Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[FrFan]

12 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Wali back in Ukraine, maybe @FrFan will start posting in this thread again ...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=5904885639524416&id=100000091151883

Thank you very much, but it's quite unlikely. I'm sick of this war and the european governments which were too arrogant to listen to the US warning them a year before about what will happen. Most of my sources are coming from Twitter, it's been very annoying to be asked relentlessly to sign up, which I don't want.

I did my little humble share providing them (ukrainian people) with some needed goods, but that was just a drop of water into the ocean.

Situation here is ****ed up, thanks to our super lousy president, rifts, violence, selfishness, arrogance, long is the list. Worst of all it's not getting any better, Chirac once said we get the politicians we deserve, I bet he was spot on. There is way too much negativity to the point that I don't even listen to the news. Media manipulation, misinformation, over here it's like they're running a contest, who will find the biggest pile of **** and stir it to make sure everybody enjoys the stench. Me and dad had health issues so I need calm and peace

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by FrFan

[Gurgeh]

On 9/16/2022 at 10:45 PM, DCSaints_fan said:

Confirmed that Ukraine has secured several crossing east of the Oskill river, including around Kopiansk.  These are crucial if they want to resume offensive in that direction, but it is not clear they will attempt to do so in the near future.  Perhaps waiting for Russia's reaction.  They may shift towards finishing off Kherson bridgehead which has stalled.  Russia seems convinced they are going to strike in the Southwest towards Mariupol.  Zelensky wanted that initially when drawing up plans for counteroffensive but he was swayed that it would have been unwise.

 

About the only thing that's changed in the Russian response is an increase in air attacks against Ukrainian troops in Kharkiv. The Russians are now risking their air force in an attempt to halt or push back the Ukrainian army, presumably because they lack the ground forces to do so.

[TradeTheBeal!]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:27 PM, 88Comrade2000 said:

 

 

This will be over quickly once Putin moves. After initial opposition from Ukrainians; they will quickly accept their fate. Those vehemently opposing Putin will be rounded up and executed.

 

Europe will not impose heavy sanctions.

 

9 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

I think in the end, Vlad just nukes Ukraine out if existence.  If he can’t have them; no one can .  

Seven months later and he’s still as dumb as a brick.

[Riggo-toni]

 

[tshile]

Nukes never made any sense unless he was deranged and his people just followed the order. There’s no win for him using nukes at all except to go out with a bang. And even then, as the last video suggested, there’s no reason to have confidence they’d work. 
 

it’s why the “well he has nukes” argument that was used early on to shut down any conversation about involvement was frustrating - it wasn’t really based on anything other than a bunch of people saying it. 
 

of course - there’s no way to be sure (unless you’re privy to what intel has on them…)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

28 minutes ago, tshile said:

Nukes never made any sense unless he was deranged and his people just followed the order. There’s no win for him using nukes at all except to go out with a bang. And even then, as the last video suggested, there’s no reason to have confidence they’d work. 
 

it’s why the “well he has nukes” argument that was used early on to shut down any conversation about involvement was frustrating - it wasn’t really based on anything other than a bunch of people saying it. 
 

of course - there’s no way to be sure (unless you’re privy to what intel has on them…)

Turns out there was no need to risk American lives though…

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Turns out there was no need to risk American lives though…

Well that’s sort of foolish to say

 

for one - don’t recall any serious person suggesting anything that would put American lives at ridk

 

and two - a lot of people have been massacred, raped, tortured, kidnapped, or otherwise had their lives destroyed. A lot. So without some idea of what exactly you’re putting at risk, American lives wise, it’s pretty callus to say there was no need. 

What because they’re now gaining back some ground? That came an incredible price. Your comment, seems to me, suggests you either don’t get that or don’t care. Doesn’t really matter which. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well that’s sort of foolish to say

 

for one - don’t recall any serious person suggesting anything that would put American lives at ridk

 

 

there were certainly people saying we should put US troops on the ground. Eg, put them at risk.

 

 

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

and two - a lot of people have been massacred, raped, tortured, kidnapped, or otherwise had their lives destroyed. A lot. So without some idea of what exactly you’re putting at risk, American lives wise, it’s pretty callus to say there was no need. 

that is how the world is. Much of it would of happened anyway. Plus, it’s entirely plausible the presence of American troops could have made all of that worse. 
 

 

“no one said we should put American lives at risk but let me tell you why we should have put American lives at risk”

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

there were certainly people saying we should put US troops on the ground. Eg, put them at risk.

An no one saying it was a serious person. I remember them too. 
 

the closest was a few serious people who suggested putting troops on the ground beforehand would have stopped Russia from doing anything, a tactic we’ve used before, but I only recall those being ideas put forth after the invasion started (ie: not an actual option unless someone has a time machine, more just a debate about what could have been done months earlier)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Just now, tshile said:

An no one saying it was a serious person. I remember them too. 
 

the closest was a few serious people who suggested putting troops on the ground beforehand would have stopped Russia from doing anything, a tactic we’ve used before, but I only recall those being ideas put forth after the invasion started (ie: not an actual option unless someone has a time machine, more just a debate about what could have been done months earlier)

 

who is a serious person?

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

that is how the world is. Much of it would of happened anyway. Plus, it’s entirely plausible the presence of American troops could have made all of that worse. 

There are more options that putting troops on the ground. And nothing about what’s happened suggests it’s anything other than laughable to think it would have been worse. 
 

You’re really bad at this. You’ve already done this once with this conversation and you learned exactly zero from it 😂 

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

who is a serious person?

Not you or our resident doomsayer88 

Maybe handles with numbers in them is a flag 

 

🤔

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

There are more options that putting troops on the ground. And nothing about what’s happened suggests it’s anything other than laughable to think it would have been worse. 

 

I know there are other options. That’s why I said we turns out we didn’t need to put troops on the ground. Now, for someone who agrees we didn’t need to put troops on the ground you sure are taking umbrage with me agreeing with you. 🤔

 

It appears we have done those “other options” to great effect.

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

That’s why I said we turns out we didn’t need to put troops on the ground

Not what you said. You said we didn’t need to put American lives at risk. And certainly there were more options that could have technically posed risk (we discussed them, you were part of it, saying the same nonsense as you do now) that didn’t involved people on the ground. 

But that’s really ancillary to the main point which is saying “it turns out we didn’t need to put American lives at risk” is incredibly  callus (or ignorant, i guess it could just be ignorant)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not what you said. You said we didn’t need to put American lives at risk. And certainly there were more options that could have technically posed risk (we discussed them, you were part of it, saying the same nonsense as you do now) that didn’t involved people on the ground. 

But that’s really ancillary to the main point which is saying “it turns out we didn’t need to put American lives at risk” is incredibly  callus (or ignorant, i guess it could just be ignorant)

Whatever, it’s pretty clear what I meant, and if it wasn’t the first time it should have been perfectly clear the second time. 
 

I get it, your a Warhawk. Is what it is.

 

What I’ve said is that Biden as done a good job of handling he matter this far. I never said we shouldn’t do anything to help Ukraine. I said we shouldn’t put troops in harms way.

 

I still don’t think we should, so far we haven’t, and there hasn’t been any need to. Human suffering is ordinary. Putting our troops there would have just made it worse; I think.

Edited September 19, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Riggo-toni]

I don't recall any pundit or elected official calling for ground troops; I think you are conflating Faux News Putinistas like Sucker Charlatan who tried to claim that if we sent weapons it would somehow inevitably lead to ground troops.

I find the mental gymnastics of the average Faux News viewer to be incredible - one minute claiming we shouldn't get involved, and the next day labeling Biden soft because he's not sending enough weapons.

[China]

Different nuclear plant...

 

Ukraine warns of ‘nuclear terrorism’ after strike near plant

 

A Russian missile struck close to a nuclear power plant Monday in southern Ukraine without damaging the three reactors but hit other industrial equipment in what Ukrainian authorities denounced as an act of “nuclear terrorism.”

 

The missile made impact within 300 meters (328 yards) of the reactors at the South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant, blasting a crater 2 meters (6 1/2 feet) deep and 4 meters (13 feet) across, according to Ukrainian nuclear operator Energoatom.

 

The reactors were operating normally and no staff members were injured, the agency said. But the proximity of the strike renewed fears the nearly 7-month-long war in Ukraine might produce a radiation disaster.

 

The nuclear power station, which is also known as the Pivdennoukrainsk plant, is Ukraine’s second-largest after the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has repeatedly come under fire. The two facilities’ reactors are of the same design.

 

Following recent battlefield setbacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened last week to step up attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. Throughout the war, Russia has targeted Ukraine’s electricity generation and transmission equipment, causing blackouts and endangering the safety systems of the country’s nuclear power plants.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Riggo-toni]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

An no one saying it was a serious person. I remember them too. 
 

the closest was a few serious people who suggested putting troops on the ground beforehand would have stopped Russia from doing anything, a tactic we’ve used before, but I only recall those being ideas put forth after the invasion started (ie: not an actual option unless someone has a time machine, more just a debate about what could have been done months earlier)

 

For the record, I argued in the past that we should have put troops on the ground in Ukraine in an attempt to play chicken in seeing if they would really kill American troops.  And now after things have gotten to where they are, I think it was a mistake to let it get to this point but we should at least strongly consider putting troops on ground in parts of Ukraine that aren't currently held by or under attack from Russia in a game of chicken.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

For the record, I argued in the past that we should have put troops on the ground in Ukraine in an attempt to play chicken in seeing if they would really kill American troops.  And now after things have gotten to where they are, I think it was a mistake to let it get to this point but we should at least strongly consider putting troops on ground in parts of Ukraine that aren't currently held by or under attack from Russia in a game of chicken.

Well you just ****ed my argument so thanks for that 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well you just ****ed my argument so thanks for that 

Come on, @tshile we all know @The Almighty Buzz isn’t a serious person™️

 

🙃

Edited September 19, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[TheGreatBuzz]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well you just ****ed my argument so thanks for that 

 

Sorry bud but when the options arise, I will usually side with providing the most information possible.

[Switchgear]

[China]

 

[FootballZombie]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-announces-partial-mobilization-russians-061436353.html

 

Putin calls for partial mobilization of 300K reservists.

Many see it as an admission of failure.

[visionary]