All Things Russia & Ukraine

[runrussellrun]

Let us discuss WHO is getting $ome $weet depoi$ts, specifically.....off of this situation.

Loose lips, sinks portfolio's......


Funny, people think "people" blew up the pipeline.....however, $omeone has the "tech" to control an underwater drone.

Pentagon STILL have that website, listing all the.....


dude, don't bother........just ignore yourself.

but, let US not discuss the BIOlabs either.....my bill gates news "feed" has no mention of ......

Was Chauser really just a public relations guy first....

[old salt]

We've gone over this before. The lease was renewed in 2010 in a very contentious vote. Given the way the govt was overthrown in 2014, there was no confidence the lease would be honored, given that those who had voted for it in 2010 were ousted in the 2014 revolution.
The lease was for use of the port of Sevostopol, not all of Crimea. Overland access to the port could be restricted.

Ok...but Putin is dealing with this same situation if the US arms Ukraine to the point where they can't be attacked.

Putin gets the same outcome whether Ukraine is a member of NATO, or is simply a US armed-porcupine, as you put it.

There's no difference. The difference is that Putin still holds Crimea & currently enough land bridge territory for overland access with the rest of Russia, in addition to the Kerch bridge & controls the canal which provides fresh water to Crimea. It solidifies his hold on Crimea & eliminates Ukraine's access to the Sea of Azov. In addition to holding what he can in the Donbas, that fulfills Putin's primary pre-war objectives.

Because NATO could deploy forces on his southern border, as they are now doing in the Poland, the Baltics, & soon to be Finland.
I've answered this before.

What's the difference between a fully American-armed and trained Ukrainian porcupine that Putin can't attack, and NATO backed porcupine that Putin can't attack? Access to offensive weapons which can reach inside Russia. The difference between a neutral or ally buffer state & an armed adversary.

A. Who's to say Biden or future Presidents wouldn't give Ukraine offensive weapons, even if they're not a member of NATO?
That would be a provocative & dumb move, but it could happen, depending on who's President.
F-16's or any 4th gen fighter could try to strike deep inside Russia, but we could limit the weapons provided (& supporting targeting pods & software) to defensive air to air missiles to knock down drones, cruise missiles & Russian strike aircraft.

B. When Trump armed Ukraine with US weapons, Ukraine ceased being a "neutral or ally buffer state", and became "an armed adversary".
Only if attacked because it has been purely defensive weapons, so far.

So you're back to trying to tell me how, in Putin's eyes-----Ukraine that's armed to the teeth by America is any different than a NATO member?
No. The rest of NATO is obligated to come to the defense of any NATO member who is attacked.
NATO is also structured to deploy & fight beyond their own borders. aka projecting power.

I don't get it. I'm not trying to argue----I'm simply trying to understand why it is that you think the two situations are different?
see above

(NATO Ukraine vs. US-armed porcupine Ukraine)
In both cases, Ukraine is off-limits to Putin, correct?
There's no guarantee of NATO support or intervention if not a NATO member.
IF a non-NATO porcupine, Putin (& successors) have to decide if it's worth it.
The results of this war, so far, should discourage them.
Ukraine has the opportunity to become another Israel if they become a corruption free democracy.
They've proven they can fight & adapt to US weapons systems & tactics.
They'd be a better ally for the US than NATO. No free riders or nay sayers.
They've already demonstrated that they will go anywhere to fight alongside US.

[runrussellrun]

aFan wrote:

. Who's to say Biden or future Presidents wouldn't give Ukraine offensive weapons, even if they're not a member of NATO?
That would be a provocative & dumb move, but it could happen, depending on who's President.
F-16's or any 4th gen fighter could try to strike deep inside Russia, but we could limit the weapons provided (& supporting targeting pods & software) to defensive air to air missiles to knock down drones, cruise missiles & Russian strike aircraft.

All the money approved, by, we guess liberal doves, not hawks, goes to .......??????

.....please explain away what the heck an "offensive weapon " is.

We know, you don't even care where the money is "going"

fools.....Tolkein Gulf was real, just like the USS Maine

[a fan]

There's no guarantee of NATO support or intervention if not a NATO member.
IF a non-NATO porcupine, Putin (& successors) have to decide if it's worth it.
The results of this war, so far, should discourage them.
Ukraine has the opportunity to become another Israel if they become a corruption free democracy.
They've proven they can fight & adapt to US weapons systems & tactics.
They'd be a better ally for the US than NATO. No free riders or nay sayers.
They've already demonstrated that they will go anywhere to fight alongside US.

Ok, so we see the same thing, but just have a different take on it.

I believe that Putin saw Trump arming Ukraine (and Biden promising more) as the first step towards your porcupine status....something that's every bit as bad as NATO membership in Putin's eyes. So he invaded before Ukraine was armed to the teeth.

You don't agree. That's fine. I don't understand this view, but that's your view, and you're entitled to it.

See? We can have a conversation. I'll do my best to continue this. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your view.


Bet Putin is kicking himself that he didn't take a sharp right from Crimea, and take Ukraine in 2014, when it was unarmed.

And to my overall reason for trying to understand this mess, it's about future events------- Xi is watching all of this unfold. What's he going to do with what he saw happen to Putin?

[old salt]

There's no guarantee of NATO support or intervention if not a NATO member.
IF a non-NATO porcupine, Putin (& successors) have to decide if it's worth it.
The results of this war, so far, should discourage them.
Ukraine has the opportunity to become another Israel if they become a corruption free democracy.
They've proven they can fight & adapt to US weapons systems & tactics.
They'd be a better ally for the US than NATO. No free riders or nay sayers.
They've already demonstrated that they will go anywhere to fight alongside US.

Ok, so we see the same thing, but just have a different take on it.

I believe that Putin saw Trump arming Ukraine (and Biden promising more) as the first step towards your porcupine status....something that's every bit as bad as NATO membership in Putin's eyes. So he invaded before Ukraine was armed to the teeth.

You don't agree. That's fine. I don't understand this view, but that's your view, and you're entitled to it.

See? We can have a conversation. I'll do my best to continue this. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your view.

Bet Putin is kicking himself that he didn't take a sharp right from Crimea, and take Ukraine in 2014, when it was unarmed.

And to my overall reason for trying to understand this mess, it's about future events------- Xi is watching all of this unfold. What's he going to do with what he saw happen to Putin?

You're right. It's Biden's fault for arming the porcupine.

[a fan]

That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

I know you're giving me grief ......but yes. That's precisely what I think.

Had Biden followed Trump with Obama's hands off policy for Ukraine? I 100% believe that Putin would not have invaded.

It was Trump that put water in the kettle with his arms and training package.

Biden brought that water to a boil by telling Putin even MORE arms and training was coming...and that more was likely coming.

It's obvious---to me, at least---that that's what spurred Putin to invade.

And I know you don't agree, and that's fine.

[old salt]

That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

I know you're giving me grief ......but yes. That's precisely what I think.

Had Biden followed Trump with Obama's hands off policy for Ukraine? I 100% believe that Putin would not have invaded.

It was Trump that put water in the kettle with his arms and training package.

Biden brought that water to a boil by telling Putin even MORE arms and training was coming...and that more was likely coming.

It's obvious---to me, at least---that that's what spurred Putin to invade.

And I know you don't agree, and that's fine.

Who knows ? imho -- Putin was going to move when he didn't have a supplicant leader in Kyiv who would be his ally (like in Belarus) & would move Ukraine west into NATO & the EU. Especially after he saw how ez it was to seize & hold Crimea & the Donbas enclave in 2014.
I think that's a much bigger factor than how much military aid the US gave & when. But you've got your teeth in that hypothetical bone so I give up trying to persuade you otherwise.

[old salt]

Reaper drone ==> splash. ...who could have seen that coming ?

Regarding giving Reapers to Ukraine -- look how ez they'd be to bring down if the Russians shoot at them.

How does this compare with assassinating an Austrian ArchDuke ?

[MDlaxfan76]

And I think it was simply the concern that if he didn't move fast, the window on his ambitions would close.

But I don't blame the Ukrainians or Biden or Trump or...whoever, for wanting to close that window (not so sure Trump did; I think he'd have been rolled by Putin)...it was only a matter of time before Putin's ambition needed to be fully satisfied...either through corrupting the Ukrainian government into submission or by force into submission...one way or another, his ambition needed to be slaked.

It was that overweening ambition that is to blame, nothing else.

[a fan]

That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

I know you're giving me grief ......but yes. That's precisely what I think.

Had Biden followed Trump with Obama's hands off policy for Ukraine? I 100% believe that Putin would not have invaded.

It was Trump that put water in the kettle with his arms and training package.

Biden brought that water to a boil by telling Putin even MORE arms and training was coming...and that more was likely coming.

It's obvious---to me, at least---that that's what spurred Putin to invade.

And I know you don't agree, and that's fine.

Who knows ? imho -- Putin was going to move when he didn't have a supplicant leader in Kyiv who would be his ally (like in Belarus) & would move Ukraine west into NATO & the EU. Especially after he saw how ez it was to seize & hold Crimea & the Donbas enclave in 2014.
I think that's a much bigger factor than how much military aid the US gave & when. But you've got your teeth in that hypothetical bone so I give up trying to persuade you otherwise.

Are you any different with your bone? I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We've laid out our timelines. My opinion is that if you were right, Putin would have warmed up the tanks, and invaded in 2019, when Z was elected.

He's 80. It's not like he can be patient with this stuff.

And every piece I read says that Putin killed any heirs to his line of thinking.

[old salt]

I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man.

Give up.

[MDlaxfan76]

That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

I know you're giving me grief ......but yes. That's precisely what I think.

Had Biden followed Trump with Obama's hands off policy for Ukraine? I 100% believe that Putin would not have invaded.

It was Trump that put water in the kettle with his arms and training package.

Biden brought that water to a boil by telling Putin even MORE arms and training was coming...and that more was likely coming.

It's obvious---to me, at least---that that's what spurred Putin to invade.

And I know you don't agree, and that's fine.

Who knows ? imho -- Putin was going to move when he didn't have a supplicant leader in Kyiv who would be his ally (like in Belarus) & would move Ukraine west into NATO & the EU. Especially after he saw how ez it was to seize & hold Crimea & the Donbas enclave in 2014.
I think that's a much bigger factor than how much military aid the US gave & when. But you've got your teeth in that hypothetical bone so I give up trying to persuade you otherwise.

Are you any different with your bone? I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We've laid out our timelines. My opinion is that if you were right, Putin would have warmed up the tanks, and invaded in 2019, when Z was elected.

He's 80. It's not like he can be patient with this stuff.

And every piece I read says that Putin killed any heirs to his line of thinking.

He's 70, has quite a few 'bad' years left.

[a fan]

I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man.

Give up.

It's my Dad on steroids.....weird thing about your generation, where admitting you were wrong is for some weird reason taken as a sign of weakness. Or worse, considering other opinions, and admitting that someone else's opinion makes more sense than your own.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude. I don't get it. But......okay.

Wives everywhere figured you guys out, and say "you have to make him think it's his idea".

[a fan]

That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

I know you're giving me grief ......but yes. That's precisely what I think.

Had Biden followed Trump with Obama's hands off policy for Ukraine? I 100% believe that Putin would not have invaded.

It was Trump that put water in the kettle with his arms and training package.

Biden brought that water to a boil by telling Putin even MORE arms and training was coming...and that more was likely coming.

It's obvious---to me, at least---that that's what spurred Putin to invade.

And I know you don't agree, and that's fine.

Who knows ? imho -- Putin was going to move when he didn't have a supplicant leader in Kyiv who would be his ally (like in Belarus) & would move Ukraine west into NATO & the EU. Especially after he saw how ez it was to seize & hold Crimea & the Donbas enclave in 2014.
I think that's a much bigger factor than how much military aid the US gave & when. But you've got your teeth in that hypothetical bone so I give up trying to persuade you otherwise.

Are you any different with your bone? I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We've laid out our timelines. My opinion is that if you were right, Putin would have warmed up the tanks, and invaded in 2019, when Z was elected.

He's 80. It's not like he can be patient with this stuff.

And every piece I read says that Putin killed any heirs to his line of thinking.

He's 70, has quite a few 'bad' years left.

You're right....I flipped Biden and Putin's ages...thank you.

(see Old Salt......not a big deal)

[Farfromgeneva]

That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

I know you're giving me grief ......but yes. That's precisely what I think.

Had Biden followed Trump with Obama's hands off policy for Ukraine? I 100% believe that Putin would not have invaded.

It was Trump that put water in the kettle with his arms and training package.

Biden brought that water to a boil by telling Putin even MORE arms and training was coming...and that more was likely coming.

It's obvious---to me, at least---that that's what spurred Putin to invade.

And I know you don't agree, and that's fine.

Who knows ? imho -- Putin was going to move when he didn't have a supplicant leader in Kyiv who would be his ally (like in Belarus) & would move Ukraine west into NATO & the EU. Especially after he saw how ez it was to seize & hold Crimea & the Donbas enclave in 2014.
I think that's a much bigger factor than how much military aid the US gave & when. But you've got your teeth in that hypothetical bone so I give up trying to persuade you otherwise.

Are you any different with your bone? I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We've laid out our timelines. My opinion is that if you were right, Putin would have warmed up the tanks, and invaded in 2019, when Z was elected.

He's 80. It's not like he can be patient with this stuff.

And every piece I read says that Putin killed any heirs to his line of thinking.

He's 70, has quite a few 'bad' years left.

You're right....I flipped Biden and Putin's ages...thank you.

(see Old Salt......not a big deal)

Having a daughter under 18 allows a number of free passes

[old salt]

I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man.

Give up.

It's my Dad on steroids.....weird thing about your generation, where admitting you were wrong is for some weird reason taken as a sign of weakness. Or worse, considering other opinions, and admitting that someone else's opinion makes more sense than your own.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude. I don't get it. But......okay.

Weird thing about your generation. No sense of humor.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude, Meathead.

[old salt]

Next step. We relaunch a Reaper drone with a CAP of armed fighters. See where this is heading ?

Use our F-22's in Poland. It'll be a good op test.

[a fan]

I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man.

Give up.

It's my Dad on steroids.....weird thing about your generation, where admitting you were wrong is for some weird reason taken as a sign of weakness. Or worse, considering other opinions, and admitting that someone else's opinion makes more sense than your own.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude. I don't get it. But......okay.

Weird thing about your generation. No sense of humor.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude, Meathead.

That's right, Archie! The knife cuts both ways! You got it! Neither of us are perfect. It's just that only one of us will cop to that. (raises hand)

I will say, though, that when I have turned the humor up on you....that's when you get the most annoyed with me, and the other posters have a laugh.

Just like Archie, when he gets made fun of......

[old salt]

I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, my man.

Give up.

It's my Dad on steroids.....weird thing about your generation, where admitting you were wrong is for some weird reason taken as a sign of weakness. Or worse, considering other opinions, and admitting that someone else's opinion makes more sense than your own.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude. I don't get it. But......okay.

Weird thing about your generation. No sense of humor.

Countless American sitcoms have been written based around this attitude, Meathead.

That's right, Archie! The knife cuts both ways! You got it! Neither of us are perfect. It's just that only one of us will cop to that. (raises hand)

I will say, though, that when I have turned the humor up on you....that's when you get the most annoyed with me, and the other posters have a laugh.

Just like Archie, when he gets made fun of......

It's difficult to distinguish your humor from snark. Get funnier.

[a fan]

It's difficult to distinguish your humor from snark. Get funnier.

Can't. You get upset when I get funnier.

You making fun of me a few posts ago? Saying that you agree that "it's Biden's fault" that Putin invaded, turning the tables on me?

That was funny....you were giving me sh(t.

When I do that to you? You get mad. So sorry, I don't get to be funny with you.