Russia Invades Ukraine

[ab2cmiller]

Total speculation. Obviously we only know what is being made public, but at this point it feels like Trump is going to basically make Ukraine bend over.

If I squint, I can justify much of what Trump is doing in trying to "get real" with Zelensky. I can also see (in some cases) trying to not antagonize Putin.

In the end it just feels like Trump will negotiate a deal that skews significantly to Putin's benefit. It feels like he will just tell Zelensky, we aren't giving you another dime. You can continue to fight and eventually lose all of Ukraine or you can bend over.

 

[TorontoGold]

Show me where I said Zelenskyy started the war.

What does my post have anything to do with you or who stated the war? My post was just referencing the fact that ab/bish ignored Giddyups blatant globalist Jew antisemitic trope to argue with Gattaca

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It’s as good of a use of our defense dollars as any other use.

It's not our defense dollars if we are BORROWING MONEY to send to another country.

Are you able to articulate the difference between debt and deficit?

 

[FDNYIrish1]

What are some realistic expectations to end this war? Stop all movement and cede territories gained to Russia? Set up a DMZ at current state? Agreement of no NATO on Russias border? I’d really like to see a generation of young men stop being wiped out. This whole thing is a mess and has completely changed the face of conventional warfare.

 

[Old Man Mike]

NATO is already all over Russia's border. That ain't the "solution." (unless you go with the Trump idea of eliminating NATO.)

It feels like this administration is pushing Ukraine to give up important parts of itself. (and major economic routes.)

Everyone should at least admit that this is an awfully tough ask (and why they fought in the first place.)

And everyone should at least admit that this "certifies" Putin's expansionist attitude (which no one should want.)

DO we want to encourage Putin expansionism? I don't get the "enthusiasm" for this guy.

 

[Sea Turtle]

What are some realistic expectations to end this war? Stop all movement and cede territories gained to Russia? Set up a DMZ at current state? Agreement of no NATO on Russias border? I’d really like to see a generation of young men stop being wiped out. This whole thing is a mess and has completely changed the face of conventional warfare.

They've gone backwards in warfare. They are fighting WW1 with modern weapons.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

They've gone backwards in warfare. They are fighting WW1 with modern weapons.

The use of drones has changed everything. This is what I’m referring to.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

NATO is already all over Russia's border. That ain't the "solution." (unless you go with the Trump idea of eliminating NATO.)

It feels like this administration is pushing Ukraine to give up important parts of itself. (and major economic routes.)

Everyone should at least admit that this is an awfully tough ask (and why they fought in the first place.)

And everyone should at least admit that this "certifies" Putin's expansionist attitude (which no one should want.)

DO we want to encourage Putin expansionism? I don't get the "enthusiasm" for this guy.

I’m sorry if my post came off as if I’m in support of Putin at all. I’m just trying to have a conversation on what the end of this invasion looks like. What does peace look like? How will it be maintained? We can go back to 1991 and talk about NATO and Russia, but I’m truly interested in this war ending. We’re dealing with a psychopath and I have no idea how he can be trusted.

 

[Old Man Mike]

This is correct. When the Ukraine got drones, and then increasingly sophisticated and deadly drones, we even sent trainers over there to help them get set up to most effectively use the various tech. (Same thing for some of the intel centers.) Some of that is what got Russia reeling. For a while, the Ukraine level of success could almost be measured solely by the amount of drones (carrying "missiles") they could employ (and they never had enough to fully exploit their advantages.) But, to my knowledge, it is the bigger ordnance that has allowed other more recent successes, even attacking Russian land. (I quit studying this closely about a year ago, so may be wrong about the level of tech use in the past few months.)

and FDNY: I didn't take your posts Putin-friendly, just an open honest series of useful questions.

Generally speaking about a larger IE problem: All posters might usefully take note that this format is rife with potential for posts to sequentially follow posts that they are NOT directly referring to. Some board posters also are so involved in just their own headspace, that they read everything as if it is about them. Confusion is maximized.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[FDNYIrish1]

This is correct. When the Ukraine got drones, and then increasingly sophisticated and deadly drones, we even sent trainers over there to help them get set up to most effectively use the various tech. (Same thing for some of the intel centers.) Some of that is what got Russia reeling. For a while, the Ukraine level of success could almost be measured solely by the amount of drones (carrying "missiles") they could employ (and they never had enough to fully exploit their advantages.) But, to my knowledge, it is the bigger ordnance that has allowed other more recent successes, even attacking Russian land. (I quit studying this closely about a year ago, so may be wrong about the level of tech use in the past few months.)

and FDNY: I didn't take your posts Putin-friendly, just an open honest series of useful questions.

Generally speaking about a larger IE problem: All posters might usefully take note that this format is rife with potential for posts to sequentially follow posts that they are NOT directly referring to. Some board posters also are so involved in just their own headspace, that they read everything as if it is about them. Confusion is maximized.

I didn’t think so OMM, appreciate the clarification. I’m more interested in others opinions on here than mine, and you’re definitely an asset with experience and knowledge. Just getting in front of me getting called a Putin stooge by others lol

 

[calvegas04]

This whole thing is a mess and has completely changed the face of conventional warfare.

I could see the US military in for a rude awakening during the next major conflict. I don't think we are taking how dead cheap drones are. Seems we are still opting for expensive drones that are fairly easy to take down.

If anyone has seen any articles about the US creating anti drone tech or development of our own FPV drone programs please link them.

 

[calvegas04]

Total speculation. Obviously we only know what is being made public, but at this point it feels like Trump is going to basically make Ukraine bend over.

If I squint, I can justify much of what Trump is doing in trying to "get real" with Zelensky. I can also see (in some cases) trying to not antagonize Putin.

In the end it just feels like Trump will negotiate a deal that skews significantly to Putin's benefit. It feels like he will just tell Zelensky, we aren't giving you another dime. You can continue to fight and eventually lose all of Ukraine or you can bend over.

The art of the deal, bending over to putin again

 

[Irish#1]

What does my post have anything to do with you or who stated the war? My post was just referencing the fact that ab/bish ignored Giddyups blatant globalist Jew antisemitic trope to argue with Gattaca

Gattaca posted this about MAGA people and you've lumped me into the MAGA group.

And MAGA people wine about being associated with Nazis lol. Gee I wonder why?

It’s great because they were all super excited to jump on me when I criticized Bibi’s administration and his actions - which has nothing to do with Judaism. But when you have a poster just pumping out “look at the CIA asset Jewish guy starting a war” crickets. Virginia/Turtle aside, it’s pretty par for the course for them.

 

[ab2cmiller]

The art of the deal, bending over to putin again

I don't even think it's bending over to Putin because he's in Putin's pocket. I think Trump desperately wants to end the war and claim he brought about peace. I think he knows that Putin will be impossible to negotiate with and will concede close to nothing. He knows that he holds all the cards with Ukraine and can basically force a crappy peace deal on Ukraine. Ukraine could choose to not agree to the peace deal, but without the US weapons that we provide, Russia will take over more and more of the country.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

I could see the US military in for a rude awakening during the next major conflict. I don't think we are taking how dead cheap drones are. Seems we are still opting for expensive drones that are fairly easy to take down.

If anyone has seen any articles about the US creating anti drone tech or development of our own FPV drone programs please link them.

Look into articles with a guy named Palmer Luckey. Listened to him on a podcast. He is on the forefront of anti drone warfare technology. I believe he was on Shawn Ryan

 

[Irish#1]

This is correct. When the Ukraine got drones, and then increasingly sophisticated and deadly drones, we even sent trainers over there to help them get set up to most effectively use the various tech. (Same thing for some of the intel centers.) Some of that is what got Russia reeling. For a while, the Ukraine level of success could almost be measured solely by the amount of drones (carrying "missiles") they could employ (and they never had enough to fully exploit their advantages.) But, to my knowledge, it is the bigger ordnance that has allowed other more recent successes, even attacking Russian land. (I quit studying this closely about a year ago, so may be wrong about the level of tech use in the past few months.)

and FDNY: I didn't take your posts Putin-friendly, just an open honest series of useful questions.

Generally speaking about a larger IE problem: All posters might usefully take note that this format is rife with potential for posts to sequentially follow posts that they are NOT directly referring to. Some board posters also are so involved in just their own headspace, that they read everything as if it is about them. Confusion is maximized.

Everyone agrees that Putin is the aggressor and that the ideal solution is for Ukraine to regain the territory they have lost while Putin goes home with his tail between his legs.

The debate is, should the war continue and more lives lost or should there be a settlement where Ukraine cedes the land lost and Russia agrees to no more aggression?

Given it has basically been a stalemate the last two years, it doesn't look like either side is going to win, so what's the point of continuing?

 

[TorontoGold]

Gattaca posted this about MAGA people and you've lumped me into the MAGA group.

Ok, so take it up with him? I'm not sure why you're coming at me. You weren't involved here until now, and so I guess now that you too have not called out Giddyup - what's holding you back?

 

[Old Man Mike]

If someone were to sit down with me and ask for my opinion on what is the point of the Ukrainians continuing to fight for their country, my first instinct would be to say "because it's their homeland and they love it; and so it's kind of understandable a priori."

Now if someone were to say back, why then should we care enough to help them? My first instinct would be to say "well give me a minute to think about that and what's involved here from my (maybe I'll admit not your) point of view."

Upon that reflection, and a lot of needed study so as to try to have an informed opinion (I'm serious about the remark; I view "study" very seriously), I'd make a list:
A. Russia has attacked them, not the other way around;
B. Russia has been a constant enemy of ours worldwide for many years;
C. Ukraine is actually a buffer zone against Russian expansion;
D. Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, even Hungary have interests here,
bordering Russia as they do, and recently in NATO (Though none has any money really.)
E. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the charitable/spiritual way is all about;
F. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the USA is all about (we brag about it);
G.Asking us for a lot of money/arms is a big ask, agreed, but the cost of actual human beings is theirs;
H. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country (as we did long ago, and tout as the way to go.)

...... I'm sure that the list could be longer. Opposite that is that this is costing us money.

From that the weighing of the matter must come.

 

[TheProspector]

If someone were to sit down with me and ask for my opinion on what is the point of the Ukrainians continuing to fight for their country, my first instinct would be to say "because it's their homeland and they love it; and so it's kind of understandable a priori."

Now if someone were to say back, why then should we care enough to help them? My first instinct would be to say "well give me a minute to think about that and what's involved here from my (maybe I'll admit not your) point of view."

Upon that reflection, and a lot of needed study so as to try to have an informed opinion (I'm serious about the remark; I view "study" very seriously), I'd make a list:
A. Russia has attacked them, not the other way around;
B. Russia has been a constant enemy of ours worldwide for many years;
C. Ukraine is actually a buffer zone against Russian expansion;
D. Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, even Hungary have interests here,
bordering Russia as they do, and recently in NATO (Though none has any money really.)
E. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the charitable/spiritual way is all about;
F. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the USA is all about (we brag about it);
G.Asking us for a lot of money/arms is a big ask, agreed, but the cost of actual human beings is theirs;
H. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country (as we did long ago, and tout as the way to go.)

...... I'm sure that the list could be longer. Opposite that is that this is costing us money.

From that the weighing of the matter must come.

This is all well thought out. The problem OMM, is that you are a reasonable person, of sound mind that hasn’t fully invested yourself with a particular leader or political party. Once you get too far invested with a person and a political party though, rational thinking goes out the window.

I do actually feel Ukraine would cede some land and give the US mineral rights tomorrow IF they got assurances from the US on protection. The problem is they know any ceasefire with Putin is worthless because he doesn’t keep his word and Trump is also not offering strong assurances on military protection. And so, we keep the status quo.

The funny thing is that Trump scolded Zelenskyy that he’s gambling on world war 3 which is actually what Trump is doing by pulling American support from Ukraine. God knows how quickly this war may escalate with the vacuum being created without US support and what a galvanized and threatened Europe does in response.

 

[NDVirginia19]

I generally am sympathetic that there were developments in Ukraine over the past two decades that Russia had righteous anger towards Ukraine. This obvious does not amount to a just casus belli. I think the US has an immense burden of the blame for the road that led to the current war with expansion of NATO influence into the country, funding an overthrow of the incumbent Ukranian regime, etc. Again, I do not think that Russia was righteous in their invasion, but I think it was at least rational state behavior.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Interesting take. Maybe a relevant one.

My slight information differs just a little --- I paid some early attention to Ukraine because my brother (The US National Olympic Weight-lifting coach ) took teams to Ukraine before the time of the current regime. He told me that these were always nerve-racking because of the nastiness of the political leaders and the consequent felt-danger to himself and the athletes. The leader two times ago was (Tim said) a Ukrainian version of a Soviet mafia semi-insane thug who was very scary (I mean Stalin-like scary). The guy who replaced him (when he died, I think) was somewhat less scary but still basically an immoral thief. Nevertheless, Tim's meetings with the weightlifting coaches (of both Ukraine and Russia who would get together at the meets) were a "little" more relaxed then. Still one talked no politics and at the higher levels of government Russia and the Ukraine hated one another. So these guys were not "buddies." In the big geopolitical goings on, the second leader was forced to declare elections and apparently thought he'd win. Out of desperation opponents put up this inexperienced but popular media entertainer, who cascaded into office on the protest vote of massive proportions. Thus we have Zelenskyy. Putin apparently saw this inexperience at the top as Soft, and took it as an opportunity to strike. The Ukrainian cabinet decided to fight back, surprising Putin. Zelenskyy played his figurehead role, and still does (thus, by the way, his symbolic attire in the Oval Office.)

What all of that really has to do with the depth of our dilemma .... betters than I must decide.

 

[calvegas04]

I think the US has an immense burden of the blame for the road that led to the current war with expansion of NATO influence into the country, funding an overthrow of the incumbent Ukranian regime, etc. Again, I do not think that Russia was righteous in their invasion, but I think it was at least rational state behavior.

The other option for Ukraine was to always have a russia puppet government in place if they didn't have a

 

[ab2cmiller]

The linked is an opinion article, so I have no idea how accurate some of the information is that the writer references. Nonetheless, I was curious if you fine folks would give your opinions as it relates specifically to the quoted section below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5170032-russia-nato-war-ukraine-provocation/

If NATO expansion were truly the trigger, why did Vladimir Putin wait until 2022 to invade? Why not in 2008, when Ukraine first sought membership, or in 2014, when NATO discussions resurfaced after Russia seized Crimea

The truth is that Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO. There was no Membership Action Plan, and key NATO members had made it clear they were unwilling to admit Ukraine any time soon.

Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were not a provocation. They were a response to Russian aggression: the illegal annexation of Crimea, the Russian proxy war in Donbas, and Moscow’s long-standing efforts to control Ukraine politically, economically and culturally.

In his Feb. 21, 2022, speech justifying the war, Putin barely mentioned NATO. Instead, he fixated on Ukraine as an artificial state, an accident of history, a wayward part of the so-called “Russian world.” His argument had nothing to do with military threats or self-defense; it was an assertion of imperial entitlement. It echoed his 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” which outright denied Ukraine’s legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

Russia’s pre-invasion demands further expose the hollowness of the NATO excuse. Moscow didn’t just insist that Ukraine never join the alliance — it demanded NATO withdraw from Eastern Europe entirely, rolling back security guarantees for Poland, the Baltics and other frontline states. This was never just about Ukraine. It was a broader push to reassert Russian dominance over its former empire.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I can't answer any of that intelligently, but I know a little mediaeval (and even ancient) history.

The idea of an original state and a "phony" derivative state could easily be turned around in the instance of Ukraine and Russia. The Ukraine was the source of the early state which stretched all the way to the Baltic and HAD KIEV AS THE CAPITAL.

Even back into very ancient times, it was the Ukraine area, not Russia, which spawned multiple influential civilizations.
Most of these cultures partly stayed home near the Black Sea and the mountains and valleys stretching into Hungary,
or they moved generally westwardly and not up towards the colder Baltic.

Putin's history claims are ridiculous misdirecting fantasies. ANY HISTORY BOOK OF MEDIEVAL TIMES SHOWS THIS. Ukraine was where the culture of that area was. Russia (and the magnificence of St Petersburg) came later.

 

[Irish#1]

Ok, so take it up with him? I'm not sure why you're coming at me. You weren't involved here until now, and so I guess now that you too have not called out Giddyup - what's holding you back?

I replied to you because you said "they were all super excited to jump on me", then you excluded Virginia and Turtle.

You ever have one of those posters you just read and move on? Not responding to his posts doesn't mean I agree with Giddyup. You'd be hard pressed to find where I replied to or supported any of his posts. I did give him a thumbs up once, but it had nothing to do with anything antisemitic.

 

[GATTACA!]

If someone were to sit down with me and ask for my opinion on what is the point of the Ukrainians continuing to fight for their country, my first instinct would be to say "because it's their homeland and they love it; and so it's kind of understandable a priori."

Now if someone were to say back, why then should we care enough to help them? My first instinct would be to say "well give me a minute to think about that and what's involved here from my (maybe I'll admit not your) point of view."

Upon that reflection, and a lot of needed study so as to try to have an informed opinion (I'm serious about the remark; I view "study" very seriously), I'd make a list:
A. Russia has attacked them, not the other way around;
B. Russia has been a constant enemy of ours worldwide for many years;
C. Ukraine is actually a buffer zone against Russian expansion;
D. Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, even Hungary have interests here,
bordering Russia as they do, and recently in NATO (Though none has any money really.)
E. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the charitable/spiritual way is all about;
F. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the USA is all about (we brag about it);
G.Asking us for a lot of money/arms is a big ask, agreed, but the cost of actual human beings is theirs;
H. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country (as we did long ago, and tout as the way to go.)

...... I'm sure that the list could be longer. Opposite that is that this is costing us money.

From that the weighing of the matter must come.

Great post OMM. I would add....

I. The reason Russia was capable of wantonly invading at all is because Ukraine agreed to their own nuclear disarmament in exchange for the United State's protection from just such an invasion. It's the United State's responsibility to hold up that end of our bargain. Not just because it's the right thing to do in terms of that one deal, but as a deterrent to nuclear proliferation.

 

[calvegas04]

 

[ab2cmiller]

Tell me this isn't true.

 

[Irish#1]

If someone were to sit down with me and ask for my opinion on what is the point of the Ukrainians continuing to fight for their country, my first instinct would be to say "because it's their homeland and they love it; and so it's kind of understandable a priori."

Now if someone were to say back, why then should we care enough to help them? My first instinct would be to say "well give me a minute to think about that and what's involved here from my (maybe I'll admit not your) point of view."

Upon that reflection, and a lot of needed study so as to try to have an informed opinion (I'm serious about the remark; I view "study" very seriously), I'd make a list:
A. Russia has attacked them, not the other way around;
B. Russia has been a constant enemy of ours worldwide for many years;
C. Ukraine is actually a buffer zone against Russian expansion;
D. Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, even Hungary have interests here,
bordering Russia as they do, and recently in NATO (Though none has any money really.)
E. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the charitable/spiritual way is all about;
F. Helping the weak vs the aggressive bully is supposedly what the USA is all about (we brag about it);
G.Asking us for a lot of money/arms is a big ask, agreed, but the cost of actual human beings is theirs;
H. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country (as we did long ago, and tout as the way to go.)

...... I'm sure that the list could be longer. Opposite that is that this is costing us money.

From that the weighing of the matter must come.

I think everyone that is discussing this war agrees with this. It boils down to one question for me. Is it worth the lives of thousands to continue this when neither side is gaining anything? I get it's not my country and I'm not emotionally invested like the Ukrainians. I probably would have a different position if this were the U.S. being attacked. I guess I'm looking at this more like a neutral party that has been asked to arbitrate a disagreement.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Trump will abandon Ukraine. I think what he's doing right now is using his leverage to get both sides to the table and get other NATO members to step up and provide more money and support.