O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

Ok sure, war is bad and things are better when there isn't any war. No argument there.

Question was, in your opinion, to get to that point should the US equip the Ukrainians, should someone else equip the Ukrainians, or should nobody equip the Ukrainians?

---

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

It appears that the US weapons can only be used in the Kursk region where Ukraine holds land, hoping that this gives Ukraine some leverage in any peace talks. As for this escalating the war Putin is using troops from that Nutter in North Korea that's not an escalation??????
The only way this war will stop is by Ukraine giving up land and not being allowed to join NATO or the EU which will be a total victory for Putin. This will cause a resistance movement in Ukraine similar to what happened in France and Ireland and give Putin the excuse to invade Ukraine again. The man won't be happy until the USSR Is formed once again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slack_pie

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

---

AFAIK these missiles will be used to reduce Russian capability to attack Ukrainian infrastructure and utilities from Russian territory.

[QUOTE=since41;40604889]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lullapie

(When Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014, the population was nearly all Russian. It may have been a pre-cursor to taking more land, but the Ukraine cause wasn't helped by the snuggling up of the Ukraine to NATO. To the Russians, this was the equivalent of the Cubans taking on Russian Nuclear missiles in 1962 and threatening the US. To Russia, it was a direct threat.

Again, I'm not defending what Russia did in the Crimea, but if you believe in self-determination, then why shouldn't the Crimea be Russian?)

I wonder why it was mainly? Russians.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.o...ign-of-erasure

In Vladivostok a few years ago I had a meal with one of Stalin's transported Tatar's who with thousand of others was sent to Siberia he survived to a ripe old age other did not.

---

Fully agree. I'm not arguing against why the Crimea was mainly Russian. I suggested in my post that the infiltration of ethnic Russians increased dramatically under Stalin. He did the same thing throughout the whole of the USSR. It was his plan to dilute the power of local warlords and religions and raise the influence of Moscow.

The British did the same in Ireland, shipping over thousands of Scottish Protestants to keep the Catholics 'in check'.

I've studied a couple of bits of later Russian history. The invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 while I was at school and, for me more interestingly, the campaigns in the Caucases. The way that Putin dealt with Chechyna and in particularly Grozny, was brilliant in terms of modern warfare. Two previous Russian Presidents had failed against the Wahabbists and lost tens of thousands of young, Russian, soldiers in the process. Putin circled the capital city with tanks, gave everyone 2 weeks to move out, then literally flattened Grozny and killed everyone left in it - thus solving the problem of the Chechnyan 'rebels'. This solidified his status with the Russian people.

Stalin was brutal, but he was what Russia needed. Russia needs strong leaders and the Russian people love them for it. It's impossible for Westerners, without exposure to Russian culture, to understand how the people think. Even to the extent that Russian men don't smile when they are chatting up women, because a man smiling is seen as weak.

I bet there's a few on here would make good Russian men!


This dilution tactic has been widely used in the world over the years. The Israelis, the Turks and more recently in the US, where the Democrats moved thousands of non-Republicans into strong Republican areas to try and tip the balance of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slack_pie

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

---

Great points SP.

The point many are missing, is that it's not about keeping Ukraine independent. That's what the peasants are told to keep them quiet and keep contributing their taxes. There are plenty of big US corporations making billions out of the war in Ukraine at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Those in power keep everyone focused on the minutia, while they get richer on the back of human misery.

Back in the real world the Danes have apparently caught the Chinese ship suspected of snipping cables in the Baltic.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1858964913005170889?s=46

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slack_pie

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

---

A bit like Russia using Iranian drones and North Korean ammunition then? (not on the same size scale agreed but the hypocrisy from Vlad the Invader is staggering). And the recent escalation by both sides is to give a stronger hand in any negotiations, you always negotiate from a position of strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmiffyPie

A bit like Russia using Iranian drones and North Korean ammunition then? (not on the same size scale agreed but the hypocrisy from Vlad the Invader is staggering). And the recent escalation by both sides is to give a stronger hand in any negotiations, you always negotiate from a position of strength.

---

When you have strength, you don't have conflict. Russia has done what is has done because the US and its leaders are weak.

When nuclear weapons were a big thing and 'threatened world peace', the NATO countries didn't start firing them at the Warsaw Pact countries and vice versa to show how powerful they were. They were a deterrent - never used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lullapie

Here, I'll help you. Obviously your google search doesn't stretch to facts:

Operation Ocean Shield - began 2009
US intervention in Libya - 2011
Operation Observant Compass - 2011
US intervention in Niger - 2013
US intervention in Iraq - 2014
US intervention in Syria - 2014
US intervention in Libya - 2015

These were actually taken from Wikipedia - so unless you doubt Wikipedia's authenticity, you ought to agree on these. There were others mentioned on another site, smaller skirmishes, where the US army were sent in to 'deal with insurgents', but the site doesn't have the unbiasedness that Wikipedia has.

---

I didn't do a google search, I asked you a question. Thanks for the answer, rude and condescending as it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bohinen

Of course there needs to be an end to the conflict, what can prolonging it possibly gain? Biden needs stopping now before any more damage is done. I don't care if he supposedly represents the 'left', in fact, I don't believe that for a minute. There is nothing left-wing about starting wars. He represents globalism and big business interests.

It's almost as if he's taking his last chance to make an impact, but do we want a senile old man making these decisions, or rather being too feeble to stand up to those behind him who are pushing him to go further? I have no faith in Starmer to do anything other than tag along either. It's a pity the likes of Tony Benn aren't around anymore to rein him in.

---

Which wars did Biden start?