Ukraine mega thread

I agree with this and IMO it would be "millions" of lives.

Meh. The nuclear threat be like

https://c.tenor.com/GvHEPSHFxfcAAAAd/fighting-dogs-dogs.gif

Meh. The nuclear threat be like

https://c.tenor.com/GvHEPSHFxfcAAAAd/fighting-dogs-dogs.gif

I think this is also called arguing on the internet vs in person

Since I came on venting about Mariupol, I want to say Kudos to the UN and Red Cross for getting all the women and children out of the steel plant. From what Zelensky said, it sounds like there are also ongoing talks about the remaining Ukranian military in the plant.

Ukraine is slow and steady losing group on the eastern front and doesn’t have the ability to retake land…

While Russia performance hasn’t been great, they aren’t exactly losing.

Ukraine is slow and steady losing group on the eastern front and doesn’t have the ability to retake land…

While Russia performance hasn’t been great, they aren’t exactly losing.

Russia has lost ground at the north and south of the contested area in order to put massive amount of fire power in small areas. If Ukraine was allowed to attack the attackers supply in Russia, like they should be allowed, then Russia would not be able to sustain the logistical support in the Donbas region. Once Ukraine is actually using Western arms and able to do more than tread water and delay, they will have the ability to go on the offensive in more locations.

Right now Russia's main advantage is that their supply routes are basically on Russian territory.

Neither side is winning right now, both are suffering heavy casualties and Ukraine's land is being systematically destroyed by an ongoing Russian terror campaign.

Ukraine is slow and steady losing group on the eastern front and doesn’t have the ability to retake land…

While Russia performance hasn’t been great, they aren’t exactly losing.


Ukraine killing Russian troops

Russia killing innocent women and children



chico tell me again who is winning.

Russia has lost ground at the north and south of the contested area in order to put massive amount of fire power in small areas. If Ukraine was allowed to attack the attackers supply in Russia, like they should be allowed, then Russia would not be able to sustain the logistical support in the Donbas region. Once Ukraine is actually using Western arms and able to do more than tread water and delay, they will have the ability to go on the offensive in more locations.

Right now Russia's main advantage is that their supply routes are basically on Russian territory.

Neither side is winning right now, both are suffering heavy casualties and Ukraine's land is being systematically destroyed by an ongoing Russian terror campaign.

It’s gonna be a grind. I know Russia pulled out of a bunch of positions north.

my question too is…are we ok with being the main financier of an unwinnable war?

Politically, Biden negotiated truce to end the war would be huge for him. At this point, if Ukraine cannot reclaim land on an east advance…which they haven’t been able to do…Why destroy the country and kill the innocent?

I would tell the Ukraines, you have to meet some threshold goals and give them a reasonable timeline.

It’s gonna be a grind. I know Russia pulled out of a bunch of positions north.

my question too is…are we ok with being the main financier of an unwinnable war?

Politically, Biden negotiated truce to end the war would be huge for him. At this point, if Ukraine cannot reclaim land on an east advance…which they haven’t been able to do…Why destroy the country and kill the innocent?

I would tell the Ukraines, you have to meet some threshold goals and give them a reasonable timeline.

I think it is in US interests to make sure Russia doesn't win so yes I'd continue to arm the Ukrainians for as long as it takes - that might (and probably will be) years. China is almost certainly looking at this.

BTW technically Russia's invasion is a violation of the UN charter. It is illegal for countries to wage wars of conquest (ie to seize territory to add to their own state) - which is why everyone and their mother went to war with Iraq in 1990-91 and supposedly the international community has an obligation (but not a requirement) to intervene.

It’s gonna be a grind. I know Russia pulled out of a bunch of positions north.

my question too is…are we ok with being the main financier of an unwinnable war?

Politically, Biden negotiated truce to end the war would be huge for him. At this point, if Ukraine cannot reclaim land on an east advance…which they haven’t been able to do…Why destroy the country and kill the innocent?

I would tell the Ukraines, you have to meet some threshold goals and give them a reasonable timeline.

How can you tell another country to accept the mass murder of their innocents, destruction of their infrastructure, and unprovoked aggression on their sovereign territory???? Would you be ok with surrendering Texas if Mexico was launching 200 missiles a day, killing Americans every day, advancing on our territory through blood and destruction?

Ukraine won't accept that, and they have shown they will fight with everything they have. What we do is irrelevant to their will to reclaim their territory. We can only aid or delay their fight. Personally, as I have said, I would give them the weapons they ask for and more, without restriction and allow them to take their land back. For the record, Russia is the one destroying that country and killing innocents, and it is also doing that regardless of what the rest of the world does.

It is a fallacy to say it is an unwinnable war. It is only unwinnable if you put unreasonable constraints on the Ukrainians. Allow them to attack the supply routes, the command centers, and force the Russians to fall back into their own country.

I think it is in US interests to make sure Russia doesn't win so yes I'd continue to arm the Ukrainians for as long as it takes - that might (and probably will be) years. China is almost certainly looking at this.

BTW technically Russia's invasion is a violation of the UN charter. It is illegal for countries to wage wars of conquest (ie to seize territory to add to their own state) - which is why everyone and their mother went to war with Iraq in 1990-91 and supposedly the international community has an obligation (but not a requirement) to intervene.

This! This is not a Russia / NATO issue, it is a UN and international rule of law issue. The UN should have a role in forcing Russia to accept the international norm, unfortunately it is looking more like the league of nations then a foundation for a world that abides by international law.