Ukraine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Folks probably need to update their prior beliefs on NATO capabilities. Too much attention is paid to technology & weapons systems, and not enough on people. It's not even about spending per se. The money that is being spent in Europe is on bloated weapons systems and high personnel costs.

Not enough is allocated towards actual combat capability. Not enough on ops, maintenance, and ammo. Combat training is a joke. Most NATO countries do not have an effective fighting force—at all. The overarching thinking in Europe is: why bother?, war on the continent is over. Most Europeans believe there's going to be a negotiated truce and then back to business as usual with Russia.

Just look at Rod's poll from the previous page. They'd rather surrender Ukraine and their own country rather than fight. There are no European warriors except in Ukraine. Ukraine has by far and away the most combat capable military in Europe. No other European country comes close. Only the United States is more capable.

---

There was a great article I read, can't recall where but it was about US training that was going on in the AZ desert. They were doing simulated combat missions to resemble those in Ukraine. They basically were taking WWII warfare and modifying it to take into account electronic/drone warfare and mimic what they have learned from how Russia uses artillery and drones along with electronic jamming equipment in combat. The cellphone is now something you do not want to have on your body if you are a soldier in combat.

The training that NATO was providing seems to have pros and cons to what they are dealing with back in Ukraine. They have since started to modify training and learning from Ukrainian veterans on what works and doesn't work. One thing that doesn't work is not having enough ammunition to provide cover for troops in an offensive operation.

I can't help but wonder if Ukraine had more HIMARS early on before Russia had a chance to develop countermeasures, that Ukraine might have been able to push Russian lines farther back. Same with longer range artillery systems.

Let's see what F-16's do when they come into play. Might be too little too late. Especially if you don't have enough ammunition for ground forces to execute a sustained offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadman

I can't help but wonder if Ukraine had more HIMARS early on before Russia had a chance to develop countermeasures, that Ukraine might have been able to push Russian lines farther back. Same with longer range artillery systems.

Let's see what F-16's do when they come into play. Might be too little too late. Especially if you don't have enough ammunition for ground forces to execute a sustained offensive.

---

I'm waiting for longer range artillery, and adequate supplies of stuff we've already sent. Ukraine's been undergunned the entire war, and Russian rail logistics have been out of range. All the bridges coming from Russia should have been dropped and kept that way.

As for F16, I'm expecting it to be about as useful as Abrams. We'll send a minuscule number, then wait for the press articles about how they're ineffective and the war is a stalemate. (It may be that other weapons are more effective, but we're not sending those either)

My understanding is the US has a shitload of expiring weapons designed to fight the army Russia fields. Instead of sending it, we play financial and political games. Can't send anything 30 years old without paying for design/build of a new replacement and billing that as "aid."

Meanwhile our allies watch and wonder if we'll come to their aid.

Putins love for his countrymen, in charts

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...79c900e10e.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...11cbcbfd22.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...1d9353d847.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...07af4a4d97.jpg

http://How many Russian soldiers hav... The Economist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reverend Floater

I do know my operator buddy said some of the baddest dudes he worked with in Afghanistan were Dutch and Brit special forces. He said the Dutch were particularly efficient and ruthless.

---

Have a buddy who was in Army Special Forces, and he said that the Polish Special Forces guys were some of the baddest dudes he worked with.

.... there's a joke in there somewhere, but he was serious

Macron: not excluding sending troops to Ukraine.
WTF?
Ww3?

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Lions and tigers and bears oh my! Unclutch your pearls. It's wartime dick wagging. SOP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

Macron: not excluding sending troops to Ukraine.
WTF?
Ww3?

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

---

So it's fine for Putin to send troops, but if anyone else does it's a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_pdx

So it's fine for Putin to send troops, but if anyone else does it's a problem?

---

It's of course not fine for Russia to invade Ukraine, but the risk of ww3 increases dramatically if NATO starts to fight in Ukraine.
Luckily, EU is not on board with macron on sending troops.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

It's of course not fine for Russia to invade Ukraine, but the risk of ww3 increases dramatically if NATO starts to fight in Ukraine.
Luckily, EU is not on board with macron on sending troops.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

---

Does it? What about the risk of allowing additional destruction in a poorly supported Ukraine? There's lots of chatter now about defense strategies in various countries and whether it's wise to rely on the US (or any country) to maintain your sovereignty. That chatter is leading to consideration of new nuclear programs. Seems to me the bad ww3 risks are lower when fewer countries have nukes. In the long run, when many countries have nukes, and some have leaders with questionable sanity, as happens, one of them will start armageddon. In the short run, Ukraine is backed into a corner and may do it themselves (nuke Russia). If Ukraine is strongly supported now, these risks are lower.

We create red lines for ourselves, but not for Russia. We tie our hands, but not Putin's. It's time to reestablish deterrence or else the world's totalitarian governments will take maximum advantage of our weakness.

Our allies need defending because the alternative is systematic alliance collapse, nuclear proliferation—followed by catastrophically destructive great power wars.

While i think that Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, there's no way that Ukraine can win. Russia was 3 times larger in 22, and more now with the menu Ukraineans that left.
It has formidable war industry, and Putin had no opposition. Dictator, yes, but he controls Russia and he does what he wants, regardless of how many if his people die in the war.

So why continue to send weapons?
So more people die?

It's high time for peace negotiations.
And Biden says, it's Ukraine's decision. Bullshit, if Ukraine is not supported, they will negotiate. So it's really a us and eu decision.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Rod is a fool who wants to appease Putin just as his antecedents wanted to appease Hitler. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. And despite the near total absence of Western support, Ukraine fought on. Ukraine will fight no matter what because stopping means annihilation.



Total war has happened before and it will happen again as a new generation forgets the lessons of the past:

Like the generations of leaves, the lives of mortal men. Now the wind scatters the old leaves across the earth, now the living timber bursts with the new buds and spring comes round again. And so with men: as one generation comes to life, another dies away. (The Iliad)

The images of the night assault — the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector’s baby son thrown off the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery — all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history … the stern lesson of Homer’s presentation of the war: that no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force. (Fagles The Iliad)

Very true that this was is existential for Ukraine. Which is why i believe that we have a stalemate. Russia not withdrawing, Ukraine not advancing. So peace is still there best option.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Arming Ukraine is the only option for peace.

If you and your family had to capitulate your whole world to Putin, would you do it to end the conflict? If it comes to that I'd like to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Arming Ukraine is the only option for peace.

---

Putin will concentrate the shit out of Ukraine. Imagine the worst he could do to Ukrainians. Exactly, he will do it.

You get the behavior you incentivize, what message does it send to Putin if Ukraine accepts a peace deal in which they cede territory?

I don't think "wow, that was a mistake and I'll never do it again" is going to be what he thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twat

Putin will concentrate the shit out of Ukraine. Imagine the worst he could do to Ukrainians. Exactly, he will do it.

---

He would've done it already. btw wtf does "concentrate" even mean in that context?

What fucking peace deal? Putin doesn't want a peace deal. Ukraine would have to surrender itself to get a peace deal, which is why they have to fight.

I think Rod and the other Russian sycophants and trolls think Ukraine will just roll over for Putin, like our very own weak no backbone snowflake Republicans have in this country.

It isn't going to happen.

And America isn't going to surrender itself to domestic fascism. We are just getting warmed up here.

Only the feeble minded and weak bodied are on Putin's side, along with a few powerful rich assholes who skim wealth from the masses, and pay Putin for the privilege.

Strength and freedom will prevail.



Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

While i think that Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, there's no way that Ukraine can win. Russia was 3 times larger in 22, and more now with the menu Ukraineans that left.
It has formidable war industry, and Putin had no opposition. Dictator, yes, but he controls Russia and he does what he wants, regardless of how many if his people die in the war.

So why continue to send weapons?
So more people die?

It's high time for peace negotiations.
And Biden says, it's Ukraine's decision. Bullshit, if Ukraine is not supported, they will negotiate. So it's really a us and eu decision.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

---

fuck you
you are a Russian troll
go away

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ötzi

He would've done it already. btw wtf does "concentrate" even mean in that context?

---

Forget it, he's on a roll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upinsmoke

fuck you
you are a Russian troll
go away

---

That's a powerful argument. Convincing

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

We don't know what Putin wants. So starting the peace talks will clarify things. But not starting will definitely not.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

We do know what Putin wants. He's said so many, many times: he wants all of Ukraine even if that means killing or deporting every living Ukrainian.

Poll mentioned in the Times yesterday (no idea on what poll or who took it) said that over 90% of Ukrainians are optimistic about victory.