whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

More like what President Obama said back during his presidency....that Russia would always care more about Ukraine than the USA would because it is right next door.

That is just a basic geopolitical fact.

The USA will always care more about what happens in Canada & Mexico than other outside powers on the other side of the world could care. Russia could never care as much about Mexico as we do because it is right on our door.

The same is true for Russia in relation to Ukraine and China in relation to places like N. Korea.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Still not one Chicken Hawk poster is offering to volunteer his son or grandson to die for Ukraine.

Enough said.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Still not one Chicken Hawk poster is offering to volunteer his son or grandson to die for Ukraine.

Enough said.

---

All that says, is that you can't compel behavior of other people, especially when you know nothing at all about their real-life conditions.

Pretty weak to declare Internet Argument Victory just because no one is playing along,

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Canada2017 said:

---

You are in love with your brinkmanship narrative .

Think it's all a game .

It's not a game .

And because of Dem geopolitical games in Ukraine beginning with Obama….and continued with Biden, thousands of people are dead and millions more displaced .

And guys like you STILL want to continue playing .

It's as though Korea, Vietnam , Iraq, and Afghanistan never happened .

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I think it is fair to say Russia is losing in the sense that most everyone thought the war would be over in February. Ukraine with Trump's weapons and support has performed well despite Russia using sophisticated U.S. drones given to them by Obama.

However, that does not mean Russia may not be winning relatively to a month ago.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Still not one Chicken Hawk poster is offering to volunteer his son or grandson to die for Ukraine.

Enough said.

---

All that says, is that you can't compel behavior of other people, especially when you know nothing at all about their real-life conditions.

Pretty weak to declare Internet Argument Victory just because no one is playing along,

---

All that says is keyboard warriors going to keyboard.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Still not one Chicken Hawk poster is offering to volunteer his son or grandson to die for Ukraine.

Enough said.

---

All that says, is that you can't compel behavior of other people, especially when you know nothing at all about their real-life conditions.

Pretty weak to declare Internet Argument Victory just because no one is playing along,

---

All that says is keyboard warriors going to keyboard.

---

whiterock said:

---

Thoughtful piece look in at end-game scenarios.

Russia's situation reminds me of the old adage about the definition of "apocaloptimist": someone who knows things are going to **** but will turn out OK anyway.

That's where Russia is. No good options. Just trying to triage a tabletop of scenarios, all of which have unpleasant outcomes.

https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/10/10/putin-might-lose-the-war-what-would-that-look-like-for-russia-ukraine-and-the-world/?twclid=21oxzc4iy5xc48lhy3sjvqm6bz&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Paid&utm_campaign=TW-Paid-Putin-Loses

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

BREAKING: White House says Iranian troops 'directly engaged on the ground' in Crimea supporting Russian drone attacks on Ukraine - AP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 20, 2022

Doc Holliday said:

---

BREAKING: White House says Iranian troops 'directly engaged on the ground' in Crimea supporting Russian drone attacks on Ukraine - AP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 20, 2022

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Putin says he is not bluffing about using nukes .


Are we having fun yet ….are we cool again ?

---

just like he wasn't bluffing about 3 days. Just like he wasn't bluffing about NATO countries giving Ukraine supplies. He's a dead man walking and he knows it. At least he can mobilize his "army" away from the Kremlin and his vacay spots so he won't die in the next 3 weeks.

---

A 'dead man walking ' in command of thousands of nuclear warheads is an incredibly dangerous individual.

A dead man walking who KNOWS his only chance of survival is to 'win' …….is even more dangerous.

Biden's handlers need to somehow find even the slightest amount of common sense and work a face saving deal with Putin .

One that allows him to survive ( for now ) yet regain Ukraine's lost territory.

---

he's not gonna win this war and he knows it. It's all but lost as it sits today. "Mobilizing" the army away from the government may be his only shot to stay in power for any stretch. The walls are crashing in, and I don't believe for a second there will be a nuke fired because someone else is the one who has to follow the orders. Even China has turned their back on Russia in this one, aside from buying whatever minerals/commodities they can for $.50 on the dollar.

---

Putin is still ex KGB....he knows where the bodies are buried.

And if going to die anyway .......might choose to take many others with him .

---

he's already taken over 50,000 in his little 3 day war.

---

Would be very easy to add a couple of zeros to that number .

The US has already miscalculated once .

And the same dementia case is still ( nominally ) in charge .

---

This admin is doing far better than I would have imagined. They are more cautious than they could be. Or I would be. But they are playing hardball. Fun to watch.

No question we are attempting to put Putin in a situation where he will face a stark dilemma: withdraw to the status quo ante, or lose the entire Crimea to include Sebastopol. That may not sound significant, but Sebastopol has been a Russian naval base since the reign of Catherine the Great. Losing it would be a strategic defeat of tremendous historic significance. And, of course, Russia wouldn't need it if we sank the Black Sea Fleet......
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11234251/America-hit-Russias-military-devastating-strike-Putin-nukes-Ukraine-says-general.html

I've been watching for YouTubes with Ben Hodges for months. More than any other observer, he has been not just accurate in explaining key dynamics, but granular. He predicted the Russian collapse we are witnessing would occur in August, rather than September, but spot on about the mechanics of what would cause it = logistics.

I think we are also making clear preparations for Ukraine to take the war into Russian territory. This would be not an attempt to "invade Russia" in the classical sense, but rather to not let borders get in the way of defending Ukraine. We will support Ukranian attack, via air, artillery, or infantry, any logistical hubs necessary to prevent Russian encroachment on Ukrainian territory.

This is good. Make Putin risk his own skin. Losing Sebastopol. Losing Black Sea Fleet. Losing historically Russian territory. All amid complete logistical collapse of the Russian military....... Putin is clearly facing the stark dilemma of immediate strategic retreat from Ukrainian territory, or strategic defeat of the Russian military, and.....failure of the Russian state under the Putin regime.

Looming.......At some point, Belarus is going to realize it's picked a loser for an ally. Current head of state will not likely switch unless under heavy pressure, but opposition forces could at any point from here start to agitate to bring down the regime. Nato has lots of contiguous border with Belarus, as well as lots & lots of linguistic and cultural ties. VERY easy to not just support unrest/insurgency in Belarus, but instigate it. I would be surprised if we don't see that happen before Thanksgiving. You read it here.

Why would undermining Belarus be important? Well, where do we think those 300k troops Russia just mobilized will be deployed? If i was Putin, I would deploy some/all of them to Belarus to pose a strategic risk to Kiev. It would force Ukraine to divert resources away from the south. We have 60-90 days before that that could happen. Ergo......watch Belarus.

---

If Putin is to survive almost none of these projections can happen . He knows it . The use of tactical nukes IMO are a real possibility.

Keep in mind for all of these ' Russian collapse' stories ….Ukraine only recovered approximately 15% of their territory currently occupied by the Russians .

Hopefully Putin jumps out an 8th floor hotel window ASAP.

That would be the best solution for everyone.

---

Non sequitur. Use of nukes erodes his position. Guarantees his downfall.

---

If Putin loses this war.....his downfall ( and death ) are assured .

Got nothing to lose .

Again, tactical nukes against military formations. It's going to happen sooner or later and the world will **** ...then adjust to the 'new reality'.

Hopefully someone takes Putin out ....now .

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Ten years ago today…

1. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi—the deposed leader of Libya—fled Tripoli after the capital fell to NTC forces. He was soon captured by the rebels, beaten and sodomized with a bayonet, and then shot several times... pic.twitter.com/6WZ0Td511m

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) October 20, 2022

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Reminds me of this thread:

Ten years ago today…

1. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi—the deposed leader of Libya—fled Tripoli after the capital fell to NTC forces. He was soon captured by the rebels, beaten and sodomized with a bayonet, and then shot several times... pic.twitter.com/6WZ0Td511m

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) October 20, 2022

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Reminds me of this thread:

Ten years ago today…

1. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi—the deposed leader of Libya—fled Tripoli after the capital fell to NTC forces. He was soon captured by the rebels, beaten and sodomized with a bayonet, and then shot several times... pic.twitter.com/6WZ0Td511m

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) October 20, 2022

---