This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Dawgdocindosta said:

My knowledge of this situation is only what I read - so that means I am underinformed to say the least. But I really only see a few outcomes to this situation.
100% commitment from USA/NATO and put our men on their soil - that isn’t going to happen.
Keep sending them money and weapons with the knowledge they cannot win a war of attrition and that the “war machine” of the Russian economy can somewhat benefit from that economically.
Completely abandon Ukraine and let nature take its course - not a reasonable action imo. At worst they become a Russian state overnight. At best civil war reigns between the eastern and western halves of Ukraine.
Negotiate a division of the land among the beliefs of the people. Nobody seems to remember that eastern Ukraine is very pro Russia and, in fact, welcomed the Russian soldiers in on day one with practically no shots fired. This must accompany an agreement that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO (which, in part, started this whole mess).
Just one guys opinion. And I admit to being anything but an expert on this subject.

Click to expand...

You grasp the situation better than most "experts."

My knowledge of this situation is only what I read - so that means I am underinformed to say the least. But I really only see a few outcomes to this situation.
100% commitment from USA/NATO and put our men on their soil - that isn’t going to happen.
Keep sending them money and weapons with the knowledge they cannot win a war of attrition and that the “war machine” of the Russian economy can somewhat benefit from that economically.
Completely abandon Ukraine and let nature take its course - not a reasonable action imo. At worst they become a Russian state overnight. At best civil war reigns between the eastern and western halves of Ukraine.
Negotiate a division of the land among the beliefs of the people. Nobody seems to remember that eastern Ukraine is very pro Russia and, in fact, welcomed the Russian soldiers in on day one with practically no shots fired. This must accompany an agreement that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO (which, in part, started this whole mess).
Just one guys opinion. And I admit to being anything but an expert on this subject.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Papapete11 said:

Like the Dem mafia could get exposed. Boy, wouldn't that be some shit. Like just let it all out. The Clintons the Biden the Obama. Just let it out there.

Click to expand...

All of the above and the crooked Rinos like McConnel and Graham.

litedawg1968 said:

The EU is not our ally. They use us and we have allowed it. That shit is over, as you can tell by JD Vances speech last week. As far as NATO goes, you could say they were the cause of the Ukraine invasion to begin with.

If the EU were our ally they would stop the migration and the censorship and join us , but they wont.

Click to expand...

To be fair, I think the NATO aspect of the invasion is overstated by people I usually agree with.

Putin made it pretty clear in his interview with Tucker Carlson that the primary interest in Ukraine was its historic ties to Russia. He made this point explicitly, even with Tucker (who I'm a fan of) tried to get him to go that direction. It would have been in Putin's cynical self interest to go along with this narrative, and he didn't, so I think there is reason to take that seriously.

I say that not to defend NATO, but simply because I think there is value in appreciating the complexity of the conflict.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Jetplane94 said:

The EU and NATO off the top of my head.

Click to expand...

The EU is not our ally. They use us and we have allowed it. That shit is over, as you can tell by JD Vances speech last week. As far as NATO goes, you could say they were the cause of the Ukraine invasion to begin with.

If the EU were our ally they would stop the migration and the censorship and join us , but they wont.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Jetplane94 said:

It seems much more a matter of opinion and interpretation than fact. I concede that we both have our own positions regarding the nature of our relationship and its significance. We can't let our emotions drive our discourse when it comes to statecraft.

Click to expand...

I agree that we should be as sober in dealing with the EU as we are with Moscow.

I also concede that my depiction of the EU is certainly driven by interpretation (I think much of what I said is factual, but I recognize that one can view the EU's regulation and censorship as a positive or negative based on one's ideology). I would also state, though, that my interpretation of the EU seems to be one shared by Vance (and Musk), which I think has relevance in terms of how the Administration sees the broader topic of diplomacy in the region.

I think she is guilty as shit. I hope she goes to prison.

Booneville Dawg said:

The Democrats should pull a Jimmy Hoffa on Abrams; what a massive liability for the them

Click to expand...

She’s too big to bury, too hard to hide.

Jetplane94 said:

I don't disagree that we need to amend our spending in Ukraine—I can concede it is overtly too much—but we've also strayed from my original point. That is, what negotiation methods is Trump projecting? Blasting propaganda about an international enemy into the American press seems much more like manipulation by Putin.

Click to expand...

I think Trump's attacks on Zelensky are less about negotiations with Putin and more about anger over Zelensky's comments about him and general frustrations with Ukraine regarding the broader conversation of peace talks. Zelensky wants to be treated as an equal, and he's not and he has personally played the situation poorly.

Now I do think there is a valid concern about the viability of the peace if the Ukrainians feel completely slighted in the process, but I also think that is why the "Zelensky is a dictator" line has particular importance. I think whatever peace deal is arranged will, in short order, result in a new head of the Ukrainian state, and I would expect that the next Ukrainian president will be General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is even more of a hardliner than Zelensky.

If so, ultimately the much larger issue than the immediate cease fire will be how Zaluzhnyi governs. We could either see a repeat of what helped lead to the conflict, Kyiv support for Ukrianian small scale assaults on Russians, or the development of a competent state led by a war hero.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Papapete11 said:

@willdup Wantto share your opinion. I know you pounce when so so slings Orange Man trash. What about Buckteeth? Whatcha got

Click to expand...

OK.

The article contains no outright lies, which practically qualifies it as a right-wing lighthouse of truth and honesty these days. But once you dig in a bit, it's not quite the story the article is trying to tell.

Stacy Abrams is Senior Counsel for Rewiring America and Rewiring America (founded in 2020) is one of five existing non-profits that came together to form Power Forward Communities, the recipient of the $2b grant. That's all true.

What the Free Beacon left out is that two of the other five non-profits are The United Way and Habitat for Humanity International, two organizations I suspect you and others have heard of. I'll add that the CEO of Power Forward Communities is former Fannie Mae CEO Tim Mayopoulos. He is kind of a serious guy, if you care to review his credentials.

By the way, all of this information has been posted on each organization's websites for one to two years, so the idea that DOGE somehow "discovered" this publicly available info is disingenuous.

So, identifying Power Forward Communities as "Stacy Abrams linked", when she is Legal Counsel for one of the five non-profits that make up the group, while technically true, is also working hard to suggest more than maybe the facts support. Omitting relevant information like the name and background of the CEO and the other involved non-profits does the same.

$2b is a lot of money and I can't speak to whether that grant represents a good use of funds or not, but the suggestion that this deal is simply a means of funneling money to Stacy Abrams doesn't really hold up.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.