War in Ukraine

[NorthDallas40]

Fair game for Ukraine, absolutely. When in a war for survival do what you need to do.

No, Putin is not fair game for any other nation.

The bald dwarf is fair game to Ukrainians or Russians but yeah that’s about it. Any other nation making an attempt on him is clearly an act of war.

 

[evillawyer]

This can't be right. @Rasputin_Vol assured us this was all about NATO creep and not about empire building.

 

[Orangeburst]

that 2% spending goes back to 2006 and here we are so many years later even during a war
What kind of alliance is this? Why should we keep the BM if they donr even meet their commitments?
Trump was correct once again

 

[Orangeburst]

For some officials in Washington and London, Zelenskyy's decision to tell his staunch backers that Ukraine deserved "respect," as NATO met to discuss additional support for Kyiv, was a step too far.

Britain's defense secretary, Ben Wallace, perhaps unburdened by his forthcoming departure from the role, took umbrage at Zelenskyy's comments, saying Kyiv should be mindful of war fatigue and skeptics among its allies questioning the massive amount of continued funding. The U.K., for one, he said, was not an Amazon warehouse that could supply endless weaponry to Kyiv when it was given a "shopping list."

Ukraine has tested its allies' patience with its military strategy and demands

 

[BeardedVol]

@Rasputin_Vol your boys are really losing their touch.

 

[norrislakevol]

For some officials in Washington and London, Zelenskyy's decision to tell his staunch backers that Ukraine deserved "respect," as NATO met to discuss additional support for Kyiv, was a step too far.

Britain's defense secretary, Ben Wallace, perhaps unburdened by his forthcoming departure from the role, took umbrage at Zelenskyy's comments, saying Kyiv should be mindful of war fatigue and skeptics among its allies questioning the massive amount of continued funding. The U.K., for one, he said, was not an Amazon warehouse that could supply endless weaponry to Kyiv when it was given a "shopping list."

Ukraine has tested its allies' patience with its military strategy and demands

We knew this would happen eventually. The west is growing weary of the war and the cost of it.

 

[MontyPython]

that 2% spending goes back to 2006 and here we are so many years later even during a war
What kind of alliance is this? Why should we keep the BM if they donr even meet their commitments?
Trump was correct once again

Did that 2% spending amount include individual country's donations to Ukraine?

Nope.

So this really isn't a fair statement now.

I think it's good that Trump applied pressure on NATO countries to meet their financial obligations but, obviously, I don't think it's good that he blackmailed Ukraine along the way.

 

[MontyPython]

Watching this conflict has reached the mind-numbing stage of basically watching paint dry.

Jeeeeeeez. Come on Ukraine, do something. Do ANYTHING to get the ball rolling.

Meanwhile, Russia's financial house of cards seems to be falling. With the Ruble down 32% in 6 months, it would appear that the combination of sanctions, lower oil prices, fewer exports, higher military costs and brain drain are finally biting. Could the end of this war actually be precipitated by a Russian economic collapse? Now that would be both fitting and awesome.

Nice country you got there, Vlad. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

 

[LouderVol]

Did that 2% spending amount include individual country's donations to Ukraine?

Nope.

So this really isn't a fair statement now.

I think it's good that Trump applied pressure on NATO countries to meet their financial obligations but, obviously, I don't think it's good that he blackmailed Ukraine along the way.

2% NATO funding has NEVER included $$$ given to other countries. that would be double counting any cost they already paid.

 

[LouderVol]

Watching this conflict has reached the mind-numbing stage of basically watching paint dry.

Jeeeeeeez. Come on Ukraine, do something. Do ANYTHING to get the ball rolling.

Meanwhile, Russia's financial house of cards seems to be falling. With the Ruble down 32% in 6 months, it would appear that the combination of sanctions, lower oil prices, fewer exports, higher military costs and brain drain are finally biting. Could the end of this war actually be precipitated by a Russian economic collapse? Now that would be both fitting and awesome.

Nice country you got there, Vlad. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

View attachment 568524

you realize that war isn't a movie or a video game right? it often drags on for a LONG time. which is what I have been saying for a long time.

we were bombed basically at the start of 1942 by the Japanese, D-Day wasn't until 2 years later.

people tend to forget that Ukraine is still the little guy. Expecting them to put together huge offensives that are going to crush a prepared Russia is a fools hope. Its always been long odds for Ukraine, and the aid from the west isn't nearly enough to push them to being favored enough to put in a western styled offensive. a rushed offensive could be just as damaging as an offensive by russia.

 

[KB5252]

you realize that war isn't a movie or a video game right? it often drags on for a LONG time. which is what I have been saying for a long time.

we were bombed basically at the start of 1942 by the Japanese, D-Day wasn't until 2 years later.

people tend to forget that Ukraine is still the little guy. Expecting them to put together huge offensives that are going to crush a prepared Russia is a fools hope. Its always been long odds for Ukraine, and the aid from the west isn't nearly enough to push them to being favored enough to put in a western styled offensive. a rushed offensive could be just as damaging as an offensive by russia.

Latest word is the counteroffensive has been a problem for Ukraine. Huge losses. I thought the better strategy was to fight defensively, take off some guerilla style tactics with smaller units to demoralize the enemy....... And to wait Russia out. Give Russia a win they can sell and they keep enough of of the public on board. It is and was a risky move.

 

[Rocky_Top_Vol13]

 

[MontyPython]

... and the aid from the west isn't nearly enough to push them to being favored enough to put in a western styled offensive.

Non sequitur.

If we haven't given them enough offensive equipment to conduct a western-style offensive, then why have we taught and *encouraged* them to conduct a western-style offensive?

Alternatively, you're arguing that we underestimated Russian ability to stop the UKR offensive.

Which is it?

It's been 2+ months since the offensive began, and there's not much to show for it. Moreover, it doesn't appear that western tactics are working, frankly. Yes, UKR is apparently "winning" the war of artillery attrition underway in the South, but will RUS ever actually hit a point when these stocks are depleted and the front vulnerable?

I hope the US and UKR got a Plan B.

I mean, honestly, waiting for an economic collapse of Russia may be a realistic and potential outcome, but it would require lots of patience and lots of Ukrainian lives.

 

[MontyPython]

2% NATO funding has NEVER included $$$ given to other countries. that would be double counting any cost they already paid.

More double talk on your part.

In reality, if a NATO country is donating to UKR right now, they are contributing to NATO defense.

 

[hog88]

More double talk on your part.

In reality, if a NATO country is donating to UKR right now, they are contributing to NATO defense.

No they are not, that's asinine.

 

[MontyPython]

No they are not, that's asinine.

LOL. You've forgotten the entire history of the Cold War and the purpose and intent of NATO.

How convenient... or plain ignorant.

 

[hog88]

LOL. You've forgotten the entire history of the Cold War and the purpose and intent of NATO.

How convenient... or plain ignorant.

Supporting Ukraine is not defending NATO. Russia is and never was going to attack NATO.

 

[MontyPython]

Supporting Ukraine is not defending NATO. Russia is and never was going to attack NATO.

And what, precisely, was the reason *why* Russia was never going to attack NATO?

Do tell.

 

[LouderVol]

Latest word is the counteroffensive has been a problem for Ukraine. Huge losses. I thought the better strategy was to fight defensively, take off some guerilla style tactics with smaller units to demoralize the enemy....... And to wait Russia out. Give Russia a win they can sell and they keep enough of of the public on board. It is and was a risky move.

yeah, I have said for a while their apparent strategy didn't make sense to me.

 

[hog88]

And what, precisely, was the reason *why* Russia was never going to attack NATO?

Do tell.

Nuclear weapons.

 

[MontyPython]

Nuclear weapons.

Wow.

By your "logic", therefore, if we provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons, then Russia will no longer be able to attack Ukraine.

Guess we finally got the solution to this war. THANKS, HOGG.

 

[hog88]

Wow.

By your "logic", therefore, if we provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons, then Russia will no longer be able to attack Ukraine.

Guess we finally got the solution to this war. THANKS, HOGG.

View attachment 568555

Who was the last nuclear armed state to be invaded?

 

[MontyPython]

Who was the last nuclear armed state to be invaded?

India, Pakistan and Israel for starters.

Your theory is crap. If we gave Ukraine nuclear weapons right now, it literally could spark WWIII.

 

[LouderVol]

Non sequitur.

If we haven't given them enough offensive equipment to conduct a western-style offensive, then why have we taught and *encouraged* them to conduct a western-style offensive?

Alternatively, you're arguing that we underestimated Russian ability to stop the UKR offensive.

Which is it?

It's been 2+ months since the offensive began, and there's not much to show for it. Moreover, it doesn't appear that western tactics are working, frankly. Yes, UKR is apparently "winning" the war of artillery attrition underway in the South, but will RUS ever actually hit a point when these stocks are depleted and the front vulnerable?

I hope the US and UKR got a Plan B.

I mean, honestly, waiting for an economic collapse of Russia may be a realistic and potential outcome, but it would require lots of patience and lots of Ukrainian lives.

you seem to be selling the Ras argument of the US calling the shots in Ukraine. I never have. we are offering advice, input, and intelligence; Ukraine still has to take and use all of that appropriately.

we encouraged that strategy because its all we knew. We have seen multiple articles coming out stating about how the western nations have been quietly adjusting their own strategies based on the results they are seeing from Ukraine.

The old soviet strategy wouldn't have worked for Ukraine. that relies on just having more than your opponent, and being able to push in massive waves. Ukraine would never be able to outnumber the Russians. The NATO strat doesn't rely on numbers, so it made sense from that stand point. and we haven't come anywhere close to arming/training their entire army in western strats. Its just been some units. We likely hoped it would be enough for break thrus, but the thing about war is you never actually know what is going to be enough or going to work at all. one major pitfall is our reliance on air superiority, the combined arms approach can work great if you actually have combined arms. right now Ukraine doesn't have the air portion. that's a reality the west hasn't had to deal with before. our strategy and generals aren't perfect, and I don't think the UKR ones are inherently better either.

I have been arguing for the WW1 Canadian approach, it was effective against a defense in depth, against the Germans in WW1, and we are seeing similar defensive strategies from Russia now. Look for local weaknesses, make small gains. Consolidate gains before pushing. Never get dog headed about specific objectives, but keep a constant but light pressure while continuously looking for weaknesses. The western strategy of a grand attack just invites death against a defense established enough to have multiple layers, the impetus dies out, and without that the troops are vulnerable.

and why can't it be both? your two options aren't prohibitive of each other, and both go to explain the other.

I have said from the beginning this is the Winter War and not World War 2. people kept assuming that because there was an inherent "weakness" or obsolesce from old strategies or equipment that it would no longer work at all. something else I have been pointing out the flawed assumption of.

 

[LouderVol]

More double talk on your part.

In reality, if a NATO country is donating to UKR right now, they are contributing to NATO defense.

how is it double talk? got anything to back up that NATO spending has been calculated based on getting to double count aid? we made the equipment, that should count once. Giving it away to another nation does not count as NATO spending a second time because it has already been counted the first time. you are arguing for outright fraud, which isn't surprising considering some of your economic takes.

and no, no they aren't. If Putin actually wanted to attack NATO he could have done that without Ukraine. also Russia isn't the only threat out there, or even the biggest. So even if hurting Russia was the goal it is still weapons away from NATO while other, bigger, more imminent threats remain, like China.