AJ — Its fairly common knowledge that the US and NATO in general are sending expiring ammo, shells, weapons systems to the Ukraine. In some cases, its actually cheaper to send them to Ukraine than to decommission the weapons. The Forbes article from your Google reference yesterday mentioned older Patriot systems that Israel no longer wanted and the US didn’t want to take back. Another example, the ATACMS missiles were to expire this year and thus were sent to Ukraine. The US had spent 30 million in 2015 to modernize them. Now, they sent them to Ukraine and purchased newer systems for themselves. In most cases, NATO is sending expiring equipment and then purchasing new equipment for their own military — this will modernise their armed forces and meet their 2% requirement.
The Ukraine-Russian war is burning through more shells and ammo than major arms exporting countries can supply. Russia has emptied their own storage and is using Korean and Iranian ammo and shells that are shoddily made, old, and not an exact fit. On the other side, Ukraine is chronically short and is limiting use to mostly defence now. Warehouses everywhere are being emptied and shipped to Ukraine — cheaper to blow them up there than to decommission them safely.
The Ukraine war is a repeat of WWI — heavy shell use and then a creeping infantry assault under the cover of shell use. I used to follow updates almost daily and now find I can tune in once a month — the Russians advance on average less than a kilometre a day. Russian casualties are at least 1.5 million with 300 000 killed, which is absolutely insane in the modern era. On the defence, Ukraine has about 1 million casualties with 100 000 killed. In both cases, the numbers are probably the low end due to underreporting.
Nobody is denying there is violence in Nigeria that is approaching civil war — some are religious based, some are tribal/linguistic based, and some is over oil wealth. However, its not the same as Gaza — in that case you have a recognised gov’t deliberately executing a plan of ethnic cleansing. In Nigeria, the gov’t has limited ability to stop terrorist groups, war lords and mob violence.
Interestingly Trump has advocated for intervention in both Venezuela and Nigeria — both have significant oil fields. And in both cases, his rationale doesn’t make sense. There is no fentayl in Venezuela — that’s a Chinese-Mexican export and the back up excuse — cocaine – is a Colombian issue. And in Nigeria there is no planned gov’t backed genocide — just signs of a weak gov’t.
Interesting — America First was supposed to be about isolationism and taking care of things at home — but the foreign policy seems to be a repeat of Bush’s neo-con adventures. Is Dick Cheney coming out of retirement? Is Marco Rubio bringing back Latin American adventurism?
Seriously land of isolationism? Everyone wants a piece of the US at our expense and to desire boundaries like other countries(including Canada!) that makes us isolationist? Interesting but wrong!
Wow – did not expect that response. I was thinking in terms of isolationism as opposed to intervention. Isolationism is a policy choice not something that is inherently wrong or bad. My impression from reading comments here and elsewhere is that Trump supporters were tired of interventionist policies resulting in foreign wars. Iraq of course being the prime example but even support of Ukraine and Israel as an issue. Trump was viewed as different from the Bush era Republicans who were interventionist abroad. Any actions in Venezuela or Nigeria would be interventionist and neo-conservative, and of course would bring back memories of Iraq and war for oil. Curious — if you buy the need to put boots on the ground to protect Nigerian Christians would you apply the same logic to protect Palestinian Christians?
Trade policies are neither interventionist nor isolationists. Now Trump has broken many previous trade deals and broke from tradition Reagan era Republican free trade policies but this is just a different policy. One could argue that tariffs promote an isolationists agenda but that’s a bit of a stretch. Trump’s trade agenda is not an activist agenda just different and change of pace from the standard free trade of the last 40-50 years. As I’ve stated before I’m neither here nor there on tariffs; applied correctly they make more sense than free trade. I just don’t think the current across the board tariffs make sense — who taxes bananas, when you don’t grow it, for example
Finally, border security is also not necessarily isolationist, in fact you have to work with your neighbours to secure the border. This isn’t an issue of isolation or intervention, just security. For the most part, it’s necessary but I’d argue border security is not the policy Trump is enforcing with ICE. Looking at the numbers, in 2024, about 775 000 people were deported. So far this year, the number is 110 000. I wonder if there is statistical lag but for all the imagery it appears not much is happening.
Actually it’s a misnomer for most working class communities in the developed world. Most “free” trade agreements contained clauses which gave corporations certain rights and privileges. For example; free movement of capital without impediment from government. In addition many of these agreements contained the creation of extra-territoriality tribunals which corporations could sue national governments. Despite rights granted to corporations, worker’s organisations like unions were left out. Corporations were free to move capital and workers lost any bargaining ability.
Trump’s tariff policies will not change this structural issue. Paleo-conservatives want to bring back manufacturing but they don’t want to bring back unions and workers’ rights.
Wandering Views 
Correct!
https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/1985341654094815422?t=1m81levwg2QIktTtqaSDXQ&s=19
“Trump is right about Nigeria and the genocide against Christians.
It’s not hypothetical. It’s not based on the word of terrorist groups. It’s happening.
And that none of the people who pushed the genocide lie about Gaza care gives the game completely away.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
AJ — Its fairly common knowledge that the US and NATO in general are sending expiring ammo, shells, weapons systems to the Ukraine. In some cases, its actually cheaper to send them to Ukraine than to decommission the weapons. The Forbes article from your Google reference yesterday mentioned older Patriot systems that Israel no longer wanted and the US didn’t want to take back. Another example, the ATACMS missiles were to expire this year and thus were sent to Ukraine. The US had spent 30 million in 2015 to modernize them. Now, they sent them to Ukraine and purchased newer systems for themselves. In most cases, NATO is sending expiring equipment and then purchasing new equipment for their own military — this will modernise their armed forces and meet their 2% requirement.
https://al24news.dz/en/many-us-atacms-pledged-to-ukraine-expired-nearly-a-decade-ago/
The Ukraine-Russian war is burning through more shells and ammo than major arms exporting countries can supply. Russia has emptied their own storage and is using Korean and Iranian ammo and shells that are shoddily made, old, and not an exact fit. On the other side, Ukraine is chronically short and is limiting use to mostly defence now. Warehouses everywhere are being emptied and shipped to Ukraine — cheaper to blow them up there than to decommission them safely.
The Ukraine war is a repeat of WWI — heavy shell use and then a creeping infantry assault under the cover of shell use. I used to follow updates almost daily and now find I can tune in once a month — the Russians advance on average less than a kilometre a day. Russian casualties are at least 1.5 million with 300 000 killed, which is absolutely insane in the modern era. On the defence, Ukraine has about 1 million casualties with 100 000 killed. In both cases, the numbers are probably the low end due to underreporting.
hrw
LikeLike
Nobody is denying there is violence in Nigeria that is approaching civil war — some are religious based, some are tribal/linguistic based, and some is over oil wealth. However, its not the same as Gaza — in that case you have a recognised gov’t deliberately executing a plan of ethnic cleansing. In Nigeria, the gov’t has limited ability to stop terrorist groups, war lords and mob violence.
Interestingly Trump has advocated for intervention in both Venezuela and Nigeria — both have significant oil fields. And in both cases, his rationale doesn’t make sense. There is no fentayl in Venezuela — that’s a Chinese-Mexican export and the back up excuse — cocaine – is a Colombian issue. And in Nigeria there is no planned gov’t backed genocide — just signs of a weak gov’t.
Interesting — America First was supposed to be about isolationism and taking care of things at home — but the foreign policy seems to be a repeat of Bush’s neo-con adventures. Is Dick Cheney coming out of retirement? Is Marco Rubio bringing back Latin American adventurism?
hrw
LikeLike
hrw: America First was supposed to be about isolationism? Where do you get that? It has never been about isolationism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Funny to think of isolationism in the midst of all the trade deals and peace negotiations with foreign nations. Scratching head . . . Duh?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Make America Great Again so we are strong enough to truly help others and not just export decaying moral values to other nations.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Seriously land of isolationism? Everyone wants a piece of the US at our expense and to desire boundaries like other countries(including Canada!) that makes us isolationist? Interesting but wrong!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow – did not expect that response. I was thinking in terms of isolationism as opposed to intervention. Isolationism is a policy choice not something that is inherently wrong or bad. My impression from reading comments here and elsewhere is that Trump supporters were tired of interventionist policies resulting in foreign wars. Iraq of course being the prime example but even support of Ukraine and Israel as an issue. Trump was viewed as different from the Bush era Republicans who were interventionist abroad. Any actions in Venezuela or Nigeria would be interventionist and neo-conservative, and of course would bring back memories of Iraq and war for oil. Curious — if you buy the need to put boots on the ground to protect Nigerian Christians would you apply the same logic to protect Palestinian Christians?
Trade policies are neither interventionist nor isolationists. Now Trump has broken many previous trade deals and broke from tradition Reagan era Republican free trade policies but this is just a different policy. One could argue that tariffs promote an isolationists agenda but that’s a bit of a stretch. Trump’s trade agenda is not an activist agenda just different and change of pace from the standard free trade of the last 40-50 years. As I’ve stated before I’m neither here nor there on tariffs; applied correctly they make more sense than free trade. I just don’t think the current across the board tariffs make sense — who taxes bananas, when you don’t grow it, for example
Finally, border security is also not necessarily isolationist, in fact you have to work with your neighbours to secure the border. This isn’t an issue of isolation or intervention, just security. For the most part, it’s necessary but I’d argue border security is not the policy Trump is enforcing with ICE. Looking at the numbers, in 2024, about 775 000 people were deported. So far this year, the number is 110 000. I wonder if there is statistical lag but for all the imagery it appears not much is happening.
https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/immigration-enforcement/monthly-tables
hrw
LikeLiked by 1 person
Free trade of the past is a misnomer concerning the USA. It was USA be swindled trade.
LikeLike
Actually it’s a misnomer for most working class communities in the developed world. Most “free” trade agreements contained clauses which gave corporations certain rights and privileges. For example; free movement of capital without impediment from government. In addition many of these agreements contained the creation of extra-territoriality tribunals which corporations could sue national governments. Despite rights granted to corporations, worker’s organisations like unions were left out. Corporations were free to move capital and workers lost any bargaining ability.
Trump’s tariff policies will not change this structural issue. Paleo-conservatives want to bring back manufacturing but they don’t want to bring back unions and workers’ rights.
hrw
LikeLike
Ruh-roh.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1985519104665452548?t=GdvyltQdm7S7NiWPmAyILQ&s=19
“James Comey tried to get his indictment thrown out, only for prosecutors to drop even more explosive evidence.
A handwritten note from Comey himself reveals he knew all about the scheme behind the Russia collusion hoax.
“HRC plan to tie Trump”
HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton”
LikeLiked by 2 people