pull down to refresh

Ted Snider on the massive risks of signing off on long-range Ukrainian strikes in Russia.
"That benefit is as illusory as the first. Ukraine seems to be throwing everything into holding onto the territory it has seized in Kursk. There are reports that Kiev has made the hard to understand decision to prioritize holding onto Kursk over defending its own territory in Donbas. According to these reports, the best military equipment and the best troops are being sent into Kursk to hold onto land instead of into Donbas to reinforce the crumbling front lines. Now, the risk is being taken to throw in the long-range missiles."
All the bullshit that gets coverage in mainstream media, and this dangerous, pointless, last minute escalation is not condemned?
reply
Ukraine is becoming falsely confident, because of what others have promised them. They are hoping to draw everyone into the fight.
reply
That's the really concerning thing. Escalation is their regime's best option.
reply
Best option for whom?
reply
The current administration. Losing the war and resuming elections likely means being removed from power, but elections are suspended until further notice.
reply
Is that what this is about now? Zelenskyy just wants more time as president? Him and Putin are sounding similar...
reply
Partially. The NATO military-industrial complex also likes having somewhere to sell all their weapons too.
reply
The weapons should go to where they are most needed, not for reckless abandon.
Ukraine is getting complacent.
reply
They should not get complacent. They will be cut off of more war resources, shortly.
reply
The Biden administration has not given Ukraine carte blanche to launch missiles into Russia. The license comes with boundaries; the missiles can only be fired into the Kursk region of Russia that Ukrainian troops invaded in August.
The United States has given two reasons for their permission to use their missiles to strike the Kursk region. The Biden administration seems to have been tipped in favor of allowing the strikes by the introduction of North Korean troops into Kursk. The hoped for benefit would be deterring North Korea from sending more troops.
Yes, of course there are risks, the whole fing world turning into an ashtray!!! What sort of fing benefits could even start to weigh in against that? Psychopaths are leading our nation behind the Biden creature. When will we start making politicians take a psychopathy examination before taking office?
reply
You are quite right, no war has brought any kind of benefit.
reply
Well, there are benefits if you are looking to remove a population from the land they once occupied. Or if you wanted to wipe out a people. War is a great benefit for those kinds of evil purposes. THEY like it when some people are at war.
reply
that is not beneficial my friend.
reply
It must be beneficial to someone, otherwise it would not be done! There is someone that has great benefit by having wars going on. In the US, the “defense” manufactures benefit greatly when munitions are being expended. Note that THEY are sending munitions as fast as THEY can fake the books to send more.
reply
reply
And you believe this AI or photoshop creation? Ohhhhhh .................. Kay.
reply
You believe there is democracy and freedom of the press in Russia?
Ohhh........................K
Libertarians support the spread of tyranny across Europe.
This war has many perspectives and the United States has played a secondary role, which makes me think about many things and wonder if Trump's arrival will have any effect on this or will it become more hostile than it is?
reply
As long as European involvement doesn't increase dramatically, and I'm not sure it can, then Ukraine does not have the means to continue without US support.
reply
So when Trump takes over, the war should end?
reply
I hope so, but I'm not counting on it. It might not be immediate, either, and either side may escalate because they perceive an opportunity to do so.
reply
It would escalate it and then the conflict would never end.
reply
Libertarians would surrender to Putin?
reply
Perhaps libertarians would not stick their noses in where they do not belong. They may not have gotten involved in the first place.
reply
And so they would allow Putin to seize Ukraine without any opposition.
reply
Not our business! It may have been the business of all the money launderers and recipients of the money washing. Who could that have been, pray tell?
reply
Most of Europe practised appeasement of Hitler. How did that work out for them? Libertarians are equally cowardly and cannot see a tyrant like Putin for what he is.
reply