Why Are We in Ukraine?

319,043 Views | 5859 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by whiterock
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 7/26/24
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 8:01a, 7/27/24
boognish_bear said:
""Countries go to war to secure a better peace....."
-Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

By invading Ukraine, Russia has seen the following:
-Renewed European commitment to Nato
-Nato mobilization of industry
-Sweden joins Nato
-Finland joins Nato
-First Nato permanent deployment of combat units to former WP Nato members (Germany to Lithuania)
-loss of European energy markets (destruction of Nordstream + embargoes)
-increased reliance on inherent hostile adversaries - China, Iran (for markets and military support)
-increased Chinese and Iranian influence in Central Asia and Caucasus
-diminished power in the Black Sea (loss of basing, loss of capitol ships, etc.....)
-diminished value of energy exports (discounted to avoid sanctions, to facilitate barter, etc....)
-diminished value of military exports (demonstrated poor performance on the battlefield)
-diminished value of CIS (which Russia is unable to support economically or militarily)
-numerous economic dislocations related to mobilization of industry (inflation running in the teens)
-500k casualties while facing ongoing demographic decline

To that list we must add the likelihood that Russia will, by the end of the war, exhaust over a century of stockpiled military ordnance and hardware, leaving it to fight future wars with only what it can manufacture in real-time.....with an economy smaller than Texas....smaller than New York City.

and now, they face the prospect of the return of long-range nuclear capable missiles to Europe.

The only scenario where Russia could credibly assess it has secured a better peace is one where they totally defeat and subsume Ukraine back into the Russian state. That is not a likely outcome.



Reply Quote
5
1 edit
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:10a, 7/28/24
Reply Quote
3
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:20p, 7/28/24
Reply Quote
4
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:30a, 7/29/24
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to trey3216 • 7:11a, 7/30/24
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).
Reply Quote
2
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:31a, 7/30/24
FLBear5630 said:
boognish_bear said:
We better get a show of force somewhere Putin and Xi feel... This Joe situation is getting hot.



Agreed

Lack of strong leadership is motivating our enemies to test our
resolve. Fatal encounters are overdue.

For reasons most Americans are only dimly aware of…….Joe Biden has been the worst president in US history. Those elites who willfully nominated this obvious dementia sufferer back in 2020 should be imprisoned for treason.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:44a, 7/30/24
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:45a, 7/30/24
whiterock said:
boognish_bear said:
""Countries go to war to secure a better peace....."
-Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

By invading Ukraine, Russia has seen the following:
-Renewed European commitment to Nato
-Nato mobilization of industry
-Sweden joins Nato
-Finland joins Nato
-First Nato permanent deployment of combat units to former WP Nato members (Germany to Lithuania)
-loss of European energy markets (destruction of Nordstream + embargoes)
-increased reliance on inherent hostile adversaries - China, Iran (for markets and military support)
-increased Chinese and Iranian influence in Central Asia and Caucasus
-diminished power in the Black Sea (loss of basing, loss of capitol ships, etc.....)
-diminished value of energy exports (discounted to avoid sanctions, to facilitate barter, etc....)
-diminished value of military exports (demonstrated poor performance on the battlefield)
-diminished value of CIS (which Russia is unable to support economically or militarily)
-numerous economic dislocations related to mobilization of industry (inflation running in the teens)
-500k casualties while facing ongoing demographic decline

To that list we must add the likelihood that Russia will, by the end of the war, exhaust over a century of stockpiled military ordnance and hardware, leaving it to fight future wars with only what it can manufacture in real-time.....with an economy smaller than Texas....smaller than New York City.

and now, they face the prospect of the return of long-range nuclear capable missiles to Europe.

The only scenario where Russia could credibly assess it has secured a better peace is one where they totally defeat and subsume Ukraine back into the Russian state. That is not a likely outcome.



Even NATO's military leadership disagrees with you on many of those points. Russia will end the war with a larger, better equipped, and more experienced military than before. It will also have improved its position with regard to Crimea, the nuclear threat from Europe, and other issues that predated the war and had to be dealt with.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:47a, 7/30/24
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever.
They don't need to.
Reply Quote
2
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:07a, 7/30/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
boognish_bear said:
""Countries go to war to secure a better peace....."
-Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

By invading Ukraine, Russia has seen the following:
-Renewed European commitment to Nato
-Nato mobilization of industry
-Sweden joins Nato
-Finland joins Nato
-First Nato permanent deployment of combat units to former WP Nato members (Germany to Lithuania)
-loss of European energy markets (destruction of Nordstream + embargoes)
-increased reliance on inherent hostile adversaries - China, Iran (for markets and military support)
-increased Chinese and Iranian influence in Central Asia and Caucasus
-diminished power in the Black Sea (loss of basing, loss of capitol ships, etc.....)
-diminished value of energy exports (discounted to avoid sanctions, to facilitate barter, etc....)
-diminished value of military exports (demonstrated poor performance on the battlefield)
-diminished value of CIS (which Russia is unable to support economically or militarily)
-numerous economic dislocations related to mobilization of industry (inflation running in the teens)
-500k casualties while facing ongoing demographic decline

To that list we must add the likelihood that Russia will, by the end of the war, exhaust over a century of stockpiled military ordnance and hardware, leaving it to fight future wars with only what it can manufacture in real-time.....with an economy smaller than Texas....smaller than New York City.

and now, they face the prospect of the return of long-range nuclear capable missiles to Europe.

The only scenario where Russia could credibly assess it has secured a better peace is one where they totally defeat and subsume Ukraine back into the Russian state. That is not a likely outcome.



Even NATO's military leadership disagrees with you on many of those points. Russia will end the war with a larger, better equipped, and more experienced military than before. It will also have improved its position with regard to Crimea, the nuclear threat from Europe, and other issues that predated the war and had to be dealt with.
It's not mathematically possible for your fantasy to be true.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
4
BylrFan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:49a, 7/31/24
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-us-threat-alaska-1931298

Russia wants Alaska back
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BylrFan • 5:33a, 7/31/24
BylrFan said:
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-us-threat-alaska-1931298

Russia wants Alaska back


We have upped the armor and airborne presence. The Aluietions are a lot of territory.

And we have no one on deck that can handle what is coming. Not confident Harris or Trump are up to task.

Know MAGA think they are globalist but a Powell, McMasters, Mattis or McCrystal would be better at DOD than Austin and company. China, Russia, Iran this is where an old school NeoCon would come in handy.
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:15a, 7/31/24
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:32a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
boognish_bear said:
""Countries go to war to secure a better peace....."
-Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

By invading Ukraine, Russia has seen the following:
-Renewed European commitment to Nato
-Nato mobilization of industry
-Sweden joins Nato
-Finland joins Nato
-First Nato permanent deployment of combat units to former WP Nato members (Germany to Lithuania)
-loss of European energy markets (destruction of Nordstream + embargoes)
-increased reliance on inherent hostile adversaries - China, Iran (for markets and military support)
-increased Chinese and Iranian influence in Central Asia and Caucasus
-diminished power in the Black Sea (loss of basing, loss of capitol ships, etc.....)
-diminished value of energy exports (discounted to avoid sanctions, to facilitate barter, etc....)
-diminished value of military exports (demonstrated poor performance on the battlefield)
-diminished value of CIS (which Russia is unable to support economically or militarily)
-numerous economic dislocations related to mobilization of industry (inflation running in the teens)
-500k casualties while facing ongoing demographic decline

To that list we must add the likelihood that Russia will, by the end of the war, exhaust over a century of stockpiled military ordnance and hardware, leaving it to fight future wars with only what it can manufacture in real-time.....with an economy smaller than Texas....smaller than New York City.

and now, they face the prospect of the return of long-range nuclear capable missiles to Europe.

The only scenario where Russia could credibly assess it has secured a better peace is one where they totally defeat and subsume Ukraine back into the Russian state. That is not a likely outcome.



Even NATO's military leadership disagrees with you on many of those points.
The dashed sentences are visually confirmable facts. as is the para on depletion of Russian equipment and Russian production rates. and the return of long-range nukes (statement by Scholz). So that only leaves the last para. Please cite exact quotes where a Nato official has stated the opposite.

Russia will end the war with a larger, better equipped, and more experienced military than before.
So we are to let them have their way with whatever nation they want in order to prevent them from mobilizing even more? Russia will also end the war facing a stronger Nato and a fully mobilized Urkanian state that will have army that is, soldier for soldier, better than Russia.

It will also have improved its position with regard to Crimea
Only if they retain a land bridge AND access to the Dnieper for fresh water.

, the nuclear threat from Europe, and other issues that predated the war and had to be dealt with.
not really. moving theater nukes further west is a gain, but Scholz's statement is but one example of where Russia also faces equal or greater loss of nuclear deterrence.
quit pulling stuff out of your alimentary canal.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:34a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever.
They don't need to.
They do if Nato keeps supplying Ukraine, which it can and will do, certainly for long enough for the Russian machine to crater.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:48a, 7/31/24
See recent remarks by Gen. Cavoli. 500K is an unlikely number if you're talking about total casualties, an absurd one if you're talking about deaths. What we should do about Russia's greatly increased military power is up for debate. Whatever we do should be done in light of facts, not fantasy. Which brings us to your comments on NATO. Far from renewed commitment and mobilization of industry, we're seeing the opposite. NATO countries have demonstrated their lack of commitment. The alliance is more divided and less credible than ever.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:57a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
See recent remarks by Gen. Cavoli. 500K is an unlikely number if you're talking about total casualties, an absurd one if you're talking about deaths. What we should do about Russia's greatly increased military power is up for debate. Whatever we do should be done in light of facts, not fantasy. Which brings us to your comments on NATO. Far from renewed commitment and mobilization of industry, we're seeing the opposite. NATO countries have demonstrated their lack of commitment. The alliance is more divided and less credible than ever.
With all due respect, that article sounds like a neo-con general trying to scare the US into increasing military spending by once again creating a Russian bogeyman. It's long on perceived threats, and very short on facts or specifics. It sounds like propaganda aimed at getting more resources for the military.

What's even more surprising is how easily you swallow this stuff.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:03a, 7/31/24
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever.
They don't need to.
They do if Nato keeps supplying Ukraine, which it can and will do, certainly for long enough for the Russian machine to crater.
That's what you said when Congress passed the $60 billion aid package a few months ago. Russian advances have only accelerated since then. The more supply hubs they capture, the less Western aid will matter, as most of it will never reach the front lines. And the fundamental problem for Ukraine is still lack of manpower.

Unlike the Ukrainians, Russia isn't playing catch-up. They're producing more than they need in case NATO decides to get involved directly. That's the only scenario where they face a real challenge, and it would bring enormous challenges for the West as well, to say the least.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:39a, 7/31/24
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever.
They don't need to.
They do if Nato keeps supplying Ukraine, which it can and will do, certainly for long enough for the Russian machine to crater.

Well we will see won't we....because that seems to be the plan.

And if NATO/America mass funding Ukraine still does not lead them to win and the Russian military to crumble...

Will you and the rest of the War Hawks on the forum admit it was a mistake and that we have been lied to by DC aligned Media propaganda?

Or just like the failure wars in Iraq and Afganistan....will it just go down the memeory hole?
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:42a, 7/31/24
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

I doubt they even want to try to "subsume" the whole of Ukraine into the Russian Federation.

It was pretty obvious the plan for the war in Ukraine was to drive to Kyiv and install a more friendly (puppet) government in Ukraine.

Not much different than the US strategy in Iraq in 2003

Only difference is that Russia (who is not a major military power) could not even accomplish that simple task against a much smaller adversary....while the USA (who is a major military power) could and did accomplish a similar task in a matter of weeks.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 10:19a, 7/31/24
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.
Reply Quote
Bear8084
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:27a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bear8084 • 10:29a, 7/31/24
Bear8084 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.
Reply Quote
1
Bear8084
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32a, 7/31/24
What Sam the Russian shill supports:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/world/europe/rape-ukraine-russia-soldiers.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/europe/russia-sexual-violence-occupied-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240621-raped-by-russian-soldiers-ukraine-women-speak-out-to-erase-stigma

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/rape-electric-shocks-and-threats-of-castration-what-four-ukrainian-men-endured-under-russian-occupation

https://abcnews.go.com/International/russians-committing-rape-widespread-torture-ukrainians-report-finds/story?id=103465772
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bear8084 • 10:38a, 7/31/24
You wanted to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. You're getting your wish, so own it proudly. Just pray it stops there and you don't wake up one day to find yourself with actual skin in the game. Your neoliberal overlords don't care about you much more than they care about Ukraine.
Reply Quote
1
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:38a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.
Given the fact that your Russian comrades are raping their way across Ukraine, I suspect if you ask a Ukrainian woman, she might feel she's better off working at a brothel in Europe.

At least she'll get paid for being ****ed.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141417
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:15a, 7/31/24
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.
Given the fact that your Russian comrades are raping their way across Ukraine, I suspect if you ask a Ukrainian woman, she might feel she's better off working at a brothel in Europe.
Few Westerners bother to talk to Ukrainians under Russian rule, and those who do are typically vilified for their efforts. Notice that you don't hear anything from the UN about Ukrainian war crimes.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 11:26a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
Bear8084 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.
Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 11:45a, 7/31/24
Sam Lowry said:
See recent remarks by Gen. Cavoli. 500K is an unlikely number if you're talking about total casualties, an absurd one if you're talking about deaths. What we should do about Russia's greatly increased military power is up for debate. Whatever we do should be done in light of facts, not fantasy. Which brings us to your comments on NATO. Far from renewed commitment and mobilization of industry, we're seeing the opposite. NATO countries have demonstrated their lack of commitment. The alliance is more divided and less credible than ever.
and British MOD estimates are 550K.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/grim-forecast-uk-general-predicts-nearly-2-million-russian-casualties-as-ukraine-war-intensifies/ar-BB1qGFHo

and US intel documents declassed in Oct-Nov of 2023 estimated, at that time, 315k casualties.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/

Since then, multiple sources indicate continuous Russian offensives have elevated casualty rates to 1000-1200 per day. Numerous links available, but I posted this one as a shameless plug - my son took the 2nd photo down while on USMC exercise in Hawaii.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-losses-in-ukraine-could-hit-700000-soldiers-total-by-this-year/ar-BB1qTeOS

Interpolation and extrapolation......500k is a solid mid-range estimate. Even if you accept the low end and add in elevated casualty rates the last 8 months, you end up close to 500K.


Put down the Pravda and step away from the borscht
Reply Quote
1
Aliceinbubbleland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BylrFan • 11:56a, 7/31/24
BylrFan said:
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-us-threat-alaska-1931298

Russia wants Alaska back
Shhhhhh. Don't be giving any ides to The Donald.
Kamala Harris: Lina Hidalgo on steroids.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 11:57a, 7/31/24
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Bear8084 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.
Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...
not as disgusting as the Russian invasion of Ukraine....

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):
  • 400,000 jeeps & trucks
  • 14,000 airplanes
  • 8,000 tractors
  • 13,000 tanks
  • 1.5 million blankets
  • 15 million pairs of army boots
  • 107,000 tons of cotton
  • 2.7 million tons of petrol products
  • 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest. It was an understanding that it benefitted us (on multiple levels) to arm the enemies of our enemies. It was an effort to stop an adversary where they currently were, rather than wait until they got belt buckle to belt buckle with us.

Which is what we are doing in Ukraine.
As we should.


Reply Quote
4
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 12:25p, 7/31/24
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Bear8084 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.
Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...
not as disgusting as the Russian invasion of Ukraine....

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):
  • 400,000 jeeps & trucks
  • 14,000 airplanes
  • 8,000 tractors
  • 13,000 tanks
  • 1.5 million blankets
  • 15 million pairs of army boots
  • 107,000 tons of cotton
  • 2.7 million tons of petrol products
  • 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest. It was an understanding that it benefitted us (on multiple levels) to arm the enemies of our enemies. It was an effort to stop an adversary where they currently were, rather than wait until they got belt buckle to belt buckle with us.

Which is what we are doing in Ukraine.
As we should.


If a Nation is moving to Democracy-based Government and they ask for help defending their freedom, we should give it.
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:28p, 7/31/24
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Bear8084 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.
Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...
not as disgusting as the Russian invasion of Ukraine....

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):
  • 400,000 jeeps & trucks
  • 14,000 airplanes
  • 8,000 tractors
  • 13,000 tanks
  • 1.5 million blankets
  • 15 million pairs of army boots
  • 107,000 tons of cotton
  • 2.7 million tons of petrol products
  • 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest. It was an understanding that it benefitted us (on multiple levels) to arm the enemies of our enemies. It was an effort to stop an adversary where they currently were, rather than wait until they got belt buckle to belt buckle with us.

Which is what we are doing in Ukraine.
As we should.


If a Nation is moving to Democracy-based Government and they ask for help defending their freedom, we should give it.

1. Who is moving to "democracy-based government"...certainly not Ukraine...its always been once of the most corrput on earth. And its now a dictatorship in all but name under Zelensky

2. What kind of help? Assistance entering trade organizations and policing corruption? Or are you talking about funding a proxy war with American tax payer cash?
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 12:37p, 7/31/24
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Bear8084 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).
I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.


Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.
The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.
Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...
not as disgusting as the Russian invasion of Ukraine....

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):
  • 400,000 jeeps & trucks
  • 14,000 airplanes
  • 8,000 tractors
  • 13,000 tanks
  • 1.5 million blankets
  • 15 million pairs of army boots
  • 107,000 tons of cotton
  • 2.7 million tons of petrol products
  • 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest. It was an understanding that it benefitted us (on multiple levels) to arm the enemies of our enemies. It was an effort to stop an adversary where they currently were, rather than wait until they got belt buckle to belt buckle with us.

Which is what we are doing in Ukraine.
As we should.


If a Nation is moving to Democracy-based Government and they ask for help defending their freedom, we should give it.

1. Who is moving to "democracy-based government"...certainly not Ukraine...its always been once of the most corrput on earth. And its now a dictatorship in all but name under Zelensky

2. What kind of help? Assistance entering trade organizations and policing corruption? Or are you talking about funding a proxy war with American tax payer cash?
It was Communist, now it wants in to NATO and the EU. That is a move in the right direction. Corrupt? ALL the former Soviet nations have corruption issues. If you are going to wait until the corruption in Eastern Europe goes away, might as well give to Putin.

Support? We are supplying weapons and intel. I am good with that. It will pay for itself later.
Reply Quote
3
First Page Last Page
Page 152 of 168 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.