|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
posted April 06, 2025 04:42 PM |
|
|
@sal
Okay? USA has about enough ammo in a war witn China for a few weeks, then it's gone. Computer war simulations consistetly show that it would quickly lose a conventional war because of its production ability.
It takes a long time to build an airforce or a navy. It doesn't take long to upscale ammunition (including artillery ammo).
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted April 06, 2025 04:44 PM |
|
|
I'm asking all of this as a hypothetical to JJ. I've spent the past 500 pages arguing with him about trying to reach a peace.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2025 04:58 PM |
|
|
Making a decision to send troops into Ukraine and - more importantly - into a war with Russia would spell the end for every government in Europe deciding to do so. There wouldn't be a majority for that in any country for that.
But what's more important, it wouldn't stop the war. The Russians would still send their drones and missiles, shoot on stuff and advance where possible. And the "allied" side had a logistics problem. All the stuff for their forces would have to be transported to their troops.
Then, as I said, German troops at least are not at all combat ready. It would take them a while to develop that.
Then, all countries in question would have to check against all eventualities with NATO: If, say, France and Germany would send troops, and French and German troops would shoot at Russians and be shot at, and as a consequence there would be clashes with Russia outside of Ukraine - would that constituate an attack on a NATO country or not? Probably not, because the other NATO states wouldn't want to be involved - but that would also weaken NATO.
Which means NATO countries could so these things only in agreement with NATO command and that means implicitely with the USA.
Then there is the economic side. Providing weapons is one thing. Financing a military action involving, say, 10.000 soldiers is something else entirely. And those troops would have to be rotated.
Bottom line is - no. Sending troops is complicated and would help only with a maximum of preparation and effort.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 06, 2025 05:18 PM |
|
|
blizzard said:
UK, France, and Italy are all in the top 10 most powerful militaries in the world. Germany is just a hair behind. It's the 4th strongest in Europe.
Manufacturing wise, W Europe dwarves Russia.
If the vote went through, these countries could send a force to hold Ukraine. Russia would stand zero chance of advancing.
It's not a matter of incapability. It's just the risk of it. They're afraid of a Russia that feels desperate.
I checked and was surprised my information is outdated.. But I don't believe in statistics..
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 10, 2025 05:48 PM |
|
|
A bald-faced Putler can't get a Ukraine.. Shame North-korean and Chinese soldiers can't help Russia..  A very shameful weak! How? They've a little Eastern dick..
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted April 28, 2025 11:30 PM |
|
|
Putin has failed to put forward any sort of peace offer in the past month that isn't totally unreasonable, i.e. Ukraine isn't allowed to join NATO (we already knew that), it isn't allowed to have European troops stationed on its soil after a peace settlement, it isn't allowed to not officially recognize the illegally annexed provinces, and it isn't allowed to have security guarantees by the United States.
So, essentially, it is suppose to roll on its belly and hope for the best.
Sal, what would be your idea of a realistic peace offer?
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 12:51 AM |
|
|
I already gave my stance on but no ears to hear.
Both Ukraine and Russia diplomats sat down in Istanbul for peace in march 2022. Russia wasn't asking for any territory, just for neutrality, not joining NATO and security for ethnic Russians in Ukraine. That was on the table, to discuss.
Meanwhile the narrative was that Russia was weak and was going to lose military, then economically under sanctions, and then Putin will be removed one way or another. So Biden sent Boris Johnson to urge Zelensky to withdraw from negotiations and let weapons talk, promising him tons of weapons. Europeans juveniles joined the pack, listening to the dominant alpha. Ukrainians left negotiations then a true war started from what was still a skirmish. We've been told that victory is certain. Journalists had an pitch on reporting how Russians dissemble washing machines for chips, or how they send waves after waves to a certain death, armed with shovels. The big June counter-offensive was aiming for Moscow, nothing less. It was euphoria.
So now you have what you created, except that the whole narrative was based on false information. Or on pure lies, your call.
A logical approach (as logic was never used until now, only emotional postures) would be to acknowledge the military situation and then evaluate from a dynamic perspective, what in 2 months, what in 10 months, what in 2 years, with things going like they do now. Then consider how a peace now will do compared to a capitulation later, which is what will probably occur. We had a similar situation in 1967, after the 6 days war, when Israel annexed parts of the territory it held military, doubling its size. Why now everyone is shocked but not then? And, most relevant, why Zelensky insists keeping the power over regions that he despised and brought only death upon, during 8 full years ? If not ego.
Of course, if you still listen to same medias selling the idea that Russia is on collapse, then your vision will be blurred, as it was during 3 years, yet you didn't learn. Trump was the only one presenting facts, for once, during the conference with Zelensky babbling nonsense, but somehow many considered that unpleasant reality as offensive. Is up on them now.
____________
You must not OFFEND people - Jolly Joker
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 08:45 AM |
|
|
That's completely untrue. That was never the narrative, and AFAIK, Bucha was the turning point of the negotiations - plus, the ever relevant question about safety guarantees.
Putin has written books about how the Ukraine wouldn't have any rights to exist, years before the invasion. See, the problem is, that for the current Russia Ukraine is basically a war of freeing Russian lands from unrightful occupants.
The last months have AGAIN demonstrated that Putin isn't interested in peace - which is pretty obvious considering he could have had it anytime he wanted.
The Ukraine wants peace - just not "no matter the cost".
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 10:25 AM |
|
|
This is wokepedia level, where everything is painted to lower russian credibility. Exit nuanced or neutral reports, red carpet to anti-russian outlets and monochrome analysis.
Such complex patterns can't be reported as 100% accurate, this is the world of high crisis negotiations behind curtains, where political pressures are nebulous and decisive. You can see how it worked HERE, then you have Victoria Nuland talking about, the same who was planning who will be in Ukraine government after the Maidan coup,then you have Naftali Bennet who played a large role in those April 2022 negotiations.
The bottom point is, without the Western political pressure to go to war as weapons will be generously supplied as long as it takes, Zelensky would have taken a much more prudent stance and those negotiations would have probably be settled with a better issue for Ukraine, when Russia wasn't in the winner position by far. Everyone was expecting for a short war, because economically Russia was expected to fall within months.
And again, you are distorting Putin's words. He didn't deny the right of Ukraine to exist, today, he only remembered Ukraine didn't exist 200 years ago, and that it was an artificial creation by Lenin, which it was. Is like asserting today Israel is an artificial creation by the UN, which is true, it wasn't there 100 years ago, but that doesn't lead to denying its right to exist, for numerous historical and cultural reasons.
Putin wrote HERE a long and rich article about the bounds and the historical unity between Ukraine and Russia, but that of course goes down the toilet today, why read when you have Himars to spare.
"Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!"
____________
You must not OFFEND people - Jolly Joker
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 11:36 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 11:39 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
The bottom point is, without the Western political pressure to go to war as weapons will be generously supplied as long as it takes, Zelensky would have taken a much more prudent stance and those negotiations would have probably be settled with a better issue for Ukraine, when Russia wasn't in the winner position by far.
That doesn't fit the facts. The facts are that a deal with Russia depended on a severe reduction of the military assets Ukraine would be allowed to have AFTER the treaty - and Ukrainians were wondering whether that would be a good deal. I mean, think about Ukraine's experience here: they HAD given Russia all the nuclear weapons in exchange for peacy guarantees and so on - but that had only made them vulnerable for a Russian attack. There wasn't any pressure - I mean, what kind of PRESSURE would and could the Brits (not being in the EU anymore) or Johnson have used? I mean, seriously? I don't see any, that would have outweighed a SERIOUS LASTING peace treaty.
Quote:
And again, you are distorting Putin's words. He didn't deny the right of Ukraine to exist, today, he only remembered Ukraine didn't exist 200 years ago, and that it was an artificial creation by Lenin, which it was. Is like asserting today Israel is an artificial creation by the UN, which is true, it wasn't there 100 years ago, but that doesn't lead to denying its right to exist, for numerous historical and cultural reasons.
Putin says, even in that essay, that Russia was ROBBED. Which means, he basically claims that "the Bolsheviks" draw "arbitrary" border lines and made grants to Ukraine that shouldn't have been valid when the USSR was dissolved.
That's basically revisionism - and more. Because it's clear, when you read it, that everything that EVER has been part of Russia he considers "by rights" Russian. Which is ridiculous to claim. "Ukraine" as a term has been used first in the end of the 12. century. The region has a very checkered and varied history and there is no telling what is Ukrainian and what is not in a historical sense.
So all this is just smoke and mirrors by Putin - who, let's not forget that - has become a dictator. Russia is NOT a free country in any real sense, especially if you are part of an "extremist minority" (like being gay), so Putin claiming oppression of minorities in Ukraine is pretty rich indeed.
Putin wrote HERE a long and rich article about the bounds and the historical unity between Ukraine and Russia, but that of course goes down the toilet today, why read when you have Himars to spare.
Quote:
"Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!"
Right. So why doesn't treat Putin Ukraine with respect?
Yesterday Russia rejected Trump's peace plans in full. They are not going to compromise a jota, so "peace" still means "no sovereign Ukraine anymore" - oh, and no sanctions anymore, because Russia didn't do anything wrong.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 02:15 PM |
|
|
The current peace offer leaves Ukraine totally vulnerable to Russia. The fifth one I missed from the list is that Putin doesn't want more Western arms shipments going to Ukraine, and Ukraine of course doesn't manufacture most of its own military equipment.
It would probably be safer for Ukraine to stay at war than to accept peace as it stands right now, because it has zero insurance afterwards based on Russia's terms. It is like purchasing a house on a handshake and handing somebody a pile of cash.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 29, 2025 02:41 PM |
|
|
|
Remember Ukraine can't break a constitution.. And what about Russia? Their nationality must be protected.. Snow their law..
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 02, 2025 12:08 AM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 05:02, 02 May 2025.
|
Sal says there's no economic future in Ukraine but that depends heavily on its performance with enforcing anti-corruption laws. That is the internal battlefront and possibly more important than the actual battle. If reconstruction money isn't used on reconstruction, yes, foreign investors will be shy. No argument there. Ukraine basically digs its own grave.
But there are plenty of jobs to be had in Ukraine. Trump has the carrot he wanted in Ukrainian subsoil to keep the pressure on Russia, and if there is ever a prolonged ceasefire (which is looking more and more unlikely since Putin has stupidly high demands and it's looking like he was never serious about peace in the first place) foreign militaries could set up camp there as a trigger, sort of like what was in S Korea or W Germany back in the old days. Ideally, it would just be the UK and France and maybe a couple of other European countries (the US would still be triggered by proxy of other Western countries being there, if that makes sense).
But instead it is looking like Russia accelerating its own global irrelevancy into a giant nature resort / gas station for dirty energy and an exodus of nerdy young males (remind me: where is there a successful country with a deficit of nerdy young men? Oh that's right: it doesn't exist, probably because nerdy young guys are the #1 creator of capital. DURRR). That's Putin's plan I guess. Turn Russia into a dump. He should have sought a peace offer that wasn't totally lopsided. It was an off-ramp for him so he doesn't have to keep fighting. So dumb.
Honestly, if they made me president of Russia and gave me a large vat of coffee, I could fix all of this in a couple of weeks and put the country on the path of epic prosperity for centuries to come. Instead they have some ex-KGB bitter old fart ruining everything. They need to elect me president immediately. Just my personal opinion.
____________
|
|
purerogue3
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2025 04:35 PM |
|
|
blizzard said:
where is there a successful country with a deficit of nerdy young men? Oh that's right: it doesn't exist, probably because nerdy young guys are the #1 creator of capital
Saudi Arabia, your fav country
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 02, 2025 05:51 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 18:05, 02 May 2025.
|
Saudi Arabia is somewhat successful and it has been investing more in STEM for its future. So yeah, it has a population of nerdy young men. You can wear more traditional clothing and also be a nerd.
Men in their 20s have been leaking out of Russia for several years, if they aren't being killed in Ukraine. The phrase that the state-approved media in Russia used was something like, "The rats are fleeing the ship." Except, you know, rats are famously clever creatures, and if they are fleeing from a ship, it probably means something bad is happening to the ship lol. Jokes on them.
Russia has wasted a very good opportunity with Trump. They could have salvaged their country's future and they refused. They are digging into their role as a dirty energy gas station / ammo depot. Super dumb. Very lame. Putin is extremely lame. If he cared at all about his country, he should just take a flight to Brussels and hold out his hands for the police officers that have an arrest warrant for him.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 02, 2025 06:45 PM |
|
|
There is no young men shortage in Russia, the ratio men/women 15-24 yo is men positive. The migration flow out and in is inflow positive Statista You took a few biased headlines here and there.
~200k young men probably fled in 2022-23 to avoid mobilization but they will return. It helps that we treated them as subhumans, this way they saw they have no future in civilized countries so will go back. Also 4 millions people flew to Russia from Ukraine, when the war started (not counting the annexed territories). There is a large yearly immigration in Russia from all the previous USSR provinces, as salaries are on the rise and quality of life drastically improved.
On the other side, Ukraine lost 40% of its overall population since 1990.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 02, 2025 09:38 PM |
|
|
Former Republics? Yeah, a lot of them are ethnic Russians returning to Russia since the war started. I wonder why.
It will be interesting to see what the future of those central Asian counties even is, since Russia's military spending is up so much and it doesn't look like it is going back down.
I officially concede the argument to JJ, since Putin's "peace offers" have been idiotic this past month.
____________
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 02, 2025 10:53 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 22:54, 02 May 2025.
|
By the way, was it a slip that you called them "former provinces" of the USSR? lol. Maybe "provinces" is how Putin looks at them.
____________
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2025 06:14 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Russia wasn't asking for any territory, just for neutrality, not joining NATO and security for ethnic Russians in Ukraine. That was on the table, to discuss.
To discuss with whom? Why did Putler start the war exactly when he did? Why did he acknowledge the "People's Republics" prior to that. Why was his lecture about the history of "greatness" of the Russian Empire and about "Russki Mir" aired just on the eve of war?
I'll state this once more. Ukraine getting a NATO member was ruled out pre-war.
The Russian definition of "neutrality" is economical and cultural subordination as got apparent when the Ukrainian people uttered interest to develop stronger ties to the EU in the 2000s and early 2010s. For Russia it was just a matter of money as they were going to lose some "deals" with economical ties to the EU intensifying.
Russia not asking for territory? So what about Medvedev's (who likes to dress in a Goebbels-style leather coat) repeated public threats to annihilate and conquer Europe? What about TV shows aired at prime time in Russia's state TV like Solovyov's where guests discuss how to best obliterate Europe's population? You won't find something like this in "The West", not in Trumpist South Canada, not in China.
Security for ethnic Russians? Tell me about the peril they had been in and tell me why so many proudly called themself "Ukrainian".
It's merely anecdotal but I know an expat ethnically Russian, non-Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian (identifying as such) citizen. The only gripe he had was that he explicitly had to ask for documents in Russian language whenever he needed something from the embassy because they'd always send them in Ukrainian by default.
On the other hand what about security for ethnic Ukrainians in the occupied regions? Or Tartars in Crimea? We know all to good what happens if non-Russian ethnicities resist russification from the Chechen wars.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
