Eight hour old story from the BBC. Not a lot of purple on there. Squint real hard and you can see it.
Ukraine. Ukraine. Ukraine.
- Thread starter Llcoolw
- Start date
Eight hour old story from the BBC. Not a lot of purple on there. Squint real hard and you can see it.
YEP.
PROVE ME WRONG, NEVILLE.
NOPE, not "stating the obvious". Going full Donny is what you're doing.
I guess you're right. Ukraine should roll-over and die already. These pesky notions of self-defense and sovereignty just get in the way of going full Donny.
According to you this should have already been over, I guess.
Real life Chamberlain. It's really easy to tell Ukraine that they should just give up and get it over with already like you are.
Lot of Russian airbases to attack in an attempt to destroy offensive capacity though.
Appeasement of a belligerent nation has NEVER worked. Russia has made clear their intent NOT to stop at Ukraine. Their intent is to reunite the entire USSR.
mugatu
Ranger
What non nuclear operational weapons do they have that they haven't used? I follow this and am not aware of much there that isn't being held out for fear of loss or lack of effectiveness.
So I'm clear you think firing missiles at Russian air bases is going to make them less likely to attack and that these air bases now that missiles have been fired are just going to sit there without any type of defensive move. Ok. Also on another note would you like play poker for large amounts of money.
Being the pawn on a chess board between kings has NEVER worked either. That's all Ukraine is.
PROVE ME WRONG, NEVILLE. I think firing missiles at Russian air bases destroys/diminishes Russian counterattack capacities and it's not like they've just been sitting there not attacking Ukraine for the last 1000 days.
You really do think Ukraine should have just rolled over from the beginning and given Putin whatever he wanted. I mean, that's REALLY the only thing you think makes sense for Ukraine to do at this point.
However, the growing emphasis on non-nuclear weapons is surrounded by uncertainty, both conceptually and practically.
You ever had a case where your star witness goes away before they take the stand and you can get a deal where some of the charges stick but you know can't win them all without your witness you just lost?
Full Donny, Non-sequitur is very non-sequitury.
I continue to prosecute such cases using all of evidence and authority I have available to me to get the best deal I possibly can. I don't roll over and show my white soft belly, give up, and just dismiss the case.
The latter is exactly what you are suggesting Ukraine should do.
Can you tell me what "better" deal Ukraine gets in the end of this from NOT continuing to defend themselves by any means available to them that they don't get if they DO continue doing so?
So you make a deal sometimes.....how un Churchill of you. Never never never well sometimes.
I "make a deal" in approximately 95% of my cases. It's called plea bargaining. It is absolutely asinine for you to attempt to equate the prosecution of criminal cases with a country defending their sovereignty and freedom against an attacking force bent on taking them over....yet there you are....going "full Donny" again.
Poor Donny losing his mind over getting called out.
Also, clearly doesn't understand the Churchill quote.
Churchill "made a deal" with Germany at Yalta by your terms/definition.
What he didn't do is fail to prosecute the defense of his country with all means at his disposal in favor of quaking in fear and giving into German demands from the very beginning.
Which is what you're arguing Ukraine should do now.
Unless of course, you can answer my question that you studiously and obviously avoided.
So tell me, what "better" deal Ukraine gets in the end of this from NOT continuing to defend themselves by any means available to them that they don't get if they DO continue doing so?
If you can't give a coherent, rational, non-"fully Donny" answer to that question, you are 100% the surrender monkey that I called you out for being.
Last edited:
mugatu
Ranger
Just so you know, in case you honestly weren't aware.
All of those have been used, many have been shown to be a shell of what was claimed and the head of the program for one was even tried for treason for actual performance vs what was promised.
Most of the advanced weapons have so few numbers that you see them in bunches as they shoot every batch as it gets delivered. I've seen open estimates of tens per months for each category there. The point where single nights they empty the stocks. That's why they don't use huge numbers every day. They don't have the ability to build, partly due to manpower limits, partly cost and partly due to sanctions making the electronics hard to come by.
Adding.
For example their precious "5th gen fighter" has been hand built at a total count of only around 32 after well over a decade. They can't scale up production for certain things.
Adding more.
The reason hypersonic is such a big term in the military community is due to perceived challenges countering such high speed weapons if maneuvering. Russian "hypersonics" have been shot down by Patriot from the start due to their flight profiles are barely tripping that hypersonic line.
Last edited:
Churchill would have been dead without the US and Russia the UK wouldn't have stood a chance. Churchill was an awesome guy with a ton of cool quotes but he had us in his pocket and it's easier to say never never never when you have the US doing most of the fighting on one front and Russia on the other. The US is about to pull out of this......maybe altogether. We agree on that. This isn't black and white. Escalating it in the face of change that could drastically diminish the ability to fight is foolish. That's what I've said.
The Ukraine has the right to defend themselves but they can't. And Zelinsky is no Churchill.
mugatu
Ranger
Playing defensive only isn't going to prevent Russia from just pushing as hard as they can either. Only without the damage to supply lines existing inside Russia. There is no positive to holding missiles inside Ukraine.
mugatu
Ranger
Donny. Trust me, I understand building Russia up to be this huge giant that has unlimited weapons of great capability (I lived that mindset). I get the not wanting to anger the mean giant, but this one is truely paper for conventional forces - other than simply adding more people to the problem.
The truth is that they don't have that great capability. They have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic. They knew they couldn't fight vs NATO conventionally and focused a lot on the nuclear deterrent. Their conventional forces were enough to be respectable and they publically claimed capabilities well beyond true and operational conditions and numbers that were also exaggerated. They have some decent stuff but lagging behind in a lot and due to corruption they often can't afford what they need.
Don't get me wrong they need to be respected as a fighting force - the sheer numbers of people they will sacrifice alone is scarey.
And if your thought is, then why is NATO concerned... never directly put two nuclear superpowers against one another. The conflict won't probably end before it's gone nuclear.
The truth is that they don't have that great capability. They have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic. They knew they couldn't fight vs NATO conventionally and focused a lot on the nuclear deterrent. Their conventional forces were enough to be respectable and they publically claimed capabilities well beyond true and operational conditions and numbers that were also exaggerated. They have some decent stuff but lagging behind in a lot and due to corruption they often can't afford what they need.
Don't get me wrong they need to be respected as a fighting force - the sheer numbers of people they will sacrifice alone is scarey.
And if your thought is, then why is NATO concerned... never directly put two nuclear superpowers against one another. The conflict won't probably end before it's gone nuclear.
So no....you can't answer this question with a rational response....
What "better" deal Ukraine gets in the end of this from NOT continuing to defend themselves by any means available to them that they don't get if they DO continue doing so?
Got it.
Ukraine escalating in defense of their sovereignty has no downside for Ukraine in the eventual deal that might be done. Not using all means available to them to defend themselves in the interim absolutely does.
That Churchill quote is before the US had entered the war against Germany, btw. Also, Britain entered war with Germany in September of 39. Russia and the US didn't declare war on Germany until June and December of 1941.
Last edited:
Ukraine will not win this war in 2 months. There is no positive to escalation by a lame duck pres.
Ukraine escalating in defense of their sovereignty has no downside for Ukraine in the eventual deal that might be done. Not using all means available to them to defend themselves in the interim until then absolutely does.
Similar threads
