The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)

[BigBlueFanGA]

(1) you mentioned nukes. It was not a response to my post. You just raised it out of the blue.
(2) see above. Only you mentioned nukes.
(3) ditto
(4) at some point, Ukraine will need more than just money and munitions. So, hold that thought. If Russia does not just withdrawal, as has been said many times, Ukraine loses a war of attrition. Maybe Russia just gives up? Could happen. Does not seem likely, but could happen. If not, when Ukraine is about to fall, we can revisit this discussion to see how people feel about the war, whether it is important enough.

Question:
Are we closer to:
(A) Ukraine losing
(B) Russia losing
(C) WWIII
than we were 3 years ago?

I was referring to Russias threat potential since you keep mentioning WW3. The 4 things I listed are accurate. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what Ukraine is doing. They are maturing as a force, the exact opposite of what you want people to believe.

They are learning to fight a guerrilla war. Its nearly impossible to beat a country that is fighting that way. For heavens sake, look around, even though your "group" has called for Ukraine’s imminent demise, it hasn't happened. The war is now 40 months old with Ukraine making deeper and deeper targets in Russia. Just Google "is Ukraine building its own weapons" and you'll see how much they've grown.

As for your questions, neither side is winning. This is a pure stalemate at the moment but Russia has to find a way to keep feeding its war machine, as pathetic as it is. Ukraine is finding a comfortable middle ground. They are probably willing to do this for the next decade.

WW3 is a fantasy in some of your minds. It isn't happening. Russia can't finance it or arm it. Any attack on a NATO member would lead to an immediate and devastating attack on Russia. Iran can't help them, North Korea can't launch a small battleship without crushing it. China won't step up to any attacks on their global ATM's. Russia is basically on its own with a dwindling number of personnel and archaic weapons.

You really need to stop this WW3 nonsense.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Depends on the definitions of (A) & (B). (C) isn't in play at all.

I pray you are right and am happy that no one here thinks Russia a threat to us or NATO. I did not believe they were when Biden tried to sell that to us early in this war.

But, I disagree. When there is a war in Europe, there is a greater chance of WW than there is when there is no war in Europe. And, the longer the war in Europe, the greater the chance.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

They are maturing as a force,

Lol

WW3 is a fantasy in some of your minds. It isn't happening. Russia can't finance it or arm it. Any attack on a NATO member would lead to an immediate and devastating attack on Russia. Iran can't help them, North Korea can't launch a small battleship without crushing it. China won't step up to any attacks on their global ATM's. Russia is basically on its own with a dwindling number of personnel and archaic weapons.

Cant finance it? Is this coming from the same sources that tell you they are incompetent and losing ground at every turn? Until the world no longer uses oil, they can finance whatever they want.

Oh and if Europe really does all converge and attack, after loads of sons and daughters die, we get the joy of really pressing a very proud enemy that has nukes.

Crossing our fingers hoping a reported madman doesn't push the button doesn't sound like a great outcome to anyone with a lick of objectivity on the situation. All to save a country who's only value is to corrupt politicians.

 

[vhcat70]

When there is a war in Europe, there is a greater chance of WW than there is when there is no war in Europe.

Brilliant. Where did you come up with that idea?

What's the equation/relationship for some war in Europe from dinky to large and its odds for causing WW3? You must know it since you keep bring WW3 up to no end.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Brilliant. Where did you come up with that idea?

Oh, so NOW history means nothing gotcha. lol

What's the equation/relationship for some war in Europe from dinky to large and its odds for causing WW3? You must know it since you keep bring WW3 up to no end.

False. Go to bed Elaine and try not to be so damn angry.

 

[vhcat70]

Oh, so NOW history means nothing gotcha. lol

False. Go to bed Elaine and try not to be so damn angry.

Eighty years later & there's not been a major war in Europe. But stick with your ancient history.

NET, you have no basis for bringing WW3 up. I'll stay clam.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Eighty years later & there's not been a major war in Europe. But stick with your ancient history.

NET, you have no basis for bringing WW3 up. I'll stay clam.

Stay clam. Elaine. Stay clam.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Lol



Cant finance it? Is this coming from the same sources that tell you they are incompetent and losing ground at every turn? Until the world no longer uses oil, they can finance whatever they want.

Oh and if Europe really does all converge and attack, after loads of sons and daughters die, we get the joy of really pressing a very proud enemy that has nukes.

Crossing our fingers hoping a reported madman doesn't push the button doesn't sound like a great outcome to anyone with a lick of objectivity on the situation. All to save a country who's only value is to corrupt politicians.

Interesting. Preparing my response to you regarding Mike Benz, Euromaidan, the CIA and USAID has caused me to do some interesting digging and reading. I dont have "souces" especially in an issue as convoluted as this. Have you ever sat back and thought about the fact that it is you who is locked into a narrow group of information providers. You don't seem to consider anything outside the scope I mentioned at the beginning of this response.

I'm not sure why you're laughing except maybe at your own lack of information. Russia is selling its soul with oil. Those reserves support the nation as well as the war efforts. Their internal information says their oil production is becoming more difficult. They are selling it, at a discount, to countries like India and China but the problem is longterm efficiency and internal taxation. It is an economic fact that they are mortgaging their future for current revenue. In other words, they are weakening Russias future. That is undeniable.

Yes, Ukraine is learning how to fight and they are producing a significant portion of their own weapons. Perhaps you should ask Mike Benz and Jeffrey Sachs about this.

I've already addressed the nuke issue.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Oh, so NOW history means nothing gotcha. lol

False. Go to bed Elaine and try not to be so damn angry.

That isn't false. You're simply deflecting the statement.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Stay clam. Elaine. Stay clam.

Deflection without any attempt to respond.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Interesting. Preparing my response to you regarding Mike Benz, Euromaidan, the CIA and USAID has caused me to do some interesting digging and reading. I dont have "souces" especially in an issue as convoluted as this. Have you ever sat back and thought about the fact that it is you who is locked into a narrow group of information providers. You don't seem to consider anything outside the scope I mentioned at the beginning of this response.

I'm not sure why you're laughing except maybe at your own lack of information. Russia is selling its soul with oil. Those reserves support the nation as well as the war efforts. Their internal information says their oil production is becoming more difficult. They are selling it, at a discount, to countries like India and China but the problem is longterm efficiency and internal taxation. It is an economic fact that they are mortgaging their future for current revenue. In other words, they are weakening Russias future. That is undeniable.

Yes, Ukraine is learning how to fight and they are producing a significant portion of their own weapons. Perhaps you should ask Mike Benz and Jeffrey Sachs about this.

I've already addressed the nuke issue.

He isnt providing any info. Hes highlighting public info that is out there on these agencies public website.

 

[bcw1029]

I pray you are right and am happy that no one here thinks Russia a threat to us or NATO. I did not believe they were when Biden tried to sell that to us early in this war.

But, I disagree. When there is a war in Europe, there is a greater chance of WW than there is when there is no war in Europe. And, the longer the war in Europe, the greater the chance.

Respectfully disagree on the WWIII prediction in Europe. Putin isn’t stupid enough to take on NATO. Even Serbia, a long-time Russian ally, has abandoned them. Their drone supply chain took a big hit with Iran’s drone factories being destroyed.

This is much more likely to happen in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific with China repeatedly blocking shipping lanes, expansion of artificial islands for control of said lanes, and the threat (tbd) to Taiwan. Their expansion of Belt-And-Road for gullible poor countries gives them a greater sphere of influence while Russia has to rely on North Korean soldiers just to hold Kursk and this war costing them a fortune. I would put the chances of WWIII in Europe at less than 5%. JMO

 

[Caveman Catfan]

That isn't false. You're simply deflecting the statement.

It is false. I have mentioned the possibility of WWIII. No doubt. To not would be reckless. War in Europe between countries has a history of expanding in modern history.

But, I don’t “keep bringing it up to no end.” The deflection, actually, is the overwhelming attempt to avoid the discussion. Just as there was avoidance of the topics of wasted lives and a negotiated resolution to the war. To out of pocket dismiss the possibility of this war expanding is the real deflection. At some point, and no one seems to deny this, Ukraine loses a war of attrition, despite your belief that they can learn to stand on their own. As in “loses,” in the traditional sense of the definition, not some modified definition to make us feel good.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Deflection without any attempt to respond.

Here ya go. Eighty years with no war between European powers. I thought that was too obvious to mention. So, stop deflecting. As if Elaine actually made a point. 🤦‍♂️

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Respectfully disagree on the WWIII prediction in Europe. Putin isn’t stupid enough to take on NATO. Even Serbia, a long-time Russian ally, has abandoned them. Their drone supply chain took a big hit with Iran’s drone factories being destroyed.

Well, let’s not pretend I made a WWIII prediction. I didn’t. The chances of an expanded war increase as this lingers. No one here has set forth a path to actual Ukraine victory. They avoid the topic like the plague, except for VH who defined victory as if it has already occurred, rather than address the traditionally accepted definition. Ukraine is fighting better than anyone imagined and Russia has portrayed weaker than anyone seemed to expect, BUT without Russia just giving up or there being a negotiated settlement (something I have promoted now for years, but some here seemed to avoid that subject, because, I think, some just wanted Russia to be in a perpetual war without concern for the loss of life), this war ends with Ukraine falling or with official boots on the ground from other countries.

This is much more likely to happen in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific with China repeatedly blocking shipping lanes, expansion of artificial islands for control of said lanes, and the threat (tbd) to Taiwan. Their expansion of Belt-And-Road for gullible poor countries gives them a greater sphere of influence while Russia has to rely on North Korean soldiers just to hold Kursk and this war costing them a fortune. I would put the chances of WWIII in Europe at less than 5%. JMO

I think this is another thread. And, I think your concern is justified.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Respectfully disagree on the WWIII prediction in Europe. Putin isn’t stupid enough to take on NATO

I thought Putin was a crazed madman hellbent on destroying the world, which is why we need to stop him now?

Yet hes also simultaneously well reasoned enough to know not to start a war with nato?

 

[SDC888]

I thought Putin was a crazed madman hellbent on destroying the world, which is why we need to stop him now?

Yet hes also simultaneously well reasoned enough to know not to start a war with nato?

There are so many, so many glaring and obvious contradictions... so, so many.

I had the same thought myself reading this thread yesterday, but refrained from pointing it out, as i often do... lest I get chastised for thinking myself a genius. 🥸

 

[vhcat70]

Well, let’s not pretend I made a WWIII prediction. I didn’t. The chances of an expanded war increase as this lingers.

Explain how this war lingering increases the chances of war expansion? I earlier asked for your method for drawing this conclusion with zero response. From your three choices for how this turns out in an earlier post on this page, seems you give expanded war 33% chance. Is that accurate? If not, what is the chance you keep harping on?

Me, I think whatever miniscule/infinitesimal chance there is drops by the day as the war lingers on at least due to other events as it lingers such as Tran's diminished status.

I clamly await your response.

 

[bcw1029]

I thought Putin was a crazed madman hellbent on destroying the world, which is why we need to stop him now?

Yet hes also simultaneously well reasoned enough to know not to start a war with nato?

I don’t know who you are confusing me with, but I never said he was a threat to the world. Regional threat? Yeah, could make that argument.

You guys always try to unsuccessfully play “gotcha” and it’s rather hilarious.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Explain how this war lingering increases the chances of war expansion?

I guess I could simply respond like you and tell you to FO, but I will leave the curmudgeon responses to you.

I really cannot believe this question has been asked. Maybe you can first explain to me what YOU think the objective of this war is. If it is to eventually see Ukraine fall after hundreds of thousands of deaths, then I think it less likely that WWIII comes from this. So, to help me understand your question, what do you see as the objective? If it is what I just said, then you might as well FO, because I put that objective in the category of sick.

I earlier asked for your method for drawing this conclusion with zero response.

Well, just because you post there was no response that does not make it so.

From your three choices for how this turns out in an earlier post on this page, seems you give expanded war 33% chance. Is that accurate? If not, what is the chance you keep harping on?

I did not make ANY estimate. Go back and read again and ask a clear question.

Me, I think whatever miniscule/infinitesimal chance there is drops by the day as the war lingers on at least due to other events as it lingers such as Tran's diminished status.

What is the basis for that belief?

I clamly await your response.

Same here.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I don’t know who you are confusing me with, but I never said he was a threat to the world. Regional threat? Yeah, could make that argument.

You guys always try to unsuccessfully play “gotcha” and it’s rather hilarious.

I dont have to play gotcha. Its super easy on this subject to point out hypocrisy. Basically people supporting our involvement say anything to further their position, even speak on both sides of the argument.

Ok lets temporarily ignore the overwhelming movement position that putin is a madman hellbent on dominating the world. Lets just focus on your individual position.

So your individual position is Putin is a threat to take over Europe, yet is reasonable enough to not use nuclear weapons to accomplish it?

 

[vhcat70]

I guess I could simply respond like you and tell you to FO, but I will leave the curmudgeon responses to you.

I really cannot believe this question has been asked. Maybe you can first explain to me what YOU think the objective of this war is. If it is to eventually see Ukraine fall after hundreds of thousands of deaths, then I think it less likely that WWIII comes from this. So, to help me understand your question, what do you see as the objective? If it is what I just said, then you might as well FO, because I put that objective in the category of sick.

Well, just because you post there was no response that does not make it so.

I did not make ANY estimate. Go back and read again and ask a clear question.

What is the basis for that belief?


Same here.

They're wearing each other out. That decreases the odd of expansion from your 33% best estimate (You provide no other to consider.).

As for the war's objective, a) you're off on a deflecting tangent, & b) it's obvious beyond question.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

They're wearing each other out. That decreases the odd of expansion from your 33% best estimate (You provide no other to consider.).

As for the war's objective, a) you're off on a deflecting tangent, & b) it's obvious beyond question.

Please VH, have someone in your presence explain to you that YOU have created some 33% estimate. You don’t read, you just shoot. Others have to keep telling you things over and over again, because you make no effort.

And, it’s obvious from your posts that you don’t know what the objective is for this war, you just promote war. So, keep dodging.

 

[vhcat70]

Please VH, have someone in your presence explain to you that YOU have created some 33% estimate. You don’t read, you just shoot. Others have to keep telling you things over and over again, because you make no effort.

And, it’s obvious from your posts that you don’t know what the objective is for this war, you just promote war. So, keep dodging.

vh? I thought you thought I'm Elaine. Make up your dam mind.

The 33% isn't made up. It comes from your question asking how one thinks the war will end. You gave three equal choices. Since you refuse to give your position, I take you think they're equally likely. Pretty straightforward.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

vh? I thought you thought I'm Elaine. Make up your dam mind.

The 33% isn't made up. It comes from your question asking how one thinks the war will end. You gave three equal choices. Since you refuse to give your position, I take you think they're equally likely. Pretty straightforward.

Elaine, I gave you three choices. If there is a fourth I did not consider, just tell us. Why are you afraid to tell us what is the objective of the war? You are dancing and dodging. Cant’t your tell us?

Do you think Ukraine can outright win this war without other countries putting boots on the ground or getting otherwise directly into the fighting? If so, tell us how that will come to be, because I don’t hear ANYONE claim Ukraine can defeat Russia. Please, let us all in.

If not, what is the objective? Stop running and let us know.

Is it just perpetual holding Russia off? If so, how long can that last before Ukraine loses manpower to defend its country before it will need other countries to get directly involved?

It’s weak to claim Ukraine has won because they have not yet lost without explaining how this can keep going. Educate us.