Biden's Gives Ukraine Green Light

[CoachKenFTW]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:37 AM, InnZoneU said:

We would all been speaking German or Russian right now if you were in charge of US foreign policy 80 years ago.  You're a true patriot.

No, we'd be speaking American English. Europe would be speaking German or Russian. Until Russia or Germany decided to **** with us like Japan did. Then they would have gotten nuked, just like Japan did.

I get it though. If it wasn't for chicken hawk interventionists like you, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban control, and Iraq would have reverted to a terrorist hotbed...

[The Barber]

On 11/20/2024 at 2:21 PM, happycamper said:

my guy

"My guy"?

LOL.  You are trying too hard.

[The Barber]

On 11/20/2024 at 7:25 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

So, back to the topic.

Ukraine will never be able to achieve the military goals set out by Zelensky.  Ever.  The majority of territory lost can not be regained. Period.  End of story.  That's the reality.  Ukrainian soldiers OVERWHELMINGLY don't want to fight for them.

I don't hate this move but it is high risk with little reward.  The reward is giving Ukraine a stronger position to negotiate peace, a peace that will require, at a minimum, coding the territory that is for all intents and purposes now Russian.  Full stop. Period.  We could have helped them negotiate that a long time ago, the inevitability of it all is obvious.

The risk, however, even if small, is the end of civilization.

 

 

Lt Col Davis: its a very dangerous and reckless move by Biden.

And as LT Col Daniel Davis said, the longer this goes on, the more territory that Ukraine is likely to lose to the Russians.  And the more Ukrainians are going to be killed.

Like you said, Ukraine is not going to be able to achieve the goals set out by Zelensky.

Also, the US has goals aren't aligned with Ukraine....US primarily wants to hurt Russia, saying that this is a "Great Deal" because we can hurt Russia and only Ukrainians will die, and only Ukrainian will be destroyed. 

 

 

[AztecAlien]

You got to love the we were this close to speaking German rhetoric. I'm pretty sure the Germans weren't going to pull all their resources out of Europe, Russia, and Africa during WW II in order to come attack the U.S. on our soil. It's a good one, though. 

 

[InnZoneU]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:05 AM, CoachKenFTW said:

No, we'd be speaking American English. Europe would be speaking German or Russian. Until Russia or Germany decided to **** with us like Japan did. Then they would have gotten nuked, just like Japan did.

I get it though. If it wasn't for chicken hawk interventionists like you, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban control, and Iraq would have reverted to a terrorist hotbed...

LMFAO.  So ignant.

[happycamper]

On 11/21/2024 at 12:05 PM, CoachKenFTW said:

No, we'd be speaking American English. Europe would be speaking German or Russian. Until Russia or Germany decided to **** with us like Japan did. Then they would have gotten nuked, just like Japan did.

I get it though. If it wasn't for chicken hawk interventionists like you, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban control, and Iraq would have reverted to a terrorist hotbed...

where would the funding for the manhattan project have come from without a gigantic war? it cost 2 billion dollars, half the total us budget for 1930, and employed 130,000 people, about 30% of the total civilian employment of the federal government in 1930. 

[RSF]

On 11/21/2024 at 11:05 AM, CoachKenFTW said:

No, we'd be speaking American English. Europe would be speaking German or Russian. Until Russia or Germany decided to **** with us like Japan did. Then they would have gotten nuked, just like Japan did.

I get it though. If it wasn't for chicken hawk interventionists like you, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban control, and Iraq would have reverted to a terrorist hotbed...

The Soviets had nuclear weapons by 1949.  Germany had a war-time nuclear program as well.

[stanfordchef]

On 11/21/2024 at 8:01 AM, happycamper said:

What relative peace? We were still in Afghanistan, we were in the Sahel, we were in Syria. This is revisionism. 

we're still in Syria. Still in the Sahel too.

 

[stanfordchef]

On 11/21/2024 at 8:46 AM, tailingpermit said:

Can’t wait for Zelensky to get political asylum, move to a beach house in Malibu and then join The View.  

maybe he'll become a playboy, hang around in gay bars, and move to the west side of town where all the Ukranian gangsters live here.

[stanfordchef]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:29 AM, happycamper said:

where would the funding for the manhattan project have come from without a gigantic war? it cost 2 billion dollars, half the total us budget for 1930, and employed 130,000 people, about 30% of the total civilian employment of the federal government in 1930. 

not to mention the expertise of the captured German scientists

[InnZoneU]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:43 AM, stanfordchef said:

we're still in Syria. Still in the Sahel too.

 

Technically, we're still just about....everywhere lol.

[stanfordchef]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:48 AM, InnZoneU said:

Technically, we're still just about....everywhere lol.

I know. I ran into a bunch of Marines in Rwanda once. They were all staying in some mansion down the street from the one I rented. Nice guys if a little crazy. They weren't supposed to be there officially lol.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

So Russia launched an ICBM into Ukrain this morning amid reports they are building wide spread bomb shelters again for the first time since the cold war.

I don't like this....

[AztecAlien]

On 11/21/2024 at 2:50 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

So Russia launched an ICBM into Ukrain this morning amid reports they are building wide spread bomb shelters again for the first time since the cold war.

I don't like this....

I don't like it either.

We probably should be asking why the incapacitated guy is still making the type of decisions that could start a world war more than two weeks after an election that didn't go his way. And spare me the Biden is still the president and needs to make tough decisions for America and the North Korea rhetoric. He hasn't been making the decisions for quite a while. 

 

[UtGrizfan]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:03 AM, happycamper said:

I believe that you are misreading Russia. They are not negotiating in good faith. I don't think they are ever going to negotiate in good faith. Any negotiation they enter with will start and end with Ukrainian capitulation. 

The Russian state cannot maintain this pace of war. Its production is straining, it is losing artillery and military vehicles far faster than it can replace them, and it is experiencing a huge labor crunch. Ukraine doesn't need to "negotiate from a position of strength" because given continued ~90s era weapons transfers, they will just be in a position of strength, where Russia simply will not be able to threaten the existence of the Ukrainian state - probably by the end of 2026, maybe by the end of 2025. 

I believe that is the goal we should have. Continue providing munitions that we aren't using, continue helping Ukraine build out its own industrial base, and grind Russia down to the point that they just do not have the equipment to cause a mechanized breakthrough. 

In this instance I believe you'll see something like a North Korea/South Korea split in Ukraine. Which... not ideal. On the other hand, there hasn't been war on the Korean peninsula in 75 years. If the borders freeze more or less where they are and Ukraine sees at least 75 years of peace I think you have to call that a win, not just for Ukraine, but for the west. 

in all those previous wars of attrition, a lot of the advantage was...

that russia had ukraine lol

Okay and? Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine is running out of manpower and a war of attrition favors Russia, they still vastly outnumber them and history has shown repeatedly that type of fighting favors Russia.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ukraine-running-out-soldiers-fight-russia-213354

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:03 AM, happycamper said:

I believe that you are misreading Russia. They are not negotiating in good faith. I don't think they are ever going to negotiate in good faith. Any negotiation they enter with will start and end with Ukrainian capitulation. 

The Russian state cannot maintain this pace of war. Its production is straining, it is losing artillery and military vehicles far faster than it can replace them, and it is experiencing a huge labor crunch. Ukraine doesn't need to "negotiate from a position of strength" because given continued ~90s era weapons transfers, they will just be in a position of strength, where Russia simply will not be able to threaten the existence of the Ukrainian state - probably by the end of 2026, maybe by the end of 2025. 

I believe that is the goal we should have. Continue providing munitions that we aren't using, continue helping Ukraine build out its own industrial base, and grind Russia down to the point that they just do not have the equipment to cause a mechanized breakthrough. 

In this instance I believe you'll see something like a North Korea/South Korea split in Ukraine. Which... not ideal. On the other hand, there hasn't been war on the Korean peninsula in 75 years. If the borders freeze more or less where they are and Ukraine sees at least 75 years of peace I think you have to call that a win, not just for Ukraine, but for the west. 

in all those previous wars of attrition, a lot of the advantage was...

that russia had ukraine lol

 

No I think we are in agreement here, mostly.

Russia had one chance to accomplish regime change and make Ukraine a vasal state and or buffer zone.  That ended when they failed to capture Kiev early.  Thanks Elon!!!

We also agree that Ukraine can and will become so heavily fortified that Russia will no longer pose a conventional threat to that.

We agree that Ukraine will have to acknowledge that Crimea and the Donbas and parts of other Oblasts are lost in order to make a diplomatic end to the war.

Where we slightly disagree is if continuing the war gets all this done quicker or more efficiently or with less loss.

Russia is making steady gains capturing more Ukrainian territory every month.  Slowly and methodically and at the cost of much blood and treasure for each.

It's a stalemate. It's been a stalemate for a long time now.

IMO ending the war as soon as possible will allow Ukraine to keep more territory than dragging it on another year or two.  And a lot less death.  Then, Ukraine can immediately rebuild their infrastructure.

The F16s have been a total dud...because they don't have runways.  One of many examples.

 

 

[UtGrizfan]

Pretty good breakdown of the Kursk salient from when it started to the situation now:

 

[BroncoInferno]

On 11/20/2024 at 11:19 PM, UtGrizfan said:

As soon as it settled into a War of Attrition the advantage became 100% with Russia, history has shown repeatedly getting into that type of fight never works. 

How would you classify Russia’s war in Afghanistan? 

[renoskier]

On 11/22/2024 at 2:49 PM, BroncoInferno said:

How would you classify Russia’s war in Afghanistan? 

yeah, I wonder if the folks who are bitching and moaning about us sending arms to Ukraine felt the same when we were supplying the Mujahideen?

[UtGrizfan]

On 11/22/2024 at 3:49 PM, BroncoInferno said:

How would you classify Russia’s war in Afghanistan? 

Afghanistan was more dealing insurgency rather then a stand up knock them down fight,  similar to what other Vets dealt with in Afghanistan. Ukraine is an actual war/stand up knock em down fight which is NATO+Ukraine vs Russia and Friends.

Its a modern war showcasing a bit old and new tactics that are effective, from the mass use of Drones and how effective they have been to trench warfare coming back.