Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,016
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Think we are all still waiting for a suggestion from you and the millions of others on how to end the war that isn't just handing over loads of Ukraine to Russia.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Think we are all still waiting for a suggestion from you and the millions of others on how to end the war that isn't just handing over loads of Ukraine to Russia.
There is never a real answer, they are this subject's equivalent of just stop oil protestors, lots of self-righteousness, but when quizzed on the details oddly silent.
]
Most of the Huskys, Mastiffs and Wolfhounds have been used as assault vehicles
probably due to a lack of anything better to use. (These are supposed to be used in tactical support roles not spearheading an assault).
Last edited:
seems reality is finally getting through and there are fewer believers in the fairy tale (potentially horror) of ukraine getting back to 2014 or 1991 borders
and hopefully the trend of using more and more deadly weapons doesn't end in paving ukraine with radioactive glass
I doubt we see full Korean/Vietnam war scenario, NATO troops directly involved and dying in their thousands
then there remain couple other scenarios
abandon it like Afghanistan, you seem to not like that because it will give full control to Russia
abandon it like Lybia and Syria, in a state of constant "civil war", being torn apart by internal factions and bordering countries (Russia, Poland, Hungary, Romania in this case)
both achieve cut all financial losses except supporting the migrants, write off all loans and weapons etc.
eventually agree to Putins solution, concede the 4 captured lands, full DMZ and deNATOaspiration on remaining Ukraine.
This leaves some hope of getting loans back from milking the remaining parts dry. Excuse me, from helping rebuilding the land. Why I think this is the most likely, because money
sorry for long read, must be the coffee
have I missed any other end?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,604
- Location
- Rutland
I get the feel it shows the opposite. A much smaller nation is holding off Russia vastly superior numbers with the use of Western weapons. Russia can't achieve air superiority and its "superweapons" got knocked down and never came our to play again.
NATO would have total air superiority, much greater numbers and all the latest toys against the Russians rolling out 50 year old tanks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,669
At some point Russia are going to find out, I guess they think because it's unmanned they can get away with their idiocy
Which is a complete fantasy because Putin has only talked about those "solutions" to game the situation, it won't end there and the West will only get awhile to milk the remaining parts dry before Russia's next move. I don't know how many times Putin has to make this plain such as his recent accusations against Poland, while at the same time trying to push his reasonable angle that the gullible fall for, before it sinks in.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,016
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
What a load of nonsense.
Ukraine decide what they want to do, nothing like Libya or Syria.
The problem with the NATO doctrine is it assume basically supremacy, or at least superiority.
You seem a little confused on the terms.
Superiority is defined as being able to conduct air operations “without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.”
Air supremacy (that NATO seeks) goes further, wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.
I would say Russia has superiority right now. They do not have supremacy.
Many of the NATO assumptions are they are not bogged down in a WW1 style trench war, with standoff weapons, and at minimum having air supremacy in order to send all the funky, but very much really requiring air supremacy types of air into the combat zone.
Russia seems to have zero regard in effect for life, as such their AA weaponry would if fully engaged target everything. Part of the reason their air is not fully effective is they have to basically balance those two factors.
Also ammo, NATO assume a rate of fire per barrel thats around 1/3 to 1/4 of what Ukraine are using right now.
Last edited:
maybe
but then we are doomed to follow the sunken cost fallacy and keep paying for prolonging the conflict
so far it has been working out for big companies despite rest of economy being in the drain.
decide to their hearts content. Without constant supply from the west most they can do long term is insurgency. Or escape into exile in Switzerland and keep making those decisions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,016
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
So you would withdraw that support, basically hand over Ukraine to Putin to allow him to murder, rape etc his way across 40M people?
Not only that, but once again prove security guarantees are pointless and the west don't keep their word. and so in turn, every smaller nation gets quick stepping to producing their own nukes/WMD to protect themselves from an aggressive Russia/China no one wants to stop.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,016
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Thats the largest risk for sure.
If we prove that the only real deterrent to invasion from a nuclear power is to have your own nukes then the NPA is likely to be just rejected by many post Ukraine Russia war if Russia are allowed to win.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 1,227
- Location
- UK
Last edited:
The current strategy for ending the war seems to be that we give Ukraine not enough weapons to actually win the war, but enough that they don't lose the war; so essentially there is currently not a strategy for ending the war. Ukraine evidently cannot win the war this year, it's unlikely to change next year since Russia will have most of the winter to rearm, rest, and fortify the positions they hold. So whatever we're currently doing will not end the war, that is obvious. It's not up to me or people like me to put forward a strategy to end the war because that is not my job. I am simply saying that the war is having huge consequences for Europe and the UK, so rather than pursuing this failing strategy we should pursue one that has a positive outcome. That likely will involve Ukraine and Russia coming to a solution that they are both some what unhappy with, because the alternative is simply worse for everyone involved.
I also do not buy this slippery slope fallacy ******** that Putin will seek to expand territory, he's old, the Russian army is depleted, and NATO is so much stronger than them that the idea of them invading a NATO member is simply laughable at this point.
Last edited:
It is kind of necessary to put something feasible as a strategy if you are saying there is some way to end this war with a positive outcome sometime soon... otherwise you are essentially just wasting your own time and everyone else's trying to claim the sky is brown when everyone can see it is blue...
At this point his capabilities have been severely eroded and I don't think he set out for a wider conquest of Europe but that doesn't change the situation leading to this point, and how simply rolling over Ukraine would have seen him replaying that card until stopped by force, or mean we should now just dump Ukraine for our own conveniences.
Last edited:
The current strategy also isn't feasible though, it's just thousands of young men dying. I'd suggest Russia and Ukraine speaking to each other might be a start.
- Status