All Things Russia & Ukraine

[njbill]

It was a round robin tournament so there was no actual 'final' game.

Partially correct, but it wasn't a true round robin. It was an odd format, at least odd to me. There was group play, then a medal round. Two groups. Top two teams from each group advanced to the medal round. The medal round wasn't a full round robin among the four remaining teams. In the medal round, the teams only played teams from the other group and did not play a second game against the team in their group that had also advanced to the medal round. Instead, the group results between the two medal round teams from the same group were counted for medal round purposes.

It is a common misconception that the US won the gold when they beat the Russians. As it played out, the US had to beat the Finns to get the gold. In what would have been the most unfair of results, if the US had lost to the Finns, Tucker's team would have won the gold. I think Finland would have won silver and the US bronze, but I'm not positive about that.

Pretty strange way to run a railroad if you ask me (they didn't). Why not have the first place team from group A play the second place team from group B and B-1 play A-2 in the semis, then the winners play in the finals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hocke ... r_Olympics

[Kismet]

Quite right. They did things differently back then. But the Finland game produced once of the memorable locker room speeches of all time by Coach Herb Brooks. So his speech during the second intermission of the Finland game (with the USA down 2-1) was simple, direct, and on target:

“If you lose this game you will take it with you to your effing graves." As he started to leave the locker room, he stopped, turned around and added, "Your effing graves.”

FTR, he didn't use the term effing but it is required here to beat to word censor.

[DocBarrister]

Russian soldiers are dying in greater numbers in Ukraine this month than at any time since the first week of the invasion, according to Ukrainian data.

The Ukrainian data shows 824 Russian soldiers dying per day in February.

The figures were highlighted by the UK's Ministry of Defence. The figures cannot be verified - but the UK says the trends are "likely accurate".

… According to the Ukrainian data, highlighted by the UK, 824 Russian losses a day is more than four times the rate reported in June and July, when around 172 Russian soldiers died each day.

The Ukrainian military claims 137,780 Russian military deaths since the full-scale invasion began.

The UK's MoD pointed out the recent increase could be due to "a range of factors, including lack of trained personnel, coordination, and resources across the front".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64616099.amp

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

Russian soldiers are dying in greater numbers in Ukraine this month than at any time since the first week of the invasion, according to Ukrainian data.

The Ukrainian data shows 824 Russian soldiers dying per day in February.

The figures were highlighted by the UK's Ministry of Defence. The figures cannot be verified - but the UK says the trends are "likely accurate".

… According to the Ukrainian data, highlighted by the UK, 824 Russian losses a day is more than four times the rate reported in June and July, when around 172 Russian soldiers died each day.

The Ukrainian military claims 137,780 Russian military deaths since the full-scale invasion began.

The UK's MoD pointed out the recent increase could be due to "a range of factors, including lack of trained personnel, coordination, and resources across the front".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64616099.amp

DocBarrister

Sympathizers believe Ukraine should give up their country and stop this senseless killing…and save the USA some money too. Win-win.

[njbill]

Quite right. They did things differently back then. But the Finand game produced once of the memorable locker room speeches of all time by Coach Herb Brooks. So his speech during the second intermission of the Finland game (with the USA down 2-1) was simple, direct, and on target:

“If you lose this game you will take it with you to your effing graves." As he started to leave the locker room, he stopped, turned around and added, "Your effing graves.”

FTR, he didn't use the term effing but it is required here to beat to word censor.

One of the all-time great sports motivators of all time. Did I say "all time" twice?

[old salt]

The hell he didn't. He was the first NATO leader to give lethal defensive aid. The Javelins & US tactical training provided during Trump's term were difference makers that kept Ukraine from falling as predicted.

A token amount.

Ten seconds ago, you were claiming that I was the one who doesn't understand what a deterrent was.

Now here you are, bragging about Trump not giving Ukraine anywhere near enough weaponry and training to deter Putin from invading.

Result? Putin invaded.

You should be throwing Trump under the bus with the rest of our leaders who didn't arm Ukraine. You're not, and we all know why.

You want to keep the arming of NATO and Ukraine separate? No problem.

Trump obviously provoked Putin to invade. He bolstered the NATO front after years of neglect, making Russians feel threatened. There's the NATO part. You bragged about this, too, as it happened. Told me to pay attention to what Trumps DOES, instead of what he SAYS. Seems that Putin and the Russians did the same, and felt more pressure from NATO than they had in decades.

And if that wasn't enough to make Russia feel threatened, prompting them to act, Trump started the slow arming of Ukraine, which for hundreds of years was part of Russia. This is Putin's land, after all. And the Black See is his backyard. So Trump made Russia feel even MORE threatened by this new action in Ukraine that others didn't take. That's the Ukraine piece of the puzzle.

So Putin took action against Trump's token defense before the armaments became an actual, real deterrent....and invaded.

Best part?

....You mocked both me and Obama for advocating that America do nothing militarily about Putin's stupidity. Obama's path didn't make Putin and the Russians feel bad about Ukraine....because Obama did nothing about it, outside of pointless sanctions. So Putin left Ukraine alone.

Had we not provided the increased weapons & training provided under Trump (& Mattis), & stayed at the Obama level of support , Ukraine would have fallen.

As I continue to tell you. The limited defensive aid we gave Ukraine was never thought to be sufficient to repel an invasion, or even deter one, if Putin decided to invade. It's goal was to slow an invasion until more military aid could be delivered & prevent the fall of Kyiv & the fall of the country. Mission accomplished. It was never thought to be sufficient to deter an invasion if Putin decided to invade.

The deterrence I reference was the increased US & NATO combat power deployed to NATO's E flank to deter Putin's expansion into NATO territory, as was feared after his 2014 incursion into Ukraine. There's no way we could provide Ukraine the combat power sufficient to deter invasion, short of deploying US &/or NATO forces inside Ukraine to go to war with Russia if they invaded.

Not all military aid is considered sufficient to serve as a deterrent. It's a simple distinction which you fail to acknowledge in your all-or-nothing logic trap.

[old salt]

It would be truly insane for Russia to attack NATO.

Good news. We can bring our tanks back home from Poland again.

[a fan]

Had we not provided the increased weapons & training provided under Trump (& Mattis), & stayed at the Obama level of support , Ukraine would have fallen.

You just can't understand your logic fail.

Why didn't Putin invade under Obama? What changed?

-Trump reinforced NATO's positions adjacent to Russia

-then, fatefully, started to slowly pumping arms and training into Ukraine....that put them on the clock, and into Putin's calculator.

As I continue to tell you. The limited defensive aid we gave Ukraine was never thought to be sufficient to repel an invasion, or even deter one, if Putin decided to invade.

Then why do it? This was OBVIOUSLY a mistake. This applied pressure to the Russians right on their border---the thing YOU keep telling us that's bad--------without giving enough to make Putin understand he can't invade.

What message does that send to Putin? The message is: if you want Ukraine, you better do it now, before the Americans take that option away from you by slowly sending more and more stuff to Ukraine.

Not all military aid is considered sufficient to serve as a deterrent. It's a simple distinction which you fail to acknowledge in your all-or-nothing logic trap.

What the F did you study at the Academy where you are unable to understand that I'm repeating=====and agreeing with=====your assertion that there's a difference between "some arms" and a real defensive deterrent.

I've conceded SEVERAL times now that what you say is true: Trump didn't give Ukraine enough arms to deter Putin to invade. How do I know this? Duh...Putin invaded. Can you shut up about this point now? I agree with you. Get it? Are you SURE you get it and are done pretending I don't get it

Great. Let's move on.

Now that we've set those goalposts in concrete-----the problem with not giving Ukraine a REAL defensive deterrent to Putin is that now Putin is on the clock, and is thinking "how much more crap does Ukraine need before invading Ukraine is simply off the table?"

Obviously he made that calculation, and invaded.

This makes logical sense because Putin didn't invade when Obama left Ukraine alone. He invaded AFTER the US started arming and training Ukrainians.

Simple. Logical. Fits the Scoreboard.

[old salt]

Had we not provided the increased weapons & training provided under Trump (& Mattis), & stayed at the Obama level of support , Ukraine would have fallen.

You just can't understand your logic fail.

Why didn't Putin invade under Obama? What changed?
He did. He took all of Crimea & a big chunk of Donbas.

-Trump reinforced NATO's positions adjacent to Russia

-then, fatefully, started to slowly pumping arms and training into Ukraine....that put them on the clock, and into Putin's calculator.
Putin didn't start his buildup of troops on the border until Zelensky was elected, abandoned Minsk negotiations & asked to join NATO. Putin did not mass troops & invade again until Biden was in office & bungled the Afghan exit fiasco.

As I continue to tell you. The limited defensive aid we gave Ukraine was never thought to be sufficient to repel an invasion, or even deter one, if Putin decided to invade.

Then why do it? This was OBVIOUSLY a mistake. This applied pressure to the Russians right on their border---the thing YOU keep telling us that's bad--------without giving enough to make Putin understand he can't invade.It was not that much.

What message does that send to Putin? The message is: if you want Ukraine, you better do it now, before the Americans take that option away from you by slowly sending more and more stuff to Ukraine. Before he invaded, we weren't sending more & more stuff. Nobody thought Putin would invade (until the last minute) including Zelensky.

Not all military aid is considered sufficient to serve as a deterrent. It's a simple distinction which you fail to acknowledge in your all-or-nothing logic trap.

What the F did you study at the Academy where you are unable to understand that I'm repeating=====and agreeing with=====your assertion that there's a difference between "some arms" and a real defensive deterrent.

I've conceded SEVERAL times now that what you say is true: Trump didn't give Ukraine enough arms to deter Putin to invade. How do I know this? Duh...Putin invaded. Can you shut up about this point now? I agree with you. Get it? Are you SURE you get it and are done pretending I don't get it

Great. Let's move on.
...when did I say Trump gave aid to deter invasion of Ukraine ? We (under Trump & Mattis) increased deployment to NATO's E flank to deter an invasion of NATO territory. How many times do I have to repeat that.

Now that we've set those goalposts in concrete-----the problem with not giving Ukraine a REAL defensive deterrent to Putin is that now Putin is on the clock, and is thinking "how much more crap does Ukraine need before invading Ukraine is simply off the table?"

Obviously he made that calculation, and invaded.

This makes logical sense because Putin didn't invade when Obama left Ukraine alone. He invaded AFTER the US started arming and training Ukrainians.
Putin did invade in 2014. He was content. He had Crimea & the Russian enclaves in Donbas. Then they cut off the water & overland access to Crimea, Zelensky took office, pulled out of the Minsk process, & asked to join NATO.
Simple. Logical. Fits the Scoreboard.

[old salt]

Had we not provided the increased weapons & training provided under Trump (& Mattis), & stayed at the Obama level of support , Ukraine would have fallen.

You just can't understand your logic fail.

Why didn't Putin invade under Obama? What changed?
He did. He took all of Crimea & a big chunk of Donbas.

-Trump reinforced NATO's positions adjacent to Russia

-then, fatefully, started to slowly pumping arms and training into Ukraine....that put them on the clock, and into Putin's calculator.
Putin didn't start his buildup of troops on the border until Zelensky was elected, abandoned Minsk negotiations & asked to join NATO. Putin did not mass troops & invade again until Biden was in office & bungled the Afghan exit fiasco.

As I continue to tell you. The limited defensive aid we gave Ukraine was never thought to be sufficient to repel an invasion, or even deter one, if Putin decided to invade.

Then why do it? This was OBVIOUSLY a mistake. This applied pressure to the Russians right on their border---the thing YOU keep telling us that's bad--------without giving enough to make Putin understand he can't invade.It was not that much.

What message does that send to Putin? The message is: if you want Ukraine, you better do it now, before the Americans take that option away from you by slowly sending more and more stuff to Ukraine. Before he invaded, we weren't sending more & more stuff. Nobody thought Putin would invade (until the last minute) including Zelensky.

Not all military aid is considered sufficient to serve as a deterrent. It's a simple distinction which you fail to acknowledge in your all-or-nothing logic trap.

What the F did you study at the Academy where you are unable to understand that I'm repeating=====and agreeing with=====your assertion that there's a difference between "some arms" and a real defensive deterrent.

I've conceded SEVERAL times now that what you say is true: Trump didn't give Ukraine enough arms to deter Putin to invade. How do I know this? Duh...Putin invaded. Can you shut up about this point now? I agree with you. Get it? Are you SURE you get it and are done pretending I don't get it

Great. Let's move on.
...when did I say Trump gave aid to deter invasion of Ukraine ? We (under Trump & Mattis) increased deployment to NATO's E flank to deter an invasion of NATO territory. How many times do I have to repeat that.

Now that we've set those goalposts in concrete-----the problem with not giving Ukraine a REAL defensive deterrent to Putin is that now Putin is on the clock, and is thinking "how much more crap does Ukraine need before invading Ukraine is simply off the table?"

Obviously he made that calculation, and invaded.

This makes logical sense because Putin didn't invade when Obama left Ukraine alone. He invaded AFTER the US started arming and training Ukrainians.
Putin did invade in 2014. He was content. He had Crimea & the Russian enclaves in Donbas. Then they cut off the water & overland access to Crimea, Zelensky took office, pulled out of the Minsk process, & asked to join NATO.
Simple. Logical. Fits the Scoreboard.
Had we continued the Obama level of support, Russia would now occupy Kyiv, Moldova, Odessa & everything to the E.

[MDlaxfan76]

It would be truly insane for Russia to attack NATO.

Good news. We can bring our tanks back home from Poland again.

It’s insane because of our capacities, and the collective resolve of our allies..

But just because an action would be insane doesn’t mean that it needn’t be deterred by such capacities, indeed quite the opposite.

Which you know, so why say something inane like that?

[a fan]

He did. He took all of Crimea & a big chunk of Donbas.

No. He didn't. Ukraine was left alone. And we'd been talking about Ukraine joining NATO for over 20 years. That was still on the table.

Why didn't he take Ukraine? You can't answer the question.

Putin didn't start his buildup of troops on the border until Zelensky was elected, abandoned Minsk negotiations & asked to join NATO. Putin did not mass troops & invade again until Biden was in office & bungled the Afghan exit fiasco.

So now a USNA grad is telling the class that the "reason" Putin invaded Ukraine was (drumroll) that Biden left Afghanistan.

I want my tax dollars back. There's no chance a USNA grad is this stupid.

Putin invaded because Trump started the slow arming and training of Ukraine....he invaded before he COULDN'T invade.

Zelensky wasn't it. That was May of 2019. If that was it, Putin could have strolled in that summer, and Trump would have done nothing.

It was Trump's arms...that put Ukraine on the clock. And Biden was on deck to send more. Remember?

It was not that much.

Yeah. That's the point. Are you telling me as the resident military expert that Putin should have sat around, and waited for Biden to send more and more and more arms before invading?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/1 ... ons-495169

Putin did invade in 2014. He was content. He had Crimea & the Russian enclaves in Donbas. Then they cut off the water & overland access to Crimea, Zelensky took office, pulled out of the Minsk process, & asked to join NATO.

Been talking about NATO for 20 years. So what? Obviously Putin didn't care. If he did, he would have invaded under Obama. Or Trump.

If Zelensky was the trigger? He would have invaded in summer 2019.

[old salt]

He did. He took all of Crimea & a big chunk of Donbas.

No. He didn't. Ukraine was left alone. And we'd been talking about Ukraine joining NATO for over 20 years. That was still on the table.
Crimea & the Donbas are pert of Ukraine.

Why didn't he take Ukraine? You can't answer the question.
No threat of a NATO base in Crimea until Zelensky became President. He gave up on Ukraine being a compliant neighbor when Zelensky was elected & he saw the neocon crowd (Blinken, Sullivan & Nuland) who Biden put in place & concluded Russia was their ultimate target for fomenting regime change.

Putin didn't start his buildup of troops on the border until Zelensky was elected, abandoned Minsk negotiations & asked to join NATO. Putin did not mass troops & invade again until Biden was in office & bungled the Afghan exit fiasco.

So now a USNA grad is telling the class that the "reason" Putin invaded Ukraine was (drumroll) that Biden left Afghanistan.
It was a contributing factor, not THE reason.

I want my tax dollars back. There's no chance a USNA grad is this stupid.

Putin invaded because Trump started the slow arming and training of Ukraine....he invaded before he COULDN'T invade.

Zelensky wasn't it. That was May of 2019. If that was it, Putin could have strolled in that summer, and Trump would have done nothing.

It was Trump's arms...that put Ukraine on the clock. And Biden was on deck to send more. Remember?

It was not that much.

Yeah. That's the point. Are you telling me as the resident military expert that Putin should have sat around, and waited for Biden to send more and more and more arms before invading?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/1 ... ons-495169
^^^ that aid had not been sent yet. It was assembled as a last minute bargaining chip, after Putin began massing his invaasion force on the border.

Putin did invade in 2014. He was content. He had Crimea & the Russian enclaves in Donbas. Then they cut off the water & overland access to Crimea, Zelensky took office, pulled out of the Minsk process, & asked to join NATO.

Been talking about NATO for 20 years. So what? Obviously Putin didn't care. If he did, he would have invaded under Obama. Or Trump.
Putin was listening the whole time. Warning not to & finally responded when the process started.
If Zelensky was the trigger? He would have invaded in summer 2019.
He did not feel the need to invade as long as Trump was in office. That changed when Biden & the neocons returned to power.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“The Fallacies of Russia’s Apologists”

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/eur ... 69731/?amp

[old salt]

“The Fallacies of Russia’s Apologists”

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/eur ... 69731/?amp

Explaining what prompted Putin's actions is not rationalization or approval.

Putin & his ilk (in Russia & elsewhere) are not going away & we need to understand & anticipate their malevolent actions.

[Farfromgeneva]

Quite right. They did things differently back then. But the Finland game produced once of the memorable locker room speeches of all time by Coach Herb Brooks. So his speech during the second intermission of the Finland game (with the USA down 2-1) was simple, direct, and on target:

“If you lose this game you will take it with you to your effing graves." As he started to leave the locker room, he stopped, turned around and added, "Your effing graves.”

FTR, he didn't use the term effing but it is required here to beat to word censor.

Have you heard of ampersand or exclamation points?

[Typical Lax Dad]

“The Fallacies of Russia’s Apologists”

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/eur ... 69731/?amp

Explaining what prompted Putin's actions is not rationalization or approval.

Putin & his ilk (in Russia & elsewhere) are not going away & we need to understand & anticipate their malevolent actions.

I know the difference. Who said they were going away? I know what’s really going to make Putin NOT go away….SURRENDERING like you keep suggesting.

[old salt]

“The Fallacies of Russia’s Apologists”

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/eur ... 69731/?amp

Explaining what prompted Putin's actions is not rationalization or approval.

Putin & his ilk (in Russia & elsewhere) are not going away & we need to understand & anticipate their malevolent actions.

I know the difference. Who said they were going away? I know what’s really going to make Putin NOT go away….SURRENDERING like you keep suggesting.

Putin may not go away but it would provide Ukraine time to recover & rearm sufficiently to deter further invasion, especially if Crimea & the occupied part of the Donbas were secure as part of Russia. Then there'd be logical, defensible borders. Other issues could be resolved via negotiations & a peace treaty. The war has to eventually end with diplomacy & peace negotiations

[Kismet]

Putin may not go away but it would provide Ukraine time to recover & rearm sufficiently to deter further invasion, especially if Crimea & the occupied part of the Donbas were secure as part of Russia. Then there'd be logical, defensible borders. Other issues could be resolved via negotiations & a peace treaty. The war has to eventually end with diplomacy & peace negotiations

What makes you think Vlad would settle for just the Donbass and Crimea as "logical borders" even as part of your proposed peace plan?

[Farfromgeneva]

Putin may not go away but it would provide Ukraine time to recover & rearm sufficiently to deter further invasion, especially if Crimea & the occupied part of the Donbas were secure as part of Russia. Then there'd be logical, defensible borders. Other issues could be resolved via negotiations & a peace treaty. The war has to eventually end with diplomacy & peace negotiations

What makes you think Vlad would settle for just the Donbass and Crimea as "logical borders" even as part of your proposed peace plan?

There’s no intelligent and thoughtful reason to believe that. None. It’s A fraudulent argument particularly in the context of other arguments made.