Free Republic

kiryandil: "The Joek’s typical Wall O’ Text, all sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Actually, they'd signify a lot to people who take time to read and understand.

But our typical pro-Russian propagandists are not interested in anything like that, they only want to get their own talking points & insults posted.

{sigh}

packrat35: "Though the Finns fought hard in the First Finish-Soviet War, when you lose 9% of your land, you lost."

Certainly in the minds of Soviet Russian propaganda.

But as in Ukraine today, a tiny Finnish force in 1939 fought much larger Soviet Russian forces to a standstill, thus helping convince a certain German dictator that Stalin's armies would be easy to defeat:

"You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."

Russia's invasions of Finland are a reason why Finns joined NATO and why every other Eastern European wanted to and did, or wants to and is still trying.

Is that real victory?

packrat35: "The USSR won both wars against Finland."

There were three 20th century Russo-Finnish wars:

• A) Finland won the 1918 Finish Civil War, defeating the Finish Reds supported by Soviet Russia.

• B) The 1939 Winter war is considered:
  1. A Soviet victory by Kremlin propagandists, since Soviet armies eventually took 9% of Finland's territory.

  2. "Inconclusive" by some historians since the Soviets' initial invasion was repelled and Stalin's plans for conquest of Finland were defeated.

  3. A Finnish victory by many observers, most importantly by Adolf Hitler, who concluded that the Soviets were weak and unable to withstand a serious military force, such as Germany had.
     From Hitler's conclusion came Operation Barbarossa.

• C) The Soviet-Finnish Continuation War (1941-1944) was a Soviet victory which took another 2% of Finnish territory, bringing the Soviet's total conquests to about 13% of Finland's 1938 territories.

So, of the three Russo-Finnish 20th century wars, Finland won one (1918), and arguably the second (1939), while losing the third (1944) but at the cost of only 2% more Finnish territories.

icclearly: "Let me get this straight.... For the last three plus years we've been told...."

A lot of nonsense.

1. icclearly: "-Russia is a third-rate power that has a bungling military"

   In 3-1/2 years, Russia's military has been: not only unable to defeat, but unable to gain significant ground, against a country Russia exceeds with four times the population, ten times the GDP and 28 times the land area.
   Since Ukraine is certainly less than third rate, Russia can rank no higher.

2. icclearly: "-The Ukies are winning the war"

   Sure, if you define "winning" as "not losing against an overwhelmingly superior force", then absolutely.

3. icclearly: "-The mother of all sanctions will collapse the country"

   Sanctions can hurt the countries imposing them as much as the country receiving them, so the West has been very reluctant to get "too tough" on Russia.

4. icclearly: "-Putin is a thug and dying of cancer"

   Mad-Vlad Putin is an old Soviet KGB killer.
   Whether he's dying of cancer, or something else, we all have to go someday.
   Putin is 72, not a particularly old age if he's lived a healthy life and can stay away from high balconies or lead poisoning.

5. icclearly: "-The Ruskies are running out of men and rockets"

   If that's true, then Russians have hidden their weaknesses pretty well.
   What we know is that current Russian military assaults on Ukrainians are down about 1/3 from their peaks last winter.
   At the same time, Russian drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets are double or more what they were just a few months ago.

6. icclearly: "-We'll be there for them Unies for 'as long as it takes.' "

   That was Biden's promise, and our European allies loved it, because it let them off the hook.
   Since Pres. Trump reversed course, our European and other allies must step up and take responsibility for Ukraine.

7. icclearly: "-We are the most advanced nation in the history of the planet, and our military dominates!"

   Only true from roughly 1991 to about 2020, but sadly no longer necessarily the case.
   Today both CCP China and re-Sovietizing Russia are rearming to a degree we've not seen before, ever.
   Expect Russia's successes in Ukraine to bolster Chinese determination to conquer Taiwan.

8. icclearly: "-And so many other lies and stories"

   The world's #1 purveyor of lies & nonsense is the Kremlin's Ministry for Agitation and Propaganda, which feeds narratives for endless anti-American B.S. around the world, including, sadly, even here on Free Republic.

icclearly: "Finally, we see this third-rate, low-GDP, developing country led by a tyrant and thug take on the full might of the West -- and WIN!"

"WIN!" -- only in the Kremlin agitprop's wettest of wet dreams.

icclearly: "Sound familiar? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine."

The list of Russian & Soviet failed wars is longer:

1. Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905

2. World War I 1914–1917

3. Finish Civil War 1918

4. Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian & Georgian Independence 1918-1920

5. Polish–Soviet War 1919-1921

6. Afghanistan 1925-1926 &1929

7. Spanish Civil War 1936-1939

8. Winter War (vs. Finland) 1939–1940

9. Soviet-Afghan War 1979–1989

10. First Chechen War 1994–1996

11. Syrian occupation 2015-2024

12. Ukraine Invasion 2022–present

icclearly: "MADNESS and STUPIDITY on steriods!"

That is certainly true of the old Tsarist, Soviet & Russian Empires.

dennisw: "We need to ramp up production of certain weapons.
Our stockpiles too low to send what we committed to Ukraine.
Or so the Trump administration claims."

Here is a curious fact:

I can find no confirmed reports of any US military aid shipments to Ukraine since January 20, 2025.

I did see where the amount of US aid to Ukraine still "in the pipeline" is circa $3 billion -- a mere drop in bucket compared to the $200+ billion already sent.

There is no Ukraine aid money in future Trump budgets or supplementals.

In the meantime, most Europeans & other Western allies (i.e., Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea) have promised to increasing defense spending from 2% to 5% of GDP (the US is circa 3.3%), while ramping up commitments and deliveries of aid to Ukraine by $hundreds of billions.

If anyone can find data contradicting this, I'd like to see it.

sockmonkey #3: "Occupied Ukraine.
Where years before the Russian Invasion (sic), ethnic Russians were being killed, shelled, and physically and culturally oppressed by their Ukrainian Government."

Petrosius #4: "Which never happened."

Red6: "It didn't happen except according to Swiss and UN observers that reported on it and Congressional hearings in the US that discussed this topic and wanted to have the units involved banned from receiving any US financial and hardware assistance (long before this war ever happened), which was passed but then never really enforced."

All that Red6 language is pure Russian propaganda nonsense.
In fact, there was no civil war in Ukraine, ever.
There were only multiple Russian invasions of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, beginning in 2014.
Russian forces = mad-Vlad's Little Green Men -- using Ukrainian conscripts & civilian human shields.

Here are the facts:

1. The US law which prohibits US aid to human rights violators is the 1997 Leahy Law.
   The Leahy Law was never activated by the US State Department regarding Azov or other alleged "far right" Ukrainian military units.

2. In 2018, Rep. Ro Khanna and Democrats in Congress (not Republicans) defunded Azov for partisan political purposes -- as their revenge against Pres. Trump for alleged American "right-wing extremism" in 2017 at Charlottsville, VA -- aka the "some very fine people hoax"!!
   It had nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with Democrats trying to punish Pres. Trump.

3. In 2024, to prove that point, Democrats (not Republicans) in the US State Department certified that Azov was not "far right" or "racist" or "neo-Nazis" or any of the other nonsense Russian propaganda constantly pushes.
   US aid to Azov resumed in 2024.

4. According to the United Nations and other organizations, total deaths in the Donbas War (2014-2021) were ~14,400 of whom:
   • ~6,500 were Russian aggressor invaders and their separatist conscripts.
     
   • ~4,400 were defending Ukrainian forces
   • ~3,500 were civilians on both sides, sometimes used as human shields, or actual military dressed in civilian clothing.

5. The US State Department's 2021 report on human rights abuses in Ukraine listed charges against both Russian and Ukrainian forces, including:
   Against both sides:
   • Unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial executions
   • Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees
   • Harsh prison conditions

     War crimes charged to Russian forces:

   • Harsh and life-threatening prison conditions
   • Political prisoners and detainees, often held without due process
   • Severe restrictions on freedom of movement, especially across the line of contact
   • Punitive psychiatric incarceration in Crimea
   • Transfer of prisoners to Russia, violating international law

     Abuses charged to Ukrainians:

   • Arbitrary arrest or detention, sometimes without judicial oversight
   • Impunity for abuses, with limited accountability for officials

The State Department did accuse Russians of war crimes but did not label Ukrainian abuses as "war crimes".

Red6: "It doesn't matter - even if presented by actual accounts of people that were on the ground (and not Russians) you'll just claim it's Russian propaganda, but when you read garbage like this article, you'll believe it whole heartedly.
You lost all objectivity a long time ago."

There is nothing ever objective about Russian propaganda, even when it's presented "innocently" here by our pro-Russian useful idiots.
Russian propaganda is always in service to two goals: 1) to advise its Nomenklatura, cadre, intelligentsia & other such elites, how to think about a subject and, 2) to befuddle the minds of Russia's enemies.

If, on occasion, Russian propaganda coincides with facts, it's just that, coincidence, never intentional.

So why would any reasonable person want to deal in such nonsense?

sockmonkey: "Occupied Ukraine.
Where years before the Russian Invasion, ethnic invading Russians troops were being killed, shelled, and physically and culturally oppressed by their Ukrainian Government."

Fixed it.

Invading Russian forces using Ukrainian civilians as human shields.

desertsolitaire to Navy Patriot: "Why do you all think Putins Russia continues to press on in Ukraine?..."

Navy Patriot: "I don't care why or what Putin wants.
I only care that Uke Nazis steal American Taxpayer Money while collaborating with American Prog Marxist Democrat Traitors, NeoCons and Deep Swampers to impose One World Globalist Tyranny on America.

"I do notice that Russia kills a lot of those GloboHomoPedoNazis and that sets the Zeepers off, revealing who they are."

Sadly, all of that is pure 100% undiluted nonsense.
The truth is,

1. There have been no confirmed US aid deliveries to Ukraine since January 20, 2025.
   Yes, there are talks about potential Ukrainian purchases of US equipment, but even those are unconfirmed.
   So all the nonsense about "stealing American Taxpayer Money" is just babbling stupidity.
   It's not happening.

2. Ukraine's benefactors today are mainly Europeans, but also other western allies like Australia, Japan, Canada and South Korea.

3. As for your "Uke Nazis" and "GloboHomoPedoNazis", that is pure 100% Russian propaganda, nothing else.
   The fact is that a far larger percentage of mostly rural Ukrainians are traditional Christians (85%) than are in more urbanized Russia (58%) or the United States (62%).
   The fact is that Ukraine is a functioning constitutional democratic republic, far more than Russia ever pretended to be.

4. Yes, Russian propaganda loves to take a comedian's satirical parodies mocking modern culture and turn them into claims that the comedian himself, and indeed all of Ukraine, supported such things.

5. On those alleged "American Prog Marxist Democrat Traitors, NeoCons and Deep Swampers" -- it turns out that Rand Paul type neo-isolationists were not the only ones opposed to US aid to Ukraine.
   Among those who have voted against US aid to Ukraine are:
   • Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont Socialist)
   • Sen. Jeff Merkley (Oregon Bernie-bro Progressive)
   • Sen. Peter Welch (Vermont Bernie-bro Progressive)
   • Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY Bernie-babe Democratic Socialist)
   • Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (Michigan Democratic Socialist)
   • Congresswoman Cori Bush (Missouri Democratic Socialist)
   • Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (Minnesota Progressive)
   • Congressman Jamal Bowman (NY Progressive Socialist)

   So, if those who most strongly support your "One World Globalist Tyranny on America" vote against US aid to Ukraine, what does that tell us about who's side you are really on, FRiend?

   Rest assured, under Pres. Trump there will never be a "One World Globalist Tyranny on America"

Navy Patriot: "That's what I think."

What you think is pure pro-Russian nonsense.

quoting BJK: "Cold War (II) is back"

JonPreston: "Vance didn't say that, and this wacky "new Cold War" notion only exists in the ossified minds of people like you whose time has passed them by.
It's time to step out of that amber you're trapped in, clean yourself up and join the living."

He said exactly that, in so many words.

VP Vance's words as reported by Newsweek:
• "The era of uncontested U.S. dominance is over.
  Today we face serious threats in China, Russia and other nations determined to beat us in every single domain—from spectrum to low earth orbit to supply chains to even our communication infrastructure,"

• "The Trump administration is focused on widening "the technological edge" between the U.S. military and adversaries, he said.
  He added that the U.S. cannot assume military engagements will "come without costs" and that the military must send troops to war "with the right tools.""

• "Vance also criticized past U.S. leaders who "traded national defense and the maintenance of our alliances for nation-building and meddling in foreign countries' affairs."

• "Instead of devoting our energies to responding to the rise of near-peer competitors like China, our leaders pursued what they assumed would be easy jobs for the world's preemptive superpower," the vice president said.
  "How hard could it be to build a few democracies in the Middle East?
  Well, almost impossibly hard, it turns out, and unbelievably costly."

  As reported by America News Nation:

• "The Vice President emphasized that the current administration is moving toward a more realistic approach to international relations, one that focuses on protecting core national interests rather than engaging in open-ended conflicts.
  “No more undefined missions.
  No more open-ended conflicts,” he asserted, reinforcing the “America First” doctrine championed by Trump."

• "He warned that the U.S. has been too complacent in believing that economic integration would lead to peace and stability.
  “Too many of us believed that countries like the People’s Republic of China would become more like us through trade,” Vance said, noting that this strategy has failed."

• "The Vice President’s speech was quickly seized upon by international media, including Russian state-run outlets, which highlighted his declaration about the end of U.S. dominance."

  As reported by the anti-American Geopolitical Economy:

• "The Donald Trump administration is abandoning the US government’s previous emphasis on soft power, Vance explained, and is instead focusing on “hard power” and “overwhelming force”, in a return to blatant, 19th century-style imperialism."

• "According to Vance, Washington’s top priority is now “great power competition”, and preparation for potential war with China."

• "The US vice president complained that, in the past, “our leaders traded hard power for soft power”.
  He argued that this was an error, and that the US empire ["empire" according to G.E.] should have focused on containing China.
  “Instead of devoting our energies to responding to the rise of near-peer competitors like China, our leaders pursued what they assumed would be easy jobs for the world’s preeminent superpower”, Vance said."

• "Our government took its eye off the ball of great power competition and preparing to take on a peer adversary, and instead, we devoted ourselves to sprawling, amorphous tasks, like searching for new terrorists to take out while building up far away regimes”, he added."

• "So now [says G.E.], the Trump administration is redirecting US foreign policy to prepare for potential war on China.

  [It's a] return to a more blatant form of imperialism
  Some Trump supporters have taken Vance’s comments out of context to claim that the Trump administration is supposedly moving away from a hyper-interventionist foreign policy and toward a more restrained, isolationist one.
  But that is not what is happening [says G.E.]."

• "Vance’s speech made it clear that the Trump administration wants to return to a more overt, traditional form of imperialism [says G.E.].

  What is changing [according to G.E.] is that the Trump administration is dropping the cynical propaganda narrative that US foreign policy is supposedly motivated by “democracy promotion” or “human rights”.
  Vance indicated that the US empire ["empire" according to G.E.] will continue to wage wars, and will try to win those wars through the use of “overwhelming force”.
  However, this will no longer be done in the name of “democracy” or “human rights”.
  Vance warned US Naval Academy graduates that they are in a “very dangerous era”, and will have a new “mission”.
  The vice president stated openly that US troops will be sent to more wars, and that it is not a matter of if, but rather when [according to G.E.]."

• "We’re returning to a strategy grounded in realism and protecting our core national interests”, Vance said.
  “Now this doesn’t mean that we ignore threats, but it means that we approach them with discipline, and that when we send you to war, we do it with a very specific set of goals in mind”."

• "As an example of the new Trump Doctrine, Vance proudly pointed to the Pentagon’s bombing campaign in Yemen, the poorest country in West Asia.
  Vance boasted that the Trump administration used “overwhelming force against Houthi military targets”.
  This was a reference to the so-called “Houthis”, the armed group officially known as Ansarallah that governs northern Yemen.

  Trump’s war on Yemen was “how military power should be used: decisively, with a clear objective”, Vance said.
  “We ought to be cautious in deciding to throw a punch, but when we throw a punch, we throw a punch hard, and we do it decisively, and that’s exactly what we may ask you to do“, he told the Naval Academy graduates.
  Vance added, “With the Trump administration, our adversaries now know when the United States sets a red line, it will be enforced, and when we engage, we do so with purpose, with superior force, with superior weapons, and with the best people anywhere in the world”."

• "In fact, instead of promoting isolationism and opposing interventionism, the Trump administration is boosting the US military budget to more than $1 trillion per year.
  “I’ll be supporting a record-setting $1 trillion investment in our national defense”, Trump said in a speech at a US military base in April.
  “We’re going to go $1 trillion, the largest in the world, the largest ever in our country”.
  “No other country has invested that much”, Trump bragged.
  “We have a $1 trillion budget for military this year, and we have tremendous plans”."

• "In one of the most hypocritical parts of his speech [according to G.E.] at the US Naval Academy graduation ceremony, JD Vance claimed that the Trump administration is carrying out a “shift in thinking, from ideological crusades to a principled foreign policy”.

  This was deeply ironic [says G.E.], because Trump’s extremely hawkish secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, is a self-declared “crusader”.
  In his 2020 book “American Crusade”, Hegseth — a former Fox News host — wrote with pride that the US right wing is waging a “holy war” against China, the international left, and Islam.
  Hegseth, an ardent hawk, has sought to rebrand US soldiers as “warfighters”, constantly using the term in his public remarks."

• "Top officials in the Trump administration have made it clear that the main target of the US empire is China ["empire" according to G.E.].
  JD Vance conveyed this in his speech at the US Naval Academy.

  It has also been repeatedly emphasized by Marco Rubio, a lifelong neoconservative war hawk, who is serving simultaneously as Trump’s secretary of state and national security advisor (making him only the second person in US history to hold both positions at the same time, following Henry Kissinger).
  In his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Rubio stressed that this entire century will be built on Washington’s new cold war against China."

Like I said, "Cold War (II) is back".

I don't at all agree with the anti-American Geopolitical Economy's viewpoint, but not everything they said is false.

It appears that the source of the leak was actually Congress.
Someone in a congressional SCIF ("Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility") logged onto the Pentagon's secure network, read the preliminary assessment and leaked it to the CNN reporter.

The CNN reporter didn't necessarily even see the report, only what she was told it contained by the leaker from Congress.

Who leaked from Congress?
Investigators can likely narrow it down to a list of people who logged onto the Pentagon site, but those could be anyone, including loyal Trump supporters eager for the latest information and unlikely to ever become, in Sec. Hegseth's words, "stabbers".

Indeed, the leaker could well be a third party who never saw the actual report but perhaps inadvertently overheard part of what it said.

That would mean the CNN reporter had written up unsubstantiated gossip as if it were the real thing.

Where is the lawsuit filed?
Are those judges any less Democrat activists than Maryland's 15 district court judges?

Good luck with the suit!

"The era of uncontested US dominance is over. - JD Vance"

Cold War (II) is back, but with the most dangerous threats now coming from China rather than the old USSR.

Vance was telling US Naval Academy graduates: get ready to fight.

ANKE69: "Did you flunk history class ??
It was across the plains of Ukraine’s “borderland” that Hitler’s Stalin's divisions swept from the west east in 1941 1939, bolstered by Ukraine’s Nazi Soviet cultists and collaborators."

It was across the plains of Ukraine's "borderland" that Hitler's ally, Stalin's divisions swept west into Poland in 1939, bolstered by Ukrainian Communist troops claiming to "liberate" other Ukrainians in Poland.

ANKE69: "When the Nazis invaded the U.S.S.R. in June 1941, Bandera’s followers murdered 4,000 Jews in Lviv, a city in western Ukraine, in a few days, using weapons ranging from guns to metal poles."

When the Soviets invaded Poland in September 1939, they murdered 22,000 (Katyn Massacres) Poles and deported another 60,000 to Kazakhstan, of whom only a few ever returned to Poland.
Among those murdered were hundreds of Polish Jewish officers, professionals (i.e., doctors) & religious leaders.

ANKE69: "Today;
AZOV is not just some far right extremist group.
They have actually been integrated into the official state-sponsoed Ukrainian National Guard."

Today:
Russian fascists continue to invade neighboring countries (Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.), while murdering and deporting their populations in the name of "liberating" those regions.
While pretending to be "traditional values" capitalists, small-d democrats and Christians, in fact, Russians today far more closely resemble 1940s era socialists, fascists, Nazi, communists, imperialists, colonialist totalitarians.

As for Azov,

1. In 2014, the Azov battalion was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard, took oaths of allegiance to Ukraine's democratic constitution, to defend Ukraine and to protect the rights and freedoms of Ukraine's citizens.
   Azov's previously fascist leadership was replaced by loyal Ukrainians.

2. In 2022, the Azov Regiment was destroyed at Mariupol, its members killed or captured.

3. In 2023, a new brigade was formed, the 12th Special Forces Brigade, pledged to:
   “Protecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, upholding its laws and constitutional order, and playing an active role in repelling Russia’s aggression.”

   The 12th Special Forces Brigade was given the name "Azov" in honor of the courage of those who fought and died at Mariupol.
   The 12th's personnel may include a few survivors from the original Azov Regiment destroyed at Mariupol.

4. Since 2023, the Azov Brigade has served on Ukraine's front lines just south of Pokrovsk and has been a major player in preventing further Russian advances there.

ANKE69: "There is also another far-right group, Centuria, who’s members are currently serving as officers in Ukraine’s military."

I would put Centuria in the same category as GW Bush's Yale University "Skull and Bones" society -- a lot of secret mumbo-jumbo nonsense amounting to nothing serious.

ANKE69: "To claim that Zelensky, was proof of the Ukraine’s “transition to democracy” and disregard for fascism.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is little reference to the fact that Zelensky has enjoyed ample support from a highly influential billionaire businessman, Ihor Kolomoyskyi-who has quite a murky history and has been under investigation by the FBI over claims of “ordering contract killings” and “financial crimes”."

Several points need to be made here:

1. Ukraine, unlike Russia, is a legitimately functioning constitutional democratic republic.
   Since 1991, Ukraine has held 7 internationally observed free and fair elections, electing 6 different presidents and parties, the most recent in 2019.
   During that period, Russia held zero internationally observed free and fair elections and since 1999 has had only one de facto dictator: Vlad the Invader Putin.

2. Ukraine's Democracy Index scores high in Political Participation, Electoral Processes & Pluralism, and Democratic Culture, while falling down in areas directly caused by Russia's repeated invasions.

3. Russia's Democracy Index is among the world's worst in every category, equivalent to such dictatorships as Belarus, Nicaragua and Iran, worse than Vietnam or Cuba.

4. Like Britain & France during both World Wars, Ukraine suspended elections, as required by constitutional law, after Russia's invasion on February 24, 2022.

5. Ukraine's former billionaire businessman Ihor Kolomoyskyi did Volodymyr Zelensky no favors -- yes, he ran Zelensky's very popular TV show on Kolomoyskyi's network, but that was business, hardly a "favor".

6. In 2022, Kolomoyskyi's Ukrainian citizenship was revoked and in 2023 he was arrested in Ukraine on charges of fraud, money-laundering and attempted murder (from 2003).
   Kolomoyskyi currently sits in a Ukrainian jail awaiting trial.

7. Ukraine today has 6 billionaires and Kolomoyskyi is not one of them.
   Ukraine's six billionaires include 1) Zelensky's chief political rival, Petro Poroshenko, 2) a supporter of another political rival, 3-4) two pro-Russians, and 5-6) two non-political, one a farmer and the other living in London.

8. Russia has about 150 billionaires.
   The US has over 900 billionaires.

ANKE69: "Kolomoyskyi has also led the way in funding the far-right Ukrainian regiments fighting in the east."

Kolomoyskyi was Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast from 2014 to 2015.
After Russia's 2014 invasions, Kolomoyskyi helped organize national defense forces, including some regiments later charged with being "far right".
By the end of 2014, those units were all absorbed into Ukraine's national defense forces which imposed loyalty oaths and weeded out suspected "right-wing extremists".

ANKE69: "Zelinsky never gave a rats arse about being Jewish until he ran for President."

1. About a dozen of Zelensky's relatives were shot or burned to death for being Jewish by Nazi invaders during WWII.

2. I can't find a record of Zelensky's Jewish family practicing their religion under the Soviets, when Zelensky was a boy, or later as an adult Ukrainian.

3. Zelensky did not make his Jewish ancestry an issue in the 2019 presidential elections.

4. Zelensky first visited Israel in January 2020 to mark the Holocaust anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and pay tribute to its victims, including Zelensky's relatives.

5. In 2023 Zelensky met with Chabad rabis ahead of Rosh Shashana celebrations.

6. Pres. Zelensky has never tolerated anti-Semitism in Ukraine's government or military.

"US Vice President J.D. Vance:
'The era of American global hegemony is over.' "

That's not what Vance said.

On May 23, 2025, Vice President JD Vance delivered a commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy in which he declared that “the era of uncontested U.S. dominance is over.”

Another report on Vance's speech.

Vance's key points:

1. After the Cold War, the U.S. enjoyed
   “a mostly unchallenged command of the commons, airspace, sea, space and cyberspace...
   Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, our policymakers assumed that American primacy on the world stage was guaranteed.
   For a brief time, we were a superpower without any peer, nor did we believe any foreign nation could possibly rise to compete with the United States of America”.

2. This era is ended with rising threats from China, Russia, and other nations seeking to challenge U.S. influence across multiple domains — from supply chains to low Earth orbit.

3. Vance said, “our leaders traded hard power for soft power”, and argued this was an error -- the US should have focused on containing China.

4. Criticized past U.S. leaders who "traded national defense and the maintenance of our alliances for nation-building and meddling in foreign countries' affairs."

5. Announced a pivot toward hard power and technological superiority, aligning with a return to more traditional, force-based strategic thinking.

My summary: the Greatest Generation, which won Cold War I (i.e., Nixon, Reagan, poppy Bush), was followed by a generation of very unserious fools (Clinton, sonny Bush, Obama & Biden), whose bumbling effectively restored the status quo ante 1991 (a Cold War II) in which the now Trump-led US must again compete to preserve our international order and leadership in it, though this time with Trump's very different set of assumptions.

For a radical leftist view of Vance's speech, see this report:

"US VP JD Vance announces new strategy of blatant imperialism, aimed at China"

from the lead: "New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani talks with Jen Psaki about the principles of his campaign and how he reached out to voters who had previously chosen Trump..."

That is delusional.

I clicked on the link and watched Mamdani's interview with Jen Saki, where he claims to have won back 2024 Trump voters.

No, he didn't.
NY Democrats who voted for Trump in 2024 voted for Cuomo on Tuesday.

Mamdani's voters and contributors were upscale progressive members of New York's elites, not working class Trump voters.

delta7: "But western MSM has stated numerous times Russia is running out of missiles and ammunition…"

That's because many westerners take Russia's official defense spending numbers seriously, when they shouldn't.

According to official Russian numbers, Russia's 2025 military budget is only $145 billion, or about 7% of Russia's nominal GDP of $2.1 trillion.
Yes, 7% is a lot -- the last time US defense spending reached 7% of GDP was during the Vietnam War.
Today the US spends less than half that much -- about 3.3% is the latest number I saw.

Many westerners simply cannot imagine Russia supporting a massive war in Ukraine while maintaining large forces near Finland, the Baltics and in Eastern Russia, all for only $145 billion per year, when US defense spending is now around $1 trillion.
Therefore, western reports suppose that Russia must be "cheating" on something, most likely in ammunition & hardware.

The problem is that $145 billion figure for Russia is basically useless, beginning with the fact that it's a nominal number, not based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
Once converted to PPP, $145 billion becomes ~$500 billion, already a more realistic comparison.
But that's only the beginning.

The real number begins here:

1. Russia's 2025 GDP at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is not the nominal $2.1 trillion but rather $7.2 trillion.

2. 40% of Russia's GDP is its Federal budget and about 40% of Russia's Federal budget goes towards national defense.
   Do the math -- 40% times 40% = 16% of Russia's GDP is spent on national defense (broadly defined).

3. 16% of Russia's $7.2 trillion GDP (PPP) = $1.2 trillion in equivalent US dollars.

So, $1.2 trillion is the real number (PPP) for Russia's national defense, and it should buy Russians all the ammunition, missiles, tanks & ships they want -- assuming it's not mostly siphoned away in institutionalized corruptions.

nathanbedford: "Without access to the New York Times opinion behind the pay wall, I would venture my own analysis that Beijing is assessing Donald Trump as one more unlikely than likely to defend Taiwan by kinetic means.
In coming to that conclusion they will assess Trump's history of withdrawing from conflict on a general level but to engage in pinpricks.
China will look at his lapsing support for Ukraine, his eagerness to withdraw from Syria, his negotiating history in mapping a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and conclude that war against nation states is not to Trump's liking."

Of course not, but why is nobody noticing the single most glaring feature of Pres. Trump's foreign policy/national defense posture?
First and foremost, Trump is working to get our allies to pay their fair share of allied defenses against the Russians and Chi-Coms.

1. Well before non-US NATO countries reach 5% of their GDP's (PPP) on national defense, their combined spending will match the US at over $1.2 trillion per year.
   That is already double the most generous estimate of Russia's national defense spending, about $600 billion at PPP (8% of GDP).

2. China's US-friendly neighbors, from Japan to Australia to India, combined match China's GDP and would, when spending 5% of GDPs on national defense, reach $2 trillion in defense spending (at PPP), which is at least three times China's publicly acknowledged defense budget.

3. If China's and Russia's US-friendly-neighbors can, by themselves, overmatch the Axis of Evil militaries, then the US will become, as it should be, the world's reserve force, not first to fight, but last in to clean up the mess.

That's the Trump doctrine which should concern empire-building, aggression-planning authorities in Bejing and Moscow the most.

BeauBo: "I agree with your analysis (of the relative GDPs of the UK and Russia, nominal and PPP), but am unclear on the effect/implications of currency manipulation, which you referenced. "

Russian Lada Vesta:

"Currency manipulation" is often mentioned by Pres. Trump as one method countries use to price US exports out of their domestic markets.
It simply means that they keep their own currencies worth much less than they should be in order to encourage their own exports (especially to the USA) and reduce imports (especially from the USA).

Those "currency manipulations" are what "Purchase Price Parity" (PPP) calculations are intended to account for and equalize.
Suppose, for example, that a "middle class" standard of living costs $100,000 in the US, but $50,000 in the UK and just $20,000 in Russia, then -- as I understand it -- Purchase Price Parity (PPP) tries to equalize those numbers and calculate the countries' GDP based on "parity" of costs.

As I said, PPP is a valid way to look at things, but only up to a point, and that point begins where things like product quality start to matter.
Consider the example of automobiles -- "middle class" Russian families often buy a Russian Lada Vesta for around $15,000 while a "middle class" American family might buy a $45,000 Traverse or Grand Cherokee.
PPP attempts to equalize those vehicles and calculate the country's GDP based on that, but are those vehicles objectively "equal"?
In reality, they are only "equal" relative to a country's "middle class" standard of living.

I'm only saying that while PPP is very useful, it's not the end of any discussion.

See PIF's analysis in post #17,716 above!

Jeep Grand Cherokee:

PIF: "The way it actually works: of the 20 missiles produced by the Russians, only 5 are made.
The other 15 are claimed made on paper, but the money is pocketed by various military officers.
Of the 5 made, 2 are nonfunctional due to parts cost cutting and substitution of substandard parts.
Of the remaining 3, two are launched and one hits the target, the other lands on some field."

Ha!
Very likely true.

Also true in some degree, in CCP's China, where functionaries are ordered to hit their targets, no matter what.

The problem is, do we even know how much is true and how much is mere bureaucratic fantasies?

Phoenix8: "I had a much longer reply and lost it with my clumsy fingers trying to close a window and hitting “X”.
will have to read a greatly shortened abridged version:"

I make similar mistakes often enough to be very sympathetic.
Curiously, more often than not, my replacement version turns out, not only shorter, but also clearer and more to the point.
So there's that...

Phoenix8: "FDR age?
Big deal.
1940s average life expectancy was 63.
H was old and sick and dumb"

Over the years, FDR has been accused of many things, with "devious" perhaps a polite summary of them.
But FDR was never accused of being "dumb", just the opposite, if anything, he's thought of unkindly as an evil genius.

As for "sick", FDR was no sicklier in 1943 than he was when he first ran for President in 1932.
Yes, by the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, FDR was on his last legs, so to speak, but that was far from true at Casablanca in January 1943.

Again, FDR's reasons for declaring "Unconditional Surrender" as the Allies' goal were:

1. To inspire Americans by references to George Washington (1781) and Ulysses Grant (1865)

2. To unite the Allies behind a single, simple goal.

3. To prevent the muddled mess of negotiations which ended the First World War and, arguably, led directly to WWII.

Phoenix8: "grant?
He also had a 2 to 1 advantage in men and food, 9 to 1 ad on weapons.
Victory Had little to do with his unconditional surrender demands."

"Unconditional Surrender" Grant forced the surrender of three different Confederate armies:

1. Fort Donelson (February 1862)
   Grant's army of 25,000 defeated 16,000 Confederates dug in behind fortifications.
   In military doctrine, such attacks are said to require 3 to 1 attacker's advantage.

2. Vicksburg (May–July 1863)
   Grant's army of 77,000 defeated Pemberton's 33,000 dug in on the cliffs of Vicksburg.
   However, there were at least another 60,000 Confederate troops nearby that could have come to Pemberton's aid, but refused.
   Those included Joe Johnston's Department of the West and Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee.
   Plus! there were another 50,000 Confederate troops west of the Mississippi (in Missouri, Arkansas & Louisiana) that could have been brought to the fight, but weren't.

3. Appomattox Campaign (April 1865)
   Lee's remnant army of 28,000 surrendered to Grant's 120,000.
   At Gettysburg in 1863, Lee's army of 90,000 (including slaves) attacked Mead's Union army of ~95,000 and lost.
   Since Gettysburg, Lee's army fought on defense and shrank, while the Union army fought on offense and grew stronger.

   At the same time as Lee's surrender, CSA Gen. Joe Johnston commanded another 90,000 Confederate troops from North Carolina to Florida, who then surrendered (April 26) to Sherman's army of 60,000.
   Point is: the overall numbers were not as lopsided as some snapshots might suggest.

Finally, "Unconditional Surrender" Grant actually offered several conditions to his defeated enemies, including food, parole and, in the end, the opportunity to keep their horses, side arms and other personal property.
Sherman & Johnson negotiated several additional conditions which, while immediately rejected in Washington, were de facto soon adopted, except for the matter of slavery.

Phoenix8: "Churchill!!! What?? That’s nonsense:
“ At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, Winston Churchill was initially surprised and hesitant about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s announcement of the “unconditional surrender” demand for the Axis powers.
Churchill had not been consulted beforehand... "

The fact remains that neither Churchill, nor Stalin, nor De Gaulle, nor any other Allied leader opposed FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" WWII goal.
And for excellent reasons.

Phoenix8: "Also like last one I admitted the ONLY valid Excuse for the FDR blunder was the possibility of separate peace.
That was shown to be a misjudged fear after the war."

In fact, there were several separate peace feelers from the Soviets to the Germans and visa versa during the war.
Setting aside the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in the war's early years (after June 1941) Soviets wanted peace and the Germans rejected them, while in later years (after 1943) it was the reverse.
Indeed, Stalin himself grew increasingly concerned about Western Allies making separate deals with Germans, despite FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" terms.
So, it was not a minor issue.

Phoenix8: "Finally that my argument made no sense is a YOU thing not a ME thing.
I was showing how unconditional surrender could and should have been discarded that pacts are things routinely discarded..again I find myself repeating things with you."

WWII's "Unconditional Surrenders" created the world we have today, dominated by Western-type democracies.
Anything else would have left the world in the same condition as in 1919, at the end of the First World War, when Woodrow Wilson's "Peace Without Victory" and "14 Points" helped create conditions that made WWII inevitable.

That's the real bottom line.