Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Biff_T]

44 minutes ago, brabus said:

Once saw a dude sprinting down a road (thinking he’s going to outrun death) and get speared through the back by a rocket that dud’d…the precision of that weapon is incredible. I don’t know about “ coolest,” but it was sure an impressive way to die!

I was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about CAS.  He was a snake eater in Nam.  He said they'd periodically call in air strikes from BUFFs.  He said the bombs would go off everywhere, sometimes he had to hold onto a tree to help with the shock waves.   

He laughed when I told him that nowadays, dudes can putt a bomb into someone's butthole from 30,000 feet.   

Edited February 12 by Biff_T
Words are hard

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

did you even read the article?

 

Yea I did. But I’m glad the “total victory over Russia” seems to be off the table now. 
 

 

[BashiChuni]

finally some common sense. This Ukraine grift is over. 

[M2]

New Shots Of Ukrainian F-16s Shine Light On Combat Missions

Ukrainian Air Force F-16AM Fighting Falcon returning from a combat air patrol, having expended one of its AIM-120C-series AMRAAM missiles. Appears to be the first confirmation that Ukrainian Falcons are sporting the more advanced and longer-ranged C-series AMRAAMS.

A Ukrainian F-16 pilot wearing JHMCS.

Plus a video of a Ukrainian F-16 sporting a full loadout of US-supplied GBU-39 SDB glide bombs...

[BashiChuni]

but but but i thought the F-16s/Bradleys/HIMARS would WIN THE WAR?!?!?!

more gaslighting

end this disaster.

[disgruntledemployee]

9 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

but but but i thought the F-16s/Bradleys/HIMARS would WIN THE WAR?!?!?!

more gaslighting

end this disaster.

Yet Russia cannot claim victory.  Hmmm.....

[BashiChuni]

57 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Yet Russia cannot claim victory.  Hmmm.....

neither can ukraine. and they have zero chance at victory. 

"just a little more support and victory is right around the corner!"

gee where have i heard that bullshit from before?

 

russia wants to wreck ukraine. not conquer it.

Edited February 13 by BashiChuni

[ClearedHot]

17 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Yet Russia cannot claim victory.  Hmmm.....

If approved Putin wins. 

"Security guarantees?"  Like the ones we gave them in 1994 when they surrendered their nukes?  Putin keeps the Crimea, he keeps a crap ton of new land, the ability to control the Black Sea and he keeps Ukraine out of NATO so he can do it again in a few years.

What an absolute abortion.  I am not impressed Pete.

 

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

What an absolute abortion.  I am not impressed Pete.

Has a peace for our time sort of rhyme to it.  

Not enough deterrence in it.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

If approved Putin wins. 

"Security guarantees?"  Like the ones we gave them in 1994 when they surrendered their nukes?  Putin keeps the Crimea, he keeps a crap ton of new land, the ability to control the Black Sea and he keeps Ukraine out of NATO so he can do it again in a few years.

What an absolute abortion.  I am not impressed Pete.

 

If that's how it shakes out, I agree. But I think Trump is inclined towards something different, and he hinted at it a couple times when he said they'd have to give something back, maybe a lot, maybe a little. But he understands totalitarianism and saving face, so he's not going to lay out a what the final resolution looks like. My guess is that Putin will announce some amount of territory being returned to the Ukrainians, and then that idiot bashi will be here trying to convince everybody that it was Putin's idea to do so 😂🤣

[nsplayr]

IMHO the pretty clear outcome is trade Kursk for most of eastern Ukraine. Russia still keeps Crimea in all likelihood, which sucks but seems to be a longer-term reality.

I would, however, not preemptively give up the ship at a random press conference though, technique only. Trump is definitely a better negotiator than Pete.

Facilitate the Ukrainians (our partners) negotiating with the Russians (our rivals) directly and moving toward a reasonable outcome.

[M2]

Putin has waited for this moment for 3 years, as Zelensky is left in the cold

[StoleIt]

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-drone-strikes-chernobyl-nuclear-plant-sarcophagus-ukraine-video-2031027

 

I mean seriously...

Edited February 14 by StoleIt

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

If approved Putin wins. 

"Security guarantees?"  Like the ones we gave them in 1994 when they surrendered their nukes?  Putin keeps the Crimea, he keeps a crap ton of new land, the ability to control the Black Sea and he keeps Ukraine out of NATO so he can do it again in a few years.

What an absolute abortion.  I am not impressed Pete.

 

CH whats the alternative? full NATO involvement to push the russians back to pre-invasion borders? ukraine is holding a losing hand. you can bitch about it all you want but the reality on the ground remains.

[gearhog]

It's still unbelievable to me that anyone ever thought our involvement in this conflict was winnable, or that the intent was ever to "win" against Russia. I've been arguing this for 3 years. The net result will be a loss to the West. It just is what it is.

The security and interests of the American people were never a factor in Ukraine. It always was a corrupt state ripe for the manipulation and exploitation by people who stood to gain billions of dollars. All of us have been conditioned to think since childhood that Russia was capable superpower bent on world domination. And even after it has been demonstrated that they don't have that conventional capability, the propaganda still works. People still believe it.

Zelensky himself said he doesn't know where $100 billion dollars went. It was allocated by our leadership, but it never showed up. The Ukrainian media themselves just admitted they were 90% funded by foreign interests such as USAID.

How many times are we going to be "gotten" by these giant scams? It's now being reported that nearly every department of our government is rife with scams, lies, corruption, waste, etc. But they got this one right? The same propaganda machine that suckered half the population during COVID was the same propaganda machine that was pushing funding for this war.

I understand how it works. It's a compelling belief: We're the noble good guys fighting to the good fight against the forces of evil. That's what I always believed in the early stages of my career. Eventually, you've gotta grow up a little bit and face reality. “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts."

Now that this whole thing is being dismantled, we're gonna have people equivocating and performing these amazing feats of logical gymnastics. "We were just trying to drain the Russian economy, not really win." So we spent hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayer money, half of it vanishes to who knows where before it made it to the battlefield, and the ROI is massive because a million Russians and Ukrainian men were killed? There is no ROI for you and me. None.

What is our record for direct US engagement in third world foreign conflicts recently? How is Iraq doing? How is Afghanistan doing? How is Libya? How is Syria? But somehow we expect that if don't directly engage and instead give Ukraine hundreds of billions in money and equipment to fight a conventional conflict against an enemy that isn't a third world shithole --- that they're going to have a better result? It's mind-numbingly ridiculous to even think there was a reasonable expectation this was going to go well for the "good guys".

Draw the border on the front lines. Let Russia boast over their acquisition of a few hundred km2 of destroyed rural farmland. The real benefit to the US will be the cessation of wasted $billions.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

If that's how it shakes out, I agree. But I think Trump is inclined towards something different, and he hinted at it a couple times when he said they'd have to give something back, maybe a lot, maybe a little. But he understands totalitarianism and saving face, so he's not going to lay out a what the final resolution looks like. My guess is that Putin will announce some amount of territory being returned to the Ukrainians, and then that idiot bashi will be here trying to convince everybody that it was Putin's idea to do so 😂🤣

Pete sucks at negotiations...I hope you are right about Trump and his plan.

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

IMHO the pretty clear outcome is trade Kursk for most of eastern Ukraine. Russia still keeps Crimea in all likelihood, which sucks but seems to be a longer-term reality.

I would, however, not preemptively give up the ship at a random press conference though, technique only. Trump is definitely a better negotiator than Pete.

Facilitate the Ukrainians (our partners) negotiating with the Russians (our rivals) directly and moving toward a reasonable outcome.

I hope you are right, starting your negotiations with a complete win for Putin is plain dumb.

34 minutes ago, M2 said:

Putin has waited for this moment for 3 years, as Zelensky is left in the cold

Putin screws up a lot of things, but his long game is far better than ours.  We crazy Ivan with every administration and both Russia and China know it.

23 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

CH whats the alternative? full NATO involvement to push the russians back to pre-invasion borders? ukraine is holding a losing hand. you can bitch about it all you want but the reality on the ground remains.

Brother I have no idea why you jump to such conclusions...I never said full NATO involvement or per-invasion borders...The REALITY on the ground you are holding up is Russia with one of the most powerful (or they were), military forces in the world still in a stalemate three years later...and it has not cost us a single U.S. or NATO soldier.  For pennies on the dollar Russian has been blunted and weakened for a generation.  However, if you let Putin have everything he wants, he will just do it again like when we turned a blind eye to him taking the Crimea. 

22 minutes ago, gearhog said:

It's still unbelievable to me that anyone ever thought our involvement in this conflict was winnable, or that the intent was ever to "win" against Russia. I've been arguing this for 3 years. The net result will be a loss to the West. It just is what it is.

There is no ROI for you and me. None.

The ROI is a weakened Russia that is no longer a serious threat to the U.S.   There no "mental gymnastics" to go through...look a the numbers...the population impact, the impact on their economy and Putin's ability to project power as a hegemon.

25 minutes ago, gearhog said:

What is our record for direct US engagement in third world foreign conflicts recently? How is Iraq doing? How is Afghanistan doing? How is Libya? How is Syria? But somehow we expect that if don't directly engage and instead give Ukraine hundreds of billions in money and equipment to fight a conventional conflict against an enemy that isn't a third world shithole --- that they're going to have a better result? It's mind-numbingly ridiculous to even think there was a reasonable expectation this was going to go well for the "good guys".

We didn't "directly engage."  Again, not a single U.S. soldier was lost, not a single NATO soldier was lost.

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

It's still unbelievable to me that anyone ever thought our involvement in this conflict was winnable, or that the intent was ever to "win" against Russia. I've been arguing this for 3 years. The net result will be a loss to the West. It just is what it is.

The security and interests of the American people were never a factor in Ukraine. It always was a corrupt state ripe for the manipulation and exploitation by people who stood to gain billions of dollars. All of us have been conditioned to think since childhood that Russia was capable superpower bent on world domination. And even after it has been demonstrated that they don't have that conventional capability, the propaganda still works. People still believe it.

Zelensky himself said he doesn't know where $100 billion dollars went. It was allocated by our leadership, but it never showed up. The Ukrainian media themselves just admitted they were 90% funded by foreign interests such as USAID.

How many times are we going to be "gotten" by these giant scams? It's now being reported that nearly every department of our government is rife with scams, lies, corruption, waste, etc. But they got this one right? The same propaganda machine that suckered half the population during COVID was the same propaganda machine that was pushing funding for this war.

I understand how it works. It's a compelling belief: We're the noble good guys fighting to the good fight against the forces of evil. That's what I always believed in the early stages of my career. Eventually, you've gotta grow up a little bit and face reality. “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts."

Now that this whole thing is being dismantled, we're gonna have people equivocating and performing these amazing feats of logical gymnastics. "We were just trying to drain the Russian economy, not really win." So we spent hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayer money, half of it vanishes to who knows where before it made it to the battlefield, and the ROI is massive because a million Russians and Ukrainian men were killed? There is no ROI for you and me. None.

What is our record for direct US engagement in third world foreign conflicts recently? How is Iraq doing? How is Afghanistan doing? How is Libya? How is Syria? But somehow we expect that if don't directly engage and instead give Ukraine hundreds of billions in money and equipment to fight a conventional conflict against an enemy that isn't a third world shithole --- that they're going to have a better result? It's mind-numbingly ridiculous to even think there was a reasonable expectation this was going to go well for the "good guys".

Draw the border on the front lines. Let Russia boast over their acquisition of a few hundred km2 of destroyed rural farmland. The real benefit to the US will be the cessation of wasted $billions.

Just as such, it's unbelievable to me that you advocate for a Russian win and just let them have it.  Your guy is in charge.  Surely he can negotiate better than giving Russia everything it wants?  You even have his mug as your avatar.  Surely you must be rooting for him to really stick it to Russia as much as you want it stuck to poor old corrupt Ukraine that didn't provoke an invasion?  Or is it that you love Russia and have been rooting for them to wipe poor old corrupt Ukraine off the map and really stick it the Bidens?

OK, new topic.  Security interests.  Russia is and always will be a security interest.  To think otherwise is quite naive.    Rewarding a dictator for life with lands due to invasion sends too many bad messages.  As stated by others, Russia's military power has been shunted.  ROI is, may it continue that no American fighting man end up in battle with Russia, nor our children.  Second ROI, Russia gets nothing and is taught a lesson, fuck around and find out.

In one hand, pull out the map from 2000 and start from there.  In your red right hand, be holding an economic smack down that God himself would be impressed to see.

[gearhog]

56 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The ROI is a weakened Russia that is no longer a serious threat to the U.S.   There no "mental gymnastics" to go through...look a the numbers...the population impact, the impact on their economy and Putin's ability to project power as a hegemon.

We didn't "directly engage."  Again, not a single U.S. soldier was lost, not a single NATO soldier was lost.

That rationale is about 1mm deep. If Russia is no longer a threat, what was the specific threat before? Did they have the capacity to invade a neighboring NATO country? One can say they did, but we baited them into burning it in Ukraine - and somehow that's better. So did we create the conditions whereas we knew Russia would invade Ukraine and let Ukraine send hundreds of thousands of their citizens to the slaughter? That's a pretty diabolical plan to mitigate a risk that was never quantifiable and a benefit to you and me that cannot be measured.

We do have a measurable amount of wealth invested in this "threat", but there is no measurable benefit. None. It's the same logical fallacy that people continuously fall for.

"Ok, so you still suffered ill effects of this measure of protection, but just imagine how much worse it would have been had we not?" We indebted ourselves to the tune of hundreds of billions, enriched con artists beyond imagination, and have been tricked into believing we're all better off for it. Nonsense. We're now seeing this same tactic has been used across the board. On multiple issues, in multiple facets of our government.

The threat was made up so you would lend support to what was obviously a scam. And there is another age-old universal human flaw that allows the scam to work: “It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled” - Mark Twain. It's pride, no one wants to admit that someone else was able to pull the wool over on them, so they'll go to great lengths to prevaricate and rationalize it.

 

[gearhog]

24 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Just as such, it's unbelievable to me that you advocate for a Russian win and just let them have it.  Your guy is in charge.  Surely he can negotiate better than giving Russia everything it wants?  You even have his mug as your avatar.  Surely you must be rooting for him to really stick it to Russia as much as you want it stuck to poor old corrupt Ukraine that didn't provoke an invasion?  Or is it that you love Russia and have been rooting for them to wipe poor old corrupt Ukraine off the map and really stick it the Bidens?

OK, new topic.  Security interests.  Russia is and always will be a security interest.  To think otherwise is quite naive.    Rewarding a dictator for life with lands due to invasion sends too many bad messages.  As stated by others, Russia's military power has been shunted.  ROI is, may it continue that no American fighting man end up in battle with Russia, nor our children.  Second ROI, Russia gets nothing and is taught a lesson, fuck around and find out.

In one hand, pull out the map from 2000 and start from there.  In your red right hand, be holding an economic smack down that God himself would be impressed to see.

Notice I changed his "mug"  to my avatar only after you previously accused me of being a shill for him. It was incredibly easy to predict it would trigger you into commenting on it. If I can manipulate a response from you using only a picture, you can be manipulated in a variety of other ways, and obviously are.

Either you can't read, or you can't retain information. Over the past three years, at least five people in this thread have accused me of supporting Russia in nearly the exact same way you are. You're inauthentic, and you're slow. At the top of the page is a search bar. Use the advanced search function. Click + More Search Options. Click + Search by Author.  You'll find I've dispensed with that ridiculous accusation numerous times and you're just the latest in a string of ineffectuals that are unable argue that accusation beyond the initial "Duh... u support RuSsIA!!1".

We're running a trillion dollar deficit every 90 days and you're arguing we're delivering an economic smackdown? To whom? Ourselves? As a result of the conflict and sanctions, Russia is running a wartime economy. They've been forced to move their supply chains in house, build factories, boost their war-fighting production capacity, and are still flooding the front lines with war-fighting equipment. Reminder that WWI Germany was defeated and hamstrung, and the only thing it did was sharpen their resolve. You have the foresight of a Labrador puppy.

 

 

 

[disgruntledemployee]

@gearhog  I wrote 3 paragraphs, you did 2 posts and 7 paragraphs.  Maybe I baited you as you seem quite driven to prove you're the better interwebs shit poster.  Besides, I think you're one that commented on my username a while back.  Lastly, I ain't gonna spend dumb time researching your crap, but I will say, if it sounds like you want Russia to win, then I'll call it out.  You're right, plenty of others have said it too.

How about this?  Root for Trump and Pete to not cave in the Russia because anything less than pre-invasion borders looks like a cave job.  Let's get something for all that money <--- sarcasm.

PS (I know you like these): How are the deportations, grocery prices, and inflation doing?  (Don't fall for it, it's bait).

[gearhog]

51 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

@gearhog  I wrote 3 paragraphs, you did 2 posts and 7 paragraphs.  Maybe I baited you as you seem quite driven to prove you're the better interwebs shit poster.  Besides, I think you're one that commented on my username a while back.  Lastly, I ain't gonna spend dumb time researching your crap, but I will say, if it sounds like you want Russia to win, then I'll call it out.  You're right, plenty of others have said it too.

How about this?  Root for Trump and Pete to not cave in the Russia because anything less than pre-invasion borders looks like a cave job.  Let's get something for all that money <--- sarcasm.

PS (I know you like these): How are the deportations, grocery prices, and inflation doing?  (Don't fall for it, it's bait).

I'll type volumes in the time it takes you to try and concoct a single witty reply. I've been doing this for far longer than you've been on the forum. You're attacking me because you're inadequately equipped to attack the specifics of my position. Me being able to articulate my thoughts more broadly than you is somehow a negative? It takes near zero effort on my part. You couldn't write a cookbook.

You "think" I'm the one that commented on your username? You'd be wrong, because I've never made any reference to it. It would have taken you 10 seconds to search and realize it wasn't me. It only serves to demonstrate that the things you think you know are wrong. You're willing to run with some BS you think you know, only to be embarrassed later when proven that you don't. I don't get why you would do that unless... (and there's only one possible reason) you just don't have to capability to read and retain info. In other words: You're not a smart person.

What I'm rooting for has nothing to do with Trump or Pete. I'm rooting for the things I think are correct. If they happen to be on the same side, I'll openly express my appreciation. If they're not, I'll abandon them as fast as all your masculine role models abandoned you. This mess was created by an entirely different administration. Opting not to double down on someone else's failed misadventure is not a "cave job", it's minimizing losses. Your attitude would indicate to me that you're not good with money among other things. You cannot admit a bad investment.

And because you're failing in your argument on this issue, you're trying to inject irrelevant topics into the conversation just so they can backfire on you as well.

"Why haven't they fixed in three weeks problems that took 4 years to create?!?!"

As I said, you're not among the most brilliant I've had a conversation with. You're beginning to make nsplayer look like a member of Mensa.

 

 

Edited February 14 by gearhog

[Day Man]

38 minutes ago, gearhog said:

"Why haven't they fixed in three weeks problems that took 4 years to create?!?!"

relevant because millions of simpletons fell for the "day one" campaign promise that your orange jesus made

 

[gearhog]

5 minutes ago, Day Man said:

relevant because millions of simpletons fell for the "day one" campaign promise that your orange jesus made

What was that promise you're referencing?

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, gearhog said:

That rationale is about 1mm deep. If Russia is no longer a threat, what was the specific threat before? Did they have the capacity to invade a neighboring NATO country? One can say they did, but we baited them into burning it in Ukraine - and somehow that's better. So did we create the conditions whereas we knew Russia would invade Ukraine and let Ukraine send hundreds of thousands of their citizens to the slaughter? That's a pretty diabolical plan to mitigate a risk that was never quantifiable and a benefit to you and me that cannot be measured.

We do have a measurable amount of wealth invested in this "threat", but there is no measurable benefit. None. It's the same logical fallacy that people continuously fall for.

"Ok, so you still suffered ill effects of this measure of protection, but just imagine how much worse it would have been had we not?" We indebted ourselves to the tune of hundreds of billions, enriched con artists beyond imagination, and have been tricked into believing we're all better off for it. Nonsense. We're now seeing this same tactic has been used across the board. On multiple issues, in multiple facets of our government.

The threat was made up so you would lend support to what was obviously a scam. And there is another age-old universal human flaw that allows the scam to work: “It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled” - Mark Twain. It's pride, no one wants to admit that someone else was able to pull the wool over on them, so they'll go to great lengths to prevaricate and rationalize it.

 

Yeah you are right, if we hadn't provided help Putin would have just stopped when he got to the border of Poland.

[MCO]

37 minutes ago, gearhog said:

What was that promise you're referencing?