How will he do it?

How will he do it?

Trump will use SCIENCE to end the special operations, oh yeah and clean energy and abortion.

Is that the right answer? did I win?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: tanstaafl

OK, let me rephrase it. Are there NATO boots on the ground?

Officially? Or unofficially?

a reply to: tanstaafl

NATO is already at war with Russia, even the German chancellor seems to think so and stated that is the harsh reality.

It's really a shame the EU can't handle the antiquated Russian horseback mounted cavalry on their own.

USA; we're busy right now cycling troops to Australia's top end.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You tell me?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
...tell them something along the lines of:

"Our benefactors who have made a nice profit out of Ukraine can now move their cooperative war business to a new area. Let's keep up the charade of being on opposite sides as we pin one side against the other, that always works well."

Anyway, the reality is that it'll probably be milked as long as they can find people to serve as soldiers for a fraction of the profits that these benefactors* are making.

*: Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

They exist in every country, but are more powerful in those countries with a large military industrial complex (or military).

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: xpert11

The question posed in the OP was "How do you think he'll do it? "

The answer would lie in a Munich-style agreement ignoring Ukraine and the geopolitical/strategic realities and consequences.

a reply to: xpert11

Putting an end to the 1000+ casualties Ukraine suffers daily and starting the process of rebuilding its infrastructure while at the same time averting the threat of nuclear war does not amount to ignoring Ukraine.

There is no other way forward that includes the abovementioned conditions.

a reply to: whereislogic

Pretty much, yeah.


Except the real profit is still to be extracted by the likes of Blackrock when they begin to rebuild Ukraine according to the vision of a Klaus Schwab dystopia.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Increasing the level of support to ensure the destruction of Russian forces in Ukraine would end the war sooner. However, reconstruction in Ukraine is another topic and more complicated than winning the war. Handing Ukraine over to Russia so the threat of a nuclear exchange is averted remains a foolish notion. Giving into the schoolyard bully enables further bullying, and that kid as an adult is a monster. So giving Russia a broken nose in Ukraine is the only sensible goal.

Subject to the circumstances, the war in Ukraine might end without a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. But a Korean-style armistice might occur, but that relies on Russia's defeat or withdrawal from Ukraine.

a reply to: xpert11

Too late for all that, there was a 2 weeks, maybe a month window at the start of the conflict.

The goal here is to stop the killing...

Ukraine is going to gimp, they're losing territory no matter what agreement is now reached.

Trump said he would stop world war 3 NOT the war in Ukraine. as much as they seem the same they are not. If things escalate then the war in Ukraine will become ww3 but for now it’s just another regional conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq but with harsher rhetoric and higher stakes.

I believe anyone could bring us back from the brink of ww3 within 24 hours simply by stopping the support for Ukraine and setting up peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and nato representatives. All we see from nato countries is talk of supplying the Ukrainian army and denouncement of putin and Russia as the bad guys as soon as this rhetoric stops and we see a meaningful push for peace talks then the prospect of ww3 will be forgotten.

a reply to: xpert11

You're not looking at the bigger picture which is that Russia wholeheartedly believes that NATO has pushed them into a corner and forced their hand.

Whether you disagree with that notion or not is irrelevant.

Increasing the level of support to ensure the destruction of Russian forces in Ukraine would end the war sooner.

Oh you can count on that ending the war a lot sooner.


You don't realize the reality of the situation which is that Russia firmly believes that globalism as pushed by NATO will spell the end of its sovereignty and ultimately the country as a whole.

Again, I don't care whether you disagree with that view, for them it is very real.

It's naive to think they won't deploy nukes which guarantees mutually assured destruction as opposed to them being steamrollered by the globalists elites and simply bending over and taking it.

originally posted by: 19Bones79

You're not looking at the bigger picture which is that Russia wholeheartedly believes that NATO has pushed them into a corner and forced their hand.

The conscripts who attempted to or left Russia to avoid fighting in Ukraine don't think their country faces an existential threat. But paranoia is a part of the Russian cultural landscape and assists Putin's domestic standing.

You don't realize the reality of the situation which is that Russia firmly believes that globalism as pushed by NATO will spell the end of its sovereignty and ultimately the country as a whole.

I am putting aside the issue of defining globalism. Putin's mad ideology is akin to Hitler and Nazism so Russia might ride the roller coaster of self-inflicted ruin.

It's naive to think they won't deploy nukes which guarantees mutually assured destruction as opposed to them being steamrollered by the globalists elites and simply bending over and taking it.

I never claimed Putin wouldn't employ nuclear weapons, but where that occurs is another matter. Moreover, I estimate there is a 60/40 chance Russia will use nukes in Ukraine or elsewhere.

Also, the notion of any country or person overrunning Russia belongs in an episode of South Park.

a reply to: xpert11

The conscripts who attempted to or left Russia to avoid fighting in Ukraine don't think their country faces an existential threat.

This is irrelevant. They don't get to push the shiny red button.

But paranoia is a part of the Russian cultural landscape and assists Putin's domestic standing.

Your feelings on the matter is also irrelevant.

Red button gets pushed. Things go boom.

I am putting aside the issue of defining globalism.

Loss of sovereignty. One world government. World economic forum's vision of the future. The same countries that make up NATO supports this idea.

These people kept expanding by taking more countries into the fold under the umbrella of NATO.

They have been moving closer to Russia.

Your view as to why is irrelevant in the eyes of the people who feel threatened by it.

These same people have a big, red button.

They intend to push it.

Putin's mad ideology is akin to Hitler and Nazism so Russia might ride the roller coaster of self-inflicted ruin.

If you can compare Putin's ideology to that of Hitler I would think you'd have the sense to follow that thought through to its logical conclusion that the same people who went after Hitler at all costs will do the same with Putin.

This negates the paranoia you have attached to your point of view earlier.

If you can compare Putin to Hitler then it's logical to assume Putin feels him and his country will get the same treatment.

Things go boom.

I never claimed Putin wouldn't employ nuclear weapons, but where that occurs is another matter.

Let's look at your next statement as it gives us some insight into your reasoning.

Moreover, I estimate there is a 60/40 chance Russia will use nukes in Ukraine or elsewhere.

You believe nuclear is more likely than not.

Now the question becomes:

Who is crazier, the one pushing towards nuclear war or the person inititiating nuclear war as was the expected outcome?

Also, the notion of any country or person overrunning Russia belongs in an episode of South Park.

Is this because you envision actual boots on the ground and have not kept up with the advancements in modern warfare since the 1940s?

Just like Kyle who always thinks he's got the answer to everything.