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

UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone who supported the Trump agenda I do not support dramatic draw downs of foreign military aid to Ukraine.
I have friends who are trump supporters and the maga agenda and the adamantly disagrees with me but.
No we’re here now, this is the conflict. It is not time to withdraw from it.
One of the core goals of the Trump admin was to get European nations to contribute more to defense.
They are doing so now and it’s time to stay the course.
alphaecho said:
www.thedailybeast.com

Putin’s Last Hope to Win in Ukraine Is a GOP Victory in November

Just when Russia on the ropes, Republican leaders are already signaling they’ll cut aid to Ukraine if they win control of Congress.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com
Click to expand...
 
A video appeared on the network, which claims that Poland is pulling additional military equipment to the borders of Belarus, in particular, the Rosomak armored personnel carrier.

With Russia launching missiles dangerously close to Polish borders again we need to watch this build up.
 
Peace said:
Russia will declare war next week after XI's CCP finishes on Sunday and then Belarus will join under their mutual defense treaty. Over a half-million troops coming from both the north and south. Ukraine bleeding soldiers and is short on everything and nobody is left to help. Wouldn't be surprised if China doesn't embargo Taiwan at the same time to put maximum pressure on the US. YOU heard it here first!!!
Click to expand...

how do you can say that??
 
Seriously said:
True and you introduce a very real and important reality to the discussion.
There is no partisan support inside Ukraine to support the war time goals of Russia.
Vietnam was not a war I think the US should have fought because of the significant, albeit self destructive, presence of partisan Vietnamese support for the north Vietnamese cause.
But that is history, today Russia does not have any in the way of partisan support inside Ukraine for this war. Just another indication of their ill timed and foolish invasion.
Like I posted to real human rights post, history and past precedents are instructive and useful but they only go so far. With shifts in power centers the rules AWAYS change.
History is written by the victors as they say and that contest is still underway.
So to those who are fighting for their nation and those who are being conscripted to fight to subject another the war continues.
History is being written again and their is nothing we can do to change that.
Click to expand...

The "partisan support" is a complicated argument. I don't think that in Ukraine the partisan support is low, on the contray: I suppose is potentially hight. But this doesn't change nothing, because the partisan "support" is almost useless as long as the State power is hight. In South Vietnam Diem dictatorship didn't control South-Vietnam territory, so "agrovilles" were created, in order to avoid farmers to get in touch with Vietcongs. US then entered the war, making holes in the water one after an other, that were suddendly filled up and not controlled anymore. So, in a situation in which the ennemy has almost free field to recruit sympatizers and arm them, the "partisan support" is important. But in Countryies as Ukraine now, or even France during the occupation (except towards the end), the "partisan support" can't be relevant. It could become important in case of collapse of State power, that in a war is the collapse of the Army. It's for this reason that in Ukraine they are arresting whoever is considered pro-russian.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Why does it have to be only those two choices? Why can't Russia just retreat? Why can't Russia surrender the stolen territories?

Why is the burden on Ukraine to be the one to sacrifice? Why is Russia not being asked to sacrifice?

Okay, let's assume the two choices you gave are the only two options: Ukraine surrenders territory or nuclear war.

Even then that is not a fair question. Because the question demands that someone else make the sacrifice. It's easy to demand that Ukraine be the one to give up.

Let's turn the table.

Let's say someone broke into your house with a gun. Will you call the police? If yes, why? Why don't you just give up and give them what they want? You're just escalating violence by calling the police who will come with their own guns.

The position being espoused is hypocritical because it demands of others what one is unwilling to do themselves.

But to go back to your question:

Yes. Stop Russia now. Because they will do it again. And next time it might actually be a NATO country.
Click to expand...

The questions I made synthetize the situation for what it is. All the other questions you made are simply an other way to say: "nothing must be allowed", as to say: war. So, maybe, nuclear war. I not agree. IMHO, the world could have continued to turn around the sun with an happy Ukraine and a Russia happy too, even with a neutral Ukraine and no one would lose anything.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Let's turn the table.

Let's say someone broke into your house with a gun. Will you call the police? If yes, why? Why don't you just give up and give them what they want? You're just escalating violence by calling the police who will come with their own guns.
Click to expand...

let's tur the table one more time in this improbable metaphor.

Let's say that someone broke into my house with a gun, because each time he was passing in front of the window, I was in my turn at my window with a gun pointed at him. A gun given to me by my friend Jim. I was in my home, so I am free to do in my home whatever I want and have the friends I want and, in my home, it's my businness what my frineds give to me, isn't it? Maybe a compromise should have been... "ok, you stay at home, I stay at home, but: I dont' point at you the gun anymore and Jim doesn't give to me guns intended to be used against you".
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Why does it have to be only those two choices? Why can't Russia just retreat? Why can't Russia surrender the stolen territories?

Why is the burden on Ukraine to be the one to sacrifice? Why is Russia not being asked to sacrifice?

Okay, let's assume the two choices you gave are the only two options: Ukraine surrenders territory or nuclear war.

Even then that is not a fair question. Because the question demands that someone else make the sacrifice. It's easy to demand that Ukraine be the one to give up.

Let's turn the table.

Let's say someone broke into your house with a gun. Will you call the police? If yes, why? Why don't you just give up and give them what they want? You're just escalating violence by calling the police who will come with their own guns.

The position being espoused is hypocritical because it demands of others what one is unwilling to do themselves.

But to go back to your question:

Yes. Stop Russia now. Because they will do it again. And next time it might actually be a NATO country.
Click to expand...
I mean to be 100% honest, They can steal whatever in the house because homeowners insurance will get it back, and if it doesn't, it covers the majority.
If I don't own the house insurance covers it.
Beyond that, My life isn't worth a item within my house, I don't give a fuck if it's the 3k tv, the $100-$300 windows, The shingles on the roof. The most expensive thing they can find and snatch would be an AP 15400 and that's like 50k (besides the car). If they vandalized the car my insurance would kill it. I don't think risking my life, or killing a human is worth a 120k car, nor a 50k watch. Nor any of the items in my house.
I can get my items back, and I can simply work for the items back in under a year?


You never have more than 20% of your money in physical objects you shove it in bonds and stocks. Nobody is looking to kill you if they are robbing you. If you resist and have a gun and start shooting they want to kill you.
 
ZedBoy said:
I mean to be 100% honest, They can steal whatever in the house because homeowners insurance will get it back, and if it doesn't, it covers the majority.
If I don't own the house insurance covers it.
Beyond that, My life isn't worth a item within my house, I don't give a fuck if it's the 3k tv, the $100-$300 windows, The shingles on the roof. The most expensive thing they can find and snatch would be an AP 15400 and that's like 50k (besides the car). If they vandalized the car my insurance would kill it. I don't think risking my life, or killing a human is worth a 120k car, nor a 50k watch. Nor any of the items in my house.
I can get my items back, and I can simply work for the items back in under a year?


You never have more than 20% of your money in physical objects you shove it in bonds and stocks. Nobody is looking to kill you if they are robbing you. If you resist and have a gun and start shooting they want to kill you.
Click to expand...
that’s a cool comparison and all but russia is still going to go bigger if we dont stop them
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Rumor is that the US will enter Ukraine but not as part of NATO.
bartok said:
Some source? If it's true we are on the verge of a great war.
Click to expand...
The risks of drawing the United States and NATO into the conflict in Ukraine are now high, the White House said

Former CIA Director and former commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan David Petraeus does not rule out that a "multinational" contingent led by the United States, and not NATO itself, could take part in the conflict in Ukraine.

"The U.S. and other countries can respond in one way or another, but as a U.S.-led multinational force, not as a NATO force," he said
 
ZedBoy said:
I mean to be 100% honest, They can steal whatever in the house because homeowners insurance will get it back, and if it doesn't, it covers the majority.
If I don't own the house insurance covers it.
Beyond that, My life isn't worth a item within my house, I don't give a fuck if it's the 3k tv, the $100-$300 windows, The shingles on the roof. The most expensive thing they can find and snatch would be an AP 15400 and that's like 50k (besides the car). If they vandalized the car my insurance would kill it. I don't think risking my life, or killing a human is worth a 120k car, nor a 50k watch. Nor any of the items in my house.
I can get my items back, and I can simply work for the items back in under a year?


You never have more than 20% of your money in physical objects you shove it in bonds and stocks. Nobody is looking to kill you if they are robbing you. If you resist and have a gun and start shooting they want to kill you.
Click to expand...
That is not even worthy of a Response
 
Peace said:
Rumor is that the US will enter Ukraine but not as part of NATO.

The risks of drawing the United States and NATO into the conflict in Ukraine are now high, the White House said

Former CIA Director and former commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan David Petraeus does not rule out that a "multinational" contingent led by the United States, and not NATO itself, could take part in the conflict in Ukraine.

"The U.S. and other countries can respond in one way or another, but as a U.S.-led multinational force, not as a NATO force," he said
Click to expand...
Is this even possible? Surely article 5 is all for one, one for all, etc.

In any case the proposition is highly irresponsible and maybe signals frustration in the pentagon, which is in itself not at all helpful IMHO.
 
bartok said:
let's tur the table one more time in this improbable metaphor.

Let's say that someone broke into my house with a gun, because each time he was passing in front of the window, I was in my turn at my window with a gun pointed at him. A gun given to me by my friend Jim. I was in my home, so I am free to do in my home whatever I want and have the friends I want and, in my home, it's my businness what my frineds give to me, isn't it? Maybe a compromise should have been... "ok, you stay at home, I stay at home, but: I dont' point at you the gun anymore and Jim doesn't give to me guns intended to be used against you".
Click to expand...
Except you omitted that the neighbor walking in front of your home had been pointing a gun at you as well. They had already torn down some fencing and put new fencing up to try to redraw the property lines.
Yeah that would have been a good time to negotiate. But now that your neighbor has started trying to force your out and destroy your home. Their now shocked that your shootings back and that more neighbors are coming to try and help.
Your neighbor is a menace to the neighborhood and someone needs to put them down.

not you of course, but your fictional neighborhood bully and common thief
 
meduza.io

ISW: Russian retreat from Kherson has begun — Meduza

The Russian Army has started to withdraw its forces from the southern part of the Kherson region, writes the Institute for the Study of War in its October 21 assessment. The US think tank has been analyzing the situation at the front since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
meduza.io meduza.io
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom