US Congressman Says Holding Current Territory Best Outcome for Ukraine

US House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith said that holding on to the territory currently under the control of the regime in Kiev is the best outcome for Ukraine, given the realities of its conflict with Russia.

Ukraine must hold on to approximately 82% of its territory, including access to the Black Sea, in order to consider the outcome of the conflict a success, Smith said, according to a Foreign Policy report released on Thursday.

The Biden administration has avoided making such a statement because it does not want to admit that Ukraine might have to relinquish territory to Russia, Smith said.

I think where you’re coming up short is in thinking that the Russia-haters here want what’s best for the US. CLEARLY that’s not the case, or they would DEMAND that we be allied with both Europe AND Russia as anyone with a SOLID military background, such as myself, realizes that today, in 2024, we simply CANNOT take on both Russia and China at the same time (and quite possibly separately) and that we really need to at least keep China in check.

Yet they continue to push for wars against countries that are at least equal, if not far superior to us, at least in their own backyards. So what does that say about these America-Haters???

They don’t realize how far, relative to other countries, the US has fallen. They still think that the US is the big kahuna, but it’s no longer. It might have been, if the politicians hadn’t run up the debt. But the debt is going to constrict the US in anything it does.

The job should be to constrict Russia, without a war. That was possible before Russia invaded Ukraine, because Russia indicated a willingness to talk about its objectives and how to accomodate its concerns.

With China, it’s at risk of running into a similar end as the Soviet Union, because the CCP don’t have the backing of the people as it once did. At least as I understand it. It’s gambling on winning before that point and it’s using subterfuge to try and bring down the US.

“It might have been”

“might” is the operative word. I’m not all that sure that we were EVER king-of-hill as the America-haters (Zeepers) seem to claim. After all, as the America-haters knew, FULL WELL, that the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union NEVER went away with their fall of the country (in ~1990) and that the US NEVER had the capability to intercept or otherwise destroy these weapons (and still does not). So, at best, it ended as a draw. But Europe did benefit as they were no longer on the front lines...but then Europe, I guess, likes getting into horrific wars, so they tossed that away also.

As far as ‘constricting Russia’ - Russia certainly did tolerate a boatload, starting with enlargement of NATO (in exchange for being somewhat accepted by Europe), but even Gorby had said that Ukraine was a red line...and now the America-haters have found that, once again, Russia WAS NOT lying.

China is a tricky one, and it’s next to impossible to understand the public mood there. I do know up until about 5 years ago, the Chinese were satisfied with the informal ‘deal’ made by their government, which was no political freedom in exchange for outstanding economic growth. Now it’s worse there, economic growth, while strong, is far less than the past, while lack of political freedom has degraded into political oppression (almost as bad as what the America-haters are putting Trump through). Whether are not that means the end to China’s Communist government is very debatable, as it is normally VERY DIFFICULT to throw off Communists...so we’ll see.

“Do we know for sure that Niger will allow the US to remove the troops on our say so? Or is it Niger’s say so?? Are they being held these as hostages?? The WH and State Department lie so much, and are so good at it, it leaves one confused.”

Niger knows that while our GPS-guided munitions (who was the ‘genius’ that came up with that idea, by the way) are no match for Russian defenses (and likely Chinese defenses), they still work quite well in Africa, so I suspect that Niger would be VERY HAPPY to see us leave peacefully, although I doubt they’re counting on that, given the Neocon infestation of the US government (and FR, by the way).

Status Quo ANte is where we be.

No oinvasion of Russia.

Believe me, Russia is worn out.

NATO is now in this fight.

We just negotiate with Putin.

Use your nules Pooty, and Ruissia will be aglow for a thousand years. Go back within your borders and STFU.

And THAT we must do.

https://tuckercarlson.com/the-tucker-carlson.../... Dugin [00:17:13] I think that, first of all, Putin is a traditional leader. So Putin, when he came to power from the very beginning, he started to extract our country, the Russia, from the global influence. So he started to contradict the global progressive agenda. And these people who supported the Soviet Union, there were progressives and there are now progressives. So they have felt that now they were dealing with someone who doesn’t share these progressives agenda and who tried with success to restore traditional values, sovereignty of the state, Christianity, traditional family. That wasn’t evident from the beginning, from outside. But when Putin insisted more and more on this traditional agenda, I would say, on the particularity and spirituality of the Russian civilization as some special type of world region that had and has now, of very little similarities with the progressives, the progressive ideals. So I think that they have discovered, they have identified, in Putin, precisely what Putin is. So he is a kind of leader, political leader defending traditional values. So only recently, one year ago, Putin has made a decree of the political defense of traditional values. That was a turning point, I would say. But, observers from the progressive camp in the West, I think they have understood that from the beginning of his rule correctly. So, this hatred is not just casual, something casual or some mood. It is not.
Tucker [00:19:30] It’s not casual. It’s very serious.
Aleksandr Dugin [00:19:32] It’s metaphysical. So if you, if your main task and main goal is to destroy traditional values, traditional family, traditional states, traditional relations, traditional beliefs and someone with the nuclear weapon - that is not smallest, the last but not least, argument - someone with a nuclear weapon to stand strong defending traditional values you are going to abolish. I think they have some basis for this Russiaphobia and the hatred for Putin. So, it is not just by the chance. It is not some irrational change from Soviet affinity to Russiaphobia. It’s something deeper I would say. That’s my guess.
Tucker [00:20:27] It’s clearly something, it’s clearly something deeper. We felt it was important for your ideas to get an airing in English in the United States, simply because we believe in the open airing of ideas. I guess we’re liberals that way. So we’re grateful that you took the time, Mr. Dugin. Thanks.
The Tucker Carlson Encounter: Aleksandr Dugin....https://tuckercarlson.com/the-tucker-carlson.../...

I agree that Putin has a motivation whichi coincides with Western conservative culture.

BUt the poroblem is that he invaded a sovereign nation. Now he must be made to go to status quo ante.

Itwill be that way nowm or it will be nuclear war. Thats a war Putin cannot win. Russia will be destroyed alomng with much of Europe.But thts what will happen if this continues.

So we call Putins bluff.And if he contunues to escalate , so must the West.I predicted this scenario several years ago, and now here we are.

Putin has to accept that he must live within a larger Europe.The dominant days of the Russian Empire are over, and Putin needs to dedicate his nation to economy.So far Putin has lowered the stadard of living for Russians....a fact not unoticed even in Moscow.Putin is growing less popular these days.

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.