User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:43:47 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since there is no way that Ukraine CAN beat Russia......... The question is irrelevant and the article incredibly stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:47:10 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This... They already lost and didn't notice... Yet.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Since there is no way that Ukraine CAN beat Russia......... The question is irrelevant and the article incredibly stupid. Depends on your definition of beat. Ukraine isn't going to invade and take over Moscow. They may very well expel Russia from their territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:49:05 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. The positive for us is that when we inevitably fight China we won't be fighting Russia the same time. This is pretty obvious if you understand the way the Chinese see strategy. They will not invade Taiwan without creating multiple fronts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:51:17 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia doesn't actually have to have the ability to conquer a NATO country against a NATO force to cause problems for us. They just have to think NATO is pussy enough they can get away with it. 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. Russia doesn't have the ability to fight NATO directly, but they can certainly play a long game to work on defeating us. In particular, they can work on denying us resources and trade routes, and they are definitely doing that. That's what Wagner is doing in Africa. They will leverage Ukraine to further than goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:54:23 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. US policy is essentially that Taiwan should return to the mainland once political reform in the mainland makes that acceptable. The communists will not have a dictatorship there forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:54:25 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The positive for us is that when we inevitably fight China we won't be fighting Russia the same time. This is pretty obvious if you understand the way the Chinese see strategy. They will not invade Taiwan without creating multiple fronts. Several years ago I posted about that with those fronts likely being Iran and or the Korean Peninsula and GD had a fit. People hate the truth so sometimes it’s better to say nothing or tell them the lies they want to hear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:55:54 AM EST
[#7]
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. You sure none of those nukes were built in Ukraine by Ukrainians when Ukraine was the industrial heartland of the USSR? I don't know the answer to that question. It seems likely that Ukrainians did have some role. They certainly built the rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:58:12 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Several years ago I posted about that with those fronts likely being Iran and or the Korean Peninsula and GD had a fit. People hate the truth so sometimes it’s better to say nothing or tell them the lies they want to hear. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The positive for us is that when we inevitably fight China we won't be fighting Russia the same time. This is pretty obvious if you understand the way the Chinese see strategy. They will not invade Taiwan without creating multiple fronts. Several years ago I posted about that with those fronts likely being Iran and or the Korean Peninsula and GD had a fit. People hate the truth so sometimes it’s better to say nothing or tell them the lies they want to hear. It's been the Chinese way of thinking about war for, I dunno, only about 4000 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 10:37:27 AM EST
[#9]
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. A bit of bad form for me to answer a question with a question. You wanted to take a look at a more broad geopolitical point, and ultimately the US acting as the world's policeman is what your are talking about and the answers to your questions come down to how much you want the US to enforce it's will on other nations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 10:43:38 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia doesn't actually have to have the ability to conquer a NATO country against a NATO force to cause problems for us. They just have to think NATO is pussy enough they can get away with it. 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Last I checked, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are NATO members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 11:02:44 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Last I checked, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are NATO members. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Last I checked, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are NATO members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 11:20:13 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A bit of bad form for me to answer a question with a question. You wanted to take a look at a more broad geopolitical point, and ultimately the US acting as the world's policeman is what your are talking about and the answers to your questions come down to how much you want the US to enforce it's will on other nations. That's a bigger question about what US foreign policy should be. I went through a very isolationist phase myself some years ago, but I have come to the realization (YMMV) that the US must look after its interests on the global stage and not just withdraw into a shell. The critical issue is finding a balance and not getting involved in things that don't benefit the US. Personally, I think the containment of Russian aggression should be very high on our priority list, and it is currently #2 behind China. tl;dr summary: Russia "winning" in Ukraine is bad for Europe and bad for the US. Larger issues will foment out of that mess and it will cost us much more down the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 11:34:31 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, yea. Thats not the point I was conveying. I was saying, there is a large contingent who wouldn't want Americans to die or global nuclear war over Riga, Tallinn, or Vilnius. If the sentiment was widespread enough and Putin wasn't bogged down in Ukraine, that weakness could give him the opportunity (not necessarily the means to be successful) to do something really stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Last I checked, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are NATO members. I have never seen the sentiment over not going whole hog on Russia, if Russia were to attack an actual NATO country. Quite the opposite really, Russia taking that action would be the time to go to war with boots on the ground. It would be an extreme reputational crises to the US's standing around the world and a direct threat to national security(due to the downstream effects) if the US didn't respond in force to an attack on NATO. Not saying it hasn't been posted, I've just never seen it and I make a point to at least read nearly every single post in nearly every Ukraine related thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 11:55:47 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a bigger question about what US foreign policy should be. I went through a very isolationist phase myself some years ago, but I have come to the realization (YMMV) that the US must look after its interests on the global stage and not just withdraw into a shell. The critical issue is finding a balance and not getting involved in things that don't benefit the US. Personally, I think the containment of Russian aggression should be very high on our priority list, and it is currently #2 behind China. tl;dr summary: Russia "winning" in Ukraine is bad for Europe and bad for the US. Larger issues will foment out of that mess and it will cost us much more down the road. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A bit of bad form for me to answer a question with a question. You wanted to take a look at a more broad geopolitical point, and ultimately the US acting as the world's policeman is what your are talking about and the answers to your questions come down to how much you want the US to enforce it's will on other nations. That's a bigger question about what US foreign policy should be. I went through a very isolationist phase myself some years ago, but I have come to the realization (YMMV) that the US must look after its interests on the global stage and not just withdraw into a shell. The critical issue is finding a balance and not getting involved in things that don't benefit the US. Personally, I think the containment of Russian aggression should be very high on our priority list, and it is currently #2 behind China. tl;dr summary: Russia "winning" in Ukraine is bad for Europe and bad for the US. Larger issues will foment out of that mess and it will cost us much more down the road. I'm hardly an isolationist, quite the opposite really. Western Europe doesn't seem to rate it as much of an issue, where as Central Europe does recognize it and has been acting accordingly. Articulate these larger issues please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:14:38 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia's not losing. Russia losing means being pushed back to the 2014 borders, so, no, Russia is not going to lose. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:17:53 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm hardly an isolationist, quite the opposite really. Western Europe doesn't seem to rate it as much of an issue, where as Central Europe does recognize it and has been acting accordingly. Articulate these larger issues please. The biggest problem I see is with the quisling Europeans - the Germans first and foremost - reverting back to their spineless mode and reattaching to the Russian gas/oil teat as soon as possible. They won't be the only ones, but they are the worst. Russian's influence would grow very quickly and probably to a larger degree than before. A bunch of other Euopean countries will follow suit to a varying degree. If Russia becomes aggressive again - even against a NATO member - they would have more leverage to keep opposition to their plans confined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:20:12 PM EST
[#17]
Per Fox News
“Ukraine will not get ATACMS, the 190-mile-range tactical ballistic missiles, urgently requested by Zelensky to destroy Russian forces in Crimea and other Russian-held territory ‘anytime soon,’ officials say. News comes one day before Zelensky visits Biden at the White House.” Sounds like the White House is going to scale back military aid. Also looks like congress won’t authorize the 21 billion Biden asked for. It’s going to be a scaled down version of what’s been asked for. Congress must think public opinion is falling for the war in Ukraine. Which the polls do show. Europe will have to double their military aid if Ukraine if going to keep on fighting next year at the current pace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:26:28 PM EST
[#18]
Also if the government shuts down there will be no new aid to. McCarthy just said this: MCCARTHY: UKRAINE WILL NOT BE PART OF ANY STOPGAP BILL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:30:49 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The biggest problem I see is with the quisling Europeans - the Germans first and foremost - reverting back to their spineless mode and reattaching to the Russian gas/oil teat as soon as possible. They won't be the only ones, but they are the worst. Russian's influence would grow very quickly and probably to a larger degree than before. A bunch of other Euopean countries will follow suit to a varying degree. If Russia becomes aggressive again - even against a NATO member - they would have more leverage to keep opposition to their plans confined. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm hardly an isolationist, quite the opposite really. Western Europe doesn't seem to rate it as much of an issue, where as Central Europe does recognize it and has been acting accordingly. Articulate these larger issues please. The biggest problem I see is with the quisling Europeans - the Germans first and foremost - reverting back to their spineless mode and reattaching to the Russian gas/oil teat as soon as possible. They won't be the only ones, but they are the worst. Russian's influence would grow very quickly and probably to a larger degree than before. A bunch of other Euopean countries will follow suit to a varying degree. If Russia becomes aggressive again - even against a NATO member - they would have more leverage to keep opposition to their plans confined. Eh, I don't think that Russia would have all that more leverage, especially if a NATO member were involved. The US will act directly if that were to happen and in concert with the Baltics and Central Europe. That's not to say that your point isn't worth some consideration, but that's kinda the way that the US/EU/NATO relationship has been trending for many years now. I'm wary of a Sunk Cost, "status quo must be maintained" situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:36:30 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have never seen the sentiment over not going whole hog on Russia, if Russia were to attack an actual NATO country. Quite the opposite really, Russia taking that action would be the time to go to war with boots on the ground. It would be an extreme reputational crises to the US's standing around the world and a direct threat to national security(due to the downstream effects) if the US didn't respond in force to an attack on NATO. Not saying it hasn't been posted, I've just never seen it and I make a point to at least read nearly every single post in nearly every Ukraine related thread. To your second sentence, yes I agree with your statement 100%, but then follow up with the question "are we not under a reputational crisis on the world stage?". We have two factions with widely different foreign policy views, which get whiplashed back and forth with every 2 year election (because the house controls the purse). Are our enemies which have decades of unchanging policy not looking to leverage that crisis for their gain? Will they challenge a weakness to create more weakness? I submit the answer to those question is yes, they are not only looking for that opportunity, but looking to fuel that opportunity. I fear that the current house Republicans path is furthering that weakness (building on Afghanistan debacle). This is not to say the current path is 100% correct either because it's not. I don't know if anyone could conclude anything other than right now Putin is sitting at his long table doing <putinchuckle.gif> and thinking it was predicable and outlasted the fickle US. Some could come to the conclusion yes he is doing that, but it's necessary we give up on this for _____________________ reason and that's fine to have a different conclusion. Each path chosen will have benefits and consequences. Quite frankly, I feel cutting off Ukraine cold turkey is going to fuel more global instability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:43:14 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Depends on your definition of beat. Ukraine isn't going to invade and take over Moscow. They may very well expel Russia from their territory.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:43:16 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have never seen the sentiment over not going whole hog on Russia, if Russia were to attack an actual NATO country. Quite the opposite really, Russia taking that action would be the time to go to war with boots on the ground. It would be an extreme reputational crises to the US's standing around the world and a direct threat to national security(due to the downstream effects) if the US didn't respond in force to an attack on NATO. Not saying it hasn't been posted, I've just never seen it and I make a point to at least read nearly every single post in nearly every Ukraine related thread. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Last I checked, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are NATO members. I have never seen the sentiment over not going whole hog on Russia, if Russia were to attack an actual NATO country. Quite the opposite really, Russia taking that action would be the time to go to war with boots on the ground. It would be an extreme reputational crises to the US's standing around the world and a direct threat to national security(due to the downstream effects) if the US didn't respond in force to an attack on NATO. Not saying it hasn't been posted, I've just never seen it and I make a point to at least read nearly every single post in nearly every Ukraine related thread. Are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania "actual NATO countries," in all the connotations of that phrase? I know they're Official NATO Members. I still believe there would be a considerable difference in our responses in this country, both official and among the populace, if one of those countries were attacked vs Germany or the UK getting attacked. The latter was something we were used to thinking about throughout the Cold War. The Baltics, OTOH, it would be much easier to characterize the fight as just another Eastern European dispute. Despite the friendliness of the Baltics to the US. Edit: and what @trapsh00ter99 wrote here: "To me, if people are questioning Americas membership to NATO, they would equally question whether America should defend NATO territories if called to do so. It's the same message, just with different statements." I don't think he's wrong. It's not 1985 anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:47:06 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm hardly an isolationist, quite the opposite really. Western Europe doesn't seem to rate it as much of an issue, where as Central Europe does recognize it and has been acting accordingly. Articulate these larger issues please. Well, we all know why that is. This hasn’t been their problem to deal with for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:47:32 PM EST
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:48:01 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Per Fox News "Ukraine will not get ATACMS, the 190-mile-range tactical ballistic missiles, urgently requested by Zelensky to destroy Russian forces in Crimea and other Russian-held territory 'anytime soon,' officials say. News comes one day before Zelensky visits Biden at the White House." Sounds like the White House is going to scale back military aid. Also looks like congress won't authorize the 21 billion Biden asked for. It's going to be a scaled down version of what's been asked for. Congress must think public opinion is falling for the war in Ukraine. Which the polls do show. Europe will have to double their military aid if Ukraine if going to keep on fighting next year at the current pace. Well, looks like we're about to find out what happens in case of a Russian victory. I guess we'll have to come back in a couple of years to see how each side's predictions hold up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 12:49:58 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, looks like we're about to find out what happens in case of a Russian victory. I guess we'll have to come back in a couple of years to see how each side's predictions hold up. Wait, you mean NOT bicker and bitch incessantly for the next five years? Weird, but okay  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:03:14 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like North Korea and Iran? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? None of the Soviet atomgrads were in Ukraine, so he's got a point in that Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:05:56 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You sure none of those nukes were built in Ukraine by Ukrainians when Ukraine was the industrial heartland of the USSR? I don't know the answer to that question. It seems likely that Ukrainians did have some role. They certainly built the rockets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. You sure none of those nukes were built in Ukraine by Ukrainians when Ukraine was the industrial heartland of the USSR? I don't know the answer to that question. It seems likely that Ukrainians did have some role. They certainly built the rockets. You obviously don't know about the Soviet atomgrads. Yes, no nuclear weapons were made in Ukraine. https://panethos.wordpress.com/2020/05/06/soviet-era-atomgrads-part-1-nuclear-weapon-cities/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:08:14 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While yes, my specific hypothetical example isn't discussed widespread on here; what is discussed more, that I have seen specific discussions on here (much more widespread) is whether America should be part of NATO at all. To me, if people are questioning Americas membership to NATO, they would equally question whether America should defend NATO territories if called to do so. It's the same message, just with different statements. To your second sentence, yes I agree with your statement 100%, but then follow up with the question "are we not under a reputational crisis on the world stage?". We have two factions with widely different foreign policy views, which get whiplashed back and forth with every 2 year election (because the house controls the purse). Are our enemies which have decades of unchanging policy not looking to leverage that crisis for their gain? Will they challenge a weakness to create more weakness? I submit the answer to those question is yes, they are not only looking for that opportunity, but looking to fuel that opportunity. I fear that the current house Republicans path is furthering that weakness (building on Afghanistan debacle). This is not to say the current path is 100% correct either because it's not. I don't know if anyone could conclude anything other than right now Putin is sitting at his long table doing and thinking it was predicable and outlasted the fickle US. Some could come to the conclusion yes he is doing that, but it's necessary we give up on this for _____________________ reason and that's fine to have a different conclusion. Each path chosen will have benefits and consequences. Quite frankly, I feel cutting off Ukraine cold turkey is going to fuel more global instability. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have never seen the sentiment over not going whole hog on Russia, if Russia were to attack an actual NATO country. Quite the opposite really, Russia taking that action would be the time to go to war with boots on the ground. It would be an extreme reputational crises to the US's standing around the world and a direct threat to national security(due to the downstream effects) if the US didn't respond in force to an attack on NATO. Not saying it hasn't been posted, I've just never seen it and I make a point to at least read nearly every single post in nearly every Ukraine related thread. To your second sentence, yes I agree with your statement 100%, but then follow up with the question "are we not under a reputational crisis on the world stage?". We have two factions with widely different foreign policy views, which get whiplashed back and forth with every 2 year election (because the house controls the purse). Are our enemies which have decades of unchanging policy not looking to leverage that crisis for their gain? Will they challenge a weakness to create more weakness? I submit the answer to those question is yes, they are not only looking for that opportunity, but looking to fuel that opportunity. I fear that the current house Republicans path is furthering that weakness (building on Afghanistan debacle). This is not to say the current path is 100% correct either because it's not. I don't know if anyone could conclude anything other than right now Putin is sitting at his long table doing and thinking it was predicable and outlasted the fickle US. Some could come to the conclusion yes he is doing that, but it's necessary we give up on this for _____________________ reason and that's fine to have a different conclusion. Each path chosen will have benefits and consequences. Quite frankly, I feel cutting off Ukraine cold turkey is going to fuel more global instability. I do question the utility of being in NATO, as it is currently structured, given how much the US unilaterally spends on staffing and equipping it, however that is not to say that I think there shouldn't be some continuation or a more defined replacement that is more Baltic and Central Europe focused. Also, NATO just might have to remain as it is. I can be unhappy with the current state of things and still be fully committed to maintaining current treaty obligations. For you it may be the same message, but for others it's not, because NATO is an instrument of US foreign policy, and absent the existence of NATO, defense of the Baltics and Central Europe as check against Russia is still important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:08:52 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, looks like we're about to find out what happens in case of a Russian victory. I guess we'll have to come back in a couple of years to see how each side's predictions hold up. Hopefully we’ll be more United in a few years here. My biggest concern during this whole war was that our current government would not fully commit to the war. It looks like I was right. They must be purposely destroying us on the world stage. I was in Afghanistan for too many years and look how we left there. If we abandon Ukraine now we will create new enemies. How will Ukrainians look at America if we abandon them now? I’ve said this many times before, most guys here that are against the war isn’t because they are for Russia. It’s because they know what this government will do and that is increasingly showing to be true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 1:15:29 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania "actual NATO countries," in all the connotations of that phrase? I know they're Official NATO Members. I still believe there would be a considerable difference in our responses in this country, both official and among the populace, if one of those countries were attacked vs Germany or the UK getting attacked. The latter was something we were used to thinking about throughout the Cold War. The Baltics, OTOH, it would be much easier to characterize the fight as just another Eastern European dispute. Despite the friendliness of the Baltics to the US. Edit: and what @trapsh00ter99 wrote here: "To me, if people are questioning Americas membership to NATO, they would equally question whether America should defend NATO territories if called to do so. It's the same message, just with different statements." I don't think he's wrong. It's not 1985 anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Last I checked, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are NATO members. I have never seen the sentiment over not going whole hog on Russia, if Russia were to attack an actual NATO country. Quite the opposite really, Russia taking that action would be the time to go to war with boots on the ground. It would be an extreme reputational crises to the US's standing around the world and a direct threat to national security(due to the downstream effects) if the US didn't respond in force to an attack on NATO. Not saying it hasn't been posted, I've just never seen it and I make a point to at least read nearly every single post in nearly every Ukraine related thread. Are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania "actual NATO countries," in all the connotations of that phrase? I know they're Official NATO Members. I still believe there would be a considerable difference in our responses in this country, both official and among the populace, if one of those countries were attacked vs Germany or the UK getting attacked. The latter was something we were used to thinking about throughout the Cold War. The Baltics, OTOH, it would be much easier to characterize the fight as just another Eastern European dispute. Despite the friendliness of the Baltics to the US. Edit: and what @trapsh00ter99 wrote here: "To me, if people are questioning Americas membership to NATO, they would equally question whether America should defend NATO territories if called to do so. It's the same message, just with different statements." I don't think he's wrong. It's not 1985 anymore. Putin should test that theory out then and see how committed the US is to NATO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:09:16 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Per Fox News “Ukraine will not get ATACMS, the 190-mile-range tactical ballistic missiles, urgently requested by Zelensky to destroy Russian forces in Crimea and other Russian-held territory ‘anytime soon,’ officials say. News comes one day before Zelensky visits Biden at the White House.” Sounds like the White House is going to scale back military aid. Also looks like congress won’t authorize the 21 billion Biden asked for. It’s going to be a scaled down version of what’s been asked for. Congress must think public opinion is falling for the war in Ukraine. Which the polls do show. Europe will have to double their military aid if Ukraine if going to keep on fighting next year at the current pace. I suspect if the US backs down on the aid, Poland will fill the gap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:09:53 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: None of the Soviet atomgrads were in Ukraine, so he's got a point in that Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons industry. I was specifically addressing his comment about the US/West keeping people from developing nuclear weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:46:44 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suspect if the US backs down on the aid, Poland will fill the gap. Doesn’t look like it. This was just put out. Poland will no transfer any weapons to Ukraine according to the Polish PM Morawiecki. ^Ukraine is burning bridges fast trying to sue Poland and other countries. Hopefully the above report is false. Without Poland this war is over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:48:25 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was specifically addressing his comment about the US/West keeping people from developing nuclear weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: None of the Soviet atomgrads were in Ukraine, so he's got a point in that Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons industry. I was specifically addressing his comment about the US/West keeping people from developing nuclear weapons. Roger that, fair enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:50:45 PM EST
[#36]
Imagine ever thinking they could
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:50:59 PM EST
[#37]
Ukraine can't "beat" Russia as is.
They can however outlast Russia like the goat herders in Afghanistan did Russia and the US more recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 2:52:35 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do question the utility of being in NATO, as it is currently structured, given how much the US unilaterally spends on staffing and equipping it, however that is not to say that I think there shouldn't be some continuation or a more defined replacement that is more Baltic and Central Europe focused. Also, NATO just might have to remain as it is. I can be unhappy with the current state of things and still be fully committed to maintaining current treaty obligations. For you it may be the same message, but for others it's not, because NATO is an instrument of US foreign policy, and absent the existence of NATO, defense of the Baltics and Central Europe as check against Russia is still important. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 3:02:05 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If we abandon Ukraine now we will create new enemies. How will Ukrainians look at America if we abandon them now? I’ve said this many times before, most guys here that are against the war isn’t because they are for Russia. It’s because they know what this government will do and that is increasingly showing to be true.  Attached FileBlowback from Ukrainian nationalists is plausible, IMO. Zelenskyy intimated at this during his recent interview with The Economist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 5:43:17 PM EST
[#40]
It’s confirmed Poland is no longer going to arm Ukraine.
Also hearing that Poland will no longer allow arm transfers through its country. Waiting on my sources to confirm this. This is a death blow to Ukraine. Look for a peace deal soon pushed by the US. Edit: Poland will still allow arms transfers through its country. Here is a msm link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-20/poland-says-it-s-cutting-off-arms-to-ukraine-as-dispute-heats-up |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 5:47:06 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also hearing that Poland will no longer allow arm transfers through its country. Waiting on my sources to confirm this. . False. Absolutely false. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 5:49:47 PM EST
[#42]
Nevermind
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 5:54:08 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: False. Absolutely false. lol I am absolutely right Poland Says It’s Cutting Off Arms to Ukraine Over Grain Dispute https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-20/poland-says-it-s-cutting-off-arms-to-ukraine-as-dispute-heats-up |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:08:19 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am absolutely right Poland Says It’s Cutting Off Arms to Ukraine Over Grain Dispute https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-20/poland-says-it-s-cutting-off-arms-to-ukraine-as-dispute-heats-up From that they're still allowing transfers through their territory, but are pausing direct supply over the grain dispute. Note the statements from Poland indicating support for Ukraine despite this. If push comes to shove, I still expect Poland to do whatever it takes to keep Ukraine in the fight. I'd also expect Ukraine to say 'fuck the grain gimme guns' if things start going poorly. I'll admit did not see this coming though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:10:29 PM EST
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:12:10 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From that they're still allowing transfers through their territory, but are pausing direct supply over the grain dispute. Note the statements from Poland indicating support for Ukraine despite this. If push comes to shove, I still expect Poland to do whatever it takes to keep Ukraine in the fight. I'd also expect Ukraine to say 'fuck the grain gimme guns' if things start going poorly. I'll admit did not see this coming though. I think the most telling paragraph in the whole article is the last one. “For Poland, the issue is a political one. The ruling Law & Justice party, seeking a third term in office in next month’s contest, is reluctant to alienate its rural base while growing discontent over the cost of supporting Ukraine has boosted the party’s opponents on the far right.” Support is waning in the population and politicians are more worried about getting re-elected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:13:49 PM EST
[#47]
Deleted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:16:11 PM EST
[#48]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:19:01 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Blowback from Ukrainian nationalists is plausible, IMO. Zelenskyy intimated at this during his recent interview with The Economist. LMFAO, bring your weak ass shit Z-man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2023 6:20:32 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You obviously don't know about the Soviet atomgrads. Yes, no nuclear weapons were made in Ukraine. https://panethos.wordpress.com/2020/05/06/soviet-era-atomgrads-part-1-nuclear-weapon-cities/ While I understand your post, I believe that was mostly either during or post WW2. As I mentioned in another thread yesterday, I think pre WW2 I believe that the Ukraine Institute of Physics and Technology had better luck researching on nuclear as that's why they transferred people from Leningrad to Kharkov/Kharkiv prior to the war. From my understanding A.I.Lejpunsky was indeed a Russian that was transferred. Unsure of the others. https://www.kipt.kharkov.ua/en/bhr.html Perhaps I learn something new. Some of the pre/post war stuff is confusing Not arguing with you, just my understanding of the early history of the program. |
|
|
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.
