Putin has just discovered the scale of his latest miscalculation

The Telegraph ^

[dennisw]

Many Freepers behave as (perform as) though Ukraine invaded Russia. This is how crazy things are with some MAGA people.
Then you get the angry old cheapskates who don’t want to spend a penny on any other nations. Trump called their bluff by getting the Europeans to pay us to send weaponry for Ukraine

[Eleutheria5]

France went bankrupt financing the American Revolution, which is why Louis XVI was compelled to call l’Etat General to assembly, ultimately leading to the French Revolution.

America cannot possibly go bankrupt helping Ukraine, anymore than it did helping England and the USSR stave off Hitler and Tojo. The terms for financing provided Ukraine needs to be more tightly overseen and accounted for, and all the corruption in both the US, Europe and Ukraine needs to be stopped. But it is definitely a good idea to help Ukraine.

[Captain Peter Blood]

NATO does not have any of the things you say. Our technology in missiles and many others things are way behind the Russians. They have Hypersonic Missile technology, we don’t, they have also developed a Kinetic Energy Bomb just as destructive as nuclear weapons, we don’t have that either. And yes Russia has a vast Nuclear Arsenal. Also the West no longer has a manufacturing base to mass produce arms and munitions and the Russians do. They are prepared and we are not.

Military planners at the Pentagon admit we cannot field any large ground forces and if could , they could only supplied for maybe a month or less.

[Svartalfiar]

Only idiots believe Russia started this.

I don't recall anyone invading Russia for quite a while...

[Svartalfiar]

We are a member of NATO, and we pay the biggest part of the bill for that alliance. As a member of NATO, we would be the ones paying the most to purchase those American weapons. So, we are, even inf indirectly, paying for those weapons. NATO acting as the go-between, is a rarce. But, I still don't mind the trickery.

The straw purchases aren't from NATO, they're from European countries individually.

[Does so]

“Again Ukraine is NOT a US ally and has never been a US ally.”
.
Ukraine saw the Soviets as their existential enemy following Holodomor.

The US fought a costly Cold War against the Soviets.

With Putin attempting to reunite the Soviet Empire, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” resonates, which makes Ukraine our ally...

[USA-FRANCE]

“Ukraine saw the Soviets as their existential enemy following Holodomor.
The US fought a costly Cold War against the Soviets.
With Putin attempting to reunite the Soviet Empire, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” resonates, which makes Ukraine our ally...”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><

Hello “Does so”, very well said. I totally agree.

I pass along your message to SmokingJoe, who was the one who said : “Again Ukraine is NOT a US ally and has never been a US ally.”

I believe he was uninformed about these matters.

[adorno]

The straw purchases aren't from NATO, they're from European countries individually.

Patriot air defense systems, missiles and ammunition are among the American-made weapons NATO allies will buy under an arms deal brokered with President Trump to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian attacks.

NATO allies. IOW, they're the in-between for the weapons goin to Ukraine fROM the U.S.

The United States is the largest contributor to NATO, accounting for approximately two-thirds of the alliance's overall defense spending. While the US contributes the most in terms of raw dollar figures, NATO's budget is also supported by contributions from all member nations, with costs shared based on national income.

If the U.S. pays 2/3 of the bills for NATO, it means that the majority of the bill for the weapons purchases going to Ukraine is being paid by the U.S.

[Svartalfiar]

The Japanese destruction of Pearl Harbor says, “Hello”. That's when the US entered WW II,

Pearl Harbor happened 13 months after the election, at which time we weren't at war.

Pearl Harbor happened 35 months before the wartime Presidential election, so it definitely shouldn't have had much effect on them.

Pearl Harbor was a one-time hit, so there was no continual widespread bombardment of civilian infrastructure making elections difficult.

And even if there was, the US Constitution doesn't stop elections due to war like others do.

[Svartalfiar]

If free and fair elections were allowed in Russia, Vladimir Putin would have been voted out by the Russian people long ago.

One could say the same about an election in the Ukraine; there's a reason Zelensky shut down the elections.

Zelensky only had the power to shut down elections for 90 days. Which he did, from Feb-May. After that, the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhava Rada or something like that) has to approve continuing martial law every 90 days. So they are the ones that have been preventing any elections ongoing. And most of those votes have been extremely lopsided.

Support for Zelensky is higher than people around here think. A lot of Ukraine wants to kick the invading Russians back out of their country, they don't want to surrender. Most of y'all would feel the same way if it was your home being invaded by a bunch of Communists, the same ones Grandpa remembers almost starving to death from the last time they were in charge. Look up the Holodomor for one of the big reasons they hate Russia so much. Just like the Polish-Russia, Irish-England, Kurds-Iraq/Iran, etc, there's a lot of countries that hate another from a long history of issues that Americans generally just don't understand.

[adorno]

NATO does not have any of the things you say.

The Russians and Chinese, don't develop new technology. They copy American and European technology. The Chinese are the most prolific patent thieves in the world, with Russia a close second. What America has, they copy, even if they make them look slightly different to pretend it's their own tech.

Our technology in missiles and many others things are way behind the Russians.

The Russians do not have anything even close to our F-35 pr F-22 or B-2 bomber. Their jet planes look nice, but not competitive as far as air power is concerned.

They have Hypersonic Missile technology, we don’t,

America was the first to develop hypersonic plane and missiles. They stopped developing them because they were not cost-effective as weapons. We are back at it and we are actually now way ahead of China and Russia. What we don't have is actual deployed systems. Russia has deployed hypersonic missiles in Ukraine, but they can't build enough of them to make a difference because of the sanctions which deprive them of the chips needed for navigation.

they have also developed a Kinetic Energy Bomb just as destructive as nuclear weapons, we don’t have that either.

Not even close. Kinetic energy weapons are not about explosions nor about weapons powerful enough as nuclear bombs.

Kinetic energy weapons are about missiles being delivered at very high speeds for penetration of targets, with no explosions. The U.S. already has bombs that arrive at their targets at very high speeds to penetrate into very thick walls or into deep underground targets.

Here, to educate you:

The United States Air Force dropped GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, also known as "bunker busters," on Iranian nuclear facilities. These 30,000-pound bombs are designed to penetrate deeply buried targets, and this was their first operational use

So, we have a double whammy of a weapon already deployed. Deep penetrator, and massively explosive. IOW, two is better than one. ;)

And yes Russia has a vast Nuclear Arsenal.

Hence, that's the only thing that makes them a 'world power'. They basically have nothing else. And the nukes can't be used, since NATO and the U.S. have them too, which means that Russia would be completely destroyed if they decided to use any nukes at all. Might as well call shoe nukes, water balloons. They won't be used, other than for making threats.

Also the West no longer has a manufacturing base to mass produce arms and munitions and the Russians do. They are prepared and we are not.

Russia is running out of ammunition and they are very dependent on other countries for the materials needed to produce the ammunition. That's part of what the sanctions are about. They can't even use ammunition for training, since it has to be reserved for fighting in Ukraine.

So, speak not about what you have no knowledge about:

The country that produces the most ammunition overall is the United States. It is a major exporter and manufacturer of various types of ammunition. While other countries like Russia are also significant producers, especially of artillery shells, the US leads in overall ammunition production.

The US is the top exporter of munitions and also a major producer of various types of ammunition, including small arms and artillery shells.

Russia is a major producer of artillery shells, particularly for its own military and for export. However, its production, while high, is not as diversified as the US. Russian production is being hampered by the sanctions imposed because of the Ukraine invasion.

The European Union, as a collective, is a significant producer and exporter of ammunition.

Other countries like China, Poland, South Korea, and France are also major players in the ammunition market, either as producers or exporters.

Military planners at the Pentagon admit we cannot field any large ground forces and if could , they could only supplied for maybe a month or less.

Ground forces is not how the U.S. and/or NATO would be fighting a major war. Air power and missiles and artillery and huge bombs, like MOABs and bunker busters and drones, would be the weapons of choice. No nukes, unless a country wants to invoke the MAD policy. Hope you know what "MAD" means.

So, all in all, Russia is up the creek without a paddle. In Other words, it can't win and has no way to win.

BTW:

The SR-72, also known as "Son of Blackbird," is a proposed hypersonic aircraft concept by Lockheed Martin, designed as a successor to the SR-71 Blackbird. It is intended for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions and is projected to reach speeds of Mach 6 and beyond, making it a hypersonic aircraft.

The SR-71's successor...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sr-72

[Svartalfiar]

You're being very dismissive of how powerful the NATO forces are. They actually have more weapons and and more men ni uniform that Russia. And they also have more modern weaponry than Russia, including more powerful and more deadly air power, not to mention a nuclear arsenal.

You're both right here. Take these US out of NATO, and they'd be just as useless as Russia at invading other countries. Maybe a bit better at crossing the border, but not much further than that. Most of NATO has better stuff than Russia, but they don't have the capability to project power at all. Any non-US war would likely end up close to the current border, with neither side able to push more than 50 or so miles into the other.

[SmokingJoe]

“If the U.S. pays 2/3 of the bills for NATO, it means that the majority of the bill for the weapons purchases going to Ukraine is being paid by the U.S.”

Nope.
Grok:

The funding for new U.S. arms for Ukraine is primarily coming from European allies purchasing American weapons to transfer to Ukraine, as announced by President Donald Trump in July 2025. Countries such as Germany, Finland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Denmark are among those financing these purchases, with Germany specifically offering to fund two additional Patriot air defense systems and Norway one. This approach allows the U.S. to provide weapons, including Patriot systems and potentially Tomahawk missiles, without directly allocating new U.S. funds, as the Trump administration has been reluctant to approve new grant security assistance.

[adorno]

Take these US out of NATO, and they'd be just as useless as Russia at invading other countries.

NATO is a defense alliance, and it's not in the business of invading other countries. like Russia is.

Maybe a bit better at crossing the border, but not much further than that.

Why is crossing borders even a subject for discussion when it comes to a defense alliance. The EU allows border crossing without having to even mention NATO.

Most of NATO has better stuff than Russia,

Yay!!!

but they don't have the capability to project power at all.

NATO is a defense alliance, and th power it projects is about defense, and it's a power that Putin dares not go up against.

Any non-US war would likely end up close to the current border, with neither side able to push more than 50 or so miles into the other.

If Russia went up against the NATO countries, Russia would be toast; the big loser. The U.S. would not be needed in such a war at all.

Ukraine is doing a damn good job at holding the Russians in a stalemate, so imagine if NATO (without the U.S) was to join Ukraine against the Russians. It would be a cake-walk. Russia's only answer would be to deploy nukes, but then, they'd be completely wiped out by the NATO nukes.

[SmokingJoe]

“Pearl Harbor happened 13 months after the election, at which time we weren't at war.

Pearl Harbor happened 35 months before the wartime Presidential election, so it definitely shouldn't have had much effect on them”

So what?
It was still the WW II for America.
I don't recall Roosevelt calling for cancellation of elections because of the war.
Not to mention America spent a vastly bigger percentage of GDP and vastly more money on WW II than Ukraine has in this war;
Under Biden, hundreds of Billions of US tax payer dollars were handed over for free to Ukraine in arms/ammunition/cash, including America even paying the salaries of Ukraine civil servants.
Ukraine was making vastly more free money from America/Europe after the war started than they ever did before the war.
It took the tough President Trump to stop that nonsense and put the slimy, sleazy thief Zellenakyy in his place.

[SmokingJoe]

^NATO is a defense alliance, and it's not in the business of invading other countries. like Russia is.”

Now that's really funny.
Russia invaded Afghanistan, yes.
But NATO also invaded Afghanistan and stayed there much longer and installed a new government, albeit NATO disguised their invasion like it was just a US invasion.
It wasn't.

[SmokingJoe]

“If Russia went up against the NATO countries, Russia would be toast; the big loser. The U.S. would not be needed in such a war at all.”

Like in Yugoslavia and in Ukraine?
Please tell us, which big war has Europe fought and won in the last 100 years without massive American help?
Even the British war in the Falklands took huge US military support.
And I still remember the British/French invasion of Egypt in 1956, without American support, which was followed by a swift withdrawal when the US demanded they get the heck out.

[adorno]

The funding for new U.S. arms for Ukraine is primarily coming from European allies purchasing American weapons to transfer to Ukraine, as announced by President Donald Trump in July 2025.

That's the announcement, but it's deceptive.

Most contributions to NATO funding are from the U.S. If the U.S is the major contributor to NATO, it means that the U.S. is also paying for the new weapons, even if indirectly.

Countries such as Germany, Finland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Denmark are among those financing these purchases, with Germany specifically offering to fund two additional Patriot air defense systems and Norway one.

Still deceptive.

What's to stop a NATO country from redirecting some of its NATO contribution to their separate national defense budget, and then say that the money is being used to purchase the weapons for Ukraine? Is someoddy tracking how the money is allocated and spent or redistributed, in individual countries?

And, how will anyone be able to tell that NONE of the American NATO contribution was used to help pay for the Ukraine weapons?

This approach allows the U.S. to provide weapons, including Patriot systems and potentially Tomahawk missiles, without directly allocating new U.S. funds,

The approach is dubious. If U.S. funds cannot be tracked within NATO to insure that none of it goes towards the weapons for Ukraine, then it's a big farce. I have no problem at all with paying for the Ukraine weapons, but I have doubts that is strictly being paid for by the Europeans.

as the Trump administration has been reluctant to approve new grant security assistance.

That's another problem. There is no reason to be reluctant about assistance to Ukraine, since it's clear that Putin has a goal of completely taking over Ukraine.

[SmokingJoe]

“The Russians and Chinese, don't develop new technology. They copy American and European technology. The Chinese are the most prolific patent thieves in the world, with Russia a close second. What America has, they copy, even if they make them look slightly different to pretend it's their own tech. “

Joke post right?
So tell us, who were the first country to go to space?
Answer : Russia.
First country to send an animal to space?
Russia.
First country to send a human to space?
Russia.
First country to send a satellite to Space?
Russia.
Russia also sent a space craft to the moon long before America did.
And currently, both Russia and China have rovers on Mars, while Europe has none.
Back to China.....they have a rover on both the moon and on Mars.
Plus China by itself has their own Space Station, designed and built by them, with their rockets regularly sending their own astronauts to their own space station.
Now lets talk about cars...China currently makes more cars than Europe and America combined and are crushing Europe in the EV car making business.
China is making better cars and at lower prices than Europe.
In AI, China came out of nowhere with DeepSeek which essentially crushed any Ai chatbox that Europe has.
Now you wanna talk about consumer electronics which the Chinese dominate?

[adorno]

Please tell us, which big war has Europe fought and won in the last 100 years without massive American help?

When nations stupidly go into denial and avoid noticing the threats developing nearby, like Germany building up its military and invading its neighbor, then,YES, they will be caught off-guard and will be wanting assistance in the coming or current battle.

Europe was unprepared and in denial. That's not the same Europe of today, and NATO is a major deterrence which Putin dares not go up against. So, your historical reference has no value with how things are today. In fact, the Europe before WWII was changed into the Europe of today, because the Soviet Union CREATED NATO. (Hope you can interpret what that means). Even the British war in the Falklands took huge US military support.

Assistance does not mean that the UK would not have been able to end and win the war alone, eventually.

And I still remember the British/French invasion of Egypt in 1956, without American support, which was followed by a swift withdrawal when the US demanded they get the heck out.

Fine, but irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with the deterrence that NATO represents which is keeping Russia at bay. Russia would be toast if they went up against the NATO countries, even without the U.S.