Ukraine war

[otto105]

Nobody really knows. The Ukrainians say the number of their dead is a 'state secret' and they won't reveal the numbers. Maybe they don't know the numbers?

From the get go this was a conflict between two countries that have been at the very top of Europe's most corrupt nations list for a very long time now.

According to the BBC in August, the U.S. puts the number of Ukrainian dead at between 70,000 and 120,000. Their entire army was only roughly half a million. If accurate, that is a staggering number.

Since nobody, but nobody has been willing to attack Russia, this proxy war does not seem to be going anywhere other than dozens of the young dying every day. Had Zelensky just handed over the Ukraine to Putin or told him he would not join NATO, the casualties would likely have been minimal or maybe none.

What is the moral choice? Give in to Russian tyranny? Or fight an unwinnable war that is killing tens of thousands of young soldiers and many civilians?

Not an easy call.

'Dying by the dozens every day' - Ukraine losses climb

Ukraine will not disclose its death count, but the BBC’s Quentin Sommerville witnesses the mounting toll.

www.bbc.com

Hilarious

I remember a time when republics considered themselves to be anti-communists.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hilarious

I remember a time when republics considered themselves to be anti-communists.

Was there anything whatsoever that even suggests that I am in any way pro-communist?

 

[otto105]

Was there anything whatsoever that even suggests that I am in any way pro-communist?

Okay do you support the funding of the defense of Ukraine?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay do you support the funding of the defense of Ukraine?

don't know since there is zero accountability of what the funding is going for. If it is being used to beat back and defeat Russian aggression I can see some justification for it. But just pouring it into the unknown is not smart. I cannot support the USA giving the Ukraine priority over defense of the United States.

 

[otto105]

don't know since there is zero accountability of what the funding is going for. If it is being used to beat back and defeat Russian aggression I can see some justification for it. But just pouring it into the unknown is not smart. I cannot support the USA giving the Ukraine priority over defense of the United States.

Zero accountability?

Explain.

Because we're supplying the Ukrainian people with the means to defend their country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Zero accountability?

Explain.

Because we're supplying the Ukrainian people with the means to defend their country.

Zero accountability?

Explain.

Because we're supplying the Ukrainian people with the means to defend their country.

According to 60 Minutes, we can track at least some of the weapons/equipment/ammo we give to them.

The cash we hand over--billions of it--is far less transparent in what it is used for. While inflammatory images of lavish French estates that Zelensky is supposed to have acquired since the war started are pure fabrication, as well as is propaganda about expensive yachts, lavish shopping sprees by the Mrs., etc. etc., we don't know if the cash we are furnishing for 'humanitarian purposes' is getting to those who most need it.

 

[otto105]

According to 60 Minutes, we can track at least some of the weapons/equipment/ammo we give to them.

The cash we hand over--billions of it--is far less transparent in what it is used for. While inflammatory images of lavish French estates that Zelensky is supposed to have acquired since the war started are pure fabrication, as well as is propaganda about expensive yachts, lavish shopping sprees by the Mrs., etc. etc., we don't know if the cash we are furnishing for 'humanitarian purposes' is getting to those who most need it.

That’s bullshit.

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s bullshit.

Then show me your evidence for where the cash is going.

 

[otto105]

Then show me your evidence for where the cash is going.

90% of the funds are being spent are on munitions which are manufactured here and sent to Ukraine.

But you're still stuck on a denied favor.

 

[Foxfyre]

90% of the funds are being spent are on munitions which are manufactured here and sent to Ukraine.

But you're still stuck on a denied favor.

Through November 2023:

How Much U.S. Aid Is Going to Ukraine?

Nine charts illustrate the extraordinary level of support the United States has provided Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders.

www.cfr.org

 

[Silver Cat]

The Mouse that Roared? How many Japanese military and civilians had to die for that 'acceptable' peace?

1,5% of them. More than acceptable price. It was compensated in the first post war year.

Channeling Putin?


Only a madman would bet it all and hope for a surprise ending.

No. It may be the best possibility in the given circumstances. If there is a choice between peace and war - most of decision makers would prefer peace (it is safer). But, if there is a choice between attack first and retaliate - most of decision makers prefer attack first (for the very same reason - it's safer).

You said "even modern imbeciles can't miss the Russian preparations for the attack" so it would be obvious, and widely announced, that US actions were in response to Russian "preparations for the attack". You shouldn't argue from both sides of your mouth.

Yes, of course, American actions were in response to "Russian preparation for the attack". And it was widely announced that said "Russian preparations for the attack" were in response to "American extremely provocative actions (like sending US Army in West Ukraine).
So, the practical question is simple - what do you prefer:
1) to finish "extremely provocative actions" and make few steps back;
2) attack Russian nuclear forces first;
3) allow Russians to attack your nuclear forces.

 

[alang1216]

1,5% of them. More than acceptable price. It was compensated in the first post war year.
View attachment 903871


No. It may be the best possibility in the given circumstances. If there is a choice between peace and war - most of decision makers would prefer peace (it is safer). But, if there is a choice between attack first and retaliate - most of decision makers prefer attack first (for the very same reason - it's safer).


Yes, of course, American actions were in response to "Russian preparation for the attack". And it was widely announced that said "Russian preparations for the attack" were in response to "American extremely provocative actions (like sending US Army in West Ukraine).
So, the practical question is simple - what do you prefer:
1) to finish "extremely provocative actions" and make few steps back;
2) attack Russian nuclear forces first;
3) allow Russians to attack your nuclear forces.

Maybe the Russians should just launch a nuclear strike right now since it doesn't seem like they gain anything by waiting.

 

[Silver Cat]

Maybe the Russians should just launch a nuclear strike right now since it doesn't seem like they gain anything by waiting.

They use the threat of a nuclear strike for deterrence, to prevent America's "extremely provocative actions". Their deterrence is effective because it is credible. And it is credible because it's not suicidal.

 

[otto105]

They use the threat of a nuclear strike for deterrence, to prevent America's "extremely provocative actions". Their deterrence is effective because it is credible. And it is credible because it's not suicidal.

What provocative action did we have in Ukraine?

 

[Silver Cat]

What provocative action did we have in Ukraine?

Right now we didn't have any really provocative actions in Ukraine. In fact, Biden sanctions had decreased Germany's industrial production a way more effective than Roosevelt's bombing campaign.
But successful Ukrainian counteroffensive and a real threat to Crimea and Donbass could be such a thing. That's why all our Ohios from 22 squadron left their base before said "counteroffensive" had started. (Of course, it took tons of secrets, money, vodka and caviar to convince the Russians that those actions are purely defensive, and not a preparation for our surprise attack against them).

 

[alang1216]

They use the threat of a nuclear strike for deterrence, to prevent America's "extremely provocative actions". Their deterrence is effective because it is credible. And it is credible because it's not suicidal.

Nothing that happens in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, nuclear war is.

 

[Bleipriester]

Nothing that happens in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, nuclear war is.

"Putin made clear, that Russia will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks. The announcement is the answer to Trump´s unlocked red button.

"Commenting on the new US nuclear posture, Putin stated that Russia is “greatly concerned” by what he said was the reduced benchmark for the use of nuclear weapons by Washington.


“Whatever soothing words one may try to use behind closed doors, we can read what was written. And it says that these weapons can be used in response to a conventional attack or even a cyber-threat,” he said.

Putin added, “in this regard, it is my duty to state this: any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences.”"

Russia to nuke everyone instantly - if Mother Russia or her allies are attacked

Putin made clear, that Russia will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks. The announcement is the answer to Trump´s unlocked red button. "Commenting on the new US nuclear posture, Putin stated that Russia is “greatly concerned” by what he said was the reduced...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[alang1216]

"Putin made clear, that Russia will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks. The announcement is the answer to Trump´s unlocked red button.

"Commenting on the new US nuclear posture, Putin stated that Russia is “greatly concerned” by what he said was the reduced benchmark for the use of nuclear weapons by Washington.


“Whatever soothing words one may try to use behind closed doors, we can read what was written. And it says that these weapons can be used in response to a conventional attack or even a cyber-threat,” he said.

Putin added, “in this regard, it is my duty to state this: any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences.”"

Russia to nuke everyone instantly - if Mother Russia or her allies are attacked

Putin made clear, that Russia will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks. The announcement is the answer to Trump´s unlocked red button. "Commenting on the new US nuclear posture, Putin stated that Russia is “greatly concerned” by what he said was the reduced...

www.usmessageboard.com

A reasonable and expected statement by any national leader.

 

[Silver Cat]

Nothing that happens in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, nuclear war is.

Ukraine as a member of NATO is a existencial threat to Russian Federation (say nothing about twenty million ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living in Ukraine).
Nuclear war against the USA, if fought right, won't cost them more than twenty million killed even in pessimistic (from their point of view) scenario, will cost less than one million killed in realistic scenario, or they will be able to coerce the USA into peace (on their terms) without US retaliation at all in the optimistic scenario.

 

[alang1216]

Ukraine as a member of NATO is a existencial threat to Russian Federation (say nothing about twenty million ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living in Ukraine).
Nuclear war against the USA, if fought right, won't cost them more than twenty million killed even in pessimistic (from their point of view) scenario, will cost less than one million killed in realistic scenario, or they will be able to coerce the USA into peace (on their terms) without US retaliation at all in the optimistic scenario.

Why is Ukraine joining NATO, something that was not on the table before the invasion, an existential threat? Estonia and Latvia are already in NATO, are they an existential threat? Finland is looking to join NATO, are they a existential threat? I wonder if the Russians living in Ukraine would prefer to join the West?