Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,348
    149
    PR-WLAF

    So, this is supposedly 'The Ghost of Bakhmut', sniper with 113 claimed kills

    View attachment 302807


    Does anyone else find his choice of kit a bit ... odd? Another 'Ghost of Kiev'?
    What are his pronouns?
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,073
    149
    Indiana
    Poland and Britain to the USA.



    its-your-problem-baby-not-my-problem.gif


    Zelenski to USA
    giphy.gif


    Americans either
    giphy-5-2.gif

    or
    tenor.gif

    or
    766abfca-6dfe-4eaa-afc6-d9bda3a29339_text.gif


    Sane American's.
    enough-stop.gif


    Zelenski 5 minutes later....
    0-4-1.gif
     
    Last edited:

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    37,769
    113
    .
    One of the dynamics of modern conventional war is the high lethality and high hit probability of modern weapons. Just these two factors make wars strain logistical support like never before. You need a higher state of readiness to run an offensive than to defend so like Iran/Iraq it's a continuous see/saw as one side runs out of supplies and the offensive stops. The other side gears up and attacks until it's supplies fade out. This war will go on for a long time yet and there isn't going to be much left when leadership on both sides finally exhausts it's respective country.

    Dealing with a nuclear armed opponent really tests the strategic dimension. What happens when the Russian economy finally runs out of gas. Staring defeat in the face I've wondered how they will react, hopefully like they did when the USSR collapsed years ago.

    I heard the stories of the Nazi stores of Tabun during WW2 and the question of why Hitler never used them. I can only hope that there will be some consideration before somebody in Russia pushes the button.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,073
    149
    Indiana
    Dealing with a nuclear armed opponent really tests the strategic dimension. What happens when the Russian economy finally runs out of gas.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,073
    149
    Indiana
    "Some 52% of Democrats backed arming Ukraine in the most recent poll, down from 61% in May. Among Republicans, support for sending weapons to Kyiv fell to 35% from 39% in May."




    Different poll,that just ended.

    The two-day poll, which closed on Wednesday, showed only 41% of respondents agreed with a statement that Washington "should provide weapons to Ukraine," compared to 35% who disagreed and the rest unsure.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,073
    149
    Indiana
    Not us though. We have no shortage,just moving in a different direction.

    Soon it will all be "China,ChiNA,CHINA!!"...
    In the last week....


    That is just a 2 minutes search. All within the last 7 days.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,073
    149
    Indiana
    Head of NATO.

    We have to remember that in December 2021, so a couple of months before the invasion, President Putin put forward what he called 'security treaties'. He wanted the United States and NATO to sign documents that were sent to Brussels and to Washington. There were several demands. They demanded that we should remove all NATO infrastructure from the eastern part of the Alliance. They demanded some buffer zones, especially in the Baltic region, meaning that most of the Baltic countries could not be protected with NATO forces. And they demanded as a kind of ultimatum for not invading Ukraine, that NATO should guarantee no further enlargement. That was about no further enlargement with Ukraine, but also Finland and Sweden. It was not possible, so we actually were able… Actually we invited Russia to a dialogue, we said it's not possible for us to accept those ultimatums. But we made a real diplomatic effort to see if it was possible to sit down and find a diplomatic solution to the crisis that was scaling up in the fall of 2021.
    But the declared purpose of the invasion of Ukraine was to stop further NATO enlargement and to have less NATO, with its buffer zones, and the movement of NATO infrastructure from all those countries that joined NATO since 1997. So one of the main purposes was then to have less NATO: less NATO members and less NATO presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. And the war didn't start in February last year, it started in 2014.


    Global media.





     
    Last edited:
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,357
    113
    Bloomington
    Head of NATO.

    We have to remember that in December 2021, so a couple of months before the invasion, President Putin put forward what he called 'security treaties'. He wanted the United States and NATO to sign documents that were sent to Brussels and to Washington. There were several demands. They demanded that we should remove all NATO infrastructure from the eastern part of the Alliance. They demanded some buffer zones, especially in the Baltic region, meaning that most of the Baltic countries could not be protected with NATO forces. And they demanded as a kind of ultimatum for not invading Ukraine, that NATO should guarantee no further enlargement. That was about no further enlargement with Ukraine, but also Finland and Sweden. It was not possible, so we actually were able… Actually we invited Russia to a dialogue, we said it's not possible for us to accept those ultimatums. But we made a real diplomatic effort to see if it was possible to sit down and find a diplomatic solution to the crisis that was scaling up in the fall of 2021.
    But the declared purpose of the invasion of Ukraine was to stop further NATO enlargement and to have less NATO, with its buffer zones, and the movement of NATO infrastructure from all those countries that joined NATO since 1997. So one of the main purposes was then to have less NATO: less NATO members and less NATO presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. And the war didn't start in February last year, it started in 2014.


    Global media.






    "Unprovoked" means there was no military action taken against Russia to provoke them into attacking Ukraine.

    If refusing to acquiesce to another country's demands constitutes "provoking" them to war, then there has never been an unprovoked war in history.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,073
    149
    Indiana
    "Unprovoked" means there was no military action taken against Russia to provoke them into attacking Ukraine.

    If refusing to acquiesce to another country's demands constitutes "provoking" them to war, then there has never been an unprovoked war in history.
    "And the war didn't start in February last year, it started in 2014."
    Maiden started the war, back then it was a proxy war(Russia was fighting a proxy war after the revolution,no one really questions that. The USA was as well overthrowing an elected government.).

    The treaties Putin sent asked three things. No expansion of NATO. Removal of missile systems(the NATO infrastructure he mentions). The third was second class NATO declared for nations in the baltic,which he outlined as not being allowed to house nuclear capabilities.



    Kind of what we demanded of oh...Cuba and had the Vietnam war and Korean war over.

    Actual proposed treaty(link found on brookings.edu)

    Honestly at this point does why it started even matter? I mean we have caused ourselves and our allies quite a bit of damage. How do we mitigate that damage,can we?
    Can this end in anything other than WW3? At this point it does seem to be winding down,with focus being moved to China and the support of our allies ending(Poland,England,and others).

    Did we gain anything from this entire mess as a country?
     
    Last edited:
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom