War in Ukraine

#78,676
#78,676
Why is the entire Ukrainian line of contact crumbling if they have been inflicting such heavy and high ratio losses to Russia (according to western propaganda)? It couldnt be that the opposite is actually true? Nah, couldnt be.

Congrats to the death cultists though.
 
#78,677
#78,677
jvol1 said:
The war is already happening. No mongering involved. The Russians, the actual war mongers here, are the ones who started it for reasons of tyranny.

When russia attacks Poland or Belarus next, they'll remind everyone they're a nuclear armed country again. Are we just going to let russia march across all of europe out of fear of fighting a country with nukes? Generally speaking nukes should be a weapon of last resort only used when a regime is in danger of falling because of the MAD logic of nukes. You cant win if you use them.
Click to expand...

Let's send troops
 
#78,679
#78,679
LouderVol said:
I am not the one equivocating. you are the one trying to hide that war requires acts of aggression. you are trying to double speak about how the war between Russia and Ukraine is an attack on the US to justify our involvement. you are the one being very Ministry of Peace trying to get us involved in a war that isn't our business.

we already have an alliance in place that protects our strategic interests in the area. Its NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO. Putin won't do anything to NATO, as I pointed out earlier, look at Finland adding 800+ miles of NATO border. This is after sharing several hundred miles of land border with NATO already, plus all of his sea access being NATO controlled. Putin couldn't do crap then, he won't be able to do crap later. Putin winning a war against Ukraine won't do anything to change that.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is to nip it in the bud by stopping the russians in ukraine, ie helping to defending Ukraine's territory, before they push the attack further westward. Basically, this is just a replay of wwii with the russians claiming they need ukraine to have a "little breathing room," instead of accepting the cold war is over and joining nato themselves. How many fewer people (from all sides) would have died then if the world had United to defend poland?
 
#78,681
#78,681
LSU-SIU said:
The U.S. Constitution was founded on the principle of a Republic hence Clause IV, democracy is not even mentioned. I would say most would say its a Republic with democratic principles as far as elections ie representatives of the Republic. A pure Democracy imo is mob rule. You don't see them mentioning Democracy in any way in the Declaration of Independence and for good reason i.e. the founders believed the One > Many in many instance as far as life and liberty.

The vast majority of countries have elections, very few if any actually have pure form of Democracy if any. A pure democracy is just mob rule. Without specifics its hard to gauge if people are actually serious on this subject.
Click to expand...
Clearly the us is a representative democracy.

Most people would say russia and Syria are more autocracies or dictatorships rather than republics, though. The powers of the state are effectively combined in the executive branch and the rulings and proceedings of the legislative and judicial branches are subject to the executive. This kind of works because of the royalties from oil, which can be used to keep the enough of people happy enough that they ignore the repressive aspects of dictatorial rule, as in Saudi Arabia. Why some part of this country would want to abandon 1776 for that type of government baffles me, but that's what trump is bringing. At least until he betrays the right who elected him by instituting gun control, the classic dictator move.
 
#78,682
#78,682
volgr said:
Why is the entire Ukrainian line of contact crumbling if they have been inflicting such heavy and high ratio losses to Russia (according to western propaganda)? It couldnt be that the opposite is actually true? Nah, couldnt be.

Congrats to the death cultists though.
Click to expand...
The Russians suffered worse losses than the Germans in WW2, but still won. K:D rations don't mean a whole lot.

and usually when I think of "collapsing" I think of the Baltimore Bridge, not the slow decay of entropy chipping away a piece at a time.
 
#78,685
#78,685
jvol1 said:
I think the idea is to nip it in the bud by stopping the russians in ukraine, ie helping to defending Ukraine's territory, before they push the attack further westward. Basically, this is just a replay of wwii with the russians claiming they need ukraine to have a "little breathing room," instead of accepting the cold war is over and joining nato themselves. How many fewer people (from all sides) would have died then if the world had United to defend poland?
Click to expand...

You can join up right now, and you can nip it in the bud.

Join the Brave
 
#78,686
#78,686
GNhW4xoWgAAQ-iX
 
#78,687
#78,687
jvol1 said:
I think the idea is to nip it in the bud by stopping the russians in ukraine, ie helping to defending Ukraine's territory, before they push the attack further westward. Basically, this is just a replay of wwii with the russians claiming they need ukraine to have a "little breathing room," instead of accepting the cold war is over and joining nato themselves. How many fewer people (from all sides) would have died then if the world had United to defend poland?
Click to expand...
did you forget that the Russians seized half of Poland under the same pretext of needing a little room? and grabbed up parts of Finland too. one of the key justifications used was the protection of the ones doing the expansion.

How would that be any different than what NATO is potentially doing with this war? Splitting the difference with Russia. immaterial if an entity of "Ukraine" still exists after we partition it with Russia.

modern day russia is never going to be able to expand into NATO territory. They already share a pretty lengthy border with NATO. if they were going to attack NATO they would have already done so. Letting us watch them fight Ukraine gives us time to prepare and build up our industry, as well as costing Russia men and equipment. and it doesn't matter if they have more men and equipment than Ukraine and can take worse losses than Ukraine does, its still a finite number. and their losses aren't going to be replaced. even if they take Ukraine it will take a couple decades to get it back up to speed after all the destruction. especially trying to replace the soldiers, assuming they can even find people willing to fight.
 
#78,688
#78,688
LouderVol said:
you need to go back and read precisely what you said. you said guarantee the security of Ukraine. Hog was right, no where does the Budapest Memorandum say that we guarantee their security.

We didn't promise anything, we were never dating, in fact we turned her down. and didn't stand up for her when our buddies, the rest of NATO, also turned her down. and at this point you want us to take actions that would directly endanger our "wives" just so we can go try to stand up for this girl we never even dated. so if you are going to go get in a fight that is dragging your wife into it as well I think you are the one who needs to reconsider your priorities. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much when trying to prove her manhood here.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Per the Brookings Institute:

"December 5 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document. That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia. This is not just a matter of living up to U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of security assurances, which could contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation in the future."

Even Wikipedia:

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom."
 
Last edited:
#78,690
#78,690
volgr said:
Why is the entire Ukrainian line of contact crumbling if they have been inflicting such heavy and high ratio losses to Russia (according to western propaganda)? It couldnt be that the opposite is actually true? Nah, couldnt be.

Congrats to the death cultists though.
Click to expand...
500k dead Russians and they are retreating to the west as quickly as possible...
 
  • Like
Reactions: volgr
#78,691
#78,691
MontyPython said:
Wrong.

Per the Brookings Institute:

"December 5 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document. That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia. This is not just a matter of living up to U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of security assurances, which could contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation in the future."

Even Wikipedia:

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom."
Click to expand...
your own quote says "assurances" not guarantees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#78,694
#78,694
Haven’t kept up with this thread so may have been speculated already - but what is the end game for Russia here? What is victory?
 
#78,697
#78,697
MontyPython said:
Wrong.

Per the Brookings Institute:

"December 5 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document. That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia. This is not just a matter of living up to U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of security assurances, which could contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation in the future."

Even Wikipedia:

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom."
Click to expand...

If we don't want to honor our security commitments, then we can return the nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and ballistic missiles that Ukraine had to return to Russia, or destroy, in order to fulfill their obligation under the agreement, which they completed years ago; it would only be fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#78,698
#78,698
BeardedVol said:
If we don't want to honor our security commitments, then we can return the nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and ballistic missiles that Ukraine had to return to Russia, or destroy, in order to fulfill their obligation under the agreement, which they completed years ago; it would only be fair.
Click to expand...
Exactamundo!
 
#78,699
#78,699
MontyPython said:
"That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia."

-Brookings Institute
Click to expand...
so still no guarantees.

what does the memorandum include as far what support is, or pushing back against the Russians include? An actual guarantee, one worth a darn, spells out what it means.

compare the wording of the memorandum against NATO article 5.

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

specifies armed force.
 
#78,700
#78,700
Rocky_Top_Vol13 said:
GNhW4xoWgAAQ-iX
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder how overinflated these estimates are.

Then, I see videos of a golf cart packed full of Russians driving across an open field on the frontline and getting torched by machine gun fire. At a certain point, Russian incompetence crosses the threshold from plain stupid military tactics to downright suicide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top