Ukraine Can't Win the War

[athos]

On 3/26/2024 at 1:47 AM, Aristides said:

ISIS is now CIA. You will swallow anything Putin tells you.😞

I agree It is sad to see how stupid Slavs kill each other for the interests of the Anglo-Khazarian globalists. By the way what ethnicity is Zelensky?

[Nationalist]

FYI...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-trouble-zelenskyy-admit-defeat-russia-war-us-aid-2024-4?op=1

And France is threatening to put military into Ukraine. But that will escalate the war to WWIII and the real threat of nuclear exchange.

Should that happen...should WWIII begin over a NATO reject...all you limp noodle war mongers will face global disaster. But while you all hide your worthless a55es, you'll profess, "We had to protect Democracy." 

Pfft...you all have been wrong all along and now, your stupidity is in full view.

If WWIII starts, it'll be a NATO nation that starts it. 

Edited May 7 by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

Quote

Russia says that it could target British military locations in the UK and beyond if the West doesn’t cool it with threats. 

UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron recently said that Ukraine has the “right” to use British weapons in attacks on Russia. For that, Russia summoned the British and French ambassadors to Moscow and told them this: “Any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond could be a response to Ukrainian strikes with the use of British weapons on the territory of Russia.” 

U.S. and U.K. politicians are talking a big game about sending troops to fight Russia in Ukraine but the State Department walked that back a little saying: “The President has made clear that he will not send US troops to fight in Ukraine.” 

French President Emmanuel Macron also reiterated that when he said that he wouldn’t rule out sending troops to Ukraine, he didn’t mean it. On Monday he said, “We are not at war with Russia or the Russian people. We are also not seeking a change of power in Russia."

ROFLMAO!!!

He didn't mean it...what a limp French Fry.

Then there's Brandon. The twit who the State Department has to correct because of his bloviations.

Where's all the death-cultists now?

"We must support Ukraine and Democracy! Russian will lose this war!"

What a pack of blood thirsty, stupid people.

[Videospirit]

If Territory is ceded to Russia in a peace deal, it will be the first time that territory was recognized and accepted as legally annexed by a foreign nation militarily since world war 2.

The ideals that went into the creation of the united nations will have been completely abandoned. The fragile status quo that has allowed most of the world to live in relative peace will be shattered. A new era of conquest will unfold.

So every nation on the planet that does not want their nation to go to war has an obligation to make sure Russia is driven out of Ukraine.

[eyeball]

On 5/7/2024 at 10:46 PM, Videospirit said:

The ideals that went into the creation of the united nations will have been completely abandoned.

The chance to get off the ground was dashed the moment the UN Security council came into being.

[Videospirit]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

The chance to get off the ground was dashed the moment the UN Security council came into being.

It's been pretty significantly undermined by the security council yes. And yet, even in it's current form, it's managed to maintain relative peace in the world, and international law is widely used to resolve disputes. The minute nations recognize a Ukraine Russia peace deal that cedes territory as legal though? They won't even be able to so much as pretend the charter of the UN matters anymore. International law will be a thing of the past.

[Perspektiv]

On 5/8/2024 at 1:46 AM, Videospirit said:

So every nation on the planet that does not want their nation to go to war has an obligation to make sure Russia is driven out of Ukraine.

This is futile.

Ukraine is under manned, doesn't come close to Russia's firepower, and any dreams of driving them out, are fantasy.

The war will end with negotiations, and this will include ceding land to Russia.

This war will not last 5 to 10 years, either. The cost for it, would be preposterous for many countries.

Accept the losses, and recognize the new world order and arm yourself to the teeth.

 

[Aristides]

On 5/7/2024 at 7:03 AM, Nationalist said:

ROFLMAO!!!

He didn't mean it...what a limp French Fry.

Then there's Brandon. The twit who the State Department has to correct because of his bloviations.

Where's all the death-cultists now?

"We must support Ukraine and Democracy! Russian will lose this war!"

What a pack of blood thirsty, stupid people.

Yet you cheer for the guy who started this war.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yet you cheer for the guy who started this war.

Cheer? I acknowledge the obvious. The inevitable. But cheer?

You should try telling the truth.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Cheer? I acknowledge the obvious. The inevitable. But cheer?

You should try telling the truth.

Yes cheer, your sympathies are a matter of record. You should try being truthful yourself.

Edited May 13 by Aristides

[Videospirit]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This is futile.

Ukraine is under manned, doesn't come close to Russia's firepower, and any dreams of driving them out, are fantasy.

The war will end with negotiations, and this will include ceding land to Russia.

This war will not last 5 to 10 years, either. The cost for it, would be preposterous for many countries.

Accept the losses, and recognize the new world order and arm yourself to the teeth.

 

If it takes foreign boots on the ground to drive Russia out, that would be preferable to a peace deal that makes wars of conquest legal again.

The consequences of such a peace deal are just too great.

And it'd be way cheaper to defeat Russia now than to let Russia get any kind of victory and than pay for all of the wars that will follow. So arguing about the cost is shortsighted and you should shut down anyone who chickens out about defeating Russia because of the cost for how short sighted such arguments are.

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes cheer, your sympathies are a matter of record. You should try being truthful yourself.

How many times have I said I could care less about either? What...20 or so?

I see what's happening and see that Ukraine cannot "win".

If reality hurts your precious feewings...tough.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

How many times have I said I could care less about either? What...20 or so?

I see what's happening and see that Ukraine cannot "win".

If reality hurts your precious feewings...tough.

Yet your posts on all the Ukraine threads say otherwise.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Videospirit said:

If it takes foreign boots on the ground to drive Russia out, that would be preferable to a peace deal that makes wars of conquest legal again.

So a world war would be preferable?

2 hours ago, Videospirit said:

And it'd be way cheaper to defeat Russia now

How is a global conflict cheaper? You put foreign boots in this war, and you essentially ignite a far greater war, and likely global conflict.

This is far more costly, in human lives, financially and in any metrics you would want to measure.

2 hours ago, Videospirit said:

who chickens out about defeating Russia

Its not about chickening out. Its simply the lack of alternatives.

How do you defeat Russia without involving other countries in this conflict? In doing so, how do you avoid China, Iran, North Korea and other key allies to refrain from joining the mix?

[Videospirit]

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

So a world war would be preferable?

How is a global conflict cheaper? You put foreign boots in this war, and you essentially ignite a far greater war, and likely global conflict.

This is far more costly, in human lives, financially and in any metrics you would want to measure.

Its not about chickening out. Its simply the lack of alternatives.

How do you defeat Russia without involving other countries in this conflict? In doing so, how do you avoid China, Iran, North Korea and other key allies to refrain from joining the mix?

It's pretty simple, if foreign boots in Ukraine would provoke world war 3, world war 3 is inevitable if Russia wins the war, but you'll have to pay for all the wars leading up to world war 3 as well as the inevitable world war 3.

Now if Ukraine can win the war without foreign boots, that's a best case scenario because no chance of world war 3 that way, so it's worth trying that first.

If the doomsayers in this topic saying Ukraine can't win are correct, foreign boots on the ground is the only alternative that can prevent world war 3. Whether Ukraine stays a proxy war that sticks to the territory of Ukraine or evolves into a full blown world war 3 in that situation isn't certain, but it's better to provoke world war 3 asap than to appease a conqueror. The conqueror is just going to get stronger every time you appease them and be harder to defeat when they finally attack your country.

But I for one seriously doubt Russia or China wants to spark world war 3, and North Korea and Iran sure as hell don't have the guts to do it. It would almost certainly be a proxy war at most.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yet your posts on all the Ukraine threads say otherwise.

No they don't. Try actually reading.

[Perspektiv]

11 hours ago, Videospirit said:

Now if Ukraine can win the war without foreign boots

This is literally impossible. Russia isn't using the entire weight of its military might.

They're satisfied with this grinding away, slowly and remaining a costly stalemate, occasionally orchestrating surprise attacks to a beleaguered Ukraine army, and chisel away tiny plots of land at a time.

11 hours ago, Videospirit said:

If the doomsayers in this topic saying Ukraine can't win are correct, foreign boots on the ground is the only alternative that can prevent world war 3.

That would be the only way to cause world war three. War is a calculated chess match. Russia has played its turn, and is saying "Check!" To checkmate Russia--or your option, would force Russia's allies to throw their hats into the ring. This worsens a situation. NATO is defensive in nature, so it would make absolutely no sense.

Sooner or later, negotiations will bring this conflict to an end.

11 hours ago, Videospirit said:

The conqueror is just going to get stronger every time you appease them and be harder to defeat when they finally attack your country.

That's just fear mongering. Russia saw an incredibly weak foe, in Ukraine, and they knew that attacking them would get them little in terms of actual consequences (if comparing it to the crime committed, that is).

I heard a quote that describes Putin to a T. "Keep pushing, until you hit iron".

A military quote I heard, but describes how Putin calculates his moves. He wouldn't be crazy enough to attack a country, if the consequences would far outweigh his ambitions. Anyone stating otherwise, are fear mongering to justify continuing supplying weapons to places like Ukraine.

[Videospirit]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That would be the only way to cause world war three. War is a calculated chess match. Russia has played its turn, and is saying "Check!" To checkmate Russia--or your option, would force Russia's allies to throw their hats into the ring.

Why would Russia's allies attack Ukraine if Ukraine's allies defend it? None of Russia's treaties require their allies to join their invasion against Ukraine, and Russia's allies almost certainly don't want to go to war with the EU or NATO. I'm not saying people should invade Russia, they should just kick Russia out of Ukraine than Fortify the hell out of the border. If Russia failing to Conquer Ukraine is a serious enough setback for Russia that Russia's allies will provoke world war 3 in response, world war 3 is going to happen because it means Russia's allies are already committed to starting an era of wars of conquest. 

Do you have no understanding of foreign policy?

[Perspektiv]

15 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Why would Russia's allies attack Ukraine if Ukraine's allies defend it?

Ukraine is not a NATO ally, so would make absolutely no sense, to launch any attack on Russia to defend it.

NATO is purely defensive in nature, and should remain that way to deter its enemies.

19 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

they should just kick Russia out of Ukraine 

You can't be serious. How do you kick out Russia, without dragging NATO into a world conflict?

You honestly think Russian allies will sit idly, when dozens of countries gang up on the now defenseless and overwhelmed Russia?

They have no treaty, but common sense stipulates that you are willing to engage in war when your national interests are under threat. You don't spend trillions in war, to help others. There is nothing altruistic about war.

Many countries have billions of interests in Russia. 

Same reason why so many oil rich countries had wars in them. 

23 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Do you have no understanding of foreign policy?

Not an expert nor close. But do understand that attacking a nuclear armed country, isn't a smart move.

[Videospirit]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

Ukraine is not a NATO ally, so would make absolutely no sense, to launch any attack on Russia to defend it.

Why does whether or not Ukraine is a NATO ally matter whether it would make sense to "launch an attack on Russia" as you claim? National interests are under threat from Russian aggression either way. National interests of "I don't want to legitimize being invaded by a stronger country" should exist for every country on the planet except like, China, so all of them have motive to prevent Russian conquest.

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You can't be serious. How do you kick out Russia, without dragging NATO into a world conflict?

The same way the US came to South Vietnam's aid without dragging NATO into a world conflict?

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You honestly think Russian allies will sit idly, when dozens of countries gang up on the now defenseless and overwhelmed Russia?

Not an expert nor close. But do understand that attacking a nuclear armed country, isn't a smart move.

Yeah? As long as Ukraine is the battlefield and not Russia proper, they would do exactly that. Same reason Russia isn't going to use nukes over Ukraine, but will if people invade Russia proper.

[Perspektiv]

16 hours ago, Videospirit said:

National interests are under threat from Russian aggression either way.

National interests to who?

You will help based on how much interests you have tied to Ukraine.

Ukraine is worthy of a life vest being thrown at them, militarily. That is precisely what the west is doing.

Jumping in, and physically pulling them out, would require their interests to be world altering which they are not. Taiwan would be, so you best believe there would be direct confrontation in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Iraq was overrun by Isis. Direct confrontation ensured and heavy handed no less, when terrorists tried to attack oil fields, which would have bad catastrophic implications, globally.

There just isn't an incentive to put actual boots in Ukraine, nor motive.

16 hours ago, Videospirit said:

prevent Russian conquest.

You can't prevent it. You can only deter it.

NATO is sufficient deterrence. Russia wouldn't be crazy enough to face the entire weight of its force.

Again. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, so was seen as a soft target. 

The fact the conflict is still ongoing with no end in sight, and plenty of advances on the Russian side, despite heavy handed western investments into Ukraine, is proof of this.

17 hours ago, Videospirit said:

The same way the US came to South Vietnam's aid without dragging NATO into a world conflict?

The US entering into the war, would be a bad strategic move.

You would be ending the lives of tens of thousands of your soldiers if not more, putting pressure on Russian allies to join the fray.

Best believe North Korea would lend a helping hand, to name one, and while they aren't as strong as the US, in a proxy war in Ukraine, they would effortlessly outnumber their forces.

17 hours ago, Videospirit said:

Same reason Russia isn't going to use nukes over Ukraine, but will if people invade Russia proper.

Nukes in Ukraine, would be a red line that would put immense pressure on the US to swiftly and boldly send a message to Russia. As long as a certain line is straddled, you won't see any international intervention.

War is an art, albeit deadly one.

[Aristides]

On 5/13/2024 at 2:25 PM, Nationalist said:

No they don't. Try actually reading.

Oh, I do and they do.

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Oh, I do and they do.

Well then you think what you like...and if you can show/prove I "supported" Putin or Russia...or Ukraine for that matter...produce it.

No?

Pfft...what a...Libbie.

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Well then you think what you like...and if you can show/prove I "supported" Putin or Russia...or Ukraine for that matter...produce it.

We can just go through every thread on this forum relating to Putin and Ukraine, and your hundreds and hundreds of posts parroting his propaganda, arguing on his behalf and against his opponents. 

Short of finally admitting you jerk off to him in the shower, I don't think you could show your support more clearly.  

We will always have this as well:

 

Edited May 15 by Moonbox

[Nationalist]

51 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

We can just go through every thread on this forum relating to Putin and Ukraine, and your hundreds and hundreds of posts parroting his propaganda, arguing on his behalf and against his opponents. 

Short of finally admitting you jerk off to him in the shower, I don't think you could show your support more clearly.  

We will always have this as well:

 

Indeed. And only now does the li'l Tweenkie realize the futility of his death-mongering.

Feel good moontwit? Have you enjoyed your prolonged blood letting? Give you sexual fantasies apparently.

Goof...you're nothing but a complete loser.

Edited May 15 by Nationalist