War In Ukraine

[Nationalist]

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We know that you are fine with Russia targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. 

War is hell. Maybe they should negotiate peace?

[Perspektiv]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We know that you are fine with Russia targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. 

Unless you're Putin, I don't think anyone within their right minds would want to continue to see such carnage.

Its the west's insistence that somehow all the land taken will be reclaimed, that is delusional at best. Completely crazy at worst.

Russia isn't going to leave land up for grabs. They will booby trap the living daylights out of it.

Russia understands time isn't on Ukraines side. He just needs to hold his positions and wait.

Ukraine must advance, in order to avoid losing the patience and finances of the west.

Logically, yes losing more land to Russia sucks. 

But here we are. There is no way they relinquish any land.

Rushing, would cause massive casualties for Ukraine.

Your options is continuing for the optics, or accept that you have an armed thief in your house. They have heavier fire power,  but your neighbor has machine guns.

Ok, you can keep borrowing weapons, or you can accept you are here, and must remove the threat while losing no further than you already have (all your valuables).

Negotiation is the only way out of this.

The west cannot accept it, but Russia is in the driver seat here, as they have occupied your territory and have no intent on leaving.

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Unless you're Putin, I don't think anyone within their right minds would want to continue to see such carnage.

Its the west's insistence that somehow all the land taken will be reclaimed, that is delusional at best. Completely crazy at worst.

Russia isn't going to leave land up for grabs. They will booby trap the living daylights out of it.

Russia understands time isn't on Ukraines side. He just needs to hold his positions and wait.

Ukraine must advance, in order to avoid losing the patience and finances of the west.

Logically, yes losing more land to Russia sucks. 

But here we are. There is no way they relinquish any land.

Rushing, would cause massive casualties for Ukraine.

Your options is continuing for the optics, or accept that you have an armed thief in your house. They have heavier fire power,  but your neighbor has machine guns.

Ok, you can keep borrowing weapons, or you can accept you are here, and must remove the threat while losing no further than you already have (all your valuables).

Negotiation is the only way out of this.

The west cannot accept it, but Russia is in the driver seat here, as they have occupied your territory and have no intent on leaving.

All very true.

Question though: Why does losing that eastern region of a failed, corrupt and devastated state to Russia, suck? I mean...how on Earth would that even affect any of us?

[Aristides]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

War is hell. Maybe they should negotiate peace?

Maybe Russia shouldn't have invaded a sovereign country and bombed the crap out of its people. Russia will now have to take over Ukraine in its entirety to prevent it from becoming a Nato member.

16 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

All very true.

Question though: Why does losing that eastern region of a failed, corrupt and devastated state to Russia, suck? I mean...how on Earth would that even affect any of us?

States don't become much more corrupt than Russia. Russia has done all the devastation. You would reward them for it.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

All very true.

Question though: Why does losing that eastern region of a failed, corrupt and devastated state to Russia, suck? I mean...how on Earth would that even affect any of us?

Honestly, i know you and i disagree over the war and we've had that discussion before but shouldn't this be fairly obvious?

Ukraine supplies a good hunk of the worlds food. Controlling that is massive.

Further - if the Russians  perceive this as a 'victory'  they will push for more wars. Everyone has in history. Hitler, mao, the Khans, nepolion, ceaser, etc etc - it's like lays potato chips, you can't eat just one country

So it is in our best interests that the majority of ukraine's territory remain independent and that russia walks away with a very bloody nose.  I think it's reasonable to say ukraine isn't going to get all it's land back but if it's a brutal cost to the russians and their economy that makes a MASSIVE difference to ALL of us.

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Losing a part of a country, like eastern Ukraine, to a russian invasion is a big deal because it affects regional stability and sends a dangerous message.

It could make other countries think they can take over regions from weaker nations without consequences.

For example, if NATO and the West does not stand up against such actions, through indirect help and russia wins just like that, it might encourage others, like China with Taiwan, to consider similar aggressive moves.

It will most likely end in a negotiation, but not now, in my opinion, now it would just give a bone to the communists in Beijing. 

Yes, is tragic for civilians, however, this is just the reality of geopolitics. Putin invaded like in medieval times, and he lost big time in the long term. Finland joined NATO, and right at the border with Russia, and Sweden will follow. A stronger NATO alliance because in Moscow, they thought they are strong enough and ready enough to challenge the US. 

The American sheriff is still the big boss, tell the folks at Redacted that Putin is not coming to give them a pay rise for circulating FSB disinformation. ?

Meh...its no skin off my ass. Yours either.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Honestly, i know you and i disagree over the war and we've had that discussion before but shouldn't this be fairly obvious?

Ukraine supplies a good hunk of the worlds food. Controlling that is massive.

Further - if the Russians  perceive this as a 'victory'  they will push for more wars. Everyone has in history. Hitler, mao, the Khans, nepolion, ceaser, etc etc - it's like lays potato chips, you can't eat just one country

So it is in our best interests that the majority of ukraine's territory remain independent and that russia walks away with a very bloody nose.  I think it's reasonable to say ukraine isn't going to get all it's land back but if it's a brutal cost to the russians and their economy that makes a MASSIVE difference to ALL of us.

Maybe. I see no evidence that Putin will even touch a NATO signatory.

We've handed Russian alliance to China. Now THAT is worrisome and its our doing.

People have to get over the cold war. Russia Bad is not a good argument. Its childish and frankly...as we see...very counter productive.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Maybe. I see no evidence that Putin will even touch a NATO signatory.

I see no evidence they won't.  I do see evidence they will attack other countries.  Its in our best interest if their ability to do so is limited.

Quote

We've handed Russian alliance to China. Now THAT is worrisome and its our doing.

Nobody 'allies' with china.  They may work together occasionally on specific things but you are either china's  biatch or you're ignored as much as possible

 

Quote

People have to get over the cold war. Russia Bad is not a good argument. Its childish and frankly...as we see...very counter productive.

Teaching russia that invading other countries will wind up with them crippled and militarily castrated is VERY productive.  And leaving ukraine's food production in friendly hands is also productive. No good comes from letting aggressors win wars

[SpankyMcFarland]

Long-term the war is a disaster for Russia. The more Ukrainian land it takes, the bigger the problem it will have. Excluded from Europe, it must bring its begging bowl to China and accept whatever harsh conditions are offered. This is what happens when you let a not very bright ex-spy run your country into the ground for more than twenty years. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I do see evidence they will attack other countries.

Non NATO members? You're into something. Attacking a NATO member, would begin a global conflict.

The USA is using caution with Ukraine. Zero caution, and only a message could be sent if an inch of NATO territory was touched. 

Anything less than pure devastation on Russian soil regarding military infrastructure and key targets would be utterly unnacceptable.

Putin would have to know he was signing his suicide certificate in even considering it, or if you're right that he may sense weakness, then the USA isn't nearly the power it once was and might as well change genders and go by pronouns vs three capitalized letters.

At that level, the only move would be painting your military fleet pink.

[Aristides]

37 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Non NATO members? You're into something. Attacking a NATO member, would begin a global conflict.

The USA is using caution with Ukraine. Zero caution, and only a message could be sent if an inch of NATO territory was touched. 

Anything less than pure devastation on Russian soil regarding military infrastructure and key targets would be utterly unnacceptable.

Putin would have to know he was signing his suicide certificate in even considering it, or if you're right that he may sense weakness, then the USA isn't nearly the power it once was and might as well change genders and go by pronouns vs three capitalized letters.

At that level, the only move would be painting your military fleet pink.

And yet Biden has supported  Ukraine whereas Trump kissed Putin's ass when he was in power.

[Perspektiv]

43 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And yet Biden has supported  Ukraine whereas Trump kissed Putin's ass when he was in power.

Putin invaded under Biden. I get what you're saying, but the end results speak volumes to how little Putin respected Biden.

You're not going to be that brazen, when you know heavy handed consequences will come your way.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Non NATO members? You're into something. Attacking a NATO member, would begin a global conflict.

The USA is using caution with Ukraine. Zero caution, and only a message could be sent if an inch of NATO territory was touched.

I find i'm less disappointed in life if i don't try to guess what putin wouldn't do  

I'm more interested in what he can't do.

And if Russia loses a sizeable hunk of it's military age men along with most of it's military hardware and is left economically weakened so that they can't rebuild those forces to the latest modern standard easily, then that question gets answered for at least 20 years.

And at the end of the day it doesn't matter who started what or why - that's not a bad deal for the western allies if all it costs us is some used gear.

I know some feel differently, and i get why.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions of the risks and such.  But looking at history and modern politics and such i believe strongly that a weakened russia and a more or less free ukraine is in our best interests substantially

[Aristides]

42 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Putin invaded under Biden. I get what you're saying, but the end results speak volumes to how little Putin respected Biden.

You're not going to be that brazen, when you know heavy handed consequences will come your way.

Putin made a mistake. He completely misread NATO’s response as well as Finland and Sweden’s reaction.

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Like him or not, I was told his ass tasted of freedom of speech. 

Yes, Tucker Carlson, champion of freedom of speech.  ?

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

Putin made a mistake. He completely misread NATO’s response as well as Finland and Sweden’s reaction.

I wonder if he did tho - i think the problem is he misread Ukraine.  I think he and the rest of the civilized world (and most of the uncivilzed world) thought that Russia would have complete victory in a week to ten days max.  I remember many commments about that just before the war started.

HAD that happened - there would have been no time or chance for nato or anyone else to get supplies to the ukraine to do anything. Russia would have won, there would have been diplomatic rumblings and embargos and such but at the end of the day it would be over.  Nobody was going to actually start a shooting war over it.

But... against the odds and expectations ukraine hung on - and the allies started dumping supplies in and lo and behold they took back a bunch of land and then we hit where we are now.

I think that's what the problem was.  I think just as hitler got in trouble in russia thinking it would be a 'short war' the russians have got themselves stuck in the tarbaby thinking the same thing,

[BeaverFever]

Ukraine's deadliest female sniper was a beautician - now she's the 'punisher'

Leigh Mcmanus, Ryan Fahey • 1d

Ukrainian beauty queen turned crack sniper Evgeniya Emerald, changed her tune since she first learned she had to kill another human being and claims she "wouldn't hesitate" to kill the enemy

 

Ukrainian former beauty queen Evgeniya Emerald, 31, has become a crack sniper shooter (@emerald.evgeniya/Instagram )

 

A Ukrainian beauty queen turned assassin has been branded "the punisher" in Russian media outlets for her crack sniper shooting skills. 

New mum Evegeniya Emerald, 31, was left in a state of shock when she was first told she would have to kill other human beings. But she's changed her tune since then, and says that where men will hesitate when taking the shot, she "will never". 

Evgenia - who gave birth just three months ago - tied the knot with a man she met at the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in a Kharkiva forest in October 2022. 

The 31-year-old - who worked in the jewellery industry before the invasion - was first introduced to her weapon during Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea.

 

She says she's now a stone cold killer and wouldn't hesitate for a moment to kill the enemy(@emerald.evgeniya)

 

When Putin came back for round two, she signed up again, reports the Daily Star.

"I came to my commander and I asked him, 'What can I do the best?' He said, 'You will be a sniper,'" she said. She described the "personal hell" of seeing her bullet hit its target. Because you can see what is going on. You can see hitting a target. This is a personal hell for everyone who sees that in a [sniper's] scope," she added.

Evgenia also explained how her body shook when she first realised she would have to take a life. "For 30 seconds I was shaking - my whole body - and I couldn't stop it. That realisation that now you'll do something that will be a point of no return," she said. "But we didn't come to them with a war. They came to us."

 

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/ukranian-beautician-turned-sniper-who-30616872

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I wonder if he did tho - i think the problem is he misread Ukraine.  I think he and the rest of the civilized world (and most of the uncivilzed world) thought that Russia would have complete victory in a week to ten days max.  I remember many commments about that just before the war started.

HAD that happened - there would have been no time or chance for nato or anyone else to get supplies to the ukraine to do anything. Russia would have won, there would have been diplomatic rumblings and embargos and such but at the end of the day it would be over.  Nobody was going to actually start a shooting war over it.

But... against the odds and expectations ukraine hung on - and the allies started dumping supplies in and lo and behold they took back a bunch of land and then we hit where we are now.

I think that's what the problem was.  I think just as hitler got in trouble in russia thinking it would be a 'short war' the russians have got themselves stuck in the tarbaby thinking the same thing,

I’m sure he did but Finland and Sweden joining NATO and Germany doubling its defence spending were a direct result of the invasion. That would have happened even if he did win quickly. Most of Europe sees Putin as a big or bigger threat than the Soviets now. I doubt he counted on that.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I’m sure he did but Finland and Sweden joining NATO and Germany doubling its defence spending were a direct result of the invasion. That would have happened even if he did win quickly. Most of Europe sees Putin as a big or bigger threat than the Soviets now. I doubt he counted on that.

I can't say you're wrong  but i don't know how certain that is.  I mean, none of that happened after he took crimea.

I think that only the severity of the war and the casualtes combined with the whole  "rebel alliance holds back Empire, moff tarkin craps himself"  vibe that has developed and that the media sold hard generated enough public support to push those initives forward.

If it had been over in a week, i think people would have gotten on with their lives and there'd be no political capital for any of those actions.  I could be wrong but i would bet that's what they were banking on and they had a good chance of being right.

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I can't say you're wrong  but i don't know how certain that is.  I mean, none of that happened after he took crimea.

I think that only the severity of the war and the casualtes combined with the whole  "rebel alliance holds back Empire, moff tarkin craps himself"  vibe that has developed and that the media sold hard generated enough public support to push those initives forward.

If it had been over in a week, i think people would have gotten on with their lives and there'd be no political capital for any of those actions.  I could be wrong but i would bet that's what they were banking on and they had a good chance of being right.

No it didn’t after the invasion of Crimea like it didn’t after Hitler took Czechoslovakia, but the invasion of Poland was a step too far. Europe now believes Putin will keep taking until he is stopped.

[Nationalist]

On 8/3/2023 at 1:31 PM, CdnFox said:

I see no evidence they won't.  I do see evidence they will attack other countries.  Its in our best interest if their ability to do so is limited.

Nobody 'allies' with china.  They may work together occasionally on specific things but you are either china's  biatch or you're ignored as much as possible

 

Teaching russia that invading other countries will wind up with them crippled and militarily castrated is VERY productive.  And leaving ukraine's food production in friendly hands is also productive. No good comes from letting aggressors win wars

What is the point of this? I see no evidence that Canada will rule the world, therefore it will? There is no evidence that Russia has any designs on NATO nations. But here's the kicker. I do see evidence that a significant number of Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians would not object to returning to alliance with Russia.

Now...explain the term "friendly hands" please? Are you suggesting the USA and EU are friendly? If they are, why are so many nations now turning to Russia and China for "friendly hands"?

Our western world, and the USA in particular, has raped every nation they've offered "friendly hands" to. That's just a sad fact.

[Nationalist]

On 8/3/2023 at 5:53 PM, CdnFox said:

I find i'm less disappointed in life if i don't try to guess what putin wouldn't do  

I'm more interested in what he can't do.

And if Russia loses a sizeable hunk of it's military age men along with most of it's military hardware and is left economically weakened so that they can't rebuild those forces to the latest modern standard easily, then that question gets answered for at least 20 years.

And at the end of the day it doesn't matter who started what or why - that's not a bad deal for the western allies if all it costs us is some used gear.

I know some feel differently, and i get why.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions of the risks and such.  But looking at history and modern politics and such i believe strongly that a weakened russia and a more or less free ukraine is in our best interests substantially

Ya I get that line of thinking. Do you ever think about the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have either died or are mamed for life? 

Had NATO stayed out of this, it would have ended quite some time ago. Now...Will Ukraine be free? Or will they be enslaved by Blackrock and other western corporate organizations?

Makes one wonder what this little war has really been all about for the USA.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ya I get that line of thinking. Do you ever think about the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have either died or are mamed for life? 

Of course . And i think both "sides" in this discussion here probably agree that's absolutely horrible and it would have been radically better if the war had not happened. I haven't read all the posts by any stretch but would be surprised to find anyone of any persuasion  gleeful or even satisfied about the loss of life or property.

But the war happened and now that it happened the question shifts to "are we better off to focus on how to stop it, or are we better off focusing on how to limit or eliminate such conflicts moving forward".

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Had NATO stayed out of this, it would have ended quite some time ago.

Well that is obviously and demonstrably true.

Quote

Now...Will Ukraine be free? Or will they be enslaved by Blackrock and other western corporate organizations?

That i cannot answer. Time will tell I suppose.

Quote

Makes one wonder what this little war has really been all about for the USA.

I really don't think there's any big mystery there.  The western allies all obviously feel that this is a great way to weaken russia, test out a bunch of their weapons in actual combat (many of the systems turned over never really saw action before)  and that helps them develop the next gen of weapons,  and  of course gain significant interests over a valuable resource (the food producing lands) as well as a geographically strategic base for containing russia moving forward.

The US has been at odds with russia since the October Revolution (Which in typical russian fashion happened in November).  They held their noses to work together in ww2 but that didn't even last till the end of the war.  There's no doubt that even if the US would have preferred the war not to happen they're plenty happy to milk it to weaken russia and gain strategic advantages now. 

[Nationalist]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course . And i think both "sides" in this discussion here probably agree that's absolutely horrible and it would have been radically better if the war had not happened. I haven't read all the posts by any stretch but would be surprised to find anyone of any persuasion  gleeful or even satisfied about the loss of life or property.

But the war happened and now that it happened the question shifts to "are we better off to focus on how to stop it, or are we better off focusing on how to limit or eliminate such conflicts moving forward".

Well that is obviously and demonstrably true.

That i cannot answer. Time will tell I suppose.

I really don't think there's any big mystery there.  The western allies all obviously feel that this is a great way to weaken russia, test out a bunch of their weapons in actual combat (many of the systems turned over never really saw action before)  and that helps them develop the next gen of weapons,  and  of course gain significant interests over a valuable resource (the food producing lands) as well as a geographically strategic base for containing russia moving forward.

The US has been at odds with russia since the October Revolution (Which in typical russian fashion happened in November).  They held their noses to work together in ww2 but that didn't even last till the end of the war.  There's no doubt that even if the US would have preferred the war not to happen they're plenty happy to milk it to weaken russia and gain strategic advantages now. 

I think a lot of people celebrate the carnage on both sides. That's how it sounds to me anyway.

Is it a strategic advantage? Are we really weakening Russia?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I think a lot of people celebrate the carnage on both sides. That's how it sounds to me anyway.

 

I would hate for that to be true.

Quote

Is it a strategic advantage? Are we really weakening Russia?

Well thats the thought.  Of course opinions may vary but that is the working supposition.