War in Ukraine

[0nelilreb]

Nobody wants war. Just have to be realistic about what he's doing and trying to balance the value of deterrence versus escalation.

That’s a valid reply . The problem here is that establishing a no fly zone over a non NATO country will most definitely be seen as an escalation by Russia .

 

[allvol123]

Winning could be being up 3-0 after the first possession of the game. Doesnt make any predictors on the rest of the game. But at the time its winning.

Civilians continuing to get bombed is not Ukraine winning.
Not controlling your own skies is not Ukraine winning.
Fighting miles outside their capital and on at least two other fronts inside your own territory is not Ukraine winning.

The war isnt over one way or the other.

I never claimed Ukraine is winning.

If Russia is winning its like UT up on Longwood 38-36 with 10 minutes left in the game, Chandler has fouled out and Ziegler has 4 fouls, type of winning. No one is feeling good about the situation.

 

[davethevol]

John Bolton had hacked into Luths VN account . Lol

Bolton and Luther are all about using force to achieve all of their goals, the only difference is that Bolton isn’t dishonest about his methods.

 

[lawgator1]

That’s a valid reply . The problem here is that establishing a no fly zone over a non NATO country will most definitely be seen as an escalation by Russia .

I agree. Don't think we should do it. I confess I don't understand the qualitative difference in escalation whereby a no fly zone is escalation but sending a billion in weapons isn't. But I guess the latter is par for the course for the last century.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Bolton and Luther are all about using force to achieve all of their goals, the only difference is that Bolton isn’t dishonest about his methods.

I could never have imagined Luther being compared to John Bolton.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So you'd be happy with us sending messages as well? I mean one side here has shown restraint, we are equals, or near in nuclear might not conventionally their military is inferior. We could just as easily send messages, but we aren't. There is one tyrant here in this situation.

I doubt NATO wants to play this tit-for-tat game. That is my point. If they felt they could do something, they would have done something before now. That isn't restraint. That is simply a realization of the situation on the ground.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

When did a NATO plane down a Russian aircraft in a no-fly zone?

Turkey shoots down Russian warplane on Syria border

 

[Hunerwadel]

I doubt NATO wants to play this tit-for-tat game. That is my point. If they felt they could do something, they would have done something before now. That isn't restraint. That is simply a realization of the situation on the ground.

Need I remind you that Nato is a defensive alliance? Their interest is in defending member states.

 

[lawgator1]

I doubt NATO wants to play this tit-for-tat game. That is my point. If they felt they could do something, they would have done something before now. That isn't restraint. That is simply a realization of the situation on the ground.

I concur but for a different reason. It's not that I want Russia to "win," it's that the risk of escalation is too high if we insinuate ourselves into it. If Russia hits a NATO country, we take a deep breath but must respond in kind +1, with a clear message that it's off limits.

 

[0nelilreb]

I could never have imagined Luther being compared to John Bolton.

It’s so weird to think that they could sit down at the same table and agree to do the same thing just to see if Putin breaks the zone so they can blame it on him for the escalation .

 

[KB5252]

I doubt NATO wants to play this tit-for-tat game. That is my point. If they felt they could do something, they would have done something before now. That isn't restraint. That is simply a realization of the situation on the ground.

No the question is what we could do. I think Russia has attempted to keep some of it's more sophisticated equipment in reserve in case there were reprisals from the west. But there is little doubt our conventional weapons and our military is better equipped, better trained and more experienced. In terms of nuclear we are fairly evenly equiped but even a fraction of our arsenals would mean lights out for earth.

 

[evillawyer]

I agree. Don't think we should do it. I confess I don't understand the qualitative difference in escalation whereby a no fly zone is escalation but sending a billion in weapons isn't. But I guess the latter is par for the course for the last century.

The no-fly zone would have to be enforced by NATO, which would involve the possibility of NATO forces engaging in direct combat with Russia. The weapons provided to Ukraine would be used by the Ukrainians. That's the difference. But yes, we can debate whether that's a distinction with a difference.

 

[allvol123]

No the question is what we could do. I think Russia has attempted to keep some of it's more sophisticated equipment in reserve in case there were reprisals from the west. But there is little doubt our conventional weapons and our military is better equipped, better trained and more experienced. In terms of nuclear we are fairly evenly equiped but even a fraction of our arsenals would mean lights out for earth.

I do not believe they did. No way they expected reprisals on Russian territory. Or Ukrainian territory for that matter.

 

[KB5252]

I never claimed Ukraine is winning.

If Russia is winning its like UT up on Longwood 38-36 with 10 minutes left in the game, Chandler has fouled out and Ziegler has 4 fouls, type of winning. No one is feeling good about the situation.

I think Russia is further ahead than that but Ukraine has put up one hell of a fight, it's made an international military power shift tactics and bring in elements they didn't count on needing.

 

[allvol123]

I think Russia is further ahead than that but Ukraine has put up on hell of a fight, it's made an international military power shift tactics and bring in elements they didn't count on needing.

Points wise, yea I agree. But statistics no. So you’re up 15. But have major foul trouble, 1 timeout, possession arrow in favor of Ukraine, commentators are repeatedly showcasing what a fool you have for a head coach, etc.

Russia is winning because how could they not given their advantages. But they aren’t “winning”.

 

[KB5252]

I do not believe they did. No way they expected reprisals on Russian territory. Or Ukrainian territory for that matter.

It's possible, if it is Russia's military is extended and further ambitions from Putin in other former Soviet territories, as some here have discussed being his end game, are a pipe dream.

 

[luthervol]

He

he parks 6 typhoon class submarines off the east coast… still want that no fly zone? Putting NATO fighters ( us airman) in close proximity with Russian airmen is a mistake.

And what if he says if we keep arming Ukraine he will put 6 subs off of the east coast?
Or if we do not remove the sanctions?
Mutually assured destruction was intended to be the ticket to peace, not a ticket to commit war crimes with little worry of retaliation.

 

[davethevol]

And what if he says if we keep arming Ukraine he will put 6 subs off of the east coast?
Or if we do not remove the sanctions?
Mutually assured destruction was intended to be the ticket to peace, not a ticket to commit war crimes with little worry of retaliation.

That only works if there aren’t crazy people in charge of nuclear weapons. I’m sure he already has subs parked off our coasts just in case.

 

[Gandalf]

And what if he says if we keep arming Ukraine he will put 6 subs off of the east coast?
Or if we do not remove the sanctions?
Mutually assured destruction was intended to be the ticket to peace, not a ticket to commit war crimes with little worry of retaliation.

Were you not here during the cold war? It wasnt that there was peace so much as there were no great wars, only small ones and spy vs spy action. Mind you, vietnam, being a "small war". Again the second half of the 20th century was not peaceful at all.

 

[landscapingvol]

I doubt NATO wants to play this tit-for-tat game. That is my point. If they felt they could do something, they would have done something before now. That isn't restraint. That is simply a realization of the situation on the ground.

The US would crush Russia on the ground and the sea. The only thing saving Russia right now is their nuclear arsenal

 

[luthervol]

You're right, we don't know the ramifications. Could go better than we think, or it could go sideways in a big hurry. Not worth the gamble. I am not willing to risk potentially millions of European lives and millions of American lives to find out. Even if innocents are dying halfway around the globe. The risk for millions upon millions of dead and financial ruin to all isn't worth it for the sake of Ukraine.

I fully understand that is the position being taken.
I just disagree. Why did we not take him seriously when he claimed sanctions or arming Ukraine were acts of war?
What if he attacks a NATO country? Do we intervene then? Why then and not now? Risking a nuclear attack is justified if it is a NATO nation but not justified when it is not? That seems odd.

 

[hog88]

Until Russia decides to use something biological or chemical. They aren’t going to let this stay a stalemate. It has been said that Russia wants to try out some of their new technology, and this will give them the excuse to do so.

Using a bio or chemical weapon would almost be the same as using a nuclear weapon and Europe would be forced to respond.

 

[luthervol]

Russia started it with Ukraine. That doesnt involve us.

We started with sanctions. That doesnt involve the military, so I am ok with it.

We start enforcing or declaring a no fly zone, that does involve the military, and that would be the US inserting itself militarily into something only involving Ulraine and Russia militarily.

I dont consider the world wide volunteers, ob both sides, as military involvement for the record.

Giving them military weapons doesn't involve the military?

 

[hog88]

They wouldn't shoot down Russian plans if Russia didn't violate the no-fly zone.
Why do you guys think he would violate the no-fly zone.
Do you actually think Putin wants a war he knows he cannot win?

It's pretty apparent Putin has been kept in the dark about his true military capability so what makes you think he believes he cannot win a war against NATO?

 

[luthervol]

I don't think anyone that has skin in the game is interested in finding out. For now it's a military conflict between Ukraine and Russia. For the US, NATO, or European countries to declare a no fly zone and enforce it escalates the military involvement. Nobody wants that right now other than Ukraine.

Who doesn't have skin in the game?