(01-31-2023 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:38 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it.

Of course not.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Sigh. Just to put things in prospective----when was the last time you voted for a president who balanced the budget? Here's what I will say---if you get us out of NATO---I'd be fine with spending zero on the Ukraine War. My only interest is keeping the US out of having to send troops to defend NATO nations. If we arent in NATO---then I dont really care to much about what happens in Europe. Maybe we can at least agree on that.

Unless he voted for Clinton or was old enough to vote for Ike, I don't think he has.

(01-31-2023 06:06 PM)maximus Wrote:  We have the biggest idiot criminal in office..... ever, its like combining Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor with Mel Brooks governor character from Blazing Saddles.

Starting WW3 for this clown is a piece of cake.

Now NATO running their mouths.

Toast

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

What makes you think anybody pays attention to Creepy Joe? He's not running his own appearances, let alone the country.

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

China has historically been patient. They are slowly sinking their financial tentacles into Taiwan. Invading would be as stupid as believing the Trump/Russia conspiracy hoax. Maybe worse. More like believing the Kavanaugh rape party stories.

Now Xi is an absolute dictator, so they can do stupid things. But I just don't see it. You don't blow to pieces the golden goose.

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Right on both accounts. Spread chaos across the world and leave others to clean up the mess. Time after time. No wonder people hate us.

For all the trillions we’ve borrowed, so much if it goes to destruction, and so little to building.

(01-31-2023 09:16 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Most of you hate Putin because you've been told to hate Putin.

(01-31-2023 12:15 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  And there is is again, blind illogical nonsensical arguments with no self awareness of any kind and no ability to alter the thinking on any level. They will literally die on this hill and never move off it one inch.

After a full year Putin's army can't even win or hold but a small part of Ukraine but yet he will conquer all of eastern Europe if we don't risk a nuclear holocaust of some kind and spend half a trillion of US blood and treasure. But of course if we corner Putin and leave him with no option but the nuclear to save his regime then that is our fault too somehow and now proves he was powerful enough to conqueror all of eastern Europe.

And of course we can't point out any proven facts contrary to the blind narrative, least we be accused of being Russian bots, Putin puppets or now just "anti Ukraine". So we literally can't do anything but agree with them on everything least be be labeled Russian bots. Which is beyond stupid, I would argue all of us outside of Tordor would rather Ukraine win than Russia if it comes to that.

But Ukraine can't win, Putin will not be backing down and he is not falling to an internal power struggle anytime soon, and all that lies ahead is further escalation, further destruction and further death.

Your problem is that you believe Putin’s regime is ideological. It is not. It is kleptocratic. In the end his compatriots will choose to remain rich rather than dead. Using a nuke will probably guarantee that. ——HOWEVER——they could play a very dangerous game of chicken with a weak and feeble POTUS. If they decide to use a tactical nuke and Biden does nothing then all bets are off.

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

(01-31-2023 09:47 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 09:16 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Most of you hate Putin because you've been told to hate Putin.

(01-31-2023 12:15 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  And there is is again, blind illogical nonsensical arguments with no self awareness of any kind and no ability to alter the thinking on any level. They will literally die on this hill and never move off it one inch.

After a full year Putin's army can't even win or hold but a small part of Ukraine but yet he will conquer all of eastern Europe if we don't risk a nuclear holocaust of some kind and spend half a trillion of US blood and treasure. But of course if we corner Putin and leave him with no option but the nuclear to save his regime then that is our fault too somehow and now proves he was powerful enough to conqueror all of eastern Europe.

And of course we can't point out any proven facts contrary to the blind narrative, least we be accused of being Russian bots, Putin puppets or now just "anti Ukraine". So we literally can't do anything but agree with them on everything least be be labeled Russian bots. Which is beyond stupid, I would argue all of us outside of Tordor would rather Ukraine win than Russia if it comes to that.

But Ukraine can't win, Putin will not be backing down and he is not falling to an internal power struggle anytime soon, and all that lies ahead is further escalation, further destruction and further death.

Your problem is that you believe Putin’s regime is ideological. It is not. It is kleptocratic. In the end his compatriots will choose to remain rich rather than dead. Using a nuke will probably guarantee that. ——HOWEVER——they could play a very dangerous game of chicken with a weak and feeble POTUS. If they decide to use a tactical nuke and Biden does nothing then all bets are off.

Who created the oligarchy of Russia? Putin or the American backed guy? Who controls them and stopped the flow of money out of Russia to the West?

Answer those questions and you’ll see what the US hates Putin. The Russian oligarchy came about from following US advise on privatization. You can blame Putin for the situation that he has combatted, buts it’s not valid.

What has happened to the Russian state since he started reigning in the oligarchs he inherited? It has become stronger and richer. Now, they don’t run the state. People like Abramovich fled for the west because they wanted all of their money AND the political power. Nothing he owned wasn’t stolen from the state anyway. The klepto part of Russian society happened during Americas reign in the 1990’s. Putin came in a decade later with a with a plan to stabilize things. The stealing didn’t happen on his watch.

What happened when the Ukraine did not reign their oligarchy in? The state has failed and people have become poorer. Coups, wars, and who knows what next.

It’s very clear which the US prefers.

(01-30-2023 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 05:02 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:09 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:25 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Russia is massing 200k more soldiers to March into a country NATO is arming. We can’t win a war of attrition against a Russian tyrant that is willing to uses as men men as it takes as cannon fodder.

How did we get here?

What are the ramifications if/when Kiev falls?

Will Putin use tactical nukes if Ukraine does manage to hold Russia at bay?

Anyone else a tad bit worried? I mean I believe that we are inching toward WWIII.

1) Both sides are at fault

2) Idk. Seem like the U.S. is heavily invested to me for almost a decade now in Ukraine. My guess is we’d say screw it though and then it’s up to Russia for regime change with Russia taking most if not all of the current Uke territory. Whether that’s under a Russian flag, one would have to ask Putin.

3) Ruskies have been clear they won’t unless attacked on home soil. I’ll leave if they are liars up to you.

Do they consider Eastern Occupation areas their soil? I’d think so after annexing Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson but battles are being fought in most those places still or definitely will so who the F knows on Nukes but that’s the last thing any person in the world should want to see even if we annihilated them after. If I had to guess Crimea is definitely the final straw.

4) No doubt we are as close to it as ever since I’ve been alive. Born in the 90s. Not worried, but watching from a far is a lot easier than when it impacts one at home directly outside taxpayer $.

Total victory for Ukraine and NATO is Russia pushed back to its borders and out of the Eastern Occupation areas. This victory could lead to a tactical nuke. Therefore I think it unlikely Ukraine ever gets these territories back.

I am going to go with Kissinger on this. Negotiate with Russia cede them the lands they currently occupy. On the condition that they Ukraine joins NATO. Then next time there won’t be a next time.

https://unherd.com/thepost/henry-kissing...propriate/

https://thehill.com/policy/international...e-war/amp/


After peace is reached we get the truth about why we felt the need to instigate this war.

Russia instigated this war. How much is Putin paying you to post this BS?
Ukraine's lands aren't ours to give.

If we didn’t constantly talk about Ukraine joining NATO I doubt Putin sends troops in.

(01-31-2023 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Its amazing to me that you literally undermine your own argument when you point to history. What exactly happened in Vietnam? The US left. What happened when the Russians visited Afghanistan? Russia left. What happened when the US went to Iraq and Afghanistan? The US left. Furthermore---these areas of Ukraine were not considered "part of current day Russia" until AFTER the war was declared.

The fallacy here is that this is some sort of existential conflict for Russia. I dont know a single serious person who actually believes Russia will cease to exist if they dont get everything they want in Ukraine. Not one. Whats really going on here is that Russia called this a "vital national interest" because they thought they had a great opportunity for an easy land grab (just like 2014---thats why it wasnt a "war" but was just a "special military operation"). Once they realize its devolved into a long lasting unwinnable quagmire---a negotiated settlement will eventually become more interesting. Putin will simply say that his "objectives were met" and declare victory. You can do that when the media says only what you tell them to say and the police arrest anyone who disagrees.

Just because you don't think it's a vital national interest for Russia doesn't mean they see it the same way. Russia has repeatedly said how important Ukraine is to it for decades. They aren't giving up. Russia is winning the war, while Ukraine is winning the PR/media campaign. Russia's artillery vastly outnumbered Ukraines. The casualties on both sides are basically even. Russia can absorb the casualties better however because it has a vastly higher population. Russia will be bringing hundreds of thousands of more troops to bear on Ukraine whereas Ukraine doesn't have those kinds of reserves available. Further, Rusias controls 20% or so of Ukraines territory and has obliterated Ukraines infrastructure. Meanwhile Ukraine holds no Russian territory and Russias infrastructure is intact. Russia is waging and winning a grinding war of attrition. Russia knows that the West will eventually lose its will to fight before Russia does. The West can't pay billions to Ukraine forever. All we're doing by sending tons of weapons and money to Ukraine is prolonging the war. The RAND corporation recently acknowledged that it is unlikely Ukraine can win this conflict.

(02-01-2023 08:37 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Its amazing to me that you literally undermine your own argument when you point to history. What exactly happened in Vietnam? The US left. What happened when the Russians visited Afghanistan? Russia left. What happened when the US went to Iraq and Afghanistan? The US left. Furthermore---these areas of Ukraine were not considered "part of current day Russia" until AFTER the war was declared.

The fallacy here is that this is some sort of existential conflict for Russia. I dont know a single serious person who actually believes Russia will cease to exist if they dont get everything they want in Ukraine. Not one. Whats really going on here is that Russia called this a "vital national interest" because they thought they had a great opportunity for an easy land grab (just like 2014---thats why it wasnt a "war" but was just a "special military operation"). Once they realize its devolved into a long lasting unwinnable quagmire---a negotiated settlement will eventually become more interesting. Putin will simply say that his "objectives were met" and declare victory. You can do that when the media says only what you tell them to say and the police arrest anyone who disagrees.

Just because you don't think it's a vital national interest for Russia doesn't mean they see it the same way. Russia has repeatedly said how important Ukraine is to it for decades. They aren't giving up. Russia is winning the war, while Ukraine is winning the PR/media campaign. Russia's artillery vastly outnumbered Ukraines. The casualties on both sides are basically even. Russia can absorb the casualties better however because it has a vastly higher population. Russia will be bringing hundreds of thousands of more troops to bear on Ukraine whereas Ukraine doesn't have those kinds of reserves available. Further, Rusias controls 20% or so of Ukraines territory and has obliterated Ukraines infrastructure. Meanwhile Ukraine holds no Russian territory and Russias infrastructure is intact. Russia is waging and winning a grinding war of attrition. Russia knows that the West will eventually lose its will to fight before Russia does. The West can't pay billions to Ukraine forever. All we're doing by sending tons of weapons and money to Ukraine is prolonging the war. The RAND corporation recently acknowledged that it is unlikely Ukraine can win this conflict.

Maybe Russia will eventually win the special military operation. It obviously will not be within days as the same people you quote as experts here said a year ago. It will be with hundreds of thousands of dead Russians littering the soil of Ukraine. Putin has been able to hide the carnage from his subjects by iron fisted control of media and drawing most of the cannon fodder from the poor waste lands of the east. He can’t hide it forever. His list of purposes of this special military operation has changed a dozen times since its beginning. He’s run out of reasons and has gone from bizarre to bizarroworld. From denazification to protecting the Russian language to fighting all of NATO to fighting to rid the world of Satan.

He is currently relying on North Korea and Iran for military supplies. Imagine that. Sounds like a military about to roll over Ukraine in the spring to me.

Putin has said about using nuclear weapons that the Russians would die and go to heaven but the west would just die. Where have we heard this type of rhetoric before? This special type of tyrant needs to be contained in whatever way possible.

(01-31-2023 10:35 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 05:02 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:09 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:25 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Russia is massing 200k more soldiers to March into a country NATO is arming. We can’t win a war of attrition against a Russian tyrant that is willing to uses as men men as it takes as cannon fodder.

How did we get here?

What are the ramifications if/when Kiev falls?

Will Putin use tactical nukes if Ukraine does manage to hold Russia at bay?

Anyone else a tad bit worried? I mean I believe that we are inching toward WWIII.

1) Both sides are at fault

2) Idk. Seem like the U.S. is heavily invested to me for almost a decade now in Ukraine. My guess is we’d say screw it though and then it’s up to Russia for regime change with Russia taking most if not all of the current Uke territory. Whether that’s under a Russian flag, one would have to ask Putin.

3) Ruskies have been clear they won’t unless attacked on home soil. I’ll leave if they are liars up to you.

Do they consider Eastern Occupation areas their soil? I’d think so after annexing Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson but battles are being fought in most those places still or definitely will so who the F knows on Nukes but that’s the last thing any person in the world should want to see even if we annihilated them after. If I had to guess Crimea is definitely the final straw.

4) No doubt we are as close to it as ever since I’ve been alive. Born in the 90s. Not worried, but watching from a far is a lot easier than when it impacts one at home directly outside taxpayer $.

Total victory for Ukraine and NATO is Russia pushed back to its borders and out of the Eastern Occupation areas. This victory could lead to a tactical nuke. Therefore I think it unlikely Ukraine ever gets these territories back.

I am going to go with Kissinger on this. Negotiate with Russia cede them the lands they currently occupy. On the condition that they Ukraine joins NATO. Then next time there won’t be a next time.

https://unherd.com/thepost/henry-kissing...propriate/

https://thehill.com/policy/international...e-war/amp/


After peace is reached we get the truth about why we felt the need to instigate this war.

Russia instigated this war. How much is Putin paying you to post this BS?
Ukraine's lands aren't ours to give.

If we didn’t constantly talk about Ukraine joining NATO I doubt Putin sends troops in.

Just like he didn't invade Georgia or threaten Kazakhstan, right? Like he hasn't seen troops into Belarus to prop up his puppet? For that matter he sent troops in to prop up his puppet in Kazakhstan and killed civilians, but now he is talking about taking more and his puppet is trying to cut the strings.

(02-01-2023 08:37 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Its amazing to me that you literally undermine your own argument when you point to history. What exactly happened in Vietnam? The US left. What happened when the Russians visited Afghanistan? Russia left. What happened when the US went to Iraq and Afghanistan? The US left. Furthermore---these areas of Ukraine were not considered "part of current day Russia" until AFTER the war was declared.

The fallacy here is that this is some sort of existential conflict for Russia. I dont know a single serious person who actually believes Russia will cease to exist if they dont get everything they want in Ukraine. Not one. Whats really going on here is that Russia called this a "vital national interest" because they thought they had a great opportunity for an easy land grab (just like 2014---thats why it wasnt a "war" but was just a "special military operation"). Once they realize its devolved into a long lasting unwinnable quagmire---a negotiated settlement will eventually become more interesting. Putin will simply say that his "objectives were met" and declare victory. You can do that when the media says only what you tell them to say and the police arrest anyone who disagrees.

Just because you don't think it's a vital national interest for Russia doesn't mean they see it the same way. Russia has repeatedly said how important Ukraine is to it for decades. They aren't giving up. Russia is winning the war, while Ukraine is winning the PR/media campaign. Russia's artillery vastly outnumbered Ukraines. The casualties on both sides are basically even. Russia can absorb the casualties better however because it has a vastly higher population. Russia will be bringing hundreds of thousands of more troops to bear on Ukraine whereas Ukraine doesn't have those kinds of reserves available. Further, Rusias controls 20% or so of Ukraines territory and has obliterated Ukraines infrastructure. Meanwhile Ukraine holds no Russian territory and Russias infrastructure is intact. Russia is waging and winning a grinding war of attrition. Russia knows that the West will eventually lose its will to fight before Russia does. The West can't pay billions to Ukraine forever. All we're doing by sending tons of weapons and money to Ukraine is prolonging the war. The RAND corporation recently acknowledged that it is unlikely Ukraine can win this conflict.

Russia had 30% of Ukraine not that long ago. They have been pushed back near Kiev. They have been pushed back in Kharkiv. They have been pushed back in Kherson. Where they make gains, it is in meters, not kilometers. I don't know of a war where the side retreating is "winning."

(02-01-2023 08:37 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 02:04 PM)b2b Wrote:  So let's put a number on this thing, Coug. How many billions more for Ukraine are you cool with?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Im not going to put a number on it. But if we are talking costs----I think we can both agree the longer the conflict goes on the more it will cost. So, my goal would be to supply Ukraine with what it takes to win sooner rather than later. I'd also note that I expect that once its clear to Russia that the allies are in "winning sooner rather than later" mode---the Russians will show more interest in meaningful peace negotiations. With tanks being sent---I think the only other thing that needs to be done to allow Ukraine to win sooner rather than later is long range ATACMS missiles. F-16's would be nice----but they are mostly just for additional air defense against Russian cruise missile attacks on the cities. I dont think they would make all that much difference on the actual front lines of the battlefield.

One more thing to keep in mind----China is watching this very closely. If the West sticks together and ends up stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine---China will be far less interested in trying something similar in Taiwan. How much is stopping a Chinese adventure in Taiwan worth to us?

This is such fantastical thinking. That Russia will just give up on something that they consider of vital national security interest rather than escalate in response to our escalation. And even more magically, that China will give up on taking Taiwan which it considers a rogue province, i.e. part of its territory. This is how we waste trillions and produce results which actually harm our security. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Its amazing to me that you literally undermine your own argument when you point to history. What exactly happened in Vietnam? The US left. What happened when the Russians visited Afghanistan? Russia left. What happened when the US went to Iraq and Afghanistan? The US left. Furthermore---these areas of Ukraine were not considered "part of current day Russia" until AFTER the war was declared.

The fallacy here is that this is some sort of existential conflict for Russia. I dont know a single serious person who actually believes Russia will cease to exist if they dont get everything they want in Ukraine. Not one. Whats really going on here is that Russia called this a "vital national interest" because they thought they had a great opportunity for an easy land grab (just like 2014---thats why it wasnt a "war" but was just a "special military operation"). Once they realize its devolved into a long lasting unwinnable quagmire---a negotiated settlement will eventually become more interesting. Putin will simply say that his "objectives were met" and declare victory. You can do that when the media says only what you tell them to say and the police arrest anyone who disagrees.

Just because you don't think it's a vital national interest for Russia doesn't mean they see it the same way. Russia has repeatedly said how important Ukraine is to it for decades. They aren't giving up. Russia is winning the war, while Ukraine is winning the PR/media campaign. Russia's artillery vastly outnumbered Ukraines. The casualties on both sides are basically even. Russia can absorb the casualties better however because it has a vastly higher population. Russia will be bringing hundreds of thousands of more troops to bear on Ukraine whereas Ukraine doesn't have those kinds of reserves available. Further, Rusias controls 20% or so of Ukraines territory and has obliterated Ukraines infrastructure. Meanwhile Ukraine holds no Russian territory and Russias infrastructure is intact. Russia is waging and winning a grinding war of attrition. Russia knows that the West will eventually lose its will to fight before Russia does. The West can't pay billions to Ukraine forever. All we're doing by sending tons of weapons and money to Ukraine is prolonging the war. The RAND corporation recently acknowledged that it is unlikely Ukraine can win this conflict.

You do realize that Russia holds less of Ukraine today than they did in March of 2022. So, by your own definition Russia has been losing the war since their initial surprise attack blitz reached its high water mark in March of 2022. Furthermore, your whole post above essentially says you agree with me that this is not an existential war of survival for Russia and that Ukraine poses no real threat to the existence of Russia. In fact, when the Ukrainians had Russian troops on the run in the Kharkiv area, the Ukrainians stopped their advance at the Russian border despite there being no significant resistance.

This is not a war of survival for Russia——its just another opportunistic dictator trying to grab more power and territory—-nothing more. Putin just miscalculated because he thought this would be eazy-peazy----just like taking Crimea in 2014. He thought it would be an easy romp for his military and that it would be over in a few day or weeks. He had no idea that the Ukrainian Army had improved dramatically since 2014. He had no idea that the West would not stand idle this time like they did in 2014. He had no idea his own military was as corrupt and hollow as it turned out to be. Putin is not stupid. At some point he's going to realize the assumptions his decision to invade were based on were wrong. Once he gets there---real meaningful settlement negotiations can occur.