Russian hos don't mince words: "The biggest question for me is that they do not ban Russian users, they only ban Russian creators," she said. "So do they think that government leaders have OnlyFans and post their dick pics and monetise it? Or is it for Russian leaders, [so] that they can't see my nudes anymore?"
Stalin is more the spiritual predecessor than Hitler. Just as evil, everything happened in his backyard, and we even had a working relationship with him It would depend on how much Tucker could blame immigrants, Antifa and Jews when he's just asking questions "no one else is brave enough to ask."
Must've been that episode where he bar hopped Kiev...a very long night. I would've thought it was Artie Lange, who took one trip he couldn't come back from, came to Jesus, then really really let himself go.
I was listening to Clint Watts earlier and he pointed out that Russia does have similar advanced weaponry as we do but are not using it in Ukraine and that it appears they have held back even much of the force that was built up at the border. That they haven't committed those yet might have to do with logistics and the difficulty they are already encountering. He wasn't clear though why they are relying on dumb bombs and low altitude bombing instead of using their most advanced weaponry. This is my speculation and not Clint Watt's but I'm wondering if Putin is anticipating NATO will get involved and is holding back is most advanced weapons and skilled forces incase he does have to fight NATO. The slow pace and missteps that we're seeing in Ukraine might not be do to complete incompetence on the part of the Russia but that it wouldn't be wise to put their best capability out there because they don't feel Ukraine is such a threat. Unfortunately recent events is going to convince more countries that going nuclear is their best route for safety.
It is true that his energy policies have no effect on production - I and many others have posted this. You keep posting this lie. What is wrong with facts getting into your head?
This is another example of why I don't think we can sustain a prolonged war. If we do end up going to war against Russia and it drags into 2024 and Trump is the Republican nominee he likely will run on that he can end the war and part of that will be that he has a personal relationship with Putin. If Trump wins given he has no love for Zelensky, Ukraine or NATO. He likely cuts a deal with Putin and pulls the US out of the conflict. Without US support during a war NATO likely falls apart and Putin takes over Ukraine.
It heavily weights Putin's motivation as a slash and burn to heavily demoralize Ukrainians and whatever their ambitions for the next decade moreso than any declaration of Slavic/Soviet unification. Other reasons for holding back is deterrence/bargaining chip but also not letting us see their capabilities should Ukrainians start blowing them up and giving us it's wreckage. Americans generally reelect wartime presidents. Main fear would be succession with Kamala and how they pivot off her claims
Ukraine and more. The key to stopping Russian expansion probably has more to do with 2024 than anything we do now.
That counters the argument that we aren't doing anything for Ukraine and just giving Putin free reign. You are right though we are talking about degrees of risk. It is one thing to arm Ukrainians and impose punishing sanctions. It is quite another thing to actually be shooting at each other. Michael McFaul said it best last night, "A no-flyzone is euphemism for "war"".
According to the State Department 95% of the forces Putin had at the border are now in the Ukraine. Now does that mean that he has sent the best and the brightest? It doesn't seem like it, but he has lost a couple valuable field leaders that are considered valuable. According to some of the former Soviet and Russian government people I have seen interviewed, Putin and Russia always send in the dregs/cannon fodder in first to see how the enemy respond. Still, looking at a lot of the equipment and rations, there are clearly issues with the Russian military, and they have had serious communication issues. They have a military budget that is basically the same as the UK. Our budget is almost 12 times what there's is and that doesn't include some discretionary spending. Russia does have some newer advanced weaponry including some variations of what we have and likely some things that we don't even know about. However, they do not have near the amount we have, they lack the network we have, their soldiers are not as well trained and they have serious supply and communication issues that the USA does not have. They have one of the 2-3 best militaries in the world, but it isn't really close to the USA and I would argue outside of nuclear weapons, that China and even India likely are better. Also I am sure that Putin is wanting to protect himself and is purposely only sending a smaller portion of his military. They also could easily get millions of healthy and eligible men to fight, but they lack the resources to do it.
says the person who did not read any of the many posts people put up showing you that you were wrong on this. You want me to watch your propaganda videos but you don't even look at legitimate news sources for info. It's crazy.
We can't consider war anymore as just being when the opposition military is defeated. Just pushing Russia out of Ukraine this round doesn't mean that Russia won't still have designs on Ukraine or be willing to try to take Ukraine again when US politics change. Given that Eastern Ukraine has a large ethnic population doesn't mean that Russia won't still be aiding those separatists or using them as an excuse to attack Ukraine again. We defeated Saddam in 1991 fairly easily but we weren't done with Iraq for 20 years after that.
Again NATO isn't arbitrary. The current make up of NATO has been negotiated for decades and is the centerpiece of US global defense policy. If you think NATO is strange and arbitrary frankly that's what Trump thinks.
I think it depends on what TYPE of war. If it is a Cold War, like we are in right now.... with sanctions and with us supply finances and arms to the Ukrainians.... I agree with you. I think people will complain about inflation and elect someone like Trump, who will cut a bad deal or leave NATO. However if by some odd situation there is an actual ground war.... lets say that Putin takes the Ukraine and the Moldova and then decided to test NATO... then I think Americans would suck it up and support the War, at least through 2024. American's are weak when they do not see a domestic consequence, but when they believe there are domestic consequences, Americans can be ruthless. Having said that, if I am Putin right now, I attempt to get the Ukraine under military control and take press coverage away from the situation.... and then work on relationships with places like China and India and Africa... and wait until 2024 and see what I can do to "appease" the USA and get some sanctions lifted or at least not be a total pariah. He knows that the Ukraine is a MASSIVE get for Russia from a strategic and financial perspective.
This is how alliances work. It's why it's not easy to get into the alliance and there are a lot of considerations for being a member. When a country is added to NATO, it isn't done casually because yes we're basically going to go to war if someone attacks Turkey but not Ukraine. Some may find that strange, to me it makes perfect sense.
