-
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
People will believe what they will. But for the record:
In February 2014, Russian kingpin Vladimir Putin invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula, which had been under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The timing was no accident, coming as it did only a handful of months after then-President Barack Obama reneged upon his own chemical weapons "red line" for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, effectively leaving the resolution of the then-nascent chemical weapons crisis in Putin's hands. Putin, like a shark smelling blood, sensed weakness and acted accordingly. To this day, Crimea remains under de facto Russian control.
It is thus no great surprise that, just as he did during the reign of the last feckless Democratic president, Putin has once again decided to take chunks of Ukraine and redraw the post-Cold War maps to better reflect his conception of Greater Russia. There was, in the seemingly endless lead-up to Russia's decision to send tanks into the Donbas (as of this writing, now heading toward Kyiv), remarkably little appetite for firm deterrence from the U.S. or anyone else in NATO. President Joe Biden promised sanctions—an only arguably effective tool, at best, and which largely amounts to performative preening so that State Department lackeys and NGO staffers can sleep better at night. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, deeply unpopular on the home front, penned a condemnatory Wall Street Journalop-ed. Yawn.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
I'm acutely aware of your high regard for Uncle Joe and his wartime prowess. You believe that Uncle Joe can do no wrong. You said as much after 13-marines were killed in his withdrawal of Afghanistan. You told me that is was to be expected. Ditto for the Afghans who dropped to their death while hanging from an airplane. But I digress.
Your prediction aside, all we know for sure is that Putin invaded Crimea on Obama's watch and Ukraine on Uncle Joe's watch. If anyone is keeping score @ home, both Obama and Uncle Joe are democrats. Putin invaded no one under Trump.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
I'm sure you don't want to get into a discussion about whose predictions are more accurate Mr Red Wave. Hahahaha
Anywho. We all know Putin has aspirations of getting the old Soviet Union gang back together so, yes, he would have invaded Ukraine regardless of who was in the oval office.Comment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
Aussie company SYPAQ develops cardboard drones for defence of Ukraine
Aussie company SYPAQ develops cardboard drones for defence of Ukraine | 7NEWS - YouTubeComment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine drags on, America’s arms industry reaps the profits - AnalystNews
It's not just the USComment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
It has long been called the Military Industrial Complex.
For the many billions of dollars the US (and other countries) sends in aid, it creates both jobs and profits back home.
In it's own peverse way, even Russia benefits.
The expression military–industrial complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy. A driving factor behind the relationship between the military and the defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining war weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the armed forces of the United States, where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians. The expression gained popularity after a warning of the relationship's detrimental effects, in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961.
In the context of the United States, the appellation is sometimes extended to military–industrial–congressional complex (MICC), adding the U.S. Congress to form a three-sided relationship termed an "iron triangle". Its three legs include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry; or more broadly, the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, private military contractors, the Pentagon, Congress, and the executive branch.Comment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
... Russia holds onto it's annexed Ukrainian territories and a guerilla war goes on for decades. Putin, the aggressor would declare victory.
Russia rebuilds it's military resources and continues it's missle assault on Ukraine with 1,000s more Ukranian lives and critical infrastructure lost.
Some NATO countries would continue to provide what aid they could despiite the USA.
NATO and the USA loses credibility on reniged promises to defend deomocracy.
The global economy sinks, oil rises further in price and the world would face a hunger crisis.
China would see that western resolve to defend it's allies is weak and probably attack Taiwan, throwing the global electronics industry into chaos.Comment
-
Re: The War in Ukraine
NY Times Wakes Up to Corruption in Ukraine as Officials Admit Military Contract Money ‘Vanished’
In a potential signal of shifting attitudes on how the war in Ukraine is covered in the legacy media, the New York Times is starting to slowly acknowledge the endemic corruption that has been a defining feature of the former Soviet state as officials have admitted that money for military contracts has “vanished”.
Following the dismissal of Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov amid a slew of corruption scandals surrounding the war effort against Russia, the New York Times acknowledged thatthe“enduring challenge of corruption in Ukraine” has “emerged as a rare area of criticism of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s leadership.”
Although Reznikov has yet to be tied with any of the corruption scandals personally, the Times went on to admit that the resignation has “elevated the issue to the highest level of Ukrainian politics”. Unnamed Ukrainian officials even told the paper that some funds intended for military contracts “failed to produce weaponry or ammunition and that some money has vanished,” while claiming that the issue was merely confined to the early days of the war.
The proclamation from the NY Times aged rather poorly. Just days later, as Breitbart News reported at the time, Transparency International gave Ukraine a score of 33 out of 100 in its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), ranking 116th in the world and the second-lowest in all of Europe, only behind Russia.
Expressing concerns over the fate of the $113 billion in American taxpayer dollars sent to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee went on to note in February that “Ukrainian government officials allegedly engaged in bribery, used government vehicles for personal use, and purchased inflated food supplies for Ukrainian forces.”
Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
Comment