(02-23-2025 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:39 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

Why cant everyone see this.

Its baffling.

Because a mainstay of progressive ideology is to root out common sense where and whenever it is encountered. People thinking for themselves is the very antithesis of the hive mind that progressivism seeks to control.

No. It’s two juxtaposed ideological mind sets.

1. To those which much is given much is asked.

2. It’s mine and you can’t have any.

These two minds sets are not exactly right and left but more simply what is right. That doesn’t mean that good people should not be good stewards of their wealth. But greed when people are in need is not a good look.

We should stand by our traditional allies through this small crisis. See that it doesn’t become a big crisis and attend to the details later.

(02-23-2025 10:40 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Have to disagree with you here.

First, Israel has been the biggest recipient of our foreign aid since WW2. For such a small country, that is a huge per-capita assistance, dwarfing other nations. Then you have scammers like the "International Fellowship of Christians and Jews" taking money from American Christians and giving it to Jews in Israel - never the reverse. If you add up the private aid given to Israel, it is also a huge amount. Yet Israel persecutes Christians, limits their religious practice, and gives them second-class status. Finally, when 9-11 happened, Russia built a beautiful monument dedicated to friendship, the lost lives, and the war against terror. When the USS Liberty incident happened, Israel at first denied, then deflected, then paid a token amount - no monuments, no sincere apology, no firings, no real accountability. (Note that my grandparents served as Missionaries in Israel in the early 80s, so I am predisposed to favor Israel, and did for many years until the reality was undeniable. It is yet another testament to the maxim that "Power corrupts.")

I love Japan - beautiful country. You can feel safe wandering around Tokyo at 2 in the morning. People are helpful, despite the language barrier. I would hate to have them as an enemy. But, they have not really helped us out militarily. Contrast with South Korea. During the Viet Nam war, despite having their own ongoing border war with North Korea and invasions by their assassins, they sent 320,000-350,000 military personnel to fight the Commies starting in 1965. Australia sent smaller numbers to Viet Nam, but also fought bravely and well. The Aussies have also supported us in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention WW2. The Aussies have been a better ally than Japan.

Finally, as has been said, "We have no permanent allies, only permanent interests." Just like with conference realignment in college football, we have no permanent allies and no permanent enemies. Nations change, needs change, and the world changes.

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

I think WW II might have something to do about Japan having an all out military. They do have this;

Japan does not officially have a military but instead has the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), which are legally defined as a self-defense force rather than a military.

(02-23-2025 11:53 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 10:40 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Have to disagree with you here.

First, Israel has been the biggest recipient of our foreign aid since WW2. For such a small country, that is a huge per-capita assistance, dwarfing other nations. Then you have scammers like the "International Fellowship of Christians and Jews" taking money from American Christians and giving it to Jews in Israel - never the reverse. If you add up the private aid given to Israel, it is also a huge amount. Yet Israel persecutes Christians, limits their religious practice, and gives them second-class status. Finally, when 9-11 happened, Russia built a beautiful monument dedicated to friendship, the lost lives, and the war against terror. When the USS Liberty incident happened, Israel at first denied, then deflected, then paid a token amount - no monuments, no sincere apology, no firings, no real accountability. (Note that my grandparents served as Missionaries in Israel in the early 80s, so I am predisposed to favor Israel, and did for many years until the reality was undeniable. It is yet another testament to the maxim that "Power corrupts.")

I love Japan - beautiful country. You can feel safe wandering around Tokyo at 2 in the morning. People are helpful, despite the language barrier. I would hate to have them as an enemy. But, they have not really helped us out militarily. Contrast with South Korea. During the Viet Nam war, despite having their own ongoing border war with North Korea and invasions by their assassins, they sent 320,000-350,000 military personnel to fight the Commies starting in 1965. Australia sent smaller numbers to Viet Nam, but also fought bravely and well. The Aussies have also supported us in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention WW2. The Aussies have been a better ally than Japan.

Finally, as has been said, "We have no permanent allies, only permanent interests." Just like with conference realignment in college football, we have no permanent allies and no permanent enemies. Nations change, needs change, and the world changes.

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

I think WW II might have something to do about Japan having an all out military. They do have this;

Japan does not officially have a military but instead has the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), which are legally defined as a self-defense force rather than a military.

Their constitution prohibits a "military" but their forces have just as good a technology as any other super power and I am sure they are about 30 days from the word go to have a nuclear weapon if they ever felt their existance was threatened by China, Russia, or NK.

3 questions:

-We know NATOs motives are bad and they want to use our money and weapons to accomplish. So, a level headed person wouldn’t want NATO adding a country next to you after youve been kicked out of the club and basically blacksheeped?

-Does Ukraine have a Nazi problem?

-did Putin lie about Ukraine’s biolabs?

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

We have no allies. Those two nations you mentioned have sucked our teat for years as well. It's 2025, but the world is still living like it's 1945.

Besides, if Israel was our ally, why did they attack the USS Liberty?

1967, who’s in a 4 way tie with Carter, Biden, and Obama for worst president in our history?

That’s a good example of, The US is not the world police.

U.S. NATO Funding Much Higher Than Official Contribution Data

Quote:President Trump has faced criticism for claiming that the U.S. accounts for over 70% of NATO’s funding. However, he is correct in his assertion. The official figures on U.S. funding for NATO typically only reflect direct contributions, which represent roughly 15%-20% of NATO’s budget. In reality, the U.S. provides a wide range of additional aid and support, significantly increasing its financial commitment to the alliance.

These contributions include U.S. military bases in Europe, Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP), defense and security assistance, infrastructure support, contributions to NATO missions and operations, strategic airlift and logistics, cybersecurity and intelligence support, ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, research and development (R&D) for NATO technologies, support for NATO’s nuclear deterrence, troop deployment costs, investment in NATO’s rapid reaction force, space applications, military aid and loans to smaller countries, and nuclear sharing.

By some estimates, when all U.S. contributions are considered, the total could be as high as $700 billion annually.

In terms of NATO-led operations, the U.S. is the largest contributor, covering the majority of personnel, equipment, and logistics costs for missions in Afghanistan, Libya, and Kosovo. Furthermore, the U.S. invests heavily in defense projects that bolster NATO’s collective defense capabilities, including missile defense systems in Europe, cyber defense initiatives, and advanced military technologies.

The U.S. provides extensive surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and special operations forces, which are crucial for NATO operations but are often financed outside of the official NATO contribution data. NATO does not operate its own independent intelligence services like the CIA or MI6. Instead, it relies heavily on the intelligence provided by its member countries, particularly the U.S., which has the most significant intelligence-gathering resources within the alliance. While NATO has structures like the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre (NIFC) and Allied Command Operations (ACO) for coordinating and sharing intelligence, it does not produce its own intelligence assessments or defense reports. Instead, NATO’s assessments are largely based on the intelligence reports produced by the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of Defense. The annual NATO Secretary General’s report includes a threat assessment, but the data used in this report is sourced from U.S. intelligence.

Apart from intelligence, the U.S. bears a large portion of NATO’s logistics costs, particularly for troop movements and transportation of supplies. The U.S. military provides most of the airlift capacity, making it a major contributor to NATO’s operational readiness and mobility. Additionally, the U.S. contributes to NATO’s space-based assets, such as satellite systems for communication, reconnaissance, and early warning—key components of the alliance’s strategic defense that are not included in the common defense budget.

The U.S. also provides military aid, defense loans, and assistance to smaller NATO member countries, helping them meet NATO’s defense standards. This significant financial commitment is not reflected in NATO’s official budget contributions. Moreover, the U.S. funds a large portion of NATO’s joint defense research and development (R&D) programs, supporting technological innovations in areas like cybersecurity, missile defense, and advanced weapon systems, typically through U.S. military and defense contractors.

The U.S. also plays a central role in NATO’s nuclear sharing, providing nuclear weapons and capabilities shared within the alliance. The U.S. has invested heavily in ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems deployed in Europe, including the installation of Aegis and THAAD systems in Eastern Europe.

The U.S. also provides extensive defense and security assistance, particularly to newer NATO members in Eastern Europe. Countries like Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states have benefited from U.S. funding for military modernization, training programs, and the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases. A substantial portion of the U.S. contribution also goes toward infrastructure development, including the construction and maintenance of NATO facilities, airfields, and bases across Europe.

In addition to BMD, the U.S. funds or co-funds many large-scale joint military exercises conducted by NATO, such as “Defender Europe.” While NATO’s common funding budget covers some exercises, the U.S. often bears a much larger share of the expenses. Through initiatives like the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), the U.S. also spends billions annually to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank, particularly to bolster the defense capabilities of countries near Russia’s borders. This spending is another example of U.S. financial contributions that are not fully reflected in NATO’s official budget.

Its refreshing to see people waking up to this farce

"First, Israel has been the biggest recipient of our foreign aid since WW2. For such a small country, that is a huge per-capita assistance, dwarfing other nations". Hawkeye

It may be true that Israel is getting a lot of money from us but you have to remember that they are constantly getting attacked and when you have to defend yourself it's obvious that you will spend more on weapons to counter the attack.

When has Nato ever been attacked? I'll wait, and don't say Ukraine, they're not in Nato...and yet we're bearing the brunt of expenditures in the organization.

I say get out of Nato and when they come crying for help then help them out but let them spend their own money in the meantime. We're not rebuilding Europe anymore but it's seems that we still are. Just like we weren't giving anything to Ukraine except for the money Ol' Foggy sent them, we can always start spending it on Europe if they need it but not any of this free money they're getting right now and yet hating us like the Demonics do the Repubs.

(02-23-2025 01:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Its refreshing to see people waking up to this farce

I think you mispronounced bandwagon jumpers.

(02-22-2025 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

The REAL PROBLEM with your post is you are giving reasons and NOT RESULTS.


We didn’t sign on to be their Daddy. US should NEVER pay more than half and probably a third would be more in line.

I was reading on a German blog how antiquated Russian Nukes are and with any amount of nanotechnology they could all be disabled. The guy went into very specific details how to do it.

(02-23-2025 12:40 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  U.S. NATO Funding Much Higher Than Official Contribution Data

Quote:President Trump has faced criticism for claiming that the U.S. accounts for over 70% of NATO’s funding. However, he is correct in his assertion. The official figures on U.S. funding for NATO typically only reflect direct contributions, which represent roughly 15%-20% of NATO’s budget. In reality, the U.S. provides a wide range of additional aid and support, significantly increasing its financial commitment to the alliance.

These contributions include U.S. military bases in Europe, Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP), defense and security assistance, infrastructure support, contributions to NATO missions and operations, strategic airlift and logistics, cybersecurity and intelligence support, ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, research and development (R&D) for NATO technologies, support for NATO’s nuclear deterrence, troop deployment costs, investment in NATO’s rapid reaction force, space applications, military aid and loans to smaller countries, and nuclear sharing.

By some estimates, when all U.S. contributions are considered, the total could be as high as $700 billion annually.

In terms of NATO-led operations, the U.S. is the largest contributor, covering the majority of personnel, equipment, and logistics costs for missions in Afghanistan, Libya, and Kosovo. Furthermore, the U.S. invests heavily in defense projects that bolster NATO’s collective defense capabilities, including missile defense systems in Europe, cyber defense initiatives, and advanced military technologies.

The U.S. provides extensive surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and special operations forces, which are crucial for NATO operations but are often financed outside of the official NATO contribution data. NATO does not operate its own independent intelligence services like the CIA or MI6. Instead, it relies heavily on the intelligence provided by its member countries, particularly the U.S., which has the most significant intelligence-gathering resources within the alliance. While NATO has structures like the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre (NIFC) and Allied Command Operations (ACO) for coordinating and sharing intelligence, it does not produce its own intelligence assessments or defense reports. Instead, NATO’s assessments are largely based on the intelligence reports produced by the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of Defense. The annual NATO Secretary General’s report includes a threat assessment, but the data used in this report is sourced from U.S. intelligence.

Apart from intelligence, the U.S. bears a large portion of NATO’s logistics costs, particularly for troop movements and transportation of supplies. The U.S. military provides most of the airlift capacity, making it a major contributor to NATO’s operational readiness and mobility. Additionally, the U.S. contributes to NATO’s space-based assets, such as satellite systems for communication, reconnaissance, and early warning—key components of the alliance’s strategic defense that are not included in the common defense budget.

The U.S. also provides military aid, defense loans, and assistance to smaller NATO member countries, helping them meet NATO’s defense standards. This significant financial commitment is not reflected in NATO’s official budget contributions. Moreover, the U.S. funds a large portion of NATO’s joint defense research and development (R&D) programs, supporting technological innovations in areas like cybersecurity, missile defense, and advanced weapon systems, typically through U.S. military and defense contractors.

The U.S. also plays a central role in NATO’s nuclear sharing, providing nuclear weapons and capabilities shared within the alliance. The U.S. has invested heavily in ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems deployed in Europe, including the installation of Aegis and THAAD systems in Eastern Europe.

The U.S. also provides extensive defense and security assistance, particularly to newer NATO members in Eastern Europe. Countries like Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states have benefited from U.S. funding for military modernization, training programs, and the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases. A substantial portion of the U.S. contribution also goes toward infrastructure development, including the construction and maintenance of NATO facilities, airfields, and bases across Europe.

In addition to BMD, the U.S. funds or co-funds many large-scale joint military exercises conducted by NATO, such as “Defender Europe.” While NATO’s common funding budget covers some exercises, the U.S. often bears a much larger share of the expenses. Through initiatives like the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), the U.S. also spends billions annually to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank, particularly to bolster the defense capabilities of countries near Russia’s borders. This spending is another example of U.S. financial contributions that are not fully reflected in NATO’s official budget.

This is kinda what I was talking about. A massive economy like the US can finance all the meat and potatoes basics required for a modern army and still have enough budget free board left to fund high end specialized niche functions like some of the things described (special forces, specialized electronic warfare aircraft, specialized regional air defense system like Aegis Ashore, ballistic air defense systems, THAD systems, satellite/undersea surveillance systems, extensive tanker/AWAC coverage, specialized gunship aircraft, spy planes, carrier based air power projection, etc). No other nation can provide all those niche functions---and certainly not on the scale that the US can. Once the typical NATO country pays for all the basics---there is just no way they will have a enough left to build out the defense structure to perform all those specialized niche functions we currently handle. Even if they put together a shared consortium of nations to try to finance those functions, it would be years before they could build out the defense structure to replace us.

Thats why I have a feeling some will just opt for a nuclear deterrent knowing they cant afford to build a conventional force large enough to deter Russia's larger army. But a small capable conventional force with a nuclear deterrent is probably something even a relatively small nation can afford---and that likely would be capable of deterring even Russia's large army. If N Korea can afford to do it----then I suspect most small European nations probably can afford to do it. We probably should not be surprised if a period of rapid nuclear proliferation is a part of this coming new world order.

Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky

Quote:Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky: «I'm not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I'm fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. "This has to STOP."

(02-23-2025 02:28 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky

Quote:Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky: «I'm not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I'm fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. "This has to STOP."

Three yesrs and thousands of lives later....

The little green turd cant extort biden anymore.

Duped

(02-23-2025 03:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 02:28 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky

Quote:Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky: «I'm not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I'm fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. "This has to STOP."

Three yesrs and thousands of lives later....

The little green turd cant extort biden anymore.

Duped

And the taxpayers were mugged.

(02-23-2025 12:36 PM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  1967, who’s in a 4 way tie with Carter, Biden, and Obama for worst president in our history?

That’s a good example of, The US is not the world police.

LBJ. The US should never be the world's police. I've long said it's time to bring all of our military personnel overseas home and put them on the Southern Border.

(02-23-2025 02:21 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(02-22-2025 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

The REAL PROBLEM with your post is you are giving reasons and NOT RESULTS.


We didn’t sign on to be their Daddy. US should NEVER pay more than half and probably a third would be more in line.

I was reading on a German blog how antiquated Russian Nukes are and with any amount of nanotechnology they could all be disabled. The guy went into very specific details how to do it.

Their biggest baddest and newest nuke just blew up when Putin told them to fuel it up to scare the west. You can’t make this kinda chit up.

Ukraine’s Borders: A Century of Flux and the Myth of Permanence

Quote:There is a persistent belief—particularly among Western observers—that Ukraine’s borders, as they stood on the eve of 2014, were somehow sacrosanct, immutable, a fixed reality of the international order. This view betrays a profound ignorance of history. The notion that any European border, let alone Ukraine’s, is beyond dispute ignores the repeated redrawings of maps, the frequent rise and fall of territorial claims, and the consistent reality of border changes through war, treaty, and political maneuvering. Ukraine, in particular, is one of the most illustrative examples of this broader historical phenomenon. If there is a European country whose borders could be considered permanently settled, Ukraine is not it.

The history of Ukraine’s borders is a history of shifting sovereignties. The land that today constitutes Ukraine has been contested ground for centuries, passing through the hands of empires, republics, and military occupations. Its territorial definition has been redrawn at least a dozen times in the last few hundred years, often at the whims of external forces. Its current borders, inherited from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, are more of a historical accident than a product of some long-standing, organic national unity.

Consider the earliest configurations of the region. The medieval state of Kievan Rus, often cited as Ukraine’s foundational polity, was not a distinct Ukrainian entity but a loose federation of East Slavic principalities stretching from modern-day Belarus to Russia. It had no fixed borders in the contemporary sense, its influence waxing and waning with the strength of its rulers. When the Mongols sacked Kyiv in 1240, the remnants of Kievan Rus splintered, and control over Ukrainian lands shifted westward to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. By the late 14th century, most of Ukraine was under Lithuanian or Polish control, its borders dictated by dynastic marriages and military conquests rather than any intrinsic national identity.

The Union of Lublin in 1569 transferred most of what is now Ukraine from Lithuanian to direct Polish control, integrating it into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This arrangement lasted barely more than a century before the 1648 Cossack uprising against Polish rule created an autonomous Hetmanate in central Ukraine, a quasi-state that in turn sought the protection of Russia through the Pereyaslav Agreement of 1654. That agreement led, within a few decades, to Ukraine being partitioned along the Dnieper River between Poland and Russia—just one of many instances where Ukraine’s territorial fate was decided by external actors.

By the late 18th century, the collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth resulted in yet another reconfiguration. The Russian Empire absorbed Right-Bank Ukraine, while the Austrian Habsburgs took control of Galicia, Bukovina, and Transcarpathia. At the same time, Catherine the Great expanded Russian control over southern Ukraine, annexing the Crimean Khanate in 1783. These changes laid the foundation for the Ukraine of the 19th century: a divided land, split between Russian and Austrian dominions, with no unified political existence of its own.

World War I and the Russian Revolution created another moment of flux. As the empires of Eastern Europe collapsed, multiple Ukrainian states were declared between 1917 and 1920—the Ukrainian People’s Republic, the West Ukrainian People’s Republic, even a short-lived Ukrainian Soviet Republic. But these fledgling entities were short-lived, crushed by Bolsheviks from the east and Poles from the west. The Treaty of Riga in 1921 formally divided Ukraine once again: western territories fell under Polish rule, while the east became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, a constituent part of the USSR.

Even within the Soviet Union, Ukraine’s borders were not fixed. In the interwar period, the Ukrainian SSR lost some territory to the newly formed Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1924. In 1939, following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet troops invaded eastern Poland and annexed western Ukraine, shifting the republic’s borders westward. In 1940, Northern Bukovina and parts of Bessarabia were taken from Romania and added to Ukraine. In 1945, Transcarpathia was transferred from Czechoslovakia to Soviet Ukraine. These expansions completed the territorial shape of what would become independent Ukraine in 1991—but they were hardly natural or inevitable.

The last major border adjustment before Ukraine’s independence was the 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian SSR. At the time, this move was largely symbolic, an administrative shift within the Soviet Union with little consequence. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine’s leaders insisted that the inherited Soviet boundaries should be the inviolable borders of the new state. That position—embraced by Western policymakers in the post-Cold War settlement—ignored the long history of border fluidity in the region and the tenuousness of Ukrainian sovereignty over territories that had never been definitively “Ukrainian” in any historical sense.

The events of 2014 and beyond fit into this broader historical pattern. Russia’s annexation of Crimea was not a sudden aberration but rather a return to a historical norm in which Ukraine’s frontiers were subject to external pressures and internal upheavals. The war in the Donbas, the contested status of Luhansk and Donetsk, and the shifting military lines in the current conflict all reinforce the reality that Ukraine’s borders—like those of much of Eastern Europe—are far from settled.

This does not mean that Ukraine’s sovereignty is illegitimate or that territorial integrity should not be defended. But it does mean that appeals to the supposed permanence of borders, as though they were some unchanging fact of nature, are fundamentally ahistorical. Ukraine, like Poland, Germany, and countless other European nations, has had its borders drawn and redrawn by the forces of history. To claim that they are now unchallengeable is to ignore centuries of evidence to the contrary.

(02-23-2025 03:52 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 03:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 02:28 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky

Quote:Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky: «I'm not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I'm fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. "This has to STOP."

Three yesrs and thousands of lives later....

The little green turd cant extort biden anymore.

Duped

And the taxpayers were mugged.

More like raped.

(02-23-2025 08:05 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(02-22-2025 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

All a bunch of BS. Cumulatively speaking their population exceeds ours. Eff NATO.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

If Europe was a single nation--then yeah---you'd be right. But there is no such thing as a NATO army. There is no such thing as a European army. Instead---there is a UK army. There is a French army. There is Polish Army---etc. Each nation pays for their own army. You could maybe replicate what we did if say---Denmark---just spent almost their entire budget on AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft---but they wouldnt have an army or SAMs or any of the basic crap a typical military consists of. Nobody is going to want to do that.

My point is they cant really replace us---and certainly not quickly. I didnt say it was our responsibility to provide those assets. Im saying they would be in trouble without us. Which means they would likely have to cut some sort of compensation deal with us if we decided to leave NATO in order to still have access to the most important niche functions we perform. I suspect stuff like satellite, surveillance, encrypted communications, etc. would probably be the most important to them.