The War in Ukraine
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
There is an enormous difference between being able to project power and deciding to do so. Russia could have brought Ukraine to heel within a few days at most if it had decided to go the way the U.S. did in Japan- a few nukes would have done the trick. Russia's leadership wisely refrained from doing so. There are different forms of power, and Russia has decided up until now that the best course of action is to stick to conventional weaponry. Near the start of the war, they were particularly cautious about avoiding civilian infrastructure as well. The bottom line here is that Russia understands that sometimes, it's best to be patient. There's a line in a verse I once heard that I think is quite good:
"The enemy is not to be sought, lest one find oneself surrounded". Russia is applying this, the United States is not. Which is why the U.S. now has enemies pretty much everywhere, while Russia's enemies are pretty much confined to NATO countries.
No, the Russians refuse, as they have been telling you for well over a decade.
America/NATO does not have the power to overrule them.
Ukraine for the Russians is just like Taiwan is for the Chinese.....a matter of great importance that the dying Imperial Empire does not have the conventional military power to dispute....unless we are willing to incinerate the planet over it we have no choice but to move along.
If Putin is deciding to allow neighboring countries to take Russian territory, he is in real trouble. China has a strong historical claim to Siberia, and desperately needs its resources. Their center of power is much closer to Siberia than Russia's is. Putin looking weak now could mean that China will take a major chunk of Siberia.
The radioactive fallout would hit countries like China. That would not be good.
They targeted schools.
The Russians have kicked our asses in Ukraine, and they have the Chinese as their blood brothers....you are talking out your ass again.
And yet, Russia does not have the power to overrule NATO.
The Russians just proved otherwise in Ukraine.
Scott
Verified User
Once again, I think that Russia could easily have won the war if not immediately, in very short order, with nukes. That they didn't do so is a testament to their wisdom. As to their choice to make it a war that has lasted 3 years and counting, you sound like you don't know that Ukraine has been losing troops at a prodigious rate, and they now have a lot less troops in comparison to Russia's supply as well. I have said previously that I strongly suspect that this war will be over this year, although I had not counted on the possibility of other European nations actually putting boots on the ground and perhaps more importantly, once again lighting the threat of a nuclear war. If they don't, then I think that my prediction that Ukraine will agree to Russia's demands this year will hold.
If this becomes a battle of drones against drones, the Ukraine will win. Russia is begging for drones from Iran. Ukraine has a large domestic drone industry, and gets support from countries like Germany.And what of the massive amount of cheap drones being used in the Ukraine war? They can even take out tanks:
Ukraine pumping out kamikaze drones for as little as $300 – and they can destroy tanks: ‘This is modern warfare’
The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ reliance on cheaper, more compact drones has altered the look of warfare for good, operators and experts tell The Post.nypost.com
Don't let the title of the article fool you, Russia has them too, as is mentioned in the article itself.
Who do you think has the better tech industry: Germany or Iran?
I will just add, a world superpower does not have to beg for armaments from the likes of North Korea and Iran.
I haven't seen any evidence that Russia is 'begging' for anything. As to drones, even western mainstream media outlets say that Russia isn't far behind Ukraine. Quoting from one article from March 27:
**
BEARDSLEY: Russia is a couple months behind Ukraine in drone innovation, but has much bigger production capacity, says Oleksandr Kamyshin, adviser to President Zelenskyy on strategic affairs. He calls it a technological race.
**
Source:
From the same source:
**
SASHA PTASHNYK: (Through interpreter) We've got to be more realistic. Of course I'd like to get all of our land back. But from the beginning, we exaggerated our capacity, and we are fighting a very big enemy. We must be sober.
BEARDSLEY: Most sobering, says Ptashnyk, is that Ukraine's biggest ally, the U.S., may be abandoning his country.
**
If they had won, you might have had a point. They have not won.
If they attacked NATO straight on, do you think they would win?
Scott
Verified User
The U.S. only lived with a nuclear armed communist neighbour for a -very- short time. The Cuban Missile Crisis lasted all of 12 days. Business Insider has an article published in 2018 where it writes about 9 times when the world was at the brink of nuclear war. 4 of those times were during the Cuban Missile crisis:
9 times the world was at the brink of nuclear war — and pulled back
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945 marked the end of the World War II, and the beginning of the age of nuclear weapons.
www.businessinsider.com
The USSR doesn't exist anymore, but perhaps some of those treaties have been passed on to Russia? Anyway, they can't have been very strong "defense treaties" considering all the times the U.S. has tried to assassinate Castro. I also doubt that Russia, the USSR's successor, would arm Cuba with nukes again.
When it comes to NATO, not happening, just like the U.S. was never going to let Russia keep those nukes in Cuba. The EU, maybe. Had the EU been more flexible back when Yanukovych was in power, perhaps everything that happened afterwards could have been avoided. Quoting from an article on this:
**
SEPTEMBER
The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th.
Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union.
NOVEMBER
The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”.
“Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against.
Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely.
Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”.
Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”.
Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”.
**
Full article:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
off-guardian.org
Russia has manufacturing, BRICS, and a growing economy.
NATO is dying from a self-inflicted wound.
Much like we could have won in Afghanistan with nuclear weapons... Or could we have? Using nuclear weapons would turn the world on whoever used them. The radiation would fall onto other superpowers killing people in other countries. Russia would have crossed a line that would have been a bad line to cross.
You set an extremely low bar to wisdom.
NATO has a combined GDP of $64 trillion, where Russia has a GDP of $2 trillion. Russia has a GDP of slightly less than one member of NATO, Canada.
Scott
Verified User
He's not deciding to allow neighbouring countries to take Russian territory, he's deciding not to nuke them in retaliation. At present, Ukraine just has a few small bits of Russian land. I think that Putin understands that they offer only propaganda value for Ukraine, not any strategic value.
Conquering land is not the only way to get resources from it. There's this thing called trade that generally works better.
Agreed.
If those schools were being used by Ukrainian soldiers, I can believe it. Otherwise, I sincerely doubt it. From what I've seen, Ukraine has been much more amenable to targetting civilian infrastructure than Russia.
Again, Russia has manufacturing, BRICS, and a growing economy.
Scott
Verified User
I agree with everything except for the "we" part. I certainly have never considered myself to be a part of the west's war in Ukraine. The fact that I was born in a NATO country doesn't change that. I could certainly agree that the globalist cabal has lost another war though
.
Scott
Verified User
I think an article from Simplicius from March 28th has some pretty good theories there:
SITREP 3/28/25: Putin Vows to 'Finish Off' Ukraine?
Putin made some very interesting statements in his meeting with the sailors of the Arkhangelsk nuclear submarine in Murmansk, ones bound to reignite hope in the doomsayer quarters who’ve long believed Putin is looking for any opportunity to ‘concede to the West’.
substack.com