Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're just deliberately misrepresenting my position. I'd like for Ukraine to be able to win, I've said on multiple occasions Russia was wrong to commit an illegal invasion. Can we just be clear on that.

I just don't think it's possible that they'll retake those Eastern areas due to how dug in the Russians will be, and how many men and resources they have. From a pragmatic standpoint it would seem reasonable to negotiate and look at equipping the Ukrainian Armed Forces so they can protect the territory they hold, eventually they could look at NATO membership from there - rather than dragging out a conflict over many years which will cost European countries and the US hundreds of billions in economic damage and weaken us long term.

Suppose Ukraine retook those Eastern provinces, are people going to move in and settle and live in peace? Would the conflict ever end? I think the same about Russia holding it. At some point there has to be peace talks.

While what you are saying might seem reasonable if you take a step back from the conflict and view it from a distance - Russia/Putin has repeatedly shown that they will use any negotiation at best as a strategic pause and have shown no interest in any "negotiation" which isn't basically Ukraine capitulating - Putin has shown he won't accept any kind of negotiated outcome which allows for Ukraine to retain a robust armed forces even assuming they'd stop at the territories in the east - largely the notion the SMO is just about the breakaway regions is lies sold to the gullible. In that eventuality Russia just wants Ukraine ripe for the future picking when it is even less able to defend itself.

The potential for peace talks is pretty much non-existent whoever holds what while Ukraine exists as a functional state - there was a chance if Ukraine was able to put Russian forces under so much pressure they'd leave of their own accord there might be some kind of least worse outcome but that window has rapidly closed especially because of how much the West had delayed. The only other slither of possibility for any kind of peaceful outcome is if the current Russian regime somehow collapses but that depends on freak incident/accident and/or the Russian people revolting and neither look likely.

There is no outcome here really which doesn't involve massive misery and loss of life - whether in the short term or later - maybe it could be argued later gives more chances for a fundamental change to come about by some other means but we've seen throughout history that it almost always just leads to the same outcome or worse, often at a larger cost.
 
Last edited:
Sure if your goal is to weaken Russia, it would also be better to have them as a trading partner rather than an global political adversary. That's what should have happened after the USSR collapsed.

They cannot be a global trading partner whilst they annex neighbouring countries.

The whole idea that the west did the dirty on Russia after 1990 is crap. Those countries that wanted to join NATO and the EU did so because it was overwhelmingly in their economic and security interests to do so. They were the ones pushing for it.
 
Last edited:
Sure if your goal is to weaken Russia, it would also be better to have them as a trading partner rather than an global political adversary. That's what should have happened after the USSR collapsed.

What the heck do you think was happening before this war. We've seen what having them as a close trading partner has done. Given them free reign to take Crimea with no consequences and ultimately enabled the war today.

You're just a blatant troll or incredibly stupid, which is it?
 
What the heck do you think was happening before this war. We've seen what having them as a close trading partner has done. Given them free reign to take Crimea with no consequences and ultimately enabled the war today.

You're just a blatant troll or incredibly stupid, which is it?

I don't think he's a troll. I think he's at least partly bought into the Russia victim narative.

It's not the wests fault Russia is failed state propped up by oil and gas. The idea that any another country would find it desirable to be within the Russia sphere of influence is preposterous. It would only happen through fear of threats and coercion, which isn't how the world works. You have to offer something positive.
 
Last edited:
Sure if your goal is to weaken Russia, it would also be better to have them as a trading partner rather than an global political adversary. That's what should have happened after the USSR collapsed.

I find your stance on this very odd, as here you are saying we should have Russia as a trading partner (we did) but multiple times you have criticised Germany (citing the US's warnings) for buying Russia's oil because it was funding their military.

So which is it, trade with them (which will fund their military) or don't trade with them?

As at the minute it seems like you argue different ends of the spectrum when it suits you. And that they are a global political adversary to the Western world is down to them and their actions.
 
Last edited:
The whole idea that the west did the dirty on Russia after 1990 is crap. Those countries that wanted to join NATO and the EU did so because it was overwhelmingly in their economic and security interests to do so. They were the ones pushing for it.

The West did fail on Russia in the 90s; but not in the way Tankies claim. Compare the level of engagement in Poland, say, with the level of engagement in Russia. That failure to support Russia helped lead to its decay into a failing kleptostate. Without that, Putin isn't leading a war against Ukraine or engaging in cyberwarfare against the west for years.

Russia needed help after the collapse of the USSR as much as Poland and Lithuania. It didn't get it.
 
Last edited:
I find your stance on this very odd, as here you are saying we should have Russia as a trading partner (we did) but multiple times you have criticised Germany (citing the US's warnings) for buying Russia's oil because it was funding their military.

So which is it, trade with them (which will fund their military) or don't trade with them?

As at the minute it seems like you argue different ends of the spectrum when it suits you. And that they are a global political adversary to the Western world is down to them and their actions.

His EU-phobia trumps all
 
The West did fail on Russia in the 90s; but not in the way Tankies claim. Compare the level of engagement in Poland, say, with the level of engagement in Russia. That failure to support Russia helped lead to its decay into a failing kleptostate. Without that, Putin isn't leading a war against Ukraine or engaging in cyberwarfare against the west for years.

It's easy to say that in retrospect. It unravelled very quickly in Russia and there would have been an unwillingness to accept the terms of support that were on the most part enthusiastically accepted in former eastern bloc states.
 
I don't think he's a troll. I think he's at least partly bought into the Russia victim narative.

It's not the wests fault Russia is failed state propped up by oil and gas. The idea that any another country would find it desirable to be within the Russia sphere of influence is preposterous. It would only happen through fear of threats and coercion, which isn't how the world works. You have to offer something positive.

I haven't bought into any narrative, I actually read things and form my own opinion while trying to remain objective.
 
The BBC article reckons 3 years to train on the type and a year to train ground crew: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65897919

They also mention the problem of Russia targeting the air bases where the F-16s are stationed. I wonder if that problem and the ground maintenance problem would just be solved by them flying out of Poland or another friendly air base?
I can't see how Russia targeting air bases is problem, it's been a 18 months now and so far they haven't shown any capability of being able to neutralise Ukrainian airfields with missile strikes. I can't see how adding F-16's into the mix is going to change that.
 
It's impossible to stop an airfield from being used unless you're firing thousands of missiles per week just to stop repairs that takes hours at most, realistically only a sizable nuke can cripple an airfield.
 
I find your stance on this very odd, as here you are saying we should have Russia as a trading partner (we did) but multiple times you have criticised Germany (citing the US's warnings) for buying Russia's oil because it was funding their military.

So which is it, trade with them (which will fund their military) or don't trade with them?

As at the minute it seems like you argue different ends of the spectrum when it suits you. And that they are a global political adversary to the Western world is down to them and their actions.

Yeah, I understand your point, fundamentally though that warning was made in 2016 or later. The ship had already sailed by that point. We were both gearing up and spending money on defense against a possible Russian invasion while also being one of their biggest trading partners. Mid 90's to early 2000's there was time for a shift in Western policy. Putin wasn't always hostile to the West, a lot of things happened. I'd rather not spend the rest of my afternoon making the same points though.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom