Another $12B to Ukraine…what is with this constant supply of money and weapons to Ukraine?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wrong.
This is not perfect, but it will help explain:
{...
In seeking to explain why there are currently 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, commentators have invoked everything from the role of NATO expansion in the 1990s to the history of Kievan Rus in the 9th century. But a more recent development deserves discussion as well: America’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019.

...
Russia’s proposal for ending the current crisis stipulates that the United States “not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach [Russian territory].”
...

The Fate of the Treaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, signed in 1987, which eliminated a specific delivery system: surface-to-surface missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, henceforth referred to as theater-support missiles. Washington withdrew from the treaty in 2019, citing a series of Russian violations while also emphasizing the benefits that the new missiles could provide the United States in Europe and, perhaps more importantly, Asia.

...

Because the U.S. Army had previously established long-range precision fires as its top modernization priority, the associated loosening of missile restrictions created an innovation opportunity for U.S. forces.
....
This missile asymmetry had been a criticism of the treaty for years, likely influencing the U.S. decision to withdraw.

Since the United States withdrew from the treaty, the Army has embarked on numerous projects at varying ranges, including a moderate range increase from its current systems to a 500–600-kilometer range precision strike missile and a more strategically designed 2,700-kilometer range hypersonic missile. Additionally, future long-range strike capabilities have begun to influence emerging U.S. military doctrine, which emphasizes their importance in neutralizing anti-access systems. Overall, while the treaty’s demise may have been controversial internationally, domestically the U.S. military was quick to capitalize on its newfound freedom. Instead of internal debates on the strategic implications of reintroducing these missiles, the public military discourse centered on which service would have employment and development responsibility. This implied that the new missiles’ eventual employment and forward basing were foregone conclusions.

Adding to this perception, U.S. analysis covering the treaty’s demise focused heavily on the benefits of theater-support missiles. In 2019, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment research team conducted a cost-benefit analysis on deploying these new missiles, arguing that the decision “may contribute to a cost-imposing strategy against China and Russia by pressuring them to invest in expensive defenses and resiliency measures rather than devote those same resources to power-projection capabilities.” The report added that the employment of missiles in Europe and the Pacific could “compensate for the vulnerabilities of U.S. air and naval forces in potential conflicts involving capable opponents such as China and Russia.” European pundits also weighed in on the immediate tactical benefits that conventional missiles could provide to NATO. Christian Mölling and Heinrich Brauß, members of the German Council on Foreign Relations, contended that theater-support missiles “could threaten Moscow’s command facilities and limit Russia’s military ability to act.” Luis Simón, an international security professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, and Alexander Lanoszka, an international relations professor at Waterloo University, made a similar argument, noting that missiles were “likely to become the center of gravity of deterrence and security in Europe in a post-INF and maturing precision-strike context.” I’ve even put forward this argument myself, writing last year that rocket artillery proliferation in Europe can deter Russian aggression in the Baltics.

The Western narrative is straightforward: Theater-support missiles provide the United States and NATO with new capabilities to better deal with a resurgent Russia and a rising China. But this discourse overlooked the strategic implications of employing these missiles, and neglected any potential Russian response.
...}

Why Intermediate-Range Missiles Are a Focal Point in the Ukraine Crisis - War on the Rocks

In seeking to explain why there are currently 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, commentators have invoked everything from the role of NATO

warontherocks.com

So the US lied and quit the treaty on false claims of Russian violation, so that they could freely expand on many new types of missiles and ranges, including hypersonic.
We do have the intermediate missiles that could be put into the Ukraine to break MAD.
We have been developing them all along, but mass producing them only in the last 3 years since we withdrew from the limitation treaties.

There are no immediate range missiles in the NATO inventory. Why don't you just STFU about things you obviously know nothing about.

 

[easyt65]

I would blame Bush for North Korea getting nukes.
After lying about Iraq WMD and illegally invading, everyone now needs defensive nukes.

Of course you would...completely ignoring both Carter's and Clinton's complete failures in dealing with North Korea.

 

[Rigby5]

How convenient for you, dumbass! Not public? Fuck you, shit for brains!

I gave you a fucking link proving you were wrong abut the Ukraine being ethnic Russian.

Roughly 77.5% of Ukraine's population identify as ethnic Ukrainians. The second largest nationality group are Russians, accounting for 17.2% of the population.

Major Ethnic Groups Of Ukraine

Ethnic Ukrainians make up almost four-fifths of the population, followed by significant minorities from neighboring countries.

www.worldatlas.com

I never said the "Ukraine being ethnic Russian".
I said that EASTERN Ukraine was mostly ethnic Russian and is being abused by Kyiv.
To get a better handle on it, look at the languages used in the Ukraine.
{...
Ukrainian (official) 67.5%, Russian (regional language) 29.6%, ...
...}
There is almost no Russian spoke in the west, like Kyiv, and almost all of the people in the east, like the Donetsk, speak only Russian.

Then go look at the history.
These eastern territories were part of Russia until 1955, when Khrushchev gave parts of Russia to the Ukraine.
{...
On February 19, 1954, a decree was adopted to transfer the Crimean region to the Ukrainian SSR. Nikita Khrushchev handed over Crimea to Ukraine with a wide gesture (for good behavior). Today, when the Crimean issue has gained new urgency, it is urgent we talked about this historic decision.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

There are no immediate range missiles in the NATO inventory. Why don't you just STFU about things you obviously know nothing about.

Wrong.

{...
The U.S. Defense Department is moving forward with plans to acquire conventional ground-launched missiles that fly distances previously banned by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The progress follows two demonstration tests of such missiles last year, but the next steps in the development process and how much the Pentagon plans to spend on the missiles is unclear. Whether U.S. allies and partners will agree to host the missiles once they are built also remains to be seen.

The two 2019 tests included a prototype ground-launched ballistic missile last December (see ACT, January/February 2020) and a ground-launched variant of the Navy’s Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile in August, just two weeks after the United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty. (See ACT, September 2019.)

The fiscal year 2021 budget request released in February includes $125 million for the Marine Corps to purchase 48 Tomahawk missiles. The budget documents did not include further information about the purchase or whether the Marine Corps planned to buy additional missiles in future years.

Gen. David Berger, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5 that the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty allows the naval branch to assess the feasibility and utility of firing the Tomahawk missile from a ground launcher. The missile has an estimated range of between 1,250 and 2,500 kilometers.
...}

U.S. Continues Intermediate-Range Missile Pursuit | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

That is the whole point.
The US did not used to have intermediate nukes, but does now, and that is why we withdrew from the treaty.

 

[Burgermeister]

What mobile nuclear missiles?

Just confirming that you don't think they exist. I think that does it.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course you would...completely ignoring both Carter's and Clinton's complete failures in dealing with North Korea.

Carter and Clinton did not cause North Korea to become nuclear, Bush did.

 

[Rigby5]

Just confirming that you don't think they exist. I think that does it.

Tomahawk missiles could easily carry nuclear warheads and fly below Russian radar.

 

[Burgermeister]

When did we become so cavalier about nuclear war? This is really weird.

 

[easyt65]

Carter and Clinton did not cause North Korea to become nuclear, Bush did.

Bush was focused on the ME - ignoring an enemy is not the sane thing as aiding and abetting, which is what Carter and Clinton did.

You can thank Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for North Korea’s nukes

North Korea’s boast that it just detonated its first hydrogen bomb met instant doubts from the White House and arms experts. If they’re right, Pyongyang “only” has plain-old atomic bombs. What a . …

nypost.com

SAD: This Is Who's REALLY Responsible For N. Korea's Nukes

SAD: This Is Who's REALLY Responsible For N. Korea's Nukes

thefederalistpapers.org

Why is North Korea in its current position of nuclear power and aggression? Because of two former U.S. presidents.


Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton. They are to blame for North Korea.

Back in 1994, President Clinton prepared to confront North Korea over CIA reports it had built nuclear warheads and its subsequent threats to engulf Japan and South Korea in “a sea of fire.”
Enter self-appointed peacemaker Carter: The ex-prez scurried off to Pyongyang and negotiated a sellout deal that gave North Korea two new reactors and $5 billion in aid in return for a promise to quit seeking nukes.

Clinton embraced this appeasement as achieving “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

By 2002, North Koreans “fessed up.” They’d begun violating the accord on Day One. Four years later, Pyongyang detonated its first nuke.

Damn, it is amazing how morons will desperately try to re-write history IOT try to protect Democrats from recorded historic f*-ups.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I never said the "Ukraine being ethnic Russian".
I said that EASTERN Ukraine was mostly ethnic Russian and is being abused by Kyiv.
To get a better handle on it, look at the languages used in the Ukraine.
{...
Ukrainian (official) 67.5%, Russian (regional language) 29.6%, ...
...}
There is almost no Russian spoke in the west, like Kyiv, and almost all of the people in the east, like the Donetsk, speak only Russian.

Then go look at the history.
These eastern territories were part of Russia until 1955, when Khrushchev gave parts of Russia to the Ukraine.
{...
On February 19, 1954, a decree was adopted to transfer the Crimean region to the Ukrainian SSR. Nikita Khrushchev handed over Crimea to Ukraine with a wide gesture (for good behavior). Today, when the Crimean issue has gained new urgency, it is urgent we talked about this historic decision.
...}

So you didn't say, "And no, almost half of the Ukraine is ethnic Russian" in post #150?

Yeah, you did, you lying sack of shit!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tomahawk missiles could easily carry nuclear warheads and fly below Russian radar.

No, they cannot.

The GLCM had a range of 2,500 km and could reach speeds of approximately 800 kph. The missile was 6.4 m in length, 0.52 m in body diameter, and 1,470 kg in launch weight. The Gryphon carried a single W-84 10 to 50 kT nuclear warhead. The missile utilized inertial navigation and TERCOM. The United States deployed 322 missiles aboard 95 TEL vehicles. However, after the INF Treaty was signed and ratified, the system was completely destroyed by 1991 in accordance with the treaty provisions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, they cannot.

The GLCM had a range of 2,500 km and could reach speeds of approximately 800 kph. The missile was 6.4 m in length, 0.52 m in body diameter, and 1,470 kg in launch weight. The Gryphon carried a single W-84 10 to 50 kT nuclear warhead. The missile utilized inertial navigation and TERCOM. The United States deployed 322 missiles aboard 95 TEL vehicles. However, after the INF Treaty was signed and ratified, the system was completely destroyed by 1991 in accordance with the treaty provisions.

Wrong.
This is not perfect, but it will help explain:
{...
In seeking to explain why there are currently 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, commentators have invoked everything from the role of NATO expansion in the 1990s to the history of Kievan Rus in the 9th century. But a more recent development deserves discussion as well: America’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019.

...
Russia’s proposal for ending the current crisis stipulates that the United States “not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach [Russian territory].”
...

The Fate of the Treaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, signed in 1987, which eliminated a specific delivery system: surface-to-surface missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, henceforth referred to as theater-support missiles. Washington withdrew from the treaty in 2019, citing a series of Russian violations while also emphasizing the benefits that the new missiles could provide the United States in Europe and, perhaps more importantly, Asia.

...

Because the U.S. Army had previously established long-range precision fires as its top modernization priority, the associated loosening of missile restrictions created an innovation opportunity for U.S. forces.
....
This missile asymmetry had been a criticism of the treaty for years, likely influencing the U.S. decision to withdraw.

Since the United States withdrew from the treaty, the Army has embarked on numerous projects at varying ranges, including a moderate range increase from its current systems to a 500–600-kilometer range precision strike missile and a more strategically designed 2,700-kilometer range hypersonic missile. Additionally, future long-range strike capabilities have begun to influence emerging U.S. military doctrine, which emphasizes their importance in neutralizing anti-access systems. Overall, while the treaty’s demise may have been controversial internationally, domestically the U.S. military was quick to capitalize on its newfound freedom. Instead of internal debates on the strategic implications of reintroducing these missiles, the public military discourse centered on which service would have employment and development responsibility. This implied that the new missiles’ eventual employment and forward basing were foregone conclusions.

Adding to this perception, U.S. analysis covering the treaty’s demise focused heavily on the benefits of theater-support missiles. In 2019, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment research team conducted a cost-benefit analysis on deploying these new missiles, arguing that the decision “may contribute to a cost-imposing strategy against China and Russia by pressuring them to invest in expensive defenses and resiliency measures rather than devote those same resources to power-projection capabilities.” The report added that the employment of missiles in Europe and the Pacific could “compensate for the vulnerabilities of U.S. air and naval forces in potential conflicts involving capable opponents such as China and Russia.” European pundits also weighed in on the immediate tactical benefits that conventional missiles could provide to NATO. Christian Mölling and Heinrich Brauß, members of the German Council on Foreign Relations, contended that theater-support missiles “could threaten Moscow’s command facilities and limit Russia’s military ability to act.” Luis Simón, an international security professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, and Alexander Lanoszka, an international relations professor at Waterloo University, made a similar argument, noting that missiles were “likely to become the center of gravity of deterrence and security in Europe in a post-INF and maturing precision-strike context.” I’ve even put forward this argument myself, writing last year that rocket artillery proliferation in Europe can deter Russian aggression in the Baltics.

The Western narrative is straightforward: Theater-support missiles provide the United States and NATO with new capabilities to better deal with a resurgent Russia and a rising China. But this discourse overlooked the strategic implications of employing these missiles, and neglected any potential Russian response.
...}

Why Intermediate-Range Missiles Are a Focal Point in the Ukraine Crisis - War on the Rocks

In seeking to explain why there are currently 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, commentators have invoked everything from the role of NATO

warontherocks.com

So the US lied and quit the treaty on false claims of Russian violation, so that they could freely expand on many new types of missiles and ranges, including hypersonic.
We do have the intermediate missiles that could be put into the Ukraine to break MAD.
We have been developing them all along, but mass producing them only in the last 3 years since we withdrew from the limitation treaties.

Really? What is the name of the weapons system?

 

[Soupnazi630]

You mean that Zelensky is Biden's puppet.
The US took over the Ukraine government in 2014.

No it never did

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wrong.

{...
The U.S. Defense Department is moving forward with plans to acquire conventional ground-launched missiles that fly distances previously banned by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The progress follows two demonstration tests of such missiles last year, but the next steps in the development process and how much the Pentagon plans to spend on the missiles is unclear. Whether U.S. allies and partners will agree to host the missiles once they are built also remains to be seen.

The two 2019 tests included a prototype ground-launched ballistic missile last December (see ACT, January/February 2020) and a ground-launched variant of the Navy’s Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile in August, just two weeks after the United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty. (See ACT, September 2019.)

The fiscal year 2021 budget request released in February includes $125 million for the Marine Corps to purchase 48 Tomahawk missiles. The budget documents did not include further information about the purchase or whether the Marine Corps planned to buy additional missiles in future years.

Gen. David Berger, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5 that the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty allows the naval branch to assess the feasibility and utility of firing the Tomahawk missile from a ground launcher. The missile has an estimated range of between 1,250 and 2,500 kilometers.
...}

U.S. Continues Intermediate-Range Missile Pursuit | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

That is the whole point.
The US did not used to have intermediate nukes, but does now, and that is why we withdrew from the treaty.

So what is the name of this weapons system?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Doesn't matter if it is cash or not, it is still a bribe.
The Ukraine would never have started this war by violating treaties, trying to put NATO nukes on Russia's border, murdering ethnic Russians, etc., if not for US bribes.

Ukraine did not start the war, they violated NO treaty. They NEVER attempted to put any nukes on russia's border

You are a liar

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just confirming that you don't think they exist. I think that does it.

Everyone has the right to be wrong. Just don't abuse the privilege.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No one said the Ukraine did join NATO.
Abe said that it was wrong for Kyiv to try to join NATO, since that was a treaty violation and act of war that Russia could never accept.

Claiming Putin wants to "reconstitute the USSR" is silly because Russia has all the good stuff already, more land and resource then they will ever know what to do with.
Russia has no need for the Ukraine at all, and would not bother with them if only they were not committing mass murder of ethnic Russians, trying to put NATO nukes on Russia's border, and stealing over $20 billion in oil and gas.

They commited no such murder they never tried to put nukes on Russias border and they never violated any treaty Nor did they steal oil.

yoiu are a liar and the Iron Curtain and berlin wall were to keep communist slaves in place.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The same nukes the US always tries to put on Russia's border.
We did it in Turkey and Poland, and only had to take them out when Turkey and Poland decided they were a risk instead of an advantage, because they were controlled by the US.

LIAR

We nebver put nyukes in Poland and we have nnot tried to put any nukes in europe since the sixties

 

[Soupnazi630]

I believe I remember the missiles we put in Turkey were Jupiter C.
We put them in other places like Italy, England, etc., but it was Turkey that caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, because they were too close to Russia.

The ABMs we put in Poland were nuclear, and who could possibly believe the fake cover story we use, that it was to protect Poland from a missile attack from Iran?

Doesn't matter how old you are or the missiles, the US constantly is trying to counter MAD by getting missiles too close to Russia for them to be able to retaliate any more.
Russia does not care about MAD because they have no plans of aggression.
It is only the US that is constantly plotting to take over countries, like they did to the Ukraine.
So it is only the US that is trying to break MAD.
And clearly we would not have given the Ukraine all those billions in Javelins, Stingers, HIMARs, etc., unless we deliberately intended to create this conflict in order to break MAD.

You are a bald faced LIAR>

ABMS are NOT nuclear you uneducated FOOL.

We have not tried to put nukes in eastern europe since the sixties that is a fuckingf fact

 

[Rigby5]

You have absolutely zero morals. Here is just another lie!

The development of oil in Iraq after 2003 is much like the development of the new state. The oil industry is a mix of state ownership and international interests, while the legal framework they work in highlights the continued failure to resolve divisive issues.

Iraq: what happened to the oil after the war?

Iraq’s oil industry is a window into the troubled period that followed regime change.

theconversation.com

Wrong.
The US imposed a US layer on all oil sales.
Sure Rumsfeld and Cheney lied and said we were not in control of Iraq's oil, but the reality is we were and Iraq was not allowed to sell any oil itself.
We also sold off the rights to oil fields so it just looked like privatization, but in reality it was the US that was profiting from it.
I am not going to bother looking for quotes because it was so obviously illegal that there are lots of fake cover stories, but anyone would be a fool to believe them.