[ericmay]

> Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.

It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things.

> Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its

Factually incorrect. First you can't make a claim that the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from the ongoing war in Ukraine. The reason you can't make that claim, aside from the fact that well, any single change in tactics would prove you wrong, is because the US still to this day is deploying weapons and testing weapons and capabilities in Ukraine on the battlefield.

> former ally, Ukraine.

Also factually incorrect because Ukraine was never a US ally. Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine and without our help in the early days of the war they would have very likely fallen under a renewed Iron Curtain. America and England were rushing missiles while the rest of Europe was sending helmets and debating whether Russia was even going to invade.

> You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking

Incorrect. You're parroting catch-phrases and what others tell you and not thinking through things for yourself here.

[bonsai_spool]

> Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine

I think you're living with an alternative set of facts/interpretations from the mainstream, to which you are entitled.

We aren't supporting Ukraine anymore, that is essentially only Europe (via purchasing arms made in the US as well as elsewhere).

I really encourage you to try to think about what evidence undergirds your ideas and how you'd disprove your beliefs, which seem very resistant to current events.

[ericmay]

Well the first problem here is you're ignoring the previous support that was provided and of course some hundred + billion to date. The US and UK were rushing in missiles before the war even started.

Second, if you pay attention you can read about things like this for yourself:

> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5876595-ukraine-discharge...

" “We must also send a strong message that Russian support for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets will not be tolerated,” he added.

Sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would affirm U.S. support for Ukraine, slap new economic sanctions on Russia and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction whenever the war ends.

It also provides Kyiv with additional weapons and military funding. And it declares U.S. support for NATO at a time when the Western treaty alliance has come under fire from President Trump, who has attacked the group and threatened to pull the U.S. from its roster. "

Of course this is one minor example.

You're focusing too much on what Donald Trump says. You need to give him a back seat and stop worrying about whatever dumb thing he tweets.

[epistasis]

> 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe.

To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response?

This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go.

Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?