(10-28-2026 01:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 05:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 07:21 PM)b2b Wrote:  Why should I care if Russia takes Ukraine? I've still not gotten a good explanation. Probably a lot more children on both sides would still have fathers if they had.

I have said this from the beginning. Ukraine was a part of the USSR for the first few decades of my life. Like 6 of them ('40s to '90s).

it's all about access/control to the Black Sea ... people have always fought and died for commercial access ... it's how our species has evolved...

it's that simple...

back a dog into the corner and watch how 'woofy woof' rears the fangs...

Yeah, I started to mention the Black Sea. It's been said here before. I just have other things going on that cut into my time here to back up my opinions, or really even give a crap about most subjects.

All I really said was I don't give a crap whether Putin makes Z a subject, or Z somehow backs Putin down. The 2 countries have had a dire relationship for a good chunk of my life, with absolutely no effect on me, so I just can't stir up a lot of personal concern either way.

(10-29-2026 01:10 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:55 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:09 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Not sure if this applies to you or not, but I know many who have tried to justify our stuff in Iran as doing it in the best interest of the Iranian people.

I believe most Americans want what's best for the Ukrainian people and believe that the Ukrainian people know what's best for themselves and therefore should get to keep their sovereignty.

While I believe most Americans don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people.

People believe all sorts of things. Your of course entitled to your personal opinion---but polling tells us that opinion is very much a minority opinion and is not shared with the vast majority of Americans. Polling tells us the American people are very much "for" Ukraine and cant stand Putin (by a wide margin). That said---I suspect Americans are much more evenly split on doing "whats good" for the Ukrainian people anywhere it might adversely affects "whats good" for the American people.

Where I am, and where the polling suggest the vast majority of the American people are is---

1) They absolutely cant stand Putin and do not want him to succeed in taking Ukraine.

2) To the extent we can help Ukraine without adversely affecting American interests---the vast majority of the American people are for that kind of aid.

3) Aid to the point where we are spending US tax dollars or doing so adversely affects the US---I suspect the percentage for and against that would be far more evenly divided.

4) Whats VERY clear in polling is there is virtually ZERO support for America doing anything that aids the Russian interests in Ukraine (other than seemingly inside the White House). For whatever reason, a guy blessed with the incredible instinctive ability to generally sense the will of the American people----is absolutely politically tone deaf on this issue. Trump is flat out on the wrong side of a 70-30 political issue on Ukraine (and its closer to 90-10 when the question regards doing anything to benefit Putin). Its gotten so bad Trump had to quickly back pedal and deny any knowledge of the recent Starlink/StarsShield misstep. Trump needs to shut up---ditch the Witcoff/Kuchner team---and turn the Ukraine issue over to Rubio (thats kinda what a Secretary of State is there for---and we have a very good one). This is not a winning issue for Trump. Let Rubio handle it and then take appropriate credit when Rubio (a key part of the Trump Administration) brokers a peace deal.

And then you have people who boast about how happy they are to pay a "little" more for fuel prices as long as Iran has no nukes, but on the other end wouldn't want to pay a "little" more to avoid a larger war in Europe that we would inevitably get involved in and make things 100x worse than what we are experiencing now. We all know Russia wouldn't stop with just Ukraine.

Russia doesn't have the means to go beyond Ukraine.

I feel Russia has legitimate grievances with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a terrible neighbor to have. I don't think Russia would go beyond Ukraine, nor do I think they could militarily.

What would help Russia do that very thing would be for us (the deterrent) to continue sinking all of our $ and weapons into Ukraine.

They clearly don't have the means to take over Ukraine either, yet here we are.

How would us aiding Ukraine help Russia? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't know exactly to what extent we are supplying Ukraine but say we supply them with 20% of their arms and munitions, wouldn't it help Russia immensely if 20% of Ukraine's arms and munitions just went poof?

If your premise is that we are sending ALL that we have to Ukraine then I could see an argument being made for that leaving the other countries that you don't think Russia would be able to invade to being vulnerable, but everyone knows we aren't sending ALL that we have....

(10-29-2026 01:10 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:55 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:09 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Not sure if this applies to you or not, but I know many who have tried to justify our stuff in Iran as doing it in the best interest of the Iranian people.

I believe most Americans want what's best for the Ukrainian people and believe that the Ukrainian people know what's best for themselves and therefore should get to keep their sovereignty.

While I believe most Americans don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people.

People believe all sorts of things. Your of course entitled to your personal opinion---but polling tells us that opinion is very much a minority opinion and is not shared with the vast majority of Americans. Polling tells us the American people are very much "for" Ukraine and cant stand Putin (by a wide margin). That said---I suspect Americans are much more evenly split on doing "whats good" for the Ukrainian people anywhere it might adversely affects "whats good" for the American people.

Where I am, and where the polling suggest the vast majority of the American people are is---

1) They absolutely cant stand Putin and do not want him to succeed in taking Ukraine.

2) To the extent we can help Ukraine without adversely affecting American interests---the vast majority of the American people are for that kind of aid.

3) Aid to the point where we are spending US tax dollars or doing so adversely affects the US---I suspect the percentage for and against that would be far more evenly divided.

4) Whats VERY clear in polling is there is virtually ZERO support for America doing anything that aids the Russian interests in Ukraine (other than seemingly inside the White House). For whatever reason, a guy blessed with the incredible instinctive ability to generally sense the will of the American people----is absolutely politically tone deaf on this issue. Trump is flat out on the wrong side of a 70-30 political issue on Ukraine (and its closer to 90-10 when the question regards doing anything to benefit Putin). Its gotten so bad Trump had to quickly back pedal and deny any knowledge of the recent Starlink/StarsShield misstep. Trump needs to shut up---ditch the Witcoff/Kuchner team---and turn the Ukraine issue over to Rubio (thats kinda what a Secretary of State is there for---and we have a very good one). This is not a winning issue for Trump. Let Rubio handle it and then take appropriate credit when Rubio (a key part of the Trump Administration) brokers a peace deal.

And then you have people who boast about how happy they are to pay a "little" more for fuel prices as long as Iran has no nukes, but on the other end wouldn't want to pay a "little" more to avoid a larger war in Europe that we would inevitably get involved in and make things 100x worse than what we are experiencing now. We all know Russia wouldn't stop with just Ukraine.

Russia doesn't have the means to go beyond Ukraine.

I feel Russia has legitimate grievances with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a terrible neighbor to have. I don't think Russia would go beyond Ukraine, nor do I think they could militarily.

What would help Russia do that very thing would be for us (the deterrent) to continue sinking all of our $ and weapons into Ukraine.

Thats just an assumption. I happen to agree with your basic premise that Russia cant beat the combined strength of NATO---but what if the Russians believe they dont have to? What if we are unintentionally sending the signal that when push comes to shove, NATO would be unlikely to risk missiles flying into Paris and London just to protect Baltic states like Estonia. If the West looks like we are about ready to give in to all of Putin's demands just to end the Ukraine war---maybe we are also sending the signal to Putin that we would likely do the same for the Baltic states if he were to push his forces in there.

Imagine this scenario. Putin does the same thing he did to Ukraine---holds a huge military "exercise" just across the border from the Baltic states---and then comes up with some reason to invade. The Russian troops pour across the border and cut off the Baltic states by capturing the narrow Suwalki Gap. Russia quickly captures the area, digs in and annexes the region. They then halt operations and announce that any attempt to retake the area will be met with a nuclear response. Frankly---I suspect NATO would be unlikely to make a move to recapture those Baltic states. So---yeah---I do think a continued expansion into NATO is a VERY possible outcome if Russia is able to subdue Ukraine. Interestingly---eliminating all NATO military presence from the Baltic states is one of the Russian demands for peace in Ukraine----I wonder why?

(10-30-2026 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 01:10 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:55 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  While I believe most Americans don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people.

People believe all sorts of things. Your of course entitled to your personal opinion---but polling tells us that opinion is very much a minority opinion and is not shared with the vast majority of Americans. Polling tells us the American people are very much "for" Ukraine and cant stand Putin (by a wide margin). That said---I suspect Americans are much more evenly split on doing "whats good" for the Ukrainian people anywhere it might adversely affects "whats good" for the American people.

Where I am, and where the polling suggest the vast majority of the American people are is---

1) They absolutely cant stand Putin and do not want him to succeed in taking Ukraine.

2) To the extent we can help Ukraine without adversely affecting American interests---the vast majority of the American people are for that kind of aid.

3) Aid to the point where we are spending US tax dollars or doing so adversely affects the US---I suspect the percentage for and against that would be far more evenly divided.

4) Whats VERY clear in polling is there is virtually ZERO support for America doing anything that aids the Russian interests in Ukraine (other than seemingly inside the White House). For whatever reason, a guy blessed with the incredible instinctive ability to generally sense the will of the American people----is absolutely politically tone deaf on this issue. Trump is flat out on the wrong side of a 70-30 political issue on Ukraine (and its closer to 90-10 when the question regards doing anything to benefit Putin). Its gotten so bad Trump had to quickly back pedal and deny any knowledge of the recent Starlink/StarsShield misstep. Trump needs to shut up---ditch the Witcoff/Kuchner team---and turn the Ukraine issue over to Rubio (thats kinda what a Secretary of State is there for---and we have a very good one). This is not a winning issue for Trump. Let Rubio handle it and then take appropriate credit when Rubio (a key part of the Trump Administration) brokers a peace deal.

And then you have people who boast about how happy they are to pay a "little" more for fuel prices as long as Iran has no nukes, but on the other end wouldn't want to pay a "little" more to avoid a larger war in Europe that we would inevitably get involved in and make things 100x worse than what we are experiencing now. We all know Russia wouldn't stop with just Ukraine.

Russia doesn't have the means to go beyond Ukraine.

I feel Russia has legitimate grievances with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a terrible neighbor to have. I don't think Russia would go beyond Ukraine, nor do I think they could militarily.

What would help Russia do that very thing would be for us (the deterrent) to continue sinking all of our $ and weapons into Ukraine.

Thats just an assumption. I happen to agree with your basic premise that Russia cant beat the combined strength of NATO---but what if the Russians believe they dont have to? What if we are unintentionally sending the signal that when push comes to shove, NATO would be unlikely to risk missiles flying into Paris and London just to protect Baltic states like Estonia. If the West looks like we are about ready to give in to all of Putin's demands just to end the Ukraine war---maybe we are also sending the signal to Putin that we would likely do the same for the Baltic states if he were to push his forces in there.

Imagine this scenario. Putin does the same thing he did to Ukraine---holds a huge military "exercise" just across the border from the Baltic states---and then comes up with some reason to invade. The Russian troops pour across the border and cut off the Baltic states by capturing the narrow Suwalki Gap. Russia quickly captures the area, digs in and annexes the region. They then halt operations and announce that any attempt to retake the area will be met with a nuclear response. Frankly---I suspect NATO would be unlikely to make a move to recapture those Baltic states. So---yeah---I do think a continued expansion into NATO is a VERY possible outcome if Russia is able to subdue Ukraine. Interestingly---eliminating all NATO military presence from the Baltic states is one of the Russian demands for peace in Ukraine----I wonder why?

Yes. Russia could probably take Estonia and Latvia before we could act. Maybe Lithuania as well. And then dare us to drive him out.

I think Trump would drive him out. I don't know about Biden. But Putin could calculate that we wouldn't.

And there are restive Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia. There is even a small majority Russian enclave in Estonia.

(10-30-2026 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 01:10 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:55 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  While I believe most Americans don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people.

People believe all sorts of things. Your of course entitled to your personal opinion---but polling tells us that opinion is very much a minority opinion and is not shared with the vast majority of Americans. Polling tells us the American people are very much "for" Ukraine and cant stand Putin (by a wide margin). That said---I suspect Americans are much more evenly split on doing "whats good" for the Ukrainian people anywhere it might adversely affects "whats good" for the American people.

Where I am, and where the polling suggest the vast majority of the American people are is---

1) They absolutely cant stand Putin and do not want him to succeed in taking Ukraine.

2) To the extent we can help Ukraine without adversely affecting American interests---the vast majority of the American people are for that kind of aid.

3) Aid to the point where we are spending US tax dollars or doing so adversely affects the US---I suspect the percentage for and against that would be far more evenly divided.

4) Whats VERY clear in polling is there is virtually ZERO support for America doing anything that aids the Russian interests in Ukraine (other than seemingly inside the White House). For whatever reason, a guy blessed with the incredible instinctive ability to generally sense the will of the American people----is absolutely politically tone deaf on this issue. Trump is flat out on the wrong side of a 70-30 political issue on Ukraine (and its closer to 90-10 when the question regards doing anything to benefit Putin). Its gotten so bad Trump had to quickly back pedal and deny any knowledge of the recent Starlink/StarsShield misstep. Trump needs to shut up---ditch the Witcoff/Kuchner team---and turn the Ukraine issue over to Rubio (thats kinda what a Secretary of State is there for---and we have a very good one). This is not a winning issue for Trump. Let Rubio handle it and then take appropriate credit when Rubio (a key part of the Trump Administration) brokers a peace deal.

And then you have people who boast about how happy they are to pay a "little" more for fuel prices as long as Iran has no nukes, but on the other end wouldn't want to pay a "little" more to avoid a larger war in Europe that we would inevitably get involved in and make things 100x worse than what we are experiencing now. We all know Russia wouldn't stop with just Ukraine.

Russia doesn't have the means to go beyond Ukraine.

I feel Russia has legitimate grievances with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a terrible neighbor to have. I don't think Russia would go beyond Ukraine, nor do I think they could militarily.

What would help Russia do that very thing would be for us (the deterrent) to continue sinking all of our $ and weapons into Ukraine.

Thats just an assumption. I happen to agree with your basic premise that Russia cant beat the combined strength of NATO---but what if the Russians believe they dont have to? What if we are unintentionally sending the signal that when push comes to shove, NATO would be unlikely to risk missiles flying into Paris and London just to protect Baltic states like Estonia. If the West looks like we are about ready to give in to all of Putin's demands just to end the Ukraine war---maybe we are also sending the signal to Putin that we would likely do the same for the Baltic states if he were to push his forces in there.

Imagine this scenario. Putin does the same thing he did to Ukraine---holds a huge military "exercise" just across the border from the Baltic states---and then comes up with some reason to invade. The Russian troops pour across the border and cut off the Baltic states by capturing the narrow Suwalki Gap. Russia quickly captures the area, digs in and annexes the region. They then halt operations and announce that any attempt to retake the area will be met with a nuclear response. Frankly---I suspect NATO would be unlikely to make a move to recapture those Baltic states. So---yeah---I do think a continued expansion into NATO is a VERY possible outcome if Russia is able to subdue Ukraine. Interestingly---eliminating all NATO military presence from the Baltic states is one of the Russian demands for peace in Ukraine----I wonder why?

Another strong post, A-Coog. I'm with you fully.

(10-30-2026 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 01:10 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:55 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  While I believe most Americans don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people.

People believe all sorts of things. Your of course entitled to your personal opinion---but polling tells us that opinion is very much a minority opinion and is not shared with the vast majority of Americans. Polling tells us the American people are very much "for" Ukraine and cant stand Putin (by a wide margin). That said---I suspect Americans are much more evenly split on doing "whats good" for the Ukrainian people anywhere it might adversely affects "whats good" for the American people.

Where I am, and where the polling suggest the vast majority of the American people are is---

1) They absolutely cant stand Putin and do not want him to succeed in taking Ukraine.

2) To the extent we can help Ukraine without adversely affecting American interests---the vast majority of the American people are for that kind of aid.

3) Aid to the point where we are spending US tax dollars or doing so adversely affects the US---I suspect the percentage for and against that would be far more evenly divided.

4) Whats VERY clear in polling is there is virtually ZERO support for America doing anything that aids the Russian interests in Ukraine (other than seemingly inside the White House). For whatever reason, a guy blessed with the incredible instinctive ability to generally sense the will of the American people----is absolutely politically tone deaf on this issue. Trump is flat out on the wrong side of a 70-30 political issue on Ukraine (and its closer to 90-10 when the question regards doing anything to benefit Putin). Its gotten so bad Trump had to quickly back pedal and deny any knowledge of the recent Starlink/StarsShield misstep. Trump needs to shut up---ditch the Witcoff/Kuchner team---and turn the Ukraine issue over to Rubio (thats kinda what a Secretary of State is there for---and we have a very good one). This is not a winning issue for Trump. Let Rubio handle it and then take appropriate credit when Rubio (a key part of the Trump Administration) brokers a peace deal.

And then you have people who boast about how happy they are to pay a "little" more for fuel prices as long as Iran has no nukes, but on the other end wouldn't want to pay a "little" more to avoid a larger war in Europe that we would inevitably get involved in and make things 100x worse than what we are experiencing now. We all know Russia wouldn't stop with just Ukraine.

Russia doesn't have the means to go beyond Ukraine.

I feel Russia has legitimate grievances with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a terrible neighbor to have. I don't think Russia would go beyond Ukraine, nor do I think they could militarily.

What would help Russia do that very thing would be for us (the deterrent) to continue sinking all of our $ and weapons into Ukraine.

Thats just an assumption. I happen to agree with your basic premise that Russia cant beat the combined strength of NATO---but what if the Russians believe they dont have to? What if we are unintentionally sending the signal that when push comes to shove, NATO would be unlikely to risk missiles flying into Paris and London just to protect Baltic states like Estonia. If the West looks like we are about ready to give in to all of Putin's demands just to end the Ukraine war---maybe we are also sending the signal to Putin that we would likely do the same for the Baltic states if he were to push his forces in there.

Imagine this scenario. Putin does the same thing he did to Ukraine---holds a huge military "exercise" just across the border from the Baltic states---and then comes up with some reason to invade. The Russian troops pour across the border and cut off the Baltic states by capturing the narrow Suwalki Gap. Russia quickly captures the area, digs in and annexes the region. They then halt operations and announce that any attempt to retake the area will be met with a nuclear response. Frankly---I suspect NATO would be unlikely to make a move to recapture those Baltic states. So---yeah---I do think a continued expansion into NATO is a VERY possible outcome if Russia is able to subdue Ukraine. Interestingly---eliminating all NATO military presence from the Baltic states is one of the Russian demands for peace in Ukraine----I wonder why?

Yup, it's as if people never heard about Neville Chamberlain and the Czechoslovakia...... My family came from what is now Czechia, I'll forever be perturbed at appeasement.

(10-28-2026 05:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 07:21 PM)b2b Wrote:  Why should I care if Russia takes Ukraine? I've still not gotten a good explanation. Probably a lot more children on both sides would still have fathers if they had.

I have said this from the beginning. Ukraine was a part of the USSR for the first few decades of my life. Like 6 of them ('40s to '90s).

Then you know darn well that Russia has declared itself as our enemy.

Russian people have the lowest opinions of any people on Earth, and have for 75+ years.

Since 1945, Russia has consistently taken the opposite side of the USA on every foreign policy issue. We've fought a dozen proxy wars against them (Greek Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Cuban Revolution, Cuban Missile Crisis, Laos Secret War, Ogaden War in Somalia, Angolan Civil War, Salvadoran Civil War, Afghan War, Syrian Civil War, Ukraine).

Annexing Ukraine would increase the population of Russia by 30%. Given Russia's consistent and long-standing hatred for the USA, I can't see how that is anything but bad for the USA.

When you have a chance to support the enemy of your enemy, you take it.

bill do you have to suck up to everybody?

There is only one way this war ends. Putin's death (or at least the end to his regime). Until then, he will keep going. And don't think it ends with Ukraine. He is building up offensive capability along the Baltic states as we speak. That move will almost certainly happen before Trump leaves office regardless of whatever land they gain or lose in Ukraine. There was a decent chance the war could have ended differently if we went all in helping Ukraine out, but obviously that opportunity disappeared after we elected what is essentially a Russian agent.

The fact that so many leftists still believe that Trump is a Russian agent after these years just reinforces the reality that leftists truly are stupid people.

You people are beyond all hope.

(10-30-2026 06:55 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  bill do you have to suck up to everybody?

Of course he does.

He thinks being friends with everyone is a good thing.

What he doesn't realize is that leftists make fun of him as much as we on the right do.

I'd rather have no friends than any friends at all.

(10-21-2026 10:23 AM)Claw Wrote:  Both sides have bled enough. It would be nice if this happens.

Russia can leave Ukraine and put its troops back on its own side of the border.

Any time.

F*** Russia and F*** Ukraine.

I'm so sick of hearing about those two countries playing grab *** with each other on the battlefield.

Both sides need to nuke each other and be done with it.

JFC, what a stupid world we live in.

(10-30-2026 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 01:10 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:55 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 02:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  While I believe most Americans don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people.

People believe all sorts of things. Your of course entitled to your personal opinion---but polling tells us that opinion is very much a minority opinion and is not shared with the vast majority of Americans. Polling tells us the American people are very much "for" Ukraine and cant stand Putin (by a wide margin). That said---I suspect Americans are much more evenly split on doing "whats good" for the Ukrainian people anywhere it might adversely affects "whats good" for the American people.

Where I am, and where the polling suggest the vast majority of the American people are is---

1) They absolutely cant stand Putin and do not want him to succeed in taking Ukraine.

2) To the extent we can help Ukraine without adversely affecting American interests---the vast majority of the American people are for that kind of aid.

3) Aid to the point where we are spending US tax dollars or doing so adversely affects the US---I suspect the percentage for and against that would be far more evenly divided.

4) Whats VERY clear in polling is there is virtually ZERO support for America doing anything that aids the Russian interests in Ukraine (other than seemingly inside the White House). For whatever reason, a guy blessed with the incredible instinctive ability to generally sense the will of the American people----is absolutely politically tone deaf on this issue. Trump is flat out on the wrong side of a 70-30 political issue on Ukraine (and its closer to 90-10 when the question regards doing anything to benefit Putin). Its gotten so bad Trump had to quickly back pedal and deny any knowledge of the recent Starlink/StarsShield misstep. Trump needs to shut up---ditch the Witcoff/Kuchner team---and turn the Ukraine issue over to Rubio (thats kinda what a Secretary of State is there for---and we have a very good one). This is not a winning issue for Trump. Let Rubio handle it and then take appropriate credit when Rubio (a key part of the Trump Administration) brokers a peace deal.

And then you have people who boast about how happy they are to pay a "little" more for fuel prices as long as Iran has no nukes, but on the other end wouldn't want to pay a "little" more to avoid a larger war in Europe that we would inevitably get involved in and make things 100x worse than what we are experiencing now. We all know Russia wouldn't stop with just Ukraine.

Russia doesn't have the means to go beyond Ukraine.

I feel Russia has legitimate grievances with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a terrible neighbor to have. I don't think Russia would go beyond Ukraine, nor do I think they could militarily.

What would help Russia do that very thing would be for us (the deterrent) to continue sinking all of our $ and weapons into Ukraine.

Thats just an assumption. I happen to agree with your basic premise that Russia cant beat the combined strength of NATO---but what if the Russians believe they dont have to? What if we are unintentionally sending the signal that when push comes to shove, NATO would be unlikely to risk missiles flying into Paris and London just to protect Baltic states like Estonia. If the West looks like we are about ready to give in to all of Putin's demands just to end the Ukraine war---maybe we are also sending the signal to Putin that we would likely do the same for the Baltic states if he were to push his forces in there.

Imagine this scenario. Putin does the same thing he did to Ukraine---holds a huge military "exercise" just across the border from the Baltic states---and then comes up with some reason to invade. The Russian troops pour across the border and cut off the Baltic states by capturing the narrow Suwalki Gap. Russia quickly captures the area, digs in and annexes the region. They then halt operations and announce that any attempt to retake the area will be met with a nuclear response. Frankly---I suspect NATO would be unlikely to make a move to recapture those Baltic states. So---yeah---I do think a continued expansion into NATO is a VERY possible outcome if Russia is able to subdue Ukraine. Interestingly---eliminating all NATO military presence from the Baltic states is one of the Russian demands for peace in Ukraine----I wonder why?

Ffs man. That would be Europe's problem.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-30-2026 09:04 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  The fact that so many leftists still believe that Trump is a Russian agent after these years just reinforces the reality that leftists truly are stupid people.

You people are beyond all hope.

I'm a moderate. I was all in on Trump (even voted for him in the primary in 2016) until he made one of his first major hires in the campaign. Of all people, it was a Russian agent. Paul Manafort. You can preach your conspiracy theories all you want. But there is no denying of all people for that important role, he made it a point. It was THAT guy. I didn't need to know any more. No.. just no. Never voted for him again, despite my initial high hopes of him being the next Reagan. And look where we are now. The world is literally blowing up around us because Trump can't even figure out who our real enemies are.

(10-30-2026 09:04 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  The fact that so many leftists still believe that Trump is a Russian agent after these years just reinforces the reality that leftists truly are stupid people.

You people are beyond all hope.

Yeah. Its pretty sad.

Trump is just transactional. He'd rather do deals than anything else.

(10-30-2026 09:14 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 09:04 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  The fact that so many leftists still believe that Trump is a Russian agent after these years just reinforces the reality that leftists truly are stupid people.

You people are beyond all hope.

I'm a moderate. I was all in on Trump (even voted for him in the primary in 2016) until he made one of his first major hires in the campaign. Of all people, it was a Russian agent. Paul Manafort. You can preach your conspiracy theories all you want. But there is no denying of all people for that important role, he made it a point. It was THAT guy. I didn't need to know any more. No.. just no. Never voted for him again, despite my initial high hopes of him being the next Reagan. And look where we are now. The world is literally blowing up around us because Trump can't even figure out who our real enemies are.

Manafort was NOT a Russian agent. He did work with them. And he did it in partnership with the brother of Hillary's campaign manager. So does that mean Hillary was also a Russian agent?

Russia invaded Ukraine on Obama's watch and when Hillary was SOS. They invaded again on Biden's watch. The only reason Ukraine didn't fall quickly in 2022 was when Trump was president in between he sold Ukraine the weapons that Obama refused to sell them.

And Trump had the US kill Russian mercenaries who were harrassing us in Syria. That nonsense that had been going on for years under Obama stopped immediately.
Remember Obama's, "I'll have more flexibility after the election," to the Russian ambassador when he thought his microphone was off?

So if Trump is a Russian agent, then Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden are Russian super-agents.

All this borrowing and spending to try to back up a coup of a guy who was going to be out of office soon anyway.

CIA get what they want and our presidents have no real say in the matter in reality.

Just one of the many layers of government that answer to no one, but cause us to keep borrowing at any costs to support their activities.

(10-30-2026 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 05:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 07:21 PM)b2b Wrote:  Why should I care if Russia takes Ukraine? I've still not gotten a good explanation. Probably a lot more children on both sides would still have fathers if they had.

I have said this from the beginning. Ukraine was a part of the USSR for the first few decades of my life. Like 6 of them ('40s to '90s).

Then you know darn well that Russia has declared itself as our enemy.

Russian people have the lowest opinions of any people on Earth, and have for 75+ years.

Since 1945, Russia has consistently taken the opposite side of the USA on every foreign policy issue. We've fought a dozen proxy wars against them (Greek Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Cuban Revolution, Cuban Missile Crisis, Laos Secret War, Ogaden War in Somalia, Angolan Civil War, Salvadoran Civil War, Afghan War, Syrian Civil War, Ukraine).

Annexing Ukraine would increase the population of Russia by 30%. Given Russia's consistent and long-standing hatred for the USA, I can't see how that is anything but bad for the USA.

When you have a chance to support the enemy of your enemy, you take it.

I just look at it completely differently. Since WWII, the USA has essentially been the protector of everybody against the worst actors. Meanwhile those former Soviet puppets suffered for decades. Now they're free, more or less, and much better off than before. Ukraine is in that group.

Neither situation materially affected us as far as our own quality of life. The fact that Russia opposed us all those years is not a revelation. There is always some dictator in the world looking to do harm to whomever they can, including us.

If Russia manages to take back Ukraine, I wouldn't like it. I just seriously doubt it would affect the USA in any material way. And Russia has pretty well proven with Ukraine that their military capabilities are less than stellar.

But there's the sticky little issue of them possessing all those nukes. So are we gonna go in there and blast Russia to make them let go of Ukraine? Seems like a bad idea to me.

None of what you said matters. Only the nukes matter. So yeah, if Russia ever figures out how to take Ukraine, we would be fools to go in on the Bear to save Ukraine. Just not worth Putin possibly flipping the red nuke button.

THAT is what matters.

EDIT: Right after I posted this, I think I discovered the answer to why Cooper did that. It's time to buckle up for what's about to happen to Iran right after the election Tuesday:

Quote:3 hours ago

Iran says supertanker hit naval mine, caught fire in Strait of Hormuz: report


Vessels are seen near the Strait of Hormuz, from Musandam, Oman, on Aug. 31, 2026. (Credit: Reuters)

A supertanker carrying more than 2 million barrels of oil caught fire Friday after hitting a naval mine in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said, according to state media.

It was the fourth oil tanker to suffer an explosion Friday after using unauthorized routes through the strait, the Guard said, according to The Associated Press.

Tehran has repeatedly said vessels must receive permission before traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran warned last month that vessels traveling through the strait without permission risked "destruction."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

We were sure we could sneak Ukraine into NATO and that Russia just have to accept it. In other words, we were sure Russia was all talk and no action and was scared of the US.

Guess we got that one wrong…

Meanwhile we keep borrowing money to send to anyone who will do our bidding.

The US is half heartedly committed to Ukraine to try to save face in world opinion. But anyone watching knows we flaked out on them and used them for our own purposes. Ukraine was always just a pawn.

Like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc. Another disposable ally.