Colors of Blue and Gold

[Joe Elliott]

The only NATO country to be attacked is Poland by Ukraine.  There is zero indication that Russia intends to invade any NATO country.  The difficulties that the Russians are having dealing with just Ukraine lend themselves to the conclusion that they are unable to invade any other countries.  It's a dangerous premise to suggest that WWIII should be risked based on a regional conflict in which the US has no direct interest.  The US taxpayers have already paid THREE times the total annual Russian military budget to finance this war. 

Do you ever ask yourself why the US always involves themselves in these endless conflicts and pays for them while other countries do little or nothing?  Don't you find that odd?  If Europe is at risk, why aren't they carrying the burden of this war instead of the US?  How long are US taxpayers going to fund this war?  Will it be like Afghanistan in which the military and politicians lied for decades about the progress being made to obtain billions of dollars only to have the entire situation fall apart within a week.  You have no concern about the Ukrainians lying to try to bait the US and NATO into WWIII?

It is false to suggest that no other country are is doing it's share. From (from November 10, 2022 data):

https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Yes, the U. S. has contributed far more than any other country. As is natural, since we have the world's biggest economy.

A better measure is:

    Per cent of a nation's GDP, or "Gross Domestic Product"

which is, by country:

0.90 %   Latvia
0.30 %   Poland
0.25 %   United States
0.10 %   Great Britain
0.06 %   Canada
0.03 %   Germany

This may be a little misleading because this chart, for the U. S. shows military, financial and humanitarian aid, where I believe the figures for the other countries is just for military aid. So the total contribution, counting financial and humanitarian aid of the other countries is actually higher.

Germany's contribution being low is understandable, given their extreme dependence on energy supplies from Russia, more so than any other country. They arguably have enough to do providing heat for their homes. And their military needs to be beefed up a lot. Germany's military strength is at such a low level, they just don't have a lot of surplus they can immediately send. So much for putting one's faith in Russia's good will. Poland and Latvia are in stronger positions to help, partly because much of their military equipment is of the old Soviet style, more compatible with what Ukraine is mostly using in it's war.

And European countries, in far greater danger of direct invasion than the United States, need to start beefing up their own military, as well as sending aid to Ukraine.

It is surprising how much Poland and Latvia have contributed, given how poor those countries are, and the threat they face from Russia in the coming years. On the other hand, they are in danger of losing 100 % of their GDP if Russia overruns them so spending up to 0.9 % of aid for Ukraine is very penny foolish, but dollar wise.

And again, our military aid to Ukraine is under 10 per cent of what we spend each year on our own defense. Most of our defense expenditures over the years, does not go into doing something useful, like subtracting from Russia's offensive potential. It generally gets stored away and not used, or used in questionable wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ten per cent sent to Ukraine is by far the most productive, dollar for dollar, military expenditures, we have made in the last 60 plus years. It directly subtracts from Russia's offensive capabilities. These expenditures do immediate good. Much of this expenditures is in military aid that we consider obsolete but which is very useful for the Ukrainians. Yes, most Stinger Missiles are gone, but our military stopped using them or making them immediately available for our troops years ago, because we now have better and more useful options now.

[Richard Smith]

It is false to suggest that no other country are is doing it's share. From (from November 10, 2022 data):

https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Yes, the U. S. has contributed far more than any other country. As is natural, since we have the world's biggest economy.

A better measure is:

    Per cent of a nation's GDP, or "Gross Domestic Product"

which is, by country:

0.90 %   Latvia
0.30 %   Poland
0.25 %   United States
0.10 %   Great Britain
0.06 %   Canada
0.03 %   Germany

This may be a little misleading because this chart, for the U. S. shows military, financial and humanitarian aid, where I believe the figures for the other countries is just for military aid. So the total contribution, counting financial and humanitarian aid of the other countries is actually higher.

Germany's contribution being low is understandable, given their extreme dependence on energy supplies from Russia, more so than any other country. They arguably have enough to do providing heat for their homes. And their military needs to be beefed up a lot. Germany's military strength is at such a low level, they just don't have a lot of surplus they can immediately send. So much for putting one's faith in Russia's good will. Poland and Latvia are in stronger positions to help, partly because much of their military equipment is of the old Soviet style, more compatible with what Ukraine is mostly using in it's war.

And European countries, in far greater danger of direct invasion than the United States, need to start beefing up their own military, as well as sending aid to Ukraine.

It is surprising how much Poland and Latvia have contributed, given how poor those countries are, and the threat they face from Russia in the coming years. On the other hand, they are in danger of losing 100 % of their GDP if Russia overruns them so spending up to 0.9 % of aid for Ukraine is very penny foolish, but dollar wise.

And again, our military aid to Ukraine is under 10 per cent of what we spend each year on our own defense. Most of our defense expenditures over the years, does not go into doing something useful, like subtracting from Russia's offensive potential. It generally gets stored away and not used, or used in questionable wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ten per cent sent to Ukraine is by far the most productive, dollar for dollar, military expenditures, we have made in the last 60 plus years. It directly subtracts from Russia's offensive capabilities. These expenditures do immediate good. Much of this expenditures is in military aid that we consider obsolete but which is very useful for the Ukrainians. Yes, most Stinger Missiles are gone, but our military stopped using them or making them immediately available for our troops years ago, because we now have better and more useful options now.

Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them.  Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe.  As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share.  It is one of the greatest scams in history.  The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII.  The Europeans must fall over laughing at us.  While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US. 

[Richard Smith]

Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people?  Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines?  Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII?  Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump. 

[Joe Elliott]

Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them.  Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe.  As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share.  It is one of the greatest scams in history.  The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII.  The Europeans must fall over laughing at us.  While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US.

Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.

A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.

[Joe Elliott]

Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people?

How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.

Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.

Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines?  Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII?  Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump.

It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.

[Richard Smith]

Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.

A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.

When will the Biden administration be "stopping the march of Authoritarianism" in China?  The most authoritarian police state in the history of the world in which millions are enslaved or in camps.  There will never be a reduction in the defense spending.  If the war in Ukraine ever comes to an end, they will find a new cause to sell the rubes on to fund another war.  A pattern that has continued for the last five decades.  The military and its contractors need a cause (insert fighting Communism, terrorism, saving democracy) to justify their enormous budgets and profits.  The war goes on for decades and ends in disaster after telling the public for decades how well it is going and we only need to stick it out a bit longer.  That money is kicked backed to politicians (both repubs and dems) who ensure that one war is replaced by another.  The US has been funding a foreign war continuously for almost thirty years with no end in sight.  Imagine if even a fraction of that money had been spent on the homeless, education or health care.  We could almost be one of those European socialist countries who can afford such luxuries because the US has paid for their national defense for the last 70 years and counting.

[Richard Smith]

How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.

Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.


It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.

The US has indicated the missile was fired by Ukraine.  They said that pieces of the missile were found in Poland and it is of the type being used only by Ukraine.  Ukraine denies they fired this missile and were encouraging the US and NATO to declare war on Russia.  These are mutually exclusive explanations.  So one or the other is lying. 

Your theory about the pipeline is that the Russians needed to blow up their own pipeline to stop the flow of oil?  You don't think they could just stop sending it?  You don't think the US and/or its allies know exactly what happened given that this had to be a sophisticated operation conducted at sea?  And if it were the Russians, they would have provided that evidence.  Suppose the US or its allies were behind this attack.   Wouldn't that be an act of war on Russia that could precipitate WWIII.  Don't you think the American public needs to know if the US is behind an attack on a sovereign nation?  Instead the lead story on many cable networks has been about who attended dinner with Trump.

[Joe Elliott]

Russia Is Losing the War. Give Ukraine the Weapons to End It

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-losing-the-war-give-ukraine-the-weapons-to-end-it/ar-AA14RI2G?cvid=1af6960512f240a8aa9c119c21b8a795

This article makes a great point:

As brilliantly argued by Timothy Ash, it has only cost the U.S. 5.6% of its annual military budget to decimate Russia’s conventional armed forces. This pales compared to the trillions of dollars in military expenditures that the U.S. has invested to deal with Russia over the last 8 decades. Evidently, NATO military assistance has altered the course of the war in favor of Ukraine.

What has our 5.6 % investment (of our annual defense budget) in Ukraine gotten us? The through trashing of the Russian army. How is this not a good investment of our money?

The trashing of the Russian army is a great accomplishment. It greatly lessens the threat of Russia overrunning Europe. If Ukraine prevails, Russia will be greatly discouraged from going on similar adventures in the future. Their population may, to a certain extent, become pacifists, like the populations of Germany and Japan after World War II.

With the threat of the Russian army greatly reduced, I don't see why our defense budget could not be cut by 10 % each year., as we only concentrate the threat of China attacking Taiwan.

The threat of China is much less than that of Russia, simply because I don't think China's ambition extends beyond Taiwan. I think they just want to take everything that the old China used to control. At least, I hope that's true. In any event, reducing the threat of the Russian army should save us a great deal of money in defense spending over the coming decades.

It's funny. The same people who complain about the spending for Ukraine, are the same people who had no problem with our large defense budget over the years. I always thought we overspend on defense. I now think I was wrong. Other countries are tempted to use conventional war to get what they want. The Nuclear age has not made it impossible for an aggressor to wage conventional war to take over other countries.

Question:

Why is it the same people who are upset about our spending for Ukraine, were never bothered by the trillions we have spent on U. S. Defense?

This doesn't make sense, because our spending on Ukraine is clearly a good bet. A relatively small investment, with the possibility of huge savings in the coming years. Even if supporting Ukraine only has a 10% of success, that is, defeating Russia and reducing our defense budget by 10 % for the next 20 years, it's a great bet. Do the math.

I think the real reason, is that some people like to see the expansion of Authoritarianism, the expansion of Dictatorships. If Russia is successful, it may mean that Authoritarianism is inevitable, that Authoritarianism will eventually succeed in other places, like the United States. An appealing notion for those who support Trump.

And it is mostly people who have supported Trump who don't like our support of Ukraine, correct?