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

UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simpatico said:
Ukraine feels like both Afghanistan wars, in how difficult it is to predict its end. It wouldn't exactly be surprising if it were to come to an end sooner than people expect, but if we're still talking about it in 2030 that wouldn't be surprising either.

There's some precedent. The official Ukraine war started in 2022 according to general commentary, but there have been war conditions in the east of Ukraine since 2014.
Click to expand...
Oh it’s a Afghanistan redo for sure. In fact it is the perfect proxy war. Russians is fully engaged and nato and several other nations are fully engaged in supporting Ukraine overtly-without actually overtly committing troops.

The question is the same as it’s been the last fifty years.
Who’s committed to stay the course to the end. Russia cannot go nuclear and “win”. So can Russia stay committed to the fight to the end without significant domestic push back? Or can nato?
My estimation still at this time is nato.
They have overcome the panic or hydrocarbons shortfalls, they continue to demonstrate their committed to stopping any continued Russian expansion into NATO.
But who knows western public is notoriously fickle. If Ukraine is lost it will only be because of western public support. That said even if a Republican is elected in 2024 which is what Russia will hold out for it will make no difference. European NATO commitment will still determine the US’s commitment level.
I stand personally with Ukraine as long as past Warsaw Pact nations stand with Ukraine.
 
Friendly Engineer said:
I don't think the counter-offensive will completely push back Russia and shorten the war to 6 months.
Click to expand...
You know it completely depends on how it is planned and executed. If it is carried out like Bakhmut then no it won’t. It needs to be a bold encirclement approach and coordinated battle plan to choke the will from large concentrations of Russian soldiers. None of this head on smashing of forced in Bakhmut.
We’ll see how well Ukraine has been resupplied and trained in western battle tactics.
 
These videos if real and I have no reason to doubt that given what we know. Are very illuminating on how poor or ineffective Russia navel vessel defense is. To not be able to stand off and destroy what is basically a fast attack boat are really sad.


es7129 said:
When the russian reconnaissance ship "Ivan Khurs" met a Ukrainian drone.
Indeed, a perfect match!
https://twitter.com/x/status/1661789365582921744
Click to expand...

alphaecho said:
hay mucha niebla, hay que esperar a que se disipe

El momento en que el barco de reconocimiento ruso Ivan Khurs fue alcanzado por un dron naval ucraniano en el Mar Negro. El video fue proporcionado a los periodistas de UP por fuentes en los círculos militares.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1662057422419120128

https://twitter.com/x/status/1662061214174724097
Click to expand...
 
OReid said:
So can Russia stay committed to the fight to the end without significant domestic push back? Or can nato?
My estimation still at this time is nato.
They have overcome the panic or hydrocarbons shortfalls, they continue to demonstrate their committed to stopping any continued Russian expansion into NATO.
Click to expand...
Very well said and entirely correct imo.
 
Totality said:
If I recall it takes 30,000,000 million dollars or so for the Russian to make the SU aircraft in question.
Click to expand...
Ok you got me with the wording. You mean “30 Million” OR you mean “30,000,000 <insert units of currency>”

You are describing beyond the national debt level there as “30,000,000 million”

* Posted by nitpickers anonymous
 
OReid said:
Oh it’s a Afghanistan redo for sure. In fact it is the perfect proxy war. Russians is fully engaged and nato and several other nations are fully engaged in supporting Ukraine overtly-without actually overtly committing troops.

The question is the same as it’s been the last fifty years.
Who’s committed to stay the course to the end. Russia cannot go nuclear and “win”. So can Russia stay committed to the fight to the end without significant domestic push back? Or can nato?
My estimation still at this time is nato.
They have overcome the panic or hydrocarbons shortfalls, they continue to demonstrate their committed to stopping any continued Russian expansion into NATO.
But who knows western public is notoriously fickle. If Ukraine is lost it will only be because of western public support. That said even if a Republican is elected in 2024 which is what Russia will hold out for it will make no difference. European NATO commitment will still determine the US’s commitment level.
I stand personally with Ukraine as long as past Warsaw Pact nations stand with Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it as an analog to
“Shitastan” at all.
The natives here are fighting. In fact, they are scary bad asses who are intent on winning or dying even in a stand up fight..

During the last days of Kabul, several people on video running around saying “somebody should do something! Somebody should do something”
when the Taliban arrived:
All 12 of them in two pickup trucks to enforce their will on one of the largest cities in the country.
Two American cousins out squirrel hunting with 22s and a hound dog Could’ve whoop their ass but not one motherfucker would grab a rifle and stand up. They just ran around screaming “someone should do something”.
Now look at Ukraine. As soon as the Russians crossed the border it seemed like almost every Ukrainian are started killing Russians anyway they could. They were using; Molotov cocktails, dropping rocks off from buildings, changing signs, flooding roads poisoning the Russians food and sniping from cover. It was like open season, and no limit. I personally find refreshing to have someone on our side who wants to fight more than we do.
IMG_5324.jpeg
*She already shot the first two Russian who tried to take her moms washer and dryer. Now shes waiting to round out her bag limit….
 
Last edited:
Torcher said:
I don’t see it as an analog to
“Shitastan” at all.
The natives here are fighting. In fact, they are scary bad asses who are intent on winning or dying even in a stand up fight..

During the last days of Kabul, several people were running around saying somebody should do something. Somebody should do something when the Taliban arrived all 12 of them in to pick up trucks to enforce their will on one of the largest cities in the country to American cousins out squirrel hunting with 22s and a hound dog Could’ve whoop their ass but not one motherfucker would grab a rifle and stand up. They just ran around screaming someone should do something. Now look at Afghanistan, the Russians cross the border and almost every motherfucker they are started killing Russians however, they could they were using Molotov cocktails dropping rocks off from buildings changing signs, flooding roads poisoning, the Russians food.. it was like open season, and no limit. I personally find refreshing to have someone on our side who wants to fight more than we do.
View attachment 4102
Click to expand...
Your correct in the cause of failure at the end.
We were certainly were able diplomatically and militarily to bring a different end to the military presence in Afghanistan.

But the outcome because of politics during and at the end sealed the deal.
We never annihilated the Taliban. Just as we never defeated the NVA.
It was the outcome I was referring to, not the ability of effort of the military.

Where we might differ was in the nature and willingness of the American nation to do what would have been necessary to ensure a successful outcome in Afghanistan.
We for one thing maybe should have leveled the tribal regions in Pakistan as well as decimated any and all traffic from Afghanistan to Iran. Roads bridges passes everything.

It is not in the character or nature of Americans to be military occupiers of force. It’s simply not.
We were hoping to instill 20th cent theory’s of representative gov on civilizations with a two millennia old point or recognition of what representative involved.

We would have been fighting that battle for at least two generations.
And that was simply a cost the nation was not willing to pay. We might have stayed another five years. But would it have made a difference in the long run? I don’t think it would have.

We would have been better served propping up another strongman gov in Afghanistan and Iraq than what we did in the end. And that was full of its own pitfalls.
But that’s just my take
 
OReid said:
You know it completely depends on how it is planned and executed. If it is carried out like Bakhmut then no it won’t. It needs to be a bold encirclement approach and coordinated battle plan to choke the will from large concentrations of Russian soldiers. None of this head on smashing of forced in Bakhmut.
We’ll see how well Ukraine has been resupplied and trained in western battle tactics.
Click to expand...
Very well said
 
OReid said:
Your correct in the cause of failure at the end.
We were certainly were able diplomatically and militarily to bring a different end to the military presence in Afghanistan.

But the outcome because of politics during and at the end sealed the deal.
We never annihilated the Taliban. Just as we never defeated the NVA.
It was the outcome I was referring to, not the ability of effort of the military.

Where we might differ was in the nature and willingness of the American nation to do what would have been necessary to ensure a successful outcome in Afghanistan.
We for one thing maybe should have leveled the tribal regions in Pakistan as well as decimated any and all traffic from Afghanistan to Iran. Roads bridges passes everything.

It is not in the character or nature of Americans to be military occupiers of force. It’s simply not.
We were hoping to instill 20th cent theory’s of representative gov on civilizations with a two millennia old point or recognition of what representative involved.

We would have been fighting that battle for at least two generations.
And that was simply a cost the nation was not willing to pay. We might have stayed another five years. But would it have made a difference in the long run? I don’t think it would have.

We would have been better served propping up another strongman gov in Afghanistan and Iraq than what we did in the end. And that was full of its own pitfalls.
But that’s just my take
Click to expand...
Oh, stop you're gonna make me cry. But who votes for these bad politicians, you evoke false reasons. It's not me, it's another!
You deserve the politicians you elected!
 
Saguenay said:
Oh, stop you're gonna make me cry. But who votes for these bad politicians, you evoke false reasons. It's not me, it's another!
You deserve the politicians you elected!
Click to expand...
I wasn’t soliciting sympathy or making excuses. What ever the failures were. It’s much to long to get into. There were mistakes all along, and at the end.
Some were evident immediately and some with times.
Ive had no problem criticize my government when I think it deserves it.
Just don’t expect my criticism to be a carte blanch critique of it.
 
Yingyang said:
Seems to be alot of finger pointing when it comes to American chosen conflicts. Just saying. 🤭🤫😒🙄🥱🥱🥱
Click to expand...
And your surprised? We’re a mostly open representative government.
Finger pointing is necessarily a part of the system.
It not a sign of weakness that the citizenry can freely and openly critique it’s government policies and actions.
Just as it should be no surprise sometimes they get it wrong.
 
OReid said:
And your surprised? We’re a mostly open representative government.
Finger pointing is necessarily a part of the system.
It not a sign of weakness that the citizenry can freely and openly critique it’s government policies and actions.
Just as it should be no surprise sometimes they get it wrong.
Click to expand...
Only in America sorry for the rocky quote. Couldn't resist.😅😅
 
Yingyang said:
Only in America sorry for the rocky quote. Couldn't resist.😅😅
Click to expand...
Now applied to professional politicians, have at them.
It is the intrinsic fickleness of citizenry input that makes representative gov poor empires
 
OReid said:
Now applied to professional politicians, have at them.
It is the intrinsic fickleness of citizenry input that makes representative gov poor empires
Click to expand...
Are you American? I only ask as it seems rare to see much of an objective, non biase, open minded and or different opinions here often. Dare I say I think I like you 😅😅😅🤫🤭🤝👍
 
Yingyang said:
Are you American? I only ask as it seems rare to see much of an objective, non biase, open minded and or different opinions here often. Dare I say I think I like you 😅😅😅🤫🤭🤝👍
Click to expand...
You only have to look at the last half century of america at war to realize this.
We’re more than lethal and great at warfare.
But war with out a clear reason to fight AND definition of what victory means is a inefficient mixture in a representative government. We’ll change our mind eventually.
That’s what the Taliban banked on and that is what Putin is banking on now.

All that said and as much as I dislike his hawkishness Senator Graham is correct.
Totality said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1662201857412923392
Click to expand...
If we want to effectively discourage China regarding Taiwan then we pretty much have to see this thru with Ukraine and Russia.
It is very hard to have any large electorate understand foreign relations enough to understand this.
Their are consequences to poor choices irregardless be they choices of pacifists or confrontations.
Washington didn’t choose to not support Frances revolutionary’s because he necessarily opposed them.
But because he was just cognizant of the inescapable importance of renewing and keeping trade open with England.
It’s pragmatism in its bases form
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom