(10-31-2026 12:04 AM)Todor Wrote:  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.

I can't help but wonder how many of the tough guys here are cool with their kids getting drafted to fight for Ukraine and/or Israel. If one believes all the hype lately this is where we could be headed.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-30-2026 09:12 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(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:  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

Sure..... Just like Germany, emboldened and enabled by the Munich conference which handed them Czechoslovakia, invading Poland was only a Europe problem....

Yeah none of that affected us and could've been prevented...

(10-31-2026 10:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 12:04 AM)Todor Wrote:  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.

I can't help but wonder how many of the tough guys here are cool with their kids getting drafted to fight for Ukraine and/or Israel. If one believes all the hype lately this is where we could be headed.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

You mean like the hype that the Democrats were screaming about when they said Putin would invade the rest of Europe after taking over Ukraine?

Get a grip.

(10-30-2026 09:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  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?

He wasn't a formal Russian spy, but he was legally designated a foreign agent for Ukraine (which was under Russia's effective control at the time), and the U.S. Senate stated his interactions with a Russian spy posed a grave counterintelligence threat. He spent a decade representing pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska.

And just because he funneled money to Podesta Group to try to gain influence for Putin among the Democratic party doesn't mean either Podesta brother were Russian agents. Manafort was simply trying to gain influence. Which is what I had a problem with. Podesta Group is a liberal organization. Once that money stopped, the influence stopped. They must be good at what they are paid to do because it sure got Hillary's attention.

Quote: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.

Didn't matter who was President. As soon as Putin lost control of Ukraine in 2014, he was going to moved into the country regardless. The loss of control is what mattered. Not who was President in the US. Obviously Trump figured Manafort could do a better job for Putin under his campaign than continuing to fail in Ukraine trying to buy US influence remotely. How is that not disturbing? Why choose THAT guy of all people?!

Quote: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.

You mean the Wagner Group mercenaries? The leader of which Putin assassinated? Putin doesn't give a crap about the fate of those mercenaries. I'm sure Trump has killed countless Russian operatives in Iran as well. But if you ask him, he'd likely to deny they are even there. Or that they were even in Syria. He is that oblivious.

(10-31-2026 10:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 12:04 AM)Todor Wrote:  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.

I can't help but wonder how many of the tough guys here are cool with their kids getting drafted to fight for Ukraine and/or Israel. If one believes all the hype lately this is where we could be headed.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

-2 for a really stupid comment.

Nobody here is talking about sending US troops. Its selling weapons and sending money. Its certainly fair to disagree about that.

(10-31-2026 11:43 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 09:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  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?

He wasn't a formal Russian spy, but he was legally designated a foreign agent for Ukraine (which was under Russia's effective control at the time), and the U.S. Senate stated his interactions with a Russian spy posed a grave counterintelligence threat. He spent a decade representing pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska.

And just because he funneled money to Podesta Group to try to gain influence for Putin among the Democratic party doesn't mean either Podesta brother were Russian agents. Manafort was simply trying to gain influence. Which is what I had a problem with. Podesta Group is a liberal organization. Once that money stopped, the influence stopped. They must be good at what they are paid to do because it sure got Hillary's attention.

Quote: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.

Didn't matter who was President. As soon as Putin lost control of Ukraine in 2014, he was going to moved into the country regardless. The loss of control is what mattered. Not who was President in the US. Obviously Trump figured Manafort could do a better job for Putin under his campaign than continuing to fail in Ukraine trying to buy US influence remotely. How is that not disturbing? Why choose THAT guy of all people?!

Quote: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.

You mean the Wagner Group mercenaries? The leader of which Putin assassinated? Putin doesn't give a crap about the fate of those mercenaries. I'm sure Trump has killed countless Russian operatives in Iran as well. But if you ask him, he'd likely to deny they are even there. Or that they were even in Syria. He is that oblivious.

The Wagner group mercenaries that he funded, directed, supplied and used instead of regular Russian army troops, partly because they were better.

(10-31-2026 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 10:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 12:04 AM)Todor Wrote:  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.

I can't help but wonder how many of the tough guys here are cool with their kids getting drafted to fight for Ukraine and/or Israel. If one believes all the hype lately this is where we could be headed.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

-2 for a really stupid comment.

Nobody here is talking about sending US troops. Its selling weapons and sending money. Its certainly fair to disagree about that.

I'd also add that the only time the US is obligated by treaty to send troops is if NATO was attacked---and frankly, while I think Putin advancing into the Baltic is a legit possibility----I also dont think that can really happen unless Ukraine is entirely subdued. So, keeping Ukraine's well armed highly experienced roughly million man army on their flank and on our side certainly makes a lot sense in todays much more dangerous world. Am I interested in sending US troops to help Ukraine? Absolutely not. All we are talking about is selling arms to Ukraine.

That said, the farthest I would go as far as NATO goes in this war is creating an air protection "no fly" buffer zone along the NATO border with Ukraine that extends 100 or so miles into Ukraine. Enough live explosive ordinance has now traveled into NATO territory either on purpose or on accident that this completely defensive move is pretty reasonable. The 100 miles zone is reasonable because a cruise missile traveling at 600 miles an hour would be inside NATO territory a mere 10 minutes after entering that zone. Waiting until live ordinance actually travels into NATO means the missile or its remains are going to fall on NATO territory if it is downed. Better to intercept before it gets that far. I doubt we do that---but I dont think its unreasonable given that it is an entirely defensive stance.

(10-31-2026 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd also add that the only time the US is obligated by treaty to send troops is if NATO was attacked---and frankly, while I think Putin advancing into the Baltic is a legit possibility----I also dont think that can really happen unless Ukraine is entirely subdued. So, keeping Ukraine's well armed highly experienced roughly million man army on their flank and on our side certainly makes a lot sense in todays much more dangerous world. Am I interested in sending US troops to help Ukraine? Absolutely not. All we are talking about is selling arms to Ukraine.

It's more than just about selling arms. Allowing Ukraine to buy and use the full non-nuclear US arsenal would get this war over with in a matter of weeks. Worst case, it would simply freeze the lines where they are, like the last time we went all in against the USSR to defend western Europe right after WWII. Best (more likely case) would be they'd be running with tail between legs back behind Ukraine's borders.

But wait, there's more. Even if we just continued to support them at Biden levels, we'd be right in there gaining a piece of the intellectual property of all the new state of the art drones and weapons rapidly being developed. That is priceless. Being a part of that development and production would be worth many times the amount of money we could send over there to support them. China, N. Korea, Iran have direct access to this state of the art technology and will be well prepared for the next war. Trump is setting us militarily behind because of his business interests with Russia.

Quote:That said, the farthest I would go as far as NATO goes in this war is creating an air protection "no fly" buffer zone along the NATO border with Ukraine that extends 100 or so miles into Ukraine. Enough live explosive ordinance has now traveled into NATO territory either on purpose or on accident that this completely defensive move is pretty reasonable. The 100 miles zone is reasonable because a cruise missile traveling at 600 miles an hour would be inside NATO territory a mere 10 minutes after entering that zone. Waiting until live ordinance actually travels into NATO means the missile or its remains are going to fall on NATO territory if it is downed. Better to intercept before it gets that far. I doubt we do that---but I dont think its unreasonable given that it is an entirely defensive stance.

There is no more NATO under Trump. Even when Russia invades the Baltics, Trump will not send any meaningful support against Putin. That is an absolute certainty. And that is why it is all but certain to happen while Trump is still in office.

(11-02-2026 07:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd also add that the only time the US is obligated by treaty to send troops is if NATO was attacked---and frankly, while I think Putin advancing into the Baltic is a legit possibility----I also dont think that can really happen unless Ukraine is entirely subdued. So, keeping Ukraine's well armed highly experienced roughly million man army on their flank and on our side certainly makes a lot sense in todays much more dangerous world. Am I interested in sending US troops to help Ukraine? Absolutely not. All we are talking about is selling arms to Ukraine.

It's more than just about selling arms. Allowing Ukraine to buy and use the full non-nuclear US arsenal would get this war over with in a matter of weeks. Worst case, it would simply freeze the lines where they are, like the last time we went all in against the USSR to defend western Europe right after WWII. Best (more likely case) would be they'd be running with tail between legs back behind Ukraine's borders.

But wait, there's more. Even if we just continued to support them at Biden levels, we'd be right in there gaining a piece of the intellectual property of all the new state of the art drones and weapons rapidly being developed. That is priceless. Being a part of that development and production would be worth many times the amount of money we could send over there to support them. China, N. Korea, Iran have direct access to this state of the art technology and will be well prepared for the next war. Trump is setting us militarily behind because of his business interests with Russia.

Quote:That said, the farthest I would go as far as NATO goes in this war is creating an air protection "no fly" buffer zone along the NATO border with Ukraine that extends 100 or so miles into Ukraine. Enough live explosive ordinance has now traveled into NATO territory either on purpose or on accident that this completely defensive move is pretty reasonable. The 100 miles zone is reasonable because a cruise missile traveling at 600 miles an hour would be inside NATO territory a mere 10 minutes after entering that zone. Waiting until live ordinance actually travels into NATO means the missile or its remains are going to fall on NATO territory if it is downed. Better to intercept before it gets that far. I doubt we do that---but I dont think its unreasonable given that it is an entirely defensive stance.

There is no more NATO under Trump. Even when Russia invades the Baltics, Trump will not send any meaningful support against Putin. That is an absolute certainty. And that is why it is all but certain to happen while Trump is still in office.

While that is possible---I also think it would be the dumbest most bone headed geo-political strategic military blunder in history. It would be second only to complete unilateral disarmament as it would grant the Russo-Sino alliance the biggest strategic Christmas wish on their list. If the biggest geo-political strategic goal for America over the last 80 years was to make sure Russia and China are not allied together----then the biggest strategic goal for the current Russia-China alliance would be separating America from NATO (as it makes both weaker and easier handle separately).

(11-02-2026 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  While that is possible---I also think it would be the dumbest most bone headed geo-political strategic military blunder in history. It would be second only to complete unilateral disarmament as it would grant the Russo-Sino alliance the biggest strategic Christmas wish on their list. If the biggest geo-political strategic goal for America over the last 80 years was to make sure Russia and China are not allied together----then the biggest strategic goal for the current Russia-China alliance would be separating America from NATO (as it makes both weaker and easier handle separately).

Thus why it was so important for Russia to pump so much dark money and propaganda into our elections since the early 2010's. They finally have what they want right now. NATO is at it's weakest in history. I don't see Putin passing up on the opportunity, especially when his legacy depends on it.

Putin's determination is directly related to the weakness of NATO. I'm sure Trump has to realize this. But the amount of business deals and payoffs for his family and friends convinces him that it's no big deal. Someone so generous of course can be trusted.

If NATO had ceased to exist at the end of the Cold War, like it should have, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.

You do realize Putin's Russia took Crimea while Obama was president, right? And that the current Russo-Ukrainian war started under Biden, right?

Then again, you don't care, do you, scorpius? No. You don't.

Well, I've got some unpleasant news for you. Trump's nowhere near being a Russian asset. The "Russia Collusion" hoax was just that: A hoax. I don't care what you say about it. It's been proven false. You're supposedly smart, right? Well, you sure don't act like it. (Then again, I'm replying to someone who begged and pleaded with folks to keep him from getting banned so I'm not surprised you think this way.)

(11-02-2026 08:42 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  If NATO had ceased to exist at the end of the Cold War, like it should have, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.

Instead, they became a hammer looking for nails, poking around and stirring up wars to justify their existence.

And we have a massive debt to show for it.

We will be the only country to go bankrupt from wars we started ourselves as a way to launder money and pay off people.

(11-02-2026 08:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(11-02-2026 08:42 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  If NATO had ceased to exist at the end of the Cold War, like it should have, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.

Instead, they became a hammer looking for nails, poking around and stirring up wars to justify their existence.

And we have a massive debt to show for it.

We will be the only country to go bankrupt from wars we started ourselves as a way to launder money and pay off people.

That's because the US military is being forced to do a job that lazy Socialist European countries refuse to do.

(11-02-2026 08:57 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  

(11-02-2026 08:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(11-02-2026 08:42 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  If NATO had ceased to exist at the end of the Cold War, like it should have, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.

Instead, they became a hammer looking for nails, poking around and stirring up wars to justify their existence.

And we have a massive debt to show for it.

We will be the only country to go bankrupt from wars we started ourselves as a way to launder money and pay off people.

That's because the US military is being forced to do a job that lazy Socialist European countries refuse to do.

No they aren’t. We do it because we want to be embedded in their governments to control their foreign policy so they don’t do anything that we don’t like.

Once we got control after WWII, we just never stopped occupying them.

It’s strictly voluntary on our end.

And that’s why we are $40 trillion in debt.

(11-02-2026 08:40 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(11-02-2026 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  While that is possible---I also think it would be the dumbest most bone headed geo-political strategic military blunder in history. It would be second only to complete unilateral disarmament as it would grant the Russo-Sino alliance the biggest strategic Christmas wish on their list. If the biggest geo-political strategic goal for America over the last 80 years was to make sure Russia and China are not allied together----then the biggest strategic goal for the current Russia-China alliance would be separating America from NATO (as it makes both weaker and easier handle separately).

Thus why it was so important for Russia to pump so much dark money and propaganda into our elections since the early 2010's. They finally have what they want right now. NATO is at it's weakest in history. I don't see Putin passing up on the opportunity, especially when his legacy depends on it.

Putin's determination is directly related to the weakness of NATO. I'm sure Trump has to realize this. But the amount of business deals and payoffs for his family and friends convinces him that it's no big deal. Someone so generous of course can be trusted.

Trump has gotten NATO to fund its military according to its committments. The European armies are the strongest they have been in a generation.

(11-02-2026 08:42 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  If NATO had ceased to exist at the end of the Cold War, like it should have, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.

Nonsense. Putin would have still moved in to take them over.

Vladimir Putin can end the war at any time.
All he has to do is bring Russian troops back inside Russia’s borders.

The sanctions will stop, the drones will stop. Life can go on, for everyone.

(11-02-2026 08:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  You do realize Putin's Russia took Crimea while Obama was president, right? And that the current Russo-Ukrainian war started under Biden, right?

Europe's support for Ukraine is what mattered. Not whatever US President we had at the time. You might have a point if you say Europe shouldn't have offered an associateion agreement to Ukraine in the early 2010's. But how would they have known there was a mad-man lurking in Putin? Remember, Russia, UK and US had a mutual defense pack with Ukraine. Are you suggesting that if we had Trump in 2014 with his weaker NATO, Russia would have been less likely to invade? Here is the timeline of the actual cause of the war:

• 1991 (Independence): Ukraine formally broke away from Moscow when over 90% of the population voted for independence in a national referendum, ending more than three centuries of Russian/Soviet dominance. However, Russia maintained substantial economic, political, and cultural leverage.
• 2004–2005 (The Orange Revolution): Mass protests erupted after a disputed, pro-Russian presidential election (favoring Viktor Yanukovych), leading to the victory of pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko and visibly pushing Ukraine away from the Kremlin's orbit.
• 2013–2014 (The Revolution of Dignity / Euromaidan): Protests forced pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych out of office in February 2014 after he abandoned an association agreement with the European Union. This marked the decisive political break where Ukraine pivoted firmly toward the West.
• 2014 (Annexation of Crimea and Donbas War): Rather than retaining soft power or political influence, Russia responded to the loss of Kyiv by military force—illegally annexing Crimea and fomenting war in the Donbas. This alienated the vast majority of Ukrainian society and transformed Russia from a political patron into an existential enemy.
• 2022 (Full-Scale Invasion): Russia’s full-scale military attack in February 2022 permanently shattered any remaining vestiges of pro-Russian sentiment or cultural/political leverage, uniting Ukraine around a strictly Western, anti-Moscow identity.

(11-02-2026 09:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-02-2026 08:42 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  If NATO had ceased to exist at the end of the Cold War, like it should have, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.

Nonsense. Putin would have still moved in to take them over.

Russia's 3 week Special Operation in Ukraine has been going on for almost 5 years now.