Should we still be backing Ukraine?

[Bobby_2021]

10 minutes ago, enchanted said:

If fools like us on a forum can't agree what chance the world have? Who is willing to capitulate? 

You will never get everyone to agree.

At the same time, most sane people agree on most matters. But you wouldn't see a heated conversation between them. All the conversations are between people who disagree with each other, and they tend to make the most noise. The important thing is to have sane conversations.

[enchanted]

14 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You will never get everyone to agree.

At the same time, most sane people agree on most matters. But you wouldn't see a heated conversation between them. All the conversations are between people who disagree with each other, and they tend to make the most noise. The important thing is to have sane conversations.

Good points. If all soldiers across the world refused to fight there would be peace. 

[BlueOak]

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You said it's a lie.

Never mind. You are not in a sane state to discuss thematter. Come back after some time, preferably a day or two. We are good.

I've just quoted exactly what I said. I said the man's comment about people ignoring Russia was a lie, and they are straight out of Putin's mouth. There were repeated attempts and talks. He might not like the words or results, as you don't, but to pretend they didn't happen is a lie. I even told you why that was the case.

Someone challenging your narrative upsets you like it does Putin, I understand, but when you feel that and get petty, question why rather than insult the person doing it.

[Bobby_2021]

Most of you might think that the biggest hubris of the situation has to do with making the Russians feel like the possibility of Ukraine membership of NATO was real.

But in reality, even the US never really did have a plan to let Ukraine into NATO. They simply held on to their "open door" policy which they selectively apply when it suits their agenda.

The biggest loser of this war is the Ukrainian citizens who are being used a pawns in a war between the two giants.

Edited April 11 by Bobby_2021

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, enchanted said:

If fools like us on a forum can't agree what chance the world have? Who is willing to capitulate? 

Because all sides want something the others cannot give, force became the only way to settle it.

There will likely be no capitulation, just an eventual stalemate where the lines are held. Such large amounts of territory don't change hands overnight, and the death toll for each country won't be forgotten for generations. Russia will be involved in Ukraine for decades now, whatever anyone's judgment of their victories/defeats, reasons, or motivations.

What could motivate Ukraine to lose land, not join NATO, and demilitarize? Nobody will agree to that after this war.
Russia to give up the land it's taken, or stop Ukraine from joining NATO. Nothing.
Europe to stop supporting Ukraine in defending its eastern flank from Russia? Nothing.
China or Iran from supplying what Russia needs to keep fighting, or BRICS generally from helping its economy? Nothing.

However, the Americans holding up arms shipments are giving Russia a large advantage in firepower, so they may crack the front in an area. The recent attacks across the front didn't make headway, thankfully. 
 The American government has been infiltrated more successfully than most by Russian interests and propaganda.

Another thing about democracies that authoritarians have historically underestimated is the level of resistance in their occupied areas.

Edited April 11 by BlueOak

[Raze]

Interesting debate on the subject 

Quote

Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States has provided more than $75 billion in aid to Ukraine, which has been directed toward military operations, economic support, and humanitarian assistance. As the war has gone on, members of Congress have questioned whether we have done enough to help the country and if continuing funding is sustainable. Those who want to continue funding Ukraine say the U.S. has a moral obligation to support the country in its time of need, it sustains alliances while serving strategic interests, and it demonstrates the U.S.’s support of democratic values and sovereignty. Those arguing it’s time to end the funding say that it diverts necessary resources that could go toward domestic and foreign priorities. They also question whether the funds are being used efficiently, whether the war is winnable, and whether providing military aid is genuinely contributing to a path toward peace.

 

Edited April 13 by Raze

[Bobby_2021]

Do you want more people dead, turn Ukraine into a wasteland, give more territory to Putin and a higer negotiation power and more natural resources of Ukraine?

Or 

Everything opposite to that.

It's a matter of choice.

Make no mistake. There is not a single chance that Ukraine is winning. It will lose more territory over time into Putin's hands. 

The west don't want to admit fault and keep dragging this on. 

[Ajay0]

On 4/11/2024 at 7:41 PM, BlueOak said:

India is not neutral, and neither are you. They support Russia economically and allow it to continue to finance the war, that is choosing a side, as is your preference for the dictator to win his war.
 

On 4/9/2024 at 0:39 PM, BlueOak said:

Yes, India is not neutral in this either, I've seen many people in India cheering on these conflicts, probably because they can do so from relative safety.

US is a strategic partner to India with respect to containment of China, which has emerged as a political, economic and military superpower in its own right, and is considered a far bigger threat than Russia.

Chinese army and navy is superior in numbers to the US, and the difference is growing as well.

Biden had also stated that he does not support Taiwan's independence, clearly showing US weakness and wariness in taking on China.

https://www.deccanherald.com/world/us-does-not-support-taiwan-independence-says-biden-2848032

This was the reason for US-India strategic relationship for containment of China's exponentially growing power.

However this does not equate with India's interests being aligned with US-NATO.

US-NATO's defeat by Taliban in 2021 after sustaining heavy casualties and trillions of dollars down the drain, showcased its military and political limitations. Their military inability to effectively counter Houthi attacks on the Red Sea has now hiked shipping costs further causing economic damage to the recession hit west.

China already have a good working relationship with neighboring Russia, and a Russia-China coalition against India can do much strategic damage to the latter.

Also around 70 percent of Indian military hardware is from the Russians due to their cost-effectiveness and willingness to transfer military technology such as nuclear submarines. Western weaponry on the other hand is highly expensive and they were also not willing to transfer the same military technologies.

It is for these reasons that India has a good relationship with Russia and it cannot ill-afford to antagonize it and make it go completely to the Chinese side.

Even though India is considered as the world's largest democracy, western nations had traditionally aligned with the long running military dictatorship in Pakistan considering that Pakistan was a major market of western military weaponry bought heavily by the unregulated military dictatorship. It was 9/11 and dramatic rise in Islamic terrorism that prompted western nations to change their focus to India.  India's fast rising economy after the 1990 economic liberalisation reforms also presented a far more lucrative market as well.

India has started indigenizing much of its weaponry and also diversified and increased its weapons imports from France, spain, South Korea and US, so as to reduce its strategic dependence on Russia. However this is a process that will take some time.

Edited April 13 by Ajay0

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Do you want more people dead, turn Ukraine into a wasteland, give more territory to Putin and a higer negotiation power and more natural resources of Ukraine?

Or 

Everything opposite to that.

It's a matter of choice.

Make no mistake. There is not a single chance that Ukraine is winning. It will lose more territory over time into Putin's hands. 

The west don't want to admit fault and keep dragging this on. 

Oh the west, let's do the BRICS version? It's always fun generalizing.

Do you want dictatorships to keep invading Ukraine, to return to a state where countries keep fighting wars over borders, where China keeps expanding, Iran keeps expanding, and Russia keeps expanding? Where they can threaten nukes, food, and wage wars of terror against populations for us to cave to their demands. Where they silence dissent, and assassinate those who disagree with their worldview. Steal technologies, mess around in elections, and infiltrate our governments?

Do you want to return to a time when nation-states fought over land, and petty egoic dictators could slaughter hundreds of thousands of people with no resistance or because their ego got in the way?

or

Everything the opposite of that?

It's a matter of choice.
Make no mistake. There is not a single chance Russia is winning. It will continue to throw its population away, be swallowed up by China, and let its influence decay into a shell of its former of its self.

BRICS can't admit fault and keeps dragging this on.
 

[Ajay0]

19 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Make no mistake. There is not a single chance Russia is winning.

It is not correct to under-assess Russian military capabilities. Inspite of all the volunteers and aid the west has poured into Ukraine, Russia is still progressively gaining more Ukrainian territory, and even western propagandists have sobered down in recent times as their predictions of russian collapse a year back has not materialised.

The Russians have a proud military tradition, being the ones who ended Napoleon's dictatorship and the Nazi war machine, which were the greatest military powers in their time.  

Their economy has also improved more than any G7 nation. Even now, Europe still buys gas worth billions of dollars from Russia amply replenishing its war chest.

The US has also recently stated that China is boosting the Russian military capabilities.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/china-supporting-russia-in-massive-military-expansion-us-says

I am sorry to see all this conflict  which I find nonsensical in the first place. It is a failure of the UN and NAM ( non-aligned movement) to prevent conflict by creating the necessary diplomatic mechanisms for peace and consensus in this regard. 

 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Ajay0 said:

It is not correct to under-assess Russian military capabilities

Russian army is much better than how they were in the beginning. Most people don't take that into consideration.

The liberal world order collapsing right in front of us.

Wish they had some sympathy to those people with families. How many kids and women will have to live without ever seeing dads.

[Bobby_2021]

1. Not One Inch, America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate

By M. E. Sarotte

2. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

by John Joseph Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

Highly recommend reading these two books. 

[Karmadhi]

On 4/11/2024 at 3:16 PM, enchanted said:

"Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War included six deaths during the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, 14,200–14,400 military and civilian deaths during the War in Donbas, and up to 500,000 estimated casualties during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

500000 is alot of people. You can call it genocide or whatever you want. 

Most are soldiers and more than half are Russian soldiers.

In Ukraine you have around 11.000 confirmed civilian deaths and around 100.000 or so soldiers estimated dead.

How can it be genocide when 10 times more soldiers have died?

That is standard war and it actually a good ratio.

In genocides you have far more civilians dying than soldiers.

[Karmadhi]

On 4/11/2024 at 4:21 PM, BlueOak said:

We can look at a few, let's start with an older one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

That was like 90 years ago. Germany did same to Ukraine if not worse. And that was Stalin who was a Georgian dictator. 

On 4/11/2024 at 4:21 PM, BlueOak said:

Conclusion: Never let the Russian population settle in your country, and stop teaching the Russian language so they can't use that nonsense as an excuse for war. All I heard at the start of this war, was to protect the Russian speakers! Despite the fact, most spoke Ukrainian too and there was no tension previous to Russia's meddling and malice.

Actually there was a small scale war there for 10 years and Ukraine did bomb civilians on some occasions and did some atrocities here and there via Azof Briagate. It is not just for language. It is just that Russia overhyped this a lot to gain support for the war.

On 4/11/2024 at 4:21 PM, BlueOak said:

It's closer to ethnic cleansing. Russia either shipped out Ukrainians living in those regions, including children, which is what Putin's war crime charges are, then brought in Russians to replace them, or directly conscripted Ukrainian men, forcing them into the LPR and DPR forces to fight their countrymen.

Yes definitely ethnic cleansing. However, I noticed it is usually to Ukranian activists rather than normal Ukrainians. If you do not cause trouble to the new Russian management they leave you alone. Proper ethnic cleansing is based on ethnicity, here it seems to be more based on behavior which is less bad (but still bad).

On 4/11/2024 at 4:21 PM, BlueOak said:

Doing that is illegal in war, but what do BRICS and Russia care for the law or the rules we live by? Not much from what I've seen.

Same as Israel and most of the West for funding their bullshit. The West is not better than BRICS when it comes to war crime tolerance when it involves an ally of theirs.

Issue I have with Ukraine war is that the civilian death toll seems very low to me relative to the military deaths, population size and time frame of the war. 

So far I see 11.000 civilians have reported to be dead from the war and it is estimated close to 100.000 soliders. That is a very good ratio actually for war. Especially considering it involves Russia and has been going on for 2 years on a country with a huge population.

When this war started I expected honestly the civilian death toll to be at least 100.000 at this point, 10.000 is remarkably low. Hence "genocide" is a ridicioulous term.

In comparison in Gaza you have 2 to 3 times the civilian death toll in a country with 20 times less people and 1/4 of the time frame.

In Ukraine if you adjust it, the civilian death toll would have been around 400.000. Meanwhile it is 10.000 to 15.000 .

 

Edited April 13 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

@Ajay0

The Russian military is badly equipped, badly trained, has bad supply lines, daily partisan activity within its borders, has no officer core, increasingly less control over its industries (china buying them up), and little discipline

They have numbers, and more weapons now since America is not continuing to back Ukraine - I'm just going to call that like it is. This makes it doubly silly when people try to talk about America being the belligerent factor here.

The Russian economy is Chinese. Nobody fights an expensive large war on its doorstep and increases the power of its economy. China is slowly buying Russia up. Again, this is not a terrible result for the West, because Russia has become China's proxy between NATO and China. Do you honestly think Europe, with an economy ten times the size of Russia, is suffering more than Russia domestically? They can't even maintain their dams or infrastructure, outside of the two cities Moscow and St Petersburg that they show off to the world

Russia is a decaying country that's had millions of young people leave it and for good reason, it's not a global power, it's a regional power that spends and maintains a military as if it were a superpower. It's an old empire that wants to be bigger than it is (like England used to be), and everyone in this war (at least those of us watching the ground action) has seen how ineffectual the Russians are against a country half its size, who didn't even have much of a military before this country began.

People have been telling me for over two years, just wait, just wait, Russia is close. Even out shooting Ukraine 10 to 1, if you believe the reports, they are stuck in the same place they've always been: Throwing mass numbers of bodies into a meat grinder and getting a few hundred meters out of it.

 

@Karmadhi

7 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Yes definitely ethnic cleansing. However, I noticed it is usually to Ukranian activists rather than normal Ukrainians. If you do not cause trouble to the new Russian management they leave you alone. Proper ethnic cleansing is based on ethnicity, here it seems to be more based on behavior which is less bad (but still bad).

Firstly, thank you for being the first pro-Russian supporter who acknowledges ethnic cleansing regardless of where it happens on a map. I genuinely appreciated someone who didn't try to pretend something didn't happen.

Those who are compliant will still be conscripted. In democratic countries, we don't bow down to dictators, we resist them. A dictator is functionally different from a democracy, and the populations are going to resist when they are placed under one. - A miscalculation from Russia is how the local population was going to receive them.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1147082

Even the UN acknowledges 30,000 civilians dead, and 70,000 injured. What's usually known as 100,000 civilian casualties in common reporting. They also acknowledge that the death toll will be higher than this. This is without access to the graveyard that was Mariupol, the cities in the east that were flattened, or taking into account every civilian Russia illegally conscripted in the LPR, DPR to fight their own country, and killed for resisting them in the occupied areas.

The Azov Brigade again? That was a few hundred people who were reorganized into a proper military unit before the war, and the leader left the unit. Russia's LPR and DPR militias were active in that region, armed, and given manpower by Russia to cause trouble in the area. Amazingly, people think that out of nowhere, a peaceful region suddenly becomes hostile on its own. - A coup happened, Russia obviously didn't like this and started trying to break those regions away through the militias, which caused a low-level conflict, and when it realized it couldn't, this became one more reason for it to invade.

Edited April 14 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Firstly, thank you for being the first pro-Russian supporter

I am not a pro Russian supporter. I support Ukraine and I think what Russia is doing is wrong. However I do not like the naive idea that "Ukraine will win and take all its land back", especially in this long atriction war so they should try to do a peace deal and cut their looses now. I am looking at this from Ukraine's interest. Russia would loose from a peace deal now because they are on their way on annexing more land. Ukraine would win as it would stop the taking of land. But their overly nationalistic government is pushing for "absolute victory" which is quite toxic in the current situation where they barely have any more aid and running out of men.

I find it disturbing that just telling Ukraine to cut their looses makes you "pro russian". Ironically being Pro Russian you should want the war to go on since it will mean Russia will take more land from Ukraine.

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

In democratic countries, we don't bow down to dictators, we resist them. A dictator is functionally different from a democracy, and the populations are going to resist when they are placed under one

You need to be pragmatic about things. Futile resistance will only get you killed. Ukraine lived for decades under the USSR without much resistance. They are not new to this thing. Being dead is worse than living under Russia. 

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Even the UN acknowledges 30,000 civilians dead, and 70,000 injured. What's usually known as 100,000 civilian casualties in common reporting.

You sent an article about Gaza. I am talking about Ukraine civilian deaths here. https://ukraine.un.org/en/253322-civilian-deaths-ukraine-war-top-10000-un-says

Meanwhile 10 times more soldiers have died.

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

This is without access to the graveyard that was Mariupol, the cities in the east that were flattened, or taking into account every civilian Russia illegally conscripted in the LPR, DPR to fight their own country, and killed for resisting them in the occupied areas.

Mauripol has no clear death toll but there was an independent study which I think is the most accurate and it put it at around 8000.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/more-than-8000-killed-during-2022-mariupol-siege-human-rights-watch-2024-02-08/

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

The Azov Brigade again? That was a few hundred people who were reorganized into a proper military unit before the war, and the leader left the unit. Russia's LPR and DPR militias were active in that region, armed, and given manpower by Russia to cause trouble in the area.

I am not very informed on that. Maybe you are right. But I did read they did some crimes.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/09/ukraine-must-stop-ongoing-abuses-and-war-crimes-pro-ukrainian-volunteer-forces/

 

Edited April 14 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

@Karmadhi

Apologies for linking the wrong article, I must have had a few open that day with everything going on.

Most people did not have time to evacuate the areas under Russian occupation closer to the border, so cities like Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk, or Lysychansk have high death tolls. I watched the devastation done to those places in the early days, and the civilians caught up in it. This is why I cannot consider the UN numbers to be serious. Much of those areas were completely wiped out.

It is a pro-Russian position to tell anyone to surrender ground to appease the Russians for the second time, in the face of their 8th war in former USSR territories and an aggressive BRICS posture. It's frankly stupid to not acknowledge what that pattern brings. Unless Ukraine is put into NATO, Russia just rearms, reorganizes, and goes again for the third time. This is a clear pattern now, and Putin has repeatedly told us the territory he wants to recover. He'll keep doing so till he's stopped. It is also a reality that if someone can commit terror against a civilian population over two years, threaten nukes, cut off food supplies, and blackmail energy supplies, they will use these tools again if they succeed. It normalizes it for other countries to do so, such as Hamas to blanket target masses of civilians, or Israel to ethnically cleanse an area.

As for futile resistance, it hasn't been futile so far, not while Ukraine has had the weapons to defend itself. Ukraine kicked Russia out of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Kherson, now holding the line despite being outshot by artillery 10 to 1. 

We are not talking about 2 people fighting, and one of them has moved away. That's 40 million people, many of whom live in those areas, and have had family and friends killed, tortured, or conscripted to fight for the Russians. There will be violence in these regions now regardless, because of the assumed, not accepted, change of authority. Authority doesn't shift because someone says that's the border now, millions of people don't just shrug, and say okay Russia, let's go back 30 years to the USSR days. There'll be violence in those areas for decades and a permanent military presence needed along the now-extended border and within the territory itself.

Russia is a regressive, backward country run by corrupt despots who spend too much money on their military at the cost of their people. People are leaving en masse because they don't want to live there. Why would anyone outside of Russia want to go back 30 years to the USSR days, especially after all this bloodshed and terror Putin has inflicted on them?

Ukraine can take back its territory if America gives it the weapons to do so. They are not doing this, they have cut off weapon supplies because the American government has gone so far right that it now drinks the Russian propaganda. I just wish people would be honest about things, half of America backs Russia, and is in favor of a tyrant. America isn't a democratic leader anymore, it's falling into fascism. 

Edited April 14 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

This is why I cannot consider the UN numbers to be serious. M

I do not either. But the study I sent is from Human rights watch and is far more extensive. It seems the most accurate number. Keep in mind both Ukraine and Russia will not be honest on this. Russia will downgrade while Ukraine will inflate the numbers. They do the same regarding soldiers dead. 

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Unless Ukraine is put into NATO, Russia just rearms, reorganizes, and goes again for the third time.

You do realize if this keeps going on the same pace, there will not be an Ukraine to add in NATO anymore.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

s for futile resistance, it hasn't been futile so far, not while Ukraine has had the weapons to defend itself. Ukraine kicked Russia out of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Kherson, now holding the line despite being outshot by artillery 10 to 1. 

They did kick them out because Russia was sucking at first and was over extended. They had a small invasion force relative to Ukraine. Of course they will be kicked out. Now their army is growing while Ukraine is shrinking due to Russia having 4x the population. 

Also take into account that defending is always easier than attacking. Ukraine tried to take land back in 2023 WITH A LOT of NATO equipment yet it failed horribly. Russia managed to create amaizing defenses which stopped Ukraine. Those defenses are still there. Even with the US aid it is doubtful that it will be breached considering a NATO armed Ukraine failed to do it less year. And Ukraine is now weaker (less men) while Russia is stronger. All NATO aid will do is not allow Russia to take further land from Ukraine. Which can be resolved with a peace deal. Worst case it will give Ukraine time to dig in some good defenses and arm itself (assuming Russia wants to go on for another war in a few years).

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia is a regressive, backward country run by corrupt despots who spend too much money on their military at the cost of their people. People are leaving en masse because they don't want to live there. Why would anyone outside of Russia want to go back 30 years to the USSR days,

I agree that Russia is very corrupt but no offense, it is still richer than Ukraine. Their GDP per capita is like 4x that of Ukraine. Economic wise I think it is better off. Corruption wise I would say it is pretty similar. Ukraine is also super corrupt (some say the most corrupt country in Europe).

Freedom wise I think it is worse than Ukraine. I do not know how democratic Ukraine is but for sure it is more than Russia. Ukraine takes it when it comes to political freedom and freedom of speech.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

American government has gone so far right that it now drinks the Russian propaganda. I just wish people would be honest about things, half of America backs Russia, and is in favor of a tyrant.

It is deeper than that. American public is tired of war and spending on stuff that is irrelevant to them. Middle Eastern fail wars and the retarded war on terror have heavily depleted the will of the common American to support spendings on stuff that is far away from home. Not to mention the current situation in USA with housing infrastructure etc. The conservatives use this to gain support but the core attitude is already there. 

To be honest taking care of Ukraine is more of a Europe job than USA job. Ukraine is in Europe, not USA. The EU economy is same size of USA so no reason for them not to aid more.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

far right that it now drinks the Russian propaganda

I think they just use it to further their populist agendas feeding on a war tired American public. I doubt they believe that propaganda. Probably Kremlin also funds them like AIPAC funds them when it comes to tolerating Israel bullshit.

Edited April 15 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

@Karmadhi

Europe

We agree that Europe needs to do more to defend Europe. I have less faith in European leaders than I did a year ago, because most countries are not increasing the size of their militaries as they said they would. Turkey, Poland, and the Baltics are because they will be on the front line if Putin isn't stopped here. Germany, France, and the UK are a joke to me at the moment on the issue of security.

Neutrality is saying I have no strong opinion or view on that, or I don't care what happens.

As for the Americans, neutrality is not one-half of the country repeating Russia's narrative and lies, and then campaigning for them. If Trump gets in America becomes a Russian ally, not a neutral party. When I say one end scenario is America actively working against Europe, I mean that with sincerity. 

However, despite my attempts to get people to focus on Europe, and that this is a European war, thank you for doing that its refreshing to talk about the region itself, BRICS is backing Russia to a lesser or greater extent. Many of those civilian and military casualties are a direct result of Iran's drones, or China's electronics, and their partner's economic support. So Europe vs BRICS that's a much tougher fight headed our way.

Part of my self-interest should welcome a war with Iran, if I didn't see that as a clear step toward a global conflict. 

Defending

Yes, defending is much easier than attacking, it's not as bad in Ukraine because of the wide open spaces, but it's still a significant advantage to defend. For the majority of the war, Ukraine has been on the defensive, which is one major reason why they've taken fewer losses than Russia.

Russia's Military

Ukraine never had that much in the way of armor from NATO, or airpower. They had a scattering of tanks, second-hand APCs, lots of artillery, and good small arms, plus good training. Now they have little ammunition left. If we had geared Europe's factories to produce what we use ourselves for Ukraine, Russia would have been a smoking ruin on the map. The volume of missiles being used would mean a frontline shot was barely fired. So I don't agree with you at all here. Not when I've seen 60-year-old tanks being barely fixed up with larger sheet metal coverings to try and deflect modern drones, or WW1-WW2 machine guns being brought out of storage.

Russia is not richer than Ukraine. It has regressed, while Ukraine has tried to modernize. Outside of the two main cities, it shows off to the world, Russia has decaying infrastructure all over the country. Russia is a huge territory, which makes their population problem worse because they still need to connect it all with deliveries, maintenance, power, roads, police/fire coverage, etc. 

Russia's greed for territory is one of the reasons it's in a difficult position, and compared to its neighbors is not going to retain as much soft power or sovereignty as we go forward, the war just sped this up.

Edited April 15 by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:51 PM, mrPixel said:

Up until recently I was for backing Ukraine, although, it did make me nervous with the threats of nuclear war by Putin. And, to be honest, the threats do still concern me. My initial reason for backing Ukraine is that I wanted to send us a message to bullies in the world. "NO, you cannot just run over a country without being met without opposition." We can't let Russia, China, N. Korea, and Iran do whatever the hell they want.

However, this thing with Ukraine is going on and on and there doesn't seem to be and end in sight. So, should we just let Russia have Ukraine? What are the consequences if the west were to back out? It's costing us endless amounts of money. Should we just count our losses and move on?

This may sound harsh, but war is fucking nasty.

Wait till you find out about Israel