Jump to content

War In Ukraine


Recommended Posts

 

It seems that Ukraine has lost the war. Ukraine is losing the war, now it's America's turn to be in the same position. 

My friendly advice to every American soldier is to refuse to go. You are not fighting for America, Americans, you are fighting for  Deep State and its puppets like Biden, Pelosi, Graham  etc.
Edited by athos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 1:34 AM, CdnFox said:

By finished you mean they won already so they're done? :)

OK...a few questions:

1. Do you think Ukraine can win a war with Russia without NATO soldiers?

2. Should NATO soldiers be sent to Ukraine, do you think the European people will support that?

3. What happens if NATO refuses to send soldiers?

4. What happens to NATO if some decide to send soldiers and some refuse?

And

5. How long do you think Germany will pay America's price for oil and gas, before they begin questioning their relationship with America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

OK...a few questions:

1. Do you think Ukraine can win a war with Russia without NATO soldiers?

If we're defining 'winning' as taking back the territory they lost from the russians in this recent invasion then sure. I think they need nato GEAR but with enough of that they can win.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

2. Should NATO soldiers be sent to Ukraine, do you think the European people will support that?

No, and nobody is talking about doing that.  So why are you bringing it up?

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

3. What happens if NATO refuses to send soldiers?

The same thing that's happening now - nato will supply equipment and russia will suffer massive losses. IF they get enough equipment the russians will be beaten back.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

4. What happens to NATO if some decide to send soldiers and some refuse?

Then those countries would be acting unilaterally, and we've seen that before. Iraq for example, nato wouldn't get involved the un wouldn't sanction it so the us put together a small coalition on it's own and attacked.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And

5. How long do you think Germany will pay America's price for oil and gas, before they begin questioning their relationship with America?

Forever. They might have thoughts about their relationship with the us, but they KNOW with certainty their relationship with the russians is  a disaster. Russian oil will always be the stuff they cut first. Nobody wants to be moscow's biatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If we're defining 'winning' as taking back the territory they lost from the russians in this recent invasion then sure. I think they need nato GEAR but with enough of that they can win.

No, and nobody is talking about doing that.  So why are you bringing it up?

The same thing that's happening now - nato will supply equipment and russia will suffer massive losses. IF they get enough equipment the russians will be beaten back.

Then those countries would be acting unilaterally, and we've seen that before. Iraq for example, nato wouldn't get involved the un wouldn't sanction it so the us put together a small coalition on it's own and attacked.

Forever. They might have thoughts about their relationship with the us, but they KNOW with certainty their relationship with the russians is  a disaster. Russian oil will always be the stuff they cut first. Nobody wants to be moscow's biatch.

 

See the first few minutes...

No I'm quite sure they're happier being the USA's biatch.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-thousands-protest-high-energy-costs-in-6-cities/a-63526936

Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition with Russia. Its really that simple. If it were up to me right now, I'd make a deal that allows both sides to claim a partial victory and be done with it. Ukraine is never gonna have peace otherwise, and the escalation risk is way more than any sane person wants to bear.

People don't really give a rat's ass about Ukraine. Its the "cause du jour" for the SJWs. But its costing the Europeans way more than they (the public) are willing to spend. They want stable power, ample heating, and peace...all at a reasonable cost. It makes perfect sense for Europe to get its oil and gas from the only European nation with an abundance of it. That is...

If Joe would stop blowing up pipelines...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No I'm quite sure they're happier being the USA's biatch.

Sure, relatively speaking.  Putin's a dictator and invades his neighbours.  

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Why are you still referencing protests from last October?  Nobody ever said 100% of Germans support Ukraine.  Like here,  they also have pro-Putin losers at home, especially in the former soviet east.  

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition with Russia. Its really that simple.

Depends on the rate of attrition for both sides.  If the Ukrainians are on the defensive and with better equipment, the loss ratio might be so bad for the Russians that they do, in fact, lose.  As I've said many times, we're comparing the economies and the MIC of the US and all of Europe to Russia, which is probably 30:1 or worse in terms of capacity, not to mention quality and shorter supply lines. 

The only advantage Russia really has here is in the number of men eligible for service.  They're clearly willing to throw away their people's lives for marginal gains, but the question is how long those people will be willing to do it for.  A 4:1 manpower advantage counts for little if you can't mobilize it.  

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

If it were up to me right now, I'd make a deal that allows both sides to claim a partial victory and be done with it. Ukraine is never gonna have peace otherwise, and the escalation risk is way more than any sane person wants to bear.

Ukraine can have peace when Russia loses the will to continue.  The whole war has been a massive waste (for Russia).  They've lost the (relatively speaking) cream of their incompetent army and lost access to the European markets in exchange for for a wasteland of uninhabited rubble of their own making.  

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

People don't really give a rat's ass about Ukraine. Its the "cause du jour" for the SJWs.

Except you're very clearly wrong in that.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Sure, relatively speaking.  Putin's a dictator and invades his neighbours. 

The USA just relatively blew up a gas pipeline. I'm not sure sure there's much difference between Biden and Putin at this point.

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Why are you still referencing protests from last October?  Nobody ever said 100% of Germans support Ukraine.  Like here,  they also have pro-Putin losers at home, especially in the former soviet east. 

Yes there are protests in Russia. Although...they can get in trouble for doing so. Free speech is non-existent in either Russia or Ukraine. Go figure...

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Depends on the rate of attrition for both sides.  If the Ukrainians are on the defensive and with better equipment, the loss ratio might be so bad for the Russians that they do, in fact, lose.  As I've said many times, we're comparing the economies and the MIC of the US and all of Europe to Russia, which is probably 30:1 or worse in terms of capacity, not to mention quality and shorter supply lines. 

The only advantage Russia really has here is in the number of men eligible for service.  They're clearly willing to throw away their people's lives for marginal gains, but the question is how long those people will be willing to do it for.  A 4:1 manpower advantage counts for little if you can't mobilize it.  

You have half a point there. I know the Slovaks are now trying to induct young men into their military. Those young Slovak men I know...relatives...ain't to keen on the idea. I have a feeling the Euros are not going to respond to such a thing well...but we will see.

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Ukraine can have peace when Russia loses the will to continue.  The whole war has been a massive waste (for Russia).  They've lost the (relatively speaking) cream of their incompetent army and lost access to the European markets in exchange for for a wasteland of uninhabited rubble of their own making.  

How magnanimous of you to decide their fate for them. You should tell Zelinsky and Putin you've relieved them of the tedium of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The USA just relatively blew up a gas pipeline. I'm not sure sure there's much difference between Biden and Putin at this point.

They may have, or they may not have.  Seymour Hersh isn't someone you can rely on to tell that story though.  

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes there are protests in Russia. Although...they can get in trouble for doing so. Free speech is non-existent in either Russia or Ukraine. Go figure...

Ukraine has had more than one leader in the last 20 years.  

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You have half a point there. I know the Slovaks are now trying to induct young men into their military. Those young Slovak men I know...relatives...ain't to keen on the idea. I have a feeling the Euros are not going to respond to such a thing well...but we will see.

There's already forced service all through the EU. The difference is that they don't get sent off to die on pointless vanity wars for ageing dictators.  

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

How magnanimous of you to decide their fate for them. You should tell Zelinsky and Putin you've relieved them of the tedium of thought.

I'm not deciding anything for them.  They're deciding for themselves, and we're giving them the weapons they need to be able to do so.  ?‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

They may have, or they may not have.  Seymour Hersh isn't someone you can rely on to tell that story though.  

Ukraine has had more than one leader in the last 20 years.  

There's already forced service all through the EU. The difference is that they don't get sent off to die on pointless vanity wars for ageing dictators.  

I'm not deciding anything for them.  They're deciding for themselves, and we're giving them the weapons they need to be able to do so.  ?‍♂️

Which brings us full circle. Can the Ukes win a war of attrition with Russia. At this point, you and I are never gonna agree on that. Let's wait and see what happens I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

See the first few minutes...

Dude i'm not watching some random shit you post.  Make your point yourself and then you can always use a video for a reference.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No I'm quite sure they're happier being the USA's biatch.

Funny story - there are countries that sell oil that aren't the USA :)

But given a choice between moscow and washington - i'm sure they WOULD rather be the US's biatch. Beats the hell out of answering to putin.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition with Russia. Its really that simple.

Why not? The US and their allies can produce war material far far faster than Russia or it's allies can. They seem to be inflicting casualties on the russian side at a higher rate than they're taking them. I don't think it's "really that simple" at all.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

If it were up to me right now, I'd make a deal that allows both sides to claim a partial victory and be done with it. Ukraine is never gonna have peace otherwise, and the escalation risk is way more than any sane person wants to bear.

The escallation risk is the same whether there is peace or not.  But otherwise, sure. The best thing would for everyone to go away equally unhappy. I don't we're going to see that yet - we might before it's over.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

People don't really give a rat's ass about Ukraine. Its the "cause du jour" for the SJWs. But its costing the Europeans way more than they (the public) are willing to spend. They want stable power, ample heating, and peace...all at a reasonable cost. It makes perfect sense for Europe to get its oil and gas from the only European nation with an abundance of it.

Well - I think it makes MORE sense to get all your oil and gas from a country or countries that are more stable and less prone to invading people than Russia :)  but i get that may not be an option for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Dude i'm not watching some random shit you post.  Make your point yourself and then you can always use a video for a reference.

I did in a previous post...I think.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Why not? The US and their allies can produce war material far far faster than Russia or it's allies can. They seem to be inflicting casualties on the russian side at a higher rate than they're taking them. I don't think it's "really that simple" at all.

China is now supporting Russia. Can NATO outbuild them and Russia? Plus, the Russian military is over twice the size of Ukraine's. It's just not rational to think Ukraine can win this without NATO troops.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The escallation risk is the same whether there is peace or not. 

How so?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well - I think it makes MORE sense to get all your oil and gas from a country or countries that are more stable and less prone to invading people than Russia :)  but i get that may not be an option for a while.

Like who? The USA?

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

China is now supporting Russia. Can NATO outbuild them and Russia? Plus, the Russian military is over twice the size of Ukraine's. It's just not rational to think Ukraine can win this without NATO troops.

Comfortably. China builds a lot of computer chips but they don't actually have all that much in the way of heavy industrial output capacity. I mean they're not exaclty without it but it's nothing compared to the us, and with the us, germany, britian etc etc added up china and russia can't even come close.

Further china isn't actually supplying lethal equipment to russia yet. And if they do it will be on a fairly limited basis. They'll face sanctions for what they do so they won't want to go TOO far - just enough to get the russians to sell their souls :)

There is no need for nato troops for ukraine to win, just nato equipment. With enough gear they can cause an insane amount of damage to the russians and the russians don't seem to have their crap together to fight effectively.

Quote

How so?

Basically there is  a small risk of escallation if we continue what we're doing now. If we stop and the russians feel they gained something then this will be happening again shortly and the risk goes up at that point until the situation stabilizes as it has here.

Think of it like this - the us and allies let poutine have crimea in order to prevent the risk of an escallation if ukraine opposed that. But that has lead to where we are now and the increased risk that we face. And it could have been worse, so far the confrontation has been pretty manageable.

So - there is an equivalent risk to doing nothing as there is dealing with the situation which at least we know right now

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Like who? The USA?

The USA is far less likely to attack germany than russia is. Well.... attack them again anyway :)

Are you trying to suggest that the US is an equal hostile threat to germany as russia is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Comfortably. China builds a lot of computer chips but they don't actually have all that much in the way of heavy industrial output capacity. I mean they're not exaclty without it but it's nothing compared to the us, and with the us, germany, britian etc etc added up china and russia can't even come close.

Further china isn't actually supplying lethal equipment to russia yet. And if they do it will be on a fairly limited basis. They'll face sanctions for what they do so they won't want to go TOO far - just enough to get the russians to sell their souls :)

There is no need for nato troops for ukraine to win, just nato equipment. With enough gear they can cause an insane amount of damage to the russians and the russians don't seem to have their crap together to fight effectively.

Basically there is  a small risk of escallation if we continue what we're doing now. If we stop and the russians feel they gained something then this will be happening again shortly and the risk goes up at that point until the situation stabilizes as it has here.

Think of it like this - the us and allies let poutine have crimea in order to prevent the risk of an escallation if ukraine opposed that. But that has lead to where we are now and the increased risk that we face. And it could have been worse, so far the confrontation has been pretty manageable.

So - there is an equivalent risk to doing nothing as there is dealing with the situation which at least we know right now

The USA is far less likely to attack germany than russia is. Well.... attack them again anyway :)

Are you trying to suggest that the US is an equal hostile threat to germany as russia is?

No. I always think of "He's got 'em" when I read people extolling the virtues of US intervention. 

Whether you admit it or not, this is the one scenario that could never happen...and is now. 

What was it Biden said? Oh ya...something about a "minor incursion". Perhaps the most lucid thought the old fart ever had.

You warn against the potential of a physical attack by Russia on Germany. I would suggest that everyone already knows from the example of the EU...it's so much easier to buy a country, than it is to physically conquer it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No. I always think of "He's got 'em" when I read people extolling the virtues of US intervention. 

Well i'm not sure who 'he' is but the US isn't intervening anywhere at the moment. Although i probably better time stamp that just in case something happens before you read it :)

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Whether you admit it or not, this is the one scenario that could never happen...and is now. 

ERrrrrr whatnow?

 

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You warn against the potential of a physical attack by Russia on Germany. I would suggest that everyone already knows from the example of the EU...it's so much easier to buy a country, than it is to physically conquer it.

Well the russians are testing that theory right now with their oil supplies. And i think the germans would rather be dependant on other sources of oil than the russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well i'm not sure who 'he' is but the US isn't intervening anywhere at the moment. Although i probably better time stamp that just in case something happens before you read it :)

ERrrrrr whatnow?

 

Well the russians are testing that theory right now with their oil supplies. And i think the germans would rather be dependant on other sources of oil than the russians.

"he" would be Sadam Husain.

What now? We watch nuclear war get closer than it's been since Kennedy. This is something that cannot happen.

They are involved. But I think it Biden who's testing Germany's preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

What now? We watch nuclear war get closer than it's been since Kennedy. This is something that cannot happen.

We were always close. THe difference is you couldn't see it.  Everybody is thinking that this came out of nowhere and 2 years ago there was no problems and war, nuclear or otherwise, was not an issue but really this has been going on since crimea when Vlad took that region without a fight.  Since then he's been biding his time looking for the right moment and we were ALWAYS headed to another conflict with the ever present possibility of nuclear war.

We are just bloody lucky that it didn't end in a week as he hoped, or we'd be headed to the next conflict. As it is, no matter what happens now he'll think twice before jumping into his next military adventure.

Now we just have to grind him as much as possible and make this as miserable as possible. You have to show him that the threat of nuclear war is not your concern, otherwise he'll always pull that out. He's been threatening nuclear retaliation since day one and if we'd listened we'd never be able to back down in the future without pushing him into a corner.

 

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

They are involved. But I think it Biden who's testing Germany's preference.

Hardly. Biden isn't threatening to cut off germany's gas and let them freeze in the dark That'd be putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We were always close. THe difference is you couldn't see it.  Everybody is thinking that this came out of nowhere and 2 years ago there was no problems and war, nuclear or otherwise, was not an issue but really this has been going on since crimea when Vlad took that region without a fight.  Since then he's been biding his time looking for the right moment and we were ALWAYS headed to another conflict with the ever present possibility of nuclear war.

We are just bloody lucky that it didn't end in a week as he hoped, or we'd be headed to the next conflict. As it is, no matter what happens now he'll think twice before jumping into his next military adventure.

Now we just have to grind him as much as possible and make this as miserable as possible. You have to show him that the threat of nuclear war is not your concern, otherwise he'll always pull that out. He's been threatening nuclear retaliation since day one and if we'd listened we'd never be able to back down in the future without pushing him into a corner.

 

Hardly. Biden isn't threatening to cut off germany's gas and let them freeze in the dark That'd be putin.

Let's be truthful here. Putin has just pulled out of the nuclear treaty. Tick. He's threatened to use nukes. Something I don't think he's ever done before. Tick. The US blew up their gas pipelines. Tick. No...I think it's reasonable to view this time as approaching nuclear war.

It sounds like you're convinced Putin plans on attacking NATO. I've not seen evidence of that.

The truth seems somewhat...too square to fit into the round hole you want to force it into. The bald truth appears to be that Ukraine was poorly created in the first place. Russians commonly call Ukrainians "Kogut". The Ukrainians call Russians quilted jackets I believe. They don't like each other. Yet that eastern region, which has always been overwhelmingly russian, was drawn inside Ukraine. Conflict was inevitable and in Odessa it became a nightmare. Throughout the Donbas regions, violent clashes became the norm. So they held a referendum, which produced the same results as had happened in Crimea. In response, the Ukraine sent self avowed neo-Nazis to crush the independence movement. The ethnic Russian population of the region begged Russia for help and finally, last year, they obliged.

Does that exonerate the Russians? Certainly not. Yet the truth paints a rather different picture than is commonly extolled by western media. Go figure...

A lot of thoughtless twits made a lot of arrogant decisions. It's much more complex than simply...'Russia bad'. They're all bad. Putin...Zelinsky...Biden...all of them. And for what?

To defend "Democracy"? Hardly. Zelinsky's rule exemplifies a complete disdain for the pillars of a healthy Democracy.

To defend a NATO nation? Nope.

So why? What does NATO gain by arming Ukraine and driving closer to nuclear war?

What I see is NATO closing all the avenues to peace. A concerted effort to force themselves into a direct war with Russia. At this point, I'm becoming convinced NATO actually wants a full scale war with Russia. 

That which was unthinkable, now seems inevitable.

"Whoopie...we all gonna die."

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Let's be truthful here. Putin has just pulled out of the nuclear treaty. Tick. He's threatened to use nukes. Something I don't think he's ever done before. Tick. The US blew up their gas pipelines. Tick. No...I think it's reasonable to view this time as approaching nuclear war.

Well that wasn't very truthful was it.  Putin has rattled his nuclear saber MANY times in the past and in fact did so in this crisis before anyone helped. Pulling out of the treaty is largely meaningless. There is zero evidence the US blew up any pipelines.

So if we're being 'honest' - nothing has significantly changed. Russia still has more than enough nukes to toast the planet, treaty or no, and other than that it's the same as its always been.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

It sounds like you're convinced Putin plans on attacking NATO. I've not seen evidence of that.

Well you'd have to be about 7 different kinds of dense to think that i said that. As i was clear many times, given the pounding he's taken over Ukraine it's unlikely he will be planning ANY military adventures for a long time. This has moved us AWAY from more risky conflicts.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Does that exonerate the Russians? Certainly not. Yet the truth paints a rather different picture than is commonly extolled by western media. Go figure...

Dude - putin did NOT drive his forces into those regions and attempt to save them. He drove his forces straight at the heart of Ukraine and tried to take the entire country.

So lets be crystal clear -this had ZERO to do with helping the poor people of the donbas escape repression. This had EVERYTHING to do with attempting to add Ukraine to russia by way of military adventure and conquest.

Period. Anything else could have been negotiated. It wasn't.  There is NO redeeming feature here - putin chose to invade for no other reason than he wanted the territory and resources and every death is his fault directly.

You sound like those people who try to say we shoudln't lock up muderers and rapists because they had a hard life so it's not their fault. It's their fault.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

To defend "Democracy"? Hardly. Zelinsky's rule exemplifies a complete disdain for the pillars of a healthy Democracy.

To defend a NATO nation? Nope.

So why? What does NATO gain by arming Ukraine and driving closer to nuclear war?

The depletion of the russian conventional forces to the point where they are no longer a threat and sending the very cear message to russia and china that if you partake in military adventure and conquest it might go very very badly for you, so maybe don't do that.

Which is exaclty what they're getting.  Russia's ability to project power beyond it's borders has been outrageously damaged, and their weapons stockpiles have been seriously depleted. It's a safe bet that if putin could rewind the clock he wouldn't have invaded. China gets the message and realizes that if they can't take tiawan in a day or three then those people will get enough arms to make it a very very bloody affair for the chinese that may not achieve what they want it to.

And of course russia is taking a massive prestige hit worldwide. When "client states" are thinking about getting behind russia they're going to think twice. They're going to decide if they're getting russian gear and their opponents are getting nato gear, they may be at a disadvantage.

And finally of course nato is getting someone to test out the effectiveness of their gear and develop new tactics for them for free. The next gen himars will be even more impressive and the tactics and lessons of this war will be integreated into the us plans and equipment making them even more effective. And all it cost them was a few billion which is nothing.

All of which is why they won't have any problem continuing to fund this forever as long as public sentiment about the war continues. It's got squat to do with 'democracy' or that ukraine is such a great and noble and honest country blah blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

The Communists from the FSB are running disinformation campaigns in Europe and in America, picked up soon by local populists, which look, redacted got the first tip. 

? ? ? ? ?

Disinformation in the USA: A twisted statement by Zelenskiy is used to suggest that Americans should go to war.

Report: 

  • A twisted statement by Volodymyr Zelensky is being used in the US to suggest that the president of Ukraine has asked for "sons and daughters" of Americans to come fight and die in the war in this country, disinformation being used by US politicians who oppose aid as well granted by the USA to Ukraine.
  • The video fragment, in which Zelenski's statement is taken out of context, was cut from the speech he gave on February 24, one year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and distributed massively on Twitter. In the 19 seconds clipped, Zelenki says: "The USA will have to send its sons and daughters, just as we send our sons and daughters, to war. And they will have to fight, because we are talking about NATO. And they will die. God forbid, because it's a horrible thing."
  • But Zelensky was not referring to the war in Ukraine. Previously, he had said that if Ukraine loses the war with Russia, it is very likely that Vladimir Putin will also decide to invade the Baltic countries. And as they are NATO members, according to the obligations provided by Article 5 of the Alliance, the other states, including the USA, will have to intervene in their aid.
  • In this context, the "sons and daughters" of the Americans would have ended up in the war. The out-of-context statement was also shared by American politicians who oppose US support for Ukraine, such as Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even after several media platforms showed that Zelensky did not demand that the Americans fight in Ukraine, she continued to criticize the Ukrainian president, most recently on Friday, at a Republican convention attended by Donald Trump.
  • At least the communist bot is doing his job probably from Siberia.   You have a computer and help him for free. A true soldier. A nationalist for communists. ? ? ?  

European Press and other sources

And you think Putin will go after the Baltic states? NATO members? In your last post you claimed it was a practice for new munitions. Who's playing whom?

 

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that wasn't very truthful was it.  Putin has rattled his nuclear saber MANY times in the past and in fact did so in this crisis before anyone helped. Pulling out of the treaty is largely meaningless. There is zero evidence the US blew up any pipelines.

So if we're being 'honest' - nothing has significantly changed. Russia still has more than enough nukes to toast the planet, treaty or no, and other than that it's the same as its always been.

Well you'd have to be about 7 different kinds of dense to think that i said that. As i was clear many times, given the pounding he's taken over Ukraine it's unlikely he will be planning ANY military adventures for a long time. This has moved us AWAY from more risky conflicts.

Dude - putin did NOT drive his forces into those regions and attempt to save them. He drove his forces straight at the heart of Ukraine and tried to take the entire country.

So lets be crystal clear -this had ZERO to do with helping the poor people of the donbas escape repression. This had EVERYTHING to do with attempting to add Ukraine to russia by way of military adventure and conquest.

Period. Anything else could have been negotiated. It wasn't.  There is NO redeeming feature here - putin chose to invade for no other reason than he wanted the territory and resources and every death is his fault directly.

You sound like those people who try to say we shoudln't lock up muderers and rapists because they had a hard life so it's not their fault. It's their fault.

The depletion of the russian conventional forces to the point where they are no longer a threat and sending the very cear message to russia and china that if you partake in military adventure and conquest it might go very very badly for you, so maybe don't do that.

Which is exaclty what they're getting.  Russia's ability to project power beyond it's borders has been outrageously damaged, and their weapons stockpiles have been seriously depleted. It's a safe bet that if putin could rewind the clock he wouldn't have invaded. China gets the message and realizes that if they can't take tiawan in a day or three then those people will get enough arms to make it a very very bloody affair for the chinese that may not achieve what they want it to.

And of course russia is taking a massive prestige hit worldwide. When "client states" are thinking about getting behind russia they're going to think twice. They're going to decide if they're getting russian gear and their opponents are getting nato gear, they may be at a disadvantage.

And finally of course nato is getting someone to test out the effectiveness of their gear and develop new tactics for them for free. The next gen himars will be even more impressive and the tactics and lessons of this war will be integreated into the us plans and equipment making them even more effective. And all it cost them was a few billion which is nothing.

All of which is why they won't have any problem continuing to fund this forever as long as public sentiment about the war continues. It's got squat to do with 'democracy' or that ukraine is such a great and noble and honest country blah blah.

All the evidence that exists, points straight at Biden having those pipelines destroyed. 

So this is a practice war? A chance to test new technologies in a real scenario?

Which is worse? Risking nuclear war to defend a dictator and his non-NATO country? Or risking nuclear war to test new guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And you think Putin will go after the Baltic states? NATO members? In your last post you claimed it was a practice for new munitions. Who's playing whom?

 

I find I must apologize to you Contrarian. I mistook you for another poster here.

Yet tell me...what makes you think Putin will attack a NATO nation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to look at the end game. Anything short of a decisive Russian defeat, will not end the war. Negotiating a settlement before a defeat on the battlefield will just postpone the war, while Russia regroups for another go. If the Ukraine falls to Russia, President Putin will exact another Holodomor as pay back for daring to resist. The last Holodomor killed an estimated three to six million Ukrainians.
The Russian arguement that the Donbas should belong to Russia because many inhabitants speak Russian is the same as Hitler's excuse to invade Czechoslovakia and Austria because many of the inhabitants spoke German.
Too often, when a country needs help, the chicken-**** lobby goes into high gear. When Haile Selassie asked for aid against Fascist Italy, the world turned its back on them to appease the Italians. When Hitler took the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia and Austria, the western powers were bathed in yellow. Even when the Nazis invaded Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, Denmark, and France, the US resisted opposing the Nazis. While FDR did all he could to help the allies, he was opposed by Ambassador Kennedy and a chicken-**** "America First " lobby. When Romeo Dallaire begged for help in Rwanda, the world was full of cowards.
The only acceptable outcome of this war that will prevent, not only a holocaust against the Ukrainian people, but the potential for WW3, is for Russia to be beaten so badly, they will not try to attack another country for a long time. The same goes for any designs Red China has on Taiwan.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...