Soldato
I have no ties to the east and often that is how I see the US/EU/UK (mostly the US). Not necessarily NATO though. One rule for one, and another for the other side, especially they do something the US doesn't like.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
I have no ties to the east and often that is how I see the US/EU/UK (mostly the US). Not necessarily NATO though. One rule for one, and another for the other side, especially they do something the US doesn't like.
Lastly quite frankly this is proof why we going to have war because we have people like you on both sides. Like I said before you even commented in my previous post. You both believe you know best whos the baddie and who is the goodie. No amount of information can change that. I just wish that there was a way to make sure that people like you - on both sides, were in the first wave when/if things kick off.
Yes that attitude has weakened our strength as a western alliance.
‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’
Then we act surprised why no one believes in our good intentions of upkeeping the 'law' around the world.
Sadly, if the next guys comes along aka China or Russia the world will be even in a worse shape.
It's kind of lol that the entire political exchanges for the past month can essentially be compared to Russia and NATO standing on opposite sides of a football pitch yelling to each other "if you go on it I'm going on it!!!", quite sad really.
Donbass on the other hand is part of Ukraine, it was part of Ukraine when it became a sovereign country in the early 90's and it is still considered part of Ukraine's territory, even by Russia. If Kiev's forces step up their efforts to retake the Donbass region an intervention by Russia would not be legal, and while many would argue that wouldn't stop them it would be a significant break in their modus operandi. As while their actions in Crimea were most certainly not totally lawful they were not entirely unlawful either as it was a very grey area. Donbass would not be a grey area, it would be a simple black and white invasion of another country to support the losing side in a civil war.
What should have happened over time is that the eastern resistance became weaker over time, but we know that hasn't happened due to the obvious Russian help, but at the same time Kievs forces have both received aid from the west and worked to reactivate their mothballed hardware, this has increased kievs firepower and offensive abilities while the easts has remained static. And of course the east are less likely to use their SAMs against Kievs military planes now, considering what happened last time they were doing it.
So in short, it grows more feasible by the day.
There is a major difference though, South Ossetia is an independent state between Georgia and Russia, albeit an independent state that Georgia have claimed as theirs since becoming a sovereign country in the early 90's, and one the west do not recognise but still an independent state and one they have never owned. Invading them was defacto an invasion and Russia were within their international rights to come to the military aid of a neighbour.
Donbass on the other hand is part of Ukraine, it was part of Ukraine when it became a sovereign country in the early 90's and it is still considered part of Ukraine's territory, even by Russia. If Kiev's forces step up their efforts to retake the Donbass region an intervention by Russia would not be legal, and while many would argue that wouldn't stop them it would be a significant break in their modus operandi. As while their actions in Crimea were most certainly not totally lawful they were not entirely unlawful either as it was a very grey area. Donbass would not be a grey area, it would be a simple black and white invasion of another country to support the losing side in a civil war.
Let's be honest, we all know that Russia is supplying the eastern Ukrainians, there isn't even any plausible deniability anymore as the Ukrainian civil war has been going on for seven years now so it's impossible for the eastern Ukrainians to not have run out of bullets or equipment without foreign aid, there simply wasn't enough military hardware/stockpiles in the east to sustain seven years of war and the factories/workshops that would repair the tanks are in the west.
What should have happened over time is that the eastern resistance became weaker over time, but we know that hasn't happened due to the obvious Russian help, but at the same time Kievs forces have both received aid from the west and worked to reactivate their mothballed hardware, this has increased kievs firepower and offensive abilities while the easts has remained static. And of course the east are less likely to use their SAMs against Kievs military planes now, considering what happened last time they were doing it.
So in short, it grows more feasible by the day.
You are deluded, pure and simple.
Explain to me why we should leave Ukraine to the wishes of Russia when they do not want to be in their little circle of oppression?
Who invaded a sovereign nation and took their land again?
This is... technically correct, on paper the combined EU/UK air force outnumbers the Russian air force more than 2 to 1. However there is no actual combined EU/UK air force, it's the air forces of nearly 20 countries, and history has shown us that having more troops than your enemy isn't always a guarantee of victory when you also have many more generals telling them what to do.
They wouldn't all agree to be part of the force anyhow. Suspect a number of them would prefer to stay neutral regardless of what Russia does.
No one is saying to leave Ukraine alone. You're missing the point, if we actually followed through on what we pretend to do around the world - Putin would not be in power today. He is literally in power just because your average Russian feels like NATO/US is coming to invade like Germans did. Because we pretend to 'police' the world and apply rules how we feel like it like a 'bully' this gives Putin plenty of ammo to brain-wash his people that NATO/US are the bad guys and are coming for Russians.
Regarding invading sovereign nation and took their land, there are many examples but this one hits best I think.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/keeping-oil-syria-trump-considered-war-crime/story?id=66589757
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/13/donald-trump-syria-oil-us-troops-isis-turkey
Literally invaded Syria and admitted to keeping a good chunk of land to pump oil on it.
Soldato
Ha yea, we're the bullies, not the psychopathic dictators.
Do yourself a favour, spend some time watching this video, sounds like you'd learn a bit.
True but we have the numbers and the aircrew receive more training, not to mention we have plenty of 5th gen aircraft that Russia has practically zero they all train together ala red flag and we have been in plenty of conflicts with air forces working in unison.
We've been the aggressor numerous times, invaded countries numerous times, as well as doing so under false pretences (Iraq's WMDs say "hi").
There is precious little of the moral high ground left, because we've bulldozed it over and over again.
And when it's not direct military aggression it's trying to effect regime change by arming insurgents, sending in the CIA to stoke up trouble, etc, etc.
We act in our own self interests, not because we're the good guys. That doesn't mean we're the worst guys, of course. But a lot of that will depend on your perspective, not some absolute moral scale.
No we're not psychopathic dictators however our positions are severely weakened by supporting them if they are in our club. People forget that Saddam Hussein was very friendly with the West. So was Ghedaffi and Saudi Arabia's princes and kings. Remember the whole Khashoggi incident? Silence. How about its literally a dictatorship in which the Saudi Prince literally rounded up whole elite in a hotel and forced them under pretence of death to be allegiant? When you have friends like that when you start barking at Lukashenko or Putin your position seems hypocritical.
Like I said multiple times, if we practised what we preach in the west regarding being force of good in the world - Putin would not last past 2008. Surprise, surprise Xi and the CCP would be also extremely weakend. Our false moral high ground has gave way to two monsters in the world that I'm not sure we will be able to deal with.
Problem with xi and Putin is they have a massive ICBM arsenal pointed at the west, and the west love cheap Chinese crap.
I can assure you that if we played our cards right after dissolution of Soviet Union - Russia would be a place we get cheap fossils from and China would be a manufacturing warehouse of the world with both being extremely friendly and loyal. We could have made sure neither had ICBM's. When Iron Curtain fell, Russians thought the US/West were really as good as they said and all their woes came from communism. Instead they spent all their 90's 'democratic' years literally starving to death and seeing 10 year olds prostituting themselves for food. Then came authoritarian Putin the saviour. Could you imagine if we actually supported Russia in 90's what we could have achieved?? We'd have one of most loyal populations on earth and CCP would never had a chance to last in China.
We had a chance to dominate world long term - instead we spent it on bombing couple countries under false pretence and ****** it all away. To the point Russia and China now feel like all that Cold War stuff about how great America and West were/are is all false. 30 years ago we had both of them thinking we're the best thing since sliced bread. Now they realize we are full of crap and nothing good is coming from us at all - quite frankly if they kill us they'd be better off.
So we got this:
From This
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Eur...sians-loved-the-US.-Where-did-it-all-go-wrong
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,031
Yeah but thats the middle east where we can drop bombs with impunity and drop them on a car full of children and aid workers in afghanistan and say "Oops! Sorry! Won't do it again, promise!"
Europes a different proposition though the ruskies might actually fight back with something more than pea shooters.
My concern is that the US throws Europe under the bus against ruskies. If things go well as in we oblitirate them like Iraq within couple weeks, we can occupy parts of Russia if things go sour and they cause too much trouble - US can ditch the war under assurances that Russia wont use nukes on continental US soil and leave us all alone with russia/china.
I don't think people realize but successful EU that has strong values/GDP/Military is really no fun to the US. It would make US global power obsolete and its not Russia or China to get industrial millitary complex going against.
Erm, how do you win a war against/take territory from a nuclear armed Russia?
Under what circumstances do they not simply nuke you before that happens?
There are possibilities. I don't think anyone is trigger happy with nukes as many people believe. If they lose large amounts of conventional army within very short period of time I can see them suing for peace with concessions very fast. I think we may see low yield tactical nukes being used on battlefield but I severely doubt anyone is going to launch all out ICBM swarm. I don't think Russians will do it even if we get to 30 miles off Moscow or we will do it if they take back all the way to Germany.
People have told themselves that there is no chance of war due to nukes, its not true especially now - people have lost fear of war and at same time become especially self cantered. I doubt either of party will send an ICBM swarm to end all things on earth.
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm think about (but not limiting too) things like complaining about countries as being tax havens and leaning on them a little when various states in the US and the BoT are some of the best tax havens on earth. Do yourself a favour
Last edited:
As said the numbers aren't as important as they normally would be when diluted by 20 different chains of command/supply/etc, a 2:1 advantage is not enough to guarantee victory with that handicap. The training varies from state to state, some EU members train their air crews more than Russia does, some don't.
The combined EU air forces have 49 5th gen aircraft (NB: Delivered, number actually in service may be lower) compared to Russia's 12, however that is an almost negligible amount when discussing a hypothetical air war involving close to 2500 planes. Especially when considering that Russia has more gen 4++ planes than any other nation, and that a 5th gen plane is essentially just a 4++ gen with better stealth. Stealth being far less useful when operating over/near the territory of an enemy with cutting edge radar/SAM systems than it is when bombing mud huts (which is all we've ever seen the F-35 do).
Only a handful of EU members have attended red flag and hardly any were there at the same year. Only a handful of EU air forces have worked together in previous conflicts, there were four involved in Iraq and three involved in Afghanistan (and of those only two were involved in both). There were nine EU member states involved in the Libyan civil war, which considering we won that war from the air without even committing ground forces would normally be good when referencing a possible air war in support of Ukraine, however in Libya the EU air forces ran out of supplies and had to be saved by the USA. The problem with using that tactic over Ukraine is that unlike the planes the UK/France/etc sent to Libya most of the EU planes aren't compatible with the munitions the US would be using.
I'm telling you it would not be anywhere near as easy as you think for the combined EU air forces to win an air war over hostile SAMs against a single unified air force even with a 2:1 advantage.
- Status