(12-26-2022 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 10:14 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 08:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We knew the Russian army was inept. We didn't realize that they were THAT inept.

I doubt the Russians realized it was that inept until it was proven so on the battlefield. One thing I don't get, at least with some of the comments here, is the assertion that Putin started this war because of his concerns about NATO. Yet, the twin assertion that NATO would only engage Russia if one of his members were attacked first. And then the third assertion, that NATO would respond with overwhelming force against Russia if Russia were to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Doesn't seem that all of those fit together very well. Would NATO get involved because of the Budapest memorandum? Also another alternative motivation, to me it seems that Putin simply does not want a growing and eventually thriving democracy as an example so close to his borders. It's a threat to him personally.

Putin has a significant problem, or really two problems.

The European Plain extends from the low countries to almost the Urals, and basically provides no natural defenses. It's why Prussians/Germans were so warlike and it's why Poland has moved around over the centuries, from where Ukraine is to where Poland is today. Basically Russians and Germans (and earlier Swedes) have tried to control the plain for centuries and Poland got whatever no-man's land was left in between. Anyway, Russia has no natural western defenses, and Russians are paranoid about invasion from the west (Napoleon, Hitler) or from the east (Mongol hordes, Cossacks). In the Iron Curtain days, the Soviets had to defend only a couple of hundred mile front, from the Carpathian Alps (because nobody in his/her right mind would attempt to invade through the Balkans) to the Baltic. Now that front is a couple of thousand miles wide. Further, the Russian army is shrinking because their low birth rate is producing fewer and fewer 20-somethings.

So Putin has a harder border to defend, with fewer people to defend it with. In about a decade, his country basically becomes indefensible. A number of observers have speculated that Putin would be at his most dangerous between now and then, as he might try some last gasp effort to regain defensible borders. This Ukraine push may well have been the first step in that effort. I don't think anybody expected it to go this badly for Russia, indicating that the decline of the army may be further along than we think.

I hear that a lot. Russia crosses borders and makes unprovoked war on sovereign countries as a way to defend its own borders. Apparently Putin thinks this reasoning doesn't apply to the countries he has invaded. So then it's safe to say that in hindsight Ukraine made a huge mistake when they gave up their nuclear arsenal on Russia's promise that Russia would not invade Ukraine.

(12-26-2022 01:33 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(12-26-2022 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 10:14 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 08:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We knew the Russian army was inept. We didn't realize that they were THAT inept.

I doubt the Russians realized it was that inept until it was proven so on the battlefield. One thing I don't get, at least with some of the comments here, is the assertion that Putin started this war because of his concerns about NATO. Yet, the twin assertion that NATO would only engage Russia if one of his members were attacked first. And then the third assertion, that NATO would respond with overwhelming force against Russia if Russia were to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Doesn't seem that all of those fit together very well. Would NATO get involved because of the Budapest memorandum? Also another alternative motivation, to me it seems that Putin simply does not want a growing and eventually thriving democracy as an example so close to his borders. It's a threat to him personally.

Putin has a significant problem, or really two problems.

The European Plain extends from the low countries to almost the Urals, and basically provides no natural defenses. It's why Prussians/Germans were so warlike and it's why Poland has moved around over the centuries, from where Ukraine is to where Poland is today. Basically Russians and Germans (and earlier Swedes) have tried to control the plain for centuries and Poland got whatever no-man's land was left in between. Anyway, Russia has no natural western defenses, and Russians are paranoid about invasion from the west (Napoleon, Hitler) or from the east (Mongol hordes, Cossacks). In the Iron Curtain days, the Soviets had to defend only a couple of hundred mile front, from the Carpathian Alps (because nobody in his/her right mind would attempt to invade through the Balkans) to the Baltic. Now that front is a couple of thousand miles wide. Further, the Russian army is shrinking because their low birth rate is producing fewer and fewer 20-somethings.

So Putin has a harder border to defend, with fewer people to defend it with. In about a decade, his country basically becomes indefensible. A number of observers have speculated that Putin would be at his most dangerous between now and then, as he might try some last gasp effort to regain defensible borders. This Ukraine push may well have been the first step in that effort. I don't think anybody expected it to go this badly for Russia, indicating that the decline of the army may be further along than we think.

I hear that a lot. Russia crosses borders and makes unprovoked war on sovereign countries as a way to defend its own borders. Apparently Putin thinks this reasoning doesn't apply to the countries he has invaded. So then it's safe to say that in hindsight Ukraine made a huge mistake when they gave up their nuclear arsenal on Russia's promise that Russia would not invade Ukraine.

Indeed, another unfortunate outcome from Russia's 2014 seizure of Crimea and of this war is that no country will EVER voluntarily give up nuclear weapons again. Ukraine in 1991 inherited the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world from the USSR, and gave them all up for empty security guarantees from the US, UK and Russia.

And Russia has no legitimate self-defense concerns. Their demographic challenges may prevent them fielding an army of conquest in the future, but the largest nuclear arsenal in the world also prevents anyone from invading Russia. As others have said, NATO only threatens Russia's ability to recreate the Russian Empire and not its existence or territorial integrity.

I'm 100% convinced that TIGERCITY and Tigers2B1 are the same person. Not just based on this thread either.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(12-26-2022 03:01 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(12-26-2022 01:33 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(12-26-2022 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 10:14 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 08:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We knew the Russian army was inept. We didn't realize that they were THAT inept.

I doubt the Russians realized it was that inept until it was proven so on the battlefield. One thing I don't get, at least with some of the comments here, is the assertion that Putin started this war because of his concerns about NATO. Yet, the twin assertion that NATO would only engage Russia if one of his members were attacked first. And then the third assertion, that NATO would respond with overwhelming force against Russia if Russia were to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Doesn't seem that all of those fit together very well. Would NATO get involved because of the Budapest memorandum? Also another alternative motivation, to me it seems that Putin simply does not want a growing and eventually thriving democracy as an example so close to his borders. It's a threat to him personally.

Putin has a significant problem, or really two problems.

The European Plain extends from the low countries to almost the Urals, and basically provides no natural defenses. It's why Prussians/Germans were so warlike and it's why Poland has moved around over the centuries, from where Ukraine is to where Poland is today. Basically Russians and Germans (and earlier Swedes) have tried to control the plain for centuries and Poland got whatever no-man's land was left in between. Anyway, Russia has no natural western defenses, and Russians are paranoid about invasion from the west (Napoleon, Hitler) or from the east (Mongol hordes, Cossacks). In the Iron Curtain days, the Soviets had to defend only a couple of hundred mile front, from the Carpathian Alps (because nobody in his/her right mind would attempt to invade through the Balkans) to the Baltic. Now that front is a couple of thousand miles wide. Further, the Russian army is shrinking because their low birth rate is producing fewer and fewer 20-somethings.

So Putin has a harder border to defend, with fewer people to defend it with. In about a decade, his country basically becomes indefensible. A number of observers have speculated that Putin would be at his most dangerous between now and then, as he might try some last gasp effort to regain defensible borders. This Ukraine push may well have been the first step in that effort. I don't think anybody expected it to go this badly for Russia, indicating that the decline of the army may be further along than we think.

I hear that a lot. Russia crosses borders and makes unprovoked war on sovereign countries as a way to defend its own borders. Apparently Putin thinks this reasoning doesn't apply to the countries he has invaded. So then it's safe to say that in hindsight Ukraine made a huge mistake when they gave up their nuclear arsenal on Russia's promise that Russia would not invade Ukraine.

Indeed, another unfortunate outcome from Russia's 2014 seizure of Crimea and of this war is that no country will EVER voluntarily give up nuclear weapons again. Ukraine in 1991 inherited the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world from the USSR, and gave them all up for empty security guarantees from the US, UK and Russia.

And Russia has no legitimate self-defense concerns. Their demographic challenges may prevent them fielding an army of conquest in the future, but the largest nuclear arsenal in the world also prevents anyone from invading Russia. As others have said, NATO only threatens Russia's ability to recreate the Russian Empire and not its existence or territorial integrity.

This.

Iran, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan are taking notes about what's happened to Ukraine since giving up nuclear weapons.

That is the biggest long-term impact of this war in Ukraine.

(12-26-2022 10:37 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 08:42 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 08:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 06:58 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 02:43 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Good article which outlines the more than two decades of Western appeasement of Vladimir Putin that got us to this point. Written at the beginning of Putin's special operation in Ukraine.

https://sldinfo.com/2022/03/reaping-the-...mir-putin/

All the examples of “aggression” are counter moves to western backed moves against Russia, either creating wars inside Russia or on their borders.

In time frame of the article the west has borrowed trillions to spend on military and CIA operations in dozens of countries and killed hundreds of thousands, possibly several million people in the process and laid numerous countries to total waste.

What is the urgency to borrow money to create new wars to fight? Who is benefitting? The taxpayers? Are we in a fight for our lives that we jeopardize the future of the entire world economy and the lives of the entire planet? Our unelected handlers are irrational, out of control, and unchecked.

Virtually anywhere Russia is involved is on their border, not our border. Virtually anywhere Russia is involved, the U.S. has a hand in stirring up the conflict.

Russia isn’t the one with hundreds of military bases in every corner of the earth. Russia had a total of 2 foreign bases and the U.S. has backed coups/coup attempts in both, just a few years apart. Probably a coincidence.

The trillions of dollars in new debt the military adds is being borrowed and spent in defense of the American people, right? Isn’t that what our military is for? Or is it, in reality, just an expeditionary force who’s primary focus lies almost entirely in foreign policy projects that a few connected elites hope to profit from?

These risky gambles America keeps taking are not making us safer. The opposite. One day we are going to stir up the wrong hornets nest.

I’m afraid outside of a few countries where we control the message, this is exactly what a vast majority of the world knows.

NATO tanks never rolled into another nation to force it to become a NATO member. Those nations approached NATO and ASKED to be NATO members. Sniveling about NATO aggression isn’t a very convincing argument when Russia’s history of brutal armed expansionism is the primary reason it’s neighbors seek NATO membership.

Someone who fears their neighbor becoming part of NATO is someone who plans on invading their neighbor at some point.

No other reason to worry about it.

This is a very one-sided view. NATO is an anti-Russia alliance. It's reasonable for them to fear it. Imagine if all of Central and South America were part of an anti-US alliance and regularly practiced military exercises aimed at fighting the US in a war. One that placed weapons systems targeting the US not far from our border. How would we feel? What if that alliance was head by China and had overthrown Canada's pro-US government in a coup which was a red line for the US? Now you might be starting to understand the Russian point of view.

The US is being extremely hypocritical toward Russia. We've intervened in far more countries militarily than Russia (often further removed from our national security interests than Ukraine is to Russia). We've also started wars based on lies and killed millions of civilians in those wars. We don't have the moral high ground in this. Neither does Ukraine. If the citizens of the West stopped just swallowing the propaganda and learned what led up to this conflict they'd understand there are a lot more shades of gray and it's not just Russia is evil, Ukraine is good. Russia is acting in its own national security interests.

NATO is a defensive agreement. Mutual aid only kicks in if a NATO country is attacked, not if they attack someone.

If the Russian Federation doesn’t want people to join a treaty organization designed to stop Russian invasion then they should stop invading. Russia is currently the best recruiter for NATO through their own actions.

Finland (a Russian neighbor) only applied to nato since the Ukraine invasion.

(12-26-2022 04:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-26-2022 10:37 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 08:42 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-25-2022 08:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 06:58 PM)Todor Wrote:  All the examples of “aggression” are counter moves to western backed moves against Russia, either creating wars inside Russia or on their borders.

In time frame of the article the west has borrowed trillions to spend on military and CIA operations in dozens of countries and killed hundreds of thousands, possibly several million people in the process and laid numerous countries to total waste.

What is the urgency to borrow money to create new wars to fight? Who is benefitting? The taxpayers? Are we in a fight for our lives that we jeopardize the future of the entire world economy and the lives of the entire planet? Our unelected handlers are irrational, out of control, and unchecked.

Virtually anywhere Russia is involved is on their border, not our border. Virtually anywhere Russia is involved, the U.S. has a hand in stirring up the conflict.

Russia isn’t the one with hundreds of military bases in every corner of the earth. Russia had a total of 2 foreign bases and the U.S. has backed coups/coup attempts in both, just a few years apart. Probably a coincidence.

The trillions of dollars in new debt the military adds is being borrowed and spent in defense of the American people, right? Isn’t that what our military is for? Or is it, in reality, just an expeditionary force who’s primary focus lies almost entirely in foreign policy projects that a few connected elites hope to profit from?

These risky gambles America keeps taking are not making us safer. The opposite. One day we are going to stir up the wrong hornets nest.

I’m afraid outside of a few countries where we control the message, this is exactly what a vast majority of the world knows.

NATO tanks never rolled into another nation to force it to become a NATO member. Those nations approached NATO and ASKED to be NATO members. Sniveling about NATO aggression isn’t a very convincing argument when Russia’s history of brutal armed expansionism is the primary reason it’s neighbors seek NATO membership.

Someone who fears their neighbor becoming part of NATO is someone who plans on invading their neighbor at some point.

No other reason to worry about it.

This is a very one-sided view. NATO is an anti-Russia alliance. It's reasonable for them to fear it. Imagine if all of Central and South America were part of an anti-US alliance and regularly practiced military exercises aimed at fighting the US in a war. One that placed weapons systems targeting the US not far from our border. How would we feel? What if that alliance was head by China and had overthrown Canada's pro-US government in a coup which was a red line for the US? Now you might be starting to understand the Russian point of view.

The US is being extremely hypocritical toward Russia. We've intervened in far more countries militarily than Russia (often further removed from our national security interests than Ukraine is to Russia). We've also started wars based on lies and killed millions of civilians in those wars. We don't have the moral high ground in this. Neither does Ukraine. If the citizens of the West stopped just swallowing the propaganda and learned what led up to this conflict they'd understand there are a lot more shades of gray and it's not just Russia is evil, Ukraine is good. Russia is acting in its own national security interests.

NATO is a defensive agreement. Mutual aid only kicks in if a NATO country is attacked, not if they attack someone.

If the Russian Federation doesn’t want people to join a treaty organization designed to stop Russian invasion then they should stop invading. Russia is currently the best recruiter for NATO through their own actions.

Finland (a Russian neighbor) only applied to nato since the Ukraine invasion.

Except when they go on the offense and invade countries that having to do with NATO. And that’s when the level of trust in NATO went to zero. Russia knows NATO has, can, and will go on the offensive.

NATO shot themselves in the foot by becoming an expeditionary force instead of a defensive alliance as intended. And there’s no going back once you cross that line.

The CIA regime change operations, and then conning NATO members go go fight wars for the US, it’s made the world much less safe in fact. Not to mention we can’t afford it, evidenced by the fact that we have to borrow money to run it all and bribe/pay/gift other countries go stay on board instead of maintaining their own foreign policies while remaining in NATO.

The average American are being played for suckers.

(12-26-2022 06:14 PM)Todor Wrote:  The average American are being played for suckers.

it's a shiteload > "average"

the dregs couldn't give two shites, nor do they know any or why...

the one's that do, don't matter in scope...

that's when ya know the masses and 'muh poles' are truly fk'd up the arse w/0 say in the matter...