- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
Probably the best thing to come out of this war
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
- Thread starter Snowfall
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2024
The US attitude reminds me of Turkey's:
Purges in the US military
At times pro-Russian
Don't count on this country to stop the Russians.
Purges in the US military
At times pro-Russian
Don't count on this country to stop the Russians.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2023
- Location
- Georgia, US
Are we left to infer that Trump thinks Russia should be appeased simply because it is larger? Bullying and aggression is to be rewarded or if ignored simply because the aggressor is larger? Imagine if David was of the same opinion when it came to fighting Goliath....
I made a sight modification to this quote below, using a historical reference, which sheds a different light on the inference of Trump's quote...
Germany is a massive country. Germany can lose a million men, and they have lots of other millions of men. Poland (or heck, Czechoslovakia) doesn't have that kind of manpower.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- LOCATION
- Fly over country
It’s true and this is not a reason to make final foreign policy decisions. However purely as a brass tacks tactical advantage of manpower it is a real advantage.
As far as Germany being able to lose. Million men. Technically that might be true. Now factor in the reality of would the German population tolerate losing a million men in a war with Russia under the current international relations realities.
Of course if Germany was viciously and repeatedly attacked they very well might be willing to suffer those looses. But today as the status of the war is?
After all the current realities, battle lines, financial impacts, and lastly military readiness. Not hypothetical ones are what nations make policy decisions on and commitments of troops to war.
Stating that Russia is able and willing to withstand losses of a million men. Is less of a statement of support than it is a statement of fact.
Take it as plausible fact. If Russia is willing to suffer immense losses regarding the conflict in Ukraine and NATO is not. All While Ukraine does have a population constraint and lower limit of losses they can tolerate.
That’s just a statement of fact, just because some don’t like hearing it does not make it a statement of support for Russia.
Unless someone knows something I don’t and European NATO’s is spooling up to engage Russia in the military defense of Ukraine.
Are we going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine and F___ S___ up? Or are we still holding on to the vanishing thin hope that a continued war of attrition with Russia will eventually prompt them to withdraw and surrender.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2023
- Location
- Georgia, US
I agree. It is a fact that Russia is larger in size and population. It has definitely been shown Russia is willing to absorb substantial manpower losses in Ukraine.
President Trump's manner of speaking generally relies on implication or listener/reader inferences to fill in gaps or arrive at full meaning/context. To me, based on his general manner of speaking, I feel that there is more to this statement than an utterance of mere fact most of the media and public already understand....
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- LOCATION
- Fly over country
You very well could be correct about that.
And “to me” this constant harping about Trump this or that, while few will admit that in order for Russia to be forced to withdraw it is going to take more than just sanctions and another four years of weapons sent to Ukraine.
If a person believes it is still the moral thing to help Ukraine win. Then we first at least have to be honest about what it might take to see that happen.
Then we should be shocked and appalled about Trump statements. Does his statements help to force a win, no absolutely not. They’re designed to force negotiations. We can keep doing the same old failed policies in Ukraine, we could escalate in a number of ways, or we can press for a settlement.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2023
- Location
- Georgia, US
I'm not harping. I asked a question about where Trump's statement is leading us. It seems to support aggression because one side is bigger than the other.
I don't know if it's moral to help Ukraine win. But I do believe it is unjust to help Russia win. Diesel deals and statements that *might* seemingly at the very least recognize Russia's ability to be a regional bully appear to support Russia's aggression in some fashion.
I'm not sure this tactic is working anymore (if it ever worked). It seems to be emboldening Russia.
True. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The West appeased a European aggressor in 1938 and that aggressor broke the agreement. War broke out anyway. So maybe we don't appease the current aggressor in Europe.
But I get your point. The US does not have the will to escalate against Russia based on how things are progressing in Iran. A negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia is probably the quickest feasible course of action currently. I just don't think seemingly siding with Russia is the right thing to do here...
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
Being invaded by Russia is valid grounds for martial law. How do you propose free & fair elections are held where everyone gets the opportunity to cast their vote while bombs are falling and 20% of the country is under the control of an enemy power? Holding elections under such circumstances not only exposes voters to danger as Russia might target the polling booths but also is not "free & fair". This is why there are no elections in Ukraine.
Zelensky's replacement would be more hardline & go tougher on Russia. If you were to replace him he'd only be replaced by someone who would be even less inclined to make a deal than him.
Every single president has immunity -- I could make the same argument for Trump who also shares this same immunity from civil & criminal prosecution -- this is a poor argument.
The "journalist" you're quoting (Diana Panchenko) is a known Russian propagandist, blames Ukraine for the war & all its consequences, spreads Kremlin-backed disinformation and twists facts to conform to the Russian government's narrative. She is a known Kremlin agent & her posts should be seen with extreme suspicion as such. Ukraine's SBU is currently investigating her for high treason.
80% of his predecessors being prosecuted does not mean he will be. It isn't valid reasoning to form such a conclusion.
I do not blame him at all for being honest & candid. Just to be clear about what happened this week:
- Trump cut a deal with Putin that will route ~$4B of American dollars to Russia. That money will be used to fund the war.
- Trump announced an "energy ceasefire" that was probably Putin's idea, that nobody except him knew about, surprised the Ukrainians, is structured to benefit Russia, and was immediately broken by the Russian military.
- When Zelensky spoke candidly about these terrible deals, the US cut off Starlink access in ways that made it harder for Ukraine to intercept Russian drones, and withheld intel about ballistic missile attacks that directly resulted in the death of Ukrainian children.
- Last week alone, Russia killed more than 150 civilians in Ukraine, including 33 in one strike on a bus stop.
America is de facto asking an ally being invaded by Russia to surrender. Of course they'd be upset!
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2021
It will all come out in the wash. As long as we still have a free press.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2018
- Location
- Guayaquil - Ecuador
US lawmakers and President Zelensky are reportedly pitching a one-sided energy ceasefire in which Ukraine would stop striking refineries for 100 days, in exchange for Starlink coverage inside Russia to hunt Russian missile launchers.Sens. Wicker and Cramer are in Kyiv today.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- LOCATION
- Fly over country
Fair enough on most points, I would not point out that no other European nation wants to escalate either.I'm not harping. I asked a question about where Trump's statement is leading us. It seems to support aggression because one side is bigger than the other.
I don't know if it's moral to help Ukraine win. But I do believe it is unjust to help Russia win. Diesel deals and statements that *might* seemingly at the very least recognize Russia's ability to be a regional bully appear to support Russia's aggression in some fashion.
I'm not sure this tactic is working anymore (if it ever worked). It seems to be emboldening Russia.
True. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The West appeased a European aggressor in 1938 and that aggressor broke the agreement. War broke out anyway. So maybe we don't appease the current aggressor in Europe.
But I get your point. The US does not have the will to escalate against Russia based on how things are progressing in Iran. A negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia is probably the quickest feasible course of action currently. I just don't think seemingly siding with Russia is the right thing to do here...
I honesty don’t know if it is helping Putin. Certainly could be construed that way.
Do you believe Ukraine is listening and responding to the concerns of its allies. Again they don’t have to, but it’s not unrealistic that allies should be able to expect some cooperation.
If we are wanting a definitive win for Ukraine then is going to take more than sanctions and arms.
So if we can’t answer that issue and concern, what are we doing.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- LOCATION
- Fly over country
In 2025 European nato nations imported roughly 6 billion in Russian sourced crude products. Delivering 4 Billion in revenue last year alone to Russia.
Indian and Turkey refineries are the chief importers of refined Russian crude to Europe.
So maybe we should focus on what India and Turkey are doing to enable Russia. Remember last year when India was screaming bloody murder about expectations India limit their crud purchases from Russia.
Europe India and Turkey are still importing refining and purchasing Russia crude LNG, and refined products
India reports July 2026 was the second highest volume of Russian oil imports on record.
This is why I’m cynical about wailings over the evil Intentions and betrayal of Trump and support of the tyrant Putin.
I have not said the track Trump is taking currently will be successful alone. In fact I believe it is going to require more strategic and tactical force to move the needle with Russia.
But looking for peaceful solutions by temporarily lifting diesel sanctions on Russia is no more betrayal or meant for evil than India importing record Russian crude or Europe still importing the majority of its LNG from Russia.
So all of this angst about Trumps betrayal or duplicity isn’t even thinly veiled hypocrisy.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
Shortsighted and self-serving. Ukraine gets virtually no benefit from a one-sided cease-fire.
Russia can always make more missile launchers. Harder to make more refineries.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2021
Is this a quote from Senators Wicker and Cramer? I would like to see it please.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
I know India buys a lot of Russian oil, and I'm not in favour of it. I believe we should fully cut off relations with Russia. So I agree with you there! I hate that my country enables Putin.In 2025 European nato nations imported roughly 6 billion in Russian sourced crude products. Delivering 4 Billion in revenue last year alone to Russia.
Indian and Turkey refineries are the chief importers of refined Russian crude to Europe.
So maybe we should focus on what India and Turkey are doing to enable Russia. Remember last year when India was screaming bloody murder about expectations India limit their crud purchases from Russia.
Europe India and Turkey are still importing refining and purchasing Russia crude LNG, and refined products
India reports July 2026 was the second highest volume of Russian oil imports on record.
This is why I’m cynical about wailings over the evil Intentions and betrayal of Trump and support of the tyrant Putin.
I have not said the track Trump is taking currently will be successful alone. In fact I believe it is going to require more strategic and tactical force to move the needle with Russia.
But looking for peaceful solutions by temporarily lifting diesel sanctions on Russia is no more betrayal or meant for evil than India importing record Russian crude or Europe still importing the majority of its LNG from Russia.
So all of this angst about Trumps betrayal or duplicity isn’t even thinly veiled hypocrisy.
But at the same time, you can't ask others to curb imports then go ahead and start importing yourself. That's also hypocrisy.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- LOCATION
- Fly over country
Well that issue was ignored and deflected by Indi last year when the US asked for Indias help on it.
Either way this is a policy change by the US no question. Is the US still asking India to limit or end Russian oil i
Ports. If not it’s not hypocrisy. It a reaction to international cooperation or lack of it.
I’ve been pretty clear about my change in policies regarding the war. I’ve explained why and freely admitted it might be ineffective.
So yet again can anyone defend why continuing sanctions and current weapons deliveries is going to produce any change different than the last four years.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
The US passed a sanctions bill weeks ago and you had Senators lecturing India to “clean up our act”.
Without sanctions and weapons deliveries Ukraine would have been fully annexed by Russia. Imposing consequences even if they are half hearted is very much necessary. They have had effect, Russia’s economy is on life support. Doing something is always better than doing nothing. I agree more has to be done especially since the US and Europe promised to defend Ukraine when it gave up its nukes. However ending punitive measures on Russia and deliberately damaging Ukrainian military capabilities, while pressuring Europe to give Russia billions in frozen assets is directly aiding the war on Putin’s side.
Removing these measures is a gift to Putin and Russia no matter how it is spun.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
There has been a remarkable lack of pressure on Putin to end the war. Most calls to negotiate and deescalate seem focused on Zelensky. I don’t remember a single time where Trump publicly criticised Putin even once.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
Trump clearly does not understand basic warfare 101 if he thinks he can make a troop-to-troop comparison and leave it there. Strategically, it's generally accepted that an invading army needs a 3:1 ratio of troops over the defender's troops to achieve a decisive victory, and that's not taking into account civilian counterinsurgency operations. It's also accepted doctrine that if you do not establish air superiority in the defender's airspace, losses of invading ground forces will far exceed losses of defending forces, and that has been the case for most of this war.
From day one I wondered why Putin did not establish air superiority before sending in ground forces. It's a classic mistake, and he hasn't corrected it for five years.
There's also psychology involved. Russians don't believe in this war. Ukrainians are highly invested in defending their homeland. "One man defending his home is worth more than ten hired soldiers."
We can argue over minutia for a millennium, and it still would not change the fact that the US did not honor its promise made in the Budapest Memorandum when Russia invaded, starting with Crimea. That is a failure that spans across four Presidential administrations, two of them Democrats and two of them Republicans. Had we honored that agreement back in 2014, Russia would not have been emboldened to launch a full-scale invasion eight years later. Crimea was the litmus test, and the US failed it. The United States of America reneged on a written promise made to Ukraine. We have absolutely nothing to be proud of here, and it's no wonder other countries don't trust us.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
One could easily make the same argument for a U.S. China conflict in the future. China has 4x more people.
China is a massive country. China can lose tens of millions of men, and they have lots of other millions of men. The United States doesn't have that kind of manpower.
It just isn’t a valid justification.