Search the Community

Latvia's a NATO country. Good luck there. Moldova says they want permanent neutrality, but if Ukraine falls, that will likely change and NATO will admit them immediately.

I don't know if Zelensky is corrupt. I also don't blindly think he's a golden boy, just because he's standing up to Putin. I know you all have nightmares about Trump and Putin (not necessarily in that order) so anyone who stands up to him is automatically a saint. Ukraine has always been a corrupt country and it wouldn't surprise me if it still is. As for the war, I'm against the money we're sending to a non-NATO country for a proxy war that Ukraine ultimately can't win without it being a forever war. The claim that we need to do it to prevent Putin from invading a NATO country doesn't fly because, again, he's proven with Ukraine that Russia just doesn't have the ability.

Yes I do. Because he, unlike Dems, knew what Trump meant with the NATO threats.

2014 western backed Euromaidan revolution/coup. 2014, disputed regions counter revolution as the population of those regions are 75+% Russians. Disputed region has election. people choose to not be part of Ukraine. But the only peace deal can be the Non-Democratic Ukraine joining NATO even though they have never been able to meet the basic requirements for it. And Russia abandoning the Russians, Energy lines/sources/ strategic port of Crimea. So, until Russia and its citizens go back to the pre-2014-euro maiden border, No deal. Would probably require a mass evacuation of all the Russian citizens, as they would be free game. But for real, Ukraine couldn't meet the requirements for NATO in 2012, How do they now?

It's a preposterous proposal. We keep all of the land. You don't join NATO. Kind of like the Third Reich proposing to the Allies that they will agree to a ceasefire on June 10 1944 if the Allies cede all lands gained to them to date, and refuse to engage in further alliances that make them one unified force. Sure.

What does the GOP agenda offer me? Trump's fanatic devotion to leaving NATO will destabilize the world and make it easier for authoritarians like Putin to have free reign. His tariffs will raise the price of goods. He is anti-green energy which will cost thousands of jobs and undo progress on environmental health. He offers no unifying, galvanizing national message. His plan for migrants is sadistic and vile. He plans to install nothing but loyalists to government positions, a terrifying prospect.

I get it, you'd rather be told lies like "Biden is sharp as a tack and totally in charge" with an even keel temperament by the same monotone liars who appear to be sterilely steering the world into WWIII. Anecdotally, I recently asked a good friend of mine who is a fellow Chicago liberal if they'd been watching any of the transcribed Russian political TV personalities. The ones who have been aggressively yelling for preemptive nuclear strikes against Ukraine and NATO. And they said, oh yeah, they're just like Trump. Which couldn't be further from the truth. Trump has constantly advocated for an end to the Ukraine war and peace in the world. But that's what the "typical liberal I imagine in my head" seems to do, equate how a tweet makes them feel with literal threats of world ending violence.

“Who needs allies”? - one side of L Ron’s mouth ”TRUMP HATES NATO” - the other side stale and witless age-related dig incoming.

Funny you should mention Reagan. Clearly losing it in his second term, yet the world didn't fall apart. In fact, some very good things started happening, like the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberalization of Poland with the rest of the old bloc following. Just like a very incompetent Woodrow Wilson somehow presided over a winning effort in WW1, and a seriously declining FDR took us to victory in Europe. Or how a declining Joe Biden brought about the strongest, most united NATO in history.

Even if Russia could reconstitute its army enough (after another year or so of struggling against a non-NATO country) to attempt an invasion of Latvia, yes, I would have to support sending US troops because that's what NATO is there for. And a big reason why Putin invaded Ukraine, i.e. their pursuit of NATO inclusion. Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama. He didn't under Trump. He was always going to invade Ukraine again if/when Trump left Office. You can deny it all you want. But believing he's going to invade Latvia is fear-mongering at this point. He doesn't have the ability. If he had taken Ukraine in a couple weeks like he predicted, sure, he might have tested NATO. But after the B word slapping he would have received by the full force of all those NATO countries surrounding him and would have surrendered. And if you think he's so irrational, why do you think being defeated in Ukraine would make him stop?

You mean his three day conquest of Ukraine? NATO united like never before, US chip industry fortified and Trump on trial? Ha, ha, Ya Putin's really doing great!

The first sentence (plus my addition) is why there will be nothing further. As I said earlier, Putin can barely takeover a non-NATO country. Meanwhile every other country bordering his (in Europe) is a NATO country save Georgia, which may be fast-tracked.

My views have nothing to do with Putin and you know it. But invoking him is a convenient response for posters here that are too invested in some fantasy outcome of this war to look at the situation objectively. I've pointed out time and time again that Ukraine's biggest issue is a shortage of competent troops and fighters. Not the need for more advanced weapons systems. To support the Kirsk operation they had to pull most of their best fighter off the eastern front which has allowed the Russians to advance more quickly. Its a big gamble. I think its a certainty that militarily this operation fails but what other objectives such as political or pulling NATO into the conflict there are I wonder? One thing is certain, in this war of attrition they are running out of soldiers. But any attempt at injecting some objectivity are met with the usual references to Putin. Good luck with that.

You understand he hated the countries that weren’t paying their fare share right? Then they started paying up cause they were called out. This strengthening NATO. But you knew that

Well, if you had your way - you would kill NATO and let Europe ROT.

Let us know when it happens. They can barely handle Ukraine without NATO support.

Did Ukraine attack a NATO member?

How was Viet Nam "worth it"? You're comparing the Ukraine War to the Marshall Plan? How so? Putin has ZERO chance of being like Stalin. It's taken him 3 years of stalemate WWI style trench warfare and he still hasn't taken over 1 small country. And he's gonna conquer all of Europe?. He attacks a NATO country and he's dead and he knows it. I really don't think your comparison is accurate.

Makes you wonder. Sweden, Poland, Finland, Japan, Korea...these are all countries that are our Allies and could perform Nuclear breakouts in a short length of time. Russia has done the Lord's work in convincing Europe that it is a credible threat, and that Europe needs to re-arm and re-evaluate its security decisions. If strategic mastermind Donald Trump wins the election and pulls us out of NATO. Or curtails our participation in NATO to such a degree no one trusts us, you'd have to think that Nuclear non-proliferation takes it right up the ass. No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded. If Poland doesn't trust us to get nuked to defend Warsaw, then the only way to defend Warsaw is with Polish nukes. Additional Nuclear powers don't add up to a safer human race, even if they do mean safer countries.

Not attacking Ukraine for 4 years under Trump "doesn't show he waited"? LOL! Yes, I'm the one not making sense... And don't be silly with the rest of what you wrote. Trump strengthened NATO by scaring them into contributing their fair share. And if Trump wouldn't have lifted a finger (maybe true) and/or was/is a Putin puppet, why didn't Putin invade? So far none of you have given a serious answer to that question.

In case people don't have time to watch the video or read the corresponding article, the DoD is NOT preparing for a biological or chemical attack. What is happening is that Rush University Hospital is prepped to handle such attacks thanks to expansions they made with federal funds ahead of the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago. Given that the DNC is a major event being hosted just a couple blocks away, they are making sure they are ready in case something does happen. Neither the video nor the article mention the Department of Defense. The false flag thing is made up out of whole cloth and incredibly dumb on its face. While I do have a preference for Northwestern over Rush as far as local hospital systems go, Rush being prepped for the convention makes a lot of sense since it's just a mile away. People really will just believe anything, huh?

Should we send our troops when Putin advances through Ukraine and starts attacking a NATO country?

1. Stay the course. Allow the Fed's monetary policy to continue to stabilize the money supply and inflation. Trump: change the law to allow the President to have a say on interest rates. In other words, allow me to inject more money into the economy for political purposes, thereby risking yet more inflation. 2. Pass the bipartisan plan, and enforce it. Trump: mass deportations. No indication of how this will be done with new entrants/asylum claimants. 3. Make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again. Trump: leave it up to the states. But I won't even tell you what I'm voting for my state of Florida to do. So leave it to the states as long as those states don't ask Citizen Donald what he wants. Appoint FDA chief who promises to ban Mifepristone, or maybe not, depending on the polls. 4. Continue with the tax/budget plans set forth by Biden. - Legitimate big questions here: would she let the sunset on the Trump tax cuts (including estate tax) happen? Would she keep Trump's tariffs in place? Trump: more tariffs. No tax on tips (but how to define who is a worker who ought to be considered a "tipped" employee?). Unclear how revenue gap would be made up. 5. Continue to support Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan. Urge a cease fire in Gaza. Continue to support a strengthened NATO. Continue to treat Russia as a geopolitical foe. Continue to support global free trade, including protection of maritime trade routes in the Pacific/Indian oceans against Chinese threats. Appropriate enforcement of money transfers that facilitate illegal/terrorist activity, including through use of cryptocurrency. Trump: weaken NATO. Allow Israel to do whatever it wants to do. Try to get China to cry uncle through aggressive use of tariffs.

Do you honestly believe that Putin was too scared of the guy who trusts him more than the US and says we shouldn’t necessarily defend our allies and wanted to pull out of NATO?

I aver that this is a particularly uninformed and ignorant comment. The strength of the US military, and it is extremely noteworthy in the gross failure of the Russian military lies in four components. 1. The professional non commissioned officer capability, which is what you have suggested needs to be changed. No other non NATO military puts so much on, and is so rewarded by its NCO's, from about the E-4 to E-8 level. This is being magnified by 1000 by the Russian failure in Ukraine, and is indisputable. 2. Officer skills. 3. Training. Nobody trains like the US military, from top to bottom. 4. Technology, which in a way is related to 1 and 2. NCO's and senior enlisted, as well as officers determine what is needed and are largely listened to, resulting in weapons, systems and training that actually work and allow independent judgement in the heat of battle. Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it.