thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 16, 2024 21:52:46 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.
Ultimately, it's up to Ukraine what they are willing to accept, innt? Not demos from Texas or Que-Anon from SD. You also understand that war aims can, and do, often change.........right? Or do I need to remind you that if you have proven anything over the last couple of years, it is that you are detached from the reality of what the folks in Ukraine are experiencing. Again - and this will never not be true - is that all of this is abstract to you sitting in TX complaining that people on the other side of the world aren't doing what you think they should be because reasons. Sourcing without complete context is bullshit, and you know that very well. I am surprised I have to point that out. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 16, 2024 21:54:57 GMT
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
Oh cool, Que-Anon! Tell us all about 'reality'! Given how much you fuck up your 'analyses', this should be fun!  |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 16, 2024 22:25:06 GMT
Ultimately, it's up to Ukraine what they are willing to accept, innt? Not demos from Texas or Que-Anon from SD. I've never said otherwise. Have pointed out many times that this conflict will probably end when both sides are ultimately exhausted.
How about our (and specifically Boris Johnson's) interference in the negotiations in 2022?
And that's the negotiations that many are talking about going back to.
Furthermore, I do get to have a say in what U.S. policy is or should be. Those aims were never realistic. And plenty of people said so at the time. But Ukraine has maintained those aims as recently as this year. Kubela's article was published in December 2023, about the time Biden was reportedly wavering on those ends.
So, who's throwing Ukraine under the bus? You want to actually answer that question?
You want to say it's people like me. Well, looks like that now includes a whole lot of other more consequential people.
Want to talk about what the people of Ukraine are experiencing. Ok. What about the people fleeing conscription? The polls showing increasing numbers of people are ready for peace even if it means ceding territory? Let's talk about that. Do you know about any of that? Do you even want to acknowledge any of that? You want some more quotes from the article? I'll give you more. Or you can read the Politico article I just linked. Or any of the many others in this thread. Won't matter because you'll be dismissive as usual because that's easier than actually addressing any of it:
"Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's leaders have insisted that Russia needs to be driven out of all Ukrainian territory before any peace talks could begin. Now, with Russia continuing to make slow gains on the battlefield and Western support for Ukraine showing signs of fatigue, Ukraine may need to come up with a more realistic plan, at least for the next year of the war, according to European diplomats. The West still backs Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's long-term stated aim of taking back control of its territory. But some European diplomats say Ukraine needs to be more pragmatic in its wartime aims and strategy. That could help Western officials advocate to their respective voters the need to funnel arms and aid to the country... Some of Ukraine's closest allies, such as Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, have warned for some time that Western determination to help Ukraine win back its territories has been slipping."
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 16, 2024 23:01:01 GMT
Ultimately, it's up to Ukraine what they are willing to accept, innt? Not demos from Texas or Que-Anon from SD. I've never said otherwise. Have pointed out many times that this conflict will probably end when both sides are ultimately exhausted.
How about our (and specifically Boris Johnson's) interference in the negotiations in 2022?
And that's the negotiations that many are talking about going back to.
Furthermore, I do get to have a say in what U.S. policy is or should be. Those aims were never realistic. And plenty of people said so at the time. But Ukraine has maintained those aims as recently as this year. Kubela's article was published in December 2023, about the time Biden was reportedly wavering on those ends.
So, who's throwing Ukraine under the bus? You want to actually answer that question?
You want to say it's people like me. Well, looks like that now includes a whole lot of other more consequential people.
Want to talk about what the people of Ukraine are experiencing. Ok. What about the people fleeing conscription? The polls showing increasing numbers of people are ready for peace even if it means ceding territory? Let's talk about that. Do you know about any of that? Do you even want to acknowledge any of that? You want some more quotes from the article? I'll give you more. Or you can read the Politico article I just linked. Or any of the many others in this thread. Won't matter because you'll be dismissive as usual because that's easier than actually addressing any of it:
"Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's leaders have insisted that Russia needs to be driven out of all Ukrainian territory before any peace talks could begin. Now, with Russia continuing to make slow gains on the battlefield and Western support for Ukraine showing signs of fatigue, Ukraine may need to come up with a more realistic plan, at least for the next year of the war, according to European diplomats. The West still backs Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's long-term stated aim of taking back control of its territory. But some European diplomats say Ukraine needs to be more pragmatic in its wartime aims and strategy. That could help Western officials advocate to their respective voters the need to funnel arms and aid to the country... Some of Ukraine's closest allies, such as Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, have warned for some time that Western determination to help Ukraine win back its territories has been slipping."
"Those aims were never realistic. And plenty of people said so at the time. But Ukraine has maintained those aims as recently as this year. Kubela's article was published in December 2023, about the time Biden was reportedly wavering on those ends. So, who's throwing Ukraine under the bus? You want to actually answer that question? You want to say it's people like me. Well, looks like that now includes a whole lot of other more consequential people. Want to talk about what the people of Ukraine are experiencing. Ok. What about the people fleeing conscription? The polls showing increasing numbers of people are ready for peace even if it means ceding territory? Let's talk about that. Do you know about any of that? Do you even want to acknowledge any of that?" Ignores this..."You also understand that war aims can, and do, often change.........right? Or do I need to remind you that if you have proven anything over the last couple of years, it is that you are detached from the reality of what the folks in Ukraine are experiencing. Again - and this will never not be true - is that all of this is abstract to you sitting in TX complaining that people on the other side of the world aren't doing what you think they should be because reasons."
Which had already addressed what you said. Remember, not liking what you are told != not addressing things. And whataboutery in your paragraph, to boot? You also seem quite fixated on trying to craft a narrative addressing how you think things ought to be, rather than how they are. Your hand-wringing over recruitment in Ukraine while saying nothing about the methods of their opponents is rather telling as well. As is your ignoring of war crimes perpetrated by the aggressors (this should trigger yet another storm of whataboutery). Your (FINALLY) citing of this tells me you are again, more interested in crafting a narrative (since you ignored the bolded part): ""Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's leaders have insisted that Russia needs to be driven out of all Ukrainian territory before any peace talks could begin. Now, with Russia continuing to make slow gains on the battlefield and Western support for Ukraine showing signs of fatigue, Ukraine may need to come up with a more realistic plan, at least for the next year of the war, according to European diplomats. The West still backs Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's long-term stated aim of taking back control of its territory. But some European diplomats say Ukraine needs to be more pragmatic in its wartime aims and strategy. That could help Western officials advocate to their respective voters the need to funnel arms and aid to the country... Some of Ukraine's closest allies, such as Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, have warned for some time that Western determination to help Ukraine win back its territories has been slipping." Get it together man. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Sept 17, 2024 1:09:22 GMT
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
Oh cool, Que-Anon! Tell us all about 'reality'! Given how much you fuck up your 'analyses', this should be fun! What would be fun is if you named one ...
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 17, 2024 15:38:01 GMT
Ignores this..."You also understand that war aims can, and do, often change.........right? Or do I need to remind you that if you have proven anything over the last couple of years, it is that you are detached from the reality of what the folks in Ukraine are experiencing. Again - and this will never not be true - is that all of this is abstract to you sitting in TX complaining that people on the other side of the world aren't doing what you think they should be because reasons."
Which had already addressed what you said. Remember, not liking what you are told != not addressing things. Except Ukraine's aims reportedly haven't changed, according to Zelensky:
"Wars of aggression such as Russia's war against Ukraine can end fairly in several ways—either the occupying army is pushed out or diplomacy ensures that the country's real independence is preserved, and it is freed from occupation. In both cases, Ukraine needs a strong position." - Zelensky, quoted in Newsweek 9/15/2024
The point is that those aims were not realistic to begin with. We never questioned it. We never matched ends with means. You pointing out that aims change doesn't address whether or not Ukraine's aims are realistic or should be our aims. It also doesn't address whether or not we should've continued to pursue those aims for 2 years when it's been clear we couldn't/wouldn't provide the means to achieve them. That's particularly galling when you have people who were promising support for those aims now floating a ceasefire and going back to the Istanbul negotiations.
Should we have never questioned the aims at the beginning? Should we have questioned them before getting 2 years into this? Should these aims change now? What's your opinion on that?
There's no whataboutery. It's a straight up question. You said you wanted to talk about what people in Ukraine are experiencing. So let's talk about that.
It's not about what ought to be. I am posting about how things are. And the way things are right now, we will be full circle back to the early 2022 negotiations unless something drastic changes that outcome.
Russia's tactics will impact polling about peace negotiations. The recruitment issue is more complex than that. Where have I ignored this?
What's your point about the bolded section (which hasn't been ignored)?
Let's have a real conversation here. I'm pretty sure it's possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 18, 2024 19:41:00 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.
'56 & '68 the Warsaw Pact was genuinely a potential victor in conventional war against NATO. Russia, now? No. Let's stop dragging this out. The end game is a defeated Russia, which then resolves its own internal tragic chaos, or an undefeated Russia whose criminal elites remove the threat of defeat by accommodating Western neighbours, or some kind of Flower Colour Joyful DemocracyTM Revolution in Russia. Nukes from them? Nah. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 18, 2024 19:46:23 GMT
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
Oh cool, Que-Anon! Tell us all about 'reality'! Given how much you fuck up your 'analyses', this should be fun! This applies to Q & Demos, from HHGTTG:
One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn’t understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid. He was renowned for being amazingly clever and quite clearly was so—but not all the time, which obviously worried him, hence, the act. He preferred people to be puzzled rather than contemptuous |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 18, 2024 19:50:56 GMT
'56 & '68 the Warsaw Pact was genuinely a potential victor in conventional war against NATO. Russia, now? No. Let's stop dragging this out. The end game is a defeated Russia, which then resolves its own internal tragic chaos, or an undefeated Russia whose criminal elites remove the threat of defeat by accommodating Western neighbours, or some kind of Flower Colour Joyful DemocracyTM Revolution in Russia. Nukes from them? Nah. Both sides in the Cold War were trying hard to avoid a direct confrontation because of the nuclear threat, not the conventional threat. That's my read anyway.
That's still something to consider even if Russia is no longer as much of a conventional threat. Russia has considered it:
However, in 1999 military discussion of these weapons concerned their potential role in theater warfighting as a counterweight to Russia's declining conventional capabilities... In October the Ministry of Defense published a draft military doctrine for discussion and consideration. The draft stressed the threat posed by hegemonic forces in the international system and posited fostering a multipolar world. The draft doctrine contained an extended discussion of nuclear weapons deterrence and use. Should deterrence fail, Russia will use nuclear weapons to inflict sufficient
damage upon its aggressor or coalition of aggressors. Russia pledges not to use nuclear weapons against states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that do not possess nuclear weapons. This pledge, however, is qualified in the case of a direct invasion of Russia, an attack on the Russian armed forces or other troops, an attack on an allied state that does not possess nuclear weapons or an attack on a nuclear state allied with Russia. The draft specifies that Russia retains the right to use nuclear weapons to counter use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia and to counter conventional forces large-scale aggression in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies. - Jacob Kipp, Russia's Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons
To deter the numerically and qualitatively superior U.S. and NATO conventional forces, the new Military Doctrine of 2000 proposed the concept of “de-escalation”— the threat of a limited nuclear strike in response to a large-scale attack that exceeded the defense capability of Russian conventional forces.10 Essentially, this meant that nuclear weapons were assigned a second mission in addition to deterring a global war. - Nikolai Sokov, Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, Apr. 1, 2012, pp. 199-226
It's why both NATO and Biden ruled out sending troops early on. Once that direct confrontation starts, hard to control, and Russia has developed a doctrine that proposes using tactical nuclear weapons to balance out it's conventional weaknesses in the face of U.S. and NATO forces.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 18, 2024 19:54:33 GMT
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 The following excludes ICBMs & SLBMs. Russia, Iran, Syria, NK & China are fully unable to threaten Europe or North America militarily. African nations? You kidding? Tell me what Mali can do to Austria. Terrorism? Yeah. Pinprick brutality a lá 9/11? Sure. Existential, end-of-regime war? Lol. No. War with Russia over Ukraine would, to quote a Great Man, be nasty, brutish, & short. Bluffs need to be called, innit, cuz, man, m'blud. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 18, 2024 20:01:51 GMT
African nations? You kidding? Tell me what Mali can do to Austria. Might want to ask what they could do to U.S. troops. Since they would be the more obvious target.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 19, 2024 22:08:09 GMT
African nations? You kidding? Tell me what Mali can do to Austria. Might want to ask what they could do to U.S. troops. Since they would be the more obvious target.
Not much, given the US military's hilariously bloated size & combat power. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 19, 2024 22:14:41 GMT
'56 & '68 the Warsaw Pact was genuinely a potential victor in conventional war against NATO. Russia, now? No. Let's stop dragging this out. The end game is a defeated Russia, which then resolves its own internal tragic chaos, or an undefeated Russia whose criminal elites remove the threat of defeat by accommodating Western neighbours, or some kind of Flower Colour Joyful DemocracyTM Revolution in Russia. Nukes from them? Nah. Both sides in the Cold War were trying hard to avoid a direct confrontation because of the nuclear threat, not the conventional threat. That's my read anyway.
That's still something to consider even if Russia is no longer as much of a conventional threat. Russia has considered it:
However, in 1999 military discussion of these weapons concerned their potential role in theater warfighting as a counterweight to Russia's declining conventional capabilities... In October the Ministry of Defense published a draft military doctrine for discussion and consideration. The draft stressed the threat posed by hegemonic forces in the international system and posited fostering a multipolar world. The draft doctrine contained an extended discussion of nuclear weapons deterrence and use. Should deterrence fail, Russia will use nuclear weapons to inflict sufficient
damage upon its aggressor or coalition of aggressors. Russia pledges not to use nuclear weapons against states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that do not possess nuclear weapons. This pledge, however, is qualified in the case of a direct invasion of Russia, an attack on the Russian armed forces or other troops, an attack on an allied state that does not possess nuclear weapons or an attack on a nuclear state allied with Russia. The draft specifies that Russia retains the right to use nuclear weapons to counter use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia and to counter conventional forces large-scale aggression in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies. - Jacob Kipp, Russia's Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons
To deter the numerically and qualitatively superior U.S. and NATO conventional forces, the new Military Doctrine of 2000 proposed the concept of “de-escalation”— the threat of a limited nuclear strike in response to a large-scale attack that exceeded the defense capability of Russian conventional forces.10 Essentially, this meant that nuclear weapons were assigned a second mission in addition to deterring a global war. - Nikolai Sokov, Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, Apr. 1, 2012, pp. 199-226
It's why both NATO and Biden ruled out sending troops early on. Once that direct confrontation starts, hard to control, and Russia has developed a doctrine that proposes using tactical nuclear weapons to balance out it's conventional weaknesses in the face of U.S. and NATO forces.
Assisting Ukraine to restore its borders, but not going beyond them except in striking military assets, would seem not to trigger a nuclear response according to that. I suspect the clear knpwledge tjat NATO could, rapidly, render Russia's armed forces inoperative, without using nuclear weapons, is clearly understood in Moscow. That would inevitably be the result of Russia using tactical nuclear ordnance. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 20, 2024 13:53:22 GMT
Assisting Ukraine to restore its borders, but not going beyond them except in striking military assets, would seem not to trigger a nuclear response according to that. Right, but Zelensky is pushing beyond that. He wants NATO member states to use their aircraft to shoot down Russian missiles.
And we have given in on each thing we previously said no to: F16s, long range missiles, etc. So, if we give in on strikes deep in Russia, what's the next thing? Do we start using NATO aircraft to shoot down Russian missiles? Where does this stop?
To stop such an action from NATO is what using those tactical nukes is about. Basically, forcing NATO to cease. They wrote it up as a "de-escalatory" measure.
From my perspective hard to see it as such, because NATO likely would respond. But Russia is viewing it from the perspective of an imbalance of forces and trying to look for solutions to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 20, 2024 15:31:56 GMT
Assisting Ukraine to restore its borders, but not going beyond them except in striking military assets, would seem not to trigger a nuclear response according to that. Right, but Zelensky is pushing beyond that. He wants NATO member states to use their aircraft to shoot down Russian missiles.
And we have given in on each thing we previously said no to: F16s, long range missiles, etc. So, if we give in on strikes deep in Russia, what's the next thing? Do we start using NATO aircraft to shoot down Russian missiles? Where does this stop?
To stop such an action from NATO is what using those tactical nukes is about. Basically, forcing NATO to cease. They wrote it up as a "de-escalatory" measure.
From my perspective hard to see it as such, because NATO likely would respond. But Russia is viewing it from the perspective of an imbalance of forces and trying to look for solutions to that.
The imbalance between Russia & Ukraine was, Feb '22, stark. As it turns out, the faults within Russia's military are so gross that this wasn't decisive. We need to look at the desired steategic outcome. Do we want a nascent democracy to continue, with a criminal anti-democracy humbled? Or the opposite? I'd auggest this isn't really a difficult decision, although the costs of Option A are large & hard to be sure of. The risks, too. History gives us an isolationist US eventually doung the right thing on several occasions. Helping Ukraine isn't an imperialist move a lá helping the Phillipines, South Vietnam, or n Latin American nations. More like the 1918-19 support for White Russia, or the 1939-41 support for the Allies, or even Korea. If Ukraine, 2035, is on a similar path to South Korea, 1965, the world (and especially Ukraine) got a good outcomefeom a shitty hand of cards. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 20, 2024 16:15:40 GMT
We need to look at the desired strategic outcome.Do we want a nascent democracy to continue, with a criminal anti-democracy humbled? Or the opposite? I'd suggest this isn't really a difficult decision, although the costs of Option A are large & hard to be sure of. The risks, too. I agree, and I don't think we've ever come to terms with that, i.e., matching means to the supposedly desired end. For example, no one asked how a democratic Ukraine could/should continue - whether whole or without Crimea and Donbas. The former was just assumed, and then never really given any thought about how to successfully achieve that or if it could be achieved.
A democratic Ukraine could continue without Crimea or Donbas, especially when you consider the dicey history the Ukrainian government has had with those two regions.
The U.S. has never been isolationist (ask Latin America for instance). It just hasn't always been keen on getting involved in European affairs (which seems to be what people usually mean when they use the term isolationist - it's usually a very Eurocentric view).
South Korea is an interesting choice, because it goes to my point above re: how a democratic Ukraine could continue.
We didn't successfully unite Korea, though MacArthur attempted that. Instead, he ignored Chinese warnings, got routed and then had to fight back to the 38th parallel. A democratic South Korea eventually emerged from that (after an autocratic interlude).
Something similar could be possibly achieved in Ukraine, minus the autocratic interlude (probably could've been achieved prior to February 2022 or even in those early Istanbul negotiations).
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Sept 21, 2024 17:08:21 GMT
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 The following excludes ICBMs & SLBMs. Russia, Iran, Syria, NK & China are fully unable to threaten Europe or North America militarily. African nations? You kidding? Tell me what Mali can do to Austria. Terrorism? Yeah. Pinprick brutality a lá 9/11? Sure. Existential, end-of-regime war? Lol. No. War with Russia over Ukraine would, to quote a Great Man, be nasty, brutish, & short. Bluffs need to be called, innit, cuz, man, m'blud.
This seems delusional.
Why do you think once we engage in Ukraine, China, Iraq, Syria and NK would ... invade Europe? What kind of nonsense is this.
I know you're not a major player on the world stage. (badoom) But here in the US we have obligations to Israel and Taiwan that would force us to split our forces and our attention once both were invaded because we're playing games over sister slovak countries oil resources.
Queshank
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 21, 2024 18:24:31 GMT
The following excludes ICBMs & SLBMs. Russia, Iran, Syria, NK & China are fully unable to threaten Europe or North America militarily. African nations? You kidding? Tell me what Mali can do to Austria. Terrorism? Yeah. Pinprick brutality a lá 9/11? Sure. Existential, end-of-regime war? Lol. No. War with Russia over Ukraine would, to quote a Great Man, be nasty, brutish, & short. Bluffs need to be called, innit, cuz, man, m'blud.
This seems delusional.
Why do you think once we engage in Ukraine, China, Iraq, Syria and NK would ... invade Europe? What kind of nonsense is this.
I know you're not a major player on the world stage. (badoom) But here in the US we have obligations to Israel and Taiwan that would force us to split our forces and our attention once both were invaded because we're playing games over sister slovak countries oil resources.
Queshank
Ignored for five days, Que struggles for relevance, But awoke, still Que |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 21, 2024 21:44:37 GMT
The following excludes ICBMs & SLBMs. Russia, Iran, Syria, NK & China are fully unable to threaten Europe or North America militarily. African nations? You kidding? Tell me what Mali can do to Austria. Terrorism? Yeah. Pinprick brutality a lá 9/11? Sure. Existential, end-of-regime war? Lol. No. War with Russia over Ukraine would, to quote a Great Man, be nasty, brutish, & short. Bluffs need to be called, innit, cuz, man, m'blud.
This seems delusional.
Why do you think once we engage in Ukraine, China, Iraq, Syria and NK would ... invade Europe? What kind of nonsense is this.
I know you're not a major player on the world stage. (badoom) But here in the US we have obligations to Israel and Taiwan that would force us to split our forces and our attention once both were invaded because we're playing games over sister slovak countries oil resources.
Queshank
The US could, with minimal help from UK (Cyprus bases) & NATO allies for logistics, amply overwhelm all militaries within a thousand miles of Israel whilst simultaneously committing the 2 or 3 SSNs required to prevent an invasion of Taiwan. Heck, the RN could do that, leave the USN to go ashore in Sydney & get laid. Seriously. China cannot invade Taiwan. The capability isn't there, militarily, not for many years. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 22, 2024 1:02:18 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. You can fit a whole lot more missiles and troops in Ukraine than in a sub. This is about maintaining an aggressive posture towards Russia. Lol @ kaliningrad. Think Moscow. |
|
