US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

If i remember correctly, Putin and Erdogan were buddy buddy at the time. NATO was unfortunately not unified then.

True. However, the US could have unilaterally placed aircraft carriers, if not in the Bosphorus Strait (if Turkey wouldn’t have allowed it), in international waters as close as we could get to it.

To block the Bosporus Strait would have been an act of war - naval blockade is an act of war.

Where are you getting these crazy ideas PP? None of what you propose is remotely workable - neither militarily, strategically or legally.

Most of the people commenting on DCUM are armchair experts and clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

Republicans would not support any democrat president. You reap what you sow.

Like I noted.

You can live life under fantasy and conjecture but it’s not healthy so seek help.

But what we DO KNOW and can PROVE:

Under Trump:
Heavy sanctions on Russia
No Wars
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine

Under Biden
Lifted sanctions
Zelensky and others tried to encourage Biden to our sanctions back on, Biden refused
Russia invaded Ukraine

Under Obama:
Russia annexes Crimea
Weak response led by US hurts Russia a little but not enough
Russia continues to be belligerent


Those are facts we can actually see.

Under trump
- trump meets with Putin by himself who knows what deal was struck.
- Trump tries to breakup nato
- trump tries to stop all weapon deals with Ukraine
- trump threatens Ukraine
- Putin places bounties on US military personnel
- Russians attack use forces in Syria
- Russian systematically attack US elections
- Russians lunch hacking attacks against US.
- all conservatives organizations(NRA, etc) are under Russia influence
- republicans storm the Capitol with Russian support
- all republicans/conservatives fall inline with trump’s Putin love.

Under Democrat President
- republicans/conservatives undermine any action against Russia
- republicans/conservatives blindly support Putin.
- republicans/conservatives work to destroy NATO

Once again conjecture with little or no facts.

Lien I said
Under Trump:
No war
No invasion
Economic prosperity despite the lefts attempts to undermine all of it


Under Biden:
High gas prices
Empty shelves
Skyrocketing inflation
War
Chaos
Listed sanctions despite resistance from Zelensky and others who said it was a bad idea
Imports more Russian oil



Those are visible and tangible facts.

They are also outcomes from previous administrations. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Changes in policy on a national or global scale are hardly ever immediate. Its built upon what has previously happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

That Russia is holding back their A team? Look, maybe they have a B team (being kind) sitting somewhere in reserve, but that's debatable. Aside, every piece of military equipment they lose can't be easily replaced for a long time. Their military is a barbaric clown show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

Republicans would not support any democrat president. You reap what you sow.

Like I noted.

You can live life under fantasy and conjecture but it’s not healthy so seek help.

But what we DO KNOW and can PROVE:

Under Trump:
Heavy sanctions on Russia
No Wars
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine

Under Biden
Lifted sanctions
Zelensky and others tried to encourage Biden to our sanctions back on, Biden refused
Russia invaded Ukraine

Under Obama:
Russia annexes Crimea
Weak response led by US hurts Russia a little but not enough
Russia continues to be belligerent


Those are facts we can actually see.

Under trump
- trump meets with Putin by himself who knows what deal was struck.
- Trump tries to breakup nato
- trump tries to stop all weapon deals with Ukraine
- trump threatens Ukraine
- Putin places bounties on US military personnel
- Russians attack use forces in Syria
- Russian systematically attack US elections
- Russians lunch hacking attacks against US.
- all conservatives organizations(NRA, etc) are under Russia influence
- republicans storm the Capitol with Russian support
- all republicans/conservatives fall inline with trump’s Putin love.

Under Democrat President
- republicans/conservatives undermine any action against Russia
- republicans/conservatives blindly support Putin.
- republicans/conservatives work to destroy NATO

Once again conjecture with little or no facts.

Lien I said
Under Trump:
No war
No invasion
Economic prosperity despite the lefts attempts to undermine all of it


Under Biden:
High gas prices
Empty shelves
Skyrocketing inflation
War
Chaos
Listed sanctions despite resistance from Zelensky and others who said it was a bad idea
Imports more Russian oil



Those are visible and tangible facts.

They are also outcomes from previous administrations. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Changes in policy on a national or global scale are hardly ever immediate. Its built upon what has previously happened.

Not sure it's useful responding to this troll, PP. Most people understand that what happens under one administration is usually the consequence of several years of domestic and international events. Presidents seem all-powerful, and indeed they are, but global economic forces and world events like pandemics and war are way, way more influential. There is only so much one person in the Oval Office can do. This goes for any President of any party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

Russia is looking like a paper tiger. Outdated manpads are significantly downgrading their stock of supposedly state of the art aircraft, their instance of keeping to an armor heavy doctrine is looking like a mistake, and their logistics are a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

The military experts tell you that there is no Russia B team What you see is what you get: ie, clumsy and total destruction from a morally-bankrupt and desperate leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

If i remember correctly, Putin and Erdogan were buddy buddy at the time. NATO was unfortunately not unified then.

True. However, the US could have unilaterally placed aircraft carriers, if not in the Bosphorus Strait (if Turkey wouldn’t have allowed it), in international waters as close as we could get to it.

To block the Bosporus Strait would have been an act of war - naval blockade is an act of war.

Where are you getting these crazy ideas PP? None of what you propose is remotely workable - neither militarily, strategically or legally.

I’m aware of what it would be, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

That Russia is holding back their A team? Look, maybe they have a B team (being kind) sitting somewhere in reserve, but that's debatable. Aside, every piece of military equipment they lose can't be easily replaced for a long time. Their military is a barbaric clown show.

Russia has to get spare parts from museums.
It looks like most of the tanks are T72, which are from 1970s.

That is all they have. They talked of building a modern tank for decades and the 5 t or they have they used for parades but they would break down and become a 30 ton road block.
Russias military is on par with Mexico.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

Can anyone provide sources? I'm not pps but admit I'm clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

You're truly clueless.
Ask military experts

That Russia is holding back their A team? Look, maybe they have a B team (being kind) sitting somewhere in reserve, but that's debatable. Aside, every piece of military equipment they lose can't be easily replaced for a long time. Their military is a barbaric clown show.

Russia has to get spare parts from museums.
It looks like most of the tanks are T72, which are from 1970s.

That is all they have. They talked of building a modern tank for decades and the 5 t or they have they used for parades but they would break down and become a 30 ton road block.
Russias military is on par with Mexico.

No it’s not: https://www.globalfirepower.com/

Russia: 2
Mexico: 43

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no end in sight.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire or even to leave altogether (they won't), there's no reason to trust them.

Even if Putin is taken out or overthrown, there are still some like him who will try to fill that slot.

I'm very worried that Putin isn't the weak/foolish person who bit off more than he could chew per the current media spin. I wonder if he's so calculating that he is letting his B team take the hit so the rest of the world thinks he can and must be taken out by putting boots on the ground or getting more intimately involved. Then he will send his A Team to take out the opposition once they've gotten cocky and let their guard down. This is a guy who patiently concocts plots to kill his competition or detractors...using brutal methods, on his terms.

Lol no. This is the Russia A team. Stop thinking Putin is playing chess. He plays ticTacToe. There is no subtlety with Russians.

Are you sure?

I've heard reports that:

-Military analysts have said the Russian tanks, equipment, etc. you see in Ukraine are not Russia's more modern military equipment (that they know exists).

-Putin has only sent 30% of his military into Ukraine, and he's holding back military to defend Russia and/or invade elsewhere.

Same thing with their Air force. Military analysts are still perplex as to why they have not fully utilized their air power and taking advantage of their air superiority.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-doesnt-russia-have-air-superiority-over-ukraine-200965

Russia launched its attack in the early hours of February 24 and successfully blinded the Ukrainian Air Force by taking out Ukraine’s main ground-based early warning radars. Strikes also destroyed a number of long-range S-300P surface-to-air missile batteries and even hit some runways at major bases. The initial attacks were very much like many of the U.S.-led interventions since the end of the Cold War.

All of that seemed to be straight out of the playbook used in almost every military conflict since 1938, noted a report from the RUSI think tank in London.

RUSI argued that "with its early warning chain blinded and some runways cratered, the [Ukrainian Air Force] was left vulnerable to raids by strike aircraft like the Su-34 with guided munitions, or even multirole Su-30 fighters with predominantly unguided munitions. If present in significant numbers, escorting Su-35 and Su-30 fighters would have overwhelmed the Ukrainian fighters, even if they did manage to take off for sorties conducted at very low altitudes with limited situational awareness. This did not happen."

Instead, 300 modern Russian aircraft—which had been positioned for such an attack—have remained grounded...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

Republicans would not support any democrat president. You reap what you sow.

Like I noted.

You can live life under fantasy and conjecture but it’s not healthy so seek help.

But what we DO KNOW and can PROVE:

Under Trump:
Heavy sanctions on Russia
No Wars
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine

Under Biden
Lifted sanctions
Zelensky and others tried to encourage Biden to our sanctions back on, Biden refused
Russia invaded Ukraine

Under Obama:
Russia annexes Crimea
Weak response led by US hurts Russia a little but not enough
Russia continues to be belligerent


Those are facts we can actually see.

Under trump
- trump meets with Putin by himself who knows what deal was struck.
- Trump tries to breakup nato
- trump tries to stop all weapon deals with Ukraine
- trump threatens Ukraine
- Putin places bounties on US military personnel
- Russians attack use forces in Syria
- Russian systematically attack US elections
- Russians lunch hacking attacks against US.
- all conservatives organizations(NRA, etc) are under Russia influence
- republicans storm the Capitol with Russian support
- all republicans/conservatives fall inline with trump’s Putin love.

Under Democrat President
- republicans/conservatives undermine any action against Russia
- republicans/conservatives blindly support Putin.
- republicans/conservatives work to destroy NATO

Once again conjecture with little or no facts.

Lien I said
Under Trump:
No war
No invasion
Economic prosperity despite the lefts attempts to undermine all of it


Under Biden:
High gas prices
Empty shelves
Skyrocketing inflation
War
Chaos
Listed sanctions despite resistance from Zelensky and others who said it was a bad idea
Imports more Russian oil



Those are visible and tangible facts.

They are also outcomes from previous administrations. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Changes in policy on a national or global scale are hardly ever immediate. Its built upon what has previously happened.

Like I said…

Under Trump/
No war
Peace and prosperity
Low energy costs

Under Biden
War
High gas prices
Skyrocketing inflation
Empty shelves
Global chaos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO we need elder statesmen to be involved in some type of diplomatic resolution (and maybe they are, behind the scenes) Obama, Clinton, Bush, even Jimmy Carter. We need seasoned experienced leaders to get involved and behind this.

You are joking.
The same "seasoned experienced leaders" who have got us where we are?

I agree this administration has failed in its efforts. And, it makes me angry.
They didn't enact sanctions soon enough.
They didn't send lethal arms to Ukraine for their defense soon enough, even though they had weeks if not months to do this.
They are still buying oil from Russia.
These are the same people who planned the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so I was not optimistic.

But, most of the people you listed are not any more capable of dealing with Russia. Remember Hillary's "reset" with Russia? Remember what happened to Crimea under Obama?
And, Jimmy Carter? Probably the worst in terms of decision making when it comes to foreign policy?
No thanks.

Most of the things you suggest would have rapidly and needlessly escalated the situation. Also would have made it impossible for US to rally support from around the world and would have antagonized China.

We can't keep overstretching ourselves in conflicts around the world. The painful reality is that our leadership has to make very tough choices. I think Biden and team have handled this very well thus far.

BS. The situation escalated on Putin's timeline because we didn't act.
You are believing the narrative this administration is spinning because they have been utter failures.

The US was warning the world that Putin was going to invade, and no one believed them. Plenty of people on this site didn't believe it. How much could the US have done at that point?

Once Putin made the decision to invade, there was nothing the US could have done. Sending in troops to Ukraine would have led to Russians shooting at US soldiers, and vice versa. Does anyone really want the countries that hold the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals shooting at each other?

Honestly, we should have been more aggressive with Putin after he annexed Crimea. The US and European response to that was weak and sent the message to Putin that he could escalate and the response would not be anything he couldn’t handle.

By doing what? Specifically?

And how do you suppose Trump repeating Russian propaganda and the GOP falling in line may have negatively impacted things over the past 4 years?

I never said Trump didn’t negatively impact things, but if you’ve been following Russia since 2014, you can see that the cycle of Putin becoming more aggressive globally really started with the Crimea annexation and the lackluster Western response.

Specifically, we should have placed US/NATO forces on high alert and placed US aircraft carriers in the Bosporus strait. European leaders should have called Putin and told him that if he does not withdraw all Russian presence from Crimea (outside of Black Sea fleet access, which we could negotiate), we will not remove the carriers. Blocking him into the Black Sea would have been disastrous for him and I believe there’s a chance he would have backed down at that point.

Republicans would not support any democrat president. You reap what you sow.

Like I noted.

You can live life under fantasy and conjecture but it’s not healthy so seek help.

But what we DO KNOW and can PROVE:

Under Trump:
Heavy sanctions on Russia
No Wars
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine

Under Biden
Lifted sanctions
Zelensky and others tried to encourage Biden to our sanctions back on, Biden refused
Russia invaded Ukraine

Under Obama:
Russia annexes Crimea
Weak response led by US hurts Russia a little but not enough
Russia continues to be belligerent


Those are facts we can actually see.

You are a nut. What we know:

Under Trump:
Heavy sanctions on Russia -- no. clearly, you can see by comparison to current sanctions that sanctions against Russia under the Trump administration were not "heavy". While it's true that Trump did put some sanctions on Russia -- the sanctions were legally mandated by bipartisan legislation. Trump had dragged his feet for 6 months on executing what the law required him to do in terms of sanctions and he only finally did it under pressure from Congress. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/trump-russia-sanctions-chemical-weapons-spy-poisoning/index.html

No Wars -- the war in Donbas Ukraine has been going on for 8 years. Putin has been in Syria during the entire Trump administration bombing on behalf of Assad

Russia didn’t invade Ukraine -- again, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and stayed there thru the entire Trump administration.

This idea that Trump was somehow tougher against Putin than Biden is fantasy -- completely unconnected to the reality of the situation.

[Anonymous]

Then why are they sending in SUVs and civilian trucks as re-supply?

Theyve lost 52 T-80s and 14 T-90s along with the 68 T-70s.

Why have they been unable to take Kharkiv and Mariopul which are both super close to Russia and forces there should be easily able to re-supply?