War in Ukraine

#64,052
#64,052
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's a war that Ukraine (and NATO) can't win. Had they simply abided by the Minsk Agreements, their country would be intact.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
YZPjZ7BmfeSrgwEzIiXdXvcr2DMXH987oEmBnnhY0ba9T8V4mGoZ-X6qztAQjSv4DB4BrVBh_baAQajKDkCmdZyiG-iiCs063XOd9LvOm3-rO0A2Zuo25cxrEdqg7z3pHhc2RMDugVVWuqSi60QMPgjXLNV1Y-4-F1chSRGBm76MfXTua-OunD8enTDN3F3OsAeka-gRcZiBBvhJJ4Bn5_ksA1vougQrRqciPk2YKoj6_h6M7IQPs6PiJiuRUT92HAVxDegQPRDUt478-Waf4wAC_5lJDTgmzA_nAo0zV843B_K8rEFFZFlnbXru5w_4zCyb_CPB4J-isO9S9C3FCNoJYHTOeVzAKDRSj7HCNJwUfuqhu77kmnbjVDUayHMIlgNm8bakFd_HCmg76hQO6Zppw0Z2oNIs9EARyEgEUTQsLVFsRS7i2Kni5Q-4MGci3ly3PbkVbhB5HzMA3yzHxs_7ijidY4qukYnWk1xM21dhSqv36lNWsqBeVI0LlYFVBkdwAeKeefY03LbMRNV7KPOnGOBTz6S4PxyBTRt8c7TCegZ6bs7XZtG4ACL9WWM1iyEXyMGyiLMKXBtiNdNNsVNQEJ7ux_vZxz6KQFp-Wm0p-T7QsPgQmAcAqyPTLfEPu29e_xavgiAFCIg25LLT9q11BOOz05Q19gIyi6HiIDXX34JYDlID9hYKBxRkjH3meQEJioRoGkOiD48fu0ZMN65F7N-IcUz1aXKrSka3BAXw3-YD_i23xQrk0vBCYjXQR5JqO0Fr5rc664nYByyaXllSeAluw66RfYDS9ovDHkcypz2Xq_KukCwsWXx2lvmL-iM19wVt63aY3Oa6d10WpKa3AOT7HnNM9w5aIFhGzH7aQiPQXLJibS2Med3Ez7r4etyzCm7O-7QSL3UBuBF1Oz6v8-1wlfFkIp5WRIbNCYXI=w600-h659-s-no
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, InVOLuntary, tvolsfan and 5 others
#64,053
#64,053
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's a war that Ukraine (and NATO) can't win. Had they simply abided by the Minsk Agreements, their country would be intact.
Click to expand...

It would be won just like Iraq in the 90’s, but this time no rise in the population cause they are Ukrainian. NATO’s mission would to eliminate all Russian force’s in Ukraine (the border that was agreed on by all parties). NATO would not be invading Russia. Which would be a longer drawed out war but at the end same outcome a NATO victory. Rinse and repeat with you and your ORK propaganda
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Septic and BeardedVol
#64,065
#64,065
Velo Vol said:
I don't think so, but it seemed like Russian advances had been stopped.
Click to expand...
we won't really know won/lost imo, until after the war when we can really reflect on how the battle impacted others. If Ukraine has been bleeding Russia as bad as Ukraine claims over Bahkmut then yes, I think its a win for them, even if they lose the city. If Russia has been bleeding Ukraine as bad as Russia claims, then no I don't think you can consider the attack a failure even if they don't control all of it.

all we know is that bunch of people have died and neither side have been able to turn this into a strategic win yet. tactically I would think Russia is winning the fight as they control most of the town, but it will come down to what cost.
 
#64,066
#64,066
LouderVol said:
we won't really know won/lost imo, until after the war when we can really reflect on how the battle impacted others. If Ukraine has been bleeding Russia as bad as Ukraine claims over Bahkmut then yes, I think its a win for them, even if they lose the city. If Russia has been bleeding Ukraine as bad as Russia claims, then no I don't think you can consider the attack a failure even if they don't control all of it.

all we know is that bunch of people have died and neither side have been able to turn this into a strategic win yet. tactically I would think Russia is winning the fight as they control most of the town, but it will come down to what cost.
Click to expand...

Politicians and defense contractors are rubbing their hands together dreaming of the Billions coming their way.
 
#64,067
#64,067
Its rapidly getting to the point where Putin's only chance to even physically survive this debacle is some sort of withdrawal from all of Ukraine, with Putin leaving power in a reasonably brief time, and guaranteed some sort of protection. Otherwise, as Russia keeps losing men and equipment, he will find himself invited off the planet by his own folks.
 
#64,070
#64,070
scooty_vol said:
Heck I don't know, we all know how most peace treaties work. Based on your logic, if there is no middle ground then we send troops in now or we cut off funding. No reason to go half-way

If you think Russia isn't going to stop, Ukraine and America have few options.
Click to expand...

How do you define "compromise" to get to "peace" when one nation is plainly an aggressor and attacks another country? Do you think that nations don't really have boundaries these days, and land is up for grabs if you want to take it? Have we not gotten past that kind of behavior? What if Japan had followed up Pearl Harbor with an invasion force? Should we have said you can have a couple of Hawaiian islands in the spirit of peace and compromise?

Was Crimea not enough? You can look at a map and see Pootin's thinking. He annexed Crimea, but it wasn't adjacent to Russia, and a bridge wasn't good enough. Next step is bite off some of Ukraine, so Crimea and Russia have a land link. There's nothing about this strategy that would lead to "compromise" for Ukraine unless you think compromise is the kid telling the playground bully he can have his lunch money ... every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and Hunerwadel
#64,071
#64,071
AM64 said:
How do you define "compromise" to get to "peace" when one nation is plainly an aggressor and attacks another country? Do you think that nations don't really have boundaries these days, and land is up for grabs if you want to take it? Have we not gotten past that kind of behavior? What if Japan had followed up Pearl Harbor with an invasion force? Should we have said you can have a couple of Hawaiian islands in the spirit of peace and compromise?

Was Crimea not enough? You can look at a map and see Pootin's thinking. He annexed Crimea, but it wasn't adjacent to Russia, and a bridge wasn't good enough. Next step is bite off some of Ukraine, so Crimea and Russia have a land link. There's nothing about this strategy that would lead to "compromise" for Ukraine unless you think compromise is the kid telling the playground bully he can have his lunch money ... every day.
Click to expand...
I remember when a land bridge to Odessa/Transnistria was on the table.
 
#64,074
#64,074
LouderVol said:
I remember when a land bridge to Odessa/Transnistria was on the table.
Click to expand...

Seems like the Sea of Azov makes a pretty nice piece of border - especially if you use the Don and Siverskyi Donets Rivers to the existing Ukrainian border to complete the boundary - of course, Russia would be losing with that arrangement. Still it would provide definite geographical features having good definition. Maybe the Russians should be talking to their Chinese buddies about filling in the Kerch Strait where the Sea of Azov runs into the Black Sea since the Chinese are so determined to build land where it never went before. Honestly I'd rather see Ukraine retake Crimea and end the whole thing about Russia needing access anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and USF grad in TN
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top