War in Ukraine

[USF grad in TN]

Ukrainian sympathizers. That’s it. It could be one or more of any nation actors to privately operating groups. When I happened I said Ukraine would be the clear culprit but how could they pull it off? I’d this theory is correct then some private group was able to pull it off clearly.

Being able to dive a couple of hundred feet or have submersibles capable of delivering the charges are specialized but not unheard of capabilities. I’d guess every large oil platform maintenance company has this kind of capability.

There was supposedly some intelligence that upper level Ukrainian military was developing a plan a few months before it happened. They were not going to tell Zelensky. Then it happened and there were some similarities with the intercepted plan.

 

[AM64]

Offender: "Oh Death! - where is thine sweet kiss?"

Or breath of fresh air wafting through an open window

 

[NorthDallas40]

There was supposedly some intelligence that upper level Ukrainian military was developing a plan a few months before it happened. They were not going to tell Zelensky. Then it happened and there were some similarities with the intercepted plan.

I can believe that. I can even believe benefactors paying someone like Blackrock or an oil platform maintenance group to do it.

 

[Septic]

I highly doubt Russia blew the dam just for heck of it. Ukraine did start the offensive or probed the line somewhere heavily to see the reaction. Especially after the news out of Ukraine the offensive hasn’t started. I see where Putin is now sending help for flood victims.

"help"

 

[BreatheUT]

Couldn’t disagree more if I wanted to. There are a huge number of people and factions that are “pro Ukrainian” and anti-Putin in this current situation with absolutely zero connection to the Ukrainian government

I think you're in too deep and is taking this personally.

The Europeans were concerned about losing the energy from the NS2. What better way to get rid of it as an issue and support Ukraine?

 

[BreatheUT]

US had intelligence of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream project, Washington Post reports


WASHINGTON, June 6 (Reuters) - The United States learned of a Ukrainian plan to attack the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines three months before they were damaged last September by underwater explosions, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing leaked information posted online.

The CIA learned last June, through a European spy agency, that a six-person team of Ukrainian special operations forces intended to blow up the Russia-to-Germany project, the newspaper reported.

The intelligence reporting was shared online on Discord, purportedly by Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira, who was arrested in April and charged in relation to the leak of sensitive U.S. documents. The Washington Post said it obtained a copy from one of Teixeira's online friends.

US had intelligence of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream project, Washington Post reports

 

[MontyPython]

Did Ukraine blow up their own dam?

Probably not. But on the other hand, Crimea was wholly dependent on that reservoir for its fresh water supplies. They're now completely ****ed over the long term. Hmm...

Check out this scenario:

• North Crimean Canal out of commission: check.
• Ukraine cuts Russia’s land bridge from mainland Russia to Crimea: In progress.
• Ukraine destroys the Kerch bridge: On the to-do list.

By the end of the year, Ukraine could very well have the Crimean peninsula completely isolated.

 

[WBO]

If the Ukrainians did it, then it was a brilliant move. You know Europe, especially the French and, to the extent Merkel still has people in the government, the Germans, would have started backing off the gas embargo as soon as 10% of their populace started complaining about shortages. This made them unreliable until the gas was actually cut off, but thanks to a warm winter and a well-planned effort to get more American gas into storage over there, the people hardly noticed.

 

[Burhead]

 

[Paper_Towel]

Just looked it up. The Leo 1's with 105mm are old. The Leo 2 uses the 120mm and it competed with the M1 during its development. Surely Ukraine isn't getting Leo 1..but alas M1A1 are just as old as the Leo 1A5. Regardless there should be millions of 105 rounds available from all NATO stock.

Those old M1A1s are some tough sumbeaches. You might have to fight the old rust bucket, but it’ll stay in the fight.

 

[Orangeburst]

****..what a cluster ****

We had this discussion last year. What if Poland places troops in Ukraine and Russia counterattacks Poland? Is the US committed to defend Poland?

 

[Burhead]

****..what a cluster ****

We had this discussion last year. What if Poland places troops in Ukraine and Russia counterattacks Poland? Is the US committed to defend Poland?

No.

 

[Orangeburst]

No.

Why..because it is a defensive treaty? It could be argued that Poland would provoke Article 5 if attacked on their soil. Not to mention the permanent US bases in Poland that could incur loses and damages.
Regardless, this has disaster probabilities written all over it.

 

[Burhead]

Why..because it is a defensive treaty? It could be argued that Poland would provoke Article 5 if attacked on their soil. Not to mention the permanent US bases in Poland that could incur loses and damages.
Regardless, this has disaster probabilities written all over it.

Yes because its a defensive alliance. Member states can't conduct unilateral action and then fall back on the treaty.

 

[Orangeburst]

Yes because its a defensive alliance. Member states can't conduct unilateral action and then fall back on the treaty.

You know full and well that regardless of some legalese in a treaty that the US would not sit by and watch NATO nations be attacked.

 

[Burhead]

You know full and well that regardless of some legalese in a treaty that the US would not sit by and watch NATO nations be attacked.

I think you're wrong, especially if it was the byproduct of unilateral military action. Hell I don't think the alliance has the stomach to even respond if Russia did attack a member state.

 

[Orangeburst]

I think you're wrong, especially if it was the byproduct of unilateral military action. Hell I don't think the alliance has the stomach to even respond if Russia did attack a member state.

Fair enough, but NATO sounds feckless then.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I think you're in too deep and is taking this personally.

The Europeans were concerned about losing the energy from the NS2. What better way to get rid of it as an issue and support Ukraine?

I’m not “in” at all. I simply disagreed with the assertion.

 

[vols40]

You havent been around long enough to see it but I have always thought Russia was going to win. By now my definition of win has changed dramatically. From getting everything Russia wanted, to they may still hold onto some Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, at the end of this.

My only support is based purely on the bully getting a bloody nose. I dont particularly care who it is. Two bad guys beating each other up I am going to cheer for the smaller bad guy defending his own territory.

Again if you actually cared about having a discussion you could easily go back in this thread and seen that I have consistently said we should be giving Ukraine nothing. I would have no problem selling them weapons, gear, planes, tanks etc. But our politicians being corrupt aholes looking out for our MIC doesnt change the definition of who is a bad guy over there in this conflict. I am capable of holding two different thoughts in my head simulatenously, something that is apparently beyond Ras, you, and the crowd of Putin fan boys.

I know this response is a bit long but please read for my genuine response to your well reasoned post.


Not so fast I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. I am old enough to remember the true fear of the cold war. For some strange reason it was widely accepted that if the Red Army launched a nuclear missile at us we would be safe by simply getting on the floor placing our arms over our head and crouching underneath our desks (how ridiculous does that sound now LMAO) But Russia will always be the evil empire to me. I to respect the "punch the bully in the mouth" mentality. I vividly remember the miracle on ice. I remember that game was not for the gold medal. We had amateurs playing against grown professional men. I remember President Reagan saying "Mr Gorbachev TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" Then watching as Mr Gorbachev did exactly as he was told. I remember the jubilation at that insanely symbolic victory in the Cold war.

But as I have aged I have also learned that the cost of fighting another countries civil war has absolutely zero benefit for the US. Doesn't mean I don't have empathy for the people who are affected. It's called perspective. I have many Laos people who work for me with harrowing bone chilling stories about packing only a few things and trusting strangers with taking them from the only home they ever knew to the hope of just a better chance of survival. And these are some of the most amazing people you can ever imagine to have met.

Look at the # of casualties combined in the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars ( at or around 100,000) and I ask you one simple question looking back now was it worth it? Are any of those countries better off because of our sacrifice?

Apologies if my takes have inferred anything other than my steadfast distaste for the MIC of our country and the propaganda they have pushed resulting in countless heartache for US family members for roughly the last 75 years. I am as conservative as they come I don't hide that. I also have zero use for the Bush, Cheney, McConnell, Graham, Romney wing of the Republican party.

I appreciate your feelings and I bet we are probably way more together than you may realize.

 

[vols40]

Fair enough, but NATO sounds feckless then.

France has throughout history looked forward to the next time they can surrender.

Partial blue font

 

[Burhead]

Godspeed.

 

[vols40]

I beg to differ. We have vested interests in maintaining the peace in Europe and preventing the changing of borders by force after fighting two destructive world wars on the continent.

Where was this interest in 2014? Serious question when Russia took the absolute most important (by far) part of Ukraine in Crimea?

Now I don't have any inside information. This is just one simple insanely handsome man's opinion. But "business" was still good in 2014 for the Military industrial complex in Africa and the middle east. Compare that to 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and the US had told France to hold my beer during the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. And now we have members of both parties lining up to stick their tongues in President Zelenski's mouth. Saying as much money as you need for as long as you need it. It's always about the money.

 

[vols40]

I think you're in too deep and is taking this personally.

The Europeans were concerned about losing the energy from the NS2. What better way to get rid of it as an issue and support Ukraine?

It's always about the money.

 

[Burhead]

Where was this interest in 2014? Serious question when Russia took the absolute most important (by far) part of Ukraine in Crimea?

Now I don't have any inside information. This is just one simple insanely handsome man's opinion. But "business" was still good in 2014 for the Military industrial complex in Africa and the middle east. Compare that to 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and the US had told France to hold my beer during the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. And now we have members of both parties lining up to stick their tongues in President Zelenski's mouth. Saying as much money as you need for as long as you need it. It's always about the money.

I long said that the West is complicit in the start of this latest round of fighting. We should have started arm shipments like we're doing now in 2014 we wasted eight years of preparing the Ukrainian army to deter and withstand an open Russian invasion. You think its a waste of money that's fine you're entitled to your opinion however I am of the opinion we can not allow borders to be changed by force. Furthermore we're entangling an adversary in a quagmire of their own choice without costing American lives. So this is a win-win for all parties: we set back the Russian and degrade and destroy their conventional forces for pennies on the dollar and we gain a new ally in the process.

 

[vols40]

I long said that the West is complicit in the start of this latest round of fighting. We should have started arm shipments like we're doing now in 2014 we wasted eight years of preparing the Ukrainian army to deter and withstand an open Russian invasion. You think its a waste of money that's fine you're entitled to your opinion however I am of the opinion we can not allow borders to be changed by force. Furthermore we're entangling an adversary in a quagmire of their own choice without costing American lives. So this is a win-win for all parties: we set back the Russian and degrade and destroy their conventional forces for pennies on the dollar and we gain a new ally in the process.

I agree we should have helped in 2014.
Russia is not an adversary per se. Yes they have a lot of nukes but that's where it ends.
I fail to see the benefit of Ukraine as an ally? What do they have to offer? I'm open to being persuaded.

If by pennies on the dollar means just about $100 billion then I also may be on board because if that is true at that rate Ukraine will bankrupt Russia and China both in approximately 2.3875 years.