Had this sort of attack been allowed since the early days of the war, there is a good chance the conflict would have concluded by now. The insanity of allowing Russia to use weapons made from US components to strike deep inside Ukraine while forbidding Ukraine to use American-made weapons to strike military targets supporting Russia's invasion did nothing to prevent escalation and simply ran up the body count on both sides. Even as late as it has started, it increases the chances of President Trump bringing this war to a close in a way that does not resemble the Afghanistan fiasco and further damage US credibility. //

DaleS anon-isiz
6 hours ago
Tell us how the life of Americans was affected by Italy's conquest of Abyssinia in 1935. It wasn't, really, was it. If the outraged nations had stuck together and forced an ignominious withdrawal, it would've cost some money, perhaps even some blood -- not from us of course, as we limited ourselves to mere words. But as it was, all it was some remote Ethiopians losing their lives and their freedom. Hardly worth worrying about for a freedom-loving patriot, don't you think?

But it didn't end there -- not because Italy started WW2, but because every other aggressive nation on the planet saw clearly that the West was weak, and victories could be won cheaply and with little interference. It is in the interest of the United States, and every other non-expansionist country in the world, for wars of conquest to fail, and the quicker they fail, the better. Millions died worldwide, and hundreds of thousands of our own soldiers were killed. All in a war that never should have happened.

If the West turns away and Russia prevails, aggressor nations will be doing the risk/reward calculations for their own shopping list.

It's also worth remembering that Ukraine is only in this mess because our President convinced them good relations with the US was more important than keeping a nuclear deterrent. If Britain and the United States had been willing to guarantee Ukraine's boundaries back then, there would be no war in Ukraine. //

Carey J anon-isiz
11 hours ago
Today, it's give me Kyiv or I nuke the world. Tomorrow it's give me Warsaw, or I nuke the world, Next week, it's give me Berlin or I nuke the world. You don't stop aggression by throwing its victims under the bus. You stop aggression by making it clear that the aggressor will die, if he persists. In this case, you make it clear that Vlad, personally will die, in the first hour, that the Russian-majority regions of Russia will be devastated, and that Kadyrov's Chechen Orcs will rape their way through the radioactive ruins of Moscow and St. Petersburg, if he goes nuclear. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the nukes in the silos, in the First Cold War. I see no reason it won't work, in this one.

We supported MUCH worse bästards than Zelenskyy, during the Cold War. Syngman Rhee, Ngo Dinh Diem (before we assassinated him), Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein (before we deposed him) Shah Reza Pahlavi (before we dumped him, and ended up with Khomeini). The enemy of my enemy is my friend (or at least my ally). "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke. //

Carey J Froge
7 hours ago
I'm not prepared to bet NYC that they don't. But I don't think Vlad the Defenestrator is willing to bet Moscow and St. Petersburg that they do.