Ukraine (31 Viewers)

[Sailorsaint]

LOL, OK.

I understand nobody likes the idea of Russia walking away with anything other than total defeat but, yall should probably temper your expectations. If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is telling Ukraine, "hey, you should really start negotiating..." they should probably listen to him.

Back to your regularly scheduled GameDay thread.....

Whether you like it or not, putin can't negotiate. And even if he did, he wouldn't negotiate in good faith, as has been shown already. His only negotiation tactic is to murder civilians, terrorize the population. You mentioned ice cream for everyone in the U.S., how about freedom for everyone in Ukraine? That doesn't sound so hard. It would be easier to do than get a cup of ice cream to everyone. I'll bring up a post I made way back....If this was the U.S. instead of Ukraine, and we were holding the upper hand against them like the UA is right now, would you be willing to give up the West Coast and Alaska for the sake of not having to fight anymore?

 

[efil4stnias]

LOL, OK.

I understand nobody likes the idea of Russia walking away with anything other than total defeat but, yall should probably temper your expectations. If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is telling Ukraine, "hey, you should really start negotiating..." they should probably listen to him.

Back to your regularly scheduled GameDay thread.....

When Gen Milley tells them its time to step to the table, he will say it.

The last thing you do in the military is speak in ambiguous terms.

Oh and never "volunteer" for anything asked by anyone.

I have no expectations other than the full withdrawl of RF from Ukraine. If that isnt the condition which a peace agreement is reached, so be it. If it is something that every Ukrainian can live with, so can I.

I do have a question....why exactly do you feel the need for this conflict to end? Is it affecting you in some manner? All of your recent posts have been about this very subject. No other posts. So im genuinely curious. Is it the amount of US aid ( in dollars ) that bugs you?

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

When Gen Milley tells them its time to step to the table, he will say it.

The last thing you do in the military is speak in ambiguous terms.

Oh and never "volunteer" for anything asked by anyone.

I have no expectations other than the full withdrawl of RF from Ukraine. If that isnt the condition which a peace agreement is reached, so be it. If it is something that every Ukrainian can live with, so can I.

I do have a question....why exactly do you feel the need for this conflict to end? Is it affecting you in some manner? All of your recent posts have been about this very subject. No other posts. So im genuinely curious. Is it the amount of US aid ( in dollars ) that bugs you?

I don't like open-ended conflict that involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange (which is also why I'm opposed to expanding NATO).
I don't like writing a blank check to anyone.
I don't like pumping tons and tons of weapons into a part of the world where it is impossible to track where all of it goes and to whom.
I don't like the idea of forcing regime change on anyone (how many times are we going to get burned on that one?) especially when they aren't near our shores or directly threatening the US (and the idea that we will automatically get someone BETTER than Putin seems dubious at best).
I don't like disruptions to global energy and food and fertilizer supplies and the huge war tax we are all paying as a result.
I don't like having to pay Europe's way on this and every other global security threat - they wanted to have their cake (US military protection) and eat it too (Russian gas).

Take your pick - there are a bunch of subsets within each of those but those are the top line reasons. The sooner this is over, the better.

 

[Sailorsaint]

I don't like open-ended conflict that involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange (which is also why I'm opposed to expanding NATO).
I don't like writing a blank check to anyone.
I don't like pumping tons and tons of weapons into a part of the world where it is impossible to track where all of it goes and to whom.
I don't like the idea of forcing regime change on anyone (how many times are going to get burned on that one?) that isn't near our shores or directly threatening the US (and the idea that we will automatically get someone BETTER than Putin seems dubious at best).
I don't like disruptions to global energy and food and fertilizer supplies and the huge war tax we are all paying as a result.
I don't like having to pay Europe's way on this and every other global security threat - they wanted to have their cake (US military protection) and eat it too (Russian gas).

Take your pick - there are a bunch of subsets within each of those but those are the top line reasons. The sooner this is over, the better.

Everything you just stated was caused by or enabled by or sponsored by putin/russia. Maybe you should talk to them about stepping away from Ukraine. Like it or not, we are a super power. This brings responsibilities. We shoulder the heavier burden because we are the heavy weight. If you don't want to live in a country like that, you have to live somewhere like Portugal.

 

[BigFrosty]

I believe it's already been said that the comments to negotiate are only to keep Ukraine in good faith in the eyes of the international community. It's already known they and RU are not going to agree on anything.

RU is getting milked dry, so Western, especially US support will continue indefinitely. Remember how Government budgets work, if you don't use it you lose it. Our Middle East budget is now going to UA. We supported the Middle East for over 20 years. We're not even a year into UA, and they will pay bigger dividends than the ME.

RU's been told what will happen, in detail, behind closed doors, if they go nuclear or bigger. They've respected whatever's been said and UA's just not really worth that response.

I think they'll pull out eventually and move on to a more realistic conquest that their brainwashed population can rally behind. It's still a long road ahead and the American Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Veruca's just have to wait.

My 2 cents at least.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't like open-ended conflict that involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange (which is also why I'm opposed to expanding NATO).

No one does. And who's bright idea was it to invoke nuclear threats along with starting the conflict?

I don't like writing a blank check to anyone.

I dont think there's a blank check here. What there is is a commitment to assist Ukraine to the extent possible. It's been effective so far, so i dont see any reason to slow down just yet. That might happen eventually, and when it does we can scale back.

I don't like pumping tons and tons of weapons into a part of the world where it is impossible to track where all of it goes and to whom.

Its not impossible to track. At least not most of it. Some might fall through the cracks, but most of the assets are put to use on the battlefield and i believe that in order to get additional hardware and support, it has to be justified.

I don't like the idea of forcing regime change on anyone (how many times are going to get burned on that one?) that isn't near our shores or directly threatening the US (and the idea that we will automatically get someone BETTER than Putin seems dubious at best).

I wouldn't be mad if Putin is forced out, but it will be at the hands of Russians. We're not forcing Putin to do anything. He's doing plenty enough on his own. It's certainly possible and maybe even likely someone worse would replace Putin, but thats up to the Russian people.

I don't like disruptions to global energy and food and fertilizer supplies and the huge war tax we are all paying as a result.

No one likes that. We're all paying the price for it. That said, Russia bears the lion's share of why we'rein that predicament.

I don't like having to pay Europe's way on this and every other global security threat - they wanted to have their cake (US military protection) and eat it too (Russian gas).

Eurpoean nations do pay into NATO membership and for security. A number of them have standing armies and have sent equipment and personnel to assist with logistics and other things. Could they do more? Probably, but they are contributing billions in equipment and supplies. They've been weaning themselves off Russian gas since the conflict started.

Take your pick - there are a bunch of subsets within each of those but those are the top line reasons. The sooner this is over, the better.

The sooner it's over, the better, I agree. That said, wars are messy, take many months to resolve, and are hard to deal with. The price we're paying is small compared to the price Ukranians are paying with their lives and many being forcefully relocated to Russian camps.

 

[efil4stnias]

I don't like open-ended conflict that involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange (which is also why I'm opposed to expanding NATO).
I don't like writing a blank check to anyone.
I don't like pumping tons and tons of weapons into a part of the world where it is impossible to track where all of it goes and to whom.
I don't like the idea of forcing regime change on anyone (how many times are we going to get burned on that one?) especially when they aren't near our shores or directly threatening the US (and the idea that we will automatically get someone BETTER than Putin seems dubious at best).
I don't like disruptions to global energy and food and fertilizer supplies and the huge war tax we are all paying as a result.
I don't like having to pay Europe's way on this and every other global security threat - they wanted to have their cake (US military protection) and eat it too (Russian gas).

Take your pick - there are a bunch of subsets within each of those but those are the top line reasons. The sooner this is over, the better.

and in all of that, any one of those, there is only 1 actor responsible, and you are now saying that we should negotiate with him for any one of these ( or more ) reasons?

 

[J-Donk]

I don't like open-ended conflict that involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange (which is also why I'm opposed to expanding NATO).
I don't like writing a blank check to anyone.
I don't like pumping tons and tons of weapons into a part of the world where it is impossible to track where all of it goes and to whom.
I don't like the idea of forcing regime change on anyone (how many times are we going to get burned on that one?) especially when they aren't near our shores or directly threatening the US (and the idea that we will automatically get someone BETTER than Putin seems dubious at best).
I don't like disruptions to global energy and food and fertilizer supplies and the huge war tax we are all paying as a result.
I don't like having to pay Europe's way on this and every other global security threat - they wanted to have their cake (US military protection) and eat it too (Russian gas).

Take your pick - there are a bunch of subsets within each of those but those are the top line reasons. The sooner this is over, the better.

The only thing America can do is cut off aid. Nothing else listed here is within our control other then NATO.

Half the people who listed all of these critiques seem to completely forget that Ukraine is autonomous.

As far as NATO, if you don't want nuclear exchanges, and want stability. Which it sounds like from this list, you do. You want countries in NATO, and SEATO. NATO has proven itself to be massive deterrent to Russia. NATO also limits the amount of nuclear armed countries by giving security assurances only rivaled by having nukes.

 

[DaveXA]

The only thing America can do is cut off aid. Nothing else listed here is within our control other then NATO.

Half the people who listed all of these critiques seem to completely forget that Ukraine is autonomous.

As far as NATO, if you don't want nuclear exchanges, and want stability. Which it sounds like from this list, you do. You want countries in NATO, and SEATO. NATO has proven itself to be massive deterrent to Russia. NATO also limits the amount of nuclear armed countries by giving security assurances only rivaled by having nukes.

Agreed. Deterrence is the best thing we have in the toolkit to deal with nuclear threats. A strong NATO is the best tool we have to deter nuclear threats. It won't guarantee Putin won't use nukes, but I do believe it reduces the odds of it happening, significantly.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Everything you just stated was caused by or enabled by or sponsored by putin/russia. Maybe you should talk to them about stepping away from Ukraine. Like it or not, we are a super power. This brings responsibilities. We shoulder the heavier burden because we are the heavy weight. If you don't want to live in a country like that, you have to live somewhere like Portugal.

I hope I can retire to Portugal, honestly. It's got great food, people, weather and vibes.

and in all of that, any one of those, there is only 1 actor responsible, and you are now saying that we should negotiate with him for any one of these ( or more ) reasons?

Yes. It seems crazy to me that anyone thinks we shouldn't. I mean we eventually realized we needed to negotiate with the Taliban, even though they were (and are) bad actors through and through. It only took us 20 years, a few thousand dead soldiers, and billions of dollars to get there. Perhaps we can avoid another forever war.

I can't go back through every response to what I posted, sorry all. You asked what my concerns were, I gave them. I know very few on this thread share my views - it's all good.

 

[J-Donk]

Agreed. Deterrence is the best thing we have in the toolkit to deal with nuclear threats. A strong NATO is the best tool we have to deter nuclear threats. It won't guarantee Putin won't use nukes, but I do believe it reduces the odds of it happening, significantly.

Yeah this war doesn't happen if Ukraine was in NATO. I can't even follow the logic to not allow any European country bordering Russia in.

When Russia says "We find NATO threatening". Their is an implied second part of that statement, "We find NATO threatening( to Russian aggression.)"

I do think Putin may use a nuke if he loses Sevastopol. The loss of that port, means completely and total failure in Ukraine.

 

[efil4stnias]

I hope I can retire to Portugal, honestly. It's got great food, people, weather and vibes.


Yes. It seems crazy to me that anyone thinks we shouldn't. I mean we eventually realized we needed to negotiate with the Taliban, even though they were (and are) bad actors through and through. It only took us 20 years, a few thousand dead soldiers, and billions of dollars to get there. Perhaps we can avoid another forever war.

I can't go back through every response to what I posted, sorry all. You asked what my concerns were, I gave them. I know very few on this thread share my views - it's all good.

i get it, but the difference between Afghanistan/Taliban was we simply werent welcomed. MAjority of those folks have zero true desire for democracy and freedoms that you and I enjoy daily.

Ukraine has tasted what true democracy is. Fledgling democracy, but headed toward a democratic state for sure. They are willing to die for it. That is worthy of our minimal support ( no troops, no heavy long range weapons, no air, no sea capabilities ).

 

[baarbogast]

 

[efil4stnias]

I'm guessing they meant the "wrong side".

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

I hope I can retire to Portugal, honestly. It's got great food, people, weather and vibes.


Yes. It seems crazy to me that anyone thinks we shouldn't. I mean we eventually realized we needed to negotiate with the Taliban, even though they were (and are) bad actors through and through. It only took us 20 years, a few thousand dead soldiers, and billions of dollars to get there. Perhaps we can avoid another forever war.

I can't go back through every response to what I posted, sorry all. You asked what my concerns were, I gave them. I know very few on this thread share my views - it's all good.

I usually line up with your thinking about 90% of the time and I know the base desire you have, but I'm not tracking with your thought process. And you seem to be unyielding.

From my chair, the destruction of civilians and cities is hard to watch. Every now and then we get some on here that get so amped up that they want us to just go in all the way. Then we settle down, because the course we're taking is a good one. And it is not apples to apples with Afghanistan and the Taliban. That was a direct response to 911 (unlike Iraq). The local government was incapable of taking on the Taliban even after years of support. We should have cut bait sooner.

Right now, just about everything is hinging on this conflict. The global economy, world order, energy, etc. hinge on the outcome of this war. Where you are seeing a lot of negatives, there are a lot of very good positives - Europe weening itself from Russian gas, a unified NATO (and planet, for the most part), the exposure of the Big Red Machine as corrupt, ineffective military "power" and more. And all if it is on the backs of the Ukrainian people. And they are kicking arse more than anyone expected.

I was one that thought that Russia would plow over them. Then it changed to well this will be a very long battle for yards of territory at a time. They are moving the front as a great pace all the while Russia is depleting its armor and personnel at an alarming rate. They've resorted to buying drones to attack civilians and key infrastructures to retaliate for losing on the battlefields.

And finally, again, this is all the result of Putin's actions. Your long list all points right back to him. There can be no concessions. We are well past that.