February 23, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Procus said: Nonsense, huh? Well, instead of deciding that I "ignored" a single post in a 53 page thread, why not share with us again. Should be entertaining. lol there's no answer you'd accept anyway other than "because Trump is Mr. Tough Guy with Putin and Biden is weak", which is laughable. Biden has played this pretty well so far. Putin has run up against a much more unified West. I would bet that he did not think Germany would do anything about NS 2.
February 23, 20223 yr So Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 while Obama was in office and is about to invade Ukraine under Biden’s in office.
February 23, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, SNOORDA said: So Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 while Obama was in office and is about to invade Ukraine under Biden’s in office. so the economy tanked at the tail end of the last two republican presidents. I know this is CVON, but does everything have to exist at the extremes?
February 23, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: so the economy tanked at the tail end of the last two republican presidents. I know this is CVON, but does everything have to exist at the extremes? You already know the answer.
February 23, 20223 yr 19 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: lol there's no answer you'd accept anyway other than "because Trump is Mr. Tough Guy with Putin and Biden is weak", which is laughable. Biden has played this pretty well so far. Putin has run up against a much more unified West. I would bet that he did not think Germany would do anything about NS 2. You have no answers so you try to throw it back at me. I'm just one guy on a football chat board, and my opinions have zero impact on Ukraine. Biden has NOT played this well - Russia saw what happened in Afghanistan, calculated that the U.S. administration was weak, and acted accordingly. But hey, you know more than facts on the ground. 3 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Should he praise him instead? How about not being a stumblebum for starters.
February 23, 20223 yr You have a bad case of BDS. 5 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Should he praise him instead? He should have said it was a genius move obviously.
February 23, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, vikas83 said: It's really not that complicated. During the Trump presidency, the US administration was actively weakening NATO, which is Putin's stated goal. So why in the hell would Putin take aggressive actions when he was already getting what he wanted? All he might have done is rally NATO's European members to bind together. You don't start a fight when your enemies are tearing themselves apart. Biden is the polar opposite of Trump when it comes to NATO and all other international security alliances, and strengthening NATO and international ties is his primary objective. So Putin acts now because Nord Stream 2 presented the potential to drive a wedge between Germany and the US. So far Putin's calculation has failed, but let's see if Germany sticks with it. Putin's goal is always to weaken NATO. Oh, Trump weakened NATO by demanding that allies contribute what they are obligated to. Your post is perfectly understandable as ramblings of an individual who is not in touch with what is really happening on the ground. You also omit reference to Afghanistan, the bungled pullout of which had all the foes of the U.S. jumping for joy seeing the weakness and incompetence of this administration. For the record, during the Trump administration, NATO's US troop strength increased over the Obama years, as well as its overall funding. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/784444270/under-trump-nato-nations-get-more-u-s-troops-and-military-spending Under Trump, NATO Nations Get More U.S. Troops And Military Spending
February 23, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Procus said: Under Trump, NATO Nations Get More U.S. Troops And Military Spending Most of that jump in spending was on the European Deterrence Initiative, an effort to strengthen U.S. military forces in Europe begun by the Obama administration in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and continued backing of pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine. During the first three years of that effort, originally known as the European Reassurance Initiative, the Obama administration dedicated about $5.2 billion to building up the American military presence in Europe. The Trump administration has more than tripled what its predecessor spent on the EDI: A total of $17.2 billion has been requested for the initiative in the three annual budgets the current White House has sent to Congress, which in turn has approved those funding levels. Outlays for the deterrence initiative peaked at more than $6.5 billion in FY2019, a level that's been cut by 10% in the FY2020 request of $5.9 billion. That's still 57% greater than the high point of funding under the Obama administration of $3.4 billion for FY2017. It was a continuation - a good continuation - if the existing program Obama put in place to counter Russian aggression after 2014. We weren't prepared militarily in 2014 and Obama put the plan in place to help ensure we were in the future. In Obama's final year he quadrupled the funds allocated to the defense initiative, and Trump correctly continued that trend. It's almost like despite being a Democrat Obama did the right thing, and Trump was smart enough to keep it going. Or he just didn't know about the program and the deep state ensured its survival. Either way.
February 23, 20223 yr Just now, JohnSnowsHair said: Most of that jump in spending was on the European Deterrence Initiative, an effort to strengthen U.S. military forces in Europe begun by the Obama administration in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and continued backing of pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine. During the first three years of that effort, originally known as the European Reassurance Initiative, the Obama administration dedicated about $5.2 billion to building up the American military presence in Europe. The Trump administration has more than tripled what its predecessor spent on the EDI: A total of $17.2 billion has been requested for the initiative in the three annual budgets the current White House has sent to Congress, which in turn has approved those funding levels. Outlays for the deterrence initiative peaked at more than $6.5 billion in FY2019, a level that's been cut by 10% in the FY2020 request of $5.9 billion. That's still 57% greater than the high point of funding under the Obama administration of $3.4 billion for FY2017. It was a continuation - a good continuation - if the existing program Obama put in place to counter Russian aggression after 2014. We weren't prepared militarily in 2014 and Obama put the plan in place to help ensure we were in the future. In Obama's final year he quadrupled the funds allocated to the defense initiative, and Trump correctly continued that trend. It's almost like despite being a Democrat Obama did the right thing, and Trump was smart enough to keep it going. Or he just didn't know about the program and the deep state ensured its survival. Either way. Well, in any event, that pokes a hole in Vikas' argument either way.
February 23, 20223 yr We're about to find out just how deep Biden's financial ties to the Ukraine are.
February 23, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, 20dawk4life said: So where do you draw the line? I think he’s izdum. NATO country. Past that it's not our freaking problem. We are not the policeman for the world. We have lost enough sons and daughters and spent enough money on wars we shouldn't have been in. That's on both parties. Our major cities are literally falling apart, inflation is through the roof, most people can't afford a home, gas prices are up, and our national debt is a real problem. I don't give a damn about the Ukraine. Let Germany, France, the UK, and anyone else who wants to get involved handle it. This BS about us having to bear the cost...screw that.
February 23, 20223 yr Trump is onto something here. Russia would not have invaded if he (or that matter, most likely another Republican) were president. Fact: Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with Vikas' assertion that it's because Trump was "weakening" NATO. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10539215/Republicans-tear-Biden-slow-sanction-Putin-parties-demand-crackdown.html Trump says the Ukraine situation would NEVER have happened under him because he knows Putin 'very well': Republicans say Biden's 'weakness' has 'emboldened' Russia and BOTH parties urge tough sanctions
February 23, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Procus said: Trump is onto something here. Russia would not have invaded if he (or that matter, most likely another Republican) were president. Fact: Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with Vikas' assertion that it's because Trump was "weakening" NATO. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10539215/Republicans-tear-Biden-slow-sanction-Putin-parties-demand-crackdown.html Trump says the Ukraine situation would NEVER have happened under him because he knows Putin 'very well': Republicans say Biden's 'weakness' has 'emboldened' Russia and BOTH parties urge tough sanctions Trump is onto something. Gullible people will still believe he is tough, because he says he is, despite the evidence of this weak sauce sucking Russian, Chinese and North Korean wang.
February 23, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, Procus said: Trump is onto something here. Russia would not have invaded if he (or that matter, most likely another Republican) were president. Fact: Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with Vikas' assertion that it's because Trump was "weakening" NATO. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10539215/Republicans-tear-Biden-slow-sanction-Putin-parties-demand-crackdown.html Trump says the Ukraine situation would NEVER have happened under him because he knows Putin 'very well': Republicans say Biden's 'weakness' has 'emboldened' Russia and BOTH parties urge tough sanctions Remember guys, he's not a Trump supporter.
February 23, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, Diehardfan said: NATO country. Past that it's not our freaking problem. We are not the policeman for the world. We have lost enough sons and daughters and spent enough money on wars we shouldn't have been in. That's on both parties. Our major cities are literally falling apart, inflation is through the roof, most people can't afford a home, gas prices are up, and our national debt is a real problem. I don't give a damn about the Ukraine. Let Germany, France, the UK, and anyone else who wants to get involved handle it. This BS about us having to bear the cost...screw that. So not wait until they’re knocking on Polands door. Wait until they kick it in. Good idea.
February 23, 20223 yr It's hard to crawl into Putin's head, but I'd say Putin isn't emboldened by Biden or Trump so much as he is emboldened by what Russia's misinformation efforts have done to the solidarity of the American people. He's emboldened against us, fighting incessantly on message boards.
February 23, 20223 yr 42 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: It's hard to crawl into Putin's head, but I'd say Putin isn't emboldened by Biden or Trump so much as he is emboldened by what Russia's misinformation efforts have done to the solidarity of the American people. He's emboldened against us, fighting incessantly on message boards. I'd say the fact that there are split opinions on a Russian unprovoked invasion pretty much shows he has succeeded.
Create an account or sign in to comment