Hanaguma

It isnt ignorant at all. The money to fight has to come from somewhere, which means the pockets of taxpayers in the US and other countries. Money that could otherwise be spent within those countries to help their own citizens (Maui wildfire rebuilding etc). The war has largely stalemated. The Russians are dug in and will be hard to dislodge without significant manpower help from NATO, which means expanding the war. You willing to trade London or Berlin or Paris for Kiev? Or the Donetsk? I'm not.

Demographics are working against Ukraine. A possible related example would be Finland vs USSR in world war 2. The Finns put up a valiant resistance but in the end needed Germany to help them. Ukraine is the same. They will simply run out of men faster than Russia. Particularly if they want to go on the offensive to recapture their lost territory. For their faults, Russians are very tenacious and stubborn on the defensive, as Ukraine is finding out with this years failed spring campaign. So no, they cannot regain what they had before the war unless NATO jumps in. And turning a regional conflict into a global one is a tragedy that need not happen. The risks are too great. Military aid is useless without troops to use it, troops who are trained to use it properly. No time to train, no time to ship everything they want. Best result will be a stalemate.

Well, you got that part right. It's NOT my problem. Whether or not Russia get the Donbas or a few thousand assorted square kms of territory doesn't register with me. I honestly don't see a scenario where Ukraine comes out unscathed, all territory restored, etc. Making no attempt to bring Russia to the bargaining table is rank stupidity. Can you tell me a realistic ending that doesn't involve NATO ground/air forces getting involved yet gets victory for Ukraine? All that is happening now is prolonging the inevitable. Ukraine can't win without other nations intervening directly, and that is a potential nightmare with huge risks and little potential gain. Or is that OK-widening the war to include NATO directly? Because that's what it's gonna take to shift the Russians.

It must be easy to dismiss those who disagree with you so cavalierly. But believe it or not, it IS possible to both hope Russia loses AND not support further funding this conflict. A little nuance goes a long way.

...and here we go! "b-b-but Trump...." ...has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. Biden flushing 120 billion dollars plus down the drain while his own cities are in chaos is criminal.

Tug, your very first assumption was wrong and exposes the inherent problem with the whole debate on the Ukraine war. Russia is NOT "the largest enemy on the planet". China is. And spending 125 billion dollars to fight an unwinnable conflict is folly. Do you honestly think that Russia can be evicted from Ukraine without NATO joining in? The numbers just aren't there. You only have to look at the huge fizzle that was this year's "spring offensive" to see that. The best that Ukraine can hope for is to hang on to what they have left. Europe can (and should) protect itself. Let me ask you: do YOU think NATO should join in? Do you think Ukraine can recapture all its lost territory without the aid of soldiers from other nations?

Absolutely. It's about time. Good work Joe. I just wish there were 2 more "zeroes" on the number being deployed.

Not less than human, but not my problem The Ukranians dont have the manpower to run the Russians off. Would you like NATO to solve that problem too? And let's say, for the sake of argument, that Putin gets "hounded from office". Great. Now what? Who will replace him- you think it will be someone reasonable and peaceful? Surely you aren't that naive. So, letting your chips fall would possibly lead to WW3 and a regime change to an even worse madman than Putin. Sorry, but no thanks.

Yes, if necessary. Ukranian land and people are not worth the life of one NATO soldier, nor the risk of escalating into a wider conflict. Sorry, but that is the way it is. Russia could do that, become an international pariah, and let the chips fall where they may.

Welcome to the conversation, Mr. Godwin. So happy you could finally show up!

Democracy can't lose because neither Russia nor Ukraine are democratic countries.

True, that is probably the purpose of the war. I can understand Russian paranoia to an extent. I mean, NATO was created to counter the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Once the Soviet Union fell and the Pact dissolved, the raison d'etre for NATO was diminished. Yet, NATO continued to expand even as Russia was weakened. Now I am not saying that there is an evil plot for NATO to attack Russia, but from their point of view, given their history of being invaded, I can see how they took NATO expansion as aggression. So give Russia a chunk of Ukraine as a buffer zone. That would secure their western border more or less. In turn, get assurances of the future territorial integrity of Ukraine and a specific promise to not go after NATO countries. Offer assistance with economic development to lure Russia away from the Chinese sphere of influence. Long term, it is the only way.

He will stop and he will bluster because he will come up to a hard border with NATO treaty nations. He will have his victory, secure his legacy, and turn to domestic issues to cement his power base and future. But if a cease fire can be negotiated, it would not result in the elimination of the Ukraine so your hypothetical is moot.

You might be right, which is why it was stupid to defend Ukraine as if it were a NATO-lite member in the first place. Waste of 100 billion plus dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere. Give Putin a stalemate in Ukraine that he can propagandize into a victory at home and stop the fighting is the best way forward. A smaller and wiser Ukraine is left. At the same time, renew commitments to the Baltic States and preposition NATO forces from other member countries within their borders. And God forbid, perhaps Europe will finally start to take their own defence seriously and stop faffing about. It is not America's job to defend Europe if they can't be bothered to defend themselves.

Nah, those other countries you mentioned are all NATO members and covered by the NATO treaty. Ukraine is not. That is the biggest difference. The "domino theory" does not apply.

As yes, the aggressive ignorance of the malinformed. God forbid you are exposed to something that might make you think.... But seriously, if you haven't done more than read Wikipedia perhaps you should tone down your opinions until you have actually learned a bit more.

Kinda strange for a Jewish guy to be a nazi sympathizer, but whatever. Enough of the smears, perhaps you might want to take the time to actually listen to what he has to say before reverting to personal attacks.

Agreed, but it is only part of the solution. Also have to remove the incentive to migrate in the first place. Granting people work permits, housing, bus tickets etc will only encourage more to follow. I would suggest building migrant camps on the border to house people until they can have their hearings. No reason to let them roam free in the country.

Dave Smith, from his libertarian podcast "Part of the Problem".

Then how about prosecuting the criminals? Or at least killing them. Everyone knows that the cartels and crime organizations control the border on the Mexican side, and are making bank by ferrying people to the US. Hell, they even wear color coded wristbands (as if they were going to Disneyland) to show who paid, and to whom. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9343557/Color-coded-passage-Why-smugglers-tagging-U-S-bound-migrants-wristbands.html

Of course not. Just authoritatian do-gooders trying to virtue signal. Parliament has more important things to do than hassle social media companies.

Fifty five companies out of 500? Assuming your number is accurate, that is 11% of corporations. Hardly "most" as you claimed. And while you may be right that they don't pay federal corporate income tax, they DO pay myriad other taxes such as payroll tax, property tax, etc. You exaggerated.

The Mayor is right. The city is paying various hotels $300 per night per room to house and feed the illegal migrants.

From the BBC the letter to Rumble from MP Dame Caroline Dimemage ; "While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform. "We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform. "We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour." https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

Any evidence to back up these assertions?