Free Republic

BobL: "Is that what your AI is telling you?
Jeeze, you should check what your getting before posting."

The best numbers I can find say there were roughly 10,000 Patriot missile interceptors of all types in inventories worldwide.
Of those, perhaps 1/3 are the latest & greatest PAC-3s.

US production of PAC-3s is being ramped up from 350 in 2023 to nearly 1,000 per year in 2027.
Japan's production of PAC-3s is being ramped up from 30 to 60 per year.
German production of PAC-2 GEM-Ts is being ramped up to hundreds per year by 2027.

Total planned purchases of Patriot PAC-3 interceptors have recently increased from 3,376 interceptors to 13,773 -- that's where your 25% is coming from.

Ukraine's consumption, so far, of all Patriot interceptors is estimated at around 1,000 (maybe 1/3 being PAC-3s).
1,000 from the total global inventory of 10,000 is where my figure of 10% came from.

BTW, rough comparison of older PAC-2s to the latest PAC-3s: PAC-2s are 75%-90% as capable as PAC-3s, at 50% less cost.

Yes, of course, if you want to make a more alarming case, you can do it this way: In two years, Ukraine has consumed nearly 1,000 Patriot interceptors of all types, of which around 300 are the latest & greatest PAC-3s.
PAC-3s were produced: 350 in 2023, 500 in 2024, 650 in 2026, now 13,773 in total planned -- not including Japanese & German production.
So Ukraine's consumption in two years represents almost the entire US production in 2023.
Do you like that comparison better?

As for AI, don't get too excited about it, since it's basically google on steroids (meaning very fast) plus some logic thrown in.
Here are two AI responses to my questions which might interest you:

• "There’s no single quote that explicitly states “Ukraine has consumed 1,000 Patriot interceptors since 2023,” but several sources strongly support that inference through reported usage rates and delivery volumes:"

• "While no source explicitly states “3,500 PAC-3s in global inventory,” this number is supported by triangulating:"

So, obviously, we're talking about public guestimates of classified military numbers which, even if AI could find them, which it can't, it wouldn't tell us -- because then it would have to shoot us... 😉
I think the numbers here are realistic enough to tell the real story, which is -- be concerned, but don't panic.

BobL: "MEANINGLESS, if we were ready for a long ground war against a superpower, we would not have NEARLY the problems we have now, with Patriots at 25%"

US Patriot missile interceptors are at 25% today, not because Ukraine has depleted our inventories, but rather because, based on Ukraine war results, US required inventories of Patriot missiles have been quadrupled!
IOW, numbers of Patriots which were considered adequate in, say, 2020, are now considered only 25% of required.

The best estimates I can find (and also here) suggest that in the past three years, Ukraine has consumed about 10% of the global inventory of Patriot missile interceptors.
During that same period, the US has outproduced Ukrainian consumption of PAC-3 by roughly three to one.
At the same time, the US has increased our estimates of, and production orders for, future Patriot interceptors required by over four times.

BobL: "...and B2’s at 19."

Are you kidding?
In the mid-1990s, several of your hated "neocons" (i.e., Rumsfeld, Cheney, Scowcroft) wrote and publicly urged Pres. Clinton to increase B-2 production from 21 back to the originally planned 132.
But Slick William was determined to collect his "peace dividend" and so ignored the "neocons'" advice.

So, ultimately, did Poppy Bush and Slick make the right choices?
That's hard to say, but Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran was the ultimate expression of the B-2s' capabilities, and that mission required just seven B-2s each carrying two 30,000 lb. MOP bunker-busters.

In the meantime, those 19 remaining, very expensive 35-year-old B-2s are to be replaced by 145+ much more effective B-21s.

BobL: "Instead we would NOT have been running around the world, as you correctly state, wasting TRILLIONS, when we COULD have been stockpiling the weapons we would OBVIOUSLY need if we wanted to be able to fight Russia and China."

Sure, but Slick Willie, Barrak Hussein and Babbling Biden did not want "to be able to fight Russia and China"!
Slick even invited Putin to join NATO, not just as a Partner For Peace, but also as a full Article 5 member.
Slick also invited China into the WTO, so he was our ultimate 1960s Flower Child "make love not war" president.
As for Sonny Bush, he was too occupied with September 11, 2001 to think about wars against "very friendly" countries like Russia and China.

BobL: "As to Russia, I guess it’s possible that the Defense Planners had no idea that the Neocons were in the process of starting a war in Ukraine, but I kind of doubt that (particularly after they already started one in 2014).
More like they were a BUNCH OF IDIOTS."

All that kind of talk tells me that your brain is fried in Russian propaganda b*ll sh*t, and you can't think straight or even rationally.
All you can do is babble fact-free Russian nonsense.

So, you need to clear your brain of all that kind of cr*p, because it's totally false and useless to understanding things as they really are.

BobL: "By the way, nice AI!"

Btw, FYI, I have never posted directly from AI, though I do use it to help sift & sort through mountains of data that would otherwise take forever to pan out what I need.
Even so, a post like this still takes hours of research to compose.

So what you see here is just me, not AI.

quoting BJK: "Everything was calculated based on past experiences, and nothing was obvious until exposed by needs created when Putin invaded Ukraine."

BobL: "BS, it was TOTALLY KNOWN.
The Neocons ALWAYS knew that we couldn’t fight an extended ground war against a real military, the factories were mostly CLOSED, the manufacturing was mostly GONE, and little that remained took forever to do because it heavily RELIED ON CHINA and other countries.
The ‘problem’ was that they never considered a ground war as ‘credible’, that is until THEY STARTED ONE."

2012 War in Afghanistan:

All of that is pure fact-free nonsense.
First of all, after 1991 the US conducted many large and small military operations in and around:

1. Kuwait
2. Iraq (twice still there after 22+ years)
3. Yugoslavia successor countries
4. Haiti
5. Congo
6. Sierra Leone
7. Gabon
8. Kenya
9. Tanzania
10. Liberia
11. Sudan
12. Afghanistan (20 years war)
13. Yemen
14. Philippines
15. Georgia
16. Djibouti
17. Kenya
18. Ethiopia
19. Pakistan
20. Columbia
21. Libya
22. Somalia
23. Uganda
24. Jordan
25. Turkey
26. Chad
27. Mali
28. Syria (destroyed ISIS 2018)
29. Cameroon

Yes, most-all of these were humanitarian, anti-terror, evacuation and/or training missions.
The list includes many War on Terror operations and illustrates where US forces were employed for over 30 years.

So second, the US military did not fully prepare to, in your words, "fight an extended ground war against a real military" because there was no such "real military".

1994 Clinton & Yeltsin:

And third, the key point ***everyone*** forgets is that Russia was our friend, not our enemy, from 1991 until well into the 2000s.

1. In 1994 Russia joined NATO as a Partner for Peace, considered a steppingstone to full NATO membership.

2. In 1994 Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, guaranteeing Ukraine's security in exchange for Ukraine's nukes.

3. In 2000 Putin met with Pres. Clinton and NATO chief Robertson to discuss Russia becoming a full NATO member.
   Putin declined their invitations but maintained friendly relations.

4. From 1995 through 2013, Russia participated in NATO's annual military exercises.

5. During the 1990s, Russia contributed forces to NATO peace keeping missions in former Yugoslav countries.

   2000 Clinton & Putin:

   

6. Putin himself attended NATO summit meetings.

7. In 2002 Putin approved US Afghanistan resupply air bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
   In 2009, Putin approved the Northern Distribution Network which ran US military supplies from the Baltic through Russia to Northern Afghanistan.

8. In 2002, when Ukraine's Pres. Kuchma announced Ukraine's intention to seek full NATO membership, Putin was fine with it, saying:
   "Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to choose the path to ensure its own security.
   I don’t see anything unusual here in principle.
   Or something that would spoil the relations between… Or could possibly spoil relations between Russia and Ukraine."
   - Vladimir Putin at NATO Summit Meeting in Rome, Italy (May 28, 2002)"

Putin's 2002 words were not those of a Russia violently opposed to NATO expansion.
They are the words of someone who considered NATO his friend and ally.

Finally, all claims that the US somehow started, or caused, mad-Vlad's invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 are 100% fact-free Russian propaganda.
So why would any rational person repeat such nonsense?

BobL: "What is it about you BIDEN SUPPORTERS that makes you keep supporting his war-mongering policies?"

2023 Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency (IRA)
Troll Factory, St. Petersburg, Russia

You sound like an employee of the Russian state and successors to Yevgeny Prigozhin's IRA, so should not accuse long time Free Republic posters of being "BIDEN SUPPORTERS"
Why are you here repeating Russian propaganda, without reference to facts, logic or morality, inexplicably outside a deep commitment to mad-Vlad the Invader and/or Russkiy Mir ideologies?

Your views are not shared by Pres. Trump but do faithfully repeat mad-Vlad's crazy propaganda.

BobL: "Perhaps you guys really believed that idiotic book - “The End of History”?"

Not me, ever, but very many did and not all of those were Democrats like Pres. Slick Willie Clinton.
Indeed, even today we have many such as yourself who advocate the US should withdraw from the world and defend nothing outside our borders as vital to US national interests.
That would certainly be the "End of History" as we know it today.

BobL: "...and now he’s cleaned us out of weapons and showed the world that we have a TOTALLY HOLLOW military-industrial capability - something that was OBVIOUS to anyone who lived in California and saw military plant after military plant turn into shopping centers and golf courses."

Everything was calculated based on past experiences, and nothing was obvious until exposed by needs created when Putin invaded Ukraine.

You may remember that Pres. Slick Willie Clinton enjoyed a huge "peace dividend" in the 1990s -- by cutting our Defense Industrial Base in half and then living off "peace and prosperity" brought on by his Republican controlled Congress.

In 2001 the US began ramping up for war, but against terrorists, not near-pear state actors.
The result is now nearly 35 years after the Soviet Union's collapse, the US faces challenges for which we are less than fully prepared to respond.

Some of this was acknowledged years ago, with many $billions already spent to upgrade Navy shipyards, and other defense infrastructure, though not nearly enough.
So Pres. Trump increased defense spending from around $850 billion to now over $1 trillion/year -- still barely 3.4% of GDP.
Is it enough yet?
No, not by itself, but the Euros and our Asian allies are also ramping up to maybe 5% of GDP, and those will add another $1 trillion, which should provide plenty of international defense against the combined arms of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

Bottom line: the first job of national defense is deterrence and the second is to win whenever deterrence fails.
As the ancient Romans said, "if you want peace, prepare for war."

BobL: "So perhaps Biden’s Girls DARING Putin to invade Ukraine wasn’t so smart after all."

That kind of Putinista talk is just meaningless b*ll sh*t, to use Pres. Trump's descriptions of it.

delts7: "What we do know, there will be no NATO for St Z, Vlad has Crimea and much of his Russian Donbass, he will keep them….and there is not much more the West can do to change it."

No doubt, mad-Vlad will keep whatever his troops take for as long as they can hold it.
Ukrainian strategy in a war of attrition has been to trade about 6 square miles per day of territory for over 1,000 Russian casualties and over 100 Russian tanks & other weapons systems destroyed, along with daily destruction of Russia's manufacturing & transportation infrastructure.

Ukraine is over 200,000 square miles in total meaning, at 6 square miles per day lost, Ukraine will outlast Putin by far.

In the meantime, Pres. Trump has tasked the Euros to ramp up their defense production to 5% of their GDPs and to become Ukraine's major arms suppliers -- a task the Euros seem happy to take on.
So, at some point, European war production will vastly outmatch anything your Putinistas could ever hope for.

However, for Pres. Trump Ukraine is not his first concern, but falls behind several other more pressing international issues, including:

1. Restoring American military dominance & deterrence

2. Preventing nuclear war

3. Forcing Euros & other western allies to carry more of the military burden in Ukraine.

4. Restoring peace in the Middle East.

5. "Pivoting" to face CCP China and other threats in the Indo-Pacific

Regardless, for certain, Ukrainians will never surrender, ever.

That's why, from the beginning I've predicted: the outcome in Ukraine will be similar to the Korean War, now 75 years later -- a ceasefire and armistice that ended the fighting, but no peace treaty or official recognition of the war's outcome.

As a result, over the past 75 years North Korea has withered economically and in population, while South Korea has become an economic and even military powerhouse, with twice the North's population and perhaps 100 times the North's economy.

North Korea is what I expect to happen in Russia, over the long term.
So, who wins and who loses can depend on your perspective.

BobL: "Big deal - Biden’s Girls LECTURED Ukraine.
Meaningless."

Words like "meaningless" and "b*ll sh*t" apply to your boss, mad-Vlad the Invader Putin, according to Pres. Trump.

As for who lectured whom, what mattered was that when mad-Vlad invaded Ukraine, enough of Pres. Trump's Javelins & Stingers were available to Ukrainians to shut down Putin's advances, and soon after reverse them.

BobL: "(but nice AI you have!)"

If you are familiar with AI, you know it's 10 times faster than google, 100 times faster than digging through old reference books, but also far from 100% accurate or complete.
If you ask AI a simple question, you usually get a straightforward answer.
But if you ask a complicated question, the answers can often be confused & useless.

Also, AI will try to be "fair and balanced", but only up to a point, and will sometimes provide the answer you're looking for rather than a more balanced response.

To put it another way: AI responds a little like public opinion polls -- the answers you get often depend on how you ask the questions.

Dr. Franklin: "Tsar Paul was the first European head of state to recognize the independence of the U.S."

That's pure nonsense.
In fact, Tsar Paul was a babbling idiot who'd make Joe Biden look intelligent.
Paul took power in 1796, after 19 other countries had already recognized the USA.
Paul had no clue what he was doing and certainly no interest in recognizing the USA.

Paul's mother, Catherine the Great, was much different, but she refused to accept the US delegation to St. Petersburg in 1780, a delegation which had included the very young future US President, John Quincy Adams.

So Russia was not the first to recognize the US, it was the 24th, long after most of Europe and the world had already done so.
Here's the whole list:

1. 1777 Morocco Sultan Mohammed III offered protection and port access to U.S. ships—first formal recognition by a foreign power2
2. 1778 France Treaty of Amity and Commerce signed on Feb 6; France became the first major power to recognize the U.S.2
3. 1782 Netherlands Accepted John Adams as U.S. Minister; hosted the first American embassy in The Hague
4. 1783 Portugal Recognition followed by diplomatic relations in 1791
5. 1783 Spain Official recognition on Feb 20; had earlier informal correspondence acknowledging U.S. sovereignty2
6. 1783 Sweden Treaty of Amity and Commerce signed on April 32
7. 1783 Ragusa (Dubrovnik) De facto recognition; not a major power but notable for early acknowledgment
8. 1783 Venice Recognition in August; limited diplomatic engagement
9. 1783 Great Britain Treaty of Paris signed on Sept 3, formally ending the war and recognizing U.S. independence
10. 1784 Papal States Recognition via diplomatic correspondence
11. 1785 Prussia Treaty of Amity and Commerce signed on Sept 18
12. 1788 Mysore (India) Tipu Sultan’s embassy acknowledged by Thomas Jefferson
13. 1790 Hamburg Recognition via trade and consular relations
14. 1791 Genoa Diplomatic ties established
15. 1792 Denmark-Norway Commercial treaty signed on June 9
16. 1794 Bremen Recognition through trade agreements
17. 1794 Tuscany Recognition sometime between May 29 and Dec 7
18. 1795 Tunisia Treaty signed on March 28
19. 1795 Algeria Treaty signed on Sept 5
20. 1796 Naples Recognition via treaty on May 20
21. 1796 Tripolitania Treaty signed on Nov 4
22. 1797 Austria Month unspecified; recognition occurred during this year
23. 1802 Piedmont-Sardinia Recognition established; details limited
24. 1803 Russian Empire Tsar Alexander I formal recognition on Oct 28 by accepting Levett Harris as U.S. consul

Dr. Franklin: "Without the support of the French, the British would have ended the American rebellion in due course.
Americans owed the French for their independence, not the Russians."

True enough, but it wasn't only the French.
Spain and the Netherlands also provided significant aid in both military hardware and money.

Russian participation was indirect at best and focused on securing Russian interests, which coincidentally also supported US interests, by distracting British attention & forces away from America.

packrat35: "Ukraine is losing the war.
What part of that is not true?"

All of it.
Russia's rate of advance in 2025 averages to 6 square miles per day, out of Ukraine's 233,000 total square miles.

packrat35: "Ukraine is going to lose even more men and territory by still fighting."

Ukraine will never surrender, that's a fact.

By all reports, Russia continues to lose over 1,000 troop casualties and hundreds of weapons (tanks, artillery, trucks, etc.) per day, in addition to critical industrial & other infrastructure.

While Russian propaganda insists their economy is doing just fine, realities are not so rosy.
For one example, in 2019 average Russians spent about 1/4 of their wages on food.
Today they spend well over 1/3 on food.

For comparisons -- Poles spend 25% on food, Germans spend 12% and Americans spend 5% of incomes on food at home.

popdonnelly: "It’s not a “Neocon” war.
It’s a war against Putin the aggressor.”

BobL: "I like to give credit where it’s due.
The Neocons DARED Putin to attack (by not even talking to him in the months leading to the war), so Putin took their dare..."

As always with Russian propaganda, that's a total lie.
The truth is there were many communications and direct meetings, including with Putin himself, prior to Russia's February 24, 2022 invasions of Ukraine.
Here is a partial listing:

1. December 2021
   • Dec 7: U.S. President Joe Biden held a video call with Putin to warn against invading Ukraine and promised severe consequences if Russia proceeded.

   • Dec 15: Russia submitted its security demands to the U.S. and NATO, including a ban on NATO expansion and military activity in Eastern Europe.

   • Dec 21: Putin spoke at Russia’s Defense Ministry board meeting, blaming the West for tensions and reiterating demands for NATO guarantees.

2. January 2022
   • Jan 10–13: U.S. and Russian officials met in Geneva, followed by NATO-Russia Council talks in Brussels, and OSCE discussions in Vienna.
     These were multilateral diplomatic efforts to address Russia’s demands.

   • Jan 18: German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock visited Moscow and met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov -- part of broader efforts to address Russia’s demands and concerns.

   • Jan 26: The U.S. and NATO formally rejected Russia’s core demands, including the veto on NATO expansion.

   • Late January: Italian PM Mario Draghi spoke with Putin by phone in late January and again in February, urging dialogue.

   February 7, 2022 France's Macron met Putin in Moscow:

   

3. February 2022
   • February 1: Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán met Putin in Moscow, discussing energy and security issues.
     Orbán later claimed the meeting helped delay the invasion.

   • Feb 2: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke with Putin by phone, emphasizing NATO’s defensive nature and warning of economic sanctions.

   • Early February: Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer also spoke with Putin.

   • Feb 7: French President Emmanuel Macron met Putin in Moscow for over five hours.
     Macron proposed security guarantees and urged de-escalation.
     Putin said some of Macron’s ideas could be a basis for future steps.

   • Feb 8: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Biden and later with Putin by phone, expressing concern and calling for de-escalation.

   • Feb 12: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by phone.

   • Feb 12: Biden and Putin spoke by phone again, with Biden reiterating that the U.S. would not accept Russia’s core demands but remained open to arms control talks.

     February 15, 2022 Germany's Olaf met Putin in Moscow:

     

   • Feb 15: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz met Putin in Moscow, where they discussed NATO expansion and Russia’s draft treaties.
     Scholz emphasized diplomacy and warned of severe consequences if Russia invaded Ukraine.

   • Feb 20: Macron and Putin had another phone call, discussing the situation in Donbas and potential diplomatic solutions.

   • Feb 21: Scholz spoke with Putin by phone, urging de-escalation and reaffirming Germany’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty

   • Feb 21: Putin held a dramatic televised meeting with his Security Council and then recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, widely seen as a prelude to invasion.

4. Further:
   • Macron spoke with Putin 11 times in the month leading up to the invasion, often acting as a mediator and sharing updates with other Western leaders.

   • Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also made a surprise visit to Moscow in early March 2022, shortly after the invasion began, attempting to mediate.

   • Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić later claimed that at least two Western leaders had secretly negotiated with Putin before the invasion, though he didn’t name them.

Putin's December 15, 2021 ultimatums to NATO and the US included eight demands:

1. 🚫 No NATO expansion, especially to Ukraine or other former Soviet states
2. 🛑 No deployment of NATO forces or weapons in countries that joined after May 1997
3. 🚀 Ban on intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other side’s territory
4. 🧭 No NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia
5. 📞 Revive consultative mechanisms, like the NATO–Russia Council and establish a hotline
6. ⚖️ Both sides must not take security measures that undermine the other’s core interests
7. ✈️ Limit operations of heavy bombers and surface warships near each other’s territory
8. ☢️ Nuclear weapons must be deployed only on national territory

Putin's demands were to be enforced through:

• “Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of NATO” and
• “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees”

July 8, 2025: Pres. Trump commenting at cabinet meeting:

" 'We get a lot of bullshit from Putin.
It's very nice most of the time but meaningless,' Trump said in perhaps his most critical comments of the Kremlin leader since launching peace talks efforts in February.

Trump's comments come a day after he said he would release some weapons designated for Ukraine following blowback from lawmakers in Congress, including members of his own party, about a halt in military aid.

'We are sending defensive weapons to Ukraine because Putin is not treating human beings right,' Trump said.
'We will step up our weapons contractors to work way faster.
They are very good but they are slow.
We need them faster, unfortunately.' "

packrat35: "When you lose large parts of your country, you lost the war.
Ukraine is losing the war."

If you live to fight another day, then you lost a battle, not a war.

For six years the US was losing our Revolutionary War against King George, until we finally won it, in 1781 at Yorktown.

So, it ain't over until its over.

packrat35: "Even Finland knows they lost that war.
They did keep USSR from taking the whole country, but they lost the war."

There is plenty of evidence suggesting Stalin intended to conquer all of Finland -- here, here, here, & here -- and Soviets lost that war.
Just as Putin lost the war he launched in 2022 but will claim "victory" over 20% of it, so Stalin's propagandists claimed "victory" over 11% of Finland.

In reality, anytime a smaller country stands up against, and beats back, Russian aggression, it's a victory for everything that's good a decent, a defeat for Russkiy Mir's evil designs.

That's why:

1. Many Finns see the 1939 Winter War as a moral and symbolic victory.
   Despite overwhelming odds, Finland retained its independence and democratic system in their triumph over Soviet aggression.

2. War fostered strong Finnish unity — known as the “Spirit of the Winter War” — where all citizens rallied together to defend their homeland.
   In that sense, war made Finns Finns.

3. Global press at the time touted Finland’s resistance, and portrayed the country as a noble underdog.
   Such external validation reinforced Finnish pride in their military effectiveness and eased the bitterness of territorial concessions.

4. Finally, as mentioned before, the Winter War convinced Germany's aggressive dictator that the Soviets were weak:
   "You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."

packrat35: "However, the USSR poor showing led Germany to invade and take over large parts of the USSR till they regrouped and helped destroy Nazi Germany."

In that sense, the 1939 Winter War was anything but a clear-cut Soviet victory.

PIF: "Never was on the table - it was all bluster from the Drunk Medvedev - Putin knows full well that any use of a nuke will rapidly escalate into full scale nuclear war, wherein he and his will most certainly perish.
So no credit in that direction - more assumptions that were never real possibilities."

You assume Putin is a rational actor, not a crazed lunatic.
And yet you've also confirmed that he is anything but rational:

PIF: "Working a peace deal between Russia & Ukraine - never happen.
Putin, like Russia, arbors peace.
There are no riches or power to be gained that are worth having without conquest"

Given a choice between loss in war, loss of government and loss of his own life, on the one hand, and a nuclear strike on the other, which will Putin chose?

Are you 100% certain?

Putin's Dmitry "Mini-me" Medvedev showing
map of Russia's goals in Ukraine as of 2024:

PIF: "No one knows how long a particular person will remain in power.
But everyone knows the person will be replaced at some point.
Deng and those who followed changed Mao’s policies, while Xi tried to replace Mao, others grew discontented.
Which is where China is now - with dozens of Xi’s generals and supporters gone.
Which means Xi is gone from power too."

I've seen nothing to suggest that a change in power in Beijing will affect China's strategic goals & aspirations regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Tactical battlefield nukes:

PIF: "47 also said that after being elected he’d end the war in a few days. 6 months later ..."

Good point.

It appears to me that what Pres. Trump did end "within 24 hours" was the likelihood of Putin's Ukraine invasions escalating into nuclear exchanges.

I think Trump is most reluctant to deal with Putin's threats of nuclear war or Putin's willingness to reestablish "escalation dominance" over Trump.

So, Trump has tried to keep nuclear war off the table -- either as a bargaining chip or as a battlefield reality.
I also suspect, at some point Putin **will** turn to nukes, because that's all he's got left, and Trump's tactics are to delay that time as long as possible.
And, in the meantime, Trump is working every other angle, especially the Euros.

Strategic city-killer nukes:

PIF: "Working a peace deal between Russia & Ukraine - never happen.
Putin, like Russia, arbors peace.
There are no riches or power to be gained that are worth having without conquest"

***

I reject the idea that Pres. Trump is blind to reality and can't see Putin's evil intentions.
From the beginning, Trump opposed Putin's moves into Ukraine and worked to prevent further expansion of Putin's ambitions.
Trump has always said Putin's 2022 invasions would not have happened if he, Trump, had been reelected in 2020.
It's a hugely important point because many who now support Ukraine against Russia also supported Biden against Trump in 2020.

Trump has tried now for over five months, in all good faith, to negotiate a peace deal with Putin, and it hasn't worked.
Most recently, Trump expressed his frustrations:

1. July 3, aboard Air Force One: "We had a call.
   It was a pretty long call.
   We talked about a lot of things, including Iran, and we also talked about, as you know, the war with Ukraine.
   And I'm not happy about that, I'm not happy."

2. July 3, aboard Air Force One: “No, I didn’t make any progress with him today at all.”

3. July 4, aboard Air Force One: “Putin understands U.S. sanctions may be coming…
   I’m not happy with how he’s acting.
   He wants to keep going, keep fighting.
   He thinks he can take it all.”

4. July 4, aboard Air Force One: “He just wants to go all the way and just keep killing people.
   It’s no good.
   I wasn’t happy with it.”

5. Previously on March 25, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee warning of Russia's “unabated pursuit of war aims” and the “strategic risk of underestimating Putin’s resolve”.

6. Also on March 25, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Senate Intelligence Hearing: "Russia remains the most capable and most determined adversary in the European theater.
   Putin’s strategic intent has not changed—he seeks to fracture NATO and redraw borders.”

7. Same hearing, DNI Gabbard: “We are not blind to the risks.
   Russia’s hybrid warfare, disinformation, and energy leverage remain potent tools.
   Any peace must be durable and verifiable.”
   Gabbard also noted that “Putin’s ambitions go beyond Ukraine,” and warned that “a frozen conflict is not a solution”

8. June 2025, Munich Security Conference, Sec. Rubio: “Russia is not just a military threat—it’s a strategic disruptor.
   We must be clear-eyed about what Putin wants and what he’s willing to do to get it.”

So any suggestions that the Trump administration is blinded or limited by rosy scenarios are simply not the case.

PIF: "European aid is fine but they are not geared to making armaments and by the time they are, Russia could well overrun Ukraine."

Maybe, but in the past, Ukraine's military efforts were supported roughly:

1. 1/3 from Ukraine's own military production
2. 1/3 from American military production
3. 1/3 from all others including Euros, other Western allies and NGOs.

This seems to have already changed to roughly 50% each from Ukraine's own production and from all others, with US contributions dropping to nearly zero.

The Euros, especially, have mostly reached their 2% of GDP pledge during the Trump 45 administration, and have now pledged to reach 5% in coming years -- a pledge which, if kept, will put Euro defense spending 50% ahead of US spending at now ~3.3% of GDP.

In the meantime, while US aid to Ukraine has dropped to a mere trickle, Europeans and other western allies have pledged over $300 billion, of which nearly $200 billion was delivered and over $100 billion remains in their pipelines for future deliveries.

Yes, it may be true that US Patriots are the best of the best anti-missile systems, but there are other systems that can take out all but the most capable ballistic missiles.
These include Ukrainian and European systems against aircraft, cruise missiles and "drone swarms".
Point is, while US weapons are still the world's best, plenty of other allies make weapons which are a close second-best, still much better than Russian weapons and potentially much cheaper than US weapons.

Will they be good enough and enough in quantity?
Nobody knows today.

PIF: "China is in turmoil now - there is a huge battle going on between groups for control, now that Xi Jinping has been “displaced”.
The CMC is on top now, but who know who will survive the purges, investigations, arrests, and disappearances to come out on top."

In recent months I've seen lots of YouTube videos claiming, as you say, that China is a mess economically and politically.
There's no way to tell how true any of those stories are, and even if true China, like Russia, is a highly controlled authoritarian society built precisely to withstand and suppress any such shocks to its systems.

I've seen no reports -- zero, zip, nada reports -- suggesting that CCP China's communist leaders will suddenly become peace-loving Jeffersonian democrats, or that any of them have given up on their goals of Taiwan's military conquest.

PIF: "There are reports that the pipe;line never stopped - except for the munitions Ukraine needs most and can only get from the US like: Patriot and Hellfire missiles."

There are no public reports detailing either the weapons, the amounts or the dollar values of US aid to Ukraine since January 20, 2025 -- at least not that I can find.

*** I'm out of time now, so can't take the time to link those quotes to their sources.
If that bothers anybody, let me know which ones you don't believe me on and I'll link their sources for you...

PIF: "47 readies another very harsh slap on the wrist for Putin, his friend who is just not behaving as he’s supposed to act."

My understanding of Pres. Trump's priorities here are:

1. Preventing nuclear war

2. Working a peace deal between Russia & Ukraine

3. Forcing Europeans & other Western allies to provide Ukraine with more aid

4. Pivoting US military posture more towards dealing with China in the Indo-Pacific.

I can find no confirmed reports of any additional US aid delivered to Ukraine since January 20, 2025.
I have seen where there are just a few $billion left "in the pipeline", but even that, when delivered, is just a drop in the bucket compared to previous amounts.

So I'm not saying my understanding is necessarily correct, only that I've seen no reports to contradict it.

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.