So I am shocked, shocked to find the US government has no idea...

[Raoul_Luke]

What is happening to all of that lethal weaponry sent to Ukraine goes once it is loaded into the the trucks, minivans and cars at the Polish border.

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Countries call for greater tracking of arms to stop sales to Europe’s black market

www.ft.com

How many thousands of innocent lives will be lost because these weapons fall into the wrong hands. I mean, lets face it, it's not like Ukraine doesn't have a reputation for widespread corruption, so we know that at least some of these weapons will be sold on the black market? Whose hands are that blood on, Putin?

The neocons will say "of course, most definitely." But those of us who are brutally honest about US (NATO) aggression in the region understand that none of this had to happen. This could have been avoided if NATO had been disbanded when it's purpose (countering the Soviet Union) disappeared in the 1980s. But like any government function, eliminating it was never in the cards, so it developed a "mission" and that mission was to f*ck with the Russians, when the better course of action would have been to welcome Russia into the "fold" so to speak. If the reason for not doing so is because of Russia's well deserved reputation for subterfuge and corruption, how does that reputation differ from Ukraine's? It does not, of course, which is why none of this had to be, if we had chosen peace over endless (cold) war to the benefit of only the Military Industrial Complex. Which is why the left, who for half a century were anti-imperialist and anti-war, embracing this war is so damn perplexing. I guess they are just too stupid to understand they are being played for suckers by the Neocons and the MIC.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be accused of "defending Putin" for taking a principled anti-war stance here, but the fact remains that we did provoke this war, whether the left wants to admit it or not. If anyone wants to do that, they need to explain why, if we didn't do ANYTHING to bring this about, was John Mearsheimer so able to predict precisely this outcome a decade ago?

No less than MSNBC had a good explanation of our involvement in this tragic geopolitical mess that threatens to drag us into (a potentially nuclear) WWIII.

Russia's Ukraine invasion may have been preventable

The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.

www.msnbc.com

That this has come to a head on Brandon's watch is no surprise - he has projected as the weakest POTUS since Jimmy Carter.

 

[middleview]

What is happening to all of that lethal weaponry sent to Ukraine goes once it is loaded into the the trucks, minivans and cars at the Polish border.

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Countries call for greater tracking of arms to stop sales to Europe’s black market

www.ft.com

How many thousands of innocent lives will be lost because these weapons fall into the wrong hands. I mean, lets face it, it's not like Ukraine doesn't have a reputation for widespread corruption, so we know that at least some of these weapons will be sold on the black market? Whose hands are that blood on, Putin?

The neocons will say "of course, most definitely." But those of us who are brutally honest about US (NATO) aggression in the region understand that none of this had to happen. This could have been avoided if NATO had been disbanded when it's purpose (countering the Soviet Union) disappeared in the 1980s. But like any government function, eliminating it was never in the cards, so it developed a "mission" and that mission was to f*ck with the Russians, when the better course of action would have been to welcome Russia into the "fold" so to speak. If the reason for not doing so is because of Russia's well deserved reputation for subterfuge and corruption, how does that reputation differ from Ukraine's? It does not, of course, which is why none of this had to be, if we had chosen peace over endless (cold) war to the benefit of only the Military Industrial Complex. Which is why the left, who for half a century were anti-imperialist and anti-war, embracing this war is so damn perplexing. I guess they are just too stupid to understand they are being played for suckers by the Neocons and the MIC.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be accused of "defending Putin" for taking a principled anti-war stance here, but the fact remains that we did provoke this war, whether the left wants to admit it or not. If anyone wants to do that, they need to explain why, if we didn't do ANYTHING to bring this about, was John Mearsheimer so able to predict precisely this outcome a decade ago?

No less than MSNBC had a good explanation of our involvement in this tragic geopolitical mess that threatens to drag us into (a potentially nuclear) WWIII.

Russia's Ukraine invasion may have been preventable

The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.

www.msnbc.com

That this has come to a head on Brandon's watch is no surprise - he has projected as the weakest POTUS since Jimmy Carter.

Think on the number of times the Russians have used military force against other countries since 1945. The invasions of East Germany in the 1950s, Hungary in 1956. Czechoslovakia in 1968. Afghanistan in 1979. Chechen wars in 1994 and 1999..Georgia in 2008. And then the invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

There has never been a time in the last 60 years that Russian leaders have not threatened the west.

This war was not due to a potential membership in Nato....since Ukraine was not on the verge of membership. Putin, on a number of occasions has said Ukraine is part of Russia and should not be a separate and independent nation. Meanwhile most Ukrainians remember just how brutal the Soviet control of their country was.

If Putin invaded Ukraine because he thought Russia was threatened by Nato, He has more to worry about now with Sweden and Finland about to join.

 

[Dawg]

Carter 2.0

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Think on the number of times the Russians have used military force against other countries since 1945. The invasions of East Germany in the 1950s, Hungary in 1956. Czechoslovakia in 1968. Afghanistan in 1979. Chechen wars in 1994 and 1999..Georgia in 2008. And then the invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

There has never been a time in the last 60 years that Russian leaders have not threatened the west.

This war was not due to a potential membership in Nato....since Ukraine was not on the verge of membership. Putin, on a number of occasions has said Ukraine is part of Russia and should not be a separate and independent nation. Meanwhile most Ukrainians remember just how brutal the Soviet control of their country was.

If Putin invaded Ukraine because he thought Russia was threatened by Nato, He has more to worry about now with Sweden and Finland about to join.

A) "Russia" isn't "the Soviet Union."
B) How many of those aggressions were against the, you know, "west?"
c) How many times did the US (and its lackeys in NATO) "use military force against other countries since 1945?\
D) Putin has repeatedly said Ukraine could never be a member of NATO and, yes, the Russians have brutalized Ukraine - no one is defending that. So no nation that is currently an ally of the USA has ever "brutalized" another country?



Oops!
E) Maybe so, but I doubt "Sweden and Finland" are all that scary. But regardless, the expansion of NATO does do one thing - bring us closer to a (nuclear) WWIII.

 

[Sickofleft]

What is happening to all of that lethal weaponry sent to Ukraine goes once it is loaded into the the trucks, minivans and cars at the Polish border.

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Countries call for greater tracking of arms to stop sales to Europe’s black market

www.ft.com

How many thousands of innocent lives will be lost because these weapons fall into the wrong hands. I mean, lets face it, it's not like Ukraine doesn't have a reputation for widespread corruption, so we know that at least some of these weapons will be sold on the black market? Whose hands are that blood on, Putin?

The neocons will say "of course, most definitely." But those of us who are brutally honest about US (NATO) aggression in the region understand that none of this had to happen. This could have been avoided if NATO had been disbanded when it's purpose (countering the Soviet Union) disappeared in the 1980s. But like any government function, eliminating it was never in the cards, so it developed a "mission" and that mission was to f*ck with the Russians, when the better course of action would have been to welcome Russia into the "fold" so to speak. If the reason for not doing so is because of Russia's well deserved reputation for subterfuge and corruption, how does that reputation differ from Ukraine's? It does not, of course, which is why none of this had to be, if we had chosen peace over endless (cold) war to the benefit of only the Military Industrial Complex. Which is why the left, who for half a century were anti-imperialist and anti-war, embracing this war is so damn perplexing. I guess they are just too stupid to understand they are being played for suckers by the Neocons and the MIC.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be accused of "defending Putin" for taking a principled anti-war stance here, but the fact remains that we did provoke this war, whether the left wants to admit it or not. If anyone wants to do that, they need to explain why, if we didn't do ANYTHING to bring this about, was John Mearsheimer so able to predict precisely this outcome a decade ago?

No less than MSNBC had a good explanation of our involvement in this tragic geopolitical mess that threatens to drag us into (a potentially nuclear) WWIII.

Russia's Ukraine invasion may have been preventable

The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.

www.msnbc.com

That this has come to a head on Brandon's watch is no surprise - he has projected as the weakest POTUS since Jimmy Carter.

I am not sure why you are worried, it's not like we sent billions upon bilions of dollars to one of the most corrupt countries in the world?........ Oh wait....

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Ukrainian crashed cargo plane was carrying 11 TONS of bombs

A Ukrainian cargo plane which crashed in northern Greece last night was carrying mortar shells and land mines to Bangladesh, it was confirmed. All eight Ukrainian crew members were killed in the disaster

www.dailymail.co.uk

Interesting - why is a Ukrainian jet ferrying 11 tons of weapons from "Serbia" to "Bangladesh?"

 

[middleview]

Ukrainian crashed cargo plane was carrying 11 TONS of bombs

A Ukrainian cargo plane which crashed in northern Greece last night was carrying mortar shells and land mines to Bangladesh, it was confirmed. All eight Ukrainian crew members were killed in the disaster

www.dailymail.co.uk

Interesting - why is a Ukrainian jet ferrying 11 tons of weapons from "Serbia" to "Bangladesh?"

Serbian weapons sold to Bangladesh and being transported by a plane owned by a private company in Ukraine.
This is from your link:
Serbia's defense minister said the plane was carrying 11.5 tonnes of products made by its defense industry and the buyer was Bangladesh defense ministry.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Serbian weapons sold to Bangladesh and being transported by a plane owned by a private company in Ukraine.
This is from your link:
Serbia's defense minister said the plane was carrying 11.5 tonnes of products made by its defense industry and the buyer was Bangladesh defense ministry.

Yeah, I read it. Good old Middleview on the spot to spout official government pronouncements as gospel.

So Serbia has a defense industry but no planes to transport them? What do you suppose it would take for a Ukrainian military official to conspire with a Serbian weapons producer to relabel US munitions as "Serbian" so he could sell them on the black market? Or are you also demanding that we accept "official" Ukrainian denials of their official corruption problem?

 

[middleview]

Yeah, I read it. Good old Middleview on the spot to spout official government pronouncements as gospel.

So Serbia has a defense industry but no planes to transport them? What do you suppose it would take for a Ukrainian military official to conspire with a Serbian weapons producer to relabel US munitions as "Serbian" so he could sell them on the black market? Or are you also demanding that we accept "official" Ukrainian denials of their official corruption problem?

1. I can believe the Serbian defense ministry or I can believe you....
2. The US government didn't issue a comment on the Ukrainian plane crash, have they?
3. I do believe the list of military equipment we have sent to Ukraine....no mines.

“These were illuminating mortar mines and training (mines). ... This flight had all necessary permissions in accordance with international regulations,” Stefanovic said.

Experts comb cargo plane crash site in north Greece; 8 dead

Experts are investigating the site of a cargo plane crash in northern Greece that has killed eight crew members.

apnews.com

Is it possible that there is a Serbian air transport company? Sure. Is it possible the Ukrainian company put in a lower bid? Meridian is the name of the Ukrainian company that owned the plane.

 

[ObamacareForever]

What is happening to all of that lethal weaponry sent to Ukraine goes once it is loaded into the the trucks, minivans and cars at the Polish border.

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Countries call for greater tracking of arms to stop sales to Europe’s black market

www.ft.com

How many thousands of innocent lives will be lost because these weapons fall into the wrong hands. I mean, lets face it, it's not like Ukraine doesn't have a reputation for widespread corruption, so we know that at least some of these weapons will be sold on the black market? Whose hands are that blood on, Putin?

The neocons will say "of course, most definitely." But those of us who are brutally honest about US (NATO) aggression in the region understand that none of this had to happen. This could have been avoided if NATO had been disbanded when it's purpose (countering the Soviet Union) disappeared in the 1980s. But like any government function, eliminating it was never in the cards, so it developed a "mission" and that mission was to f*ck with the Russians, when the better course of action would have been to welcome Russia into the "fold" so to speak. If the reason for not doing so is because of Russia's well deserved reputation for subterfuge and corruption, how does that reputation differ from Ukraine's? It does not, of course, which is why none of this had to be, if we had chosen peace over endless (cold) war to the benefit of only the Military Industrial Complex. Which is why the left, who for half a century were anti-imperialist and anti-war, embracing this war is so damn perplexing. I guess they are just too stupid to understand they are being played for suckers by the Neocons and the MIC.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be accused of "defending Putin" for taking a principled anti-war stance here, but the fact remains that we did provoke this war, whether the left wants to admit it or not. If anyone wants to do that, they need to explain why, if we didn't do ANYTHING to bring this about, was John Mearsheimer so able to predict precisely this outcome a decade ago?

No less than MSNBC had a good explanation of our involvement in this tragic geopolitical mess that threatens to drag us into (a potentially nuclear) WWIII.

Russia's Ukraine invasion may have been preventable

The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.

www.msnbc.com

That this has come to a head on Brandon's watch is no surprise - he has projected as the weakest POTUS since Jimmy Carter.

While I agree it is a very likely scenario that the weapons sent to Ukraine end up in the hands of people we don't want them to be in, your solution is flawed.

NATO's purpose is not countering the soviet union. It's a mutual defense agreement. Whether the threat is from the USSR, Russia, or Timbuktu The mutual defense pact is still necessary. Nato existence is preventing the war from spreading outside of Ukraine.

 

[middleview]

I am not sure why you are worried, it's not like we sent billions upon bilions of dollars to one of the most corrupt countries in the world?........ Oh wait....

And did we send mines to Ukraine? No. That is what was on the plane...land mines.

 

[Dawg]

While I agree it is a very likely scenario that the weapons sent to Ukraine end up in the hands of people we don't want them to be in, your solution is flawed.

NATO's purpose is not countering the soviet union. It's a mutual defense agreement. Whether the threat is from the USSR, Russia, or Timbuktu The mutual defense pact is still necessary. Nato existence is preventing the war from spreading outside of Ukraine.

Too Late

Putin is already at war with Europe. There is only one way to stop him (msn.com)

 

[middleview]

What is happening to all of that lethal weaponry sent to Ukraine goes once it is loaded into the the trucks, minivans and cars at the Polish border.

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Countries call for greater tracking of arms to stop sales to Europe’s black market

www.ft.com

How many thousands of innocent lives will be lost because these weapons fall into the wrong hands. I mean, lets face it, it's not like Ukraine doesn't have a reputation for widespread corruption, so we know that at least some of these weapons will be sold on the black market? Whose hands are that blood on, Putin?

The neocons will say "of course, most definitely." But those of us who are brutally honest about US (NATO) aggression in the region understand that none of this had to happen. This could have been avoided if NATO had been disbanded when it's purpose (countering the Soviet Union) disappeared in the 1980s. But like any government function, eliminating it was never in the cards, so it developed a "mission" and that mission was to f*ck with the Russians, when the better course of action would have been to welcome Russia into the "fold" so to speak. If the reason for not doing so is because of Russia's well deserved reputation for subterfuge and corruption, how does that reputation differ from Ukraine's? It does not, of course, which is why none of this had to be, if we had chosen peace over endless (cold) war to the benefit of only the Military Industrial Complex. Which is why the left, who for half a century were anti-imperialist and anti-war, embracing this war is so damn perplexing. I guess they are just too stupid to understand they are being played for suckers by the Neocons and the MIC.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be accused of "defending Putin" for taking a principled anti-war stance here, but the fact remains that we did provoke this war, whether the left wants to admit it or not. If anyone wants to do that, they need to explain why, if we didn't do ANYTHING to bring this about, was John Mearsheimer so able to predict precisely this outcome a decade ago?

No less than MSNBC had a good explanation of our involvement in this tragic geopolitical mess that threatens to drag us into (a potentially nuclear) WWIII.

Russia's Ukraine invasion may have been preventable

The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.

www.msnbc.com

That this has come to a head on Brandon's watch is no surprise - he has projected as the weakest POTUS since Jimmy Carter.

1. I'm more concerned that thousands of lives taken by soldiers wielding these weapons are Russians who shouldn't be in Ukraine...
2. You act as if Putin actually had reason to fear Ukraine joining Nato. He didn't. His frequent statements about Ukraine had to do with his claim that Ukraine was part of Russia and didn't have the right to be a sovereign nation.

Putin is rewriting history to justify his threats to Ukraine
Putin pretends Russia and Ukraine are historically “one people.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to push a familiar Russian line about the conflict: that Ukraine belongs to Russia and that the two are “one people — a single whole.”

Specifically, much of Russia’s political positioning to launch an incursion into Ukrainian territory is based on Putin’s claim that Ukraine — like Russia, a former Soviet state — is an extension of Russia, the “little brother” that has been led astray by the West and must be reincorporated into the family. Thus, he sees Ukraine’s increasing westward turn as a provocation, by both Ukraine and NATO.

Putin is rewriting history to justify his threats to Ukraine

Putin pretends Russia and Ukraine are historically “one people.”

www.vox.com

 

[Raoul_Luke]

While I agree it is a very likely scenario that the weapons sent to Ukraine end up in the hands of people we don't want them to be in, your solution is flawed.

NATO's purpose is not countering the soviet union. It's a mutual defense agreement. Whether the threat is from the USSR, Russia, or Timbuktu The mutual defense pact is still necessary. Nato existence is preventing the war from spreading outside of Ukraine.

Yes, because all of the NATO leadership has a stellar record of never interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation...oops!

 

[ObamacareForever]

Yes, because all of the NATO leadership has a stellar record of never interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation...oops!

That doesn't negate the benefits of the mutual defense pact.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

That doesn't negate the benefits of the mutual defense pact.

Again, not one of you neocon bots can think for yourselves.

1. What part of the NATO pact prevents us from joining in the defense of Ukraine?
2. What (precisely) is the "benefit" of a pact that requires us to come (without hesitation) to the defense of Lithuania, with whom we do essentially zero $ of foreign trade while preventing us from coming to the defense of Ukraine, with whom we do nearly $4 billion a year in foreign trade?

If you answer those honestly, there's some other questions I have, but I certainly do not expect an honest answer from you so I won't waste any more time until you prove you can discuss this beyond the (absurd) official narrative.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Again, not one of you neocon bots can think for yourselves.

1. What part of the NATO pact prevents us from joining in the defense of Ukraine?
2. What (precisely) is the "benefit" of a pact that requires us to come (without hesitation) to the defense of Lithuania, with whom we do essentially zero $ of foreign trade while preventing us from coming to the defense of Ukraine, with whom we do nearly $4 billion a year in foreign trade?

If you answer those honestly, there's some other questions I have, but I certainly do not expect an honest answer from you so I won't waste any more time until you prove you can discuss this beyond the (absurd) official narrative.

Nothing in the pact prevents us from joining in the defense of Ukraine.
That doesn't mean it is a good idea to go into the Ukraine-Russia War.

The benefits of Nato membership are mostly the same as the social contract. You can achieve more with cooperation than by doing everything alone.