what is the lefts plan to end the war in Ukraine ?

[forkup]

The terrain is different

Afghan is covered with rugged mountains whereas ukraine is a flat plane

Sure. On the other hand, Ukraine is an actual nation state. With recourses to draw on both foreign and domestic that the Afghans couldn't dream off at the time. Plus, a modern battlefield seems to favor defense. As is shown by the fact that the Russians haven't been able to achieve breakthrough after 3 years of fighting. It's the same argument I had with the other guy. History is full of examples of countries resisting invasions by vastly superior countries. Even in terrain that is flat.

So why is this so hopeless? Russians have been defeated before by smaller nations, and small flat countries, or in the case of Ukraine countries the size of France have defeated larger ones in the past. It is cowardice on your side plain and simple.

 

[DonGlock26]

Continue to arm the Ukrainians.

Continue to put the screws to Russia.

But Since Trump won't do that, he'll go down as the biggest traitor to America since Benedict Arnold.

You think that you guys gave Biden a bad rap over Kabul, wait until Kyiv falls to Putin.

The same Democrat plan that is leading to Ukrainian defeat.

 

[JoeB131]

it was just a propaganda move.

Right now Russia is still slowly grinding forward.

Again, it's a cost-benefit analysis, stupid.

Every few miles they gain is costing them in men and materials that they simply don't have.

 

[DonGlock26]

Again, it's a cost-benefit analysis, stupid.

Every few miles they gain is costing them in men and materials that they simply don't have.

Yeah, our money is going down a rat hole, stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, our money is going down a rat hole, stupid.

Naw, it's a great investment.

That money creates jobs in this country producing the war materials. Keeps people employed.

 

[martybegan]

Again, it's a cost-benefit analysis, stupid.

Every few miles they gain is costing them in men and materials that they simply don't have.

And yet the continue to gain those yards and miles, and their economy hasn't collapsed. They also have leftover war stocks from decades ago and aren't afraid to use them.

Russia has all the resources it needs, and a solid industrial base. The sanctions aren't working.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet the continue to gain those yards and miles, and their economy hasn't collapsed. They also have leftover war stocks from decades ago and aren't afraid to use them.

Russia has all the resources it needs, and a solid industrial base. The sanctions aren't working.

They are pulling old T-55s out of museums and using golf carts to move material.

Yes, they are working, until Trump sells them out.

trump will own defeat in Ukraine...

Democrats will be able to say for a generation, "Who Lost Ukraine" the way Republicans used to say, "Who Lost China".

 

[martybegan]

They are pulling old T-55s out of museums and using golf carts to move material.

Yes, they are working, until Trump sells them out.

trump will own defeat in Ukraine...

Democrats will be able to say for a generation, "Who Lost Ukraine" the way Republicans used to say, "Who Lost China".

Bullshit. Again, you can't just keep feeding material to people who don't have the level of training and organization required to use them Western equipment needs western trained troops.

 

[Mac-7]

Sure. On the other hand, Ukraine is an actual nation state. With recourses to draw on both foreign and domestic that the Afghans couldn't dream off at the time. Plus, a modern battlefield seems to favor defense. As is shown by the fact that the Russians haven't been able to achieve breakthrough after 3 years of fighting. It's the same argument I had with the other guy. History is full of examples of countries resisting invasions by vastly superior countries. Even in terrain that is flat.

So why is this so hopeless? Russians have been defeated before by smaller nations, and small flat countries, or in the case of Ukraine countries the size of France have defeated larger ones in the past. It is cowardice on your side plain and simple.

Whatever

 

[forkup]

Whatever

It's hopeless because of whatever... bad faith argument you care to make. Got it.

 

[Mac-7]

It's hopeless because of whatever... bad faith argument you care to make. Got it.

I just dont think your argument has any merit

The Ukraines and afghans are different people in vastly different landscapes

We can bat the ball back and forth all day without settling that

 

[forkup]

I just dont think your argument has any merit

The Ukraines and afghans are different people in vastly different landscapes

We can bat the ball back and forth all day without settling that

Yet you aren't actually addressing why you disagree. "Because I say so", never came across as a convincing argument to me.

Ukraine has resisted for 3 years. There's no sign that Russia is able to do anything but grind a few yards at a time. There are plenty of examples of countries winning against even longer odds.

You just want Ukraine to lose because that would somehow vindicate the absolutely appalling betrayal of both Ukraine and America's allies. All in name of partisan politics.

The only way you can do that is by ignoring history and the facts as they are.

That brings me back to you simply being dishonest.

 

[task0778]

what is the lefts plan to end the war in Ukraine ?​

Raise taxes. That won't end the war but they don't care.

 

[Mac-7]

Yet you aren't actually addressing why you disagree. "Because I say so", never came across as a convincing argument to me.

Ukraine has resisted for 3 years. There's no sign that Russia is able to do anything but grind a few yards at a time. There are plenty of examples of countries winning against even longer odds.

You just want Ukraine to lose because that would somehow vindicate the absolutely appalling betrayal of both Ukraine and America's allies. All in name of partisan politics.

The only way you can do that is by ignoring history and the facts as they are.

That brings me back to you simply being dishonest.

Yet you aren't actually addressing why you disagree.

I have

The terrain is very different

And the afghans are borderline Stone Age throwbacks with a very primitive warrior culture

If there are no invaders to repel they wage war on each other just to keep in practice

 

[forkup]

Yet you aren't actually addressing why you disagree.

I have

The terrain is very different

And the afghans are borderline Stone Age throwbacks with a very primitive warrior culture

If there are no invaders to repel they wage war on each other just to keep in practice

I gave the example of both Belgium and Holland. Both flat as a billiard board, not to mention quite a bit smaller than Ukraine resisting Germany and Spain at the height of their power. So obviously terrain is not determinative of winning or losing. So no, you didn't address the argument.

In fact, in both cases what determined victory is tenacity but more importantly whether or not technology favored attack or defense. Then, as is the case now. The technology favored defense. As is shown by... Ukraine holding on for 3 years now. Another thing you conveniently, and repeatedly gloss over.

 

[Mac-7]

I gave the example of both Belgium and Holland. Both flat as a billiard board, not to mention quite a bit smaller than Ukraine resisting Germany and Spain at the height of their power. So obviously terrain is not determinative of winning or losing. So no, you didn't address the argument.

In fact, in both cases what determined victory is tenacity but more importantly whether or not technology favored attack or defense. Then, as is the case now. The technology favors defense. As is shown by... Ukraine holding on for 3 years now. Another thing you conveniently, and repeatedly gloss over.

I guess I missed that

Holland and Belgium folded like cheap suits in WWII

They were totally useless against the NAZI war machine

 

[forkup]

I guess I missed that

Holland and Belgium folded like cheap suits in WWII

They were totally useless against the NAZI war machine

Yes, in WW2 technology favored attack. Ukraine was conquered in a bit over 2 months in WW2 too. Not the case here . So again you aren't addressing the point.

 

[Zavulon]

Sure. On the other hand, Ukraine is an actual nation state. With recourses to draw on both foreign and domestic that the Afghans couldn't dream off at the time. Plus, a modern battlefield seems to favor defense. As is shown by the fact that the Russians haven't been able to achieve breakthrough after 3 years of fighting. It's the same argument I had with the other guy. History is full of examples of countries resisting invasions by vastly superior countries. Even in terrain that is flat.

So why is this so hopeless? Russians have been defeated before by smaller nations, and small flat countries have defeated larger ones in the past. It is cowardice on your side plain and simple.

Its so "hopless" because Russia already declared it vitally important. You can't defeat a nuclear superpower, fighting over vitally important terrain. All you can do - force them to use nukes.

 

[forkup]

Its so "hopless" because Russia already declared it vitally important. You can't defeat a nuclear superpower, fighting over vitally important terrain. All you can do - force them to use nukes.

Putin has made many declarations. He also declared that any invasion would require a nuclear response. Last time I checked Kursk is in Russia.

 

[Zavulon]

Putin has made many declarations. He also declared that any invasion would require a nuclear response. Last time I checked Kursk is in Russia.

Yes, situation is escalating towards usage of nuclear weapons. Thats ok.