War in Ukraine

#40,751
#40,751
LouderVol said:
How does it logically make sense to a Russian to invade Ukraine?

I mean besides slavs wanting to kill other slavs, but you said logically.
Click to expand...

The same strategy as they have had for 30 years hence the original agreements in the early 90s. A place to target their tactical nukes in case the Nazi Germans come back or NATO.

They don't give a **** if the Ukraine is destroyed, they just need a buffer to deploy tactical nukes so that they don't have to deploy them in Russia. The Ukraine is the new Stalingard.
 
#40,752
#40,752
LSU-SIU said:
No, you don't even understand that war is irrelevant. Russia could be in there on horses and it doesn't matter. The war is economic at this point. The Ukraine already lost, there is no win for the Ukraine.

It doesn't matter how much money or artillery they get from the West, Ukraine lost. At this point, its onto see how much Europe is going to lose.

There isn't anything complex about this. You think Putin cares how may 60 year old tanks get blown up? Nope. The United States is now giving him destruction of Europe, or its at least on deck. What is going on in the Ukraine is mostly irrelevant at this stage and has been for months.

It doesn't matter what happens to that **** hole.
Click to expand...
You know the economic war is one that Russia has already lost in the past to the west. Under very similar circumstances. Invades a neighbor. Gets stuck in a long drawn out war against what should have been an easy fight that gets the US giving weapons away.

Heck russia has already lost more than they did in Afghanistan, even when you half the losses reported.

I wasnt around back then, but where did Europe get their oil/power from back during the cold war? They had to have been even more reliant on outside power back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan, Hunerwadel and NorthDallas40
#40,753
#40,753
LouderVol said:
They, the Russians I am guessing, are in Ukraine because they wanted a proxy war with the US/NATO?
Click to expand...

No, they invaded Ukraine like they have been warning about because of the potential proxy war from NATO and to have a place to deploy their tactical nukes if the Nazis try and come back. They have said for 70+ years they're not going through WWII again, everyone might get nuked... but the West isn't invading.

---> This all pre-dates Putin.<---

The strategy hasn't changed in 30 years.
 
#40,755
#40,755
LouderVol said:
You know the economic war is one that Russia has already lost in the past to the west. Under very similar circumstances. Invades a neighbor. Gets stuck in a long drawn out war against what should have been an easy fight that gets the US giving weapons away.
Click to expand...

They have plenty of dog crap to throw at the Ukraine. What's the cost of all this, not much... its right across the border.

The Ukraine is just another Afganistan for the West, they'll be asking for $100s of billions. Money pit.

Heck russia has already lost more than they did in Afghanistan, even when you half the losses reported.
Click to expand...

And they will probably lose much more soldiers and 60 year tanks, so?

The cost to Europe in the form of economic damage is probably 10-20 fold.

You can't run a modern civilization on firewood, and serious doubt you have an economy at $1-2 KwH. (we shall see how it plays out)

Euro Dollar Exchange Rate - EUR/USD

The euro continues downward trend, which offers some clues. I would imagine people were placing bets at the end 2021. At the end of all economic output is the cost of input energy. I have no idea how this plays out, but it don't look good. Modern civilization runs off cheap credit and cheap energy, remove those and I'm not sure how you feed masses of people.

Reset happens, well, its hard to imagine how 7 billion get fed.
 
Last edited:
#40,756
#40,756
sounds like Ukraine broke through the russian line and joined with rebel forces in the south (which ukraine claims are significant). They took russian dug ins/depots/and ammo. Blew all the bridges and are headed east. Reports of russians fleeing cities in advance in the south. Russia seems to have sent in air support.

This is all piece meal, but at this point reported from multiple sources.
 
#40,757
#40,757
IluvdoubleD's said:
sounds like Ukraine broke through the russian line and joined with rebel forces in the south (which ukraine claims are significant). They took russian dug ins/depots/and ammo. Blew all the bridges and are headed east. Reports of russians fleeing cities in advance in the south. Russia seems to have sent in air support.

This is all piece meal, but at this point reported from multiple sources.
Click to expand...

Its not significant, they just move some place else.... but send them more dollars by all means. Its Afghanistan. You send them your dollars and your expensive equipment, the other side sends some humans with some muskets, let it go on for a few years. The usual suspects eventually bailout.

Someone hasn't been paying attention since the Vietnam war. Of course, it looks like the potential for massive harm to the U.S. on this one... possible reset.

Joe Biden said there couldn't be a revolution in the United States as you need F-16s to fight a modern war. Yet, all I saw was those NATO personnel running to get out Afghanistan from a bunch of camel jockies with muskets. How exactly did they do it without F-16s?

This is just a rinse and repeat of all the other military engagements associated with the United States over the last 60 years.

taliban-men-ice-cream-16293908973x2.jpg


Update correction, he said F-15s. LOL

Biden: To Take On Government 'You Need F-15's And Maybe Some Nuclear Weapons'
 
Last edited:
#40,758
#40,758
volgr said:
How does Russia continue to take land with 60 year old tanks while at the same time saying Russia has no answer for advanced US weapon systems like HIMARS and M777?

You guys just say sh1t without giving it much thought.
Click to expand...
Lol. You dont understand war at all. You always take losses. Even in victories. There is even a name for victories that cost too much, Pyrrhic.

Russia could win the entire war and take Ukraine. Doesnt mean they wont lose a crap ton of men doing it. The question is always at what level is it acceptable? For both sides the answer right now is "not yet" so we will continue to see war until one side has enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel and NorthDallas40
#40,759
#40,759
LouderVol said:
Lol. You dont understand war at all. You always take losses. Even in victories. There is even a name for victories that cost too much, Pyrrhic.

Russia could win the entire war and take Ukraine. Doesnt mean they wont lose a crap ton of men doing it. The question is always at what level is it acceptable? For both sides the answer right now is "not yet" so we will continue to see war until one side has enough.
Click to expand...
And that’s going to be a sticking point I’m guessing. I’ve said all along when Ukraine decides they want to end it and possibly cede some territory that’s their decision and no one else’s. But I’m guessing there are actors that will prod them to keep going, and I’d expect some of them will be ours.
 
#40,760
#40,760
LSU-SIU said:
Gez, this really isn't difficult. You believe their military is dog crap, so you agree with Putin. So, what does that mean...he will continue to send dog crap into the Ukraine. Duh. There will be nothing left of Ukraine...they lost. There is nothing really for the Ukraine to win, other than a destroyed spot on a map.

Now with all the stupid stuff the U.S. is doing Germany and the rest of Europe are at risk as they can't produce the energy and food they need. So, Russia will just continue to let Ukraine cook and see if it economically collapses Germany leads to Europe. Putin has no way to invade Europe. He is just going to watch them hang themselves with the US rope. It may or may not happen, but nobody is doing anything for energy goes to $1-2 a Kwh. We don't know if that will happen.

The zerohedge article is saying almost word for word what I said. Lol

The US could send a trillion dollars into the Ukraine and not much is going to change. It's Afghanistan all over again. Lol. Putin will just shovel more dog crap in. If it goes on long enough.... RESET. Right now its more in Russia's interest to let the Ukraine cook, let Europe waste even more money on it... it a big ole financial black hole. (that part came from the article)

In the meantime, Putin agrees with you which is why he will continue to send in dog crap. LOL

There is no real scenario on the table where the Ukraine wins, its destroyed or soon will be. Whether they plant a flag on a burned out city is pretty meaningless.

Russia doesn't have the military capacity to occupy all of the Ukraine or all of Europe.... which is why they're in the Ukraine. LOL All the nutjobs seem to agree with Putin, but than they are confused as to why they are there.
Click to expand...

Yeah we are just looking at this two different ways.

Anyways, One has to also add in China's shenanigans. Their housing market has basically collapsed, and their roads to no where and ghost towns they built to keep GDP up are coming back to haunt them. Recession beginning in the U.S., Chaos in Europe with possible food shortages elswhere in the world, and China being in big, big trouble economically.... Sometimes big wars start during times like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and LSU-SIU
#40,762
#40,762
LouderVol said:
Lol. You dont understand war at all. You always take losses. Even in victories. There is even a name for victories that cost too much, Pyrrhic.

Russia could win the entire war and take Ukraine. Doesnt mean they wont lose a crap ton of men doing it. The question is always at what level is it acceptable? For both sides the answer right now is "not yet" so we will continue to see war until one side has enough.
Click to expand...

Ukraine lost. How much Russia wins is still not known. The war has now moved onto Germany. Tracking to see which side takes the next pile of rubble seems kind of strange at this point. Did it matter what mountain the United States took in Afganstan? Nope.

Putin will continue to just send whoever in there, let it burn, eventually maybe he destroys the rest of the country and the infrastructure.
 
#40,765
#40,765
norrislakevol said:
Yeah we are just looking at this two different ways.

Anyways, One has to also add in China's shenanigans. Their housing market has basically collapsed, and their roads to no where and ghost towns they built to keep GDP up are coming back to haunt them. Recession beginning in the U.S., Chaos in Europe with possible food shortages elswhere in the world, and China being in big, big trouble economically.... Sometimes big wars start during times like this.
Click to expand...
Well you’re applying common sense when looking at the situation so you will absolutely wind up with different conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel and norrislakevol
#40,766
#40,766
LSU-SIU said:
Yeah, I have no idea to be honest. I mean there is definitely some new components to the battle field here. Who would have every thought the world would go back to such a strict artillery and trench type warfare?

What I find confusing with these NPCs is they are giving Putin/Russia the exact thing to justify them invading i.e. can't compete with NATO. Obviously, if Russia can't compete with NATO, strategy wise it makes sense to invade. Russia wants a large buffer to land their tactical nukes. This has been known for 30 years, its no real secret or anything.... the Russian have said for 30 years what the strategy is.

NPC: Putin, your military is dog crap.
Putin: Yup you are correct, I'm sending in more dog crap.

LOL

There isn't anything complex about this, Russia has laid it out on the table for 30 years. As far as the Ukraine, there really isn't much for them to win.
Click to expand...
The justification of a preemptive Russian invasion because NATO was going to jump them later makes no sense.

1. The USSR collapsed. Russia wasnt invaded then, why would they now?
2. It's a defensive alliance, no one is REQUIRED to join in a first strike at Russia. Sure a bunch of countries would get drawn in, but none would be breaking NATO to stay out of Poland attacking Russia first.
3. NATO has been around for 70-80 years and hasnt made any aggressive moves to invade Russia in their entire existence. Russia needs NATO to be the boogie man to keep their people and allies in line, despite decades of evidence that they arent out to get Russia. Even the examples of NATO effing around in other countries shows that it's not an entity dedicated to being anti Russian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan, MontyPython, Hunerwadel and 1 other person
#40,768
#40,768
LouderVol said:
The justification of a preemptive Russian invasion because NATO was going to jump them later makes no sense.

1. The USSR collapsed. Russia wasnt invaded then, why would they now?
Click to expand...

Because before their agreement they had their nukes in the Ukraine. LOL

Russia has constantly said WW2 isn't going to happen, meaning there might be a WW3, but those Nazis aren't coming over the border. Same thing they said 70 years ago, same thing they said 30 years ago. The strategy isn't new, it is way pre-Putin. The ongoing proxy **** in the Ukraine eventually was the straw that broke the back. If anything, Russia probably should have moved years ago.

Cuba had no ability to invade the United States either, so?
 
#40,772
#40,772
LSU-SIU said:
Its all an Afghanistan trap at this point, see you in the years ahead. It didn't start out that way but it is now. Europe will have to spend trillions on the Ukraine, meaning either supplying them, paying them, paying the Russians through higher commodity prices or damage to their own economies.
Click to expand...
Yeah it wasnt the ones supplying the arms that collapsed in Afghanistan.....
 
#40,773
#40,773
LouderVol said:
Yeah it wasnt the ones supplying the arms that collapsed in Afghanistan.....
Click to expand...

The United States/Europe left in quite a hurry, exactly what objective was won? Nothing. Well, other than the defense contracts to throw money into a black hole. Rinse and repeat.

There doesn't seem to be a good outcome option for the Ukraine, it lost i.e. destruction. So, the money is going there to do what? Blow it up some more I guess.

As I said last night, Putin is a cooler customer than me. I would have carpet bombed Kiev a long time ago.

There is no winning for the Ukraine, their grand prize is a pile of rubble.
 
#40,774
#40,774
LSU-SIU said:
The same strategy as they have had for 30 years hence the original agreements in the early 90s. A place to target their tactical nukes in case the Nazi Germans come back or NATO.

They don't give a **** if the Ukraine is destroyed, they just need a buffer to deploy tactical nukes so that they don't have to deploy them in Russia. The Ukraine is the new Stalingard.
Click to expand...
Lol. You think that is the average Russians line of thinking? That may be the average politicians argument to justify their stranglehold on the country, but most Russians think about peace.

It also doesnt make sense, if you are trying to avoid a repeat of history, to do exactly what you did during the time you are trying to invade.

The Soviets invaded multiple neighbors to their west, bringing them closer to the enemy they are trying to avoid. Russia is invading a neighbor to their west, bringing them closer to the enemy they are alledgely trying to avoid.

It's a land grab. Putin has compared himself to the tsar who grabbed up the land of modern russia, peter I think, already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#40,775
#40,775
LSU-SIU said:
No, they invaded Ukraine like they have been warning about because of the potential proxy war from NATO and to have a place to deploy their tactical nukes if the Nazis try and come back. They have said for 70+ years they're not going through WWII again, everyone might get nuked... but the West isn't invading.

---> This all pre-dates Putin.<---

The strategy hasn't changed in 30 years.
Click to expand...
So they created the proxy war they were alledgely trying to avoid.

With what the US has done in the past did Putin really expect that the US wouldnt supply weapons? It's been our strategy for the same length of time of funding the anti soviet/russia fighters no matter where/who they are. Even to our own determinant. But we havent had to dissolve yet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top