Ron DeSantis on Ukraine

LOL. People twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend DeSantis U-Turn.

So, yea, he downplayed the situation big time assuming that was what his base wanted to hear, but then he took lot of flak for it, so he walked it back and did the U-Turn and now he is criticizing Putin with strong words.

We'll see what tomorrow brings, because trying to appease everyone is very difficult.

 

So, Civil Rights legislation is bad because it's authoritarian? Why don't we throw out The Constitution 'cause it's authoritarian?

Here's an hint on the answer why we don't get rid of The Constitution or Civil Rights legislation, for examples: The overwhelming majority of Americans want Civil Rights legislation and want what's in The Constitution.

 

DeSantis is right.

1. Ukraine is not a top issue for Americans.
2. Putin is a war criminal.

There certainly could be an argument to the US supporting Europe's support for Ukraine. While we are dropping $100B, Europe is trying to put together a joint expenditure of $2B. That's ridiculous. We may want to help Europe do something, but at $30T in debt the days of blank check for as long as it takes, should be over.

Russia To Station Tactical Nukes In Belarus By July, Putin Says On State TV


“We agreed with Lukashenko that we would place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus without violating the nonproliferation regime,”

What the Chicken Hawks who post here say we should do after Putin drops a tac-nuke of Ukraine?

And why would Ukraine be better off not negotiating a settlement that leaves things as they were under Obama/Biden than they would be in the aftermath of a tactical nuke strike?

'Russia has already stationed 10 aircraft in Belarus capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons, with Putin noting that Iskander short-range missiles - capable of carrying nuclear warheads - had also been sent to Belarus, and training for crews would begin there on April 3.'

 

No one need fear the Muscovite punks.
If Putin were to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine then NATO would erase his forces deployed in Ukraine.

 

Describe.

 

NATO air would end the Muscovite deployment.

 

Yep that's their end goal, World War III.

 

Putin is stupid and foolish, but not suicidal. He hopes useful idiots in the West will achieve for him what his own forces cannot.
Ukraine Conflict Updates
Putin advanced another information operation by announcing that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus by July 1 and renewed tired information operations about the potential for nuclear escalation. Putin implied that the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to send munitions containing depleted uranium – uranium that is significantly less radioactive than natural uranium – to Ukraine triggered his decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus for fear of nuclear escalation. Putin rejected Western statements that such munitions are safe to use and do not contain radioactive components. Putin insisted that the projectile core releases “radiation dust” and may sicken Ukrainian citizens and damage Ukraine’s environment.[10] Western anti-tank munitions commonly contain depleted uranium, which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes is “very suitable for military uses.”[11] Such munitions cannot be used to create either nuclear or radiological weapons.[12] Putin’s argument is false-to-fact, and even some domestic audiences likely realize it. A prominent Russian milblogger on March 25 challenged Putin’s argument and stated that it the Western provision of depleted uranium rounds is not a ”real problem.”[13] Putin’s concern for the well-being of the environment in Ukraine, furthermore, appears somewhat misplaced considering the massive damage Russian forces have inflicted on Ukraine’s agricultural lands, to say nothing of Ukraine’s cities and people. If Putin really is so concerned about the future of Ukraine’s ecology he could best serve it by withdrawing from Ukraine and allowing Ukraine and the rest of the world to begin repairing the damage the Russian invasion has caused.

The announcement of the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus is irrelevant to the risk of escalation to nuclear war, which remains extremely low. Putin is attempting to exploit Western fears of nuclear escalation by deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Russia has long fielded nuclear-capable weapons able to strike any target that tactical nuclear weapons based in Belarus could hit. ISW continues to assess that Putin is a risk-averse actor who repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weapons without any intention of following through in order to break Western resolve.[14] The Financial Times further reported on March 24 that EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell stated that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Russia reduced the chance that Russia forces would use nuclear weapons because Xi made it “very, very clear” to Putin that he should not deploy nuclear weapons.[15]

Putin has likely sought to deploy Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus since before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and has likely chosen this moment to do so in order to serve the immediate information operation he is now conducting. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko offered to host Russia nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory on November 30, 2021, and Belarus removed the constitutional clause enshrining Belarus’ neutral status in a referendum in February 2022.[16] ISW forecasted in January and February 2022 that Putin might seek to deploy tactical or strategic nuclear weapons to Belarus as part of a broader effort to deepen Russian control over Belarus.[17] Putin likely refrained from deploying the weapons to Belarus at the start of the 2022 invasion in order to preserve the option to deploy them as part of a future Russian information operation to manipulate the West.

Putin likely chose to push these narratives now in hopes of diminishing Ukrainian morale and Western aid to diminish the effectiveness of a rumored pending Ukrainian counteroffensive. Many prominent Russian milbloggers and officials warned that Ukrainian forces will likely attempt a major counteroffensive soon.[18] Putin’s actions suggest that he agrees and that he fears the potential success of a Ukrainian counteroffensive. Putin and senior Kremlin officials have previously leveraged narratives around Russian heightened nuclear readiness, false flag warnings, and vague statements about negative battlefield developments claiming that Russia is entitled to use nuclear weapons to defend itself in Ukraine in order to deter further Western support for or military aid to Ukraine.[19] ISW has previously reported on Putin’s escalation of nuclear rhetoric in September and October 2022 followed by a de-escalation in early November 2022 before the Russian loss of Kherson City and west (right) bank Kherson Oblast and assessed that the Kremlin might leverage further nuclear escalation rhetoric to coerce Western states to negotiate with Russia and halt further military aid to Ukraine.[20] ISW assesses that Putin's March 25 announcement is part of this effort and continues to assess that Russia is very unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine or elsewhere.

 

The "their" I was referring to in my comment, "Yep that's their end goal, World War III," wasn't Putin, it was the neo cons who share your beliefs; who want this to be a war between NATO and Russia.

 

Strawman fallacy. With an ad hominem thrown it as well. lol

Do you think Ukraine v. Russia is a World War?

 

Sorry, but those people exist only in your imagination.

 

And yet you post here constantly.

 

If that was what they wanted, we'd be 1 year into it already.

 

That's because I'm not what you imagine.

 

Nato couldn't technically do that since Ukraine's not a member state. If they were to do so, Putin would have the propaganda to say 'See, NATO is a military advance guard of the Western Powers, aimed solely at the Russians'.

 

The warmongers have a real hardness for WWIII. And they also presume that their self-righteous assurance is all that is necessary to risk US blood and consume US treasure.

EVERYTHING IS GOING SWIMMINGLY: U.S. Weapons Stockpile Disaster Limiting Our Ability To Deter China In Taiwan: It’s so bad now, even the New York Times is reporting about it. 'When pronouns are a higher priority than the supply stuff that wins wars.'

https://instapundit.com/576251/

'U.S. military weapons stockpiles' have shortages that are “uncomfortably low,” “insufficient,” “precarious,” and “dangerous” 'due to the large quantities of these weapons we had given free of charge to Ukraine.



'Even the Washington Post has conceded the seriousness of the situation, noting that “stocks of many key weapons and munitions are near exhaustion,” and citing a…CSIS report that concludes that “the U.S. defense industrial base is in pretty poor shape right now [and] we don’t make it past four or five days in a war game before we run out of precision missiles.” The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) describes the state of U.S. weapons stockpiles as “precarious.”'

'This official explained that the only reason the issue isn’t “critical” is because “the U.S. isn’t engaged in any major military conflict” at the moment.'

So, if China wants to help Russia, they need to start something that causes us to expend a great deal of material somewhere else.

WHATEVER THE COSTS to us, AND HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES. 'General Mark Milley, “we will continue to support Ukraine all the way” and “we will be there for as long as it takes to keep Ukraine free,” despite the obvious impact of such support on U.S. weapons’ stockpile levels.'

We are the international do-gooders, with nothing else to occupy our time and and endless supply of money. And no need to enlist the support of the American People, because apparently we are also a dictatorship that ensures other nations are 'democracies.'

'The risk from the U.S. military’s dwindling munitions supplies is something that needs to be thoughtfully considered before another arms package for Ukraine is considered.'

The Self-Righteous have no need of careful consideration, every thought that comes into their totalitarian minds is whispered to them by angels.

'The risk seems especially noteworthy as regards a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. An NDIA article points out that “the Biden administration has signaled support for turning Taiwan into a ‘porcupine’ that would be costly to invade, thus deterring the People’s Republic of China from attacking,” meaning that Taiwan would use an “asymmetric warfare” strategy that “places an emphasis on the use of systems such as Stingers and Javelins as opposed to tanks and helicopters.” But Stingers and Javelins are two of the systems provided to Ukraine in large numbers, as explained above, and which are now in short supply, which has resulted in CSIS describing their current U.S. stockpile inventory as “limited.”'

Well, the American People will simply have to sacrifice even more, though the federal government cannot do with even a penny less on the dollar. And of course the connected to government will not sacrifice at all, in fact, the cash flow will swell their numbers and their bank accounts.

'President Biden’s Taiwanese “porcupine” might be short quite a few quills. The effect of exhausted munitions stockpiles on national defense writ large may be equally dire.'

WE COULD ONLY FIGHT CHINA FOR A WEEK

'If a large-scale war broke out with China, within about one week the United States would run out of so-called long-range anti-ship missiles, a vital weapon in any engagement with China, according to a series of war-game exercises conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.'

DeSantis is right.

 

@Tipper101 I remember reading your posts about the US logistics, you were right on the money about it.

 

You do have to have some public buy in to that.

 

Well I'm sure you are a well rounded person with many interests and a life outside this forum. But the only part of you I see is what you post here, so that's what I base my judgement on.

 

Wars have never been up to public vote.

 

And the public won't get a vote, but wars do depend on public support.

 

Muscovite use of nuclear weapons would be deemed a danger to NATO requiring a response. NATO need not wait passively for an aggressor to choose his timing.

 

My posts here provide no basis for your imagination.

 

Well, you must be wondering why NATO is not trying to sell WW3 to the public if they want it so bad.

 

I also fear a NATO general mobilization would lead the Russians to fight a 'to the last man' type of war, and far from alleviating the pressure of the Ukrainians, the battlefield would become even more drenched in the flames of war. I think this war of attrition doesn't favor either side, but it also doesn't favor us.