|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 15, 2024 0:03:04 GMT
America invaded Syria. NATO took out Libya. America invade Iraq. Invaded. Toppled. Fuck our crap? And if Russian weapons sold to Syria started actually hitting the United States? You don’t think there would be an issue there? Killing civilians? Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Russia is full of shit. You & l both saw lraq, a fully Russian Army, fall to bits in 3 days, 2003. I saw the same in '91. Russia's options against NATO are A. All out nuclear war B. Performative terrorist shit *cough* America not NATO *cough* Can the Brits even make it across the channel enmasse anymore? NATO is a joke without the US. We all know it. The problem that the Igors have is with us, not you guys. Using American weaponry, US intel, US training, and likely direct US infrastructure and guidance to further attacks deeper into Russia does escalate and embolden their resolve. That being said if we are to give weapons to Ukraine, I fully expect them to take full advantage of their capabilities. It makes sense to attack Russian bases and infrastructure within Russia. But I don't know how effective that it is without signifant follow up. I think the Kursk offensive, while being a propaganda success and boost for morale, might be a big waste. They should have gone into Russia, outflanking their defensive lines in Ukraine, and just rolled right down the flank as far and as quickly as they could and then go back into Ukraine to regroup. Could have opened a huge gap in the territory they wish to retake. Back to the topic. If Cuba was armed with Soviet missiles to strike the US...well we already know how that would escalate. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 15, 2024 0:18:47 GMT
www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-american-who-helped-sink-the-bismarck/Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Russia is full of shit. You & l both saw lraq, a fully Russian Army, fall to bits in 3 days, 2003. I saw the same in '91. Russia's options against NATO are A. All out nuclear war B. Performative terrorist shit *cough* America not NATO *cough* Can the Brits even make it across the channel enmasse anymore? NATO is a joke without the US. We all know it. The problem that the Igors have is with us, not you guys. Using American weaponry, US intel, US training, and likely direct US infrastructure and guidance to further attacks deeper into Russia does escalate and embolden their resolve. That being said if we are to give weapons to Ukraine, I fully expect them to take full advantage of their capabilities. It makes sense to attack Russian bases and infrastructure within Russia. But I don't know how effective that it is without signifant follow up. I think the Kursk offensive, while being a propaganda success and boost for morale, might be a big waste. They should have gone into Russia, outflanking their defensive lines in Ukraine, and just rolled right down the flank as far and as quickly as they could and then go back into Ukraine to regroup. Could have opened a huge gap in the territory they wish to retake. Back to the topic. If Cuba was armed with Soviet missiles to strike the US...well we already know how that would escalate. Meh² Russia simply doesn't have the physical capability to fight NATO anywhere. The UK, as you may know, is an archipelago. The Russian navy is incapable of approaching; the Russian air force too. Other than, as l said, nuclear or terrorist attacks, Russia is no threat. We should arm Ukraine & let them re-establish their borders. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 15, 2024 0:25:23 GMT
*cough* America not NATO *cough* Can the Brits even make it across the channel enmasse anymore? NATO is a joke without the US. We all know it. The problem that the Igors have is with us, not you guys. Using American weaponry, US intel, US training, and likely direct US infrastructure and guidance to further attacks deeper into Russia does escalate and embolden their resolve. That being said if we are to give weapons to Ukraine, I fully expect them to take full advantage of their capabilities. It makes sense to attack Russian bases and infrastructure within Russia. But I don't know how effective that it is without signifant follow up. I think the Kursk offensive, while being a propaganda success and boost for morale, might be a big waste. They should have gone into Russia, outflanking their defensive lines in Ukraine, and just rolled right down the flank as far and as quickly as they could and then go back into Ukraine to regroup. Could have opened a huge gap in the territory they wish to retake. Back to the topic. If Cuba was armed with Soviet missiles to strike the US...well we already know how that would escalate. Meh² Russia simply doesn't have the physical capability to fight NATO anywhere. The UK, as you may know, is an archipelago. The Russian navy is incapable of approaching; the Russian air force too. Other than, as l said, nuclear or terrorist attacks, Russia is no threat. We should arm Ukraine & let them re-establish their borders. Crimea too? If not, why? |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Sept 15, 2024 0:47:26 GMT
The ussr failed there. And so did we and the UN. Bombing someone and inflicting damage once or a few times is one thing. Trying to occupy is entirely different. Small arms win every time when trying to occupy. Tell that to Germany, Italy Austria & Japan, 1945. Small arms. Boots on the ground. Overwhelming numbers. Take that away and you are just bombing buildings. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 15, 2024 5:17:24 GMT
*cough* America not NATO *cough* Can the Brits even make it across the channel enmasse anymore? NATO is a joke without the US. We all know it. The problem that the Igors have is with us, not you guys. Using American weaponry, US intel, US training, and likely direct US infrastructure and guidance to further attacks deeper into Russia does escalate and embolden their resolve. That being said if we are to give weapons to Ukraine, I fully expect them to take full advantage of their capabilities. It makes sense to attack Russian bases and infrastructure within Russia. But I don't know how effective that it is without signifant follow up. I think the Kursk offensive, while being a propaganda success and boost for morale, might be a big waste. They should have gone into Russia, outflanking their defensive lines in Ukraine, and just rolled right down the flank as far and as quickly as they could and then go back into Ukraine to regroup. Could have opened a huge gap in the territory they wish to retake. Back to the topic. If Cuba was armed with Soviet missiles to strike the US...well we already know how that would escalate. Meh² Russia simply doesn't have the physical capability to fight NATO anywhere. The UK, as you may know, is an archipelago. The Russian navy is incapable of approaching; the Russian air force too. Other than, as l said, nuclear or terrorist attacks, Russia is no threat. We should arm Ukraine & let them re-establish their borders. Bingo. This is a border spat between two corrupt Slavic nations as to where US missiles can be stationed. That's what this comes down to. And the US is spending way more than anyone else in trying to make sure those missiles can be as close to Russia as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 15, 2024 9:12:53 GMT
Meh² Russia simply doesn't have the physical capability to fight NATO anywhere. The UK, as you may know, is an archipelago. The Russian navy is incapable of approaching; the Russian air force too. Other than, as l said, nuclear or terrorist attacks, Russia is no threat. We should arm Ukraine & let them re-establish their borders. Bingo. This is a border spat between two corrupt Slavic nations as to where US missiles can be stationed. That's what this comes down to. And the US is spending way more than anyone else in trying to make sure those missiles can be as close to Russia as possible. SSBNs mean that's largely irrelevant. Kaliningead means Putin's propaganda point on the topic is hypocctisy as well as absurd. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Sept 15, 2024 9:41:50 GMT
Bingo. This is a border spat between two corrupt Slavic nations as to where US missiles can be stationed. That's what this comes down to. And the US is spending way more than anyone else in trying to make sure those missiles can be as close to Russia as possible. SSBNs mean that's largely irrelevant. Kaliningead means Putin's propaganda point on the topic is hypocctisy as well as absurd. To maintain his authoritarian grip he has to “create” enemies to fight against. The Russians are suffering under his boondoggle and he has to blame that on someone. Putin can’t be gone fast enough. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 16, 2024 14:40:03 GMT
Wait a minute.. You're saying plugging the geographic gaps that have been used to invade Russia before isn't strategic? And you're saying this motivation has nothing to do with Crimea 2014? So, why haven't they done it in Georgia? If you think that's the motivating factor, that's a question you need to answer. They fought a war there in 2008 (six years before Ukraine) and nothing has happened on that front in 15 years.
My thought is that there are other strategic motives for Ukraine, which has nothing to do with plugging gaps.
I guess I wasn't clear enough earlier. It's about control of resources (oil and gas), control of militarily important sites (Crimea), and keeping Ukraine out of NATO (which is tied to the former issues as well as long standing security concerns).
Hence my comparison with Poland earlier: "They don't have any resources that Russia wants. And Russia has Kaliningrad Oblast. And Poland's membership in Nato affects neither of those; unlike Ukraine." ( Post #28) Emphasize doesn't not mean only. I think he's emphasizing that at the expense of other factors (past actions, their own statements, European politics, NATO, etc) to push his predictions (and sell books).
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 16, 2024 15:09:21 GMT
Meh² Russia simply doesn't have the physical capability to fight NATO anywhere. The UK, as you may know, is an archipelago. The Russian navy is incapable of approaching; the Russian air force too. Other than, as l said, nuclear or terrorist attacks, Russia is no threat. We should arm Ukraine & let them re-establish their borders. Bingo. This is a border spat between two corrupt Slavic nations as to where US missiles can be stationed. That's what this comes down to. And the US is spending way more than anyone else in trying to make sure those missiles can be as close to Russia as possible.
Don't forget about yum yum oil!!!
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 16, 2024 15:37:09 GMT
Ukraine striking Russians in Russia with American made weapons escalates. You know that. Perhaps not enough to cause a nuclear conflict, but certainly closer than not involving ourselves in a foreign entanglement between two corrupt Slavic countries. Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Giving permission to use our missiles to strike deep into Russia is one thing.
But people aren't considering the context of this request. We have repeatedly changed our position on what we'll allow Ukraine to do in response to pressure: F-16s, long-range missiles, etc.
Now Zelensky (and some NATO members) are pressing harder for us to start shooting down Russian missiles, using NATO aircraft:
"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday he wants allies to start shooting down Russian missiles and drones over the west of Ukraine." ( Source)
"We must work on the technical possibility of using combat aircraft from neighboring countries against (Russian) missiles that hit Ukraine in the direction of our neighbors. Foremost, the countries of the alliance," Zelensky said. ( Source)
Is that the next step (assuming we allow Ukraine to target sites deep within Russia)? That would put NATO in direct conflict with Russia. You have to expect a Russian response at that point I would think.
How far up the escalation ladder are we willing to go?
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 16, 2024 15:57:20 GMT
Ukraine striking Russians in Russia with American made weapons escalates. You know that. Perhaps not enough to cause a nuclear conflict, but certainly closer than not involving ourselves in a foreign entanglement between two corrupt Slavic countries. Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Giving permission to use our missiles to strike deep into Russia is one thing.
But people aren't considering the context of this request. We have repeatedly changed our position on what we'll allow Ukraine to do in response to pressure: F-16s, long-range missiles, etc.
Now Zelensky (and some NATO members) are pressing harder for us to start shooting down Russian missiles, using NATO aircraft:
"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday he wants allies to start shooting down Russian missiles and drones over the west of Ukraine." ( Source)
"We must work on the technical possibility of using combat aircraft from neighboring countries against (Russian) missiles that hit Ukraine in the direction of our neighbors. Foremost, the countries of the alliance," Zelensky said. ( Source)
Is that the next step (assuming we allow Ukraine to target sites deep within Russia)? That would put NATO in direct conflict with Russia. You have to expect a Russian response at that point I would think.
How far up the escalation ladder are we willing to go?
I was keen at the beginning to declare Ukraine an ally, support them in the Black Sea, fully cut off all trade with Russia and send our Army (such as it is after the fucking Conservatives dismantled it) to fight. That's how far. We all know Russia won't go nuclear. We also know, had even a coue of European nations done this, Ukraine's borders would now be restored, and hundreds of thousands of people now dead, maimed, or homeless would be fine. I'm only not fighting there myself because the Ukranians, very sensibly, turned me down March '22. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 16, 2024 16:15:03 GMT
I was keen at the beginning to declare Ukraine an ally, support them in the Black Sea, fully cut off all trade with Russia and send our Army (such as it is after the fucking Conservatives dismantled it) to fight. That's how far. We all know Russia won't go nuclear.We also know, had even a coue of European nations done this, Ukraine's borders would now be restored, and hundreds of thousands of people now dead, maimed, or homeless would be fine. I'm only not fighting there myself because the Ukranians, very sensibly, turned me down March '22. Except we don't know that they wouldn't do this if we get into a direct fight with them (which Zelensky is advocating), because we've never been in that position.
If we do what Zelensky is suggesting, those aircraft and their bases would become legitimate targets. In response, Russia would certainly target the aircraft and maybe even the bases.
And so, things ratchet up even more. Using nukes might be an ultimate last resort, but it's a card they might have to play, even if it's just tactical nuclear weapons.
It's obviously something both sides want to avoid and have been trying to avoid since 1949. It's why we didn't directly intervene in Hungary in 1956. Or Czechoslovakia in 1968. Or even Afghanistan (we attempted to disguise our involvement even if it was obvious).
We have to draw a real line somewhere. What concerns me is that we keep changing our policy on what we will and won't allow.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 16, 2024 17:24:26 GMT
Giving permission to use our missiles to strike deep into Russia is one thing.
But people aren't considering the context of this request. We have repeatedly changed our position on what we'll allow Ukraine to do in response to pressure: F-16s, long-range missiles, etc. Now Zelensky (and some NATO members) are pressing harder for us to start shooting down Russian missiles, using NATO aircraft: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday he wants allies to start shooting down Russian missiles and drones over the west of Ukraine." ( Source) "We must work on the technical possibility of using combat aircraft from neighboring countries against (Russian) missiles that hit Ukraine in the direction of our neighbors. Foremost, the countries of the alliance," Zelensky said. ( Source) Is that the next step (assuming we allow Ukraine to target sites deep within Russia)? That would put NATO in direct conflict with Russia. You have to expect a Russian response at that point I would think.
How far up the escalation ladder are we willing to go?
We all know Russia won't go nuclear. Kinda like "we all know Russia won't invade Ukraine" and "we all know Russia won't x" and "we all know this will be over Ukraine is winning" and "we all know Russia's army is a disaster ahhaha they're getting their asses kicked." You think China isn't watching our constant waffling on our commitments? "No x" ... well you can have x "No y" .... well you can have y "No z" ... well you can have z "No a" .... well you can have a "No b" .... well you can have b We can take Russia. I'm not so sure about RUssia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, all the countries in Africa, etc. We are "protecting" an awful lot of satellite countries. Yours included. (/wink) What happens if they all light up at once in response to our grandstanding in Ukraine? Queshank |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 16, 2024 19:06:00 GMT
Giving permission to use our missiles to strike deep into Russia is one thing.
But people aren't considering the context of this request. We have repeatedly changed our position on what we'll allow Ukraine to do in response to pressure: F-16s, long-range missiles, etc.
Now Zelensky (and some NATO members) are pressing harder for us to start shooting down Russian missiles, using NATO aircraft:
"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday he wants allies to start shooting down Russian missiles and drones over the west of Ukraine." ( Source)
"We must work on the technical possibility of using combat aircraft from neighboring countries against (Russian) missiles that hit Ukraine in the direction of our neighbors. Foremost, the countries of the alliance," Zelensky said. ( Source)
Is that the next step (assuming we allow Ukraine to target sites deep within Russia)? That would put NATO in direct conflict with Russia. You have to expect a Russian response at that point I would think.
How far up the escalation ladder are we willing to go?
I was keen at the beginning to declare Ukraine an ally, support them in the Black Sea, fully cut off all trade with Russia and send our Army (such as it is after the fucking Conservatives dismantled it) to fight. That's how far. We all know Russia won't go nuclear. We also know, had even a coue of European nations done this, Ukraine's borders would now be restored, and hundreds of thousands of people now dead, maimed, or homeless would be fine. I'm only not fighting there myself because the Ukranians, very sensibly, turned me down March '22. I am amazed how far some folks will go to toss Ukraine under the bus so they can feel 'safe'. It's all abstract to them because something something gazpacho. It's really quite revolting. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 16, 2024 19:16:00 GMT
Looks like they're about to be thrown under the bus by the people who were selling them platitudes about total victory:
Senior European officials say Kyiv has been told that a full Ukrainian victory would require the West to provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth of support, something neither Washington nor Europe can realistically do. ( Source) |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 16, 2024 19:34:37 GMT
Looks like they're about to be thrown under the bus by the people who were selling them platitudes about total victory:
Senior European officials say Kyiv has been told that a full Ukrainian victory would require the West to provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth of support, something neither Washington nor Europe can realistically do. ( Source) Look, we all get that you think Ukraine should have rolled over and accepted conquest from Day 1 because peace. That said, why don't you clarify what you mean by 'total victory'? Also, don't link shit people can't access, either. Not that the Wall Street Urinal is worth much. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 16, 2024 19:35:33 GMT
I was keen at the beginning to declare Ukraine an ally, support them in the Black Sea, fully cut off all trade with Russia and send our Army (such as it is after the fucking Conservatives dismantled it) to fight. That's how far. We all know Russia won't go nuclear. We also know, had even a coue of European nations done this, Ukraine's borders would now be restored, and hundreds of thousands of people now dead, maimed, or homeless would be fine. I'm only not fighting there myself because the Ukranians, very sensibly, turned me down March '22. I am amazed how far some folks will go to toss Ukraine under the bus so they can feel 'safe'. It's all abstract to them because something something gazpacho. It's really quite revolting.
It's really super important to you that people online share your delusions isn't it?
And loudly and proudly profess those delusions. Or else ... if they don't .. it's 'quite revolting.'
You realize you're celebrating virtue signalling right? You're not *that* far gone are you?
I can't help it that I have been right about what is going to happen all this time. Reality trumps manufactured reality every time thor.
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 16, 2024 19:49:42 GMT
Look, we all get that you think Ukraine should have rolled over and accepted conquest from Day 1 because peace. That said, why don't you clarify what you mean by 'total victory'? If you've been paying even the least bit of attention, you wouldn't need any clarification. It means removing Russia from all of Ukraine, including Donbas and Crimea:
"What matters is the end result. In Ukraine, that means both fully restoring our territorial integrity and bringing those responsible for international crimes to justice—goals that are both clear and feasible." - Dmytro Kuleba (former Ukrainian Foreign Minister)
And if we're back to proposing ceasefires and territorial concessions, we could've stuck with the Minsk Agreement platform and saved a lot of lives. But no one asked any questions about where we were going and how we were going to get there. Only 2 years later are people asking about setting realistic goals ( including Biden finally sending Congress a report).
Maybe we should've done that from the beginning so we could match ends with means. But hey, what do I know right?
Figure out a way to access it (I access through the local library, maybe you should consider becoming a member of yours).
I quoted the relevant portion for you and sourced it. I noticed you're not addressing the substance of it; choosing to complain about links and making it about me instead.
|
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,761
|
Post by RWB on Sept 16, 2024 20:29:16 GMT
Looks like they're about to be thrown under the bus by the people who were selling them platitudes about total victory:
Senior European officials say Kyiv has been told that a full Ukrainian victory would require the West to provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth of support, something neither Washington nor Europe can realistically do. ( Source) Look, we all get that you think Ukraine should have rolled over and accepted conquest from Day 1 because peace. That said, why don't you clarify what you mean by 'total victory'? Also, don't link shit people can't access, either. Not that the Wall Street Urinal is worth much. as you like to scream at people PICK UP A GUN FIGA |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 16, 2024 21:44:10 GMT
Look, we all get that you think Ukraine should have rolled over and accepted conquest from Day 1 because peace. That said, why don't you clarify what you mean by 'total victory'? Also, don't link shit people can't access, either. Not that the Wall Street Urinal is worth much. as you like to scream at people PICK UP A GUN FIGA  |
|
