Libhater
Verified User
Biden didn't give Ukraine the advanced weaponry they needed to fend off Russia during the first few days of Russia's attack.
You are so wrong on that fact.
So now what with Ukraine?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You are so wrong on that fact.
Scott
Verified User
Where'd you get that idea?
They have no backup gear, all they know is escalation....which combined with a refusal to learn ends in near certain nuclear WW3....which explains why DragonBear is being so careful.
They did not think they needed it, they thought that they had everything in place to kick Russian ass.....they were lead astray by hubris.
Libhater
Verified User
There was no plan to attack Ukraine when Trump was president. You need to brush up on your false interpretation of what did and didn't
happen while Russia attacked Ukraine on the demented one's watch.
Russia was not able to take Odesa, and lost City of Dnipro, along with all the territory on the right side of the Dnieper River. That is just a fact.
LMAO!!! Are you serious? You think trump has any idea about anything? Seriously, are you looking to trump as an authority?
Seriously, if Russia had been able to capture all of Ukraine, they would be better off right now. They would have saved hundreds of thousands of Russian lives, but more importantly had made it difficult to complain about them invading. They would have been able to claim that Ukrainians wanted them to "liberate" Ukraine, and that is why they were so quickly defeated.
Beyond that, Russia lost a lot of their special forces who were sent behind enemy lines until the regular military caught up... The worst thing happened, the regular military did not catch up.
You are correct. I sometimes confuse Dnipro with Kherson. I may be one of the few Jews who has no ancestors from Ukraine.
They have officially made all the "Four Donbas Provinces" part of Russia, which includes Kherson, one of the provinces capitals. That means they have lost the capital of one of their official provinces. Imagine the USA lost Sante Fe, New Mexico to Mexico. We would be extremely pissed.
Given that Putin has already broken all their previous peace treaties, what good is a "permanent" peace treaty from Putin? Besides, Putin has put extreme preconditions on only a ceasefire, and has said that any peace treaty will require even more preconditions.
That is true, but the longer this war goes on, the more likely Ukraine is to take the Crimea. And the shorter the war goes, the more likely Russia is to take Odesa in the next war. See how that works.
The Ukrainians gain nothing through surrender. Seriously, the only way that a lasting peace is possible is if the Ukrainians have a good defense. Surrendering that would mean they will be removed almost immediately.
I am fine with Russia not trading with Ukraine, as are the Ukrainian people.So far, yes. On the other hand...
United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I have a feeling that only applies so long as Cuba doesn't get nukes again. Or do you think the U.S. would be amenable to such a scenario in this 'modern' age?
As far as the Ukraine not getting nuclear weapons, they already gave them up for peace. It did not buy them much peace.
Scott
Verified User
I don't know about not being able to take it. I do believe that Russia has decided that it's not currently worth the effort to take it. I also believe it's possible that if Ukraine makes a peace deal, it may let Ukraine keep it as well.
I did see that Russia decided to make a tactical retreat from the city of Kherson early on. I can't remember who said it, but I remember an author I admire saying that Russia is more interested in preserving its men then who controls what piece of land at any given point in time.
You think allowing the Ukrainians to form up and defend themselves against Russia makes sense? It has made clear to the world that Ukraine did not want to be "liberated", which puts Russia in a bad position.
Actually, Putin does want chaos, like in Libya. And that was not caused by the USA invading Libya, the last time the USA invaded Libya was 80 years ago. Seriously, creating chaos is second best for Putin to conquering, but it is still good in his view.
Scott
Verified User
I am.
He has his moments.
No, but I know that some people on this forum think highly of him, so why not point out that he's said things like this:
Ukraine ‘may be Russian someday,’ Trump says, as the U.S. ups the pressure on Kyiv and allies | CNBC
Scott
Verified User
You'll note that I said "can take" not "could have taken". I don't really want to get into a debate as to what Russia -could- have done. I'm more focused on what Russia can do in the future. I've also never argued that there aren't plenty of Ukrainians that don't want what's left of Ukraine to become part of Russia. The irony is that near the start of this war, Russia had been prepared to walk away from -everything- it took in its military operation if Ukraine would agree to some very reasonable terms. Alas, it didn't happen and so we're in the current mess.
LMAO!!! I am sorry. I actually thought you were serious. trump does not have moments of military expertise. I can see you were joking now.
They were a lot closer back then to taking Odesa. Russians were barreling towards Odesa at the time, with no regular military in their way. Now they have been thrown to the other side of the Dnieper River.
The Russians have shown no sign of the ability to cross a river under fire. That is a difficult skill to acquire from a standing start.
Scott
Verified User
Gotcha.
Yes, perhaps a bit like the Alamo. I think we can agree that it didn't go well for Mexico not too long after that. Perhaps you can draw some parallels as to Ukraine's fate. Honestly, I think it -might- be possible for Russia to let Ukraine keep Kherson city. The problem is that Ukraine's current position, that it wants not just the Donbass Republics, but Crimea, is so out there, that I suspect that Russia's decided to play it just as rough. If Ukraine were to start being a tad reasonable, considering how few cards it has, perhaps Russia could also give more concessions.
The claim that the Russians tried to take Odessa and the NATO Army stopped them lacks evidence.......the Russian amphibious assault was a fear.....never more than that.
There have never been NATO troops in Ukraine. Ukrainian troops stopped Russian troops.
The lack of honesty that it is NATO which has been humiliated in Ukraine works to prevent learning, in a universe where stupid hurts.