ChiGoose Posted February 13 Posted February 13 12 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: The mongers don't want peace According to the actual reporting that is referenced here but conveniently not linked (because verification is for suckers apparently), the US rejected the ceasefire because it would not negotiate a ceasefire without Ukraine's participation in the discussions. Which seems like the obvious thing to do. Also, if you look at the terms of the ceasefire, it would basically just be letting Putin rearm and refresh his troops before resuming the war. Interesting that the Neville Chamberlin crowds throws around terms like war mongers without ever directing it at the people who are actually responsible for the war...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: According to the actual reporting that is referenced here but conveniently not linked (because verification is for suckers apparently), the US rejected the ceasefire because it would not negotiate a ceasefire without Ukraine's participation in the discussions. Which seems like the obvious thing to do. Also, if you look at the terms of the ceasefire, it would basically just be letting Putin rearm and refresh his troops before resuming the war. Interesting that the Neville Chamberlin crowds throws around terms like war mongers without ever directing it at the people who are actually responsible for the war... Lol. Now do Israel. Lol, hypocrites. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted February 13 Posted February 13 31 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Lol. Now do Israel. Lol, hypocrites. What is my opinion on Israel?
Tommy Callahan Posted February 13 Posted February 13 28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: What is my opinion on Israel? My bad. I thought the current narrative for sure. But have noticed the left go full blown monger lately. Way to keep the script up to date.
Tommy Callahan Posted February 13 Posted February 13 Say what? Government represents the people? Ukrainian dictator?
ChiGoose Posted February 13 Posted February 13 11 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: My bad. I thought the current narrative for sure. But have noticed the left go full blown monger lately. Way to keep the script up to date. Ah. So you were just making up someone else’s position because it allowed you to demean them without actually engaging in discourse or even basic thought? Nice one!
Tiberius Posted February 17 Author Posted February 17 https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/europe/ukraine-withdraws-avdiivka-intl/index.html Ukrainian forces have announced the withdrawal of its forces from Avdiivka, a key town which in recent months became one of the most fiercely contested battles on the eastern front. The move followed an intensification of Moscow’s attacks on the area, as Russia pummeled it with airstrikes and artillery and sent wave after wave of ground assaults by armored vehicles and soldiers. While the town’s strategic significance is limited, Avdiivka marks the biggest gain for Moscow since it captured the city of Bakhmut last year and is an indication of how the war appears to have turned in Putin’s favor. Ukraine meanwhile faces renewed pressure across the eastern front, compounded by ammunition and manpower shortages. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that the decision to pull back from Avdiivka was made to “save our soldiers’ lives.” “In order to avoid being surrounded, it was decided to withdraw to other lines. This does not mean that people retreated some kilometres and Russia captured something, it did not capture anything,” he added. Avdiivka has been on the front lines since Russian-backed fighters seized large portions of the Donbas region, including the nearby city of Donetsk, in 2014. It has been under fire since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. Withdrawing from the town, to the northwest of Donetsk city, was “the only correct solution,” Ukraine’s commander of southern forces Oleksandr Tarnavskyi said in a Telegram post Friday, adding that some Ukrainian troops had been captured by Russia during the process. 1
aristocrat Posted February 17 Posted February 17 On 2/13/2024 at 12:20 PM, ChiGoose said: Russia preparing for military confrontation with West, says Estonia ""Russia has chosen a path which is a long-term confrontation ... and the Kremlin is probably anticipating a possible conflict with NATO within the next decade or so," Kaupo Rosin told reporters at the release of Estonia's national security threats report. A military attack by Russia is "highly unlikely" in the short term, he said, partly because Russia has to keep troops in Ukraine, and would remain unlikely if Russian buildup of forces was matched in Europe." Full Estonian Intelligence Report "Putin aims to secure victory in Ukraine to demonstrate geopolitical superiority over the West and reshape the European security landscape. While Putin may believe that time is on his side, counting on Western and Ukrainian fatigue, the West should not overestimate Russia’s strategic planning. As an intermediate goal, Russia would likely prefer to freeze the conflict on its own terms. To achieve this, Russia employs nuclear intimidation and covert communication." (Executive Report Item 7.) "Russia has largely managed to maintain its position in most former Soviet territories outside the European Union despite the ongoing war in Ukraine. Moldova, however, stands out as it continues to pursue a pro-Western course at the national level. Russia is attempting to tilt Moldova back into its orbit by influencing the country’s electoral process in 2024-2025." (Executive Report Item 8.) "Russia and China both share opposition to the United States and its allies, but unlike Russia, who is preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, China focuses more broadly on realising its global ambitions, seeing and cultivating its partnership with Russia within a larger framework, seeking to establish a global network that operates on China’s terms. Chinese and Russian media and ideological cooperation are likely to align the foreign policies of both countries further." (Executive Report Item 12.) Seems like it might be a good idea to crush Russian imperial ambition now instead of going the appeasement route... except they have nukes. What happens if they fire the nukes? You’re talking about the end of the world 2
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 20 minutes ago, aristocrat said: except they have nukes. What happens if they fire the nukes? You’re talking about the end of the world There are no good options. We know that Russia is a revanchist regime that wants to restore its former empire. We know they have nukes. We know that they have a history of invading their neighbors. We know they also have a history of using peace deals and ceasefires to re-arm themselves before violating the agreements and resuming their wars (Chechnya, Ukraine). We know they are currently at war with Ukraine. We have intelligence reporting that they think NATO commitment is weak and they may test our Article V commitment. So from what we can tell, we have two options: stop them in Ukraine in a manner that makes it clear their revanchist aims will fail; or let them take Ukraine, emboldening them to spread further into Europe and risk drawing all of NATO into a broader war. For me, that’s an easy choice: beat them in Ukraine. The money spent ensuring that Ukraine can push Russia back to its own borders is a small fraction of what we’d have to spend when Russia pushes into NATO nations in Europe. Same with the lives that will be lost. 1
aristocrat Posted February 17 Posted February 17 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: There are no good options. We know that Russia is a revanchist regime that wants to restore its former empire. We know they have nukes. We know that they have a history of invading their neighbors. We know they also have a history of using peace deals and ceasefires to re-arm themselves before violating the agreements and resuming their wars (Chechnya, Ukraine). We know they are currently at war with Ukraine. We have intelligence reporting that they think NATO commitment is weak and they may test our Article V commitment. So from what we can tell, we have two options: stop them in Ukraine in a manner that makes it clear their revanchist aims will fail; or let them take Ukraine, emboldening them to spread further into Europe and risk drawing all of NATO into a broader war. For me, that’s an easy choice: beat them in Ukraine. The money spent ensuring that Ukraine can push Russia back to its own borders is a small fraction of what we’d have to spend when Russia pushes into NATO nations in Europe. Same with the lives that will be lost. Getting them back to their border seems to be a fairy tale at this point. That’s not a pro Russian statement that’s just a reality. At a certain point you have to face reality in this situation. If there is a deal for just a small part of Ukraine they get to keep it should be made. Russia has a population of 150 mil and Ukraine about 40 mil. How many more military age men does Ukraine have to give before they have no future unless they get a serious baby boom going? best bet imo is wait out Putin and see if he dies and a less psycho president comes into power. 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted February 17 Posted February 17 19 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The money spent ensuring that Ukraine can push Russia back to its own borders Agree with your general thoughts but Is there a dollar amount that ensures this? Have we seen anything to date that suggests this can be ensured? 1
Tommy Callahan Posted February 17 Posted February 17 9 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Agree with your general thoughts but Is there a dollar amount that ensures this? Have we seen anything to date that suggests this can be ensured? What's it been, 3 plus years? Few hundred billion and the lend lease weaponry. And the line hasn't moved a mile either way. Like a WW1 standoff/meat grinder.
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 10 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Agree with your general thoughts but Is there a dollar amount that ensures this? Have we seen anything to date that suggests this can be ensured? Ukraine needs air superiority. The US would never attempt the operations Ukraine is trying without it. And we’ve seen why. We are finally letting them use F-16s and giving them training but the delay has really cost them. Trying to maneuver through minefields while under enemy fire isn’t a good way to fight. Blowing up the minefields through the air and suppressing enemy positions with aerial bombardment is how you get the ground troops to advance effectively and safely.
Tommy Callahan Posted February 17 Posted February 17 8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Ukraine needs air superiority. The US would never attempt the operations Ukraine is trying without it. And we’ve seen why. We are finally letting them use F-16s and giving them training but the delay has really cost them. Trying to maneuver through minefields while under enemy fire isn’t a good way to fight. Blowing up the minefields through the air and suppressing enemy positions with aerial bombardment is how you get the ground troops to advance effectively and safely. the Su-35s are considered to be among Russia's most advanced 4.5 generation fighters, he told Newsweek, and are "specifically designed to shoot down" aircraft such as the F-16. Does Ukraine have any defense pacts with nuke nations? Cause they are signing one with France right now.
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 17 Posted February 17 (edited) 43 minutes ago, aristocrat said: best bet imo is wait out Putin and see if he dies and a less psycho president comes into power. I know some of our more brain dead posters are going to call me a warmonger or whatever, but hear me out. If Putin's current strategy works, and Russia keeps the ability to execute it after he dies... What incentive does the next Russian leader have to stop using it? Edited February 17 by Coffeesforclosers
ChiGoose Posted February 17 Posted February 17 19 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I know some of our more brain dead posters are going to call me a warmonger or whatever, but hear me out. If Putin's current strategy works, and Russia keeps the ability to execute it after he dies... What incentive does the next Russian leader have to stop using it? Also consider that the country has been under decades of state controlled media propaganda while any dissenters are done away with. Given that environment, is there anybody left who could potentially take over after Putin that would be much different than him? 1
Tommy Callahan Posted February 17 Posted February 17 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I know some of our more brain dead posters are going to call me a warmonger or whatever, but hear me out. If Putin's current strategy works, and Russia keeps the ability to execute it after he dies... What incentive does the next Russian leader have to stop using it? Has the Russian army advanced past the disputed region? What's the strategy? We are probably working on another Alexie Navalny and western funded media site Edited February 17 by Tommy Callahan
Recommended Posts