User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 2:18:58 PM EST
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 2:20:59 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Planning based on what you hope your adversary will or won't do, is poor planning. Especially when that adversary is actively working against those hopeful plans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 2:37:06 PM EST
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 2:38:04 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's zero chance for Ukraine to get nuclear weapons. When the new borders are established.......what's left of Ukraine will join NATO and will be required to refrain from attacks on Russia. Sounds fair. All the talk of Russia feeling threatened by NATO is hogwash. Such a war would inevitably go nuclear with world-wide devastation. Ain't gonna happen and everybody knows it (despite all the trash talk, chirping and threatening). As for Novorossiyisk, it's very small and unsuitable for military operations so its value is very limited. Russia will soon have far more suitable ports. Idk. Ukraine certainly could build nuclear weapons at some point on their own. They absolutely have the "know how: They gave their nukes up over a treaty that's clearly been violated. So why not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 2:47:05 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Biden tells world leaders to stand up to Russia's 'naked aggression' and not let Ukraine be 'carved up': President vows to keep sending money to Kyiv as Zelensky watches on at UN General Assembly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky watched President Joe Biden warn Tuesday that no nation is safe if Ukraine is 'carved up' by Russia. Biden was addressing the United Nations General Assembly, with both Zelensky - dressed in his traditional military fatigues - and Russian Amb. Vaisily Nebenzya in the audience. The U.S. president hammered Russia's 'naked agression' and vowed to keep funding Kyiv as he again called the present moment 'an inflection point in world history.' Biden noted that 'for a second year in a row, this gathering dedicated to peaceful resolution of conflict is darkened by the shadow of war.' The president called it 'an illegal war of conquest' and one that was 'brought without provocation' by Russia into Ukraine. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/19/16/75601557-12535915-image-a-10_1695138351687.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/19/16/75601969-12535915-image-a-11_1695138366691.jpg 'Like every nation in the world the United States wants this war to end,' he said. 'No nation wants this war to end more than Ukraine. And we strongly support Ukraine and its efforts to bring about a diplomatic resolution that delivers just and lasting peace.' But he said that 'Russia alone, Russia alone bears responsibility for this war.' 'Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it's Russia alone that stands in the way of peace because the Russians' price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation, Ukraine's territory and Ukraine's children,' Biden said. 'Russia believes that the world will grow weary and will allow it to brutalize Ukraine without conseqence,' the president added. Biden then laid out what he thought would be the cost of that weariness. 'But I ask you this, if we abandon the core principles of the United States to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected?' he asked. 'If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?' the president mused. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/19/17/75601553-12535915-image-a-22_1695141062321.jpg 'I respectfully suggest the answer is no,' Biden said. 'We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow.' He didn't call out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name. 'That's why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom,' Biden said. He received applause from the audience for this pronouncement. However the pool reporter in the room also observed UNGA attendees on their phones checking Instagram and Google maps during the president's address. Nebenzya was also spotted on his phone during Biden's speech. Link Quote HistoryQuoted: Biden tells world leaders to stand up to Russia's 'naked aggression' and not let Ukraine be 'carved up': President vows to keep sending money to Kyiv as Zelensky watches on at UN General Assembly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky watched President Joe Biden warn Tuesday that no nation is safe if Ukraine is 'carved up' by Russia. Biden was addressing the United Nations General Assembly, with both Zelensky - dressed in his traditional military fatigues - and Russian Amb. Vaisily Nebenzya in the audience. The U.S. president hammered Russia's 'naked agression' and vowed to keep funding Kyiv as he again called the present moment 'an inflection point in world history.' Biden noted that 'for a second year in a row, this gathering dedicated to peaceful resolution of conflict is darkened by the shadow of war.' The president called it 'an illegal war of conquest' and one that was 'brought without provocation' by Russia into Ukraine. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/19/16/75601557-12535915-image-a-10_1695138351687.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/19/16/75601969-12535915-image-a-11_1695138366691.jpg 'Like every nation in the world the United States wants this war to end,' he said. 'No nation wants this war to end more than Ukraine. And we strongly support Ukraine and its efforts to bring about a diplomatic resolution that delivers just and lasting peace.' But he said that 'Russia alone, Russia alone bears responsibility for this war.' 'Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it's Russia alone that stands in the way of peace because the Russians' price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation, Ukraine's territory and Ukraine's children,' Biden said. 'Russia believes that the world will grow weary and will allow it to brutalize Ukraine without conseqence,' the president added. Biden then laid out what he thought would be the cost of that weariness. 'But I ask you this, if we abandon the core principles of the United States to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected?' he asked. 'If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?' the president mused. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09/19/17/75601553-12535915-image-a-22_1695141062321.jpg 'I respectfully suggest the answer is no,' Biden said. 'We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow.' He didn't call out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name. 'That's why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom,' Biden said. He received applause from the audience for this pronouncement. However the pool reporter in the room also observed UNGA attendees on their phones checking Instagram and Google maps during the president's address. Nebenzya was also spotted on his phone during Biden's speech. Link What a snoozer of a UN address. Lol @ UNGA attendees checking their phones and instagram. It looks like Zelenskyys smugness and demands are falling on deaf ears. "I don't think he can sustain this level of support for much longer" For the sake of Americans safety and wallets, I sure hope not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 2:51:13 PM EST
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 3:07:22 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The point is, don't be stupid. It doesn't matter what side you're on, Russia is not the Soviet Union. When you look at the actual Russian Federation, they are TIPTOEING around the mobilization that they've done and actual Russians are saying there's no way they can afford more, but some of you guys act like they could still take the Fulda Gap. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And? Ukraine actually amended a law to require Ukrainians living abroad to sign up for mobilization. The point is, don't be stupid. It doesn't matter what side you're on, Russia is not the Soviet Union. When you look at the actual Russian Federation, they are TIPTOEING around the mobilization that they've done and actual Russians are saying there's no way they can afford more, but some of you guys act like they could still take the Fulda Gap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 3:24:32 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Idk. Ukraine certainly could build nuclear weapons at some point on their own. They absolutely have the "know how: They gave their nukes up over a treaty that's clearly been violated. So why not. Because they had only Russian nukes and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 3:25:46 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because they had only Russian nukes and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 3:53:07 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia gets saddled with a worn torn country, has a diminished conventional military threat that is going to take decades, if ever, to rebuild. Russia's economy is damaged and poses less of a conventional threat to NATO and 10's of thousands of orcs were killed in the process. This is what people wanted at fundamental level, no? SNIP That's exactly what happened to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet, 20 years later, they were up and running again and threatening their neighbors, eventually with outright military action. I agree that Russia has been weakened substantially, but I have no doubt that they would rebuild and rearm - especially if their national conscience gets a boost by having "won" the war against Ukraine. It will further cement the myth of the all-conquering Russian soldier and make them more likely to try again. Their propaganda machine is doing all it can to foster that belief and to erase anything that hints at failure. Without a reckoning by the Russian population, I fear we'll be back in this forum in a decade or two arguing about the same thing (or worse). By "reckoning" I don't mean to imply that they should suffer an agonizing defeat, BTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:02:15 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a fair assessment and I don't disagree. The next question is whether China will capitalize on this new information before the US can fix the issue, which is going to take years. I've commented on this before, and remember again that I am no military expert: The US never had enough artillery shells (for example) to fight an infantry war of the scale of what's going on in Ukraine. I don't think ANY country in the world has stocks of war materiel to engage in a major conflict right at the outset of hostilities. I know the Russians had millions of rounds of very old vintage squirreled away, but I digress. First of all, I don't know what a war between China and the US would look like, but I would think we'd notice if they started churning out vast quantities of some widget in preparation for such a war. The US is unique in its ability to spin up production quickly, more so than an other country, in case the SHTF. It's like complaining we didn't have 20 aircraft carriers in December 1941; we didn't have them because they're too expensive and there was no reason to field 20 flattops. That changed quickly. Which is to say: I believe our stocks are probably at levels that are appropriate for peacetime and that there aren't enough people in Congress to vote for a massive expansion of said stocks. It is right to worry about a conflict with China, but I just don't know enough about what that would look like and if we have enough materiel to fight such a war. Hopefully, someone in the Pentagon is losing sleep at night to make sure we're OK. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:02:35 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because they had only Russian nukes and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it. My understanding of Soviet history must be wrong. I thought that Ukrainian Institute for Physics and Technology started one of the first atomic /nuclear programs prior to WW2. If they had they knowledge and ability back then why not now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:08:29 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've commented on this before, and remember again that I am no military expert: The US never had enough artillery shells (for example) to fight an infantry war of the scale of what's going on in Ukraine. I don't think ANY country in the world has stocks of war materiel to engage in a major conflict right at the outset of hostilities. I know the Russians had millions of rounds of very old vintage squirreled away, but I digress. First of all, I don't know what a war between China and the US would look like, but I would think we'd notice if they started churning out vast quantities of some widget in preparation for such a war. The US is unique in its ability to spin up production quickly, more so than an other country, in case the SHTF. It's like complaining we didn't have 20 aircraft carriers in December 1941; we didn't have them because they're too expensive and there was no reason to field 20 flattops. That changed quickly. Which is to say: I believe our stocks are probably at levels that are appropriate for peacetime and that there aren't enough people in Congress to vote for a massive expansion of said stocks. It is right to worry about a conflict with China, but I just don't know enough about what that would look like and if we have enough materiel to fight such a war. Hopefully, someone in the Pentagon is losing sleep at night to make sure we're OK. You are comparing our ability to produce current munitions in 1940 with now, which are two vastly different and incomparable scenarios. Everyone in the military pretty much takes the same stance as you on this, somebody has to be working on this..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:15:19 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia gets saddled with a worn torn country, has a diminished conventional military threat that is going to take decades, if ever, to rebuild. Russia's economy is damaged and poses less of a conventional threat to NATO and 10's of thousands of orcs were killed in the process. This is what people wanted at fundamental level, no? Of course that outcome doesn't reward the "ideological crusade against evil" or Cold War blue balls factions(which would really only be satiated with a regime change, and that's not a guarantee of changing anything in itself), neither of which I think you are a part of btw. Further, I wouldn't treat the West as monolithic. Central Europe has different concerns vs Western Europe. Both within the EU itself and partnerships with the US directly. The US and the EU have different concerns. As far as the short/medium/long term stuff, it's been detailed quite extensively by R0N/Screech/Carmel and others. I would posit that keeping Russia from being able to use Ukrainian agri exports to China/India(Which UKR already does plenty of) in order to bolster support in BRICS, may be worth some consideration, to what degree, I'm not sure though. Let's look at a more broad geopolitical point. Should nations be permitted by other nations to expand through violent aggression? Is there a level at which we say "yes" to that question? Why? At what point is "yes" the valid answer, and at what point should "no" be the appropriate answer? When is accommodating aggression and bullying acceptable and when is it not acceptable? If the answer is, "well, they have nukes so they can do what they want," what kind of world does that lead to, and is that an acceptable outcome? If the answer is "just because you have nukes you don't get a free pass to conquer, genocide, and absorb all your neighbors," how is that to be put into action? Seems to me these are the key questions. Further, these questions need to be answered at least every decade. Failing to answer them, dancing around "interests" only leads to more death, destruction, and loss IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:20:20 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are comparing our ability to produce current munitions in 1940 with now, which are two vastly different and incomparable scenarios. Everyone in the military pretty much takes the same stance as you on this, somebody has to be working on this..... Fair enough - someone just sent me an IM discussing this so my outlook may have been to rosy. I'll stop using that argument unless I can find data that shows otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:20:47 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are comparing our ability to produce current munitions in 1940 with now, which are two vastly different and incomparable scenarios. Everyone in the military pretty much takes the same stance as you on this, somebody has to be working on this..... daemon, maybe you'll know what I'm talking about. I recall reading an article some time ago, several years, and I don't recall where I read it. The takeaway was that in the event of war with China, we would go to war with existing stocks, which would be depleted in a matter of weeks, necessitating the end of hostilities at whatever point existed then. This is because the development/production time of the high-tech systems our military is reliant on is substantial, and not subject to quick adjustments or ramping up production. Does that ring a bell with you? Does it seem valid? It must have been some foreign policy journal or something, and I didn't save it, but I never forgot that conclusion. It doesn't bode well for a US outcome. Screech might have a clue about that too, but I think he got locked from the thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:44:24 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: daemon, maybe you'll know what I'm talking about. I recall reading an article some time ago, several years, and I don't recall where I read it. The takeaway was that in the event of war with China, we would go to war with existing stocks, which would be depleted in a matter of weeks, necessitating the end of hostilities at whatever point existed then. This is because the development/production time of the high-tech systems our military is reliant on is substantial, and not subject to quick adjustments or ramping up production. Does that ring a bell with you? Does it seem valid? It must have been some foreign policy journal or something, and I didn't save it, but I never forgot that conclusion. It doesn't bode well for a US outcome. Screech might have a clue about that too, but I think he got locked from the thread. This is a theory, that systems are so advanced we cannot surge or sustain production for modern conflict. The problem with this is it works off our knowns and makes assumptions the enemy will be in a similar situation. I think in every case but China that would be accurate. They have gone all in on the missile fight and supporting infrastructure, negating most of our superior assets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:45:19 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's exactly what happened to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet, 20 years later, they were up and running again and threatening their neighbors, eventually with outright military action. I agree that Russia has been weakened substantially, but I have no doubt that they would rebuild and rearm - especially if their national conscience gets a boost by having "won" the war against Ukraine. It will further cement the myth of the all-conquering Russian soldier and make them more likely to try again. Their propaganda machine is doing all it can to foster that belief and to erase anything that hints at failure. Without a reckoning by the Russian population, I fear we'll be back in this forum in a decade or two arguing about the same thing (or worse). By "reckoning" I don't mean to imply that they should suffer an agonizing defeat, BTW. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Russia gets saddled with a worn torn country, has a diminished conventional military threat that is going to take decades, if ever, to rebuild. Russia's economy is damaged and poses less of a conventional threat to NATO and 10's of thousands of orcs were killed in the process. This is what people wanted at fundamental level, no? SNIP That's exactly what happened to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet, 20 years later, they were up and running again and threatening their neighbors, eventually with outright military action. I agree that Russia has been weakened substantially, but I have no doubt that they would rebuild and rearm - especially if their national conscience gets a boost by having "won" the war against Ukraine. It will further cement the myth of the all-conquering Russian soldier and make them more likely to try again. Their propaganda machine is doing all it can to foster that belief and to erase anything that hints at failure. Without a reckoning by the Russian population, I fear we'll be back in this forum in a decade or two arguing about the same thing (or worse). By "reckoning" I don't mean to imply that they should suffer an agonizing defeat, BTW. I severely doubt that this conflict is the catalyst for some Russian "awakening". Absent wiping Russia off the face of the Earth, they'll be back. This is a well established cycle that has been ongoing for several hundred years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 4:48:27 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a theory, that systems are so advanced we cannot surge or sustain production for modern conflict. The problem with this is it works off our knowns and makes assumptions the enemy will be in a similar situation. I think in every case but China that would be accurate. They have gone all in on the missile fight and supporting infrastructure, negating most of our superior assets. thanks. My understanding is China has no intention of taking on US strengths, and is very heavy in asymmetric measures and VERY heavy in intermediate range missiles (for Taiwan & SCS). Anybody expecting a typical US military conflict with China would be completely lost. End thread drift.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 5:08:11 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's look at a more broad geopolitical point. Should nations be permitted by other nations to expand through violent aggression? Is there a level at which we say "yes" to that question? Why? At what point is "yes" the valid answer, and at what point should "no" be the appropriate answer? When is accommodating aggression and bullying acceptable and when is it not acceptable? If the answer is, "well, they have nukes so they can do what they want," what kind of world does that lead to, and is that an acceptable outcome? If the answer is "just because you have nukes you don't get a free pass to conquer, genocide, and absorb all your neighbors," how is that to be put into action? Seems to me these are the key questions. Further, these questions need to be answered at least every decade. Failing to answer them, dancing around "interests" only leads to more death, destruction, and loss IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Russia gets saddled with a worn torn country, has a diminished conventional military threat that is going to take decades, if ever, to rebuild. Russia's economy is damaged and poses less of a conventional threat to NATO and 10's of thousands of orcs were killed in the process. This is what people wanted at fundamental level, no? Of course that outcome doesn't reward the "ideological crusade against evil" or Cold War blue balls factions(which would really only be satiated with a regime change, and that's not a guarantee of changing anything in itself), neither of which I think you are a part of btw. Further, I wouldn't treat the West as monolithic. Central Europe has different concerns vs Western Europe. Both within the EU itself and partnerships with the US directly. The US and the EU have different concerns. As far as the short/medium/long term stuff, it's been detailed quite extensively by R0N/Screech/Carmel and others. I would posit that keeping Russia from being able to use Ukrainian agri exports to China/India(Which UKR already does plenty of) in order to bolster support in BRICS, may be worth some consideration, to what degree, I'm not sure though. Let's look at a more broad geopolitical point. Should nations be permitted by other nations to expand through violent aggression? Is there a level at which we say "yes" to that question? Why? At what point is "yes" the valid answer, and at what point should "no" be the appropriate answer? When is accommodating aggression and bullying acceptable and when is it not acceptable? If the answer is, "well, they have nukes so they can do what they want," what kind of world does that lead to, and is that an acceptable outcome? If the answer is "just because you have nukes you don't get a free pass to conquer, genocide, and absorb all your neighbors," how is that to be put into action? Seems to me these are the key questions. Further, these questions need to be answered at least every decade. Failing to answer them, dancing around "interests" only leads to more death, destruction, and loss IMO. Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 6:05:21 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True. The folks that actually think Russia is going to pivot to the rest of Europe after they are done in UKR think that Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: And? Ukraine actually amended a law to require Ukrainians living abroad to sign up for mobilization. The point is, don't be stupid. It doesn't matter what side you're on, Russia is not the Soviet Union. When you look at the actual Russian Federation, they are TIPTOEING around the mobilization that they've done and actual Russians are saying there's no way they can afford more, but some of you guys act like they could still take the Fulda Gap. Russians WANT to (they openly say this on state TV), and are constrained by economics and NATO, so they’ve settled on hybrid means. The world will be better off when Russia can’t even afford to do what they’re currently doing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 6:07:35 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My understanding of Soviet history must be wrong. I thought that Ukrainian Institute for Physics and Technology started one of the first atomic /nuclear programs prior to WW2. If they had they knowledge and ability back then why not now? They had only Russian nukes PROVIDED BY RUSSIA and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it. There is a potential future where Ukraine becomes a rogue state like Iran and tries to build nuclear weapons. Could happen, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 6:36:58 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: thanks. My understanding is China has no intention of taking on US strengths... And we have no intention of taking on Chinese strengths. Taiwan is a part of China. It is an island just off the mainland. It is outside our hegemony. That's a fact. We can only delay the return of Taiwan to their homeland. Whining will not change the facts. It is only a matter of time. We are not willing to have a nuclear war with China and we lack the resources to fight a conventional war with them. It is what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 6:42:46 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And we have no intention of taking on Chinese strengths. Quote HistoryQuoted: And we have no intention of taking on Chinese strengths. Art of war. They have a big army and a weak navy with no experience. Quoted: Taiwan is a part of China. It is an island just off the mainland. It is outside our hegemony. That's a fact. Call me a Taibro (R) but Taiwan is the legitimate government and ruler of China, not Beijing. Taiwan is a free nation with it's own laws, government, and right to choose it's destiny. Not china. It has never been apart of China and never should be. In fact, It should be the ruling government of China, not the other way around. Quoted: We can only delay the return of Taiwan to their homeland. "homeland"? What on earth? It's not their "homeland". That's 100% wrong. Quoted: Whining will not change the facts. Your "facts" are wrong. Quoted: It is only a matter of time. No it's not. Quoted: We are not willing to have a nuclear war with China and we lack the resources to fight a conventional war with them. Read Sun Tzu and get back to me. Quoted: It is what it is. It is, but your interpretation of the facts is 100% wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 6:43:18 PM EST
[#25]
Whoever wins General Pyrrhus will be proud.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 6:49:37 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had only Russian nukes PROVIDED BY RUSSIA and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it. There is a potential future where Ukraine becomes a rogue state like Iran and tries to build nuclear weapons. Could happen, I suppose. Like North Korea and Iran? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 7:00:59 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Art of war. They have a big army and a weak navy with no experience. Call me a Taibro (R) but Taiwan is the legitimate government and ruler of China, not Beijing. Taiwan is a free nation with it's own laws, government, and right to choose it's destiny. Not china. It has never been apart of China and never should be. In fact, It should be the ruling government of China, not the other way around. "homeland"? What on earth? It's not their "homeland". That's 100% wrong. Your "facts" are wrong. No it's not. Read Sun Tzu and get back to me. It is, but your interpretation of the facts is 100% wrong. I've read it. Explain what's wrong with my interpretation of the facts. Fact: We are not willing to have a nuclear war with China and we lack the resources to fight a conventional war with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 7:05:35 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like North Korea and Iran? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:10:30 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: During Soviet time, Ukraine was 1/4 of their entire economy. It housed most of their advanced technology sectors. All the railways in the entire country are fed to go to Ukraine. I cannot understate it. The entire Soviet economy post-world war 2 was built to feed Ukraine. Geographically and demographically it made sense. When Ukraine broke away, it basically set back Russia to the 1960s in most respects, including technology. @smullen This This war was trigged in August of 1991 when UKR became an independent country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:11:39 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the best outcome possible is Ukraine not losing and Russia bowing out after a revolt like in WW1. Took three years and a crazy German plot to send a prisoner on a train to Russia to make it happen last time. And this is an entirely plausible outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:16:36 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: U.N. General Assembly Zelensky Warns World Leaders That Russian Aggression Could Expand Beyond Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/09/19/world/united-nations-general-assembly Plot twist: He's right. Russia had no plan to stop after Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:20:17 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plot twist: He's right. Russia had no plan to stop after Ukraine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: U.N. General Assembly Zelensky Warns World Leaders That Russian Aggression Could Expand Beyond Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/09/19/world/united-nations-general-assembly Plot twist: He's right. Russia had no plan to stop after Ukraine. That’s your belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:21:23 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? That or foot the bill for it. Z-man wants all dat monies and when it all goes sideways, he'll have immunity in some resort city on the French Riviera with some of the 'excess' donations he (ahem, I mean his country) received from the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:22:05 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Russia gets saddled with a worn torn country, has a diminished conventional military threat that is going to take decades, if ever, to rebuild. Russia's economy is damaged and poses less of a conventional threat to NATO and 10's of thousands of orcs were killed in the process. This is what people wanted at fundamental level, no? Of course that outcome doesn't reward the "ideological crusade against evil" or Cold War blue balls factions(which would really only be satiated with a regime change, and that's not a guarantee of changing anything in itself), neither of which I think you are a part of btw. Further, I wouldn't treat the West as monolithic. Central Europe has different concerns vs Western Europe. Both within the EU itself and partnerships with the US directly. The US and the EU have different concerns. As far as the short/medium/long term stuff, it's been detailed quite extensively by R0N/Screech/Carmel and others. I would posit that keeping Russia from being able to use Ukrainian agri exports to China/India(Which UKR already does plenty of) in order to bolster support in BRICS, may be worth some consideration, to what degree, I'm not sure though. Let's look at a more broad geopolitical point. Should nations be permitted by other nations to expand through violent aggression? Is there a level at which we say "yes" to that question? Why? At what point is "yes" the valid answer, and at what point should "no" be the appropriate answer? When is accommodating aggression and bullying acceptable and when is it not acceptable? If the answer is, "well, they have nukes so they can do what they want," what kind of world does that lead to, and is that an acceptable outcome? If the answer is "just because you have nukes you don't get a free pass to conquer, genocide, and absorb all your neighbors," how is that to be put into action? Seems to me these are the key questions. Further, these questions need to be answered at least every decade. Failing to answer them, dancing around "interests" only leads to more death, destruction, and loss IMO. Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? Yes. The US is the right hand of GOD carrying out his will and protecting HIS people. The reality is that If there isn’t monetary/economic gain the US doesn’t get involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:23:31 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you know that? Our aide has drastically slowed in the last 4 months. They are being trickled gear and their domestic production has not ramped up to the same degree Russias has. Which is understandable given the current conditions there. Russia is replacing destroyed equipment with new equipment while Ukraine is hoping they get sent more equipment. Which is happening way too slow for them to maintain at the moment. The bottom line is, the Russian Federation cannot win without declaring total mobilization, like it did in 1941. In fact it was getting ready long before 1941. That is the only reason it won the Great Motherland War (calling it anything other than this was discouraged). Right now the RF is fighting a limited war, much like US did in Vietnam. It's not even called a war, but a "Special Military Operation". Much like US didn't call the Vietnam war a "war" but a "police action" The question is, will it escalate? If the RF mobilized millions of trained people, meaning anyone between 17 and 60 could be drafted, UKR would lose and UKR's superior western technology would not help. It's a question of politics. 1 million men already left the country. If a total draft is enabled, millions more will leave. How do you train millions of uneducated peasants from the Urals and Siberia who are not motivated to fight and don't get why they need to go to a foreign country? RF has to win before a certain time frame as it's economy is not doing well. What they are doing is not sustainable. What UKR doing is not sustainable either. It's doing rather well given the totality of circumstances. Their population is 1/4 the size of RF. They apparently do not have the 3:1 advantage to attack and things are close to a stalemate. Russians just plain don't care while Ukrops do care but lack the brute numbers. But neither side can claim a decisive advantage. Ukrops appear to have the momentum and Crimea is a low-hanging fruit, with constant attacks Russians will stop living there and investing in real estate. Then there are wildcards like the "Free Russia" Legion which is comprised entire of expats and who systematically attack Russian territory. If things get unstable there, they are the prime contenders to run the country post-collapse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:25:56 PM EST
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:28:59 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s your belief. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: U.N. General Assembly Zelensky Warns World Leaders That Russian Aggression Could Expand Beyond Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/09/19/world/united-nations-general-assembly Plot twist: He's right. Russia had no plan to stop after Ukraine. That’s your belief. It's what they keep saying. Wasn't there a post in this very thread where Stoltenberg acknowledged that Putin demanded all NATO forces and equipment be removed from all NATO nations that joined 1997 or later, leaving them open for attack? In reality, they can't actually accomplish what they say they want, but they keep saying it. Restoring the USSR borders is their intent, 100%. This invasion is about righting a historical wrong. That is not plausibly deniable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:33:00 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Let's look at a more broad geopolitical point. Should nations be permitted by other nations to expand through violent aggression? Is there a level at which we say "yes" to that question? Why? At what point is "yes" the valid answer, and at what point should "no" be the appropriate answer? When is accommodating aggression and bullying acceptable and when is it not acceptable? If the answer is, "well, they have nukes so they can do what they want," what kind of world does that lead to, and is that an acceptable outcome? If the answer is "just because you have nukes you don't get a free pass to conquer, genocide, and absorb all your neighbors," how is that to be put into action? Seems to me these are the key questions. Further, these questions need to be answered at least every decade. Failing to answer them, dancing around "interests" only leads to more death, destruction, and loss IMO. Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? What is the answer to the questions? They can't be ignored. They are critical to foreign policy development. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 8:44:51 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had only Russian nukes PROVIDED BY RUSSIA and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it. There is a potential future where Ukraine becomes a rogue state like Iran and tries to build nuclear weapons. Could happen, I suppose. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My understanding of Soviet history must be wrong. I thought that Ukrainian Institute for Physics and Technology started one of the first atomic /nuclear programs prior to WW2. If they had they knowledge and ability back then why not now? They had only Russian nukes PROVIDED BY RUSSIA and gave them back to Russia. They don't know how to build nukes nor would the U.S. or the E.U. allow it. There is a potential future where Ukraine becomes a rogue state like Iran and tries to build nuclear weapons. Could happen, I suppose. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 9:04:08 PM EST
[#40]
No more American blood or treasure for Europe. Ukraine is not even in NATO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 9:07:09 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is the answer to the questions? They can't be ignored. They are critical to foreign policy development. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's look at a more broad geopolitical point. Should nations be permitted by other nations to expand through violent aggression? Is there a level at which we say "yes" to that question? Why? At what point is "yes" the valid answer, and at what point should "no" be the appropriate answer? When is accommodating aggression and bullying acceptable and when is it not acceptable? If the answer is, "well, they have nukes so they can do what they want," what kind of world does that lead to, and is that an acceptable outcome? If the answer is "just because you have nukes you don't get a free pass to conquer, genocide, and absorb all your neighbors," how is that to be put into action? Seems to me these are the key questions. Further, these questions need to be answered at least every decade. Failing to answer them, dancing around "interests" only leads to more death, destruction, and loss IMO. Is the US supposed to police all of the world's ills? What is the answer to the questions? They can't be ignored. They are critical to foreign policy development. That was the answer. We are not the world police. It answers every question that requires us to police the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 9:23:42 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's what they keep saying. Wasn't there a post in this very thread where Stoltenberg acknowledged that Putin demanded all NATO forces and equipment be removed from all NATO nations that joined 1997 or later, leaving them open for attack? In reality, they can't actually accomplish what they say they want, but they keep saying it. Restoring the USSR borders is their intent, 100%. This invasion is about righting a historical wrong. That is not plausibly deniable.
The group here that says "no nuclear war over Kyiv" would undoubtedly also say the same thing about Riga, Tallinn, or Vilnius. Obviously because of the actions of the west in Ukraine, Putin doesn't have the opportunity to make that miscalculation which is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 9:24:19 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was the answer. We are not the world police. It answers every question that requires us to police the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 9:26:40 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia's not losing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2023 9:27:39 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol, 19fortyfive is literally Russian propaganda... ...rating this one troll Everything is Russian propaganda!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:26:12 AM EST
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:36:28 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Someone would fill the void. Any guesses who that would be? Uh, the people already benefiting from this already? What benefit would China gain taking our role in Ukraine? I cant even figure out what the positive for us is past moral concerns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:00:14 AM EST
[#48]
I checked with the ukebros who read the article, and they told me...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:08:22 AM EST
[#49]
Literally could not care less. And fuck be on anyone that prefers uke lives or Russian deaths over our own population. Sick of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:43:40 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're losing when Putin's own essay calls the entirety of Ukraine Russia's possession and denies that Ukraine has any right to exist outside of Russia. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File