Hard Lessons Make for Hard Choices 2 Years Into the War in Ukraine

[Social Media]

 

The second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine marks a sobering realization for Western powers: the initial optimism of repelling Moscow's advances has given way to a strategic impasse. Despite possessing the capability to support Ukraine with weapons, technology, and intelligence, the United States is perceived in Europe to have wavered in its resolve. Conversely, while European nations demonstrate the will to assist Ukraine, they lack the military capacity to effectively counter Russia's aggression.

 

 

This predicament underscores the complexities facing Ukraine and its NATO allies. Previously, there was optimism that European and American support, including military aid and intelligence sharing, could push back Russian forces. However, harsh lessons have emerged over the past year. Sanctions intended to cripple Russia's economy have faltered, and Moscow's military expenditure has surged, buoyed by income from oil exports.

 

 

As hopes for a negotiated settlement dwindle, President Vladimir Putin appears determined to prolong the conflict, betting on domestic political shifts in the United States and potential vulnerabilities in Ukraine's defense funding. Despite NATO's expansion and increased defense spending among member states, concerns persist about the alliance's ability to deter future Russian aggression.

 

 

At the heart of the stalemate lies the absence of viable negotiation prospects. While earlier discussions explored the possibility of a negotiated settlement, current debates in the U.S. Congress and waning optimism about Ukraine's ability to withstand prolonged conflict have shifted priorities. Some voices advocate for a more pragmatic approach, emphasizing the need for Ukraine to secure its long-term economic viability and democratic future, even if it means conceding territory.

 

 

Amidst these deliberations, European public opinion is shifting, reflecting growing concerns about Ukraine's ability to resist Russian advances. Despite significant financial pledges, European efforts to bolster Ukraine's defense capabilities face logistical challenges and disagreements over arms procurement and funding distribution.

 

The evolving geopolitical landscape demands a reassessment of strategies aimed at deterring Russian aggression. Admitting past shortcomings and charting a new course forward may offer a more effective approach than empty self-congratulation. Ultimately, the fate of Ukraine and the stability of the region hinge on the collective resolve of Western powers to confront the challenges posed by Russia's belligerence.

 

25.02.24

Source

 

[sirineou]

I am not Pro Putin , but I am a realist 

What happened in Ukraine was predicted by the Realist movement from the start.

I was taken to task  over my opposition of what happened there

But hey, the US got to weken Russia on the cheap. and with no loss of American lives

Never mind that Ukraine was destroyed, lost 1/3 oh it's territory and  a generation of it's youth, and will be a basket case for the foreseeable future. 

And send the economy of Europe in a recession.  

[ozimoron]

41 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am not Pro Putin , but I am a realist 

What happened in Ukraine was predicted by the Realist movement from the start.

I was taken to task  over my opposition of what happened there

But hey, the US got to weken Russia on the cheap. and with no loss of American lives

Never mind that Ukraine was destroyed, lost 1/3 oh it's territory and  a generation of it's youth, and will be a basket case for the foreseeable future. 

And send the economy of Europe in a recession.  

 

I ;lay the blame squarely on the Republican traitors who have blocked aid since last August. If the aid package was passed the war would have been over by now.

[Skipalongcassidy]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I ;lay the blame squarely on the Republican traitors who have blocked aid since last August. If the aid package was passed the war would have been over by now.

And I lay the blame directly on the demoncratic party who could not present and pass a "clean" bill but had to attach a $118 billion dollar border bill as a political ploy to fool Americans into believing that they cared about the chaos at the border.

[sirineou]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I ;lay the blame squarely on the Republican traitors who have blocked aid since last August. If the aid package was passed the war would have been over by now.

I have no love lost for trump, 

But the conflict was not lost because there was not enough aid. It was lost because of three reasons. 

A) Russia could not afford to lose. 

B) Russia  has a much larger population than Ukraine and an advantages on the attrition  issue

C) Russia has a considerable advantage in the manufacture of artillery shells 

The only thing more money would have accomplished would had been to make Zelinsky's  offshore  accounts richer . Ukraine was one of the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world before the war started. I am sure this did not change during the war. I can guarantee you that this war has made many in Ukraine fantastically rich. 

Edited February 25 by sirineou

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

And I lay the blame directly on the demoncratic party who could not present and pass a "clean" bill but had to attach a $118 billion dollar border bill as a political ploy to fool Americans into believing that they cared about the chaos at the border.

 

The republicans wanted the rider until they didn't want it.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I have no love lost for trump, 

But the conflict was not lost because there was not enough aid. It was lost because of three reasons. 

A) Russia could not afford to lose. 

B) Russia  has a much larger population than Ukraine and an unvabtages on the attrition 

C) Russia has a considerable advantage in the manufacture of artillery shells 

The only thing more money would have accomplished would had been to make Zelinsky's  offshore  accounts richer . Ukraine was one of the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world before the war started. I am sure this did not change during the war. I can guarantee you that this war has made many in Ukraine fantastically rich. 

 

Another issue was the degree to which Europe failed to shut down commerce with Russia. They are not that strong at all compared to Europe. I have always felt that democratic nations should not cosy up to non democratic nations. Lack of free and fair elections should bring automatic sanctions against any country, including China.

Edited February 25 by ozimoron

[sirineou]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Another issue was the degree to which Europe failed to shut down commerce with Russia. They are not that strong at all compared to Europe.

Europe  was initially opposed to NATO eastern expansion and the cause of the war.   , Both Germany's Merkel and France's Sarkozy were initial opposed to the proposition at the 2008 Budapest NATO conference  for obvious reasons, and were   subsequently strong armed into support. 

Europe has paid a great price for that decision. 

US growth 2023  3.3 % 

EU growth 2023     .6 %  2024 projections are for an even slower GDP growth. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, sirineou said:

I am not Pro Putin , but I am a realist 

What happened in Ukraine was predicted by the Realist movement from the start.

I was taken to task  over my opposition of what happened there

But hey, the US got to weken Russia on the cheap. and with no loss of American lives

Never mind that Ukraine was destroyed, lost 1/3 oh it's territory and  a generation of it's youth, and will be a basket case for the foreseeable future. 

And send the economy of Europe in a recession.  

While I agree with most, I disagree that it was "on the cheap". It's cost the US billions of $ far better spent in the US, and perhaps not unfortunately has exposed Biden to questions over his wisdom in interfering in European affairs by supporting a nation that the US has no treaty with.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, sirineou said:

I have no love lost for trump, 

But the conflict was not lost because there was not enough aid. It was lost because of three reasons. 

A) Russia could not afford to lose. 

B) Russia  has a much larger population than Ukraine and an advantages on the attrition  issue

C) Russia has a considerable advantage in the manufacture of artillery shells 

The only thing more money would have accomplished would had been to make Zelinsky's  offshore  accounts richer . Ukraine was one of the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world before the war started. I am sure this did not change during the war. I can guarantee you that this war has made many in Ukraine fantastically rich. 

Agreed. IMO when the war is over and Zelensky has been dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table, all that will have been achieved is making the usual suspects far richer, while devastating Ukraine and leaving thousands of families without husbands and fathers.

Meanwhile the western "leaders" that were the cause of the catastrophe  will likely just ignore the outcome and carry without acknowledging their guilt in it.

 

The idea that Ukraine can win if enough money is thrown into that bottomless pit is IMO ludicrous.

The GOP are doing the right thing by not agreeing to throw good money after bad, IMO.

[AlexRich]

20 hours ago, sirineou said:

I have no love lost for trump, 

But the conflict was not lost because there was not enough aid. It was lost because of three reasons. 

A) Russia could not afford to lose. 

B) Russia  has a much larger population than Ukraine and an advantages on the attrition  issue

C) Russia has a considerable advantage in the manufacture of artillery shells 

The only thing more money would have accomplished would had been to make Zelinsky's  offshore  accounts richer . Ukraine was one of the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world before the war started. I am sure this did not change during the war. I can guarantee you that this war has made many in Ukraine fantastically rich. 

 

 

Nonsense. The so-called "realists" would doom millions of Ukrainian's to a life under a dictatorship, many of them would be tortured and killed. Allowing Putin to win this conflict, which appears to be the aim of the Trump wing of the GOP, would not lead to the end of war. It will only embolden Putin to make a move on the Baltics and other countries in the region. A Trump presidency will lead to US withdrawal from NATO, and a war in Europe. Weakness by the US will also embolden their enemies around the world, so expect China to invade Taiwan and Iran to cause chaos in the Middle East. 

 

Appeasing dictators never works, they only exploit weakness, but fear strength. Europe needs to prepare for war, because if Putin gets his way in Ukraine, that will be the next step. 

 

History doesn't always repeat itself, but it often rhymes. This period feels like the early 1930's. It is time to build our militaries to deter threats, and support Ukraine to the hilt. If the "realists" get their way we are doomed. 

 

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

Nonsense. The so-called "realists" would doom millions of Ukrainian's to a life under a dictatorship, many of them would be tortured and killed.

Talk about Nonsense. 

They doom no one to anything, they simply analyze a situation in a rational realistic way. 

What is, rather than what we wish there was.

 The torture and Killed comment is simply Hyperbole. 

Belarus did not join NATO and I don't think many of them are "Tortured and Killed" ,

Qne might argue ,successfully I might add, that the current situation has been anathema to Ukraine and that if they had remained neutral things would had been much better for them. 

 

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

Allowing Putin to win this conflict, which appears to be the aim of the Trump wing of the GOP, would not lead to the end of war

 Though some might want o. or buy into a Zero sum narrative , I promise you it was not/is not the only option. 

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

Weakness by the US will also embolden their enemies around the world,

And the truth finally comes out.

This not really for the well being of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people but rather for the ability of the US to project power around the world.

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

Europe needs to prepare for war, because if Putin gets his way in Ukraine, that will be the next step. 

Thai is laughable. 

On one hand one argues that Ukraine can defeat Russia, and on the other hand that Russia can defeat Europe. You realise that a NATO Europe, even without Ukrainian membership is infinitely more powerful than Ukraine?

If Russia wanted to conquer and occupy Ukraine it would dot had invaded with  approximately       200, 000 troops.  most military strategist  suggest am number between 1 -1.5 million toops. 

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

If the "realists" get their way we are doomed. 

Doomed I tell you doomed.!! LOL 

Realists , have no "way" !! it is not a dogma it is a way of analyzing issues and make predictions, Accurate predictions I might add  . If the US was faced with a similar situation it would react , and it has reacted, in a similar fashion . The US would not allow enemy troop on their border.  

 

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The GOP are doing the right thing by not agreeing to throw good money after bad, IMO.

I agree with everything you say except "The GOP are doing the right thing " The GOP never does the right thing, what they do is the expedient for themselves thing. Same applies for the Democrats to a lesser degree IMO. 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If the Democrats were against the war in Ukraine I am convinced that the republicans would be for it.

  IMO there is no such thing as democrats and republicans , In the US there is only one party , the property party, with a conservative wing that calls itself republicans and a progressive wing that calls itself democrats.

IMO it would be more accurate if they did away with the Democrat/ republican monicers  and call each other as the situation applies, the pro and the anti .  

  And trump's rhetoric about NATO is nothing but nonsense for the consumption of the ignorant in the issue .

There is no money owed, and to be collected  by anyone .  The 2% of GDP contribution is a guideline and it is not to be paid to anyone but for a NATO country to spend on it's defence. Each country has different defence challenges and requirements and spends what it thinks is nessacery. 

In addition a Country's GDP  changes from year to year, it would be idiotic for them to change their defence spending if not nessacery because their GDP changed. 

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While I agree with most, I disagree that it was "on the cheap". It's cost the US billions of $ far better spent in the US,

I agree that the money spend would had been better spend in the US, where SSI is in danger of going brock and millions are without medical insurance. 

But!! LOL there is always a but 

It is on the cheap.

If rather that it being a proxy war, and the US had to do it themselves, It would had cost way more in gold and American lives. 

The estimate is that the Iraq war cost 1,1 trillion and that does not consider legacy costs. And trust me, Russia is no Iraq. 

[ballpoint]

Nixon gave his thoughts on this back in 1992:

 

 

[AlexRich]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

Talk about Nonsense. 

They doom no one to anything, they simply analyze a situation in a rational realistic way. 

What is, rather than what we wish there was.

 The torture and Killed comment is simply Hyperbole. 

Belarus did not join NATO and I don't think many of them are "Tortured and Killed" ,

Qne might argue ,successfully I might add, that the current situation has been anathema to Ukraine and that if they had remained neutral things would had been much better for them. 

 

 Though some might want o. or buy into a Zero sum narrative , I promise you it was not/is not the only option. 

And the truth finally comes out.

This not really for the well being of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people but rather for the ability of the US to project power around the world.

Thai is laughable. 

On one hand one argues that Ukraine can defeat Russia, and on the other hand that Russia can defeat Europe. You realise that a NATO Europe, even without Ukrainian membership is infinitely more powerful than Ukraine?

If Russia wanted to conquer and occupy Ukraine it would dot had invaded with  approximately       200, 000 troops.  most military strategist  suggest am number between 1 -1.5 million toops. 

Doomed I tell you doomed.!! LOL 

Realists , have no "way" !! it is not a dogma it is a way of analyzing issues and make predictions, Accurate predictions I might add  . If the US was faced with a similar situation it would react , and it has reacted, in a similar fashion . The US would not allow enemy troop on their border.  

 

 

Almost too much nonsense to unpack. Your vacuous answers only dig you into a deeper hole. 
 

The torture and killed comment is just hyperbole. The Russians have been doing that since 2014. You’ve never heard of Bucha? That catastrophe was not a one off, people have been killed and tortured in every occupied village and town. That you don’t want to face up to that is telling. Like a keyboard Chamberlain, offering peace in our time, when in fact you are opening the door to wider war. 

 

The Belarus comment simply beggars belief. They are a dictatorship now completely under the thumb of Putin. Opposition are either dead, exiled or imprisoned. Is that the world that “realists” want us all to live in? Ukraine fight not to become Belarus. 
 

The ability of the US to project power around the world … that’s what it’s all about? Again, more nonsense. An anti-American rant. Would you prefer to live under the Russian and Chinese system? Or maybe under the Ayatollahs, who are interfering more and more in the world. Without US power more and more countries would find themselves invaded and subjugated. If that goes so will democracies. 
 

A NATO with a Donald Trump presidency is heading for break up. Europe can’t rely on the US under Trump. Because Trump is in the pro-Putin camp. The well propagandised “Russia hoax” is nothing of the sort. Trump and a core of GOP operators are part of the Russia team. So under Trump Europe is much more vulnerable to attack. And that’s where we are heading should Ukraine be abandoned. With support they can win. Setbacks we are seeing are down to the withdrawal of US support engineered by Trump and his cronies. Russia said they’d be in Kyiv in 3 days, they’ve proved themselves to be inept. But they have weaponry and a steady supply of conscripts. So weight of numbers against a force running out of ammunition condemns Ukraine to defeat. Time for Europe and the US to get behind 🇺🇦 or condemn us all to another European war. 
 

The 200,000 troops at the border believed that they could roll into Kiyv, kill the Government and their families in incinerators (that they brought with them) and take over the country. Putin thought it would be a walk in the park. He can be beaten in Ukraine, as long as the Ukrainians are given the tools to do the job. And that’s the only outcome that will put Russia back in their box for decades. 
 

Don’t be like Chamberlain … Russian success means more wars, not the end of them. Any agreement signed by Putin is meaningless. 
 

 

[sirineou]

15 hours ago, AlexRich said:

The torture and killed comment is just hyperbole. The Russians have been doing that since 2014. You’ve never heard of Bucha?

More nonsense and faulty reasoning.  Busha did or did not happen after the war started,

 

15 hours ago, AlexRich said:

The Belarus comment simply beggars belief.

what beggars belief id your level of misunderstanding 

Again faulty reasoning and Hyperbole . if Belarus has free elections is debatable , but that was not the point of my comment . Any way you look at it , Belarus is better of  than Ukraine having not tried to align themselves with the US and been invaded by Russia, 

15 hours ago, AlexRich said:

The ability of the US to project power around the world … that’s what it’s all about?

More nonsense and attempt to distract. Or perhaps a comedy ratine. If the latter . then my appologies . Very funny indeed 

First you say :" The ability of the US to project power around the world … that’s what it’s all about?"

and then you continue to try and explain what it is all about 

15 hours ago, AlexRich said:

A NATO with a Donald Trump presidency is heading for break up

Not in support of trump and even greater nonsense, simply against what happened to  Ukraine and the Ukrainian people which seems to you seen to think was worth it. 

15 hours ago, AlexRich said:

The 200,000 troops at the border believed that they could roll into Kiyv, kill the Government and their families in incinerators (that they brought with them) and take over the country. Putin thought it would be a walk in the park. He can be beaten in Ukraine, as long as the Ukrainians are given the tools to do the job. And that’s the only outcome that will put Russia back in their box for decades. 
 

Don’t be like Chamberlain … Russian success means more wars, not the end of them. Any agreement signed by Putin is meaningless. 

Will not even attempt to unpack the above rant

[retarius]

On 2/25/2024 at 7:52 AM, ozimoron said:

 

I ;lay the blame squarely on the Republican traitors who have blocked aid since last August. If the aid package was passed the war would have been over by now.

You will probably vote for Biden as well. Well we all do daft things from time to time.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

You will probably vote for Biden as well. Well we all do daft things from time to time.

 

I can assure you that I won't be voting for Biden 🙂

[ozimoron]

Macron refuses to rule out putting troops on ground in Ukraine in call to galvanise Europe

French president admits no consensus exists on such a move as he urges fellow European leaders to take action rather than wait for US aid

 

France’s President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday he refused to rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine, but said no consensus existed on the step, at a meeting of 20 mainly European leaders in Paris convened by Macron to ramp up the European response to the Russian military advances inside Ukraine.

 

Protecting France’s strategic ambiguity he said “there is no consensus to officially back any ground troops. That said, nothing should be excluded. We will do everything that we can to make sure that Russia does not prevail.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/french-president-emmanuel-macron-ukraine-french-ground-troops

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:42 AM, AlexRich said:

Appeasing dictators never works, they only exploit weakness, but fear strength. Europe needs to prepare for war, because if Putin gets his way in Ukraine, that will be the next step. 

 

History doesn't always repeat itself, but it often rhymes. This period feels like the early 1930's. It is time to build our militaries to deter threats, and support Ukraine to the hilt. If the "realists" get their way we are doomed. 

LOL.

I don't remember any allied attacks on Russia during the cold war. Perhaps you can guess why? That's correct, MAD was the reason.

MAD is still the reason why Russia will not attack any western nation in NATO. Far as the rest goes, they were in the Soviet Union and no western country went to war to "liberate them, so they could be capitalist consumer units.

It's all the "the Great Game", and that has been played for probably centuries.

 

Perhaps some should stop believing western propaganda.

 

If the "realists" get their way we are doomed. 

If you hadn't noticed, IMO we are already doomed. The west is slowly circling down into the plughole of history, but most haven't heard the fat lady singing yet.

[retarius]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Macron refuses to rule out putting troops on ground in Ukraine in call to galvanise Europe

French president admits no consensus exists on such a move as he urges fellow European leaders to take action rather than wait for US aid

 

France’s President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday he refused to rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine, but said no consensus existed on the step, at a meeting of 20 mainly European leaders in Paris convened by Macron to ramp up the European response to the Russian military advances inside Ukraine.

 

Protecting France’s strategic ambiguity he said “there is no consensus to officially back any ground troops. That said, nothing should be excluded. We will do everything that we can to make sure that Russia does not prevail.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/french-president-emmanuel-macron-ukraine-french-ground-troops

Macron is a publicity seeking moron who doesn't;t mind starting WW3. The French already have troops in Ukraine, and they are not doing much good. A number of them got killed recently in a Russian attack they man the air defences that the nazis are too stupid to operate. One day the Russians are going to nuke Ukraine if this keeps up, and I doubt these lame leaders in then EU will do anything about it. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:15 PM, sirineou said:

I agree that the money spend would had been better spend in the US, where SSI is in danger of going brock and millions are without medical insurance. 

But!! LOL there is always a but 

It is on the cheap.

If rather that it being a proxy war, and the US had to do it themselves, It would had cost way more in gold and American lives. 

The estimate is that the Iraq war cost 1,1 trillion and that does not consider legacy costs. And trust me, Russia is no Iraq. 

The million $ question is why the Americans would have to go into Iraq themselves, quite apart from triggering MAD? At least in Iraq the Bush administration had a reason, even though it was all lies. What reason existed for the US to go to war in Ukraine, apparently the most corrupt country in Europe?

Other than making western arms companies mind mindbogglingly rich, what would justify it?

The west doesn't give a monkey's about all the other conflicts eg Sudan, Congo, Burma etc etc etc. Did America go to war when China invaded Tibet? So, give me an actual reason why America and it's poodles had to spend billions in Ukraine?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, retarius said:

Macron is a publicity seeking moron who doesn't;t mind starting WW3. The French already have troops in Ukraine, and they are not doing much good. A number of them got killed recently in a Russian attack they man the air defences that the nazis are too stupid to operate. One day the Russians are going to nuke Ukraine if this keeps up, and I doubt these lame leaders in then EU will do anything about it. 

Macron should be careful about what he wishes for. I don't think the French have won any war since before Waterloo. Not a military history to be proud of.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/26/2024 at 4:37 PM, ballpoint said:

Nixon gave his thoughts on this back in 1992:

 

 

I didn't look at it because he was a crook and a warmonger, probably a war criminal as well, and gave us China as an industrial and military enemy, IMO. Anything he had to say is not something I need to hear.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:06 PM, sirineou said:

And trump's rhetoric about NATO is nothing but nonsense for the consumption of the ignorant in the issue .

There is no money owed, and to be collected  by anyone .  The 2% of GDP contribution is a guideline and it is not to be paid to anyone but for a NATO country to spend on it's defence. Each country has different defence challenges and requirements and spends what it thinks is nessacery. 

LOL. The 2 % was a means of making them contribute something to their own defense. They ignored it because no previous US president made them do it. If you hadn't noticed, European military forces are a rather sad joke, IMO. They apparently decided long ago to leave it to the US.

Look at the state of the UK forces. A navy with just two major ships, neither of which worked recently, and with no British attack planes on them. The Army is but a pale shadow of BAOR, and is the airforce of any use other than bombing poorly defended Houthies?

 

Before they can debate how much they spend, they need to spend enough to actually have a military that can do something.

[ozimoron]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The 2 % was a means of making them contribute something to their own defense. They ignored it because no previous US president made them do it. If you hadn't noticed, European military forces are a rather sad joke, IMO. They apparently decided long ago to leave it to the US.

Look at the state of the UK forces. A navy with just two major ships, neither of which worked recently, and with no British attack planes on them. The Army is but a pale shadow of BAOR, and is the airforce of any use other than bombing poorly defended Houthies?

 

Before they can debate how much they spend, they need to spend enough to actually have a military that can do something.

 

France has the third largest mil spending in Europe for NATO countries and is close to equal with Germany.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The 2 % was a means of making them contribute something to their is defense. They ignored it because no previous US president made them do it.

Call me a dreamer , but I think before someone tries to make a point, they need to do a simple Google search on it. 

 

"The share of total expenditure, the average defence spending was 2.5 % in 2021 in the EU and 2.4% in the euro area. As a share of GDP the average was 1.3% in the EU and in the euro area.^[1]

Total defence expenditure of the European Defence Agency (EDA) Member States was €214 billion in 2021, which was 1.5% of the 26 EDA Member States’ GDP, the same percentage as in 2020"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_military_expenditures#:~:text=As a share of GDP,same percentage as in 2020.

Some coun tries spend more, and some spend less based on their defence needs, Obviously Greece would spend a lot more faced with a hostile neighbor, than Belgium whose main concern is melting chocolate do to global warming. 

Even if these countries spend 0% they would still not awe nothing to anyone. 

But that is neither here nor there,

  My Point stands. .

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Before they can debate how much they spend, they need to spend enough to actually have a military that can do something.

trump is either a liar o ignorant .based on what he said. And all those who flowed him and believed it, are at the very least ignorant. 

Your choice which of the above options make him more palatable to you. 

 

 

 

 

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bush administration had a reason, even though it was all lies.

LOL " he had a reason but it was all lies?"

Don't everyone have a reason?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The million $ question is why the Americans would have to go into Iraq themselves, quite apart from triggering MAD?

Not sure how the MAD applies to Iraq

But I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse , the cost is because it went there , if it had not gone and it had talked some other sucker to go in and take care of it for them. the cost would had also being negligible. 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, give me an actual reason why America and it's poodles had to spend billions in Ukraine?

That is probably the easiest of all questions. 

Russia wanted to be part of NATO , but that was a no starter for the US, because a Russia in NATO would had been a stronger and more influential Russia, 

  With the end of the soviet Union. and an underdeveloped China , The US was the only Hegemon in the world.

The world was Unipolar. 

But as Russia started to regain some of it's power, and the Chinese economic miracle, we sterted to see the Development of there superpowers. 

The US, China , and a distant third Russia.

the world was becoming multipolar,  

  Are you familiar with the Three body in orbital mechanics. 

Simply put  describes the motion of three-point mass particles under their mutual gravitational interactions, and makes predictions much more difficult and uncertain.

If you are interested you can read a simple explanation here https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/three-body-problem#:~:text=three-body problem-,The three-body problem describes the motion of three-point,the influence of the Sun.

   This principle can apply to many Operations where three  principals'  are involved.  

It would simplify things much better if one principle was removed from the equation.  

So the question arises ,which factor do you remove, and how? 

I will let you decide which factor the US attempted to remove, but has at the very least diminished . and how.

. 

 

 

 

 

[AlexRich]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

More nonsense and faulty reasoning.  Busha did or did not happen after the war started,

 

what beggars belief id your level of misunderstanding 

Again faulty reasoning and Hyperbole . if Belarus has free elections is debatable , but that was not the point of my comment . Any way you look at it , Belarus is better of  than Ukraine having not tried to align themselves with the US and been invaded by Russia, 

More nonsense and attempt to distract. Or perhaps a comedy ratine. If the latter . then my appologies . Very funny indeed 

First you say :" The ability of the US to project power around the world … that’s what it’s all about?"

and then you continue to try and explain what it is all about 

Not in support of trump and even greater nonsense, simply against what happened to  Ukraine and the Ukrainian people which seems to you seen to think was worth it. 

Will not even attempt to unpack the above rant

My last post with you. But here goes:

 

The war started in 2014, not March 2022. The torture and killing in Bucha took place during the attempt to takeover Kyiv. In every village the Russians took over people were tortured and murdered. Women and girls have been raped and children in their thousands shipped off to Russia. This is how you propose to save Ukrainians? 
 

If Belarus has free elections is “debatable”? It is a dictatorship. There is no room for debate. That comment alone illustrates your understanding of this world. And it’s incredibly poor. 
 

Belarus is not aligned with the West, but the people of Belarus want to be. They are pretty much ruled by Moscow now, as Lukaschenko wouldn’t survive long without Putin’s help. All opposition have been killed, jailed or exiled. You seem to think that for any country it’s better to be under the Moscow system, with no sovereignty. Most of us don’t want to live as slaves of dictators. I understand for you that’s not an issue. You are an appeaser, I understand that. 
 

The war in Ukraine was started by Russia, not the US. It is an attempt by Russia to take over a region of the world that they control. When Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons they signed an agreement with Russia, USA and UK that they would remain a sovereign state in return for protection. Russia broke that agreement. And if the USA support Ukraine it is no more than they have agreed to under the treaty. This war is about the projection of Russian power. And if they get away with it we will see more war in Europe and around the world. You and your fellow “realists” save no one, appeasers never do.

 

Also, you won’t unpack the final point because it exposes your nonsense claim that Russia didn’t intend to takeover Ukraine, as it didn’t have enough troops. The truth is that Russia believed that Ukraine would fold at the first sight of Russian tanks. They thought it would be over in 3 days … we know better now. 
 

Russia can be defeated in Ukraine by giving Ukraine support. The Trump GOP are on the Putin team, and are trying to deny Ukraine the support needed. In doing so you condemn a nation to rule by dictators and embolden Russia to attack other countries. It’s called appeasement, and it never makes things better, only worse.