Ukraine conflict
#1811
You think that wasn’t the case for Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? You think every German in uniform loved Hitler? We aren’t talking morality here, we are talking reality. Realistically, it matters little if the population is supporting him out of fear or loyalty, they are supporting him nonetheless. Kim Jong Un is even more of a friggin psycho than Putin - he executes people (including his own uncle) with an antiaircraft gun - but he’s in firm control of the country. And his backup if someone offed him would be his sister who is just as b@t$hit crazy as he is.
Last edited by Excargodog; 11-08-2023 at 09:25 PM.
#1812
Well, that or a nuclear war I guess. Rather hoping nobody goes there personally.
#1813
You think that wasn’t the case for Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? You think every German in uniform loved Hitler? We aren’t talking morality here, we are talking reality. Realistically, it matters little if the population is supporting him out of fear or loyalty, they are supporting him nonetheless. Kim Jong Un is even more of a friggin psycho than Putin - he executes people (including his own uncle) with an antiaircraft gun - but he’s in firm control of the country. And his backup if someone offed him would be his sister who is just as b@t$hit crazy as he is.
That is why I don’t give approval polls, like you posted, in authoritarian regimes much of any credibility.
#1814
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
Either negotiate a deal with the russkies or send NATO troops into Ukraine and probably Russia, and by NATO troops you are really taking US troops. The rest of NATO/EU couldn’t handle the Serb army without US leading them back during the breakup of Yugoslavia back in 1990-92 when NATO-less the US had a whole lot more military capability than they do today. They’ve been taking peace dividends for three decades now.
Well, that or a nuclear war I guess. Rather hoping nobody goes there personally.
Well, that or a nuclear war I guess. Rather hoping nobody goes there personally.
#1815
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 805
When Russia withdraws its troops.
Unless Ukraine changes it's objectives, that is currently the only way.
Russia failed in it's objectives at the onset of the war. Zelensky didn't run. They failed to kill him. They failed to capture Kyiv They failed to hold Kharkiv. They failed to hold Kherson. They failed at controlling the Black Sea and Sevastopol.
They failed at convincing Ukraine to not fight.
When Putin figures out a way to withdraw and still manage to stay in power, then they will withdraw.
Or...when the Russian army completely falls apart. When(if) that happens all it will take is four tankmen and a dog to chase them all the way back to Rostov-on-Don.
Russia started this war. By the end of the first 6 months they had been defeated in their primary goals. What they now do will determine how it ends. (in the short term anyway)
#1816
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
The same way it ended in Afghanistan.
When Russia withdraws its troops.
Unless Ukraine changes it's objectives, that is currently the only way.
Russia started this war. By the end of the first 6 months they had been defeated in their primary goals. What they now do will determine how it ends. (in the short term anyway)
When Russia withdraws its troops.
Unless Ukraine changes it's objectives, that is currently the only way.
Russia started this war. By the end of the first 6 months they had been defeated in their primary goals. What they now do will determine how it ends. (in the short term anyway)
#1817
Brezhnev started the AF war, then three USSR leaders later Gorby pulled out (with Brezhnev long dead).
I don't think Vlad can survive that, or at least he probably doesn't think he can.
#1818
That analogy is a little dated. The last people to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan was … well, US, not to put too fine a point to it, after twenty years of fighting and $2.3 trillion spent and ~8000 American and NATO ally lives lost it went straight back to the Taliban without a $hitload to show for it.
Currently the US has a $33 TRILLION National debt and the decline in the dollar as reserve currency has forced treasury yields up to where interest on the US National Debt alone is $1 TRILLION annually. If anyone seriously thinks that US funding and military support to the tune of $100 billion annually is going to survive the 2024 election - no matter who wins - you sure don’t want them in the jumpseat behind you because they are delusional.
when all is said and done, Ukraine will STILL have a long border with Russia and Russia will have a population four times as big and a GDP nine times as big as Ukraine. And every additional Ukrainian killed, maimed, or fleeing into permanent exile is just going to make that worse. It’s time to negotiate an end to this.
Currently the US has a $33 TRILLION National debt and the decline in the dollar as reserve currency has forced treasury yields up to where interest on the US National Debt alone is $1 TRILLION annually. If anyone seriously thinks that US funding and military support to the tune of $100 billion annually is going to survive the 2024 election - no matter who wins - you sure don’t want them in the jumpseat behind you because they are delusional.
when all is said and done, Ukraine will STILL have a long border with Russia and Russia will have a population four times as big and a GDP nine times as big as Ukraine. And every additional Ukrainian killed, maimed, or fleeing into permanent exile is just going to make that worse. It’s time to negotiate an end to this.
#1819
lol. Told y'll this was going to be the result back in 2022 and was called a Russian agent. How many Ukrainians are dead now? At least we helped some defense CEO buy his 17th vacation home while most young Americans will never be able to buy one house to live in anymore.
#1820
Feckless, feckless, …
... still feckless after all these years...
https://www.politico.eu/article/arms...-agency-chief/
BRUSSELS — The EU will deliver a million artillery shells to Ukraine — but not by the March deadline leaders had agreed, the CEO of the European Defence Agency Jiří Šedivý told POLITICO.
The agency has been at the heart of efforts to transform the bloc's military industry by matching contractors with capitals in massive joint ammunition deals targeted at boosting local production and supplying arms to Ukraine.
The million shell target was decided by EU leaders last March to support Kyiv in its fight against invading Russian forces, but there were deep divisions over the success of the policy during Tuesday's meeting of defense ministers in Brussels.
Some, like Germany Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, said the target wouldn't be reached and questioned the sense of setting it in the first place, while others, like Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, said the bloc was capable of producing enough ammunition — as long as governments sign contracts with arms-makers.
The EDA chief leans toward a more optimistic assessment.
"The target of 1 million will be achieved — maybe even beyond that — but indeed, the timeline is too ambitious," Šedivý said in an interview just hours after meeting defense ministers in his role as the chief of the bloc's technical agency.
So far, EU countries have dispatched around 300,000 shells to Ukraine, with the EDA running a second track to jointly procure ammo to refill national stocks as well as provide further support to Ukraine.
In October, the agency said seven member countries agreed to place orders for critical 155 millimeter ammunition under a fast-track joint procurement scheme.
While the EDA won't disclose the total volume of those contracts, Šedivý said that, coupled with national orders from larger countries like Germany, France and Sweden, it would add up to "lower 100,000s of ammunition" which would still put the bloc well beneath the 1 million mark.
The agency has been at the heart of efforts to transform the bloc's military industry by matching contractors with capitals in massive joint ammunition deals targeted at boosting local production and supplying arms to Ukraine.
The million shell target was decided by EU leaders last March to support Kyiv in its fight against invading Russian forces, but there were deep divisions over the success of the policy during Tuesday's meeting of defense ministers in Brussels.
Some, like Germany Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, said the target wouldn't be reached and questioned the sense of setting it in the first place, while others, like Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, said the bloc was capable of producing enough ammunition — as long as governments sign contracts with arms-makers.
The EDA chief leans toward a more optimistic assessment.
"The target of 1 million will be achieved — maybe even beyond that — but indeed, the timeline is too ambitious," Šedivý said in an interview just hours after meeting defense ministers in his role as the chief of the bloc's technical agency.
So far, EU countries have dispatched around 300,000 shells to Ukraine, with the EDA running a second track to jointly procure ammo to refill national stocks as well as provide further support to Ukraine.
In October, the agency said seven member countries agreed to place orders for critical 155 millimeter ammunition under a fast-track joint procurement scheme.
While the EDA won't disclose the total volume of those contracts, Šedivý said that, coupled with national orders from larger countries like Germany, France and Sweden, it would add up to "lower 100,000s of ammunition" which would still put the bloc well beneath the 1 million mark.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post