Ukraine - Doomsday

[IGotWorms 4,060]

3 hours ago, nobody said:

I think the Ukraine lovers are getting a little caught up in the moment.  

I think most conflicts aren't necessarily executed perfectly.  Russia made some mistakes.  They underestimated Ukraine's ability and resolve, and they let corruption rot their military to an extent.

But the fact remains, even with sanctions, Russia has an endless supply of resources and they will learn from their mistakes and adapt.  The shift to focus on the east is going to make them virtually impossible to dig out of there.  They have fairly unfettered supply lines thanks to a russian friendly populace.  They have a river providing a natural barrier, and they just split the forces defending Mariupol, so they'll likely fall shortly.

I don't see a scenario where Ukraine retains the Donbas region.

So you’re saying it’s a little early to spike the football.

I agree

But why are we battling Russian apologists here? Do they live in Russia? Benefit from Putin?

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, warned in a statement Thursday Russia's military would “more than double” its forces in Russia’s Western flank should Sweden and Finland join NATO.

Ground- and air-defense forces would be beefed up, he wrote on Telegram, and Russia would deploy “significant naval forces” in the Gulf of Finland.

If Sweden and Finland join NATO, Medevedev added, “it will no longer be possible to talk about any non-nuclear status of the Baltic — the balance must be restored." 

Medvedev, who served as president of Russia from 2008 to 2012 in a four-year interregnum for Russia President Vladimir Putin's two-decade rule, has struck a bellicose pose in recent months, though he is not a top decision-maker.

 

What does the pro-Putin set have to say about this? Should NATO put its tail between its legs and slink away?

Oooooooohhhhhh, I'm sure Sweden and Finland are shakin'.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, warned in a statement Thursday Russia's military would “more than double” its forces in Russia’s Western flank should Sweden and Finland join NATO.

Ground- and air-defense forces would be beefed up, he wrote on Telegram, and Russia would deploy “significant naval forces” in the Gulf of Finland.

If Sweden and Finland join NATO, Medevedev added, “it will no longer be possible to talk about any non-nuclear status of the Baltic — the balance must be restored." 

Medvedev, who served as president of Russia from 2008 to 2012 in a four-year interregnum for Russia President Vladimir Putin's two-decade rule, has struck a bellicose pose in recent months, though he is not a top decision-maker.

 

What does the pro-Putin set have to say about this? Should NATO put its tail between its legs and slink away?

Yup

[Utilit99 4,099]

Who the fock is pro Putin? 

I think the whining liberals here are more fighting against people who don't think Ukraine is all that nice either. 

Whatever. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

So you’re saying it’s a little early to spike the football.

I agree

But why are we battling Russian apologists here? Do they live in Russia? Benefit from Putin?

Who are they? Point out their posts where  they say they love Putin. 

[NorthernVike 2,087]

Any idea how much that sunken warship cost Russia?  

[IGotWorms 4,060]

53 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Who the fock is pro Putin?  

You. HT. Timmy Smiff. Justin Charge. Etc.

Most of the Trumpers, oddly enough. But fortunately not all of them, some still draw the line at supporting the enemy in war

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You. HT. Timmy Smiff. Justin Charge. Etc.

Most of the Trumpers, oddly enough. But fortunately not all of them, some still draw the line at supporting the enemy in war

We’re at war? 

[IGotWorms 4,060]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

We’re at war? 

 

 

[fandandy 3,313]

17 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

some still draw the line at supporting the enemy in war

Which is who, currently?  We as a populace have been talked into war countless times by those who feel this unadulterated conviction that they are on the right side of history.  

And, here we go again.

Are you certain this time?

[fandandy 3,313]

Put your boots on and buy a plane ticket and go fight.

I'm taking a nap.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

Trump has Worms and the other libtards so messed up they now have the same foreign policy views as Di ck Cheney.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

Russia did invade Ukraine in 2014, right? Where was the stand with Ukraine gang then?   

[fandandy 3,313]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Russia did invade Ukraine in 2014, right? Where was the stand with Ukraine gang then?   

Seinfeld wasn't President yet.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

And yeah, this Trump voter kinda liked not getting involved in anymore stupid wars that have no benefit for the average American. What a kook. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

We’re at war? 

[Voltaire 5,344]

2 hours ago, fandandy said:

Which is who, currently?  We as a populace have been talked into war countless times by those who feel this unadulterated conviction that they are on the right side of history.  

And, here we go again.

Are you certain this time?

One key difference is that no US troops are needed in this war. The Ukrainians provide all the manpower. What they also need is the money spigot continually turned on for both military and humanitarian support which seems to be flowing in to them pretty well. They're not getting everything they ask for, they're getting what their donors are willing to give, but that's been effective enough.

[Drizzay 725]

3 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Oooooooohhhhhh, I'm sure Sweden and Finland are shakin'.

Especially after what happened to Russian soldiers the last time they ventured into Finland.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

15 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

One key difference is that no US troops are needed in this war. The Ukrainians provide all the manpower. What they also need is the money spigot continually turned on for both military and humanitarian support which seems to be flowing in to them pretty well. They're not getting everything they ask for, they're getting what their donors are willing to give, but that's been effective enough.

And what if Russia says “bullshit. You’re involved. It’s on” ?   

[IGotWorms 4,060]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trump has Worms and the other libtards so messed up they now have the same foreign policy views as Di ck Cheney.  

Let me know when we strike first and there’s boots on the ground. Then your analogy might hold a little weight

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trump has Worms and the other libtards so messed up they now have the same foreign policy views as Di ck Cheney.  

TDS is focking messing with them bad..

 

[Voltaire 5,344]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And what if Russia says “bullshit. You’re involved. It’s on” ?   

They'd be the ones upping the stakes themselves. Thus far, they've not attacked NATO supply depots and supply routes. If they did, they'd get quashed like bugs. The only thing they have is the nuclear option, their conventional forces totally suck.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

They'd be the ones upping the stakes themselves. Thus far, they've not attacked NATO supply depots and supply routes. If they did, they'd get quashed like bugs. The only thing they have is the nuclear option, their conventional forces totally suck.

Russia  has enough forces to get what they want. They probably already have what want and are trying to simply secure. Who knows? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me know when we strike first and there’s boots on the ground. Then your analogy might hold a little weight

Maybe we’ll skip over that part and it will be nukes in the air. A proxy war against a country with a nuclear arsenal the same size as ours, with a madman running it.  And a chip on his shoulder the size of Yankee stadium. Fockin brilliant.  

[Voltaire 5,344]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

Russia  has enough forces to get what they want. They probably already have what want and are trying to simply secure. Who knows? 

It looked like they wanted all of Ukraine but in retreating from the assault on Kiev, they're doing something else. Maybe they'll settle for stealing Ukraine's oil and gas fields.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Maybe we’ll skip over that part and it will be nukes in the air. A proxy war against a country with a nuclear arsenal the same size as ours, with a madman running it.  And a chip on his shoulder the size of Yankee stadium. Fockin brilliant.  

133 pages in and you finally hit on something. Yeah it’s a risk. However, doing nothing was not a viable option.

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

It looked like they wanted all of Ukraine but in retreating from the assault on Kiev, they're doing something else. Maybe they'll settle for stealing Ukraine's oil and gas fields.

Yeah. I think they hoped run the whole show but in the end, they might actually be better off simply taking their oil and gas and electric plant. 

And I kind of don't get the whole liberal thing here of pushing that conservatives back Putin. Just because some acknowledge that Ukrraine was not an innocent little nation,  doesn't mean previous Trump voters support Putin.

It's been what, 6 years now that the liberals have been trying to tie Trump to Putin? All because Trump knows how to handle world leaders better than liberals do? 

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

133 pages in and you finally hit on something. Yeah it’s a risk. However, doing nothing was not a viable option.

133 pages of your whining about Trump. Clueless.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

20 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

133 pages in and you finally hit on something. Yeah it’s a risk. However, doing nothing was not a viable option.

 

28 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

It looked like they wanted all of Ukraine but in retreating from the assault on Kiev, they're doing something else. Maybe they'll settle for stealing Ukraine's oil and gas fields.

Much of the oil and gas fields are in the east. And the waters around Crimea are very dense in oil and gas. Russia took that in 2014 when Obama was president and Biden was the point man in Ukraine. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

133 pages in and you finally hit on something. Yeah it’s a risk. However, doing nothing was not a viable option.

A risk to who if Putin took all of Ukraine?  I wouldn’t feel at risk. Not one bit. So he takes Ukraine. Then what? You think he’ll be in Warsaw and Munich in short  order? A nuclear war is more likely. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

133 pages in and you finally hit on something. Yeah it’s a risk. However, doing nothing was not a viable option.

Well son of bltch...

 

[NorthernVike 2,087]

Russia is bankrupting themselves with this stupid decision.   They're focked in the long run. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

7 minutes ago, NorthernVike said:

Russia is bankrupting themselves with this stupid decision.   They're focked in the long run. 

And I don't really care. But according to worms, that makes me a Putin apologist. Or...whatever... 

[Cdub100 3,945]

I support the current thing. 

[Voltaire 5,344]

This is Putin's 3rd or 4th war of expansion, depending on if you count Chechnya or not, and by far his most ambitions. It's not safe being a neighbor of this a$$hole. Ukraine's NOT being a member of NATO was a carrot for Putin and besides, the country was too corrupt to meet NATO membership standards anyway. Putin clearly miscalculated on how easy it would be to take Ukraine but he should have predicted the Finnish and Swedish response a mile from away. Unlike Ukraine, they easily meet all requirements for NATO membership and would have no trouble getting in, they just didn't want to rock the boat and enjoyed being free riders.

Putin's being an ass changed their calculus.

[fandandy 3,313]

24 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

And I kind of don't get the whole liberal thing here of pushing that conservatives back Putin. Just because some acknowledge that Ukrraine was not an innocent little nation,  doesn't mean previous Trump voters support Putin.

 

But what if some did and the fact still remains that this war was verifiably caused by the West and NATO's expansion eastward?  No matter how it plays out.  It was still caused intentionally by the West.  You can poke a dog with a stick and say that it is a mean dog and to just wait and watch just how mean that dog really is and you keep poking and eventually that dog will bite and then you are allowed to turn and say, see?  I told you so.

That is not right.

The West and NATO are wrong here.  That is a fact.

[wiffleball 4,791]

4 minutes ago, fandandy said:

But what if some did and the fact still remains that this war was verifiably caused by the West and NATO's expansion eastward?  No matter how it plays out.  It was still caused intentionally by the West.  You can poke a dog with a stick and say that it is a mean dog and to just wait and watch just how mean that dog really is and you keep poking and eventually that dog will bite and then you are allowed to turn and say, see?  I told you so.

That is not right.

The West and NATO are wrong here.  That is a fact.

Oh f*** off.

[wiffleball 4,791]

Did you see what happened to the Russian missile cruiser? F*** them. 

[fandandy 3,313]

Just now, wiffleball said:

Oh f*** off.

Have you ever looked at military bases surrounding Russia and then military bases surrounding the United States.  STFU.  

[fandandy 3,313]

It is ok and completely acceptable to idiots such as yourself to have it one way but not the other.