Russia and N.Korea
- Thread starter HulksStache
- Start date
- Status
Classic example of dammed if you do dammed if you don't.
Dude won't make everyone happy all the time, and won't make some happy an of the time.
Gets blamed by the right for supporting Ukraine.
Gets blamed by the right for pushing for more Ukraine funding.
Gets blamed by the right for apparently not giving Ukraine equipment quickly enough.
Gets blamed by the right for not quickly ending a war that the US doesn't even have troops in.
I can't predict the future and what Putin may or may not do. That said, your attitude is the same as the majority of Americans leading up to the point where we no longer had the choice in whether to take an isolationist role as it related to axis powers in the 40s. There is a real worry that Putin won't stop if he's unimpeded into the Donbas. Ukraine assistance without the use of of our or NATO soldiers seems like a reasonable middle of the road solution rather than cross our fingers and hope for the best again.
Yep and that's why Obama said Biden ***** up everything he touches. That is all on Biden. He should not have tried to manage the Ukraine military. Just give them the equipment and say go kick *** and get it over with. Biden has to stop figure ******* everything. This war should be over.
No matter the war or reason all will eventually lose support if it drags on too long. America was war weary in 1944 and the US leadership knew it. The Japanese knew it. That's why they started letting US Marines on the beach before lighting their asses up. All they had to do is kill enough Americans, Americans would start to demand an end to the war. Truman knew it as well and is the reason he dropped the big ones.
Get in there, kick *** and get out but lets be serious, people are making money on this war. You know it and everyone knows it if their heads are not up their asses.
Last edited:
Um, so why are you still refusing to support the candidate for US President that agrees with you on this when his opponent would absolutely hand Ukraine to Putin? If it's not important enough for you to support Biden, then how important can it be? How can you blame these peeps for not seeing it as important when you don't either?
Where do yall get this ****? We produced more oil in 2023 than any year in history. We are producing more a week than ever before. I’m sure you will give some alternative facts but I’m sick of math not mattering to people. It’s 17’ing math.
You're right. There has to be an end game. Current plan is to fund and fund and hope Putin gives up. He doesn't care if he loses a million troops. He will lose a million troops if it means outlasting the west and taking east Ukraine.
This along with what's going on in Israel are my two most important issues, I see little real difference between the two on those issues. They both have the same essential reluctance to really support both Ukraine and Israel. The only differences are minor and a matter of time. I'm probably going to do what I did last time, write in the name of Ronald Reagan. His corpse would make a better President than either of the two corpses we are supposed to choose from.
You have to ask yourself if you are doing the math why is gas so much higher today than four years ago.
Putin will keep on fighting, but he has lost most of his tanks, weapons and other vehicle. He is begging other nations for machinery to fight but eventually they will stop funding a losing effort. I say give Ukraine what they need and say go kick *** and leave them alone and stop trying to manage the war.
A major
Wait, what? You're comparing a poorly organized, poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly lead military that can't even subdue a small neighboring country with an equally poor military with one of the best trained, best equipped, best organized and best lead militaries in modern history? The Russians of 2024 in no way compare to the Germans of 1940. That's like comparing State's and UGA's football programs.
It's an option. I think the worry is that the west thinks Putin would get backed into a corner and do something real dumb like tactical nukes and drag us into a real big pickle. We'd win that pickle...but there's really no appetite to either bomb Moscow or commit US and/or NATO ground troops. So here we are hoping money and resources solve the problem per usual. Of course the patience with that strategy is extended when some fat cats are getting fatter with the weapons production.
So only East Ukraine then, that is quite a scale down. A considerable victory for the West. I'm sure you will grieve if that is the ultimate outcome.
Who know really what we have. There's probably **** you, me or many analysts have not even thought of out there. In 1964 we built an airplane that could travel 2000 miles per hour. You don't think 60 years later we don't have the technology to make a missile travel 3800 miles per hour? What we say we have and what we actually have most are most likely different. Just saying.
No, not really. I'm comparing the lackadaisical attitude in caring what happens to our friends in Europe. Nazi germany would wipe the floor with modern day Russia in a conventional war as modern Russian troops are garbage and cannon fodder at best.
Nukes are the game changer. You ignore a man who misses the USSR and has an aging, but large nuclear arsenal available long enough, you will get dragged into some filthy **** if the guy is stupid/desperate enough. That's thing keeping us from absolutely humiliating Putin. So we are left with nagging him into submission with an annoying Ukraine resistance and economic sanctions...or do nothing. I choose the former. We could probably do a better job at turning up the heat but I understand why it's a delicate situation practically. Nukes change everything all the time
You're leaving out one big piece of the love triangle. If you hadn't left that piece out, you'd have your answer.
Well, the reply from us to Russia using tactical nukes in Ukraine has been floating around out there for a while. It wouldn't be nuclear. It would be overwhelming conventional airpower. Russia intimidating old Soviet era airpower that they know absolutely how to counter is a BIT different than modern NATO/US airpower. That includes non-nuclear missiles. They know that of course. Why do you think despite all their threats they haven't popped tactical nukes in this war? The response would leave them only one option, strategic nukes. THAT is why we STILL maintain enough nuclear warheads to destroy them several times over.
Oh , and who cares what the fat cats get as long as the US survives. THAT line of thought is the epitomizes thought in France in 1938.
Last edited:
17, it never fails- I ask for info multiple times from multiple people, and when someone finally even responds, they respond with a bad riddle that doesn't actually answer anything.
It all comes down to evaluating the threat. We knew Germany to be a huge threat, not to the US, but to Europe. We know that Russia is not a threat, not to the US or Western Europe. Putin isn't using nukes, we've heard that the Russians were going to nuke us for the past 60 years. It's just not happening. Putin and his people realize our nukes are better. Worst case scenario they are equal. The US has better odds of defending an attack and withstanding/recovering from a nuclear attack.
We are mostly to blame for what is happening in Ukraine by our politicians pushing Nato's boundaries closer to Russia's boarders. We need to stay out of this whole deal. There is no telling how much of the aid we are sending them is being skimmed off the top and likely a good bit is ending up back in the pockets of the uni-party.
Subjective really. Depends on who you ask.
Putin would spin it as a win but his people would see a million dead bodies for a small, albeit important, region. L for Putin and Russia.
For the US? Depends on which dumb *** political party you support and which one is controlling the narrative/funding at the point in time when it's "resolved". Principles and consistency are gone - we just root for our political team now (or maybe it's always been that way?)
For me? I'd take a tucked tail Russian army and only getting the Donbas. That's a real life practical win for the west knowing the potential damage an angry/desperate/crazy man armed with nukes could cause. Putin would have to think long and hard the next time he were to get geographically ambitious. That said, I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to put a dollar and time limit on a resolution but it needs to happen sooner than later bc we are going to check out the longer this drags out. That'll be a big fat L for the west and a motivator for Vlad if we back out before crippling their army and spirit.
So what's your point here? Russia knows we aren't committed to throwing them any haymakers. They aren't committed to nuking anyone. So what's the end game here on either side?
Is NATO expanding or are more countries wanting to participate in the collective defense? And defense from whom? Seems like an important caveat to clear up.
- Status
Get unlimited access today.