Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Redskins Diehard]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

So you take no military actions if Russia takes all of the Ukraine, Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Finland?

I have read enough of your posts to assume you're a pretty intelligent guy. That post is not representative of a pretty intelligent guy though. 

 

But I will say that the 5 month break since our last war is not quite long enough to beat our chest into another one. That will be more bloody than the last 2. Use other elements of power for a change. I'm glad we elected someone President who seems to feel the same way and not some hot head who thinks blowing up some Russian tanks is the smart move at this point 

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I have read enough of your posts to assume you're a pretty intelligent guy. That post is not representative of a pretty intelligent guy though. 

 

But I will say that the 5 month break since our last war is not quite long enough to beat our chest into another one. That will be more bloody than the last 2. Use other elements of power for a change. I'm glad we elected someone President who seems to feel the same way and not some hot head who thinks blowing up some Russian tanks is the smart move at this point 

 

It is what your post suggest.  Don't take any kinetic action unless a NATO ally is threatened.  If that's your line in the sand, fine but then don't claim my post isn't intelligent because I explicitly pointed out the line in the sand you've drawn in your in post.  You don't like that line in the sand, you're allowed to expand on your point.

 

Other countries are offering lethal aid.  But it is going to take time for it to get there, for it to be distributed and integrated into Ukrainian defenses.  That's one reason that acting now could be critical.  Saying the conflict would be more bloody is an assumption.  Any and all actions come with risks, but you don't know how Russia would respond to a little (covert) US actions.  As I've already pointed out in this thread, such actions aren't exactly unprecedented without widening the conflict.

 

I'm not saying we should get more involved.  I don't have all the information and data.  I know that.  But if things are as reported not even considering it is a mistake.

Edited February 27, 2022 by PeterMP

[Redskins Diehard]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

It is what your post suggest.  Don't take any kinetic action unless a NATO ally is threatened.  If that's your line in the sand, fine but then don't claim my post isn't intelligent for explicitly pointing out the line in the sand you've drawn in your in post.

 

Other countries are offering lethal aid.  But it is going to take time for it to get there, for it to be distributed and integrated into Ukrainian defenses.

 

I'm not saying Biden should attack.  I don't have all the information and data.  I know that.  But if things are as reported not even considering it is a mistake.

I stand by my assessment of your last post.  I mean why didn't you just suggest my position was that Putin could attack EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD and we shouldn't do anything? 

 

Providing lethal aid is not going to change anything in the next week, or month for that matter. What it says to Putin is that not only do we disagree with what you're doing, we're going to give them stuff they can use to kill your troops. It is significant. 

 

Here's something to think about... chest beating machismo is exactly what Trump was doing at CPAC according to a post in that thread. I'd have to seriously reconsider my position if it was in the same zipcode as his. 

[PeterMP]

25 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I stand by my assessment of your last post.  I mean why didn't you just suggest my position was that Putin could attack EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD and we shouldn't do anything?

 

Because that would have been stupid and my post wasn't stupid.  It was intelligent.

 

😛

 

I don't judge the quality of an argument based on what other people think about it or who agrees with it or the source.  Doing so is actually considered a logical fallacy.  Arguments should be judged on the basis of the argument.

 

I did edit my other post.  Your assumption is that a little (covert) action would result in a conflict that is bloody from the US.  You don't know that.  I'll admit it isn't without risks, but you don't actually know that Russia would bomb US troops in Poland or Romania.

 

Acting now could be important to let the Ukraine get the weapons and get ready to use them.

Edited February 27, 2022 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

 

[88Comrade2000]

I am surprised that the 1/6 groups aren’t heading over to Ukraine to help their Russian buddies.

[Switchgear]

[Redskins Diehard]

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Because that would have been stupid and my post wasn't stupid.  It was intelligent.

 

😛

 

I don't judge the quality of an argument based on what other people think about it or who agrees with it or the source.  Doing so is actually considered a logical fallacy.  Arguments should be judged on the basis of the argument.

 

I did edit my other post.  Your assumption is that a little (covert) action would result in a conflict that is bloody from the US.  You don't know that.  I'll admit it isn't without risks, but you don't actually know that Russia would bomb US troops in Poland or Romania.

 

Acting now could be important to let the Ukraine get the weapons and get ready to use them.

Well the argument is just as foolish when posters make it on this board as it when Trump makes it at the CPAC. And it certainly isn't a logical fallacy to reconsider my own conclusions when I somehow land on one that someone I don't hold much respect for. I didn't say your argument was foolish because Trump made the same one. I said you're making the same foolish argument that Trump is. 

 

Assumptions are part of the Military Decision Making Process. I am making plenty of assumptions. That the fog of war is preventing anyone from really knowing the extent of casualties at this point. That all parties are executing information operations to strengthen their position and weaken their opponent's. Sure it's possible that everyone knows exactly what is happening and the reporting is fully accurate. I just believe that my assumptions are more valid than that one.

 

I also know that if we take direct offensive actions then we make our forces legitimate military targets. And I make the assumption that if we do a half assed escalation then Putin would respond in kind. Sure, it may not happen. Maybe we launch some missiles and Putin turns around and goes home. I don't believe that's a likely outcome. If we decide to escalate then I believe we need to go all in and strike decisively. And I do not believe that is the smart move at this point. In fact I believe it's shortsighted and both tactically and strategically foolish. 

 

I don't know what kind of "covert" action that you are talking about. Nothing I have seen suggested in this thread is anything but obvious US involvement. We aren't launching Tomahawks and pretending it wasn't us. 

 

We've been giving military aid to Ukraine for years. Hell it was a key part of trump's first impeachment. They're fighting with what they had when this started. Everything being offered now will be relevant in a month or longer. 

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You're first assumption is questionable at best. I would assume that command and control is severely limited. I would also assume that even IF casualty figures were fairly well understood by each country they would not be accurately reported. Do you think Russia is reporting casualties accurately? Do you think Ukraine is? 

 

Right now it is more than international condemnation. How many countries are sending lethal aid to Ukraine? That is a helluva lot more significant than giving a speech. Damn near all of Europe is sending materiel that will facilitate Ukrainians killing Russians. That is pretty damn significant. 

 

Launching missiles and flying planes over Ukraine is so shortsighted. Honestly it's the kind of reaction I would expect from someone like Trump. America doesn't get to decide unilaterally that there is a no fly zone over Ukraine. It's still a sovereign country. America doesn't get to enforce a no fly zone unilaterally... its still a sovereign country. And if you're going to do it you may as well go full on kinetic at this point because you're going to have to shoot down some Russian planes.

 

Launch some missiles? And then watch missiles fall on 4000 American Paratroopers sitting across the border. 

 

It's surprising to me how many folks on this thread are beating their chests and eager for blood. Did we not learn a damn thing over the last 20 years? 

 

Honor our commitment to NATO. Facilitate an economic and diplomatic squeeze on Russia. Hell, start revoking Russian visas here in the States and send every Russian citizen back.

 

Do everything we can to keep NATO united.  And if the time comes where a NATO member faces imminent threat THEN take kinetic action. 

 

 

 

 

Uh, Trump would do nothing against Russia and would probably provide aid to Russia. Trump would smile when Zelensky is killed and will do that if it happens. Revenge for not doing what he wanted done.

[Redskins Diehard]

Just now, 88Comrade2000 said:

Uh, Trump would do nothing against Russia and would probably provide aid to Russia. Trump would smile when Zelensky is killed and will do that if it happens. Revenge for not doing what he wanted done.

That's great and all but also irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say what Trump would do or wouldn't do. I said people in this thread are making the same argument that Trump made at CPAC. And they loved it. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Here is something to think about. After the media has been reporting about how bravely the Ukrainians have been fighting, how determined they are, how unpopular Putin is in Russia, and how inept it’s military is, when and if things start to go south for Ukraine, will it become politically impossible for nato countries to avoid intervening directly?

[skinsfan4128]

My brother's ex-wife and daughter (my niece) is over there. I'm hoping they are OK and condemn Russia (more to the point Hitler 2.0) for invading a country who just wants to be democratically independent from tyranny.  

Furthermore,  as if you needed a bigger reason to hate that orange ****, I condemn Trump for nationally kissing our enemy's ass.

HTTR!

[Redskins Diehard]

17 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Here is something to think about. After the media has been reporting about how bravely the Ukrainians have been fighting, how determined they are, how unpopular Putin is in Russia, and how inept it’s military is, when and if things start to go south for Ukraine, will it become politically impossible for nato countries to avoid intervening directly?

I doubt it. If things go south then I assume we keep sending javelins and stingers until he goes home. 

 

I'm not convinced Russia has sent their best shot yet. The aerial bombardment has been relatively tame. And the videos I've seen only show T72s. It certainly doesn't appear they've sent their best to this point. Maybe it's actually as good as he has. Or maybe he thought he could do it with his version of the national guard. (No offense to our national guard intended) 

 

Break

 

For anyone interested in gaining some insight into what our response has been to this point. The National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and EUCOM Theater plan should be available online. At least the unclassified versions. And may be worth the read

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[visionary]

 

[bearrock]

@Redskins Diehard 

 

I get that reasonable people can differ about where the redline is.  I also think there's room for reasonable disagreement for proportional response.  But then where is the redline when it comes to Russia?  It seems that Putin is trying to remake the world order (and Xi is at least in tacit agreement) where superpowers are free to act in regards to other non-nuclear non-directly allied countries.  It seems like imperialism for the 21st century.  Are we really going to limit US involvement to only direct allies?  Because surely Ukraine won't be the last and it's hard to find a country that's closer to being a NATO ally without actually being one than Ukraine.

[visionary]

 

[Dan T.]

 

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

25 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I don't know what kind of "covert" action that you are talking about. Nothing I have seen suggested in this thread is anything but obvious US involvement. We aren't launching Tomahawks and pretending it wasn't us. 

 

We've been giving military aid to Ukraine for years. Hell it was a key part of trump's first impeachment. They're fighting with what they had when this started. Everything being offered now will be relevant in a month or longer. 

 

Sure we can.  It is a war zone.  Things will explode.  Russia might think or even know we're lying.  Israel does it with Syria.

 

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israeli-submarine-strike-hit-Syrian-arms-depot-319756

 

But we can certainly say it wasn't us.

 

Even stealth bombers could be used in theory.  There has also been talk about having some US personal as "volunteers" in Ukraine as "volunteers" to give them some air power.

 

Obama was largely against sending lethal aid to the Ukraine.  Things changed little under Trump.  In the last few weeks there has been an effort to boost their defenses, but not much was actually done.  Generally, their defenses, especially air defenses, were considered too weak (which is one reason why people didn't expect this last too long).

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/didnt-us-allies-provide-ukraine-better-air-defense-system-rcna17317

 

It is very likely that they pretty much need the weapons that are being promised now now.

 

A direct attack on Russia with US forces would be crazy.  You'd be asking for a nuclear Russian response.

 

You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't get involved now because we just go out of wars.  That isn't actually a very good reason. 

 

If we can prevent a larger conflict that the US could be involved in by a limited action now, we should consider it.  (Potentially) more American lives lost in the future for fewer now isn't a good trade because we just got out of Afghanistan.

[Barry.Randolphe]

the amount of coordination right now between the US/EU is astonishing...especially considering the fact they're able to get a country like Hungary on board right now

 

I can't imagine anything like this being possible under the previous administration. He'd probably be the person saying no at every turn and doing the absolute bare minimum as he flirts with Putin

Edited February 27, 2022 by Barry.Randolphe

[visionary]

 

 

 

Not exactly a Rubio fan these days, but he has been saying some interesting stuff

 

 

 

 

Where was this Rubio the last few years?

Edited February 27, 2022 by visionary

[Mr. Sinister]

He's still a spineless **** (Rhymes with bunt)

[visionary]

 

[Peregrine]

I think some of you are very naive on the "wont Russia know we sent support etc" front.

 

Putin and his allies have been lying about things for a long time and we and everyone else in the world has known that.  Lets not naively believe we have some weird obligation to be truthful to a murderous dictator to his benefit.  The giving of aid, finances, munitions and even combatants etc and whether its "too far" has nothing to do with whether Russia thinks we are, or are convinced we are, or whatever.  What only matters, what has EVER only mattered in situations like that, and the reason Russia has gotten away with it for so long when its been blatant, is whether there is plausible deniability(no matter how absurd) and whether the international community believes it, cares about it, and would do anything about it. There is literally nothing Russia can do about it because as long as we dont cross obvious international law lines that the rest of the world cares about, based on Russias struggles against a country it should have wiped through on paper, they wouldnt have a chance.

 

The last russian war was a fantastic example of that when Putin blatantly sent Russian troops over the border in fake uniforms and everyone in the world knew it, but he said "It wasnt us I swear guys".

[Barry.Randolphe]

CNN coverage of this has been absolutely phenomenal. The amount of former top level US military providing analysis and commentary explaining x,y, and z to the viewers is great stuff. They had a woman on recently explaining exactly what SWIFT is and how shutting it down for Russia will effect them. The people on the ground are doing great too getting individual messages of the Ukrainian people out.

 

I flipped over to Fox to see how they're reporting it and Crenshaw is on there right now saying we didn't arm Ukrainians like we should have....well no ****, sherlock. The previous president got impeached over it