• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU | May 1st-20th | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Onoya said:
I agree, but
Giving weapon, and giving intel making possible the death of an ennemy general is different,that's why i was worry, because NATO were involved in a more active way, no just giving weapon and not helping using them
Click to expand...
What I’m hearing is we don’t want to push Russia to hard or their national pride might be damaged. And consequently they will do something even more stupid.
Personally I have come to believe it’s just Russian propaganda. I’ll say it, I could be wrong, but it’s all a bluff.
If it isn’t a bluff and this is how Russian leadership actually sees the justified use of nukes. Then we have a much much bigger problem than the war in Ukraine. If this is indeed their new nuclear policy then we can withdraw from this fight now only to find ourselves facing it again later. And if we do decide that way you can bet that is how it will be spun in Russia. Americans are cowards and afraid of Russian might. On to Estonia!!!

As far as a negotiated settlement now. I’m up for that, Russia can sue for peace with any boarder arraignments Ukraine is willing to accept. That’s a given. But neither side seems to be there yet. The UN could step in and force some kind of arbitrary boarders but those don’t work so well over time.

It is Ukrainian land and blood being spilled. To a certain degree it’s kinda their call. That is why we are supporting them right? Not as a pawn to punish Russia. But doing what we can without overtly expanding it to a multi nation regional war. We told Ukraine we would help them a dozen plus nations are involved in it (voluntarily).
This isn’t the bilderbergers orchestrating some geopolitical coup, regional neighbors say another get invaded unjustly and are going to their aid.

NATO can shut off - or throttle the flow of weapons if they want but this war is spilling the blood of Ukrainians and Russians.
I just don’t see this as some tool to punish Russia. Russia can spin that bottle all they want but it’s just not reality. There might not always be clear winners and loses At the end of a war. But one side always walks away bloodier and with a damaged reputation.

I’ve said it before NATO needs to be crystal clear that there is no intentions of invading Russia or destabilizing the Russian nation or government. This is only about removing Russian military from Ukrainian territory, full stop. None of this crap about weakening Russia.

What Russia does to their own nation by continuing to pursuing this war of aggression is on them.

I’ve seen no public statement that Russia has any desire to negotiate. In fact as far as that goes the Russian leadership is about 5 1/2 weeks past where they can negotiate a decent settlement and save face.

Depending on how you view it I am not egalitarian in terms of war time targets.
Shoot the damn generals, they are the high value targets on the battlefield.
So I’m ambivalent about targeting “generals”.
Let’s be honest here, command and control hubs near the battle lines have always been legitimate war time targets.
It is not nato or Ukraine’s fault Russia’s command structure is either too top heavy or their colonels and majors can’t manage a localized front.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Why should Russia be rewarded for their invasion? That just encourages them to do it again. I know Ukraine bears the cost, but it is strategically in the best interest of other countries to stop Russia now rather than give them incentive to do it again to someone else.
Click to expand...
Especially if it is accomplished due to nuclear saber rattling. I’m sorry this don’t push us to hard in our little localized war of aggression or we might unleash hell on earth is BS and needs shutdown hard.
Or it will be used again. Bet on it.
What if Russia gets away with it and little Kim decides he wants to chip away at the DMZ.
 
Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said on Saturday.


"The US is taking part in the military operations in Ukraine," he wrote on his Telegram channel. "Today, Washington is basically coordinating and engineering military operations, thus directly participating in the military actions against our country."
 
Complex issue not being discussed - the changes in USA manufacturing and the massive volume of U.S. weapons being provided to Ukraine in what is realistically a proxy war, in terms of weapon systems.
Has anyone seen an update on this?
"In the world wars of the last century, America’s unmatched manufacturing base ultimately powered it to victory. But today, replenishing the free world’s arsenal might not be so easy. American economic leadership is no longer based primarily on manufacturing. Shortages of machine tools, skilled labor and spare production capacity could slow a wartime rearmament effort. The U.S. can’t quickly scale up production of Stinger missiles for Ukraine, for example, because the workforce needed to do so no longer exists. American stockpiles of key weapons are smaller than one might imagine, partly because of production constraints and partly because most of the Pentagon’s roughly $750 billion budget goes to manpower, health care and things other than bullets and bombs.Don’t bet against the world’s leading economy — and all of its democratic allies — in a long war. But don’t think that America would effortlessly produce what it needs to win."
 
Obreid said:
It is Ukrainian land and blood being spilled. To a certain degree it’s kinda their call.
Click to expand...
Absolutely it is the Ukrainian people and government's call. But in the 21st century, it is easy to forget 20th century war lessons.
There is a reason during the 20th century that manufacturing plants, manufacturing capability, etc. was key tool of defense.
So it is the Ukrainians' call. But rights and responsibilities go together, as we all know. Not a criticism, just reflection of fact.
Just like it is for USA, it is Ukrainians call to obtain and/or create weapons, communication systems, etc. to defend their own nation.
Americans forget their luxury of a long history (disappearing) on this. But when you lose that capability, the military strategy changes.
A lesson that the rest of the West and the USA should also be remembering.

As the USSR would recall, Russia also does not have inifinite military resources.
But Ukraine's resource issues are more serious, and impacts their defense strategy more directly.
 
Obreid said:
What if Russia gets away with it
Click to expand...
I share the outage and indignity at the Russia invasion.
I also can have the strategic understanding in 21st century, despite recent USA Middle East/Asia surrenders, most activities involving peace-building of real nuclear powers require building compromise, even when it is disgusting.
We need to stop the killing of Ukrainian people to buy them time to live to fight another day. Escalation helps none of the vulnernable.
Fighting a war using Russia's rules and Russia's strategy will only benefit Russia. We need a different model of security and defense.
 
tlcagford said:
Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said on Saturday.


"The US is taking part in the military operations in Ukraine," he wrote on his Telegram channel. "Today, Washington is basically coordinating and engineering military operations, thus directly participating in the military actions against our country."
Click to expand...
Russia may be right.

Now the question becomes: What is Russia going to do about it. Their options are rather limited.
 
tlcagford said:
Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said on Saturday.


"The US is taking part in the military operations in Ukraine," he wrote on his Telegram channel. "Today, Washington is basically coordinating and engineering military operations, thus directly participating in the military actions against our country."
Click to expand...
Not good. While everyone will (rightly) condemn this TASS article, what Western analysts are forgetting that in every conflict there are two sides in the Information Warfare campaign. Just like there are those reportedly incensed enough to sabotage in Russia, the Russia IW is looking to motivate sabotage in the West. We need to think differently on security, and be more clever in our strategy to undermine Russian IW and tactics. In a no-win situtation, the most obvious solution is to change the rules.
 
tlcagford said:
Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said on Saturday.


"The US is taking part in the military operations in Ukraine," he wrote on his Telegram channel. "Today, Washington is basically coordinating and engineering military operations, thus directly participating in the military actions against our country."
Click to expand...
Well then. What can they do about it?
 
DarkNoon said:
Well then. What can they do about it?
Click to expand...
Imagine if this was an alternative situation. If this were another war, and it was a U.S. Senator stating this and the Washington Post reporting, the U.S. NatSec community would be quietly discussing, or (perhaps I am too old) using retired military on cable tv to float out concepts of how to make attacks in Russia as retaliation. A few years ago, the MSNBC "counterterrorism analyst" was broadcasting (and tweeting of course) specific targets for ISIS to attack connected to Trump.

So what a lot of vocal members of the U.S. NatSec community would be discussing, would be ways to attack Russia. Imagine, on top of that if USA's CNN/MSNBC/Fox News television stations were interrupted with foreign anti-USA messages (in support of Russia). And that the U.S. Banking systems was under attack, that foreign nations collaborated to block U.S. financially, that Russian hackers were trying to attack U.S. Stock Exchange. That Russian TASS was also (what we would call) "boasting" of Russian military and intelligence used to help kill American soldiers, and TASS was "boasting" (how it would get reported here) of Kremlin meetings for massive cyberwar on the U.S. public. That Russian hackers were actively trying to disrupt aviation websites. And that Russia-supported "terrorists" were commiting sabotage of U.S. facilities across the country. And if Russia special forces were reported to help killing U.S. soldiers in another foreign war. How would the U.S. react to "What can they do about it?" If the USA decided to put its energies into escalation of making life unbearable for Russia, there is quite a lot is we can do about it.

And sadly, vice versa.

I completely respect and understand that Russia brought this on themselves, that they are the invaders, and as I point out, I am frankly anti-Russian. But I am not anti-logic. Escalation will lead to escalation. And while much of the USA is worried about Elon Musk and Twitter, etc., there are legitimate U.S. national security issues to consider that go along with further escalation. As a handful of extremists with box cutters taught us 20 years ago, an open society has a virtually unlimited number of sources of targets to exploit with violence and attacks of endless kinds.
 
REALHumanRights said:
I share the outage and indignity at the Russia invasion.
I also can have the strategic understanding in 21st century, despite recent USA Middle East/Asia surrenders, most activities involving peace-building of real nuclear powers require building compromise, even when it is disgusting.
We need to stop the killing of Ukrainian people to buy them time to live to fight another day. Escalation helps none of the vulnernable.
Fighting a war using Russia's rules and Russia's strategy will only benefit Russia. We need a different model of security and defense.
Click to expand...
I’m not proposing escalation.
What is that model
 
REALHumanRights said:
Imagine if this was an alternative situation. If this were another war, and it was a U.S. Senator stating this and the Washington Post reporting, the U.S. NatSec community would be quietly discussing, or (perhaps I am too old) using retired military on cable tv to float out concepts of how to make attacks in Russia as retaliation. A few years ago, the MSNBC "counterterrorism analyst" was broadcasting (and tweeting of course) specific targets for ISIS to attack connected to Trump.

So what a lot of vocal members of the U.S. NatSec community would be discussing, would be ways to attack Russia. Imagine, on top of that if USA's CNN/MSNBC/Fox News television stations were interrupted with foreign anti-USA messages (in support of Russia). And that the U.S. Banking systems was under attack, that foreign nations collaborated to block U.S. financially, that Russian hackers were trying to attack U.S. Stock Exchange. That Russian TASS was also (what we would call) "boasting" of Russian military and intelligence used to help kill American soldiers, and TASS was "boasting" (how it would get reported here) of Kremlin meetings for massive cyberwar on the U.S. public. That Russian hackers were actively trying to disrupt aviation websites. And that Russia-supported "terrorists" were commiting sabotage of U.S. facilities across the country. And if Russia special forces were reported to help killing U.S. soldiers in another foreign war. How would the U.S. react to "What can they do about it?" If the USA decided to put its energies into escalation of making life unbearable for Russia, there is quite a lot is we can do about it.

And sadly, vice versa.

I completely respect and understand that Russia brought this on themselves, that they are the invaders, and as I point out, I am frankly anti-Russian. But I am not anti-logic. Escalation will lead to escalation. And while much of the USA is worried about Elon Musk and Twitter, etc., there are legitimate U.S. national security issues to consider that go along with further escalation. As a handful of extremists with box cutters taught us 20 years ago, an open society has a virtually unlimited number of sources of targets to exploit with violence and attacks of endless kinds.
Click to expand...
There’s too many smokescreens in Western media nowadays out of convenience for politicians.
 
REALHumanRights said:
Imagine if this was an alternative situation. If this were another war, and it was a U.S. Senator stating this and the Washington Post reporting, the U.S. NatSec community would be quietly discussing, or (perhaps I am too old) using retired military on cable tv to float out concepts of how to make attacks in Russia as retaliation. A few years ago, the MSNBC "counterterrorism analyst" was broadcasting (and tweeting of course) specific targets for ISIS to attack connected to Trump.

So what a lot of vocal members of the U.S. NatSec community would be discussing, would be ways to attack Russia. Imagine, on top of that if USA's CNN/MSNBC/Fox News television stations were interrupted with foreign anti-USA messages (in support of Russia). And that the U.S. Banking systems was under attack, that foreign nations collaborated to block U.S. financially, that Russian hackers were trying to attack U.S. Stock Exchange. That Russian TASS was also (what we would call) "boasting" of Russian military and intelligence used to help kill American soldiers, and TASS was "boasting" (how it would get reported here) of Kremlin meetings for massive cyberwar on the U.S. public. That Russian hackers were actively trying to disrupt aviation websites. And that Russia-supported "terrorists" were commiting sabotage of U.S. facilities across the country. And if Russia special forces were reported to help killing U.S. soldiers in another foreign war. How would the U.S. react to "What can they do about it?" If the USA decided to put its energies into escalation of making life unbearable for Russia, there is quite a lot is we can do about it.

And sadly, vice versa.

I completely respect and understand that Russia brought this on themselves, that they are the invaders, and as I point out, I am frankly anti-Russian. But I am not anti-logic. Escalation will lead to escalation. And while much of the USA is worried about Elon Musk and Twitter, etc., there are legitimate U.S. national security issues to consider that go along with further escalation. As a handful of extremists with box cutters taught us 20 years ago, an open society has a virtually unlimited number of sources of targets to exploit with violence and attacks of endless kinds.
Click to expand...
Being too passive is what got us here in the first place. The West have continuously laid down to Putler going all the way back to Bush. If somebody didn't stand up this time, it was only going to get worse. The most embarrassing part for the West in this...is just how bad our intelligence was when it come to rating the Russian military. For the past 2 decades, we've been told that if Russia was this super juggernaut even without nukes. Military spending has increased to match that. And even with that, the west has still appeased Putler for 20 years. And now when something finally happens....we find out they're a paper tiger. They basically have nukes and thats it. Yah thats a game changer, but the thing about nukes is everybody loses. Their vaunted VDV got obliterated. Their navy is getting embarrassed by a country that doesn't have one. They have lost a ton of generals. They can't do basic things like have encrypted communications. Their logistics are garbage.

And yet our intelligence services missed all this. So we've essentially been bullied by a country that couldn't back up anything they say. That's what people should be upset about. As for as Russia goes, they're done. Theres no coming back from this for at least a couple decades. No company is going to go back in and set up there after everything that's happened. And all the countries that were afraid of them no longer are because they see them for what they are. not to mention all the men and equipment they're missing now.

Russia is much different than the West, and thats what people have a hard time understanding. They are a Mongol culture trapped in Europe and living in the past. The Mongol empire was rife with construction and after it annexed Russia...then fail...the corruption remained. Thats why the military budget had a whopping 70 percent estimate of embezzlement by Putin and Shogi etc. Finally, it's why they constantly sabre rattle. It's how the Mongols operated. Whereas the West uses "soft power".
 
REALHumanRights said:
Imagine if this was an alternative situation. If this were another war, and it was a U.S. Senator stating this and the Washington Post reporting, the U.S. NatSec community would be quietly discussing, or (perhaps I am too old) using retired military on cable tv to float out concepts of how to make attacks in Russia as retaliation. A few years ago, the MSNBC "counterterrorism analyst" was broadcasting (and tweeting of course) specific targets for ISIS to attack connected to Trump.

So what a lot of vocal members of the U.S. NatSec community would be discussing, would be ways to attack Russia. Imagine, on top of that if USA's CNN/MSNBC/Fox News television stations were interrupted with foreign anti-USA messages (in support of Russia). And that the U.S. Banking systems was under attack, that foreign nations collaborated to block U.S. financially, that Russian hackers were trying to attack U.S. Stock Exchange. That Russian TASS was also (what we would call) "boasting" of Russian military and intelligence used to help kill American soldiers, and TASS was "boasting" (how it would get reported here) of Kremlin meetings for massive cyberwar on the U.S. public. That Russian hackers were actively trying to disrupt aviation websites. And that Russia-supported "terrorists" were commiting sabotage of U.S. facilities across the country. And if Russia special forces were reported to help killing U.S. soldiers in another foreign war. How would the U.S. react to "What can they do about it?" If the USA decided to put its energies into escalation of making life unbearable for Russia, there is quite a lot is we can do about it.

And sadly, vice versa.

I completely respect and understand that Russia brought this on themselves, that they are the invaders, and as I point out, I am frankly anti-Russian. But I am not anti-logic. Escalation will lead to escalation. And while much of the USA is worried about Elon Musk and Twitter, etc., there are legitimate U.S. national security issues to consider that go along with further escalation. As a handful of extremists with box cutters taught us 20 years ago, an open society has a virtually unlimited number of sources of targets to exploit with violence and attacks of endless kinds.
Click to expand...
What escalation? where has nato changed policy about boots on the ground. The US has been helping with targeting from the beginning.
This is not new. What’s new is Russia’s op sec and communications is still in the last century.
Should we handicap Russia so they can continue the fight even longer?
How is targeting C&C post an escalation when they are on the battle field. These weren’t attacks on Russia soil. They were attacks on Russian military targets in a foreign nation.

You do know to convince a enemy to come to the negotiating table is to hurt them severely enough it is in their best interest to do so.
You are arguing the same failed policy of pulling punches and surrendering the battle field to the enemy in “hopes” they might negotiate.
No I don’t get it and I don’t agree with pulling military punches when they can be had. I’m not saying escalating.
Targeting Russia C&C is not an escalation it is part of the war.
I’m not opposed to negotiating at all. And I am sure that nato and Ukrainian leadership are having some pretty frank discussions about weapons supplies.

Who out their is threatening Russia with destruction every time they fire a calibir cruise missiles into a civilian apartment building. There were four last night shot into Odessa residential communities.
Maybe it should be NATO the one saber rattling tactical nukes on Russia he’ll on earth as Russia propagandist are fond of saying.

If this is the resolve of the US we need to just fold up and come home now and let Russia have Ukraine and what ever part of Europe they want.

If this is where we are heading then the US does not deserve to count Ukraine as an ally.
 
Obreid said:
Ukraine as an ally.
Click to expand...
Because USA national security will crumble without "Ukraine as an ally." (The USA has allies?)
You have a great argument if you didn't leave out all of the rest of what is going on in Russia and to Russia ("deserved" in our opinion or not). I can imagine how long the USA would be tolerating all of that here.
The first time CNN was interrupted by pro-Russia "activists," much of the U.S. would be calling to nuke Moscow.

Of course, the Ukrainian people will and should want to fight and stop Russian military.
But every time the USA defense gets directly involved in that, however, it directly undermines USA national security in the interest of Ukrainian national security.
If they were the "United Nations Department of Defense," then I would completely understand that balance.
But they are the United States Department of Defense. Their main responsibility is to the defense of this country.
 
REALHumanRights said:
Because USA national security will crumble without "Ukraine as an ally." (The USA has allies?)
You have a great argument if you didn't leave out all of the rest of what is going on in Russia and to Russia ("deserved" in our opinion or not). I can imagine how long the USA would be tolerating all of that here.
The first time CNN was interrupted by pro-Russia "activists," much of the U.S. would be calling to nuke Moscow.

Of course, the Ukrainian people will and should want to fight and stop Russian military.
But every time the USA defense gets directly involved in that, however, it directly undermines USA national security in the interest of Ukrainian national security.
If they were the "United Nations Department of Defense," then I would completely understand that balance.
But they are the United States Department of Defense. Their main responsibility is to the defense of this country.
Click to expand...
Then you should be arguing for a non interventionist position and the withdrawal from nato.

No I have said it before russia position has been fond insufficient not just by the US and Britain but most of the old Warsaw nations have vivid memories of living with Russia.
I’m sorry Russian leadership sees it differently.
But the injustices they are bemoaning about are paranoid contrivance to manipulate.
If it is a question of listening to the concerns of almost a dozen smaller nations who lived under Russia or Russia’s. Then no Russia’s in the wrong and their concerns are irrelevant

Again NO one wants to invade Russia. Up until this spring dozens of nations were perfectly fine in buying their products and selling them products.

The broken record is Russia and NO one is listening anymore.
They can either live in the modern world or worry about past aggressions and slights from 80 to 200 years ago.

Regarding future defense of Europe if the US stays in NATO. Then the new intermediate range ballistic missile need station across all of Eastern Europe from Finland to Romania.
No disclosure of conventional or nuclear. This has been Russia’s game for last ten years.
Missile defense won’t work on a continental basis so the US should start building hundreds of ICBM’s with mirv’s and 50 mt warheads.
You are arguing Russia’s side and it will only result in a more deadly nuclear standoff in the long run.
 
Obreid said:
Maybe it should be NATO the one saber rattling tactical nukes on Russia he’ll on earth as Russia propagandist are fond of saying.
Click to expand...
I agree with you; this should not be a USA-driven issue of direct military involvement in the Ukraine/Russia war. NATO or some other organization should be directly involved, not just direct involvement of one nation (i.e., USA), because then only that one country is at security risk (see: "Poland and MiG jets."). Then the people in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Lisbon, etc., should realize that their joint decisions for European security are at risk, and of course understand what direct military involvement means, both for the Europe and their own nations. But when NATO decides to call for tactical nukes as threats, that is also the day that the USA needs to pull out of NATO, and I would imagine other countries would as well.

The real goal for NATO was for Western European ally nations protection for USSR, with the main fear that the USSR would go through East Germany and roll into to West Germany, and then to other European ally nations (who were actual joint allies in WWII.) That was the "red line" for NATO. And I am sorry, no disrespect to the German people, but that red line existed because of fear that after West Germany, then Russia would go back into France and other actual ally nations. NATO was formed on April 4, 1949. Five years after Nazi Germany was defeated and divided. To recall on history, it wasn't until 1955, that FDR Germany was added to NATO.

Not all European countries, not Eastern European nations, including those that were part of the USSR 30 years ago. With the USSR breakup in 1991, there has been NATO "scope creep," but little of that has been discussed with the public, especially not the USA public. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act called for NATO to limit the permanent troops in former Warsaw Pact countries. Now, the U.S. Heritage Foundation wants that to be interpreted differently. That's great. But the public deserves consultation on decisions being made on their behalf. We might want and think it is noble for NATO "scope creep." But honestly neither Ukraine, nor the disaster in Afghanstan were actual NATO issues. The Afghanistan disaster was predicted on Taliban hosting Al-Qaeda in its plot to attack USA homeland. But today Ukraine is not a NATO country, it is not even an EU country.

We of course sympathesize with Ukrainian people. But when we go back to why there is a NATO and also why there is a DoD, it was not written for the rightful and deserving defense of the former Ukainian SSR. If we want that to be so, then representative democracies need to ask their people to accept that.

If the USA White House wants a direct war with Russia, they know what they need to do: Take it to Congress.
The USA has a Constitution for a reason, like it or not, the "checks and balances" (such as they) are intended to prevent exactly this type of abuse of Government authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPod
Removed post, I'm backing down because my post wasn't filled with mostly logic, it was more emotion and that's not what I like to post here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom