Why Are We in Ukraine?

418,088 Views | 6287 Replies | Last: 47 min ago by whiterock
ron.reagan
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 • 5:25p, 8/13/24
Sam Lowry said:
The attack on the Kursk region may be the beginning of the military end of Ukraine
Aug 10, 2024
Milena Bogdanova

Attack by the armed forces of Ukraine in the region of Kursk could be the beginning of the military end for Kiev, which could lead to greater territorial losses for Ukraine. This opinion was expressed by the military expert of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Gustav Gressel, in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine.

If Ukraine seeks to hold territory for a few months, it will lead to military costs that can hardly be covered. The expansion of the front line is profitable above all for Russia. "It has more weapons, ammunition and people that it can use on a wider front," says the Austrian specialist. According to him, the effect of surprise threatens to quickly turn against Ukraine.

The expert noted that Moscow could send additional forces to the Kursk region, which would first contain the attacks of the Ukrainian armed forces, and then tire them out. He pointed out that in the meantime, Kiev is exhausting its resources in Donbas, and if the front collapses, then Ukraine will have to one way or another leave the territories in the Kursk region and transfer them again to the east. "There, this could lead to greater territorial losses," noted Gressel.

https://fakti.bg/en/world/903779-the-attack-on-the-kursk-region-may-be-the-beginning-of-the-military-end-of-ukraine
"it will lead to military costs that can hardly be covered. "

lmao
Reply Quote
3
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 ron.reagan • 5:42p, 8/13/24
ron.reagan said:
Sam Lowry said:
The attack on the Kursk region may be the beginning of the military end of Ukraine
Aug 10, 2024
Milena Bogdanova

Attack by the armed forces of Ukraine in the region of Kursk could be the beginning of the military end for Kiev, which could lead to greater territorial losses for Ukraine. This opinion was expressed by the military expert of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Gustav Gressel, in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine.

If Ukraine seeks to hold territory for a few months, it will lead to military costs that can hardly be covered. The expansion of the front line is profitable above all for Russia. "It has more weapons, ammunition and people that it can use on a wider front," says the Austrian specialist. According to him, the effect of surprise threatens to quickly turn against Ukraine.

The expert noted that Moscow could send additional forces to the Kursk region, which would first contain the attacks of the Ukrainian armed forces, and then tire them out. He pointed out that in the meantime, Kiev is exhausting its resources in Donbas, and if the front collapses, then Ukraine will have to one way or another leave the territories in the Kursk region and transfer them again to the east. "There, this could lead to greater territorial losses," noted Gressel.

https://fakti.bg/en/world/903779-the-attack-on-the-kursk-region-may-be-the-beginning-of-the-military-end-of-ukraine
"it will lead to military costs that can hardly be covered. "

lmao
It is one person's opinion. My response, is "Noted"...
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
6:14p, 8/13/24
Gosh I hope the Ukrainians beat back Putler and his Nazis so that Western people don't live under a regime of censorship and thought control…


Reply Quote
1
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
6:45p, 8/13/24
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
8:09a, 8/14/24
Very detailed analysis of the situation as of 5:30pm last night, with geo-cord locations plotted on maps indicating areas controlled and contested.

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
7:47p, 8/14/24
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 whiterock • 8:17p, 8/14/24
whiterock said:
LOL
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
8:35p, 8/14/24
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
8:36p, 8/14/24
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 whiterock • 10:08p, 8/14/24
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
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 Redbrickbear • 10:20p, 8/14/24
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
It's a year-old issue that came to nothing. Had to do with a shortage of ball bearings that peaked in late 2023. Plus the audio is unverified and comes from a Ukrainian who runs a DC think tank.

Russia's rail system won't be collapsing in four days or in the foreseeable future.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
ATL Bear
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 • 10:33p, 8/14/24
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
It's a year-old story that came to nothing.
On this one I'm with you Sam. It's disinformation.
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
9:53p, 8/15/24
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 ATL Bear • 11:16p, 8/15/24
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
It's a year-old story that came to nothing.
On this one I'm with you Sam. It's disinformation.


Disinformation is a perfectly acceptable tool to use in war. But in this case, it's not a tool that's being used. The Russian rail system is teetering….parts of it have already failed. Only Sam would insist that the ongoing war has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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 whiterock • 11:49p, 8/15/24
whiterock said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
It's a year-old story that came to nothing.
On this one I'm with you Sam. It's disinformation.


Disinformation is a perfectly acceptable tool to use in war. But in this case, it's not a tool that's being used. The Russian rail system is teetering….parts of it have already failed. Only Sam would insist that the ongoing war has absolutely nothing to do with it.

LOL
Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:37a, 8/16/24
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
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 Redbrickbear • 11:02a, 8/16/24
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?


All of the above, and more. And the pressures of war magnify the effect of it all.




Reply Quote
1
ATL Bear
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 • 2:19p, 8/16/24
whiterock said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
It's a year-old story that came to nothing.
On this one I'm with you Sam. It's disinformation.


Disinformation is a perfectly acceptable tool to use in war. But in this case, it's not a tool that's being used. The Russian rail system is teetering….parts of it have already failed. Only Sam would insist that the ongoing war has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I understand the value of disinformation, particularly during war. I also understand the strategic benefit of Ukraine's incursion into Kursk. Doesn't change the fact this was easily identifiable disinformation. They certainly can disrupt rail operations in that region, but this was talking about the entire Russian rail system.
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 ATL Bear • 3:23p, 8/16/24
ATL Bear said:
whiterock said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:


What is bringing about the collapse of the entire rail network?

Lack of parts? Bad maintenance? Corruption?
It's a year-old story that came to nothing.
On this one I'm with you Sam. It's disinformation.


Disinformation is a perfectly acceptable tool to use in war. But in this case, it's not a tool that's being used. The Russian rail system is teetering….parts of it have already failed. Only Sam would insist that the ongoing war has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I understand the value of disinformation, particularly during war. I also understand the strategic benefit of Ukraine's incursion into Kursk. Doesn't change the fact this was easily identifiable disinformation. They certainly can disrupt rail operations in that region, but this was talking about the entire Russian rail system.

I laid out a longish list of the strategic benefits a few posts back. And all of them apply. Russia IS having to transfer forces from Zapo to Kursk. It is taking them longer than is helpful for Kursk, which means Ukraine is still advancing. And the effort is greatly straining the Russian railways. Cancellation of routes to Belarus has been mentioned, but that is almost certainly not the only disruption. Just look at what a in Texas thunderstorm does to flight schedules all across the country. And all those disruptions affect the flow of resources to war production, the flow of war production to the front. a well structured market can handle all that far better than a system full of structural inefficiencies and corruption. Add in the exigencies of war needs…..

The old adage applies here…. First, things fail gradually. Then they fail suddenly.

Russia is straining to respond to the Kursk incursion. That is a sign they are struggling elsewhere, too…. They are facing a smorgasbord of bad options

Reply Quote
2
1 edit
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:37p, 8/16/24
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo)……

Reply Quote
1 edit
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 whiterock • 4:14p, 8/16/24
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……



Won't be long til 1/2 million Chinese troops come across the border in Mongolia and just take resources rather than pay Pennie's on the dollar for them. Sam and Kai will be furious. How dare they match into a sovereign nation and think that's ok?!

Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.

I'll sit here and laugh at Russia but still be pissed as they lob missiles into apartment buildings and use Kadyrov to send Uyghurs into the meat grinder.
Reply Quote
4
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:16p, 8/16/24
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 trey3216 • 4:23p, 8/16/24
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse
Reply Quote
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 Redbrickbear • 4:29p, 8/16/24
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse
They have the manpower to conquer Russia (thanks to their horrific blunder in the 'Special Military Operation')... and they will take what they can from them in the coming years.
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
4:35p, 8/16/24
Link to trending stories on Ukrainian destruction of the major bridge over the Seym river, cutting off Russian access to a large amount of territory on the west side of the Ukrainian advance, isolating ca 700 troops, etc......

https://x.com/i/trending/1824478798991200624
Reply Quote
1
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 Redbrickbear • 4:35p, 8/16/24
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse
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 trey3216 • 4:38p, 8/16/24
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse
They have the manpower to conquer Russia (thanks to their horrific blunder in the 'Special Military Operation')... and they will take what they can from them in the coming years.

lol ok well we will see in the future.

Not the problem of Americans at the end of the day who owns Lake Baikal or some frozen Asian lands north of Beijing

But I doubt your prediction comes true
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 trey3216 • 4:38p, 8/16/24
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse

Knowing stuff is lame....
Reply Quote
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 Redbrickbear • 4:44p, 8/16/24
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse

Knowing stuff is lame....
It is. And Iknow you hid "far more often in there" as an attempt of trickery, but longevity of rule is far far far more often in China's favor.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
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 • 4:59p, 8/16/24
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse
They have the manpower to conquer Russia (thanks to their horrific blunder in the 'Special Military Operation')... and they will take what they can from them in the coming years.

lol ok well we will see in the future.

Not the problem of Americans at the end of the day who owns Lake Baikal or some frozen Asian lands north of Beijing

But I doubt your prediction comes true
No, they may not have the manpower in the future. They have it now, which makes them more dangerous in the short term. China STILL has over 4x more reaching military age than we do. Still more than 2x US, Japan and S Korea combined. There is MORE then enough to invade north and south...

What they don't have is Blue-Water experience. The North and Taiwan is about all they can do because they can't operate in Blue Water to move, defend and supply an invasion force outside of the S China Sea. What they will do, deny us use of our bases in the Pacific and keep us back to Pearl and East. While people like you and Sam say "they weren't supposed to be able to do this..."



Population Reaching Military Age Annually by Country (2024) (globalfirepower.com)
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 trey3216 • 5:16p, 8/16/24
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse

Knowing stuff is lame....
It is. .


That's a classic Trey post
Reply Quote
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 Redbrickbear • 5:22p, 8/16/24
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse

Knowing stuff is lame....
It is. .


That's a classic Trey post
We both get told that on a daily basis. It's a classic reflection of the state of this board.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
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 trey3216 • 5:37p, 8/16/24
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
whiterock said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (on Russias eastern border region with NoKo……




Redbrick will chime in with a nice copy/paste from Wikipedia about how Mongolia was property of the Chinese prior to the Khans, just to show how long the Chinese have lavished the idea.


lol more like tell you how China demographically does not have the man power to conquer anyone in the future.

But it interesting how people love to return to this tire out mid 20th century idea of the "endless hordes of Han soldiers" ready to march and conquer at a Dear Leaders whim....its not 1955 anymore

Chinese leaders have no interest in war with a northern neighbor that is securing their frontier and providing them resources for cheap and China being in demographic collapse does have the ability to risk a major war for no real reason.

ps

I don't need wiki to tell me that Mongolia & the Mongols owned China far more often than the reverse

Knowing stuff is lame....
It is. .


That's a classic Trey post
We both get told that on a daily basis. It's a classic reflection of the state of this board.


Oh I thinks it's funny (well most of the time unless that is all someone responds with)

We all have posting styles and certain crutches we rely on when making arguments.

You certainly have me begged on Wiki links!
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:21a, 8/17/24
This is the Battle of the Bulge. I doesn't change the conventional equation for Ukraine in the least. The problem is that Fuhrer didn't have two nuclear reactors he could hit with V2s. This Fuhrer does. It isn't beyond Zelensky to try and cause Chernobyl lite on his way out the door. That is something I would keep a close eye on.
Reply Quote
3 edits
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 Realitybites • 5:27a, 8/17/24
Realitybites said:
This is the Battle of the Bulge. I doesn't change the conventional equation for Ukraine in the least. The problem is that Fuhrer didn't have two nuclear reactors he could hit with V2s. This Fuhrer does. It isn't beyond Zelensky to try and cause Chernobyl lite on his way out the door. That is something I would keep a close eye on.


No one is buying it, Vlad.
Reply Quote
2
First Page Last Page
Page 163 of 180 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.