Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[bfargin]

Well as I also mentioned I've been reading more recently and since I have a research background I can buzz through articles fairly quickly to see patterns and at least decently sort out some chaff. But I admit I'm not an expert or that knowledgable about all of the history behind the USSR and her satellite controlled countries/regions.

I'm just seeing more and more data that supports the idea that the end is not looking good for Ukraine in spite of what the West keeps saying. A sampling of world news is writing that it's a lot more dire for everyone than we like to think.

Maybe its worth it to us to destroy Ukraine while making Russia spend money like we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But we're broke and printing money like toilet paper too.

[Day Man]

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

more and more data

manchester

[raimius]

Some epic idiocy/trolling here.

But I'll bite, because this is the Internet!

--You claim "we" should negotiate to give up some of Ukraine.  Do you think maybe the Ukrainians should decide whether or not they want THEIR country?  They seem pretty willing to fight for it.

 

--You seem to think the nation that took massive casualties, is resorting to Iranian and North Korean weapons, has a ton of sanctions, had their most effective PMC mutiny, and is at a defensive stalemate on the battlefield is stronger now?  😂

 

You can debate how much money/arms the US should provide.  That's valid.  What you are doing is a mockery of intelligent questioning.

[bfargin]

1 hour ago, raimius said:

Some epic idiocy/trolling here.

But I'll bite, because this is the Internet!

--You claim "we" should negotiate to give up some of Ukraine.  Do you think maybe the Ukrainians should decide whether or not they want THEIR country?  They seem pretty willing to fight for it.

 

--You seem to think the nation that took massive casualties, is resorting to Iranian and North Korean weapons, has a ton of sanctions, had their most effective PMC mutiny, and is at a defensive stalemate on the battlefield is stronger now?  😂

 

You can debate how much money/arms the US should provide.  That's valid.  What you are doing is a mockery of intelligent questioning.

thanks for adding to the dumbassery.

[dream big]

17 hours ago, raimius said:

Some epic idiocy/trolling here.

But I'll bite, because this is the Internet!

--You claim "we" should negotiate to give up some of Ukraine.  Do you think maybe the Ukrainians should decide whether or not they want THEIR country?  They seem pretty willing to fight for it.

 

--You seem to think the nation that took massive casualties, is resorting to Iranian and North Korean weapons, has a ton of sanctions, had their most effective PMC mutiny, and is at a defensive stalemate on the battlefield is stronger now?  😂

 

You can debate how much money/arms the US should provide.  That's valid.  What you are doing is a mockery of intelligent questioning.

After the Billions of Dollars we invested in their counter offensive !? You are damn right we get a vote on the means to the outcome be it negotiations or other tools of foreign policy. 

[BashiChuni]

4 minutes ago, dream big said:

After the Billions of Dollars we invested in their counter offensive !? You are damn right we get a vote on the means to the outcome be it negotiations or other tools of foreign policy. 

god damn right. support comes with a price. we don't let ukraine dictate the national security policy of the united states.

a country which before the invasion was touted as the most corrupt in europe. but i bet they're squeaky clean now! and absolutely NO connection to the biden crime family!

[BashiChuni]

On 8/31/2023 at 7:50 PM, bfargin said:

Well as I also mentioned I've been reading more recently and since I have a research background I can buzz through articles fairly quickly to see patterns and at least decently sort out some chaff. But I admit I'm not an expert or that knowledgable about all of the history behind the USSR and her satellite controlled countries/regions.

I'm just seeing more and more data that supports the idea that the end is not looking good for Ukraine in spite of what the West keeps saying. A sampling of world news is writing that it's a lot more dire for everyone than we like to think.

Maybe its worth it to us to destroy Ukraine while making Russia spend money like we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But we're broke and printing money like toilet paper too.

ukraine is losing. there is no way they are able to defeat the russian bear.

which might set us up for a hot war with russia....something the elites want...and something that a few of you on here jerk off to

[bfargin]

Some of you def seem pretty obsessed with going to war with Russia. Every single questioning post on the wisdom of our current, obviously less than optimal, strategy and people claim someone’s a Putin stooge or Russian bot. I don’t see any benefit of continuing the current strategy.
 

We’re destabilizing current alliances, risking an escalated war, fostering the complete destruction of a sovereign nation, exacerbating our own financial crisis, and strengthening the alliance between our worlds current primary threat and Russia.
 

Maybe the world new sources are all bought and paid for and Russia really is about to collapse.  I’d love to see our strategy actually work for our benefit, but the most obvious endgame doesn’t appear to benefit anyone. I hope they (all the news outside of the US) are wrong and Ukraine wins.

Edited September 2, 2023 by bfargin

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

Some of you def seem pretty obsessed with going to war with Russia. Every single questioning post on the wisdom of our current, obviously less than optimal, strategy and people claim someone’s a Putin stooge or Russian bot. I don’t see any benefit of continuing the current strategy.
 

We’re destabilizing current alliances, risking an escalated war, fostering the complete destruction of a sovereign nation, exacerbating our own financial crisis, and strengthening the alliance between our worlds current primary threat and Russia.
 

Maybe the world new sources are all bought and paid for and Russia really is about to collapse.  I’d love to see our strategy actually work for our benefit, but the most obvious endgame doesn’t appear to benefit anyone. I hope they (all the news outside of the US) are wrong and Ukraine wins.

I dont understand how anyone looks at the way NATO came together, and the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO, and comes to the conclusion that those are weakened alliances...

Edited September 2, 2023 by pawnman

[raimius]

3 hours ago, bfargin said:

 

We’re destabilizing current alliances, risking an escalated war, fostering the complete destruction of a sovereign nation, exacerbating our own financial crisis, and strengthening the alliance between our worlds current primary threat and Russia.

-explain how NATO is destabilizing?

-Russia is trying to destroy a sovereign nation, not us.

-China has been fairly quiet throughout all this.  They seem to have mixed feelings.

[frog]

5 hours ago, bfargin said:

Words…

Dude, just stop.

There is an enormous amount of space to have an intelligent discussion of pragmatic U.S. options to support Ukraine to include offering no support whatsoever. That discussion is impossible to have with someone who uses secondhand Russian propaganda to develop their worldview.

 

[BashiChuni]

Hey remember when Biden got millions from Ukraine?

[Lord Ratner]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Hey remember when Biden got millions from Ukraine?

The problem is not that Ukraine bought the American vice president. The problem is that the American vice president was for sale.

There's not a country on earth that wouldn't make that deal. 

[bfargin]

When you have to stoop to Russian bot or propaganda accusations to “beat” a questioners post, you might be a zealot.
 I hope I’m wrong and the country with 36mil remaining citizens (~6 mil refugees) can beat the country with 143 million citizens.

I simply wondered aloud if we’re pursuing the best strategic policy, and you guys have assured me we are. I’ll quit watching world news and stick to CNN and Fox.

[raimius]

7 hours ago, bfargin said:

When you have to stoop to Russian bot or propaganda accusations to “beat” a questioners post, you might be a zealot.
 I hope I’m wrong and the country with 36mil remaining citizens (~6 mil refugees) can beat the country with 143 million citizens.

I simply wondered aloud if we’re pursuing the best strategic policy, and you guys have assured me we are. I’ll quit watching world news and stick to CNN and Fox.

No, dude.  You asked a bunch of strawman/loaded questions based off of one of the most clearly biased pro-russia American commentators and Russian aligned sources.  THAT is why so many called you out.  It's not zealotry when people criticize clearly biased and VERY often wrong sources.

Ukraine is fighting an existential war vs. Russia pursuing an entirely optional one.  That does mean something.  Additionally, UKR is getting a LOT of external support.  That doesn't mean they will win, but it does mean they do have a chance.

[BashiChuni]

https://dnyuz.com/2023/09/04/where-is-the-money-military-graft-becomes-a-headache-for-ukraine/

 

uh oh another "told ya so" moment

[BashiChuni]

19 hours ago, raimius said:

 

Ukraine is fighting an existential war vs. Russia pursuing an entirely optional one. 

so i agree with you from a western perspective.

but i'd imagine russia doesn't hold the same perspective. try to see the game thru your opponents eyes and not western ones.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

so i agree with you from a western perspective.

but i'd imagine russia doesn't hold the same perspective. try to see the game thru your opponents eyes and not western ones.

So in Russia's eyes, this is an existential war that they started because...?

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

So in Russia's eyes, this is an existential war that they started because...?

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 

you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions.  Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq.  
 

my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 

you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions.  Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq.  
 

my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

Do you think Ukraine should exist as a country? Because where I see a negotiation that gives up a bunch of Ukrainian territory is another invasion in a few years (like they already did to Crimea). Then another one a few years after that. Then Russia's in Kyiv and there's no Ukrainian government anymore.

In my mind, it's not just about Ukraine. It's about whether we want to set the precedent that bigger nations can just seize territory from smaller ones at will, because we don't think we should get involved in territorial disputes.

I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by pawnman

[GrndPndr]

16 minutes ago, pawnman said:

<snip>

I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

Yeah, there's that hegemony thing - a minor detail.  Besides Russia (and especially Stalin's Soviet) have done nothing but renege on every agreement they've made with the west.

[Lawman]

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 
you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions.  Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq.  
 
my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

That’s a narrative constructed to ignore the previous past of Russia during Stalin’s expansion of the Soviet Union and blame NATO as an aggressor.

It ignores how countries in places like the Baltics became Soviet satellites (or why Russia was fighting a war in Finland before fighting the Nazis). The Russians aggressively annexed those nations under the guise of protecting the smaller nations against the European great powers. Once done it immediately moved to a policy of Russification something plainly evident as still policy in Ukraine with things like changing the spelling of a Nations capital (we all grew up recognizing it as Kiev until they gained independence) along with a host of brutal actions against the native populations.

Russian authority’s in Putins group don’t view things like Latvia as some aggressive preemption by NATO to invade them, they view it as it and other nations maneuvering away from some perverse “rightful position” as vassals to the greater Russian motherland.

This whole “view it from their perspective,” is fine. But let’s not pretend they base that perspective on reality. It’s like asking a Japanese citizen today about why we dropped the bomb. They’ll have a lot to talk about, but somehow things like Nanking or Saipan propaganda causing mass civilian suicide isn’t going to be part of the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frog]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 

my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

Putin points at military encroachment by NATO, but the reality is that the NATO force posture is a skeleton of what it was in 1991 and poses absolutely no physical threat to Russia. If Putin was really worried about NATO military power on his border, he would quit threatening his neighbors.
 

What scares Putin is the people in former Soviet “republics” have a pretty fierce independence streak, have no problem highlighting former Soviet/Russian threats and atrocities, and want to pursue Western style democratic governance, so much so that they have run Russian supported leaders out of their countries (e.g. Yanukovych). The growing (but not complete) success of these countries poses an existential threat not to Russia, but to Putin himself as Russians might see the benefit of reform in their own country. Luckily for Putin, he has a ton of power, no conscience, and no problem offing as many people as it takes to maintain power.

To the previous comments about Russia doing better on the battlefield than is being reported - this is a bogus argument. No one is winning. Ukraine knows that they can’t give up territory every five years when Russia needs to scratch an itch, and Putin can’t be seen backing down to a country that is a fraction of its size. Russia has sustained high losses and had their most competent battlefield formation, a band of mercenaries, make a run on Moscow. This is going to continue to be ugly and stalemated, and the big losers are the civilians caught in the middle.

The reason people argue over issues like this so much is that they seek a good outcome. There are no good outcomes; only “least worst” outcomes. The U.S. has no authority and little ability to “end” this war without military engagement. Any U.S. negotiated settlement that cedes Ukrainian territory will not be agreed to by the Ukrainians and will be seen as 21st century Munich Agreement style appeasement. Ask the Czechs how they feel about that.

The U.S. primary goals should be no engagement by/risk to U.S. personnel, a sustained cease fire, weakened Russian influence in the region/world, and Putin remaining in control of Russia (the idiot you know is better than the idiot you don’t, especially when nuclear weapons are involved.) 

Providing weapons to Ukraine supports these goals. The real policy question for Americans is if this is a priority among everything else; our country is slowly spending itself to death. In my mind, we are getting great value out of our Ukraine support and the only way to fix the budget is to fix entitlements, but I am not an economist and don’t pretend to be.

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

This whole “view it from their perspective,” is fine. But let’s not pretend they base that perspective on reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that's fine, just dont tell me it's possible for ukraine to defeat russia in a long, protracted conflict. THAT is fantasy land and ignores the long russian tradition of starting slow, then rumbling to a brutal victory.

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, frog said:

Putin points at military encroachment by NATO, but the reality is that the NATO force posture is a skeleton of what it was in 1991 and poses absolutely no physical threat to Russia.

sure that's how YOU see it. i assure you putin disagrees. how hard of a fucking concept is that for you PME educated people to grasp? it's not about your viewpoint or your truth.

jfc people.