Isn't now the time for US to stop supporting Ukraine to end the conflict?

[wwef235]

The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons.

I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.

Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.

We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.

 

[Melensdad]

Ukraine can not win.

The best they can do, with our weapons and money, is to hold their ground.

35-ish million people live in Ukraine, 1/2 of those are women. Many of the males are too young, others too old. Russia has 150 million people. The numbers simply don't work out for Ukraine to do anything more than hold their ground.

Putin offered up the desire to negotiate for peace, of course he said he's keeping what he took. The UK, 2 years ago, scuttled peace talks. Now it's Biden's turn.

Biden has now authorized our weapons to be used on Russian soil. Several other NATO nations have done the same. So Ukraine, which can NOT win, is now attacking Russia on Russian soil, with our money and our weapons. This is a major escalation of the war.

Who here (or anywhere) actually wants WORLD WAR 3? We are running headlong into it.

 

[waybomb]

Democrats love war. They make lots of money on it.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons.

I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.

Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.

We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.
View attachment 178731

What an introduction for a first post , usually you just say " Hi ". Actually the war has been going on since 2014 . Any peace deal with the Russians when they hold the upper hand is known as a "Capitulation" , leading to the genocide of the Ukrainian people , that can be added to the hundreds of thousands of war crimes committed by Russia already . Moscow's intention is to swallow up Ukraine overtime , they have stated that fact many times.
People need to read the Peace deal of 22 to see what was proposed , first a Ukrainian army of 85 thousand (basically no bigger than a police force .) No importation of western Weapons , a Russian Veto on outside assistance if invaded by probably ........Russia and it goes on and on.
The Finlandizaion of Ukraine may happen , where it surrendered land to Russia. First they have to do like the Finns during the winter war of 39 , bled the russians so badly that the didn't re-invade. Finland had a neutral policy until joining the EU ,but have now also joined NATO as their best chance living beside Russia.
As for western weapons on Russian soil being an escalation , if you going to fight , fight to win , don't tie the hands of the Ukrainians .
The never ending WW3 scenario , the western press eats this up and the Russian Bots keep feeding this , they are very adept at it . Cuban missile crisis was close, MADD prevailed then as it will now , Putin is not stupid he knows a launch will turn his country into cinders.

 

[Melensdad]

What an introduction for a first post , usually you just say " Hi ". Actually the war has been going on since 2014 . Any peace deal with the Russians when they hold the upper hand is known as a "Capitulation" , leading to the genocide of the Ukrainian people , that can be added to the hundreds of thousands of war crimes committed by Russia already . Moscow's intention is to swallow up Ukraine overtime , they have stated that fact many times.
People need to read the Peace deal of 22 to see what was proposed , first a Ukrainian army of 85 thousand (basically no bigger than a police force .) No importation of western Weapons , a Russian Veto on outside assistance if invaded by probably ........Russia and it goes on and on.
The Finlandizaion of Ukraine may happen , where it surrendered land to Russia. First they have to do like the Finns during the winter war of 39 , bled the russians so badly that the didn't re-invade. Finland had a neutral policy until joining the EU ,but have now also joined NATO as their best chance living beside Russia.
As for western weapons on Russian soil being an escalation , if you going to fight , fight to win , don't tie the hands of the Ukrainians .
The never ending WW3 scenario , the western press eats this up and the Russian Bots keep feeding this , they are very adept at it . Cuban missile crisis was close, MADD prevailed then as it will now , Putin is not stupid he knows a launch will turn his country into cinders.

Do you think Ukraine can win? (assuming we & NATO nations give them weapons but not involving NATO troops?)

I do not.

I think it is impossible for Ukraine to repel Russia to Ukraine's former borders. They are objectively corrupt, they are conscripting middle-aged men while healthy young (but politically connected) men walk the streets, go to jobs, work out in gyms and have coffee at cafes (and many others have fled). FWIW I have family inside Ukraine. I just don't see any path to a win.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

Do you think Ukraine can win? (assuming we & NATO nations give them weapons but not involving NATO troops?)

I do not.

I think it is impossible for Ukraine to repel Russia to Ukraine's former borders. They are objectively corrupt, they are conscripting middle-aged men while healthy young (but politically connected) men walk the streets, go to jobs, work out in gyms and have coffee at cafes (and many others have fled). FWIW I have family inside Ukraine. I just don't see any path to a win.

I have no idea , this war has had so many highs and lows , right now being particularly grave , we'll see as the years go by .
Corruption for sure , look at any former socialist state , but time should correct that as it has and is still ongoing in the eastern bloc countries now in the EU.
The Ukraine government should have mobilized younger men sooner , down to 26 now , I believe they wanted to save the younger generation. , a noble thought . Also who's paying taxes to the government if your workforce is now conscripted , but it may come to that.
French advisers are on there way to train recruits on Ukraine soil , I'm not a big fan of Macron , but he's getting Europe to open their eyes.

 

[Melensdad]

Most of the "highs" have been propaganda. The sinking of the Russian battleship Moskov was an actual high point. But I don't think it actually changed anything in real terms. The 'Ghost of Kiev' pilot was all propaganda. There is very little actual working power infrastructure left for reliable electricity.

Pretty sure the French are training conscripts not recruits. And if any of those French get killed, will they claim they were attacked and get NATO involved?

I had 3 Ukrainian citizens visiting us last week. They want our weapons, they want to attack Russia, they have no plan at all, just war, money, weapons and more war.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

Conscripts and recruits equals hopefully well trained troops . If french troops die in Ukraine it would most likely come from a Russian airstrike , pretty straight forward .
Sounds like you witnessed a people that want to keep their country and not become a part of Russia .We better not write the Ukrainians off just yet.

 

[Melensdad]

...Sounds like you witnessed a people that want to keep their country and not become a part of Russia .We better not write the Ukrainians off just yet.

I wrote them off long ago.

I see no path to them ejecting Russian troops and returning to the prior border.

I see no plan for them, from any military commander that would eject the Russian invaders and return the prior border.

If someone can prove me wrong I'd actually be happy, but I don't see it and I'm looking. And by prove me wrong I mean using only Ukrainian troops for combat.

 

[snowstorm]

Not only are we not stopping we are doubling down in authorizing use of US weapons to be used in direct attacks inside Russia the war hawks want to take it from a proxy war to direct war. We’re so screwed

 

[J5 Bombardier]

I wrote them off long ago.

I see no path to them ejecting Russian troops and returning to the prior border.

I see no plan for them, from any military commander that would eject the Russian invaders and return the prior border.

If someone can prove me wrong I'd actually be happy, but I don't see it and I'm looking. And by prove me wrong I mean using only Ukrainian troops for combat.

"Prior Borders" , "Only Ukrainian troops" , this war can't be constrained by those statements as we don't know what's down the road . Finlandization of Ukraine as mentioned before may be the future only viable option .
You could see the Poles extending air coverage over parts of Ukraine they border , European troops relieving Ukrainian troops in some border areas , taking over training , to name a few ,there is a lot in play . All conjecture at this point....." and around and around we go ".

 

[Melensdad]

"Prior Borders" , "Only Ukrainian troops" , this war can't be constrained by those statements as we don't know what's down the road . Finlandization of Ukraine as mentioned before may be the future only viable option .
You could see the Poles extending air coverage over parts of Ukraine they border , European troops relieving Ukrainian troops in some border areas , taking over training , to name a few ,there is a lot in play . All conjecture at this point....." and around and around we go ".

So are you advocating for WW3?

Get NATO troops involved and we have WW3?

The out here is to negotiate some land loss. Ukraine is NOT, nor has it ever been, a US ally. Ukraine is NOT, nor has it ever been, a NATO ally.

Ukraine is generally considered to be one of the MOST corrupt nations in the world. Ukraine is barely a democracy, and if it is, its actually doing a very bad job of it.

This is where we choose to start a world war?

 

[J5 Bombardier]

Yes very hard to hold an election when your invaded , nobody wants to carry the ballot boxes on the front line. European troops , not Nato. What individual countries decide to do regarding their troops on Ukrainian soil is up to them.
Right now Belgorad ( a major military hub for Russia) is getting pounded by American missiles. Haven't heard of any Russian ICBM 's landing . Russian bluster ,MADD prevails.

 

[Doc]

I think this supports what Bob is saying. He is afraid Trump will turn off the Biden flow of millions that have been funneled to his country.
Another reason to VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

Donald Trump will be a 'loser president' and bring an end to the US as a global 'player' if he wins US election and tries to impose peace deal on Ukraine, Zelensky warns​

• The Ukrainian President took aim at Trump in a scathing interview last week

By DAVID AVERRE

PUBLISHED: 04:46 EDT, 3 June 2024 | UPDATED: 06:32 EDT, 3 June 2024

Donald Trump will be a 'loser president' and bring about an end to America's status as a global leader should he decide to end aid to Ukraine if he is elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky has declared.

The Ukrainian President took aim at Trump in a scathing interview last week in which he insisted his country 'would not put up with' any deals made between a Trump administration and Vladimir Putin that would see Kyiv sacrifice parts of the Donbas in return for peace.

And he said that any decision to cut off weapons and support to Ukraine would have dire consequences - not only for Trump personally, but also America's standing in the world and the influence it wields.

'Ukraine, barehanded, without weapons, will not be able to fight a multimillion [Russian] army,' Zelensky told the Guardian in an interview in Kyiv last week.

'Does (Trump) want to become a loser president? Do you understand what can happen... the institutions of the United States will become very weak - the US will not be the leader of the world anymore.'

more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-president-election-peace-deal-ukraine.html

 

[snowstorm]

I think this supports what Bob is saying. He is afraid Trump will turn off the Biden flow of millions that have been funneled to his country.
Another reason to VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

Donald Trump will be a 'loser president' and bring an end to the US as a global 'player' if he wins US election and tries to impose peace deal on Ukraine, Zelensky warns​

• The Ukrainian President took aim at Trump in a scathing interview last week

By DAVID AVERRE

PUBLISHED: 04:46 EDT, 3 June 2024 | UPDATED: 06:32 EDT, 3 June 2024

Donald Trump will be a 'loser president' and bring about an end to America's status as a global leader should he decide to end aid to Ukraine if he is elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky has declared.

The Ukrainian President took aim at Trump in a scathing interview last week in which he insisted his country 'would not put up with' any deals made between a Trump administration and Vladimir Putin that would see Kyiv sacrifice parts of the Donbas in return for peace.

And he said that any decision to cut off weapons and support to Ukraine would have dire consequences - not only for Trump personally, but also America's standing in the world and the influence it wields.

'Ukraine, barehanded, without weapons, will not be able to fight a multimillion [Russian] army,' Zelensky told the Guardian in an interview in Kyiv last week.

'Does (Trump) want to become a loser president? Do you understand what can happen... the institutions of the United States will become very weak - the US will not be the leader of the world anymore.'

more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-president-election-peace-deal-ukraine.html

Zelensky can go pound sand up his ass this election is about what’s good for our country not his

 

[Melensdad]

European troops , not Nato.

Those are all NATO members, therefore by the treaty. NATO would be involved.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

Article 5 only used once , by the US . That's quite a stretch to say it could be invoked by the country whose troops get attacked while in Ukraine ( a non member). Try to get the Turks and Romanians to vote for that one.

 

[Melensdad]

Article 5 only used once , by the US . That's quite a stretch to say it could be invoked by the country whose troops get attacked while in Ukraine ( a non member). Try to get the Turks and Romanians to vote for that one.

But you can get the US Senate to vote for it right now!

 

[J5 Bombardier]

But you can get the US Senate to vote for it right now!

If they vote to Annex Canada , count me in......

 

[Melensdad]

Ukraine is losing the war, that much is clear to me, and they need to negotiate for peace ASAP or be killed (literally) in this war. They have a huge manpower shortfall and no amount of arms, ammo, technology or funding can improve that. Russian troops are making surprising gains across several areas of the front, a new front opening up around Karkiv, Ukraine's second largest city. New conscription laws are not giving them numbers of troops needed and are not energizing the troops.

Is this why NATO members are suddenly lifting restrictions on US and European long range missiles and allowing Ukraine to attack targets deep in Russian territory? Is this why more countries are considering "military" advisors? Switzerland just had a peace summit.

China boycotted and criticized the event, and they had legitimate reasons to do so. NATO nations rallied together in meetings. Perhaps it was more of a NATO war summit than a real peace summit?

 

[J5 Bombardier]

Ukraine is losing the war, that much is clear to me, and they need to negotiate for peace ASAP or be killed (literally) in this war. They have a huge manpower shortfall and no amount of arms, ammo, technology or funding can improve that. Russian troops are making surprising gains across several areas of the front, a new front opening up around Karkiv, Ukraine's second largest city. New conscription laws are not giving them numbers of troops needed and are not energizing the troops.

Is this why NATO members are suddenly lifting restrictions on US and European long range missiles and allowing Ukraine to attack targets deep in Russian territory? Is this why more countries are considering "military" advisors? Switzerland just had a peace summit.

China boycotted and criticized the event, and they had legitimate reasons to do so. NATO nations rallied together in meetings. Perhaps it was more of a NATO war summit than a real peace summit?

Peace ASAP is a literally a Capitulation to the Russians at this time , there would be no meaningful negotiating while the Russians feel they have the upper hand , it would be their terms only . What were the opinions of your Ukrainian friends last week, are they ready to submit to Russia ?
Now I don't know about "Surprising gains " , at certain points on the front there is some movement measured in meters or km's at times , but no breakout. The Kharkov front has pretty much slowed down , partially due to massive Himars attacks by the Ukrainians into Russia at their rear supplies, logistics . They weren't ready for this , as they only had to stay back out of range of Ukrainian tube artillery before , they have suffered heavy losses.
To release some restrictions in the Kharkov front makes full sense ,they should all be released ,why would you allow the Russians to build up men , equipment just across the border from the fighting with no threat of being hit .
Military advisors for sure, hopefully to give these soldiers enough training to help them survive. Ukrainian units have been gutted , rear echelon are being sent to the front to fill these gaps , they need training.
Of course China did not attend , their peace plan which was pro Russian was dismissed out of hand long ago .The Chinese are not Russia's friend , but at the moment their literally stealing Russian goods at basement prices. The Chinese have Russia in a bind and are taking full advantage of it , the latest they want Russian gas at the price it is in Russia and it's subsidized lol .

 

[Melensdad]

Let's sum this all up.

A few decades ago we committed to not expanding NATO into the former USSR areas.
We then pushed to get several former USSR satellites into the NATO fold.
Under Obama we opened the door to NATO right up to the Russian border, despite agreements, discussions, warning.
So we basically goaded Russia (Putin) to do this.
We are now fighting a NATO vs Russia proxy war on Ukrainian soil.
Again, Ukraine is NOT our ally.
We had a status quo situation where everyone benefited, we had reasonable economic trading with both Russia and Ukraine. And by "we" what i mean is pretty much all of NATO through expansionist policies pushed by soft-socialist-democracies.
Obama famously, on a hot microphone, told Russia not to invade until after he was elected to his 2nd term. So the US specifically betrayed Ukraine.
The UK submarined an early peace talk, Boris Johnson was behind that, which prolonged the war with a million now dead.
We totally f****d that up by leaning in.
Now Ukraine is paying the price in loss of land and lives.

The only fighting way out is world war 3. NATO troops on the ground.

The only other way out is letting Ukraine push for a peace negotiation, which Putin seems likely to do. Putin's invasion is NOT popular in Russia, if he gets to go home with a "win" of the eastern region of Ukraine, which is primarily inhabited by Russians anyway, that will satisfy him. Ukraine gets to survive, albeit with a loss of land, and they can claim in their propaganda that they held back the evil Russian forces, so that is a 'win' for Zelensky.

We had a 'good thing' for the world with everyone trading, Ukraine and Russia in a state of relative peace. Our foreign policy there broke it. Just like we broke the middle east.

Maybe we should just shut the F*** up and trade with mutual respect.

Pretty sure I covered the high points.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

LOL , no think it was more of a cut and paste. The one new part is the Obama hot mic , where he told then "President Medvedev'' in 2012 that he would be more flexible after the election concerning negotiations about Missile Defense.

 

[Melensdad]

No cut and paste, that was all from memory.

Yes, Obama was about missile defense in former east bloc nations that are now part of NATO, again, our prior foreign policy was pushing up closer and closer to the line in the sand and Obama was appeasing, to the point that he was allowing Putin to take Crimea. Which is what happened and proceeded the current mess but set the stage.

 

[FrancSevin]

I do recall Trump pointing out he started no wars and ended many long term and persistently futile conflicts.
However;
Did Trump say, specifically, he would shut down military aid to Ukraine? I missed it.

So the fear here seems to be the loss of spending for a perpetually useless conflict.

Screw Zelensky's profits and those of our military industry.
I'm fine with that.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

Hot mic about missle defence , not about an invasion that happened 2 years later.
Former East bloc countries now independant that joined NATO want security from Russia. They all see themselves as the next Ukraine.

So from past history involving Obama we know you can't be soft with the Russians , they see it as a weakness of the west.
As we all sit here trying to decide what's best for Ukraine , makes you wonder what their feelings are about their country.

 

[Melensdad]

Why do we or should we actually care?
Why did we get involved?
What is in it for us?
Why should we pay for it?

We had a good thing when we traded with both Ukraine and Russia, it was better for us. Our intervention screwed that up. Now we are in a money pit with a corrupt nation.

 

[Melensdad]

Other than the fact that we shouldn't have meddled in the first place,
and other than the fact that we really are fighting a proxy war now,
there is the fact that we are planning for WW3 and doing so with a historically weak fighting force that has alienated the core demographic that have made up most of the recruits over the past several decades by demonizing the very demographic that we need to fight a war.
And then there is our war plan, which is an actual thing.

Report Details US Troop 'Land Corridors' In Event Of European Ground War With Russia | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

​

Report Details US Troop 'Land Corridors' In Event Of European Ground War With Russia​

NATO has a plan in place for rapid deployment of its forces in the scenario of a future Russian attack on Europe. It includes the development of "land corridors" which can be used to rush some 300,000 troops — mostly American soldiers — to front line positions in order to defend against a Russian invasion.​

​

High-ranking British military sources described to the Telegraph that the plan entails troops landing at key European ports whereupon they would move east along pre-planned routes to counter potential Russian attacks.​

​

Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank, chief of NATO's Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC), described to the UK publication, "Huge logistics bases, as we know them from Afghanistan and Iraq, are no longer possible because they will be attacked and destroyed very early on in a conflict situation."​

​

Port of Rotterdam file image, identified as a key arrival point for US troops in event of major war in Europe.​

The logistics and troop transport corridors would originate in places like Greece, Italy, Turkey, The Netherlands, Norway - and the port of Rotterdam, a key northern European hub, is specifically named. Lines like the Germany-Poland railway are also mentioned in the report - all of which would theoretically allow rapid deployment of US forces to any NATO territory being threatened (based on Article 5 common defense).​

​

Separate alarmist reports in UK media have been warning that the West should prepare for war with Russia at some point in the next two decades, connected with ongoing conflict in Ukraine.​

​

For example, a prior March report in The Telegraph claimed that President Putin has a "paranoid obsession" with stoking conflict and provoking Western allies.​

​

"Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin has secured his historic fifth term in office, it is patently clear that he will devote his next six-year spell at the Kremlin to pursuing his paranoid obsession of confronting the West," that prior stated.​

​

As for the Telegraph's latest Tuesday revelation of the NATO land corridors — with the somewhat loud and sensationalist headline of "Nato land corridors could rush US troops to front line in event of European war" — the reality is that big picture contingency plans like this have been on US and NATO planners' shelves since the Cold War.​

​

But without doubt they are getting dusted off amid the continued escalation of the Ukraine proxy war...​

​

​

According to some of the further planning details laid out by The Telegraph and its military sources:​

​

If Nato forces entering from the Netherlands are hit by Russian bombardment, or northern European ports destroyed, the alliance is set to shift focus to ports in Italy, Greece and Turkey. From Italian ports, US troops could be carried via land through Slovenia, Croatia to Hungary, which shares a border with Ukraine.​

Similar plans exist to transport forces from Turkish and Greek ports through Bulgaria and Romania to reach the alliance’s eastern flank. Plans are also being drawn up to transport troops via ports in the Balkans, as well as through Norway, Sweden and Finland.​

Lt Gen Sollfrank was further quoted as saying, "Ukraine suffers very much from these Russian long-range missile attacks on the logistic systems" - underscoring the importance of troop movements which would be out of reach of Russian systems.​

​

The report includes visuals tracking 'land corridors' for Western troops en route to confront Russian forces in a future scenario...​

​

Source: The Telegraph​

In the wake of the Telegraph report some pundits are saying this means WW3 is "starting now"... and while indeed at this point the world could already be witnessing the beginning phases (especially when historians look back), there's yet some escalatory steps remaining before missiles start flying over Europe. Hopefully saner minds prevail, even if at the last minute.​

 

[FrancSevin]

President Trump started no wars..... Just saying.

And now, at the brink of his re-election, Biden, and his Democrat administration, is setting our world on fire.

 

[J5 Bombardier]

The "Second most powerful army in the world" seems to have it's hands full since 2022 , they are in no position to take on more at the moment. Putin's planned three day operation has turned into a nightmare for him ,the best scenario, keep the arms flowing and let them get ground down in Ukraine .
We are no doubt headed into a turbulent times , a cycle the world has been through before . So buckle up and keep your hair on ....if I had any.....