Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Russian Invasion of Ukraine

PleaseBlitz

By PleaseBlitz
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, abdcskins said:

I'm hoping Putin gives up. I don't know what he can achieve at this point. The entire world hates him, including the majority of his own country. Russia is falling apart economically with social unrest everywhere. Even if he does "conquer" Ukraine there is no long-term plan. All of this makes Putin look like a very foolish, stubborn and downright insane person to say the least.

 

There is no way this is how Putin saw this invasion unfolding.  Even if he takes the cities he will not hold them without significant cost.  If they think they are struggling now wait until the insurgency begins.  

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Yes. It is. Glad it's happening. And tomahawks aren't necessary. 

 

This may be difficult for you to piece together.  Under Trump, American forces killed 200-300 Russian "troops/mercs" whatever you want to call them. I would bet that Putin didn't ask him to do it. Or direct it. Or like it.

 

So what is the maximum level of appropriate US involvement now?  I assume something along the lines of what's already happening right? (sanctions, supply, and intel) Is there a redline when it should escalate short of Russia attacking a NATO country?  Or is it that we are pretty much at maximal appropriate involvement in Ukraine regardless of what happens going forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClaytoAli

ClaytoAli

Posted
Posted

Mitt Romney says Americans who support Putin are ‘almost treasonous’


Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, the Utah Senator said many of Mr Putin’s apologists and supporters in the United States had begun “changing their stripes” after seeing the global outrage to the Russian leader’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mitt-romney-ukraine-treason-tucker-carlson-b2024408.html?utm_source=reddit.com

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrSilverMaC

MrSilverMaC

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ClaytoAli said:

Mitt Romney says Americans who support Putin are ‘almost treasonous’


Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, the Utah Senator said many of Mr Putin’s apologists and supporters in the United States had begun “changing their stripes” after seeing the global outrage to the Russian leader’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mitt-romney-ukraine-treason-tucker-carlson-b2024408.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I’d agree 100% with ol’ Mitt if he dropped the “almost”.

  • Thumb up 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

So what is the maximum level of appropriate US involvement now?  I assume something along the lines of what's already happening right? (sanctions, supply, and intel) Is there a redline when it should escalate short of Russia attacking a NATO country?  Or is it that we are pretty much at maximal appropriate involvement in Ukraine regardless of what happens going forward?

Right now? I think exactly what we're doing. Exerting diplomatic and economic power against Russia and showing that military is close by.  Rallying Europe and really the rest of the world to oppose Putin as well. We have provided significant lethal aid. As have others. I think we all expected an end state with Russia west of Kyiv(draw a line north from Ukraine/Romania/Maldova border) with long term support to guerrilla warfare and troop presence similar to now for the foreseeable future.

 

I wouldn't say regardless of what happens. To borrow that saying "everything changes everything".

 

If Kyiv falls that's terrible. But if it stops there then we pump intel and weapons. Every Russian tank Ukrainians destroy and troop they kill is something we don't have to worry about if things escalate.

 

I don't think anyone would say Putin has the advantage now. Why disrupt it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You do know the Trump administration killed hundreds of Russians in Syria? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

 

There's a link if you want to read about it... it's good stuff. 

 

To be crystal clear...The idea to blow Russian troops to pieces is stupid no matter who has it

 

Syria and Ukraine and two different situations with two vastly different responses from trump - that to me is the whole point. trump has never been one to bluster on about blowing up Russian troops as it relates to the Ukraine. And even with the Syria he mainly had an initial response then completely cleared out like the coward he is (don't; get me wrong, leaving Syria was the right thing to do ultimately, but the way he did it was bad, leaving many people vulnerable). 

 

I agree going in anywhere guns a blazing is stupid. I expect this to be a very drawn out conflict for Russia that will cause putin way more issues than he imagined. Play the long game with sanctions and isolation from the the rest of the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrSilverMaC

MrSilverMaC

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

To each their own.  To be clear though the "some point" he said or wasn't some long off time ago. It was last night. Or roughly the same time folks were advocating or contemplating the same thing here. Doesn't matter really. It's a bad idea when he has it. It's a bad idea when posters on here have it. We know that agreeing with Trump isn't a crime so folks are free to do it as they please

With regards to trump stating what people here are saying, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

The obvious difference is what he says and does the rest of the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Right now? I think exactly what we're doing. Exerting diplomatic and economic power against Russia and showing that military is close by.  Rallying Europe and really the rest of the world to oppose Putin as well. We have provided significant lethal aid. As have others. I think we all expected an end state with Russia west of Kyiv(draw a line north from Ukraine/Romania/Maldova border) with long term support to guerrilla warfare and troop presence similar to now for the foreseeable future.

 

I wouldn't say regardless of what happens. To borrow that saying "everything changes everything".

 

If Kyiv falls that's terrible. But if it stops there then we pump intel and weapons. Every Russian tank Ukrainians destroy and troop they kill is something we don't have to worry about if things escalate.

 

I don't think anyone would say Putin has the advantage now. Why disrupt it? 

 

I'm no military expert, so my question is not rhetorical.  I'm  asking a genuine question to try to understand better.  My understanding is that when all this started, experts perceived Ukraine's fall as imminent and inevitable.  But it appears (please correct me if I'm wrong), that part of the underlying assumption was that Ukraine leadership will likely flee or retreat and Ukrainian army, much less the average citizen, would not put up a very strong resistance.  Go in, occupy, put up a puppet, and get out.

 

It seems clear that at least that underlying assumption was very very wrong.  It appears that Ukraine as a whole is much more willing and ready to fight urban warfare than we thought.  Then, my question is that is there an opportunity now for NATO coalition to assist Ukraine beyond weapons and intel?  Is it possible to have coalition forces be inserted to safeguard utilities and critical infrastructure in the name of humanitarian assistance?  Provide background medical support and food/water to ensure that Russians can't simply starve out major cities?  Is there enough potential to turn urban warfare into enough of a quagmire that there is no real short term victory scenario for Putin?  Or is that the case already without any further international assistance beyond what is happening now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I'm no military expert, so my question is not rhetorical.  I'm  asking a genuine question to try to understand better.  My understanding is that when all this started, experts perceived Ukraine's fall as imminent and inevitable.  But it appears (please correct me if I'm wrong), that part of the underlying assumption was that Ukraine leadership will likely flee or retreat and Ukrainian army, much less the average citizen, would not put up a very strong resistance.  Go in, occupy, put up a puppet, and get out.

 

It seems clear that at least that underlying assumption was very very wrong.  It appears that Ukraine as a whole is much more willing and ready to fight urban warfare than we thought.  Then, my question is that is there an opportunity now for NATO coalition to assist Ukraine beyond weapons and intel?  Is it possible to have coalition forces be inserted to safeguard utilities and critical infrastructure in the name of humanitarian assistance?  Provide background medical support and food/water to ensure that Russians can't simply starve out major cities?  Is there enough potential to turn urban warfare into enough of a quagmire that there is no real short term victory scenario for Putin?  Or is that the case already without any further international assistance beyond what is happening now?

I appreciate the discussion. 

 

I think the Russian invasion to this point has not been intense as many predicted and the Ukrainian defense has been more intense than expected. Although there was a lot of uncertainty on both sides of that equation.  Did Putin give Ukraine Russia's best shot so far? That remains to be seen. If so, not impressive from a military perspective. Compare it to US led invasion of Iraq from a combined arms and violence of action perspective. It is not the same league.

 

If he had, or does, eventually take control of Ukraine to the west of Kyiv he will install a government and leave some degree of occupying force. And we will train and equip guerrilla forces for the foreseeable future until he leaves.

 

From the way it looks now, today, there is no need to change what we're doing. Humanitarian aid(ICRC, UN, NGOs, etc) could be something in the future as well. Maybe after meetings tomorrow. Maybe down the line. 

 

There are probably thousands of analysts all over the DoD and IC trying to make sense of what has happened so fast and predict what could happen in the short, mid, and long term. Tactical, strategic, you name it. 

 

Right now what we're doing is working better than we could have hoped. The world is against Putin in a significant way AND Ukraine is fairing pretty well all things considered. We should have patience and not rush into a bad move and overplay our(the Wests) hand. We are in a position of strength right now 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...