Hanaguma

This is classic, trying to tie skepticism of spending on Ukraine to Trump somehow. Typical.

What else could it be for? The trail was built in 2016, so obviously it was not in need of repair or renovation. And you can find lots of pictures of happy people standing beside new signs proclaiming the new name. Just admit that it is ridiculous and move on.

Newsweek seems to think so... DeKalb County Commissioner Larry Johnson led the resolution to rename the trail after Obama, saying he was inspired by her "Let's Move" anti-childhood-obesity initiative and passion for physical fitness. The decision to rename the trail was unanimously approved by the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners in late 2016, according to a news release. https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-trail-funding-omnibus-bill-republican-fury-1768635

I would have volunteered to paint the signs and groom the trail myself! How about not naming it at all? Or keeping the perfectly acceptable name "South River Trail"? She has no ties to Georgia that I can see, so it is pointless. But only four million bucks, who cares, right?

Ah, Congress. Release a 1.7 TRILLION dollar spending spree. At 130am on Tuesday. With all of 72 hours to read the 4,000 plus pages. j One last chance for the outgoing Democratic majority to take another deep slurp from the neverending trough of money that is Washington DC. But hey, Christmas is coming so just vote it in and go home. Ain't democracy grand? No doubt stuffed with more pork than a Jimmy Dean sausage. But all is good, now that Michelle Obama will have a trail named after her in Georgia, for the low price of $3.6 million.

On that point we can agree, Trudeau's gun policy is a sad joke. Not sure if I would call $80 billion a "rounding error" though. As I said before, in Canada it amounts to $800 per family.

Seven billion dollars of "stood up". That is 20% of the federal deficit this year. Sorry, I am not going to be happy for the next generation to be left footing the bill for this. I cannot see Canada's national interest in this.

Periods. They aren't just for breakfast. I see you are another member of the "whatever it takes" fanclub. Except you probably don't really mean it as anything other than a facile virtue signal. Does it mean go to war? Nuke Russia? Bankrupt your country to defend Ukraine? Try to be a bit more specific.

...and that would be a Good Thing? Worked great for Yugoslavia, didn't it...

No conspiracy, just realism. Domestic politics almost always impacts foreign policy, especially in the US. Now, do you have any thoughts on a realistic endgame scenario? Russia just says "oops" and goes home?

Perhaps because winning isn't the goal. The goal is to fuel the machine. There are also domestic political considerations for Biden. Ukraine is a good distraction from the real troubles that exist within the borders of the United States. Also anything to do with Putin instantly draws a crowd of shrill T D S patients to the party. Like I have said many times, let's imagine that Ukraine 'wins' the war and drives the Russians back to the original borders. Now what? Putin/Russia won't just stop fighting. They have sunk costs they need to recoup somehow.

Perhaps you missed this link i posted earlier, from CSIS: https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts US military aid alone is $27 billion and climbing. Other countries $10 billion and climbing. More to come. Plus lots of humanitarian aid serves to free up other money that can be used for military purposes. In any case, perhaps you are right. Comparing aid to the entire Russian defence budget is foolish. After all, how much of Russia's defence budget is actually committed to the Ukraine war? Perhaps half? In that case, aid to Ukraine is equal to the Russian expenditure. I am still a bit amazed by the vitriol on the part of those who are such unquestioning supporters of Zelensky. It really irritates them if someone dares to disagree. The comparisons I saw to Churchill on the news today were gag inducing. Zelensky is just another leader of a pseudo democratic country with his hand out.

Chomp, those are good questions. I will try and answer your two messages here, if that is OK... First, regarding Putin's ambitions. They are limited by his military capacity. The Russian Army cannot carry out offensive operations anywhere too far from the Russian border. They do not have airlift or logistics capability to operate at a distance. So no I am not worried about him invading another country. Where do you think he will target next? I can't think of anywhere. Again, "let's arm Ukraine" sounds lovely but it is actually very simplistic. We need to decide what the endgame is, and what is acceptable as a compromise solution that does not set off a larger conflict. "Let the Russians take care of Putin" again sounds good. But... who comes next? I cannot see a Russian version of Barack Obama on the horizon. Chances are the next guy will be even worse, with fewer scruples and more aggression. Better to deal with the devil we know than the one we don't. And to answer my own question about NATO intervention, I would say no. No under any circumstances in Ukraine. IF Putin attacks a NATO member then all bets are off. How about you?

...and you would assume wrong. No surprise there. Great hyperbole there. The MIC must love you.

Yes because I don't think there IS risk of escalation, at least in the conventional military sense. The Russian military has proved largely incompetent. It is NOT the same as the spectre the Soviet Red Army posed inthe 60s and 70s. They do not have the capability to invade western Europe or threaten NATO. And let's speculate that, with the help of the west, Ukraine is able to beat the Russians back to the pre-war borders- again, including Crimea? Now what..... You cannot seriously think Putin will just put his tail between his legs and slink off. The biggest threat of escalation IMHO is in nuclear weapons. Russia has them, lots of them. The treat is a catastrophic defeat of the Russian Army could trigger a nuclear response. This is what I worry about the most.

I think this is where we differ. I do not think Russia can fight any other wars. They don't have the military capacity. I don't think Europe or Nato are under threat from the Russian military.

So you would not support direct military intervention by NATO if Putin were to prevail and actually take over vast areas of Ukraine? Because THAT is the blood I am talking about. If you are willing to send NATO to war with Russia to reclaim a conquered Ukraine, just say so.

Traitor? That's rich. A very, how shall I say, totalitarian way to see someone who disagrees with you over a political/social issue. I think I am a patriot actually. I love my country and am not willing to see it waste money or lives in a pointless conflict.

Nah, I will take it up with YOU. You are the one who wants to spend gold and blood on this war. I am simply asking you how much.

So let us assume that your version happens. Russia is pushed back to the original frontiers. Oh, does this also include pushing Russia out of Crimea? Now what? You think Putin will simply accept that? I thought he was a madman totalitarian in the Hitler mode. You think Hitler would have simply stopped the war if he had been pushed back to Germany's pre-war borders? Come on, man. I favor negotiation and compromise. Letting the guy with the nukes have an exit instead of backing him into a corner.

Not at all. Giving Ukraine money costs. And if it were to be spent, I would rather it be spent at home on our own citizens. But I would also rather it not be spent than spent on Ukraine and adding to the debt we are saddling our children with. Or are you OK with adding to the burden of future generations to pay for this conflict?

Not directly. But the money has to be borrowed to give to Ukraine. Then, it has to be added to the growing national debt. Which in turn eats up debt servicing payments and decreases the amount of money left over to care for our own citizens. Adding to the debt is slow suicide for any nation.

The nuclear threat is greater if Putin is seen as decisively beaten. He will lash out to protect himself politically. Better to give him a way to claim "victory" and go home. I am not "on Putin's side". I hope Russia loses. But we also have to look at the consequences down the road. Simply hoorawing and waiting for Russia's collapse is foolish.

See above re war in Europe. It is not possible because the Russians don't have the combat power to make it happen. How long is "as long as it takes"? Twenty years like in Afghanistan? I think you are right that China is by far the greater threat. Putin and Russia are overblown due to the supposed connection between Russia and former president Trump. Shallow thinking people constantly draw lines between them that do nothing other than cloud the issue.

Well, what do YOU think Putin's "endgame" is? He doesn't have the miltary horsepower to do much more than he is doing now. Western Europe is not under threat, nor are any NATO countries. It has just become a matter of pride and machismo on both sides. Not to mention that Ukraine isn't any haven of democratic values either. Freedom House rates it somewhere below Brazil and Angola in its freedom index.