Hanaguma

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.

But again, the questions are: how much, and for how long? I am wary of the west getting involved in yet another proxy war like Iraq or Afghanistan. Certainly not worth the thousands of lives and untold billions we burned up in those two crapholes.

Nice appeal to emotion without bothering to reason out your position. Enjoy your well earned outrage.

I'll take a stab at it. The consequences are that Putin probably would be content with occupying the Russian speaking areas of the country. He doesn't have the military capacity to threaten Europe in any serious way, let alone threaten North America. He would not invade a NATO country because that would provoke a larger response. So I say give him those areas. THEN impose sanctions on Russia that actually hurt. Total boycott of all Russian products, severing of all pipelines, cancellation of all visas and travel. Complete isolation. Now how about you return the favor?

It is up to the Russian people to stop Putin if they want. Not my business. Now how about you stop hiding behind the polls and take a shot at answering my questions? What is Ukraine actually worth to you?

Again you are making WW2 comparisons when they are not warranted. How about answering my basic questions about your support for the war- how much is too much, and would you go to war?

I honestly don't care. I especially don't care what the EU Parliament thinks, given their track record. If they think he is so bad, they can go ahead and declare war on Russia to stop him. It all boils down to some basic questions: 1. How much treasure are you willing to spend in order for Ukraine to prevail? And please don't say something like "whatever it takes" because that is obviously untrue. There needs to be a limit. 2. Are you willing to go to war with Russia if they gain the upper hand in the conflict?

Putin is strictly junior varsity. He isn't a Mao or Hitler or Stalin. Just a local bully. And I know that the money sent to Ukraine could be better spent in our own countries helping the homeless, addicted, poor, and so on.

How about just giving each family $800 and asking them how much they want to give to Zelensky?

Neither of them can be trusted. But so what. Ain't my business and ain't yours. Look, how many lives do you think Ukraine is worth? How many people in YOUR country should go without, so that weapons can be given to Zelinsky? Each Canadian citizen has given $200 so far, at the behest of our government. So a family of 4 has lost $800 to this war. Don't you think they could have spent the money better themselves?

Really? According to CSIS the US alone has already given 27 billion in direct military aid, plus another 10 billion in peripheral. Non US at least another 10 billion in direct military aid. Plus, even non military aid helps the military. https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts It is enough. More than enough. Let the two little buggers fight it out. How much blood and treasure is Zelinsky worth?

That is the stock answer, isn't it? If you don't fall in lockstep with the warmongers, you are a stooge of Putin. And worse, a stooge of Trump. But there is a principled position that rejects both. Ukraine is no free and democratic society. They poked the bear and the bear got mad. Biden made it worse by seeming to accept a "minor incursion" into Ukraine. So here we are. Sorry, but Ukraine isn't worth 7 billion dollars of my country's hard earned taxes.

So far, the Ukraine has received something in the order of $100 billion in aid- roughly half from the US alone, about a third from the EU, the rest from others. That should be enough to stop Putin- after all it is more money that Russia spends on its entire military. Time to stop feeding the beast. The more Zelensky gets, the more he wants and the less likely he is to negotiate a settlement.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Everyone gets a piece of the Military Industrial Complex pie! Trying to look like some kind of warrior king when he is just another corrupt autocrat. No winners here. Putin is a turd, Zelensky too, both need to be flushed from memory. I can think of a few hundred better uses for $45 billion than p!ssing it away on a proxy war that nobody will win. Hell that is half the ENTIRE Russian defense budget!

Or use radar to find the boats crossing and intercept them. ...by the way, what do you do with the "many" that cannot be safely returned? It seems that claim validity is irrelevant if they can mostly stay anyway.

Yet these "migrants" can freely enter British territorial waters without express permission? Anyway, I said just to block their entry. Not to necessarily enter French waters. But if the French are unwilling to enforce their own laws, they can expect consequences. Yes, they are human beings. With responsibility for themselves. If they deliberately put themselves in a dangerous position, they cannot expect to be rewarded for it. If they drown due to their own deliberate actions, so be it. That is on them and not anyone else. How about returning them to safe harbor in the country they left?

Ungrateful little turd didn't even have the decency to wear a necktie when meeting the President of the United States. Interesting timing, as Congress is "debating" an Omnibus spending bill that has an ADDITIONAL $45 billion to fund the war in Ukraine as well.

Not unloading them, just towing them back. Or blocking their entry into UK territorial waters. No need to take the people on board at all. Besides, the last time the British military unloaded boats on the coast of France was to LIBERATE the place.

Depends. How many actually make landfall in the UK versus how many are found at sea and brought ashore by patrols? If the latter is more common then it will certainly BE a deterrent to just tow them back to France.

I think Megs expected to be the "new face" of the Royal Family, and would be able to bring them into what she saw as the modern (progressive era). That was true for a while, after the wedding etc. But she soon enough faded into the background a bit again. Kate is far more likeable and hard working and gave a lot more of her time to charities. This is the cause of Meghan's tantrum and all the <deleted> that followed. As a typical Hollywood progressive, Meghan is used to the idea that merely mouthing the right platitudes, perhaps sending a tweet, is enough. Enough to be praised and adored. She didn't understand that, for the Royals, they have to actually do the work. Press the flesh, go to hospital openings, attend events, etc. Simply holding the "correct" political and social positions doesn't cut it.

My understanding is that asylum seekers must present themselves at designated points of entry into the US. Simply crossing the border at any point is a crime, regardless of the intention.

Into French waters is enough. Sorry, but these people are choosing to risk themselves by crossing. If the British continue to rescue them and bring them ashore in old Blighty, it will only encourage more of the same. Once a few boatloads are returned, the rest will notice and the practice will become less frequent.