Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Page 85 of 201 [ 3203 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 ... 201  Next

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Jun 2022, 1:03 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
Some analysts believe that the long war itself is Putin's goal(at least one of them)...
I recall reading that it may be the USA's goal to let it be a long war.. NATO & USA could surge everything needed to Ukraine to crush Russia if they REALLY wanted to. They may say they won't so as not to trigger a nuclear response from Russia.. but the real reason may be to only supply what's needed to keep the war going as long as possible.. because the longer the war lasts, the more Russia's military gets depleted and the threat of them attacking anyone else becomes lesser and lesser. Makes sense.

This is likely the USA goal.
Make Russia bleed itself to a collapse, like in Afghanistan in 1980s.
USA is, as I read, more focused on Pacific and they want Russia unable to open a strong second front in Europe when Taiwan issue gets SHTF ripe. Ukraine war is a good opportinity to form a better position for this scenario.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 26
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,538
Location: China

04 Jun 2022, 1:11 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
Some analysts believe that the long war itself is Putin's goal(at least one of them)...


I recall reading that it may be the USA's goal to let it be a long war.. NATO & USA could surge everything needed to Ukraine to crush Russia if they REALLY wanted to. They may say they won't so as not to trigger a nuclear response from Russia.. but the real reason may be to only supply what's needed to keep the war going as long as possible.. because the longer the war lasts, the more Russia's military gets depleted and the threat of them attacking anyone else becomes lesser and lesser. Makes sense.

I did not determine the content of each round of sanctions.
The daily oil and gas expenses paid by Europe for Russia even exceed Russia's military expenditure. I expect it to be the same for now.

Moreover, supporting weapons is much cheaper than supporting reconstruction. The longer the war, the more living and production facilities in Ukraine will be destroyed.
Many Ukrainians, especially those who are pro western, may not return to Ukraine.
In a democratic country, this means that the political orientation of the country will change. This is what a long war will do.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Jun 2022, 1:21 pm

^ I would not suspect the decision-makers who expected to get Kyiv in 3 days to be that far-sighted.
Especially that Russia did not build self-sufficience before the war - they are critically dependent on Western high-tech to repair and rebuild their weapons.
A long war is disadvantageous for them, their tactics is bloodthirsty and they struggle to mobilize enough soldiers to die for a dubious cause.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

04 Jun 2022, 1:25 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
It’s because we can’t just appease Putin just because he threatens us. Who is Putin, anyway—the Big Bad Wolf?

Just like we can’t appease gangsters just so they won’t shoot innocent people. They have “nothing to lose” either if the potential sentence of a murderer is death.

Like we can’t appease kidnappers by automatically agreeing to their ransom demands.


But if it meant ending bloodshed wouldn't it be worth the appeasement?



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Jun 2022, 1:27 pm

ironpony wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
It’s because we can’t just appease Putin just because he threatens us. Who is Putin, anyway—the Big Bad Wolf?

Just like we can’t appease gangsters just so they won’t shoot innocent people. They have “nothing to lose” either if the potential sentence of a murderer is death.

Like we can’t appease kidnappers by automatically agreeing to their ransom demands.
But if it meant ending bloodshed wouldn't it be worth the appeasement?
They tried it in 1938. It doesn't work. It only makes the agressor bolder.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 26
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,538
Location: China

04 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm

magz wrote:
^ I would not suspect the decision-makers who expected to get Kyiv in 3 days to be that far-sighted.
Especially that Russia did not build self-sufficience before the war - they are critically dependent on Western high-tech to repair and rebuild their weapons.
A long war is disadvantageous for them, their tactics is bloodthirsty and they struggle to mobilize enough soldiers to die for a dubious cause.

NATO did not send its own troops.
This means that in terms of specific personnel, only Ukrainians and Russians consume each other.
44.13 million and 144.1 million.

I will doubt who's blood flows enough first.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Jun 2022, 1:51 pm

SkinnedWolf wrote:
magz wrote:
^ I would not suspect the decision-makers who expected to get Kyiv in 3 days to be that far-sighted.
Especially that Russia did not build self-sufficience before the war - they are critically dependent on Western high-tech to repair and rebuild their weapons.
A long war is disadvantageous for them, their tactics is bloodthirsty and they struggle to mobilize enough soldiers to die for a dubious cause.

NATO did not send its own troops.
This means that in terms of specific personnel, only Ukrainians and Russians consume each other.
44.13 million and 144.1 million.
But:
1. Ukraine is in full mobilization while Russia still not officially at war, which makes much less available manpower;
2. Russia is using old Soviet tactics requiring lots of cannonfodder while Ukraine uses modern tactics which relies on technologies and minimizes personnel losses.
3. Ukraine is fighting for survival.

As the result, Ukraine has more volunteers than it can arm while Russia - the opposite.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

04 Jun 2022, 7:10 pm

magz wrote:
Appeasing Putin and giving him a lot to lose was the politics that led to Feb 24.
Now it's time to make him lose.


The war is draining Russia.
I suspect NATO is happy with that.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

04 Jun 2022, 7:17 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
Some analysts believe that the long war itself is Putin's goal(at least one of them)...


I recall reading that it may be the USA's goal to let it be a long war.. NATO & USA could surge everything needed to Ukraine to crush Russia if they REALLY wanted to. They may say they won't so as not to trigger a nuclear response from Russia.. but the real reason may be to only supply what's needed to keep the war going as long as possible.. because the longer the war lasts, the more Russia's military gets depleted and the threat of them attacking anyone else becomes lesser and lesser. Makes sense.


Agreed. 8)

I suspect Ukraine is Russia's failed "last Hurrah" in its attempt to reach its former "glory".
pootin, you silly, silly psychopathic murdering bastardo. :roll:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Jun 2022, 12:27 am

Putin has to realize this is not the 20th century any longer. No more Tsars. No more USSR.

Any nationalistic glory is empty.

His country was making progress before his war.

He destroyed some of one country. Displaced millions of people. Wasted much money and resources—for what ????

NATO wouldn’t have posed any threat to him. The alleged “threat” was just an excuse for him to seek to make Ukrainians Russians against their will.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Jun 2022, 12:30 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Putin has to realize this is not the 20th century any longer. No more Tsars. No more USSR.

Any nationalistic glory is empty.

His country was making progress before his war.

He destroyed some of one country. Displaced millions of people. Wasted much money and resources—for what ????

NATO wouldn’t have posed any threat to him. The alleged “threat” was just an excuse for him to seek to make Ukrainians Russians against their will.


And he could have joined NATO himself, the stupid egotistical ninny. 8)



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

05 Jun 2022, 1:33 am

Pepe wrote:
And he could have joined NATO himself, the stupid egotistical ninny. 8)
I doubt he really could.
For accepting a new member, all the current members must agree.
Sweden and Finland are in tight negotiations with Turkey right now.
Imagine Russia negotiating like that with its former victims?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Jun 2022, 2:44 am

magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
And he could have joined NATO himself, the stupid egotistical ninny. 8)
I doubt he really could.
For accepting a new member, all the current members must agree.
Sweden and Finland are in tight negotiations with Turkey right now.
Imagine Russia negotiating like that with its former victims?


Well, what I heard is that he spit the dummy because he had to stand in line.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

05 Jun 2022, 2:47 am

Pepe wrote:
magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
And he could have joined NATO himself, the stupid egotistical ninny. 8)
I doubt he really could.
For accepting a new member, all the current members must agree.
Sweden and Finland are in tight negotiations with Turkey right now.
Imagine Russia negotiating like that with its former victims?
Well, what I heard is that he spit the dummy because he had to stand in line.
Yes.
Maybe because he realized what would await down this line without really heavy privileges granted.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Jun 2022, 2:49 am

magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
And he could have joined NATO himself, the stupid egotistical ninny. 8)
I doubt he really could.
For accepting a new member, all the current members must agree.
Sweden and Finland are in tight negotiations with Turkey right now.
Imagine Russia negotiating like that with its former victims?
Well, what I heard is that he spit the dummy because he had to stand in line.
Yes.
Maybe because he realized what would await down this line without really heavy privileges granted.
Leaving before being kicked out is a known practice, that's how Russia recently left OSCE.


Possibly.
Who would have objected to Russia joining NATO?



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

05 Jun 2022, 2:50 am

(I redacted out the OSCE story, it's apparently more complicated than my newspaper presented it, but you quoted me before correction)

Pepe wrote:
Possibly.
Who would have objected to Russia joining NATO?
Poland.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>