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

UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS (Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Totality said:
When I say that. I mean down the line we will have a greater threat of a nuclear war if it is not stopped now. It will only encourage greater nuclear blackmail and rattling. Which we should know where that will lead.

If Russia is aloud to do this will only guarantee nuclear war down the line not just with russia but other nuclear capable tyrants. That's what I mean. It will only guarantee a nuclear conflict down the road if not handled or stopped now.
Click to expand...
Although I understand your point Raff may well be suggesting that nuclear war could be the result with this conflict so future threats may well be irrelevant in your annalyse. Atleast for long time should we be right. I'd be satisfied for nukes now than later personally, only so future generations can possibly change the future for the better, rather than what is happening now and not so distant future even without the threat of nuclear weapons. Funny thing is the very thing the west claim they are trying to avoid could very well provoke such outcome. 🤞 not long now.
 
Last edited:
Spyglass said:
If Russia really wanted to end this war, they could do so very quickly. Russia is holding back, I think we all know this. The goal is to drag this on as long as possible to deplete NATO weapons and ammunitions stocks.
Click to expand...
I partially agree and disagree with you. I think Russia COULD’VE ended the war a lot sooner at the beginning. But with western aid and immense support for Ukraine I genuinely think it’d be down to the last man fighting for Russia to try and take Kyiv again. On the other hand, I do actually think there’s a slight tactic for Russia trying to deplete munitions and equipment. Not only for themselves but also China. Don’t know if it was preemptively planned or it kind of came about, but imo it seems China and Russia have an idea of trying to deplete as much as they can for whatever reasons. As of right now though it’s only estimated about 5% of our stockpiles have been given to Ukraine. There’s a reason why we (US) don’t have free healthcare 🤣
 
Ukraine's military is conducting "probing and shaping operations," and "the main front of the Ukrainian capability still in reserves ready for that singular attack," Tobias Ellwood told Sky News on June 12.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1668234129127636992
kyivindependent.com

Sky News: UK official anticipates 'major' Ukrainian attack in Donbas in 'next few days'

Tobias Ellwood, the head of the U.K. Parliament's defense committee, believes Ukraine would launch a "major attack" against Russian forces in the eastern Donbas region "in the next few days."
kyivindependent.com kyivindependent.com
 
DescendedDeath said:
I partially agree and disagree with you. I think Russia COULD’VE ended the war a lot sooner at the beginning. But with western aid and immense support for Ukraine I genuinely think it’d be down to the last man fighting for Russia to try and take Kyiv again. On the other hand, I do actually think there’s a slight tactic for Russia trying to deplete munitions and equipment. Not only for themselves but also China. Don’t know if it was preemptively planned or it kind of came about, but imo it seems China and Russia have an idea of trying to deplete as much as they can for whatever reasons. As of right now though it’s only estimated about 5% of our stockpiles have been given to Ukraine. There’s a reason why we (US) don’t have free healthcare 🤣
Click to expand...
It would have been a long and bloody insurgency.
Think George Bush's "Mission Accomplished"
1686577609460.png
 
Spyglass said:
If Russia really wanted to end this war, they could do so very quickly. Russia is holding back, I think we all know this. The goal is to drag this on as long as possible to deplete NATO weapons and ammunitions stocks.
Click to expand...

I've always felt like Russia was not fully "committed" to this operation (in terms of the weapons and firepower at their disposal), and that this is just a prelude to something unexpected.
The fact that they have been dragging on as long as they have taking the losses they are taking seems unsustainable. Russia, not having a strong history of democracy, may have a higher threshold for war weariness than the west. But what would they be holding on for? They're obviously not changing the West's commitment to Ukraine. If the goal is to drain NATO resources, what does Russia get out of it? What repayment do they receive for being cannon fodder?
 
teekay99 said:
I've always felt like Russia was not fully "committed" to this operation (in terms of the weapons and firepower at their disposal), and that this is just a prelude to something unexpected.
The fact that they have been dragging on as long as they have taking the losses they are taking seems unsustainable. Russia, not having a strong history of democracy, may have a higher threshold for war weariness than the west. But what would they be holding on for? They're obviously not changing the West's commitment to Ukraine. If the goal is to drain NATO resources, what does Russia get out of it? What repayment do they receive for being cannon fodder?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you're reading into it too much. The answer is simple, the Russians mostly suck at offensive warfare and this is compounded by the fact they weren't prepared or expecting a drawn out conventional war. We I believe can compare this war to the war with finland. And I believe the end result will be the same. I don't think what we see is a good indicator of Russia's maximum capabilities if they were 100% prepared. I also don't think the Russians are doing as bad as we claim not as well as they claim. The truth often lies somewhere in between.
 
Putin is using this war to stay in power it’s as simple as that. He sends all his opponents out to die as cannon fodder. Hitler did the same thing and so did Stalin. It is chapter 2 in “How to be a dictator for dummies”.
 
Spyglass said:
If Russia really wanted to end this war, they could do so very quickly. Russia is holding back, I think we all know this. The goal is to drag this on as long as possible to deplete NATO weapons and ammunitions stocks.
Click to expand...
The problem is that Russia is depleting its own ammunition stocks. As well as equipment and personnel. NATO's resources are much more vast than Russia. Russia may be getting some stuff from China and Iran, but that doesn't compare to what Ukraine is getting. Or what NATO still has.

My only concern is Taiwan. China would do best to just sit back and let the Ukraine war drag on for as long as possible. Once it finally ends, that would be the perfect time to invade as it would be when the West is most exhausted.
 
Spyglass said:
If Russia really wanted to end this war, they could do so very quickly. Russia is holding back, I think we all know this. The goal is to drag this on as long as possible to deplete NATO weapons and ammunitions stocks.
Click to expand...
We have sent about 5% of our reserves. We have ramped up to produce more than we have/will send so, thanks Russia for increasing the demand here in CONUS. Ukraine is our SPENDX to get fresh munitions and the new Javelins (Pssttt...Russia will love them)
 
JPod said:
Pretty sure you're reading into it too much. The answer is simple, the Russians mostly suck at offensive warfare and this is compounded by the fact they weren't prepared or expecting a drawn out conventional war. We I believe can compare this war to the war with finland. And I believe the end result will be the same. I don't think what we see is a good indicator of Russia's maximum capabilities if they were 100% prepared. I also don't think the Russians are doing as bad as we claim not as well as they claim. The truth often lies somewhere in between.
Click to expand...
You might be right about the Finland analogy. Except I don’t think Ukraine will wait 70 years to join nato when it’s all said and done.
They weren’t 100% prepared? How long was the build up on Ukraines boarder.
Your correct that Russia isn’t good at offensive warfare and they do do better with defensive.
But this is not the 1940’s and Ukraine isn’t in any way imagined, except with creative extrapolation a threat to the Rodina.
How long will the Russian population stand in the face of a meat grinder defensive war brought about by an offensive operation on Russias part.
It didn’t work well in Afghanistan.
There was a timer on Russia then and it worked against them.
You can only rally the troops so long in a expeditionary war.
 
OReid said:
You might be right about the Finland analogy. Except I don’t think Ukraine will wait 70 years to join nato when it’s all said and done.
They weren’t 100% prepared? How long was the build up on Ukraines boarder.
Your correct that Russia isn’t good at offensive warfare and they do do better with defensive.
But this is not the 1940’s and Ukraine isn’t in any way imagined, except with creative extrapolation a threat to the Rodina.
How long will the Russian population stand in the face of a meat grinder defensive war brought about by an offensive operation on Russias part.
It didn’t work well in Afghanistan.
There was a timer on Russia then and it worked against them.
You can only rally the troops so long in a expeditionary war.
Click to expand...
I would say they weren't 100% prepared because: there were stories of the Russian soldiers and their COs not being told what their real purpose was, they thought it was a training exercise even after crossing the border. As well the number of personal was much too small. It was estimated ~250k amassed along the border. This would indicate they were not expecting a wider conventional conflict. In reality for a conventional war they would need at least 2-3 million troops. The front line is long with lots of wide open space to cover. Had we seen them mass up say 3 million with those soldiers knowing and being trained for a conventional war in Ukraine with or without proper supply lines I believe it would've been a steamroll.
 
Silent said:
You are happy about every dead Russian and forget the war crimes of your generals and soldiers. Do they all still live? Yes? A pity! (n)
Click to expand...
I think the difference is that Russia is the aggressor. So any "war crime" committed against them is considered to be justified. Don't want a war crime committed against you? Don't be a war criminal yourself.

All this could have been avoided if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine. All this could be stopped if Russia pulled out of Ukraine.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I think the difference is that Russia is the aggressor. So any "war crime" committed against them is considered to be justified. Don't want a war crime committed against you? Don't be a war criminal yourself.

All this could have been avoided if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine. All this could be stopped if Russia pulled out of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don’t make a right but typically the victor dictates who is punished and the burden of proof or evidence is much higher when charging your own. We want Russians to surrender without fighting which means they have to trust us to take care of them. Who knows they might even join the Ukrainians if able.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom