Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
253
Reaction score
450
Location
Wales
So we may be on the inevitable path to bloodier war that spills beyond its present borders like World War I, when millions died.
Or we may not. It is in neither Russia's nor NATO's interest for this conflict to spread beyond its current borders. These are uncertain times so any outcome remains possible.
The entire planet may be in recession next year.
Possibly, but what do you suggest as a solution?
Some European support for the war and the sanctions is already getting shaky due to mega economic/energy problems. I
As I've said before, I live in Europe and the situation here has not changed. The European nations and alliances are holding firm in spite of some hardship. Putin's friendly EU nation (Hungary) has been unsuccessful in disrupting a united position. Some of those heavily dependent on Russian fuel imports are being assisted in finding other sources. I think your statement is fundamentally wrong and reflect your personal opinion rather than any reliable sources.
If we are really doing the right thing by supporting this proxy war with our money, weapons and global sanctions, we may need to up the ante to our solder's and airmen's lives if the Ukrainians cannot put a decisive victory together in time.
What evidence do you have to support this position? Do you really think that the USA will act unilaterally on mainland Europe without its NATO allies? Do you think that the NATO member states will endorse direct involvement by its armed forces, risking a world war? So whose soldiers and airmen are going to be putting their lives at risk?
I'm told our armed forces are lacking the large numbers of healthy young men it would take to go to kill people like we used to do in Vietnam. And are we rapidly using up our reserves of weapons and ammunition and are dipping into what is kept ready for use in our front line bases?
What are your sources for this? Again, I suspect that this is personal opinion hiding behind the 'I'm told' claim.
I think we are unprepared to fight a major war, yet we seem to be provoking it.
Quite the opposite. The USA and its NATO allies seem to be doing their best NOT to provoke a war while containing an aggressive dictator.
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,569
Reaction score
5,005
I think the Russians have an unacknowledged philosophy that is shared by most of the rest of the world, including us: Might makes right, and the ends justify the means. But they just won't submit to our unipolar world. They're not going to change their stripes. China the same.

So we may be on the inevitable path to bloodier war that spills beyond its present borders like World War I, when millions died. The entire planet may be in recession next year. Some European support for the war and the sanctions is already getting shaky due to mega economic/energy problems. If we are really doing the right thing by supporting this proxy war with our money, weapons and global sanctions, we may need to up the ante to our solder's and airmen's lives if the Ukrainians cannot put a decisive victory together in time. I'm told our armed forces are lacking the large numbers of healthy young men it would take to go to kill people like we used to do in Vietnam. And are we rapidly using up our reserves of weapons and ammunition and are dipping into what is kept ready for use in our front line bases? I think we are unprepared to fight a major war, yet we seem to be provoking it. Darwin Award! I'm prepared to acknowledge we may be doing our best to do the right thing - whatever the "right thing" really is. And both major parties and the mainstream media currently support the effort. But as an antiwar Libertarian, I'm not at all convinced,
Hang on a minute. We caused this war? At what point did our army cross Ukraine's borders? At what point did American troops fire on the Russians? There's one nation responsible for this war and It's Russia. You can bleat all you like on their behalf that they had no option but invade due to ... something, but you're just making excuses for clear and blatant aggression. NATO did nothing to provoke Russia. Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia except to say that they weren't willing to be Russia's vassal state. As is their right.

Once more for the people in the back. This war is Russia's fault.

And as to our preparedness, the only current weapons we are giving Ukraine are the HIMARS launchers (and rockets) and drones like the Switchblade. There are some artillery shells too, but those are less important for NATO's military doctrine. If we got into a shooting war, we would be using air power and long-range missiles that we are not giving to Ukraine.
 

Dotini

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
929
Location
Seattle, Washington
The US administration secretly limited the range of weapons sent to Ukraine because of trust issues, says the Wall Street Journal.

If it is the right thing to do to support Ukraine, why are we pulling our punches? Out of a prudent fear of World War 3? We are managing this war very badly, IMO. Avoiding both victory and defeat is becoming an American trait in our numerous foreign military campaigns over the decades. It's headed to a prolonged and costly stalemate on the battlefield, and a nation of millions is withering and dying without rescue in a ravaged land. History will point the finger at the US as well as Russia.

What would I do differently? I would avoid war. I marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the cause of peace and justice. I protested every war we fought except the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I'm simply against war unless we are attacked, and I'm not changing now.
 

smstachwick

LPR/MPR sport flier with an eye to HPR and scale
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
2,524
Location
Poway, CA
The US administration secretly limited the range of weapons sent to Ukraine because of trust issues, says the Wall Street Journal.

If it is the right thing to do to support Ukraine, why are we pulling our punches? Out of a prudent fear of World War 3? We are managing this war very badly, IMO. Avoiding both victory and defeat is becoming an American trait in our numerous foreign military campaigns over the decades. It's headed to a prolonged and costly stalemate on the battlefield, and a nation of millions is withering and dying without rescue in a ravaged land. History will point the finger at the US as well as Russia.

What would I do differently? I would avoid war. I marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the cause of peace and justice. I protested every war we fought except the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I'm simply against war unless we are attacked, and I'm not changing now.
Ukraine was attacked. Ukraine is fighting. Why the inconsistency, why is that wrong, if other than a complete failure to understand that?
 

heada

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5,513
Reaction score
2,911
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
The US administration secretly limited the range of weapons sent to Ukraine because of trust issues, says the Wall Street Journal.

If it is the right thing to do to support Ukraine, why are we pulling our punches? Out of a prudent fear of World War 3? We are managing this war very badly, IMO. Avoiding both victory and defeat is becoming an American trait in our numerous foreign military campaigns over the decades. It's headed to a prolonged and costly stalemate on the battlefield, and a nation of millions is withering and dying without rescue in a ravaged land. History will point the finger at the US as well as Russia.

What would I do differently? I would avoid war. I marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the cause of peace and justice. I protested every war we fought except the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I'm simply against war unless we are attacked, and I'm not changing now.
So are you saying we should give Ukraine unfettered access to our full arsenal? What would be off-limits? ICBMs? Stealth fighters/bombers? LRASM? Where do you draw the line and why? Our current leadership has drawn the line, in agreement with the rest of the world, to weapons that are clearly defensive or not long-range offensive. This is done to not provoke Russia into escalating beyond what it has already decided to commit. If we gave Ukraine LRASMs so that they could sink the entire black sea fleet, and Russia decided to escalate into using thermobaric weapons on population centers, would you then suggest we give Ukraine access to ballistic missiles?
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
253
Reaction score
450
Location
Wales
The US administration secretly limited the range of weapons sent to Ukraine because of trust issues, says the Wall Street Journal.

If it is the right thing to do to support Ukraine, why are we pulling our punches? Out of a prudent fear of World War 3? We are managing this war very badly, IMO. Avoiding both victory and defeat is becoming an American trait in our numerous foreign military campaigns over the decades. It's headed to a prolonged and costly stalemate on the battlefield, and a nation of millions is withering and dying without rescue in a ravaged land. History will point the finger at the US as well as Russia.

What would I do differently? I would avoid war. I marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the cause of peace and justice. I protested every war we fought except the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I'm simply against war unless we are attacked, and I'm not changing now.
We're holding back from direct involvement to avoid WW3. Which is the better situation: a war contained within one European nation or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO?

We'd all like to avoid war. Unfortunately this one has been thrust upon us by an aggressive dictator. The cold reality is that there are dictators in this world who wield real power and are prepared to use it aggressively. If we don't stand against Russia now they, and other dictators, may be encouraged to look beyond Ukraine. The least damaging option is to try and contain this war within Ukraine while trying to prevent Putin from having any kind of success as it could encourage him and others to commit further acts of aggression.

So exactly how would you avoid this war?
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,569
Reaction score
5,005
The US administration secretly limited the range of weapons sent to Ukraine because of trust issues, says the Wall Street Journal.
The depths of stupidity of this "scandal" are mindboggling. First of all, the article misspells "rockets" as "rockers". No long-range rockers for you, Granny! I don't hassle people about spelling for the most part, but I expect that news organizations who want us to trust them will spell things right.

The second item is that the "secret modifications" mean that Ukraine can't fire missiles that we're not giving them. So it doesn't matter if the launchers were modified or not. Next we'll find out that the 9mm handguns were secretly modified so that they can't fire .50-caliber bullets.

I'm truly baffled by the bleating here. On the one hand, you are complaining that we're risking WW3 by giving Ukraine any weapons, then you're complaining that the US isn't giving Ukraine weapons that could actually strike into Russia. Make up your mind, man!
 

Dotini

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
929
Location
Seattle, Washington
Ukraine was attacked. Ukraine is fighting. Why the inconsistency, why is that wrong, if other than a complete failure to understand that?
Most of us here at this forum like to think the war started with Russia attacking Ukraine last spring. The current conflict is indeed the subject and title of this thread. So it is very convenient to say, truthfully, that is when the war began and that is our subject of discussion, this current war. Although the war has history and antecedents, these are not really on-topic. They are best left to scholars in calmer, more reflective fora.

@PhilC
Avoiding this war could have been assured at 3 points or more in recent history. 'Nuff said for now and here.

I wash my hands of the consequences going forward. I've always been against war, but I really do believe this war is the stupidest ever.
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
253
Reaction score
450
Location
Wales
Most of us here at this forum like to think the war started with Russia attacking Ukraine last spring. The current conflict is indeed the subject and title of this thread. So it is very convenient to say, truthfully, that is when the war began and that is our subject of discussion, this current war. Although the war has history and antecedents, these are not really on-topic. They are best left to scholars in calmer, more reflective fora.

@PhilC
Avoiding this war could have been assured at 3 points or more in recent history. 'Nuff said for now and here.

I wash my hands of the consequences going forward. I've always been against war, but I really do believe this war is the stupidest ever.
What are the three points at which this war could have been avoided? Please show your evidence or analysis.
 

rocket_troy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
575
Reaction score
332
Location
Melbourne, Australia
What are the three points at which this war could have been avoided? Please show your evidence or analysis.
Well, point 1 would be for Ukraine not to surrender their nuclear deterrent.
Points 2 -3 would have something to do with Putin and NATO.

Nevertheless, it's been said before that we're arguing a Pro-Russian Propagandist masquerading under the guise of an "anti-war libertarian" who continually - time and time again - points the finger of blame and responsibility at everyone other than the aggressors in this most unfortunate situation.

TP
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
31,695
Reaction score
9,065
Location
Glennville, GA
Yes, it looks like a long, ugly fight ending in massive death and destruction. Millions of refugees, 200,000 dead, 5 or 6 times that many wounded, and ~40% of Ukraine without fresh water, heat and electricity, and that's just for openers. It's going to cost us plenty to keep this fight going. As an antiwar Libertarian for over 30 years, I have serious doubts this will have a happy ending.

Everyone is antiwar and avoids the fight until a bully punches them in the nose. Russia is a bully, and it is time someone takes them now a notch. The worst part is they are a paper tigers and a bully. They deserve what might be coming to them.
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
10,921
Reaction score
5,049
Russia started this war, and Ukraine is kicking their ass, and I’m all for helping them do it.

It’s probably going to go past the year mark before Ukraine wins, but there’s always the possibility the Russian military will collapse before then, and it will end sooner. I think there is little to no chance Russia will rally itself and prevail as long as we and our allies keep up the military aid to Ukraine. Russia is already too far gone. It’s only a matter of how long it will take and what twists and turns will come up before the end.
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,569
Reaction score
5,005
I've got people all riled up, some so personally abusive I've had to put several on ignore. Now is not the time to start a new thread on a sore subject. But you are an exceptionally perceptive person, so maybe you should start it and try to moderate it.
That explains why he doesn't reply to me. I've made the Ignore club!
 

Greg Furtman

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
1,637
Location
Webster, Wisconsin
I wash my hands of the consequences going forward. I've always been against war, but I really do believe this war is the stupidest ever.
I've always been against war also. I was a Vietnam war protester. I had friends over there who were killing & dying because of politics. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was staged to get us deeper into the war. Vietnam was a US ally in the fight against Japan in WWII but after the war we let France take it over again. Imperialism is an ugly thing and leads to devastating consequences.

And Putin/Russia is again rearing their ugly imperialism again. And Ukraine just wants to be left alone and be Ukraine. But who invaded whom?

So as being an antiwar person I believe our support of Ukraine is needed, moral, and the right thing to do. Many Native American tribes had prophecies that WWII would be a just & moral war to fight evil and they were not wrong. If Hitler (or for that matter Stalin) had had their ways the world now would be a **** show!
 

Funkworks

Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
4,603
Reaction score
5,199
I've got people all riled up, some so personally abusive I've had to put several on ignore. Now is not the time to start a new thread on a sore subject. But you are an exceptionally perceptive person, so maybe you should start it and try to moderate it.
🤣 No I don't care that much. Enjoy riling people up if that's your thing. Doesn't sound worthwhile to me.
 

Greg Furtman

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
1,637
Location
Webster, Wisconsin
This is a pretty good report about Bakmut. Watch the videos as some of them are very good! And the last one brought tears to my eyes.

 

Grog6

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
820
Reaction score
705
Location
Oak Ridge TN
I'm just happy the Second American civil war didn't happen, even tho some russian-linked people were agitating for it. We'd been way too busy to support Ukraine. I'm also surprised that the weapons we designed to quell the threat of soviet tanks rolling into west germany was so incredibly effective. Turns out the best way to kill a tanks' support troops is to hit the tank with a weapon, and the reactive armor (tnt) will take out anyone in a 50 yard radius. I was amazed to see how well our second or third level weapons worked; If we give them frontline weapons, russia is screwed. We have single artillery rounds that can take out a group of tanks.
Putin will eventually use a tactical nuke just to save face if nothing else. Then WW3 starts in earnest. all bets are off. Keep your 60'era cars, no electronic ignitions are going to work, and those tube amplifiers are going to be real popular. :) I actually have a set of electronic boxes for my cars, sealed in an emp tight enclosure. And geiger counters that will read 500mr/hour, lol. Civil defense stuff is scary. :) That meter has a 25 foot cable, so you can put it outside the shelter. :) It's not enough cable, and 500 mr/h will kill most people in about an hour and a half.

Iasked our RSO at work if she could calibrate it, read the procedure, and said no, there's no freaking way, lol.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,883
Reaction score
2,742
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
9,662
Reaction score
9,050
Location
Hawaii

It works:
 

les

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
3,199
Reaction score
951
A general comment. I've heard multiple times that Putin felt justified in his "activities" because Ukraine was interested in joining NATO, and he felt NATO was a threat and did not want them on his border.

Now let's just say he had actually been successful in his 10 day special operation and took over Ukraine. What would the result be? With Ukraine absorbed he would now border Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia - 4 NATO countries.

So to avoid having a potential NATO country on his border, he would end up with 4 NATO countries on his border? Doesn't this invalidate one of his excuses for initiating this mess??
 

smstachwick

LPR/MPR sport flier with an eye to HPR and scale
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
2,524
Location
Poway, CA
A general comment. I've heard multiple times that Putin felt justified in his "activities" because Ukraine was interested in joining NATO, and he felt NATO was a threat and did not want them on his border.

Now let's just say he had actually been successful in his 10 day special operation and took over Ukraine. What would the result be? With Ukraine absorbed he would now border Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia - 4 NATO countries.

So to avoid having a potential NATO country on his border, he would end up with 4 NATO countries on his border? Doesn't this invalidate one of his excuses for initiating this mess??
I think Putin views Ukraine as a buffer state, one filled with friendly East Slavic peoples that can take the brunt of any NATO action and take pressure off Russia proper. First reform and then Ukraine’s desire to join NATO threatened to train wreck that plan.

Ukrainians are not meat shields, though, as the Zelenskyy seeks to remind him.
 
Last edited:

Dotini

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
929
Location
Seattle, Washington
Blinken and Milley have both reiterated that Zelensky should negotiate and not strike deep into Russia. But somehow strategic bomber airbases (that have been attacking Ukranian infrastructure) as much as 800km inside Russia have been repeatedly struck. Moscow is in range. Who is in charge here? Who is kidding whom? Is this all going according to some carefully engineered plan? Or is it out of control chaos leading to unimagined horrors?

The latest thinking according to the New York Times:
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
253
Reaction score
450
Location
Wales
I think Putin views Ukraine as a buffer state, one filled with friendly East Slavic peoples that can take the brunt of any NATO action and take pressure off Russia proper. First reform and then Ukraine’s desire to join NATO threatened to train wreck that plan.

Ukrainians are not meat shields, though, as the Zelenskyy seeks to remind him.
This goes back to Peter the Great’s comment that the only good border was one with Russians on both sides of it.
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
253
Reaction score
450
Location
Wales
A general comment. I've heard multiple times that Putin felt justified in his "activities" because Ukraine was interested in joining NATO, and he felt NATO was a threat and did not want them on his border.

Now let's just say he had actually been successful in his 10 day special operation and took over Ukraine. What would the result be? With Ukraine absorbed he would now border Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia - 4 NATO countries.

So to avoid having a potential NATO country on his border, he would end up with 4 NATO countries on his border? Doesn't this invalidate one of his excuses for initiating this mess??
It could get very complicated if Ukraine was to fall. Hungary is currently pro-Putin but inside NATO, so Putin might have been tempted to see if he could decouple Hungary from NATO. Putin has a frozen conflict in Moldova so Moldova would never be allowed to join NATO. This would reduce the Romanian border significantly. The only NATO border with Russia would have been the Baltic states.

His Ukraine ambitions have badly backfired with Finland and Sweden asking to join NATO. His northern border is very vulnerable to a strong Finnish military who are within striking range of St Petersburg. The main transport routes to the Kola peninsular run paralllel to the Finnish border and will be hard to defend. This makes the suply routes to Murmansk and several strategic bomber bases vulnerable. The Baltic has become a NATO lake.
 

Antares JS

Professional Amateur
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,200
Reaction score
5,485
Location
Eastern Shore, VA
A general comment. I've heard multiple times that Putin felt justified in his "activities" because Ukraine was interested in joining NATO, and he felt NATO was a threat and did not want them on his border.

Now let's just say he had actually been successful in his 10 day special operation and took over Ukraine. What would the result be? With Ukraine absorbed he would now border Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia - 4 NATO countries.

So to avoid having a potential NATO country on his border, he would end up with 4 NATO countries on his border? Doesn't this invalidate one of his excuses for initiating this mess??
If you have half an hour to spare, this video does a good job explaining Russia's strategic situation.

 

Zeta

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
310
Reaction score
182
An interesting video, more wars over oil and gas.... I guess it would be safe to say that Putin thinks that electric cars are B.S.
 
Top