Posted on 12/28/2021 1:13:03 PM PST by RomanSoldier19
More than 100 are deployed in a training and advisory role with Polish, US and Canadian forces. The move to shape an exit strategy follows Defence Secretary Ben Wallace saying it is "highly unlikely" UK forces will fight Russian troops on Ukrainian soil.
Satellite images from US firm Maxar Technologies have revealed a new brigade-level unit, consisting of hundreds of tanks and armoured vehicles, situated at an army base in Crimea.
Moscow has also published changes in regulations to allow military fatalities to be buried in theater rather than be repatriated to Russia.
This is widely seen as an attempt to signal that plans for a military incursion are being made, though Russia denies this. And last night it announced it was pulling back 10,000 troops from close to the Ukrainian border in a surprise move ahead of talks with the US.
However, it represents a fraction of the number still believed to be stationed in the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
That’s a different matter. Alaska is an integral part of our nation. Not a incredibly corrupt nation that didn’t even belong to NATO until recently.
If Russia attacks a slice of Ukraine we organize a major boycott etc. send more weapons to Ukraine. We don’t do air strikes or send troops etc.
To everyone: this isn’t like Germany in WW2. They haven’t had a recent mass re-armament, Russia today isnt bursting with population, they are losing population and have incredible amounts of land. They have NOT had a string of recent expansions,(ok 1 they had 1) . Germany invaded Poland with an all out attack with 1.5 MILLION soldiers, they left barely enough to in the west to slow down an Allied reaction.
This again has almost no resemblance to WW2. Get back with me when they start driving on Kiev.
Or we could just get involved and start air strikes, go back in with Blackwater and KBR so some rich could get richer. So what if 20,000 of our boys are killed? How did that nation building thing work out for ya’ll in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And ignoring the EU’s role in this, never mind the Kaiser’s (really starting with Bismarck), is ignoring the history of the spread of this ideology.
I think you're putting too large a share of the blame for socialism on Bismark or Germany.
Germany didn't force FDR or Congress to pass the New Deal. Nor did Germany force LBJ to push for the Great Society. Or for any subsequent passage of socialism in the U.S.
Nor did Germany force Britain, or France, or Greece, or Italy, or Canada, or Sweden, or Israel to adopt socialism. Those countries' native populations demanded entitlement benefits.
Socialist movements were well underway throughout Europe decades before Bismark. And were deeply entrenched long before the EU.
Socialist countries (like the U.S.) have nobody to blame but themselves for their domestic policies.
Surely you know that Washington is famous for advising us to avoid "foreign entanglements."
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Had they been part of NATO and likely the EU the dirtbag Russians would never have invaded and occupied half the country.
(I)t is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.The indication is that the USA is not free to breach any alliance they wish, but is free to evaluate all alliances to see if any ally is tending to betray said alliance.
One does not have to force one’s philosophy on another country to bear the blame for it. It may be ironic that Marx was expelled from Germany, thus merely being the scapegoat for what the leaders of that country were implementing.
“As soon as I saw the headline I thought of that Holy Grail scene... and bam, there it is.”
So you’re Borg. Congrats.
“You want us to send ships and troops into the Black Sea? And then fight a war in Russia’s backyard?”
Did I say that? No, I did not. So stop acting like a liberal who makes things up and then gets outraged over them.
The Dneiper does flow into the Black Sea.
Your remark certainly suggests that you want to send ships and troops into the Black Sea to fight a war in the Russians' backyard.
There are other ways to deter the Russians from trying to recapture the Soviet Empire. It starts by having a president who isn’t senile.
Thanks for the correction.
No, I don't know who's calling the shots. Some have suggested Ron Klain. Others say it's Obama. I suspect it's a cabal of oligarchs.
IAE, Biden won't be the one deciding what to do about Ukraine.
Your comment stuck on my head and I’ve though about it quite a bit before that. I would only correct it by adding WW2. Many historians say in the not so distant future the wars will be viewed as 1 with an interlude and adjustment.
The result of them I’m afraid did ruin Europe and thus the Caucasians in the long run. My people. I don’t have a genetics degree but I do have a science degree and have taken a few Bio classes that got into the theory.
In my opinion the wars acted as a sort of horrible culling of Europe’s best. Essentially it was a huge selective breeding effort that removed a significant majority of Genes for bravery and well whatever the stuff is for fighting. Regardless of consequence. WW1 would have been bad, but there were many men that survived and women of course, they could have recovered. Yet then due to freak luck, effects of the first war and a bad peace treaty, some say conspiracy Europe was plunged in another awful culling where the weak and unhealthy men stayed home to reproduce. Between the two wars I think the Caucasian population changed.
Now we see Europe over ran with Muslims, Biden and the sort being elected all over the West, inability to fight for our great civilization. I don’t know if we are still capable. Not individually but as a collective whole.
Sorry for the gloomy message but I thought your comment was significant and didn’t receive enough attention.
Firstly, most fatalities were of a very narrow age group who just happened to be of fighting age at the time. Why should their surviving siblings, who shared their genes but happened to be too young or too old to fight, and who lived to have children, be any less 'brave and best' than the killed? The same applies to children of the dead already born or conceived.
Secondly, the industrial scale and nature of the killing, especially in WW1, meant that whether you survived or not was largely a matter of chance: whether or not you happened to be brave was irrelevant.
Thirdly, the majority of fighting men, on all sides, were conscripts: and conscription doesn't select for bravery or any other qualities except a basic level of physical competence.
Finally, in the case for instance of the UK, the numbers killed, terrible as they were, were simply not a large enough fraction of the male population significantly to affect the gene pool. (In the case of some combatants, eg Serbia, the fraction was approaching the level where there could have been such an effect.)
Thanks for the comment.
Not entirely sure if I agree, although you may have A point to an extent.
WW1 German population was 67-68 million. So 34million males, many were too old or young so almost 2 million dead or seriously wounded for life is at least 10% of the young generation males.
WW2 90 million population but also about 4 million dead/seriously wounded also another 10% at least. So basically 2 generations almost in a row had over 10% of their healthy and intelligent males taken out of the population.
Just read 18% of Young French men died in WW1 who served, and nearly all healthy, intelligent young men were drafted.
Interesting article that does not approach the ideas of war causing selective breeding and change in genomes.
https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_510_0001—lost-generations-the-demographic.htm
That might be enough to create a genetic drift, to what extent I’m unsure.
“Biden’s senility is irrelevant. He isn’t in charge.”
For the most critical aspects of national security he absolutely is in charge and he alone has to call the shots. The military is not going to do nor not do something major on the authority of Valerie Jarrett, Jill Biden, or anyone else.
The first wave of fighters, and casualties, were mostly volunteers. Conscription was introduced only after they ran out of volunteers.
Biden has the authority. But if he's senile, the real person in charge is whoever is pulling his strings.
Besides which, today's military ignores Constitutional authority when it wishes. Trump wanted to use the military to quell the D.C. rioters, but the generals effectively vetoed Trump.
Yes, indeed, and that was in a nation of no more that 42 million souls...
Sorry, but are you sure this was the case with Russia, France, Germany or Austria-Hungary, too?
I remember that conscription in Britain was not instituted until January 1916 - but other European nations had had the draft for decades before WW 1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.