- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,604
- 209,607
- 113
Wow, what a Who's Who of world powers!
You are so right, we really need to negotiate with them quick since they are ascendant. 😂 😂 😂
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
You are so right, we really need to negotiate with them quick since they are ascendant. 😂 😂 😂
Seriously. It’s most of the worlds population but I’m sure you know better from your computer in Iowa.
Is Russia no longer a threat when the 2014 boarders are returned? Or when they don't have Crimea? Or when Ukraine rolls up through Red Square and replaces the government and hands off their nukes to the US?
Seems like your vague criteria doesn't necessary match what Ukraine is even pushing for.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,604
- 209,607
- 113
Oh for sure, for sure. Having billions of underfed, uneducated, illiterate mouths to feed as your base population is a true sign of power.
Hell, the next car I plan to buy will be from Uzbekistan. And I will be replacing my iPhone with a mobile phone from Turkmenistan.
First off, NATO isn't claiming to be fighting this war yet, so dictating terms of winning isn't up to them. Obviously NATO has a vested interest in seeing Ukraine absolutely decimate Russia's military so that they don't have to and they're willing to send old weaponry (While replacing with new) to allow that to happen. I don't think there's any need for NATO to currently make any statement as to what defines victory other than they support Ukraine in their fight. It's up to individual countries to determine when they think enough has been spent on their end, and countries may start lobbying for Ukraine to make concessions later on; especially if Russia comes forward with a peace deal that says we leave, we're sorry, just let us keep Crimea and we'll leave you be and even pay to rebuild. Now I doubt Russia will ever do that, but who knows. It's way too early to set goalposts and cement them in place because things change quickly.
I'm sure that if NATO thinks that Ukraine can kick Russia out of Crimea then they'll happily support that, I think if it appears impossible, then maybe they'll silently start taking backchannels to push Ukraine to make concessions and allow Ukraine to make the "decision" while they continue to "support" Ukraine.
Now the minute that NATO puts their troops into the battle and physically starts fighting Russia, then they get to set the terms. Until then it's ridiculous to demand that they do. I think it's pretty clear that they'd love to see Ukraine take back all of their borders and completely remove Russia from all of it. It's not yet certain whether that's possible. They're not going to stab Ukraine in the back and say it isn't, because we simply don't know.
Now obviously (Unless Russia does something insane like go Nuclear) I don't see NATO supporting any major incursion into Russia. (That's obviously different from striking supply lines that are being used to invade and strike Ukraine). But for now, they'll support Ukraine as long as it makes sense to do so. If that means all the way to pre-2014 borders then they'll do that, if it appears that they need to accept something less then they'll probably do that. But to make any bold claims as to what "winning" is doesn't do any good for anybody. Let Ukraine make those claims and adjust as the war plays out.
Ok…but dictating the terms of their support sure is. Which has a pretty big effect on what Ukraine can recover territory wise…
So far their support is "Let's go get them and see what you can do". Battlefields change quickly. There's no way of knowing what is completely feasible yet. They're not going to say winning is taking back Crimea if they're not certain it can realistically be done. To do so then forces you to continue to support that even if it's not feasible. Likewise they're not going to say we don't consider Crimea necessary to victory, because that undermines Ukraine in their attempt to do so.
Right now there's still a ton that is definitely doable. It's like playing a football game one quarter at a time. Don't start calling your 2 minute offense at the start of the third quarter. See exactly what offense you need and run it when you get there. I'm sure they're making plans for all types of battlefield eventualities just like any good coach does. But it's too early to commit to that final strategy when you still need to get through the third quarter of the war which is where I feel like this is right now. Ukraine made it to half time, Russia started out to a big lead, Ukraine has fought back and taken a 10 point lead into Halftime. We're now in the third quarter. Can they keep the pressure up and grow that lead, will it become a boring defensive stand off for the rest of the game, or does Russia have any changes they implemented at halftime that changes the approach.
With the volume of civilian casualties, I think Ukraine's goals become greater.
This is about right and wrong and I see no way Ukraine concedes anything when all signs point to them having the momentum.
Russia is the one that needs an exit strategy.
This is about right and wrong and I see no way Ukraine concedes anything when all signs point to them having the momentum.
Russia is the one that needs an exit strategy.
Just the countries I listed have a greater gdp than Europe. iPhones are made in China and India.
I feel this is deliberately coy/obtuse.
Ukraine‘s war aims are limited by what NATO (read: The US) will support them doing.
e.g. They don’t march into Crimea if it means we quit giving them arms.
I don’t think any other appreciation of the situation is grounded in reality.
Are we keeping them in the dark about what would make the U.S. drop support, or have we told them we’ll back them all the way to the 1991 border?
Do Americans deserve to know what’s on the check the White House is writing Ukraine, because we don’t have a treaty to defend them that was adopted by our Senate.
They won't have a Naval presence on Crimean soil
They won't have much of an army left
They will no longer be capable of cutting off Ukraine's access to the Black Sea.
So "no longer a threat"? They'll always be a threat so long as they are run by oligarchs and fascists like Putin; they will mainly be a toothless, isolated one.
Russia has 7,000 nuclear warheads. They will never be neutralized.
Russia has the SS-25 mobile ballistic missile launcher. It has a 6,800 mile range, multiple nuclear warheads, decoy reentry vehicles and a sub 200 meter accuracy.
They will always be a threat.
That video is aptly named - I'm surprised he is supportive of the self-ownage.
Wow-550! This week was great for Ukraine with most days it seemed like between 450 -500 Orcs KIA.
"Ukrainian armed forces: Near Mayorsk, in the Donetsk region, about 300 invaders preparing for an offensive were destroyed."
"At #Sivastopol the morning started with bombs. It is reported that they repelled the "drone attack", after which work in the Sevastopol Bay was stopped."
Ouchie. 1k+ in the last 2 days.*
*edited note I think I’m the first person to commit an intra-thread Pepsi in the morning 5 o’clock hour for a post in the morning 3 o’clock hour. For that I congratulate Tenacious E in the first person.
*edited note I think I’m the first person to commit an intra-thread Pepsi in the morning 5 o’clock hour for a post in the morning 3 o’clock hour. For that I congratulate Tenacious E in the first person.
Last edited:
So, the Russians are now looting relics?
This actually seems like a signal they may be pulling out of Kherson as the bulletin suggests.
Also signals they might never intend to come back and are fine with flooding it, or having some kind of nuclear disaster occur.
The same old tired schtick about nato expansion.
You keep harping on that point regardless of the fact the man running the show has said that's not the reason many times over now.
At this point, you're literally arguing w/ putin about putins motives.
I wonder if they will make the conscripts be the last ones out making them fight or serve as human rumble strips, thereby slowing down an advance so Ukraine has to take and manage prisoners.
Reported losses over last 7 days:
10/29 - 550
10/28 - 480
10/27 - 320
10/26 - 480
10/25 - 480
10/24 - 470
10/23 - 400
One week Total = 3,180 dead orcs
For some perspective, our total US Deaths was 2,325 in 20 years of war in Afghanistan. IN one week they lost almost 10% of the troops as we did the entire 4 years in Korean War. It's just incredible.
10/29 - 550
10/28 - 480
10/27 - 320
10/26 - 480
10/25 - 480
10/24 - 470
10/23 - 400
One week Total = 3,180 dead orcs
For some perspective, our total US Deaths was 2,325 in 20 years of war in Afghanistan. IN one week they lost almost 10% of the troops as we did the entire 4 years in Korean War. It's just incredible.
Last edited:
And I need to stress again that typically, there are 3x as many wounded as KIA, and reports are that as the war wears down Russia, there are reports that 50% of their wounded are dying. So there could be another 5k that died or will die soon, just from this week alone. Also, those numbers aren’t tracked. So Russia’s actual body count could be between 150k and 200k.
Last edited:
