Ukraine Russia invasion
A Ukrainian serviceman mans a heavy machine gun at a frontline position in the Luhansk region, eastern Ukraine. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)
Previous Post
Next Post

A couple days ago, I came across a Twitter thread that sheds a lot of light on the current situation in Ukraine. The thread’s goal was to explain why calls for negotiations with Russia coming from the left are misguided. But it also sheds some light on the never-ending calls for civilian disarmament here in the United States.

In both cases, the problem is the same: promises of safety that can never be fulfilled.

Some Background

For those who are unaware (mostly government school-educated millennials), Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union. It was the strongest communist government on the planet, and frequently worked to support communist uprisings and communist governments worldwide. When the U.S. and other democratic capitalist (or capitalist-leaning) allies moved to contain the spread of communism after World War II, the Cold War was born.

While containment had mixed historical results, it worked fairly well against the Soviets, but did suffer setbacks and problems. Both sides stockpiled massive numbers of nuclear weapons, but fortunately never used them in anger.

With a stagnating economy, a disastrous war in Afghanistan, and the Chernobyl disaster, Soviet leadership eventually became weak and lost public support. The shoot-down of a civilian airliner flying from Alaska to Korea also weakened them both at home and abroad.

Ronald Reagan seized on these weaknesses and pitted the U.S. government against the Soviets in an expensive space arms race he knew they could never win. Attempts at reform failed (the Soviet Union was held together by force), and the Soviet system collapsed under its own weight. The captive Soviet republics that had formerly been under Moscow’s control became independent countries and took a lot of Soviet military installations and equipment with them.

The “Loose Nuke” Problem

While the USSR never really had a strong economy, things got very bad in the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine. The now-former satellite had a large number of the Soviets’ nuclear weapons, but they didn’t have the ability to adequately secure or maintain them all.

The United States and other world powers feared that unsecured weapons would fall into the hands of rogue states, terrorist groups, and other ne’er-do-wells. Instead of helping Ukraine keep and secure a small stockpile of weapons and dispose of the rest, disarmament was the preferred strategy. The United States and NATO promised to help Ukraine maintain its independence in exchange for giving up their nukes.

Promises, Promises

About 30 years later, Ukraine has no nuclear weapons and they’re now surrounded by massing Russian troops. President Obama made it clear that he was unwilling to defend Ukraine, and Russia quickly took advantage of this lack of commitment to past American promises.

Putin annexed Crimea and got little more than a sternly worded letter from the United States. Now, they’re either poised to take a little more or possibly the whole country, depending on who and what reports you believe.

On the international stage, experts point out that a failure to protect Ukraine would mean a serious setback for nuclear disarmament efforts. When it really counts, Team America: World Police never comes.

With an America that doesn’t fulfill its promises, any country facing threats of aggression from Russia or China and has the capability will seriously consider building their own nuclear arsenal. Australia would likely be deterred by participation in the AUKUS alliance, which gives them better access to nuclear submarine technology, but others who no longer trust U.S. assurances — especially Taiwan — have an incentive to arm themselves with nukes.

Safety Assurances to Civilians Are Worth Less Than Nothing

I’ve long maintained that the concept of nuclear disarmament is gun control writ large. The arms control industry’s “Who needs nukes when Team America: World Police are there to protect you?” sounds a lot like the civilian disarmament industry’s “Who needs a firearm when we have the police?”

Now, the very same people who are saying we shouldn’t defend Ukraine are the same people who tell us that Americans should disarm because that would somehow make us all safer.

We argue that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, but we also need to keep in mind that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police have no obligation to protect any particular individual citizen. When the people arguing against defending Ukraine get in charge of a state, you basically end up with a miniaturized version of the Ukraine situation.

If the gun control industry and like-minded politicians have their way, good people would be disarmed and promised police protection to provide their security. Then those same people let criminals basically do whatever they want. Robbing stores? Decriminalized. Robbing trains? You’re a racist if you even talk about it. And, don’t you dare even criticize peaceful protesters when they’re burning, looting, and murdering in Minneapolis, Portland and elsewhere.

It’s pretty clear what happens when you give up the tools of self defense in exchange for promises of security, whether it’s on the individual or international level. Assurances of protection are always worth far less than the capability to defend yourself and your family.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. At the individual level and the national level. Protect yourself. There is no white knight coming to save you. Trusting any large .gov to do this for you is a fools errand.

    • Russia was also a signatory of the Budapest Memorandum, so they also promised to protect Ukraine in exchange for their nukes. That’s kind of like asking the fox to protect the henhouse. I guess it’s working out for Belarus and Kazakhstan, where Russia has rolled in tanks to protect their puppet dictators. Russia says Crimea had a revolution, so it wasn’t part of the Ukraine when it invaded. The US says the Memorandum isn’t legally binding since it wasn’t ratified by the Senate. Note to counries dealing with the US — make sure you the check clears (Senate ratification) before offerring up your part of the deal. The Paris Climate Accords, JCPOA, and Arms Trade Treaty show how worthless an unratified agreement is if the following administration doesn’t like what the previous administration promised.

      • “Note to countries dealing with the US — make sure you the check clears (Senate ratification) before offering up your part of the deal.”

        My note to such countries is this: don’t make any deals that involve giving up your arms. Stay strong and trust no one.

        • Yep! A ratified treaty is a lot like a signed document, the one thing you can count on is that Lucy is still going to yank away that football! Document or no document.

      • The only defect with talking about Crimea is that it has been a part of Russia, not the USSR, but Russia since long before the commies took over. Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade you have to memorize in grade school? Or was that long before your time in school? That futile military disaster for the Brits was during the Crimean War between England and friends against Russia and friends.

        I think it was Yeltsin during one of his alcoholic binges who suddenly decided to give Crimea to Ukraine despite the fact that Crimea by virtue of its long history as part of Russia was loaded with Russian citizens who had been born and raised in that region. I think Russian nationality folks actually outnumbered Ukraine nationality folks, but if that is the million dollar question, call someone else.

        I am certainly no Russophile, but taking Crimea back from Ukraine was simply Russia saying, “Look dumbazz has no business giving away part of our country, so we are taking it back.:

        A very simple analogy would be in Ole Two-Shot in one of his dementia episodes decided that it would be a good idea to Alaska back to Russia because they didn’t get a good deal out of the sale. He called Puttie up and told him he could have Alaska if he would pull out of Ukraine. Two things would happen the U.S. citizens in Alaska might not be very happy and a significant number of folks in the lower 48 might not be all that thrilled either, although it would make Texas the largest state in the union again.

        Other than that little correction, I totally agree with the concepts set forth in the article. Based on our performance since our adventures in that pissant country in Southeast Asia, it’s really a wonder any of our allies depend upon us for keeping our word. In my view our reputation as a reliable partner went in the crapper when our Marines were kicking the unfortunate Vietnamese who had relied on our word off the skids of helicopters on top of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. That was the absolute nadir in my pride in being a U.S. citizen, watching that debacle on the evening news.

    • I have no idea how it will go if it goes hot.

      I just saw a news clip (if we can believe it) where some Ukrainian official said that they plan to deploy all of their military, veterans (of pretty much any age), police, and even hunters in defense of the nation–a force that would number over 2.5 million. Sadly, it sounded like they may not have enough rifles and ammunition to arm all of them.

      If that last paragraph is true, it is a repeat of the United Kingdom at the onset of World War II. U.K. subjects were largely unarmed and the U.K. feared a massive German land invasion. Thus, the U.K. begged the United States populace to donate their privately owned firearms to Jolly-Old England so that U.K. subjects en-masse could oppose a massive German land invasion.

        • CTstooge,

          And then the UK destroyed them.

          Um, no. The Russians and the United States destroyed Nazi Germany in World War II. The Brits were along for the ride.

        • @uncommon_sense

          He means the UK destroyed the donated firearms instead of returning them. Which they did.

        • The British attitude toward arms in the hands of the people going all the way back to King George tells you everything you need to know. That is why they have been invaded by Islamic Radicals and won’t even let their people defend themselves.

        • CT, I have a friend who owns a S&W triple lock that was part of lend-lease. Has British proof marks, etc. So at least a few made it back.

        • I used to own a S&W in .38 S&W/.38-200 that was stamped “Lend-Lease”… so another one made it back. An anemic cartridge.

  2. I can agree with the general principles here BUT to equate NUCLEAR WEAPONS with gun ownership is disingenuos to say the least. Ukraine is NOT short of firearms andby now around half the population of military age a are enlisted and willingly so in in some kind of Reserve Force and are receiving PROPER military training. They are not a lot of fat ‘good old boy’ guns nuts they are forming into disciplined Military Units to SUPPORT their government in the face of a REAL and PRESENT DANGER from a REAL and PRESENT FORIEGN POWER NOT to over throw it and not or to throw spit balls at imaginary enemies.
    As for Russia now invading Ukraine my opinion, and I doubt I’m alone, is that Russia has left it far to late.

    • @Albert Hall

      The idea wasn’t to “equate NUCLEAR WEAPONS with gun ownership”. The point was that security in exchange for disarmament is a fools bargain, the one making the promise of security is the only true beneficiary of the bargain and the fool that let their self be disarmed in exchange for that promise will discover too late it was a hollow promise. Didn’t you read the article?

    • No Albert, they are not “forming into disciplined Military Units to SUPPORT their government.” They are learning the skills to create a speed bump and those who survive as fodder will have learned something and will be on the way to be an irregular partisan force if Russia does not sufficiently overwhelm the defenses and plants a foot over the entire Country first. A disciplined Military Force takes more training than familiarization with a few weapons.

      As for the nuclear weapons comparison… Ukraine had a deterrent, a very credible deterrent from invasion by a superior force. They gave up that deterrent based on promises of protection and mutual aid. Russia does not fear a invading a non nuclear armed Country. Had Ukraine kept a few of the nuclear weapons, Russia would not be massing like they are. Any time a Country or an individual gives up the means to deter violence, they are helpless. Especially when that promised protection leaves you alone.

      There are two time periods for Russia to attempt an invasion, shortly after the Olympics are done and the weather in Ukraine turns much colder or when the last of the American troops being deployed are returned home and not replaced.

  3. The article is a dishonest one to equate the Nuclear Deterrent to gun ownership in a foreign country. The reality is that Ukraine is a well armed population being threatened by the grandiose dreams of a former KGB Colonel hoping to regain some of the lost glory of the Soviet era.

    Another thing, setting aside all the political bluster and bloviating, does anyone truly believe that the American people would support going to war with Russia over this? Isn’t it more likely Americans will support sending arms and material support to an ally like Ukraine, but not our own troops in-country.

    If the American people are unwilling to send in our own to fight, then no President, Republican or Democrat, has any business sending those troops to fight.

    • Watch your doors and corners,

      The reality is that Ukraine is a well armed population…

      Are you sure about that? I thought I just heard a source which indicated that they do not have enough rifles and ammunition for their extended militia force. If I am remembering wrong or my source was not accurate, I welcome any correction–preferably with a reliable source.

      • ” they do not have enough rifles and ammunition ”

        Apparently this is true. There are a number of videos in the MSM showing the militias training with plywood cut-outs shaped like AKs. If they have enough to go around it seems they are not handing them out yet.

  4. “The article is a dishonest one to equate the Nuclear Deterrent to gun ownership in a foreign country.”
    See .40 cal Booger’s comments immediately above your time stamped at 14:47.

  5. During the decades of rule from Moscow, many Russians were sent to settle in the Ukraine (and other Soviet satellite states) in an attempt to “Russianize” the region; the use of native languages was discouraged, Russian speakers were put in positions of authority and got the best jobs. I’m Ukraine ethnic Russians are generally located in the east, adjacent to Russia. Hence the origin of the separatist movement. As unpalatable as it is, Ukraine is going to have to face the reality that these people are never going to become loyal Ukrainians and cut the cancer out.

  6. I disagree with nearly every skewed perspective in both the twitter “lesson” and the article. It is naively disingenuous to say Ukraine has akways worked in good faith. 2014-16 Poroshenko killed hundreds of his oown Russian-ethnic citizens. He often used imported militants to do the dirty work. It was/is common knowledge that his goal was to seize the Russian Black Sea naval base in Crimea. The idea of islamic mercenaries seizing a nuclear naval base is terrifying. No one can trust Putin. Ever. We can all agree on that. But portraying Ukraine as an innocent victim is just silly.

    If TTAG wants an example of how important our 2A is, look to Myanmar. We watched a year of civilians trying to fight off police death squads using SLINGSHOTS. They were not successful. Myanmar authorities are poorly armed, so even civilian-grade firearms could have saved thousands of people.

  7. Time to get all the surplus stock of EU alcohol placed along potential invasion routes.

    Alcoholism was bad in the Soviet Union. It is much worse in Russia.

    • Russia has given workers the option of taking a portion of their pay in vodka during “tight” times. Sometimes a significant portion (100%?) of their pay during serious economic crisis.

      The White Death (Simo Hayha) probably could never have amassed over 500 sniper kills around 1940 without getting an “assist” from vodka (provided to the Soviet troops).

      Line the roads with cases of vodka.

    • Neither Japan nor Australia have nuclear weapons. Recently in Australia there was a huge outcry just because Australia was acquiring nuclear powered subs from the US, and New Zealand does not permit any nuclear armed OR powered vessels to make port there. The Japanese people, having first hand experience with nuclear weapons, could develop nuclear weapons (as a reaction to North Korea) but decided that possessing them would diminish its security (*ie., by making it more of a target for Nork nukes).

      • Mark N.,

        I have to think that Australia, being a British satellite and under the Crown, falls under the British umbrella of nuclear deterrence.

        Even if that is not the case, I don’t see any nation being in a hurry to invade Australia: they don’t have any significant resources that are not already available (and closer) to any super-powers that have the audacity to try something like that.

      • “Neither Japan nor Australia have nuclear weapons”

        well not fully-assembled and mounted, no. but they could in five minutes.

        • Last I heard, there were thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of nuclear weapons that no one could place, nobody knew where they were. Making blanket statements about who does or does not have them is just ignorant.

      • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

        “Neither Japan nor Australia have nuclear weapons.”

        Japan has tens of tons of purified plutonium chemically-extracted from the spent fuel from their nuclear power plants.

        Japan is also a leader in producing research-grade supercomputers. With that kind of computational horsepower available, it’s a reasonable assumption they are fully capable of modeling what it would take to get a nuclear detonation, if they haven’t done so already.

        Just in case China might get belligerent…

  8. “Now, the very same people who are saying we shouldn’t defend Ukraine are the same people who tell us that Americans should disarm because that would somehow make us all safer.”

    We shouldn’t defend Ukraine (we should be defending our southern border), but Americans shouldn’t disarm either.

  9. Meh…Barry Soetoro did literally nothing when Putin stole The Crimea. We have no compelling interest in Ukraine. You want another example of a country stupidly giving away their nukes? South Africa. What a chit hole. Europe needs to man up. Especially the dreaded Germanic tribes(you want natural gas?) Did Puter dare do this when Orange Man bad?!?

    • “stole the Crimea”

      That’s one spin. The other spin is, NATO was trying hard to steal Crimea from Russia. The naval base was central to all agreements between Russia and Ukraine, with Russia paying Ukraine for use of the base. The fascists who took over Ukraine thought they would use Crimea to bargain their way into a good position in NATO, and Russia said “Nyecht!”

  10. I would remind everyone that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually reneged on the security guarantees made to Russia when we incited, funded, orchestrated and enabled a coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine because we were dissatisfied with that government’s desire to remain neutral rather than join the European Union. The video of Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland passing out cookies to protestors at the Euromaden was so special. The audio of the intercepted phone conversation of Victoria Nuland dictating who should form the interim government was even more incriminating.

    Now the United States is attempting to reenact the Cuban missile crisis. Just as the US provoked the USSR into deploying missiles to Cuba by deploying Jupiter Missiles to Italy and Turkey, the US is provoking the current crisis by trying to bring Ukraine into NATO so we can deploy missiles closer to Moscow. Keep in mind that I was a hard core cold warrior.

    Of course I’ve learned the lesson and have not given up my small stockpile of SS-18, Nato code name “Satan” missiles.

  11. The last two years in the United States has demonstrated that political movements and political government takeovers can bring about unimaginable new “norms” so fast that it makes your head spin.

    The most stark example of such a new and unimaginable “norm” was local and/or state governments banning church attendance and then sending their police in to arrest and jail the people who attended church services in violation of those orders. Nikita Khrushchev (were he still alive) would have sent lavish fruit baskets to the Mayors/Governors who issued and enforced those orders.

    A few short months ago governments declared it “illegal” to worship at church and refused to enforce our nation’s southern border. A few short months from now governments could just as easily declare something else even more sacrosanct (than worshiping in church) to be “illegal” and actually invite foreign nationals into our nation for whatever illicit purpose advances their agenda. If that comes to pass, our firearms will be indispensable.

    • “actually invite foreign nationals into our nation for whatever illicit purpose advances their agenda”

      the’ve been doing that for decades already.

      “If that comes to pass, our firearms will be indispensable”

      if the citizens don’t organize into well-regulated militia, the firearms will be insufficient.

      • rant7,

        if the citizens don’t organize into well-regulated militia, the firearms will be insufficient.

        That could very well be the case. It depends on who the enemy is and what tactics the enemy uses.

        If there is a well-defined enemy with well-defined forces who employ largely traditional tactics, then a well-regulated militia is a good counter-force. If the enemy is not well-defined, their forces are not well-defined, and they use unorthodox tactics, then a well-regulated militia and traditional tactics are probably not the best strategy.

    • FWIW, I think Kruschev gets a bad rap. He was no Stalin. Certainly not Mahatma Ghandi, but not Stalin. If there really is a hell, Stalin is definitely there. Kruschev? Maybe.

  12. To paraphrase what is commonly attributed to Ben Franklin; ” He who gives up essential liberties for temporary security deserves neither.”
    Sure, I’m a fat old man. But, I just might surprise anyone who doesn’t know me. Some of us old country boys are just a little more capable than those who live in the cities may believe. Heck, some of us can even count past 10 without taking off our shoes.
    When those who demand we the people be disarmed can give me an iron clad guarantee that no crime will ever occur anywhere in the United States, and no one will ever be a threat to anyone else’s health and safety, I will think about giving up my arms. But mine will be the very last gun on the pile. And the first to be reclaimed if their promises prove false.

    • The average city boy has no conception of life in the sticks. We don’t have street signs everywhere we want to go. We don’t count how many blocks, or how many major intersections. Maybe I shouldn’t speak for the new generation, but I need little more than a glance at a map to navigate just about anywhere I want to go.

      Ooops, sorry. I forgot that most people today don’t know what a map is. No, it’s not Google Maps. Nope, I don’t need a smart phone to get from one end of my property to the other, or from one end of the county to the other. Or, for that matter, one end of the continent to the other.

  13. The first lesson of diplomacy has always been: Bargain from a position of strength. In all other cases, terms are dictated to you, which is not diplomacy at all. Molon labe.

  14. If I was a Ukrainian I would sleep better knowing my country had nukes. Lesson re-learned.
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.: Ben Franklin

  15. I don’t get some of the early comment complaints that “nukes aren’t guns!” and “But Ukraine is armed!” Obviously that’s the case, but the point is that disarming makes you weak and less capable of defending yourself. Nukes are like guns for nations (regular military action/munitions is more like punching/kicking).

    The article’s point is that if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, their threat of being invaded by a hostile power would be significantly reduced. Just as your likelihood of someone breaking into your home to do you harm is lessened if would-be attackers knew you could shoot them.

    Being armed is a deterrent. Disarming is an invitation. Simple as that, on any scale, be it people or nations.

    • Ukraine inherited ALL of the technology, technicians and infrastructure needed to build nuclear missiles from the Soviet Union. It is well verified that Ukraine dismantled all of the silo based ICBMs in their territory. The status of the road mobile, intermediate range, SS-20s is less certain. The status of shorter range ballistic missiles is even more uncertain. There is zero certainly about the status of nuclear artillery ammunition. Ukraine now builds and markets a short range ballistic missile that is capable of reaching Moscow with an intermediate yield nuke. (Yes. I’ve done the ballistics calculations.)

      Anyone have any idea what Russia will do in response if America incites Ukraine to nuke Moscow? Russia is deploying all three if it’s Slava class cruisers to the Black Sea. Bthis is getting real.

      • Elmer Fudd,

        For the last 12 months or so, I have been thinking long and hard about just how far Russia or China would/will go in all-out warfare in our modern age.

        Everyone knows that Russia and China could send swarms of ground-troops with light armor, heavy armor, and even air support in “conventional” warfare. Of course everyone knows that they both have nukes as well.

        What most people fail to realize is that both sides could unleash massive and debilitating cyber-destruction, massive and debilitating destruction of electrical grids and chemical plants (via cyber methods and/or precision physical sabotage), massive and debilitating destruction of crops and livestock through poison and arson, massive supply chain disruption via withholding strategic resources, and even massive biological warfare. And still other, even more horrifying avenues of attack are available.

        I have no idea why Russia or China would restrain themselves from unleashing anything or everything that I listed above. I keep trying to determine what would stop them and I keep coming up blank. If Russia pulls the rip-cord, I fear for the well-being of Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, for the entire northern hemisphere which could become embroiled in World War III.

        • uncommon_sense said “both sides could unleash massive and debilitating cyber-destruction”

          And, it’s our own fault. There is zero excuse for slaving infrastructure and critical systems to the internet. Zero. Our MBAs and assorted other fools and damned fools chase after every possible penny they can “save”, while making us vulnerable. If/when it happens I hope that the peasants with pitchforks and torches hang all those fools from gibbets around the country. Start with every college grad with “MBA” beside his name, and work up to mayors, governors, and congress critters who approved of all the idiocy.

      • Elmer Fudd,

        This is getting real.

        Anyone with mild awareness of military actions knows that horrible ground conditions (soft/mushy ground in this case) can grind an advancing army nearly to a halt. That means the coldest time of year–when the ground is frozen solid and very hard–is the best time of year to invade with a fast invasion force.

        When Russia started amassing resources at the Ukrainian border on a timetable which would enable a fast-invasion force at the peak of frozen ground conditions, everyone knew it was serious. And when Russia started moving medical supplies and blood stores to their staging locations at the border two weeks ago, that signaled that an invasion was/is imminent for all intents and purposes. It seems that only a miracle can stop this peacefully.

  16. I am in a Game of Thrones kind of mood. Wouldn’t bogging down Russia in a bloody war in Ukraine be a great way to contain it? Let Ukraine, Poland, and Hungary do the heavy lifting. We could arm them with everything just shy of nukes. Heck, we could beta test some of our upcoming stuff. That’s what most of the wars in the last 70-80 years have been about anyway right? Turn the Donbass region into China Lake east. We could focus on getting real militant with China and let that send a warning to Russia not to make too many gains on his Ukrainian front. Either way our fighting forces, indeed the entire nation, has earned a pass on this one.

  17. I feel badly for Ukraine. But how the hell does their problem affect you, me, and my next door neighbor and his yappy little dogs??? They don’t have any oil for us to either protect or exploit, or anything else that actually affects the real national security of the United States of America.

    All this is bullshit is just a bunch of hand-wringing from both the Left and the neo-cons who can’t stand life itself unless they’re doing something — anything — to keep lining the pockets of the defense contractors. I’m not willing to sacrifice my life, my treasure, and most especially not the blood of my grandsons in a futile war that we can’t win and shouldn’t have to fight in the first place.

    The Ukraine is in Russia’s backyard, not ours. And to give the devil his due, Putin has a right to be pissed off at the West’s continual luring of Ukraine into NATO. NATO itself has largely outlived its usefulness for that matter. The US has bigger, more dire problems right now than securing the borders of a nation halfway around the world when our own southern border is under an invasion from God knows how many worthless immigrants, and possibly enough terrorist sleepers to keep life in America very “interesting” for a very, very long time.

    For once, I’d like to see a leader stand up and say America is sitting this war out.

  18. I remember when the entire Right and Left political establishments said “we” need to not have these small countries, like these former USSR satellite countries, having atomic weapons. Because “we” as the original nuclear nations are best, at keeping these weapons of mass destruction safe from being used.

    “Police in Ottawa see signs that guns have been brought into a truckers’ protest against vaccine mandates that has paralyzed the Canadian capital, the police chief said on Wednesday, adding that calling in the military would pose major risks.”

    I’m told over and over again that civilians with guns would never stand a chance against the military. Somehow I don’t think that’s true. especially when the civilians have the same Firepower that the military has.

    President Reagan was correct. And the Democrats And the Libertarians were wrong. A nation should never disarm. And neither should its civilian population.

  19. Our country was made a more dangerous place. When the obama-biden administration distributed thousands of select fire weapons and grenade launchers, to civilian police departments. All over the United States. And it was people like Senator Joe Biden who told the Ukraine and other former USSR satellite states to disarm. And that the United States would protect them.

  20. What does Ukraine have that Russia would want?

    Inside of Ukraine there are 117 of the 120 known minerals, many of which Ukraine is in the top 10 producers of. Over 15 Billion dollars in exports of these minerals.

    Ukraine grows a large amount of corn, grain and potatoes, one of Europe’s largest producers.

    Wars are generally fought for resources or religion, and often religion is a cover for taking resources.

    Putin wants the glory of the old Soviet Era and wants to expand his realm. He needs resources, and if he takes Ukraine and nothing is done, he will find somewhere else to creep into. Crimea was a warmup, and a test of the rest of the world. Ukraine is the next test. He is doing like Hitler, and just like the Russian German non aggression pact, China should be wary of their alliance with Russia.

    • FormerParatrooper,

      Wars are generally fought for resources or religion, and often religion is a cover for taking resources.

      Putin wants the glory of the old Soviet Era and wants to expand his realm.

      That last sentence is a combination of both root causes for wars.

      (Putin has no allegiance to God Almighty and has made “greatness” his religion/god instead.)


  22. I just saw over on Fox News that Kommie Ha-Ha has now been put in charge of the situation in Ukraine. Because she did so well with the border, I guess. We are all totally f**ked now.

  23. This is ridiculous, Ukraine is not a NATO treaty country. 55% of Ukrainians want to belong to Russia. Don’t kidd yourself, when Russia rolls into Ukraine it will be a Blitzkrieg type invasion, Ukrainian forces will be run over and decimated. Our idiot in charge (Biden) may get American troops killed and get us involved in a conflict which the U.S. has no business being in. If we want a conflict, we should be at war with Mexico.

    • What is ridiculous is your moaning about the Ukraine not being a part of NATO. Where did you get your “55% of Ukrainians want to belong to Russia? ” Did you pick that off a cloud?

      If you are afraid to fight and even die for freedom’s sake, you will lose that freedom and deserve to. The Ukraine’s freedom is at steak which is also our freedom.

  24. And Russia promised not to invade! They should of said “come and take it”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here