Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[uhhello]

I thought I read somewhere that Trump was in favor of removing weapons restrictions on UKR in order to further his peace plan?  Maybe I didn't.  I can't find anything actually quoting him. 

[BashiChuni]

trump is on record wanting to end the war in ukraine quickly.

[uhhello]

17 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

trump is on record wanting to end the war in ukraine quickly.

Yup.  No disagreement there.  My question was of his stance on restrictions placed on US provided weapons.  

I've searched to the end of internet and can't find any quotes so I think I made it up.

Edited November 19 by uhhello

[Lawman]

Yup.  No disagreement there.  My question was of his stance on restrictions placed on US provided weapons.  
I've searched to the end of internet and can't find any quotes so I think I made it up.

A lot of Trump’s proxy voices have said as much but I’ve never seen anything official come out of his statements.

Basically it’s portrayed as being the carrot or a VERY big stick to negotiate with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8BC]

I understand myself to be a simpleton, attack me as such.

There is now great concern that Ukraine will use US provided missile systems to strike into Russian territory.

Wait, what?  But I am a Simpleton.

We either sold or gave long range missile systems to somebody and now that somebody wants to use them but we somehow feel we now still get a vote?  Hello!  They bought them or have them.  They can use them any way that they want.  It’s why they now have the military hardware. We may not politically agree, fear of escalation, but that should now be behind us, or otherwise we should not have given them access to the hardware in the first  place.

As a thought, were these missile systems acquired by Ukraine before or after the Russian invasion?  Maybe it matters in esoteric, or maybe not.

Ford Motor Car Company does not restrict how I use my truck or where I can drive it.  How can the US place restrictions on Ukraine for how they choose to use weapon systems we gave/sold them.  Why else would Ukraine have long range missile systems, if not to use them?  If this is now a problem, perhaps we should not have gave/sold them the systems in the first place.

Common man’s perspective to a complex issue. Just something to think about. 

[Lord Ratner]

49 minutes ago, 8BC said:

I understand myself to be a simpleton, attack me as such.

There is now great concern that Ukraine will use US provided missile systems to strike into Russian territory.

Wait, what?  But I am a Simpleton.

We either sold or gave long range missile systems to somebody and now that somebody wants to use them but we somehow feel we now still get a vote?  Hello!  They bought them or have them.  They can use them any way that they want.  It’s why they now have the military hardware. We may not politically agree, fear of escalation, but that should now be behind us, or otherwise we should not have given them access to the hardware in the first  place.

As a thought, were these missile systems acquired by Ukraine before or after the Russian invasion?  Maybe it matters in esoteric, or maybe not.

Ford Motor Car Company does not restrict how I use my truck or where I can drive it.  How can the US place restrictions on Ukraine for how they choose to use weapon systems we gave/sold them.  Why else would Ukraine have long range missile systems, if not to use them?  If this is now a problem, perhaps we should not have gave/sold them the systems in the first place.

Common man’s perspective to a complex issue. Just something to think about. 

The Ford analogy is flawed. You get to keep the truck after you drive somewhere. 

 

This would more be like you using an Uber to go commit a sexual assault. And then Uber bands you from using them in the future. 

Selling weapons with conditions is nothing new. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't restrict what they do, but the idea that we have no right to limit how they are used ignores the fact that they need a hell of a lot more than one shipment.

[Lawman]

The Ford analogy is flawed. You get to keep the truck after you drive somewhere. 
 
This would more be like you using an Uber to go commit a sexual assault. And then Uber bands you from using them in the future. 
Selling weapons with conditions is nothing new. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't restrict what they do, but the idea that we have no right to limit how they are used ignores the fact that they need a hell of a lot more than one shipment.

Geo-fencing is not a new concept, and we discussed it way back earlier in this thread.

Though with a total post count in the single digits I doubt this is any sort of normal post to just suddenly join in the conversation with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[8BC]

10 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Geo-fencing is not a new concept, and we discussed it way back earlier in this thread.

Though with a total post count in the single digits I doubt this is any sort of normal post to just suddenly join in the conversation with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair assessment of my posting history, I acknowledge and respect, but 8+ years on this forum of reading but keeping most of my thoughts and opinions to myself. There are already many contributors with strong opinions. My apologies if you think I missed the previous Geo-fencing discussion, not the case, but I thought my position to be worth posting this time. 

I can agree with the previous that the Ford analogy may be more correct with Uber vs. ownership.

Many good discussions here, just few that need another pundit’s opinion until I feel the need to weigh in on.  No disrespect, just my opinion.  

[bfargin]

Interesting summary presented.

https://x.com/LionelMedia/status/1858588723488678073

i still say we should help negotiate a ceasefire immediately and treat Russia with a little more respect. Putin was wrong to invade, but in my opinion we are also more than a little bit culpable in how all of this has evolved.

[Marshall]

Another single-digit poster here with another flawed analogy. Back in the time, the 50s through 80s, proxy wars were somewhat of a trend. The US and it's people never seemed to be standing against supplying all there is to anyone if it was used against a-then-opposing-force just to make sure the aforementioned force looses as much assets as possible. Just like the opposing force itself was sending their equipment and personnel anywhere from South-East Asia to South and Central America. Yes, the world was somewhat tense about the potential nuclear breakout, and yet, the assets were lost by both sides, dogfights took place with confirmed nationals of the both countries as participants, yet somehow, no one has ever made such big of a deal out of it as if it could have triggered the WW3.

But wait a minute, that then-opposing-force appears to be the same problem once again. How is it different from what it used to be back in the day? The only difference is that back in the day the USSR, indeed, had something to oppose to the US, whereas nowadays the so-called Russia, nominally having all those soviet nukes, in fact, after 30 years of all-around corruption, has lost a better part of all the golden age progress. I myself am a humble witness to this, having seen those ICBMs submerged in their silos around Vnukovo back in the early 2000s. The other day it was the 1000-th day of a 72-hour operation in Ukraine, how much more proof do you people want?

BTW, not so much of a single-digit poster, just couldn't recover my account from 2007, old folk can remember me as a Russian trying to get in the Air Force. Spoiler - never got in, flying civilian.

[Stoker]

22 hours ago, bfargin said:

Interesting summary presented.

https://x.com/LionelMedia/status/1858588723488678073

i still say we should help negotiate a ceasefire immediately and treat Russia with a little more respect. Putin was wrong to invade, but in my opinion we are also more than a little bit culpable in how all of this has evolved.

Should Britain have cut a deal with Germany in 1940?

[BashiChuni]

46 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Should Britain have cut a deal with Germany in 1940?

apples to oranges.

[Stoker]

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

apples to oranges.

Can you explain why Britain was right to fight on in a seemingly hopeless war, alone, against a superior power, but the Ukrainians are wrong to do so?

[bfargin]

8 hours ago, Stoker said:

Can you explain why Britain was right to fight on in a seemingly hopeless war, alone, against a superior power, but the Ukrainians are wrong to do so?

Are you a fifth grader?

[gearhog]

On 11/19/2024 at 5:50 PM, bfargin said:

Interesting summary presented.

https://x.com/LionelMedia/status/1858588723488678073

i still say we should help negotiate a ceasefire immediately and treat Russia with a little more respect. Putin was wrong to invade, but in my opinion we are also more than a little bit culpable in how all of this has evolved.

Not just interesting, it's the best summary I've seen from someone who has been personally involved with the Ukrainian government at a high level in the early parts of this crisis.

The arguments made here are becoming circular so it's kind of a waste of time, but it would be nice if some of you could put aside your fears, biases, and clearly see the designed and intended progression of this conflict so that there is ultimately a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. The same Western leadership that has brought us all kinds of bullshit from a policy mismanagement standpoint; domestically and internationally, socially and financially... is somehow making brilliant decisions on this issue? It is a retarded line of thinking. It is an undeniable fact that the current leadership of the United States and most NATO countries do not care about the best interests of their citizens. Most people are coming to realize this as indicated by the election.

What they do care about is retaining power and streams of revenue. As we the people begin demanding order and civility, War and crisis are the things that guarantee their opportunities for profit continue.

When I read many of the replies here, I'm always reminded of "Doctor Strangelove." The unreasonable obsession with the idea that we're somehow under threat of a Russian invasion was supposed to be a joke, but it seems like so many are reenacting those sentiments, but sincerely, and without realizing how ridiculous it seems.

NATO leadership realizes it has 60 days get us entrenched in a conflict that can't easily be de-escalated. Therefore:

And how does Russia respond? The launched an ICBM. I thought ICBM were kind of a big deal. Not one average European citizen realized that an ICBM was in the air. No alarms, no emergency broadcasts, no nothin. Why? As I said, acting in the best interests of the population is not the real modus operandi here. You likely won't know either.

 

God forbid we have even the possibility of a negotiated settlement that results in the cessation of hostilities, and the flow of cash.

 

Edited November 21 by gearhog

[uhhello]

There were some tight cheeks I'm sure

Edited November 21 by uhhello

[fire4effect]

DIY exploding drones are changing the game in Ukraine war | Watch

[uhhello]

14 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

DIY exploding drones are changing the game in Ukraine war | Watch

They are also using cabled drones now to counter the EW efforts.  

[M2]

Shit just got upped a notch...

Russia reportedly launched an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) on Ukraine, marking the first combat use of the weapon since its inception almost six decades ago. Moreover, Moscow used the Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) technology to target "critical infrastructure" in Ukraine's Dnipro, the first-ever use of the technology too.

ICBMs have a range of over 5,500 kilometers and are built to carry nuclear, chemical and biological warheads. It can also carry a conventional warhead, which Russia reportedly used on the RS-26 Rubezh, ballistic missile. The missile was launched from the Astrakhan region of Russia, over 1,000 km away from the damage site in Ukraine.

Videos have surfaced on social media and Telegram handles, where at least warheads re-entering and targeting infrastructure in Ukraine. Russia has "denied to comment" on the launch of ICBMs though Kyiv has confirmed its use.
 

Source: Russia's Firing Of ICBM On Ukraine Is Weapon's 1st Combat Use In History

[Lord Ratner]

On 11/19/2024 at 5:50 PM, bfargin said:

Interesting summary presented.

https://x.com/LionelMedia/status/1858588723488678073

i still say we should help negotiate a ceasefire immediately and treat Russia with a little more respect. Putin was wrong to invade, but in my opinion we are also more than a little bit culpable in how all of this has evolved.

It's remarkable how Sachs has built an entire narrative about Russian/NATO relations off of one conversation with absolutely no legal authority that even Gorbachev himself has disputed. 

 

A better take, from the same thread: 

https://x.com/JonathanHessen/status/1858789212952125463?s=19

[polcat]

Looks like it was just a kinetic strike, no actual warheads, using an IRBM.

 

[HeloDude]

23 hours ago, Stoker said:

Can you explain why Britain was right to fight on in a seemingly hopeless war, alone, against a superior power, but the Ukrainians are wrong to do so?

The Ukrainians aren’t wrong to fight…we’re just wrong to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (via debt) to help them fight.  If the Ukrainians want to keep fighting using their own resources, then should definitely go for it.

[LookieRookie]

On 11/18/2024 at 11:13 PM, 8BC said:

I understand myself to be a simpleton, attack me as such.

There is now great concern that Ukraine will use US provided missile systems to strike into Russian territory.

Wait, what?  But I am a Simpleton.

We either sold or gave long range missile systems to somebody and now that somebody wants to use them but we somehow feel we now still get a vote?  Hello!  They bought them or have them.  They can use them any way that they want.  It’s why they now have the military hardware. We may not politically agree, fear of escalation, but that should now be behind us, or otherwise we should not have given them access to the hardware in the first  place.

As a thought, were these missile systems acquired by Ukraine before or after the Russian invasion?  Maybe it matters in esoteric, or maybe not.

Ford Motor Car Company does not restrict how I use my truck or where I can drive it.  How can the US place restrictions on Ukraine for how they choose to use weapon systems we gave/sold them.  Why else would Ukraine have long range missile systems, if not to use them?  If this is now a problem, perhaps we should not have gave/sold them the systems in the first place.

Common man’s perspective to a complex issue. Just something to think about. 

FMS/mil tech transfer has conditions and oversight by the US government. It’s not new to Ukraine

[Swizzle]

...aside from real (unfortunate for Ukr) conventional impacts...it's an impressive veiled nuke threat and rattle...something to be analyzed for sure

[Stoker]

15 hours ago, bfargin said:

Are you a fifth grader?

You know your argument is sound when your best expression of it is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

Edited November 21 by Stoker