What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Next Battle In Ukraine Tougher For Ukrainians!

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
First, you've made it clear that you are not familiar with common English phrases. "like Rats from a sinking ship" is a very common phrase, the fact that you saw such significance in it shows your lack of familiarity with English. Canadian you are not.
Ya thnk?
Second, your concept of article 5 is all wrong. NATO and Article 5 are strictly for defensive purposes. NATO integration means that no one country can act aggressively. It would take all NATO members to agree for any one of them to make an aggressive action. That's not likely. I know that Russians are raised on the belief that NATO is an aggressive threat, but it's not. That's just Russian government propaganda to generate paranoia among the Russian people.
The applicable debate is on article 5. I'm suggesting that it doesn't apply when the threat of nuclear war has been elevated. And further to that I've mentioned the consequences of an aggression by one is going to be an aggression to all. Putin has hinted at that today on RT.com
One example of how NATO integration has prevented aggressive actions by it's members is that there has not been a war between France, the U.K. and Germany since NATO was conceived. That's historically amazing. Those countries have never gone this long without a war. (Same could have been said about the Warsaw pact countries).
That's quite a stretch to say that Nato prevented war between the big 3 in Europe, but I haven't got the time to disprove it, nor the interest.
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would have to be fools not to join NATO. Russia has proven it's willingness to invade it's neighbors.
The current situation is becoming close to Russia's use of nuclear weapons. Sweden and Finland would be wise to wait at least until this current war has ended. On nuclear hit on any of the world's smaller countries would be intolerable.

Remember, even if it's painful to do so, Russia will not accept a loss. And apparently there's no defense possible against Russia's most modern weapons.
China has no love for Russia. There are even some theories that if Russia is weakened, China will invade outer Manchuria. China needs it's commercial relationships with the West. China may have been interested in an alliance with Russia if the invasion of Ukraine had gone well - it would have seen a weakened West as unable and unwilling to defend Taiwan.
Of course we'll have to disagree. China's rise and the predicted alliance has cause the urgency for America. China's current stance is exactly what should have been expected.
Russia pretending that they really didn't want to take Kyiv is just "sour Grapes" - another English expression - look it up on Wikipedia.
There's little value in just stating your opinion, without talking points to back it up. I don't have time to entertain that unless you include some sort of proof of your claims. "Sour grapes"? That's a good place to start!
I'll just say that Kiev was barely touched, when in fact the destruction could have been complete.
This war is going terribly for Russia and Russia sees no honorable way out. Russia expected Ukraine to fall in a matter of a few weeks. That did not happen. They are making very little progress in their offensive in Eastern Ukraine. They know that massive shipments of a whole new category of heavy weapons is on it's way to Eastern Ukraine. They can not control the skies over Ukraine, so they can't stop those shipments. They know that the Ukrainians are planning a major offensive very soon. It will be a disaster for Russia.
That's a good rundown on the West's talking points because it's quite thorough. And it's sticking to predictions that exclude Russia's use of unlimited warfare.
If it all happens to prove true, it's a prediction of WW3.
I don't get involved in arm chair wars.
I know that your access to independent news reports is limited, but Russia did retaliate for the sinking of the Moskva by hitting a Ukrainian missile factory and has been hitting a lot of railroad stations.
You've backed off your lie or your wishful thinking. It might have been a fire or it might have been missiles. Remember, no arm chair war with me!
Funny thing is that I believe that most of Russian's grievances against Ukraine are valid, but that this invasion, from a military point of view was the stupidest military decision since Hitler invaded Russia.
Russia had valid reasons.
Whether it was stupid or not will eventually be decided.

Something for us to consider together: If Russia uses a nulcear weapon on the Ukraine or Poland, will America hit Russia and start WW3?

I think that article 5 for Nato is past serving any useful purpose and Europe could be having second thoughts about supporting America's war against Russia. What do you think?
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,336
Reaction score
1,063
Points
140
They know that the Ukrainians are planning a major offensive very soon. It will be a disaster for Russia
Well, it will be good if that was true, but I have some doubts about it. Offensive requires completely different tactic than defense. Basically, you can't plan the offensive without solid outnumbering with military hardware and personel who knows how to fight. Russia still exceeds in this vastly.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Well, it will be good if that was true, but I have some doubts about it. Offensive requires completely different tactic than defense. Basically, you can't plan the offensive without solid outnumbering with military hardware and personel who knows how to fight. Russia still exceeds in this vastly.
The Ukraine's planned offense across Russia's borders using US/Nato's most modern weapons, is almost certainly what Putin has warned against.
Hopefully the Ukraine will confine it to trying to take back territory lost to Russia.

We're soon going to find out just what rules and limitations apply?
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,336
Reaction score
1,063
Points
140
The Ukraine's planned offense across Russia's borders using US/Nato's most modern weapons, is almost certainly what Putin has warned against.
Hopefully the Ukraine will confine it to trying to take back territory lost to Russia.

We're soon going to find out just what rules and limitations apply?
Actually, the narrative that Ukraine has ever planned to attack Russian territory was pushed only by Russian propaganda. So, I will leave you alone with that.
 

DarthTrader

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2022
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
1,050
Points
1,893
Actually, the narrative that Ukraine has ever planned to attack Russian territory was pushed only by Russian propaganda. So, I will leave you alone with that.
Minus the fact that they have attacked Russian territory and there's evidence. LOLOL
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Actually, the narrative that Ukraine has ever planned to attack Russian territory was pushed only by Russian propaganda. So, I will leave you alone with that.
Is that so?
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,336
Reaction score
1,063
Points
140
Is that so?
Yes, but I want to underline that I was talking about the pre-war times. If we are talking about the current situation, then Ukraine's attack on Russian territory is completely justified.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Yes, but I want to underline that I was talking about the pre-war times. If we are talking about the current situation, then Ukraine's attack on Russian territory is completely justified.
Of course it's completely justified. Anything and everything is going to be somehow justified for the side that doesn't lose the war. Neither the US or Russia is going to lose the war but Ukraine's success might be measured in the number of it's people killed.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Minus the fact that they have attacked Russian territory and there's evidence. LOLOL
It's an indication that the attacks on Russian territory weren't considered egregious violations of the rules by Russia.
Or too, the attacks could be Russia's propaganda effort to make it appear Russia has been attacked. There would be great value in creating that appearance. We need a closer look at the evidence.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,336
Reaction score
1,063
Points
140
Of course it's completely justified. Anything and everything is going to be somehow justified for the side that doesn't lose the war. Neither the US or Russia is going to lose the war but Ukraine's success might be measured in the number of it's people killed.
Or the Russians killed.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Actually, the narrative that Ukraine has ever planned to attack Russian territory was pushed only by Russian propaganda. So, I will leave you alone with that.
If you have nothing worth my time to read, I'll leave 'you' alone.
 

DarthTrader

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2022
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
1,050
Points
1,893
It's an indication that the attacks on Russian territory weren't considered egregious violations of the rules by Russia.
Or too, the attacks could be Russia's propaganda effort to make it appear Russia has been attacked. There would be great value in creating that appearance. We need a closer look at the evidence.
At this point the only thing that really matters is what would the US do if Cuba were armed with lethal weapons that could attack the US? Oh wait...we already crushed them and almost started a nuclear war over that.

So Russia is doing the same, the world knows it, the US is the bad guy in this
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
8,117
Reaction score
2,232
Points
245
Ya thnk?

The applicable debate is on article 5. I'm suggesting that it doesn't apply when the threat of nuclear war has been elevated. And further to that I've mentioned the consequences of an aggression by one is going to be an aggression to all. Putin has hinted at that today on RT.com

That's quite a stretch to say that Nato prevented war between the big 3 in Europe, but I haven't got the time to disprove it, nor the interest.

The current situation is becoming close to Russia's use of nuclear weapons. Sweden and Finland would be wise to wait at least until this current war has ended. On nuclear hit on any of the world's smaller countries would be intolerable.

Remember, even if it's painful to do so, Russia will not accept a loss. And apparently there's no defense possible against Russia's most modern weapons.

Of course we'll have to disagree. China's rise and the predicted alliance has cause the urgency for America. China's current stance is exactly what should have been expected.

There's little value in just stating your opinion, without talking points to back it up. I don't have time to entertain that unless you include some sort of proof of your claims. "Sour grapes"? That's a good place to start!
I'll just say that Kiev was barely touched, when in fact the destruction could have been complete.

That's a good rundown on the West's talking points because it's quite thorough. And it's sticking to predictions that exclude Russia's use of unlimited warfare.
If it all happens to prove true, it's a prediction of WW3.
I don't get involved in arm chair wars.

You've backed off your lie or your wishful thinking. It might have been a fire or it might have been missiles. Remember, no arm chair war with me!

Russia had valid reasons.
Whether it was stupid or not will eventually be decided.

Something for us to consider together: If Russia uses a nulcear weapon on the Ukraine or Poland, will America hit Russia and start WW3?

I think that article 5 for Nato is past serving any useful purpose and Europe could be having second thoughts about supporting America's war against Russia. What do you think?
Article 5 applies now more than ever. Any belief that NATO will splinter is Russian wishful thinking and nothing more.

I can insure you that long before thsi war started the NATO generals planned for every contingency. In terms of chess the NATO generals are thinking 20 moves ahead and the Russians barely 2. They've accounted for the possibility of Russia using nukes. They know Russia's vulnerabilities better than the Russians do:


It's amazing that the Russians allowed themselves to be baited into this war.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Article 5 applies now more than ever. Any belief that NATO will splinter is Russian wishful thinking and nothing more.

I can insure you that long before thsi war started the NATO generals planned for every contingency. In terms of chess the NATO generals are thinking 20 moves ahead and the Russians barely 2. They've accounted for the possibility of Russia using nukes. They know Russia's vulnerabilities better than the Russians do:


It's amazing that the Russians allowed themselves to be baited into this war.
What could I possibly say about all that?

How about: Russia decided that their best option was to draw the line in the sand now and refuse to be further pushed back and intimidated by the US.

It has to be a sure thing that long and hard discussions took place between China and Russia, as China is facing the same threat from the US.

It all matches with any other time in history when empire was challenged.

Tough talk coming from either side isn't appropriate in this situation in which MAD is the final determining factor. Sadly, the Ukraine plays no part in future decisions.

That's the reason why I keep going back to saying that a peace settlement is the only answer to save humanity.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,754
Reaction score
4,404
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Minus the fact that they have attacked Russian territory and there's evidence. LOLOL
They have struck targets in Russia. That's a big difference. Only Russia could be deluded enough to think Ukraine was going to passively accept destruction within its borders without striking back.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,754
Reaction score
4,404
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
At this point the only thing that really matters is what would the US do if Cuba were armed with lethal weapons that could attack the US? Oh wait...we already crushed them and almost started a nuclear war over that.

So Russia is doing the same, the world knows it, the US is the bad guy in this
You are an idiot. The US didn't "crush" Cuba. We didn't even attack Cuban forces of soil. All we did was blockade Cuba, and even then, only to Russian ships.
 

krichton

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
1,851
Reaction score
861
Points
938
Both sides can and will afford to use their weapons. They were made for fighting WW3.

But both sides (America and Russia) are going to escalate to using their best and most effective weapons with the purpose of avoiding WW3.

Quantity considerations aside, we're going to learn which side has the most effective weapons, aircraft, ships, etc.

Putin has already used his most effective and best weapons and he's still losing, but now he's beginning to run of those weapons. What will he do now? If Ukraine had been Germany, France or the UK, much less the US, this war would have been over a long time ago. Russia has fooled the entire world into thinking they are anything but a Saddam Hussein style army and regime. Russia of today versus the old Iraqi army probably would have been an interesting war.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,711
Reaction score
4,132
Points
208
Putin has already used his most effective and best weapons and he's still losing, but now he's beginning to run of those weapons. What will he do now? If Ukraine had been Germany, France or the UK, much less the US, this war would have been over a long time ago. Russia has fooled the entire world into thinking they are anything but a Saddam Hussein style army and regime. Russia of today versus the old Iraqi army probably would have been an interesting war.
I'm not a military expert on weaponry so I can't say that you'r'e wrong.

But I definitely lean toward thinking that Russia hasnt used their most destructive weapons.

They fully understand that they are fighting America and will obviously hold in reserve the weapons to defeat America along with their own defeat. That seems quite reasonable to assume.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
1,544
Points
208
Location
Over there
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$45.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top