USSR invades Ukraine. (4 Viewers)

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Because NATO doesn’t want war and thought it could do it without. They 100% want to shift the balance, but Russia has shown they’re a million miles from military capability to do so. The Chinese economy is fucked and the last thing they need is a trade war with the west. Their army has basically never fought in anger. The idea of WW3 is the preserve of weird old men with too much interest in military history who believe China and Russia are some great military superpowers.
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?

Indeed
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Read that earlier and it’s grim but unfortunately the only way Ukraine will get Russia out is with western support on the ground, which won’t happen.
Naive to think that no,there'll always be a member of Eton dreaming of charging down the step?
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Surely you can see the difference between sending arms/aid and sending in soldiers to be killed?
If there’s no risk of it sparking a wider conflict, surely it makes sense for the USA and its allies to crush Russia and restore Ukraine’s territories.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Better to do it without having any Americans killed though, which is exactly what they were doing until the Republicans shat their pants.

You are really making a nonsense of your own argument here
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Better to do it without having any Americans killed though, which is exactly what they were doing until the Republicans shat their pants.
What about the ambassador who was hounded out of it a couple of year's before it all kicked off, don't find that questionable,or see it as Trump aligning with his mate so he can focus his energy on Europe?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
You are really making a nonsense of your own argument here

The US were crippling one of their main adversary's army without losing a man, without having to declare war, just by sending over a load of outdated (to them) kit.

Why would they risk all that by putting boots on the ground?
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
The US were crippling one of their main adversary's army without losing a man, without having to declare war, just by sending over a load of outdated (to them) kit.

Why would they risk all that by putting boots on the ground?
It was hardly crippling them, the whole thing was just a stalemate, especially as the counter-offensive failed.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
It was hardly crippling them, the whole thing was just a stalemate, especially as the counter-offensive failed.

Of course it was. We're over 2 years into a 3 day war in which time they've lost:

Over 300,000 men
Goodness knows how many thousands of tanks
Half of their black sea fleet, including the flagship of that fleet, to a country with no navy
Lost more men taking one small town in 4 months than they did in 10 years of the Soviet afghan war

That is not sustainable.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Of course it was. We're over 2 years into a 3 day war in which time they've lost:

Over 300,000 men
Goodness knows how many thousands of tanks
Half of their black sea fleet, including the flagship of that fleet, to a country with no navy
Lost more men taking one small town in 4 months than they did in 10 years of the Soviet afghan war

That is not sustainable.
And yet the war is still ongoing and Russia has the upper-hand. At this point it is just going to capture more territory and and turn Ukraine into a wasteland.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
And yet the war is still ongoing and Russia has the upper-hand. At this point it is just going to capture more territory and and turn Ukraine into a wasteland.

I said it *was* being crippled.

And Russia has the upper hand purely because US support has dried up. There is a direct correlation.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
I said it *was* being crippled.

And Russia has the upper hand purely because US support has dried up. There is a direct correlation.
…you were using it for a reason as to why they wouldn’t put boots on the ground now. Even when funding was in place it was nothing other than a stalemate that neither side was going to win.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
…you were using it for a reason as to why they wouldn’t put boots on the ground now. Even when funding was in place it was nothing other than a stalemate that neither side was going to win.

A stalemate which was unsustainable for the attacking side taking hugely disproportionate losses.

With funding in place the Russian army was being crippled. Even if it was a stalemate in ground it was not a stalemate in losses, that's what you don't seem to understand.

Without funding they can advance.

This is on Trump and his loyal arse sniffers.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
There's been a lot more of this sort of rhetoric in the last week or so. Europe seems to be finally waking up to what's happening.

Shame we've missed the best chance to drive Russia out of Ukraine (largely thanks to the Republicans, not the EU of course)


 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
No
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?
You can surely see things could escalate without it turning to WW3? Putin is constantly being quoted saying he’ll escalate things and take revenge on any country that puts boots on the ground, not to mention the political ramifications back home of any leader who sends their soldiers to die.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
…you were using it for a reason as to why they wouldn’t put boots on the ground now. Even when funding was in place it was nothing other than a stalemate that neither side was going to win.

It obviously wasn't a stalemate until the Russians pulled back and then had time to dig in. If the West had been willing to provide F-16s and long range ordnance from the start, that might not have happened.

As for the situation now, Ukraine isn't asking for NATO troops, just for enough weapons and ammunition to continue the fight themselves.

Ukraine has already "won" to some degree, given the fact that there's not a puppet Government in Kyiv right now. What they're asking for now is sufficient support to defend what they hold and inflict as much damage as possible on their invaders.

You could reasonably argue that the quickest way to end this could be to give Ukraine as much material support as it asks for. Long range ordnance, aircraft, and ammunition, inevitably makes it considerably more painful for Russia to press on or even keep what they've got.

Putin might want to keep going, but sooner or later the poor bastards on the front line and their families won't. If Ukraine has to negotiate a peace, they need to be able to do so from a position of relative strength.
 

xcraigx

Well-Known Member
It wouldn't be the first time Putin has orchestrated a false flag on his own people. Sounds like dozens have been killed.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
In the UN? It was on a ceasefire in Gaza and Russia and China either abstained or voted against it, which I think ultimately leads to the same result in UN votes IIRC.
Yeah it was more what was the actual vote about really? Did it have conditional clauses of any type?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Yeah it was more what was the actual vote about really? Did it have conditional clauses of any type?

Yes - hostage releases
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
There’d been rumours about dissidents working within Russia, not sure it’ll be a false flag operation. The initial reports coming out about it sound horrendous.

Didn’t the USA issue terror warnings for Moscow relatively recently too?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top