War in Ukraine

#76,876
#76,876
utvolpj said:
Own security (choose correctly or the US will find someone who will). We knew Ukraine in nato was a red line in 2008 right? Why push it?
Click to expand...

Ukraine had zero NATO prospects in 2008.

Ukrain had zero NATO prospects in 2014.

You've yet to manifest any evidence to the contrary.

At this point you're just repeating nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#76,877
#76,877
BeardedVol said:
Ukraine had zero NATO prospects in 2008.

Ukrain had zero NATO prospects in 2014.

You've yest to manifest any evidence to the contrary.

At this point you're just repeating nonsense.
Click to expand...
Nonsense like "is it a treaty?" Nah, just ramblings of a guy who knows nothing.

Their prospects were changed for them in 2014 as I stated above
 
#76,878
#76,878
BeardedVol said:
Ukraine had zero NATO prospects in 2008.

Ukrain had zero NATO prospects in 2014.

You've yest to manifest any evidence to the contrary.

At this point you're just repeating nonsense.
Click to expand...

America:

-Dumb enough to be wrong about WMDs in Iraq and involved in useless wars spanning 20 years

-Smart enough to organize a plot spanning over 10 years to draw Russia into a war over a country with no NATO prospects

Hmmmm….
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#76,881
#76,881
utvolpj said:
Nonsense like "is it a treaty?" Nah, just ramblings of a guy who knows nothing.

Their prospects were changed for them in 2014 as I stated above
Click to expand...

You've got nothing that supports your nonsense, just like yesterday, but your ego won't let you accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

There was no change in Germany's or France's "no" positions on Ukraine joining NATO in 2014.

www.france24.com

Merkel defends 2008 decision to block Ukraine from NATO

Former German chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday defended her 2008 decision to block Ukraine from immediately joining NATO, rejecting President Volodymyr Zelensky's criticism as Russia's invasion clouds…
www.france24.com www.france24.com
 
Last edited:
#76,882
#76,882
utvolpj said:
Debunked by whom? You really believe a coup that suited US interests was organic?
Click to expand...
princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#76,883
#76,883
utvolpj said:
Debunked by whom? You really believe a coup that suited US interests was organic?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a coup, it was a revolution.

Do you really believe all popular revolutions are staged by the CIA? Did we fake all the “color revolutions” and trick all the Soviet republics into hating Moscow as well?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel and BeardedVol
#76,884
#76,884
hog88 said:
And what is that?
Click to expand...
Adequate advanced weapons to stop Russia from advancing.

Once they achieve this and it's apparent to Putin taking additional parts of Ukraine is effectively impossible, he'll likely sue for peace to freeze their gains.

The West should then admit Ukraine to NATO to prevent any future aggression by Russia.
 
#76,885
#76,885
MontyPython said:
Adequate advanced weapons to stop Russia from advancing.

Once they achieve this and it's apparent to Putin taking additional parts of Ukraine is effectively impossible, he'll likely sue for peace to freeze their gains.

The West should then admit Ukraine to NATO to prevent any future aggression by Russia.
Click to expand...

My goodness, talk about vague and open ended.

Seriously, what’s it going to take for Ukraine to win? You’re a huge Ukraine at all costs, the money is worth it guy so you must have some idea of what it will take for them to finally win this war.
 
#76,887
#76,887
norrislakevol said:
History proves that they will just move on to the next target. It's getting a little more difficult now that they are starting to border more NATO countries. It will take them about a decade before they are anywhere near able to fight another war on this scale though...when all is said and done. They are very patient though, you've gotta give them that, and by that time who knows who is in charge.
Click to expand...

This.

Putin wants to get the band back together.

Giving him Ukraine will only increase future aggression by him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WestTennesseeVol and norrislakevol
#76,888
#76,888
Orangeburst said:
They need soldiers

Loading…

www.reuters.com
Click to expand...

They need soldiers largely in order to rotate troops. Some of the Ukrainian front lines guys have been fighting 2 years with only minor time off. Yes, they're outnumbered by Russian troops in certain locations at certain times, but that's likely more a function of Russia massing its men, artillery and air power in an attempt to break through lines.

When and if the US decides it wants Ukraine to "win" this war, we'll give them what they need to stop the Russians in their tracks. It's that simple. Our or NATO's boots on the ground is not needed.
 
#76,889
#76,889
MontyPython said:
They need soldiers largely in order to rotate troops. Some of the Ukrainian front lines guys have been fighting 2 years with only minor time off. Yes, they're outnumbered by Russian troops in certain locations at certain times, but that's likely more a function of Russia massing its men, artillery and air power in an attempt to break through lines.

When and if the US decides it wants Ukraine to "win" this war, we'll give them what they need to stop the Russians in their tracks. It's that simple. Our or NATO's boots on the ground is not needed.
Click to expand...

What can we give them to ”stop the Russians in their tracks”?
 
#76,890
#76,890
hog88 said:
My goodness, talk about vague and open ended.

Seriously, what’s it going to take for Ukraine to win? You’re a huge Ukraine at all costs, the money is worth it guy so you must have some idea of what it will take for them to finally win this war.
Click to expand...

OK. Air supremacy has been key to this war, as in most peer wars. The Russians initial charge was snuffed out because largely because the Ukrainians' Stinger missiles prevented any close air support. That has not changed. What has changed is both Russia and Ukraine are now using the tactic of long-range glide bombs - the Russians much more successfully in part likely because Ukraine has just recently started receiving them from the West. These glide bombs allow Russian fighter/bombers like the SU34 to release them 70 kms away. As a result, Russian troops have been able to achieve localized air superiority and advance in places like Avdiivka because they concentrated their glide bomb attacks (100+sorties/day) on one small geographic location. Ukraine has countered these glide bomb attacks by bringing their Patriot Missile batteries up closer to the front lines - and this tactic clearly worked - with Ukraine knocking out roughly 1 fighter/bomber per day over the course of 2 weeks. Such losses are completely unsustainable by the Russians. But, Russia countered by finally locating 1 or possibly 2 of these now vulnerable Patriot systems and took them out.

Solution?

IMO providing Ukraine with our more advanced Patriot missile batteries (with a range of up to 100 *miles*) would stop the Russian glide bomb tactic in its tracks. But this risks our more advanced technology ending up in Russian hands. And the cost. And the extent of our reserves. And it gives Ukraine the ability to really, really **** with Russia deep inside their Motherland, which could have other political implications.

There are numerous other weapons systems we have in stock that could turn the tide of the war, but the fact that our 40+ year old technology that we've provided Ukraine to date has basically bled Russia to death is telling: We are light-years ahead of them in most technologies (hypersonic abilities aside) and Putin is painfully aware that should he push the tactical nuclear button, the West would be compelled to (right or wrong) enter the war. The end result would be an annihilation of Russian troops in Ukraine, and likely the overthrow of Putin at home. These are events that, seemingly, our government really doesn't want.
 
#76,893
#76,893
WestTennesseeVol said:
First point - Fair and agreed.

Second point - Look at when we opened our first permanent bases and started rotating units there. It’s very recent. Also look at what kind of units we are rotating to Poland. All those things you said may be true, but let’s be real, our purpose there is as deterrent to Russia.
Click to expand...
geographically Poland is much more central than those others.

the troop deployment in a nation during peace has NOTHING to do with our level of commitment to defend.
 
#76,896
#76,896
MontyPython said:
OK. Air supremacy has been key to this war, as in most peer wars. The Russians initial charge was snuffed out because largely because the Ukrainians' Stinger missiles prevented any close air support. That has not changed. What has changed is both Russia and Ukraine are now using the tactic of long-range glide bombs - the Russians much more successfully in part likely because Ukraine has just recently started receiving them from the West. These glide bombs allow Russian fighter/bombers like the SU34 to release them 70 kms away. As a result, Russian troops have been able to achieve localized air superiority and advance in places like Avdiivka because they concentrated their glide bomb attacks (100+sorties/day) on one small geographic location. Ukraine has countered these glide bomb attacks by bringing their Patriot Missile batteries up closer to the front lines - and this tactic clearly worked - with Ukraine knocking out roughly 1 fighter/bomber per day over the course of 2 weeks. Such losses are completely unsustainable by the Russians. But, Russia countered by finally locating 1 or possibly 2 of these now vulnerable Patriot systems and took them out.

Solution?

IMO providing Ukraine with our more advanced Patriot missile batteries (with a range of up to 100 *miles*) would stop the Russian glide bomb tactic in its tracks. But this risks our more advanced technology ending up in Russian hands. And the cost. And the extent of our reserves. And it gives Ukraine the ability to really, really **** with Russia deep inside their Motherland, which could have other political implications.

There are numerous other weapons systems we have in stock that could turn the tide of the war, but the fact that our 40+ year old technology that we've provided Ukraine to date has basically bled Russia to death is telling: We are light-years ahead of them in most technologies (hypersonic abilities aside) and Putin is painfully aware that should he push the tactical nuclear button, the West would be compelled to (right or wrong) enter the war. The end result would be an annihilation of Russian troops in Ukraine, and likely the overthrow of Putin at home. These are events that, seemingly, our government really doesn't want.
Click to expand...

That’s not answering the question of what could we give Ukraine to stop “Russia in its tracks”.

More advanced Patriot systems isn’t stopping meat waves and armor.
 
#76,898
#76,898
utvolpj said:
Did this yesterday. It's all out there if you're interested in why the govt narrative is bs. Been repeated many times in this thread as well
Click to expand...
you didn't post jack yesterday that justified an invasion by Russia.

just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean its reason enough for an invasion. or if it is you literally just justified every single war ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and hog88
#76,900
#76,900
The talking points around a coup in Ukraine are stupid. It wasn't a Pro-USA Coup, it was Ukrainians wanting a more Democratic government rather than a Russian Puppet. It has shown how popular it was by the Ukrainian continued support for the regime and war. Ukrainians feel like the victims here.

Sounds like some people in this thread just hate people rising up to become more Democratic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top