Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Russian Invasion of Ukraine


PleaseBlitz
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You have an interesting take on the news for somebody who takes responsibility for reporting it in the stadium...

 

Edit: talking about you reporting sports news, and maybe that's why.

 

@visionary saw you lurking last night, hope you doing alright...

Just to clarify here, if you want my personal opinion on the subject, I'm all up for nuking Putin into oblivion.

 

But that's just my personal take on the matter. I'm trying to see what our different options are right now so we can do without nuking the whole world, which wouldn't benefit anybody but China (and I suspect them to be luring Putin into this ****. They are the perfect master of puppets behind all this).

 

And I love to play devil's advocate when I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

UK HEalth secretary about foreign affairs? What a big deal. Not BJ talking here.

And you do have to take Putin's POV into account, otherwise he's not gonna talk about it.

 

For sure, there will be a next, that's obvious. But Putin put it in our backyard as it's up to us to declare war or not. Right now, he's not. You can call that as much as you want, it's more like annexion, than invasion.

 

If you want to talk about invasion, we could talk 2003 in Irak. Would be more fitting.

 

 

Like has been noted, Putin is trying to frame this in every way possible as not an unprovoked invasion (at least until he doesn't have to anymore).

 

He's now questioning Ukraine's legitimacy as a separate country simular to the way Lincoln said the Confederacy was never a real country because the Constitution didn't allow it.  Major difference being no country ever recognized thr CSA's legitimacy while Ukraine has a seat at the UN.

 

He's one of the best I've ever seen at answering a question and laughing to himself while person asking it is trying to put two and two together.  Be careful with taking what he says and does "literally".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Just to clarify here, if you want my personal opinion on the subject, I'm all up for nuking Putin into oblivion.

 

But that's just my personal take on the matter. I'm trying to see what our different options are right now so we can do without nuking the whole world, which wouldn't benefit anybody but China (and I suspect them to be luring Putin into this ****. They are the perfect master of puppets behind all this).

 

And I love to play devil's advocate when I can.

 

I said it once and I'll say it again, we need to figure out how to stop the expansionist goals of some of these countries that have nukes without using nukes to do it.

 

It will mean we can't go into a country with nukes and overthrow/replace their government anymore, but that's a fair compromise compared to letting them do whatever the hell they want.

 

And nuking Putin isn't nuking Putin, it's nuking Russia and its citizens.  We globally agreed to avoid totally war best we could after the way we fought World War 2 (see Dresden).  Did everyone stick to that promise, no, but the ones that broke it didn't use nukes to do it.

 

I don't disagree with the need for someone to play Devil's advocate here, but I'll say we are passed the point of what we should've done between the end of the cold war and today and need to make a decision in what to do going forward.   Democracy is on full retreat around the world, this decision could be part of a fatal blow.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to clarify something before this thread goes any further in anticipation of responses to my last couple of posts:

 

I am not calling out any of you as p***ies, nor am I talking from a position of not having any skin in the game.  I cannot "join the military since I wanna talk tough" because I'm bipolar, I wouldn't get passed MEPS and the waiver process I looked into looks completely unrealistic.  It's debatable whether that would count as an exemption to being drafted, but that's besides the point here.

 

I also live 20 miles from DC, my parents live less then 10.  It's debatable if North Korea can actually nuke DC, but we've known Russia can do it for decades now.  I fully understand the risks of what I'm proposing going south for my family and I, as do many of you who also live in the DC area (a lot of us do, maybe most of us do).

 

The point I'm trying to make is we need to put all the cards and consequences on the table in regards to taking a pragmatic approach to our adversaries having nuclear weapons.  Mutually Assured Destruction did not stop us from standing up to the USSR at all, we fought vicariously through other countries and still came close to direct conflict anyway (see Cuban Missle Crisis).

 

Yes, this is different, we are now talking about direct military conflict with Russia.  But my understanding was that is what NATO was for, as was our $700+ billion military budget. For this moment.  If we are going to take the pragmatic approach that best ensures our "survival as a country and a species", then the US has to re-evaluate the purpose of NATO and the need for outspending the military budget of the next 10 countries combined at the expense of our social safety nets among other dire needs for our country.

 

 

We cannot and should not clarify a new precedent with respect to our role in global security and "maintain status quo" in how we do it. We are talking about the potential for an unprecedented number of dominios falling here based on what we decided to do or not do.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is we need to put all the cards and consequences on the table in regards to taking a pragmatic approach to our adversaries having nuclear weapons.  Mutually Assured Destruction did not stop us from standing up to the USSR at all, we fought vicariously through other countries and still came close to direct conflict anyway (see Cuban Missle Crisis).

 

We are doing it now. Putin is testing the wests resolve. If the sanctions are enacted and enforced they will be a huge price to pay for invading Ukraine. If they aren’t enforced our allies have decided against standing with us.

 

There is at least a chance that this is where the aggression ends. Russia takes this as a victory and begins moving its troops away from attack positions. If that is the case I’m sure Europe will reverse course on sanctions, and essentially everyone important wins. 
 

If you put troops in Ukraine to defend it, how far east do you go? How can Russia accept American troops right on its boarder?
 

I don’t see how threatening to smack Russia physically helps. If anything it just make it harder for our ally’s (which are closer to Russia and would probably bare the brunt of any direct conflict) to support us in anything.

 

nuclear war is a fantasy. That is the last step of escalation. After conventional warfare doesn’t work.

 

41 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

.  If we are going to take the pragmatic approach that best ensures our "survival as a country and a species", then the US has to re-evaluate the purpose of NATO and the need for outspending the military budget of the next 10 countries combined at the expense of our social safety nets among other dire needs for our country.


 

 

president Trump made the same argument. Now Putin is encouraged.

 

41 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

We are doing it now. Putin is testing the wests resolve. If the sanctions are enacted and enforced they will be a huge price to pay for invading Ukraine. If they aren’t enforced our allies have decided against standing with us.
 

I don’t see how threatening to smack Russia physically helps. If anything it just make it harder for our ally’s (which are closer to Russia and would probably bare the brunt of any direct conflict) to support us in anything.

 

nuclear war is a fantasy. That is the last step of escalation. After conventional warfare doesn’t work.

 

 

The problem I have with the bolded is multi-fold.  NATO is telegraphing its position that it intends to defend NATO, not Europe. 

 

For the European countries outside NATO, they have every right to be terrified of this.  Many European countries decided to join NATO because establishing a clear European defense force fell through.  

 

I do not blame Western Europe for not wanting to get into a direct conflict with Russia, no one does.  But ceding Eastern Europe back to Russia undoing all the work accomplished since the end of the cold war, is that really the answer to this problem?

 

Saying this isnt worth it or that isnt worth adds up.

 

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

president Trump made the same argument. Now Putin is encouraged.

 

I, like many people, took his questioning of NATO not as the legitimate conversation that needed to be had, but as the direct mouth piece for Putin in an attempt to destabilize Europe and the free world.

 

Having said that, the Founding Father's were right to warn us of entangled military relationships with Europe.  We are supposed to be leaders of the free world in a military alliance that includes authoritarian governments like Turkey and Poland, deciding not to defend European democracies because they aren't part of that military alliance.  That is a terrible look that is impossible to spin positively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easy answer to stopping Russia's expansion is to give said countries nuclear weapons (if they want them).  After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was one of the leading nuclear weapons countries in the world.  They gave them up with assurances of their security from us, Russia, and Great Britain (which clearly have turned out to be meaningless).  I'd be willing to bet Russia wouldn't be doing what they are if the Ukraine had kept those weapons.

 

If we went to the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea this morning and offered to give them nuclear weapons that they control, then you'd see Putin's behavior change really quickly.  Even things like nuclear armed cruise missiles would change behavior fast.  The Ukraine might still be gone, but it would impact future behavior.

 

Now, there might be long term consequences to doing that in terms of things like some of those states might slide back into aurthorian regimes, the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists and non-state entities becomes more likely, etc.

 

The next thing is to pour conventional weapons into the Ukraine now including top of the line anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.  Again, there are potential long term consequences to that where those weapons down the line might fall into the hands of people that you don't want to have them (and be done to do something like shoot down a passenger jet).

 

If Russia actually tries to take the Ukraine, he's partly betting that there won't be really long term support there.  One of our lessons from Afghanistan and 9/11 appears to be to be very careful supporting extremists.  But by nature anybody that is willing to put their lives on the line to fight against a Russian takeover is going to be extremists.  Post-Afghanistan we've been very cautious in supporting entities where there really is no nation.

26 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

We are doing it now. Putin is testing the wests resolve. If the sanctions are enacted and enforced they will be a huge price to pay for invading Ukraine. If they aren’t enforced our allies have decided against standing with us.

 

There is at least a chance that this is where the aggression ends. Russia takes this as a victory and begins moving its troops away from attack positions. If that is the case I’m sure Europe will reverse course on sanctions, and essentially everyone important wins. 

 

There is no way this is where it ends if you essentially do nothing. It might stop here for a few years, but if you essentially do nothing (reverse sanctions) Putin is going to make another move in the future.  He's going to continue to take areas and expand Russian control until there is a failure.

 

And I'd suggest that Putin could live with US troops on his border just like the small countries Russia neighbors live with Russian troops on their border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PeterMP I agree that what you are proposing should be on the table and also dangerous AF.  There'd be nothing stopping Russia, China, or North Korea from countering and giving nukes to their buddies as well, like Iran.

 

I'm not convinced more nukes is the solution to this problem, but as I stated, we need to put all our cards on the table and have this honest, sobering conversation right now, not later.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

There is no way this is where it ends if you essentially do nothing. It might stop here for a few years, but if you essentially do nothing (reverse sanctions) Putin is going to make another move in the future.  He's going to continue to take areas and expand Russian control until there is a failure.

 

Stopping for a few years will be very appealing to the west. It’s one of the weaknesses of democracy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

He's one of the best I've ever seen at answering a question and laughing to himself while person asking it is trying to put two and two together.  Be careful with taking what he says and does "literally".

I don't believe a single thing of what he say and do because it's always tainted with Russia's interest's first (Well, I should say Putin's interest). Almost everything he says he pure lie that has no other goal that serving plate to Russian people that don't have other options than listening to what the government is telling them.

 

But we don't have any other choice to play with his cards as well because that's only when he'll listen. If you go with anything else, he'll go back with "You want a war with Nukes?".

 

Clearly he has decided to go back to the strategy of old times: "Law of the strongest".

 

That's like the bully in highschool that keeps on terrorizing everybody. He'll keep on doing it until someone punches him in the mouth so hard that he'll back off to "normal".

 

One of his advantage is that he doesn't care much about how many people would die in Russia, while western countries do matters about that. Basically, Russia wouldn't stand a chance against NATO with or without Nukes. And I do have some kind of doubts about their technology or the state of their nukes. It's well known that nobody likes to tell a dictator that his weapons aren't functioning correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand the philosophy of the incremental sanctions... keeping bargaining chits on the table for continued negotiations.

 

but Putin understands this strategy too.  His "negotiations" (and N Korea, and Erdogan and Madura, and Bolsonaro and..... every little dicked napoleon wannabe) consist of blustering past all "negotiations" temporarily, and then resetting the negotiations from the new place, and trying to negotiate away a PORTION of what was taken in the interim.... 

 

**** that

 

the dude is a pariah abroad, but will stay in place as long as both the Russian military and the Russian oligarchs are happy with him...  go full balls to walls on sanctions NOW.  Surprise him.   do the "Huawei" sanctions on the whole Russian economy AND.....    sanction the living **** out of any oligarch that has any business dealings with Putin or the GoR (which is to say, ALL of them, obviously).   Take away the soccer teams, and the London mansions, and the ability to go to Paris or Monaco to spend money.... make THEM ****ing miserable, and see how long Putin stays comfy.   

 

And then when the tiny-dick fake-bear-riding steven-segal-wannabe dip****  (which is to say looking UP to be a dip**** like Steven Segal) wants to come back to the table... make him negotiate to get BACK any of that ****.   

 

We should be done with the turd.   I realize that a cornered putin is a dangerous putin, but everybody knows that a dickwad schoolyard bully that never gets punched back just becomes a bigger and bigger dickwad anyway (which is obvious to say... a dangerous putin).    Surprise him, and make lick some wounds that hurt HIM and his friends, rather than just the Russian economy overall.     

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Like has been noted, Putin is trying to frame this in every way possible as not an unprovoked invasion (at least until he doesn't have to anymore).

 

He's now questioning Ukraine's legitimacy as a separate country simular to the way Lincoln said the Confederacy was never a real country because the Constitution didn't allow it.  Major difference being no country ever recognized thr CSA's legitimacy while Ukraine has a seat at the UN.

 

He's one of the best I've ever seen at answering a question and laughing to himself while person asking it is trying to put two and two together.  Be careful with taking what he says and does "literally".

 

he is not one of the best at ANYTHING.  he has one strategy, it is blatantly obvious and simplistic, ... but he has nukes in his pocket.    

 

calling putin "the best" at anything is insulting even to people that can fit 400 cigarettes in their mouth (and are at least legitimately good at SOMETHING)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

..... every little dicked napoleon wannabe) consist of blustering past all "negotiations" temporarily, and then resetting the negotiations from the new place, and trying to negotiate away a PORTION of what was taken in the interim.... 

 

**** that

 

 

And then when the tiny-dick fake-bear-riding steven-segal-wannabe dip****  (which is to say looking UP to be a dip**** like Steven Segal) wants to come back to the table... make him negotiate to get BACK any of that ****.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

The people of Ukraine agree with your assessment of Putin.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.rt.com/russia/550276-putin-military-use-abroad/

 

The upper house of Russia’s parliament has granted permission for the country’s military to be deployed abroad, following a request on Tuesday from President Vladimir Putin.

The decision was taken after Russia recognized the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will point out that an invasion of Ukraine by Russia doesn't represent a failure of NATO.  NATO is a mutual defense treaty.  It's job isn't to stop Russia from doing everything we don't want them to do.  Through the Cold War the Soviet Union did lots of things we didn't like (put down popular up risings using force in their client states).  NATO becomes a failure when parts of NATO countries break away and become independent entities under Russian influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@PeterMP I agree that what you are proposing should be on the table and also dangerous AF.  There'd be nothing stopping Russia, China, or North Korea from countering and giving nukes to their buddies as well, like Iran.

 

I'm not convinced more nukes is the solution to this problem, but as I stated, we need to put all our cards on the table and have this honest, sobering conversation right now, not later.

 

The difference is that we aren't going to invade Iran any time soon.

 

And there isn't anything really stopping them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.rt.com/russia/550281-putin-donbass-recognition-borders/
 

 

We have recognized them, which means that we recognize their basic documents, including their constitutions. Those constitutions set the boundaries as those of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions from the time they were a part of Ukraine,” Putin told reporters.

 

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko had said that Moscow would respect the borders of the two republics according to where local leaders exercised authority and jurisdiction. About half of the territory that had been part of both regions before the split effectively remains under the control of Ukrainian government troops.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...