Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Redskins Diehard]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

may point was there are many possibilities 

 

you threw a consensus among experts out there as the justification - my follow up point was that it’s not necessary a consensus. 
 

it’s the official opinion of NATO. 
 

it’s not necessarily a consensus  

So what you are saying is that despite what the President said in the SOTU, what the press secretary has said every time she has been asked, and what the Secretary of State says... that all of that is not likely true. But what is likely is that the prevailing thought IS that no fly is not the right move at this point. Okay 

[tshile]

Does anyone have any firm understanding of how russias war machine is funded?

 

is it even possible they can maintain an army with the sanctions in place?

 

is it basically a sure bet that we can starve them out of the war, it’s just a question of how long it takes?

 

 

Just now, Redskins Diehard said:

So what you are saying is that despite what the President said in the SOTU, what the press secretary has said every time she has been asked, and what the Secretary of State says... that all of that is not likely true. But what is likely is that the prevailing thought IS that no fly is not the right move at this point. Okay 

No.

 

what I said was that I wanted to point out that what you were saying, in the way you were saying it, is not necessarily true. 
 

it’s the opposite of taking a stance. The only stance I took was that I thought you were overselling your stance. 

[LD0506]

Overwhelmingly these days warfare is held hostage by logistics, your frontline troops are dependent on food, fuel, munitions resupply, etc., in a timely fashion or they grind to a halt. Period. Those nostalgic days where partisans run through the woods and McGyver booby traps for the attackers are long gone.

 

I'd say the West et. al. is banking on the Russians wearing out their equipment and starving from supply issues if the Ukrainians can just die slowly enough to keep from having to decide about a No Fly Zone leads to WWIII scenario.

 

Harsh I know, but it is just the kind of logic that flies around HQs. 

 

Yes it's hard to watch these people being terrorized, but morality and humanity aren't listed on anyone's order of battle.

Including ours.

 

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[Jabbyrwock]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

This is very much a high stakes game of poker. People think they know what the other side will do, and what they can do, but they aren’t sure and the consequences of taking the wrong chance are astronomical and paralyzing.  It’s a case study in game theory, and also frustrating as hell. 
 

Imma go drink 2 bottles of wine and solve it. 

 

Blitz is on the case!

[Larry]

36 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Dow doesn't want tanking Russian stocks to drag their indices down. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Tomorrow is fittingly the anniversary of Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech. 
 

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

That's an assumption.  We fought Chinese in Korea and there's no doubt we fought Russians in the air in Korea and didn't declare war on Russia or China (Yes, the Chinese were "volunteers" and the Russians were using Korean bases so it isn't the same.).  (MacArthur wanted to invade China.  Eisenhower said no.)

 

Wasn't it Truman that said no and then fired MacArthur? Didn't MacArthur also want to nuke the Chinese?

 

Good general but the guy was an asshole. Ordering troops to burn down the Hooverville n whatnot. 

[PeterMP]

Just now, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Wasn't it Truman that said no and then fired MacArthur? Didn't MacArthur also want to nuke the Chinese?

 

Good general but the guy was an asshole. Ordering troops to burn down the Hooverville n whatnot. 

 

It was absolutely Truman.  My fault!

 

I don't know about nukes, but it wouldn't shock me.

[visionary]

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Russia has put themselves right smack in the middle of one of history’s all time great self-owns.  Just let em keep doing what they’re doing for a little while.

Edited March 5, 2022 by TradeTheBeal!

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Russia has put themselves right smack in the middle of one of history’s all time great self-owns.  Just let em keep doing what they’re doing for a little while.

Yea, I tempted to want a little more NATO involvement… but at the same time Russia is embarrassing itself and doing real damage to its prestige… so why stop them…

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Russia has putthemselves right smack in the middle of one of history’s all time great self-owns.  Just let em keep doing what they’re doing for a little while.

I hope so, but we aren’t there yet. Very possible that we all wake up 3 or 7 or 12 days from now and the weight of Russia’s military has finally broken the plucky Ukraine resistance. Then the week of defiance and heroism and amazing cursing will be eventually forgotten. See eg, the “Winter War” between Finland and Russia, 1939. 

[Redskins Diehard]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

No.

 

what I said was that I wanted to point out that what you were saying, in the way you were saying it, is not necessarily true. 
 

it’s the opposite of taking a stance. The only stance I took was that I thought you were overselling your stance. 

Well with the POTUS, the SecState, and every press conference saying that their position is no fly zone...I take them at their word.  And it isn't just what they're saying but how they're saying it. Of course it could all be misinformation 

[FootballZombie]

55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I don't think that's really true.

 

With the no fly zone in Bosnia, NATO planes were attacked but there was no declaration of war or larger retaliation by NATO.  Nobody invoked article 5 (the part that compels other countries in NATO to come to defense) over our air planes enforcing the no fly zone.  Even things like Somalia.  We didn't invoke article 5

 

1.) Nato was operating under UN sanction and were directly responsible for enforcement via Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia, totally diff situation.

2.) Why on earth would anyone in NATO need to enact article 5, when NATO is already there. Think about it. If NATO is already present somewhere in a military capacity, like enforcing a no fly zone, and NATO forces are comprised off all active members,  then there is no reason to invoke Article 5 as every NATO nation is already involved in the conflict. Be it Bosnia, Somalia or even Russia, if Nato is actively enforcing a no fly zone, there is no one to invoke article 5 on b/c everyone is already there.

 

If your already somewhere bombing the crap outta something, there is very little need to call for "Double War!"

Edited March 5, 2022 by FootballZombie

[MrSilverMaC]

11 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

If the maps I'm seeing are to be believed, there is a Russian salient east of Kiev.   That must be what the Ukrainians are attempting to cut off and encircle.

The tweets seem to be describing action on the northwest side of the city. The direction I would expect a convoy from russia to come from.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

24 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

So what you are saying is that despite what the President said in the SOTU, what the press secretary has said every time she has been asked, and what the Secretary of State says... that all of that is not likely true. But what is likely is that the prevailing thought IS that no fly is not the right move at this point. Okay 

 

The people who really don’t want a NATO no fly zone are probably countries like Italy and Germany who were hesitant to join sanctions to begin with. 
 

Biden can’t be talking about doing something his Allies desperately don’t want if he wants complete unity over the Russian response. Especially when it is likely that it will be the European countries who have to deal with the majority of the consequences of an US led no fly zone.

 

It is entirely possibly that the US would want to participate in a no fly zone but are keeping it private to keep the sanctions alliance strong.

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I hope so, but we aren’t there yet. Very possible that we all wake up 3 or 7 or 12 days from now and the weight of Russia’s military has finally broken the plucky Ukraine resistance. Then the week of defiance and heroism and amazing cursing will be eventually forgotten. See eg, the “Winter War” between Finland and Russia, 1939. 

Even if Ukraine is beaten Russia is in a terrible place economically.

[Redskins Diehard]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I hope so, but we aren’t there yet. Very possible that we all wake up 3 or 7 or 12 days from now and the weight of Russia’s military has finally broken the plucky Ukraine resistance. Then the week of defiance and heroism and amazing cursing will be eventually forgotten. See eg, the “Winter War” between Finland and Russia, 1939. 

I think that is more than very possible but actually very likely. They're putting up a resistance which is positive for the long term but there are likely darker days ahead. This is still REALLY early. 

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

The people who really don’t want a NATO no fly zone are probably countries like Italy and Germany who were hesitant to join sanctions to begin with. 
 

Biden can’t be talking about doing something his Allies desperately don’t want if he wants complete unity over the Russian response. Especially when it is likely that it will be the European countries who have to deal with the majority of the consequences of an US led no fly zone.

 

It is entirely possibly that the US would want to participate in a no fly zone but are keeping it private to keep the sanctions alliance strong.

Even if Ukraine is beaten Russia is in a terrible place economically.

Anything is possible. He's been adamant from the beginning under what conditions US troops become involved. But sure...he could be adamantly lying to us 

[dunfer]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I hope so, but we aren’t there yet. Very possible that we all wake up 3 or 7 or 12 days from now and the weight of Russia’s military has finally broken the plucky Ukraine resistance. Then the week of defiance and heroism and amazing cursing will be eventually forgotten. See eg, the “Winter War” between Finland and Russia, 1939. 

even if....how long could they hold it if there was a western backed resistance?

 

china has to move in at some point to make this work for putin

Edited March 5, 2022 by dunfer

[visionary]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I think that is more than very possible but actually very likely. They're putting up a resistance which is positive for the long term but there are likely darker days ahead. This is still REALLY early. 

I tend to agree, unfortunately. Still, Ukraine seems to be doing way better than expected so far, and they very importantly are massively winning the PR war in the west. This could break in a lot of different directions. 

[China]

Clearly Puting is feeling the sanctions.  The bit about 'no ill intentions' is nonsense.

 

Vladimir Putin Says Russia Has 'No Ill Intentions,' Pleads for No More Sanctions

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia has no "ill intentions" towards Ukraine, hours after Russian forces had seized Europe's biggest nuclear power plant.

 

Putin made the comment on the state-controlled Rossiya 24 news channel on Friday in which he called on neighboring countries "to think about how to normalize relations" more than a week after he ordered an invasion that has caused thousands of casualties and sparked a growing refugee crisis.

 

"I want to emphasize once again. We have no ill intentions towards our neighbors, and I would advise them not to escalate the situation, nor to introduce any restrictions," he said, according to news agencies.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

1.) Nato was operating under UN sanction and were directly responsible for enforcement via Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia, totally diff situation.

2.) Why on earth would anyone in NATO need to enact article 5, when NATO is already there. Think about it. If NATO is already present somewhere in a military capacity, like enforcing a no fly zone, and NATO forces are comprised off all active members,  then there is no reason to invoke Article 5 as every NATO nation is already involved in the conflict. Be it Bosnia, Somalia or even Russia, if Nato is actively enforcing a no fly zone, there is no one to invoke article 5 on b/c everyone is already there.

 

Why is it totally different?  It isn't identical, but I wouldn't say it is completely different.  What about Vietnam?  Or our invasion of Panama?  The British and the Falklands war? The French and Algerian war (technically a colony at the time and a civil war but they've also been in other little wars and not pulled in NATO)?

 

Because that's how NATO works.   Maybe I'm misunderstood your point.  Let's say NATO decides to enforce a no fly zone.  Some NATO country's plane gets shot down (Let's say ours.).  What do you envision happening next?

 

From my perspective, I don't see where that would necessarily change anything.  The plane of NATO country could be shot down and NATO could just go enforcing the no fly zone with no further action.  I at least read your post as if something else would then happen.

 

To my knowledge, a full retaliation (on Russia itself) would require somebody to invoke Article 5.  Which isn't what has happened in the past when a NATO countries personal has been shot or killed in other countries.

Edited March 5, 2022 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, dunfer said:

even if....how long could they hold it if there was a western backed resistance?

 

china has to move in at some point to make this work for putin

A very good point. The Ukrainians dont seem to want to be ruled. Unfortunately, the answer to your question is “indefinitely” if Russia is willing to be ruthless enough (and it is). 

[PeterMP]

41 minutes ago, tshile said:

Does anyone have any firm understanding of how russias war machine is funded?

 

is it even possible they can maintain an army with the sanctions in place?

 

is it basically a sure bet that we can starve them out of the war, it’s just a question of how long it takes?

 

From what I read, my understanding it is unlikely the sanctions will end the war (the sanctions specifically exclude food so literal starvation is extremely unlikely).

 

I've yet to see anybody suggest that the sanctions will end the war as a result of lack of material.  There might be/have been some hope that oligarchs would see their wealth being vastly diminish and pressure Putin to end the war or eliminate him and end the war.