The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
I don’t mean to sound like I’m talking down to you or anyone else. But the reality is that Russia has a unique history regarding Eastern Europe and a very adversarial relationship with the West. Russia sees itself as a “Great Power”. They’re both European but not Western. They will without a doubt react badly. As badly as we would react if Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact.
I’m not sure why people have trouble understanding any of this. What we think doesn’t matter to them and never will.
That’s some high level strategy. Determine anything your enemy wants or needs is completely irrelevant and you should make all decisions with no consideration as to how your enemy may react.
Your doomsday hypothetical of Ukraine joining NATO during the war and Russia using nukes is a moot point because again, it’s not happening. Ukraine won’t be admitted until after the war’s conclusion.
Better block Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership too, can’t poke the Russian bear
The United States threatened nuclear war over Russian missiles 90 miles from our coast.
But you don’t believe Russia would do the same, or that we should even care that they might, in the reversed situation.
This is one hell of a take.
Russia has no say in who gets added?
Also what does Ukraine bring to the table that other potentially oppressed nearby nations did not?
Has Russia ever said allowing Sweden or Finland into NATO was a line in the sand/red line for them that would result in war if crossed?
Russia has flat out stated Ukraine entry into NATO was a red line. They now have three options (1) completely conquer Ukraine, (2) destroy Ukraine completely, (3) suffer the embarrassment of a loss in Ukraine and Ukrainian NATO membership.
We all agree Putin is an evil lunatic dictator.
Which option do you think he goes for?
I’m not saying Russia would win a war. I’m saying the west is making stupid decisions to escalate, like announcing the Ukraine is going to be given easier entry into NATO.
They have one of the strongest militaries (minus an Air Force) in Europe with a vast array of natural resources, agricultural land, and access to two seas. They also have the largest nuclear power plant in Europe.
What oppressed nation or nations would you say “bring to the table” for NATO membership that should be considered? Again, this won’t happen until the war is over.
After hearing that, just today, cluster munitions have arrived in Ukraine and the dementia patient ordered 3000 reservists to Europe, we may not need to wait for the next war.
Pretty easy to find with basic research
Russia threatens nukes for US, UK, Finland if NATO expands
A Russian leader threatened to use the Satan-2 hypersonic nuclear missile to strike Britain and Finland “in just 200 seconds.”
nypost.com
Finland joined in April and nothing happened.
Pretty easy to find with basic research
Russia threatens nukes for US, UK, Finland if NATO expands
A Russian leader threatened to use the Satan-2 hypersonic nuclear missile to strike Britain and Finland “in just 200 seconds.”
Finland joined in April and nothing happened.
Vladimir Putin warned the president of Finland Saturday that any effort to join NATO would “negatively” affect relations between the two countries.
Yeah that sounds exactly like the red line talk with Ukraine.
You got me boss. I thought there would never be a war after Ukraine.
So I’ll ask again. What country or countries should be admitted into NATO assuming that the war will eventually end and Ukraine then applies for membership?
Edit: Ukraine is corrupt and has a lot of work to do before applying for membership.
The potential dangers associated with admitting Ukraine far outweigh any strategic benefit.
The guy threatened Finland with a Kinzhal-class missile. Regardless, Russia is becoming like North Korea with their weekly/monthly nuke threats.
Laugh all you want, but they will emerge with a battle-hardened military once the war is over. Without Wagner, Russia is f****d.
Oh I'm sorry I read that original post wrong, I agree with you. Russias military is a joke. Ukraine will be legit moving forward and it was a process that started in 2014.
What's a possible Ukraine NATO membership have to do with how close nuke missiles would be to Russia?
The now-best army in Europe - more so than Sweden or Finland. The best source of grain in Europe.
Last edited:
Dynamite drop-in. I suppose the correct answer is: about as well as this multi-billion dollar Ukrainian offensive.
"The House passed the annual defense policy bill on Friday, and what a shock it must have been for the press corps. The Beltway media spent the week informing readers that conservative social policies doomed the bill and that GOP isolationists might block support for Ukraine.
They need better sources. Neither happened, and Republican amendments to abandon Ukraine in particular were routed on the floor. The GOP’s abandon-Ukraine caucus is loud and damaging to the party, but most Americans appreciate the stakes for the U.S. in backing Kyiv.
The House bill authorizes $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine, which Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene aimed to strip in an amendment. Her measure failed 341-89 (79-21%). Rep. Matt Gaetz tried to block all further military aid for Kyiv, which lost 358-70 (84-16%). A majority of Republicans joined Democrats in opposing both.
The measures would have damaged U.S. interests and been a disaster for the public’s view of Republicans as the party of a strong national defense. Since when are Republicans against helping people who want to fight for their freedom against Russia or China? Good question
Not one to miss an opportunity to adopt a losing cause, Donald Trump belly-flopped in on Friday with a statement that when he wins the Presidency he’ll end the war in “24 hours,” details never to follow. “This conflict must end. Not one American mother or father wants to send their child to die in Eastern Europe. We must have PEACE.”
Not a single American solider has died in Ukraine, which is part of the point in supporting that country with weapons. Check Russia there so that U.S. troops don’t have to fight Vladimir Putin’s tanks in Vilnius or Warsaw.
Mr. Trump lamented dwindling U.S. weapons stocks, a real problem that he could have done more to prevent while President. But the U.S. is replacing donated equipment with better kit, and new contracts are a start on reviving the defense industrial base.
The Trump-Gaetz view commands even less support in the Senate. That’s all the more encouraging given that Mr. Biden has barely made the case for supporting Ukraine to the public. But Congressional patience isn’t infinite, and Mr. Biden ought to use Congress’s show of political support to accelerate the delivery of weapons, especially the long-range missiles the President has been hesitating over.
The GOP isolationists rail against “forever wars,” but the real recipe for extended war is giving Ukraine only enough weapons to fight to a draw rather than to drive Russia out. That’s been President Biden’s strategy. Former Vice President Mike Pence had it right in our pages this week: The fastest route to peace is a Ukrainian victory."
www.wsj.com
They need better sources. Neither happened, and Republican amendments to abandon Ukraine in particular were routed on the floor. The GOP’s abandon-Ukraine caucus is loud and damaging to the party, but most Americans appreciate the stakes for the U.S. in backing Kyiv.
The House bill authorizes $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine, which Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene aimed to strip in an amendment. Her measure failed 341-89 (79-21%). Rep. Matt Gaetz tried to block all further military aid for Kyiv, which lost 358-70 (84-16%). A majority of Republicans joined Democrats in opposing both.
The measures would have damaged U.S. interests and been a disaster for the public’s view of Republicans as the party of a strong national defense. Since when are Republicans against helping people who want to fight for their freedom against Russia or China? Good question
Not one to miss an opportunity to adopt a losing cause, Donald Trump belly-flopped in on Friday with a statement that when he wins the Presidency he’ll end the war in “24 hours,” details never to follow. “This conflict must end. Not one American mother or father wants to send their child to die in Eastern Europe. We must have PEACE.”
Not a single American solider has died in Ukraine, which is part of the point in supporting that country with weapons. Check Russia there so that U.S. troops don’t have to fight Vladimir Putin’s tanks in Vilnius or Warsaw.
Mr. Trump lamented dwindling U.S. weapons stocks, a real problem that he could have done more to prevent while President. But the U.S. is replacing donated equipment with better kit, and new contracts are a start on reviving the defense industrial base.
The Trump-Gaetz view commands even less support in the Senate. That’s all the more encouraging given that Mr. Biden has barely made the case for supporting Ukraine to the public. But Congressional patience isn’t infinite, and Mr. Biden ought to use Congress’s show of political support to accelerate the delivery of weapons, especially the long-range missiles the President has been hesitating over.
The GOP isolationists rail against “forever wars,” but the real recipe for extended war is giving Ukraine only enough weapons to fight to a draw rather than to drive Russia out. That’s been President Biden’s strategy. Former Vice President Mike Pence had it right in our pages this week: The fastest route to peace is a Ukrainian victory."
Opinion | The House Refuses to Abandon Ukraine
The GOP’s isolationist wing loses big in a pair of defense votes.
www.wsj.com
The casualties on the Ukrainian side must be getting high. Ads of Ukrainian women looking for American husbands are everywhere
What attempts are being made to end the war through negotiations? Giving weapons that reportedly have been banned by about 100 countries does not seem likely to lessen the conflict. And, Biden saying that our acceptable munitions are being rationed as an excuse is really hard to believe. One can easily see how our involvement now, and lack of active involvement early, has placed the US and its citizens at risk. Do you acknowledge that or just reject it for one narrative?"The House passed the annual defense policy bill on Friday, and what a shock it must have been for the press corps. The Beltway media spent the week informing readers that conservative social policies doomed the bill and that GOP isolationists might block support for Ukraine.
They need better sources. Neither happened, and Republican amendments to abandon Ukraine in particular were routed on the floor. The GOP’s abandon-Ukraine caucus is loud and damaging to the party, but most Americans appreciate the stakes for the U.S. in backing Kyiv.
The House bill authorizes $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine, which Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene aimed to strip in an amendment. Her measure failed 341-89 (79-21%). Rep. Matt Gaetz tried to block all further military aid for Kyiv, which lost 358-70 (84-16%). A majority of Republicans joined Democrats in opposing both.
The measures would have damaged U.S. interests and been a disaster for the public’s view of Republicans as the party of a strong national defense. Since when are Republicans against helping people who want to fight for their freedom against Russia or China? Good question
Not one to miss an opportunity to adopt a losing cause, Donald Trump belly-flopped in on Friday with a statement that when he wins the Presidency he’ll end the war in “24 hours,” details never to follow. “This conflict must end. Not one American mother or father wants to send their child to die in Eastern Europe. We must have PEACE.”
Not a single American solider has died in Ukraine, which is part of the point in supporting that country with weapons. Check Russia there so that U.S. troops don’t have to fight Vladimir Putin’s tanks in Vilnius or Warsaw.
Mr. Trump lamented dwindling U.S. weapons stocks, a real problem that he could have done more to prevent while President. But the U.S. is replacing donated equipment with better kit, and new contracts are a start on reviving the defense industrial base.
The Trump-Gaetz view commands even less support in the Senate. That’s all the more encouraging given that Mr. Biden has barely made the case for supporting Ukraine to the public. But Congressional patience isn’t infinite, and Mr. Biden ought to use Congress’s show of political support to accelerate the delivery of weapons, especially the long-range missiles the President has been hesitating over.
The GOP isolationists rail against “forever wars,” but the real recipe for extended war is giving Ukraine only enough weapons to fight to a draw rather than to drive Russia out. That’s been President Biden’s strategy. Former Vice President Mike Pence had it right in our pages this week: The fastest route to peace is a Ukrainian victory."
Opinion | The House Refuses to Abandon Ukraine
The GOP’s isolationist wing loses big in a pair of defense votes.
No knowledge of the efforts for your first question. US hasn't banned those weapons. Why bring up other countries when you're so America First? Yes, we should have gotten involved heavily earlier. Unless you can tell me how your bomb shelter is coming, you don't believe we're at any more risk than I do. Acknowledge what? Reject what for one narrative?
Huh? WTF does that mean? Dude, take a deep breath or a nap. You are making some asinine comments. This administration suggested war crimes when it thought Russia was using those munitions.
Another silly comment. I don’t have to build a bomb shelter to have concerns. That is just an illogical brain freeze suggestion.
Risk.
- Russia's economy is going from bad to worse as Western sanctions hammer the country's key sectors.
- From slumping car sales to a plunging Russia ruble, the problems Russia faces keep on growing.
- Here are key signs showing how Moscow's economy is spiraling.
From plunging car sales to a dramatic collapse in its current-account surplus, there's no way to hide Moscow's troubles.
The country's economic woes have multiplied since its invasion of Ukraine early last year. The conflict has triggered a wave of sanctions from the Western world. Some have even blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for inflicting so much pain on the nation, with Yale researchers saying he's "cannibalizing" Russia's economy in his urge to conquer Ukraine.
"The lion's share of the economy is controlled by the state, the energy and financial sectors, and Putin is taking from the seed capital of those businesses to use as a cookie jar for his war chest," researchers Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian said.
Russia's economy has gone from bad to worse in a matter of months. Here's where the country is feeling pain the most.
From plunging car sales to a collapse in Moscow's current-account balance, there's no denying that Russia is suffering severe economic damage.
finance.yahoo.com
Russia's economy has gone from bad to worse in a matter of months. Here's where the country is feeling pain the most.
From plunging car sales to a collapse in Moscow's current-account balance, there's no denying that Russia is suffering severe economic damage.
Neither US nor Russia have signed onto to cluster ban. Apparently the admin didn't know those facts.
No, don't have build a bomb shelter. But when you don't, I don't take your "concerns" seriously at all. You're just using your "concerns" as a talking point - which I thus dismiss out of hand - because you have nothing real.
If anyone needs to take a deep breath, it's those that keep mentioning WW3.
"In Europe, the once-gaping divisions between different capitals have narrowed sharply, as countries previously seen as soft on Russia, including France, Italy, Spain and to a lesser extent Germany, have all moved much closer to Ukraine’s fiercest supporters: Poland, the Baltic and the Nordic states.
“It took a while, but then it seeped through. Today a lot of leaders around Europe, including Germany, understand that they must help Ukraine defeat Putin if they want to defend their own security,” said Reinhard Bütikofer, a German member of the European Parliament. “They have well understood that Putin’s threat to Ukraine has significance far beyond Ukraine itself.” Which of course the putinistas here don't want to acknowledge. Afterall, it's just a local territory dispute.
"Many key European leaders who pushed for talks between Kyiv and Moscow last year, most importantly French President Emmanuel Macron, have increasingly come to the view that no deal on Ukraine can be struck until Putin is routed on the battlefield or leaves power. What? Putin is a threat beyond Ukraine. Come on.
“There is a growing belief in Europe that the defeat of Russia needs to be super clear, while at least in some corners of the U.S. system there might be a sense that this needs to be a defeat that generates a negotiated outcome,” said Camille Grand, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Brussels who served until last year as NATO’s assistant secretary-general. “There is this nuance.”"
"Within Europe, perhaps the most significant shift has occurred in France, the EU’s only nuclear power. Macron, who sought diplomatic engagement with Putin last year, has become increasingly convinced of the need for a Ukrainian victory—a belief he expressed in a landmark speech in Bratislava, Slovakia, on May 31. “Only one peace is possible—a peace that respects international law and is chosen by the victims of the aggression, the Ukrainian people,” he said. Now that's not hard at all, is it?
Dębski, the head of the Polish think tank, said: “France does have a strategic culture, a strategic vision, and can think about the long term, which is why they are much closer now to the Nordic countries and to NATO’s eastern flank—countries that have no option but to think about the long run, the long-term consequences.”
What long-term consequences?
The same sort of socially conservative, nationalist or nativist political currents that oppose helping Ukraine in the U.S. often have a very different attitude in Europe. Italy is a prime example. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose right-wing coalition includes parties historically friendly to Putin, has become one of Kyiv’s most vocal defenders since coming to power last October.
“Even in a Europe that tilts in some countries to the right, that doesn’t necessarily mean backing off from support for Ukraine,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Institute of International Affairs in Rome. “Nationalists like Meloni would feel strongly about the fact that Ukraine is fighting its war of national liberation.”
Europe’s proximity to Ukraine—and America’s distance—explains the different attitudes, she added: “Geography counts at the end of the day. The U.S. is far away, and can live with a compromise in a way that the Europeans would struggle far more to accept.”"
www.wsj.com
“It took a while, but then it seeped through. Today a lot of leaders around Europe, including Germany, understand that they must help Ukraine defeat Putin if they want to defend their own security,” said Reinhard Bütikofer, a German member of the European Parliament. “They have well understood that Putin’s threat to Ukraine has significance far beyond Ukraine itself.” Which of course the putinistas here don't want to acknowledge. Afterall, it's just a local territory dispute.
"Many key European leaders who pushed for talks between Kyiv and Moscow last year, most importantly French President Emmanuel Macron, have increasingly come to the view that no deal on Ukraine can be struck until Putin is routed on the battlefield or leaves power. What? Putin is a threat beyond Ukraine. Come on.
“There is a growing belief in Europe that the defeat of Russia needs to be super clear, while at least in some corners of the U.S. system there might be a sense that this needs to be a defeat that generates a negotiated outcome,” said Camille Grand, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Brussels who served until last year as NATO’s assistant secretary-general. “There is this nuance.”"
"Within Europe, perhaps the most significant shift has occurred in France, the EU’s only nuclear power. Macron, who sought diplomatic engagement with Putin last year, has become increasingly convinced of the need for a Ukrainian victory—a belief he expressed in a landmark speech in Bratislava, Slovakia, on May 31. “Only one peace is possible—a peace that respects international law and is chosen by the victims of the aggression, the Ukrainian people,” he said. Now that's not hard at all, is it?
Dębski, the head of the Polish think tank, said: “France does have a strategic culture, a strategic vision, and can think about the long term, which is why they are much closer now to the Nordic countries and to NATO’s eastern flank—countries that have no option but to think about the long run, the long-term consequences.”
What long-term consequences?
The same sort of socially conservative, nationalist or nativist political currents that oppose helping Ukraine in the U.S. often have a very different attitude in Europe. Italy is a prime example. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose right-wing coalition includes parties historically friendly to Putin, has become one of Kyiv’s most vocal defenders since coming to power last October.
“Even in a Europe that tilts in some countries to the right, that doesn’t necessarily mean backing off from support for Ukraine,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Institute of International Affairs in Rome. “Nationalists like Meloni would feel strongly about the fact that Ukraine is fighting its war of national liberation.”
Europe’s proximity to Ukraine—and America’s distance—explains the different attitudes, she added: “Geography counts at the end of the day. The U.S. is far away, and can live with a compromise in a way that the Europeans would struggle far more to accept.”"
Changing Places: Europeans Grow More Assertive on Ukraine as Washington Shows Caution
The NATO summit highlighted divisions over Ukraine’s future in the alliance and how far the West should go in supplying weapons.
www.wsj.com
Again I’ll ask, how many bombs have been dropped on KY and/or the Cincinnati metropolitan area in all the wars in recorded history combined, such that someone in this area would build a bomb shelter if they were concerned about a potential world war?
An estimated 3% of the worlds population died as a result of WWII. Should everyone have just built bomb shelters?
Your Warhawk brains just malfunction anytime someone suggests forever wars may not be a good thing for humanity, or the United States.
Growing up in the '50, I knew several people with bomb shelters. Even knew one while working in the '70's. That showed me their concern was real.
Changing the subject from nuke war to forever war - I think those are quite different - shows the WW3 crap is just that. Of course neither are good for humanity. Neither are pollution or pandemics, but you don't throw nukes/WW3 discussions into those.
When you gear up and go fight for the Ukraines, I will take you seriously. You have nothing real.
Well if you think a bomb shelter would protect you from the negative impacts of a world war or nuclear war, you are an idiot. If you think the only step “concerned” people would take would be constructing a bomb shelter far removed from any coasts, strategic target or any place that has ever been bombed in recorded history, again you are an idiot.
Measuring levels of concern by the number of people building bomb shelters, and not those using logic and reason, is idiotic.
Latest posts
-
UK’s Propaganda Arm, KSR, Trying to Sell Another Year- Latest: Crankdatmustard
-
-
Arkansas fans are starting to see it now. Link to their message board.- Latest: North Carolina Blue Wildcat
-
-
