KaiBear said:
whiterock said:
KaiBear said:
whiterock said:
KaiBear said:
whiterock said:
KaiBear said:
NATO is a shell.
There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.
The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.
Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.
Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.
By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.
This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.
You are nuts.
Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .
They are barely holding on now.
And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.
His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A
As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....
Wars of attrition are ugly things.
No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.
A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.
And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.
Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.
This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.
Bull****
How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below
Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.
Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.
Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.
For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.
All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.
The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.
