’s northern fleet. That’s Britain’s strength, diminished though it is. That’s the part Britain would play in any NATO response to a conflict with Russia

Russia isn't the real threat.

500 million Europeans and 350 million Americans are dreading a future death blow that will be inflicted by a country 140 million who haven’t been able to defeat a country of 40 million in three years

Russia isn't the real threat.
China is. And NATO needs to arm up, fast.

And that's the point.

Utter BS of course

Yep. The right like "alternative facts". That way they can make up anything they like that makes them feel better about their erroneous positions.

But then I do wonder how important battle tanks are to a modern army. I’m sure we’ve all seen the videos of cheap drones blowing the turrets off Russian tanks. And cheap RPGs making neat holes in US tanks.

Perun did a video on this. Well, maybe not exactly this. He discusses visually-confirmed losses a lot, but also the role of the MBT. His conclusion is that there is still a role for MBTs, but Ukraine's success with drones has altered it, and made it necessary to make modifications. Surveillance drones have changed the entire battlescape. If you stick your head up, your opponent is likely to know and direct fire at you. Everything from Private Pavel in a trench to MBTs, there is very little opportunity for stealth. They will see you.

I think MBTs would be useful for blitzkrieg. Fast moving invasion, catching the enemy off-guard. But once the enemy has his wits about him, assuming he has drones and surviving kinetic assets, you'll have to start hiding your MBTs or they'll get destroyed.

Naval assets are another item that is having to adapt (though not the topic of this thread). Ukraine, with no navy, has inflicted heavy losses on the Black Sea Fleet. The survivors are basically hiding on the other side of the Black Sea, at least until the Ukrainians can extend their drone range to reach them. They've also knocked out the Crimea bridge at least once (maybe twice?) with drones.

Estimates from think-tank people seem to settle on 18 months. If Ukraine can hold out for 18 more months, Russia will be out of hardware. It was 12 months for some things, and 18 months for others. I forget which was which, but they were talking MBTs and artillery pieces. They've mostly cleaned out their boneyards, and some stuff from the end of WWII (artillery) is disappearing from satellite images. That's how far back they have gone.

So, no. Russia is not a threat to Europe (sans nukes). Thank you, Ukraine, for making sure they won't be a major threat for at least a decade. Maybe two or three decades. Without shifting to a full-on war economy, it will take that long to replace their losses.

Yeah...Poland...they've been afraid of Russia for a long time, so they are among the best equipped in Europe. They are also a major contributor to Ukraine's defense, shipping lots of tanks and artillery to them.

Russia isn't the real threat.
China is. And NATO needs to arm up, fast.

How does China pose a conventional military threat to Europe? They're on the other side of Asia. Only in alliance with Russia could they pose a direct conventional military threat....so that reduces to (again) defending primarily against Russia. Which is why it is important to inflict a heavy loss against Putin for his foray into Ukraine.

Rather than a conventional military threat, China poses a broader global geopolitical threat through its efforts to gain political and economic advantages in strategically important areas across the globe. It does this primarily through trade, investment, diplomatic and economic arrangements. The way you would counter that is not by "arming up," but by engaging in the same sort of activities to draw other nations into the Western sphere, rather than the Chinese one. The Danes increasing their direct military expenditures, or having the UK field tanks (on an island nation with no land borders?), doesn't help check the Chinese.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is withdrawing from exactly that sort of geopolitical exercise of power, and ceding the entire field to the Chinese right now. If Europe wanted to react to the Chinese threat, they would step up into the vacuum being created by the U.S. in that "soft power" field, not through beefing up conventional military forces - which are primarily useful against countering threats from Russia, not China.

Russia isn't the real threat.
China is. And NATO needs to arm up, fast.

When have you ever seen Trump issue any sort of direct challenge to Chinese military expansion in the South China Sea? Or echo any hunt of the assertion that Cina is the primary threat?

He does threaten China, but not in any way that he threatens every other country in the world, including Canada.

An exception does exist, however…….he hardly ever speaks against the threat posed by Russia, and even then-NEVER against Russia’s military/foreign policy.

In ww2, the primary threat was Germany in Europe. But the secondary threat of Japan was never forgotten, especially after 12/7/41.

Ukraine is the free world’s Pearl Harbor.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. In fact, we must do both. Europe, yes- they need to carry the heaviest load with Russia, but though your wish-casting assumes that this is Trump’s strategy, nothing in what he’s said remotely supports this.

In fact, he repeats Russian propaganda on the matter- in claiming falsely that Ukraine started the war, and in telling Ukraine that they’ve basically lost the war so they’d better settle on terms that Russia and the US have already negotiated for them (including the rape of its mineral wealth)

China is definitely the most serious threat, but Russia and China are allies. They are linked, just as the threats they pose are linked. We cannot run from one in order to confront the other. In fact, running from one may well insure that the other materializes more quickly than we are prepared to meet it ( and drastic cuts to our defense budget will insure that it happens sooner rather than later.


Trump is a direct threat to America’s security, and in light of what he has said and done, spinning favorable interpretations of what he has said and done does nothing except weaken your arguments further with the passing of every single day.


We may not like it….. but there it is.

How does China pose a conventional military threat to Europe?

They're not going to invade Europe. Why would you go there as your first response?

Unfortunately, the U.S. is withdrawing from exactly that sort of geopolitical exercise of power, and ceding the entire field to the Chinese right now.

Wrong. You don't like what the US is doing because Trump is saying what needs to be said to our european allies. And you're forgetting that the Chinese are building a blue water Navy as fast as they can...with plenty of ports to call on around the world.

My statements are concerning general military readiness (especially the lack thereof) among our european allies. This board keeps braying on about the "importance of NATO" while blithely ignoring the fact that there are more planes in the United States Marine Corps than in several entire european countries.

Rather than a conventional military threat, China poses a broader global geopolitical threat through its efforts to gain political and economic advantages in strategically important areas across the globe

They're doing both. They intend to displace the US as the world's lone superpower and put weaker countries under their thumbs. Europe has been slow to react and generally blind thus far.

When have you ever seen Trump issue any sort of direct challenge to Chinese military expansion in the South China Sea? Or echo any hunt of the assertion that Cina is the primary threat?

Again, everyone missed the significance of this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyzy300vlzo

The US State Department has dropped a statement from its website which stated that Washington does not support Taiwan's independence - a move which has sparked anger in China.

China said the revision "sends a wrong... signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence", and asked the US to "correct its mistakes".

The department's fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations earlier included the phrase "we do not support Taiwan independence" - this was removed last week as part of what it said was a "routine" update.

How does China pose a conventional military threat to Europe?

They don't. Dope is wrong again. Not that we don't need to arm-up fast. We need some more subs, and missile cruisers/destroyers, to keep in check Chinese ambitions within the SCS and Taiwan. But MBTs will be next to useless in any conflict with China.

Britain and Germany have both sent ships to the SCS. Australia and Japan have a HUGE interest, and cooperating with expanding their navies and naval exercises (I forget now the acronym for that alliance...I believe it also involves the UK and US).

As you say, it is to our benefit to continue equipping Ukraine to tie-up Russia. You are also correct that we need to counter the "belt and roads" initiative of China with one of our own. USAID, arguably, was a part of that. If nations can't get help from us, who are they going to turn to? (hint: China is very eager to make "friends" with them)

If we want to counter China, we are doing EXACTLY the wrong things, every step of the way. You would think that by random chance we would get one or two things right, but it's as if we are deliberately trying to cede power and influence to China.

If we want to counter China, we are doing EXACTLY the wrong things, every step of the way. You would think that by random chance we would get one or two things right, but it's as if we are deliberately trying to cede power and influence to China.

Trump is an idiot. JD Vance may be smarter but he's chosen to go from pointing out that Trump was 'Hilter' to joining the American Fascist Party. What a mess.

They're not going to invade Europe. Why would you go there as your first response?

You said that China was the threat, not Russia - and that therefore NATO needed to arm up. Most of NATO is in Europe. Why do the Europeans need to "arm up" against China?

Wrong. You don't like what the US is doing because Trump is saying what needs to be said to our European allies.

No, I don't like that Trump is weakening (or abandoning) the U.S. position of leadership in most global institutions and demonstrating itself to be an unreliable and undependable ally at a time when coordinated global effort is needed against the threat of Chinese power. The first month of the Administration has been more overtly critical of our allies than our enemies. That might get them to reposition themselves to be more independent of the U.S. - but the downside to that is that they then become more independent of the U.S., rather than firmly within our sphere of influence.

They intend to displace the US as the world's lone superpower and put weaker countries under their thumbs.

Yep - which is why they're delighted that we're retreating from our superpower role and alienating our allies. Do you think China is upset that Canadians are booing the U.S. national anthem? That other nations are thinking twice about their policy of sharing intelligence data with the U.S.? If we're going to start treating our allies as rivals and adversaries on more and more issues (punitive tariffs for Canada! trying to take territory from Denmark!), it only makes it easier for China on the global stage.

That's not something that's balanced out by having more tanks in the U.K.

You said that China was the threat, not Russia - and that therefore NATO needed to arm up. Most of NATO is in Europe. Why do the Europeans need to "arm up" against China?

Sigh.
You don't think a conflict with China would exclude Europe? You think Europe's economy sits it out?

No, I don't like that Trump is weakening (or abandoning) the U.S. position of leadership in most global institutions and demonstrating itself to be an unreliable and undependable ally at a time when coordinated global effort is needed against the threat of Chinese power.

Uh, huh. Which institutions? The ones that routinely do weird things or act outside of US interests like UNRWA? Or efforts that are intended to bankrupt the west like the Paris Climate Accords?

The problem is that the status quo of the international order has a lot of inertia...absent focus or purpose. Breaking up the status quo is not a bad thing.

The first month of the Administration has been more overtly critical of our allies than our enemies.

The Europeans have been shirking their duties for a generation now. Their economies - stagnant. Their defenses - englected.

Sometimes the status quo is stupid:

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-ukraine-rus...

Meanwhile, on energy, Europe’s reliance on Russian gas revealed the perils of depending on a single provider. Before the war on Ukraine, over 40 percent of Europe’s natural gas imports came from Russia, which created a critical vulnerability.

Does this seem sane to you? All the livelong day this board brays on about Russia, Russia, Russia. Why aren't any of you calling the europeans out on this? What's wrong with calling this sort of thing out? Nothing, that's what.

Yep - which is why they're delighted that we're retreating from our superpower role and alienating our allies.

You know what they like even more? A europe that depends on Russia for all its energy and one that has zero means to defend itself. Or the will to do so.

You don't think a conflict with China would exclude Europe? You think Europe's economy sits it out?

Of course not. But having tanks in the UK won't help that. A conflict with China is already taking place in non-military spheres - a global contest for influence, resources, and control. The spaces that the current Administration is withdrawing us from. Cutting off our international aid, pulling back from participation in global institutions, breaking trade alliances (even when we have formal treaties)....we're telling the world over and over again that we are undependable partners. Even to the point where we're being harsher with our ostensible friends than our enemies.

Uh, huh. Which institutions? The ones that routinely do weird things or act outside of US interests like UNRWA? Or efforts that are intended to bankrupt the west like the Paris Climate Accords?

How about WHO? Or the USMCA? Or NATO - where we weaken our leadership role by sowing conflict with our allies?

You know what they like even more? A europe that depends on Russia for all its energy and one that has zero means to defend itself. Or the will to do so.

Sure. There's nothing wrong with encouraging Europe to diversify their energy base. There are even some benefits (though serious downsides) to European nations increasing their defensive capabilities. Neither of which is advanced by idly speculating about seizing territory from a NATO ally, or starting a trade war with Europe, or launching the broadside attack that was Vance's speech.

If you want to thwart China, you need to win over the nations of the world to the side of the U.S. Destroying USAID, breaking down trade relationships and threatening massive tariff barriers, speculating about seizing territory or materials from weaker countries, and alienating the allies we do have is going to be counterproductive to that goal. No matter how many extra tanks it puts on the board.

Of course not.

And that’s right. The Chinese will clamp down on trade with tThe euros just as fast as they will us.

The spaces that the current Administration is withdrawing us from.

That’s not correct. Bailing on useless UN orgs and giving European diploweenies the vapors isn’t withdrawing from anything. Holding our partners accountable is absolutely something that must be done.

Right now Europe’s defense structure is to defend the EU right down to the last American. Is that acceptable to you?

How about WHO?. Lol. Did they cover themselves in glory during COVID?

Or the USMCA?. Are Canada and Mexico being good neighbors by enabling fentanyl to flow over the border?

Or NATO - where we weaken our leadership role by sowing conflict with our allies?
You’re aware that in any conflict the US is going to do 99% of the fighting, right? Is that acceptable to you?

Neither of which is advanced by idly speculating about seizing territory from a NATO ally, or starting a trade war with Europe, or launching the broadside attack that was Vance's speech.

Vance was 100% spot on. The French proved him right less than 2 weeks later, in fact. Are democracies things where only certain voices are heard and people are only allowed to think one way?

That’s not democracy. European go a]on about it but their actions aren’t in keeping with the term.

If you want to thwart China, you need to win over the nations of the world to the side of the U.S.

Fascinating. This statement implies that you believe the US and China are on the same level morally and politically. Is that your view?

Right now Europe’s defense structure is to defend the EU right down to the last American. Is that acceptable to you?

The various militaries of NATO other than the US contain about 2 million active-duty personnel. About 0.9 million in just the big five EU nations (France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain). The entirety of the U.S. military is about 1.3 million active-duty personnel. So no, their defense structure is not to defend the EU down to the last American - which makes for a dig on the men and women who serve, but is absolutely false.

Are Canada and Mexico being good neighbors by enabling fentanyl to flow over the border?

No less so than we're being a good neighbor by enabling fentanyl to flow over the border. Drug interdiction is difficult, and all three nations are devoting a lot of resources to stop it. We're not bad neighbors to Mexico simply because so many illegal guns flow over the border into their country, either - we're also trying to stop it.

It's dumb. The Administration wants to impose tariffs on those countries, but we have binding treaty obligations with them (which Trump negotiated!) that prohibit those tariffs, so we have to blame it on something other than Trump's desire for tariffs.

This statement implies that you believe the US and China are on the same level morally and politically. Is that your view?

No, it doesn't. It implies that other nations will engage in their own calculus over whether it serves their interests to oppose China's sphere of influence, join China's sphere of influence, or be somewhere in between. The more that the U.S. acts as an unreliable partner, the more that we pressure weak countries to give up their resources (Ukraine) or assets (Panama) or territory (Denmark), the less compelling an alternative we are. We can still be better morally and politically, but if we treat other countries in ways that are contrary to their interests and/or alienate their citizenry, the further they drift from our sphere of influence. It's not smart to make it harder for the governments of other countries to enter into close cooperation with us, by attacking their economies or their national pride.

Sure, we can get away with it - it's not like Canada can do anything when Trump belittles them by calling them the 51st state or demeaning the office of their head of state. Or when we threaten to upend their economy by imposing massive tariffs by claiming that they're being "unfair" somehow. But then the voters in Canada start to hate the U.S. a little bit and boo our national anthem. Which makes it that much harder for whoever those voters elect to stand in close cooperation with the U.S. when it comes time, say, to present a unified front on international matters against Chinese influence. Which, again, is a dumb thing to do.

The various militaries of NATO other than the US contain about 2 million active-duty personnel.

With zero equipment.

No less so than we're being a good neighbor by enabling fentanyl to flow over the border. Drug interdiction is difficult, and all three nations are devoting a lot of resources to stop it

Mexico has been especially bad. They allow transit of caravan after caravan to just flow on through. They’re not exactly the most corruption-free government on the planet, either.

It's dumb. The Administration wants to impose tariffs on those countries, but we have binding treaty obligations with them (which Trump negotiated!) that prohibit those tariffs

Are they prohibited?


. It implies that other nations will engage in their own calculus over whether it serves their interests to oppose China's sphere of influence, join China's sphere of influence, or be somewhere in between. The more that the U.S. acts as an unreliable partner, the more that we pressure weak countries to give up their resources (Ukraine) or assets (Panama) or territory (Denmark), the less compelling an alternative we are

Uh, huh. Go ask the Italians how they feel about China right now. Plus I think you’re going to start hearing a very different tune come out of Germany very shortly - one that leaves no doubt with whom it wants to partner. Ditto Poland and the other Eastern European states.

So when we’re talking about Disgruntled Europeans, we’re really talking about:
-The French, who always take the “will they or won’t they” path when it comes to supporting the US.
-The Brits, who only have a left government because Nigel Farage wanted the conservatives to fail and fail hard. Kerri Starmer is deeply unpopular
-The rest of the WEF set, who think they know better than everyone else.

The entire line of reasoning taken by the left in this and every other foreign debate starts with an assumption that the status quo is just great amd Trump is miles out of line. That’s so many shades of wrong I don’t know where to begin with it.

The entire line of reasoning taken by the left in this and every other foreign debate starts with an assumption that the status quo is just great and Trump is miles out of line.

No, it's not.

Even if you stipulate that the status quo is not great doesn't mean that anything that isn't the status quo is smart. Or even an improvement over the current situation.

The entire line of reasoning taken by the right is that if the current situation is flawed in some way, that justifies anything that changes the status quo. But that's just wrong. If Canada isn't 100% stopping fentanyl from crossing their border (which, again, we haven't either), it doesn't mean that starting to treat them as an economic adversary and a potential takeover target is good strategy. It's dumb.

So when the left criticizes the dumb things the Administration is doing, it does not mean that they're saying that the status quo is just great. It just means they think that what the Administration is doing is dumb. For example, the situation in Ukraine is far far far from great - and it was dumb of the President to suggest that the invasion was Ukraine's fault.

Trump is miles out of line.


I agree with you, Dope. : )

And any thinking person can clearly see that Trump is an idiot.

So when the left criticizes the dumb things the Administration is doing, it does not mean that they're saying that the status quo is just great. It just means they think that what the Administration is doing is dumb. For example, the situation in Ukraine is far far far from great - and it was dumb of the President to suggest that the invasion was Ukraine's fault.

This.

The entire line of reasoning taken by the left in this and every other foreign debate starts with an assumption that the status quo is just great and Trump is miles out of line.

Conclusory and also a straw man.

Yep. Wish I could write like Albaby. I consider my own writing to be mediocre. Albaby has a great way of expressing himself and is consistently right. Rarely do I disagree with what he writes and I agree 100% with this assessment. :) It's going to be a dismal four years though/

No, it's not.

Pretty much yes.

The entire line of reasoning taken by the right is that if the current situation is flawed in some way, that justifies anything that changes the status quo.

El strawmani-o! A big one.

it doesn't mean that starting to treat them as an economic adversary and a potential takeover target is good strategy. It's dumb.

What’s dumb is taking the 51st state comment literally. Marco Rubio spilled the beans on that.

Nobody told Justin Trudeau to be an idiot in his convo with Trump, giving him a chance to send a zinger - which is what the 51st state remark was - JT’s way.

99% of the posts here are emotionalisms masquerading as policy positions. That’s not really grounded in anything other than Orange Man. Bad!

I’ll grant you that the “Ukraine started it” line was dumb. Know what was dumber? Zelensky losing hundreds of billions while complaining that the US wasn’t helping him enough.

Conclusory

Such an odd shtick. Tell me. When someone tells that 2+2=4, do you accuse them of that?

Zelensky losing hundreds of billions while complaining that the US wasn’t helping him enough.

SNIP On February 2, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said he had only received $75 billion of the $175 billion the United States had spent on Ukraine. The cry went up, what happened to the other $100 billion? Was it lost or stolen? The answer is no. Only part of the aid goes through Ukrainian control. A large part pays for activities as a result of the war but not to Ukraine directly. These include the United States training of Ukrainian forces, global humanitarian assistance, additional costs of U.S. surge forces in Europe, and intelligence support for both NATO and Ukraine.

As CSIS has reported before, “aid to Ukraine” is a misnomer because 90 percent of military aid is spent in the United States. Of aid overall, 60 percent is spent in the United States, about 25 percent is spent in Ukraine, and the final 15 percent is spent globally.SNIP

Me: Zelenskyy has acknowledged this, but there's a $30 billion that he doesn't know is being delivered. There's more being spent than he knows about

SNIP Roughly 100,000 U.S. service members are stationed throughout Europe today, including about 20,000 who were surged to countries like Poland and Romania in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. U.S. forces have not been involved in fighting against Russia but have trained with Ukrainian forces headed to the front lines.

The surge was due to leave Europe a month ago.

"Right now Europe’s defense structure is to defend the EU right down to the last American. Is that acceptable to you?" - Dope

I wonder if Dumbass Dope knows that NATO mutual defense has been invoked exactly once. That one time it was invoked it was European soldiers dying in order to defend America.

I wonder if Dumbass Dope knows that NATO mutual defense has been invoked exactly once. That one time it was invoked it was European soldiers dying in order to defend America.

To be fair, I suspect most Americans don't know that. But I do know what you're referring to. The only time Article 5 was invoked.

small anecdote on albaby's comments : its not just sentiment among canadians.

as someone who temporarily lived and worked in canada decades ago (yes, friendliness not a cliche), i had no problems cheering them to victory in the 4nations final against the american hockey team. it was the first time i ever rooted for canadians in this rivalry, in a sport that means everything to them.

and my main motivation was that so dumbfk trump\MAGA wouldn't somehow claim credit in another sport they barely understand or care about. was happy trump seems to have pretended not to be aware of one the highest rated\watched games ever.
https://www.si.com/nhl/canada-usa-4-nations-face-o...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.