Unfortunately, Russia’s revenues are also increasing due in part to oil and gas exports. Ukraine doesn’t have years and years imo.
Ukraine….what’s our endgame here
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
What Republican leadership, who have been bought off by $’s from Russian intermediaries are supporting, is allowing Putin to accomplish his war goals. I would rather not do that.
Ukraine doesn’t have years and years because the US conservative wing is being bought by Russian rubles (converted to dollars) and Ukraines biggest source of military support is being prevented from sending support by nitwits like the people on this board.
It’s like Alabama’s senator saying ”Putin will not lose this war” but omitting the important part of that sentence… “because I won’t let Ukraine win the war”
Ukraine doesn’t have the solders for a long drawn out war of attrition. Russia knows this and is acting accordingly. We can throw hundreds of billions in arm to the Ukrainian side and they still will run out of able bodies men to use the same. These are the facts. Meanwhile, Russia continues to take Ukrainian territory. Something which will continue without Western boots on the ground. Either commit troops, agree to a peace treaty, or watch Ukraine slowly disappear. I don’t see a fourth option.
Looking back our best option was to aggressively provide high end weapons prior to the invasion to deter and possibly prevent the same. Once we failed and basically gave Putin the green light militarily for the invasion the outcome of this war was largely decided absent NATO troops. If only someone on this board had advocated such a strategy
More weapons arent going to help if there are no soldiers to use them..
apnews.com
Desperate for soldiers, Ukraine weighs unpopular plan to expand the draft
As the war enters its third year, the most urgent and politically sensitive challenge is whether Ukraine can muster enough new soldiers to repel an enemy with far more fighters.
apnews.com
Still ignoring the threat of a major conflict with the US that could have turned into a world war. Russia gave in to a lot of things with us gradually getting involved. It's always nice to see that in hindsight, and then brag on yourself for your idea to provide high end weapons all at once, and early.Ukraine doesn’t have the solders for a long drawn out war of attrition. Russia knows this and is acting accordingly. We can throw hundreds of billions in arm to the Ukrainian side and they still will run out of able bodies men to use the same. These are the facts. Meanwhile, Russia continues to take Ukrainian territory. Something which will continue without Western boots on the ground. Either commit troops, agree to a peace treaty, or watch Ukraine slowly disappear. I don’t see a fourth option.
Looking back our best option was to aggressively provide high end weapons prior to the invasion to deter and possibly prevent the same. Once we failed and basically gave Putin the green light militarily for the invasion the outcome of this war was largely decided absent NATO troops. If only someone on this board had advocated such a strategy
The reaction if we'd supplied the entire shebang early( tanks, fighter planes, long range patriot missiles, etc etc, ) wasn't known then, and we don't truly know what it would be now, despite our having seen their inequities in war. I doubt Putin expected his problems in the field, early. He might have had a different reaction if those problems had not happened to him yet. To do that would have been a huge risk. SMH
You've done this a couple of three times. Each time I will stipulate the history of what happened.
I don’t disagree but would simply point out we still don’t know his response to us supplying more and more advanced weapons. Appears as if we may have agreed to supply F-16s and authorized their use against targets inside of Russia. This is far more of an escalation than anything I had ever suggested. Yet here we are in part out of desperation. The argument that it was a good decision not to provide advance defensive weapons prior to the invasion due to the uncertainty of Putin’s response would be more persuasive to me if not for our actions today. We made the wrong call imo and that decision had disastrous consequences.
They would have eventually installed the draft, popular or not. Installing it now, when they are temporarily or permanently not getting weapons and ammo from the US is not the best time. At one point or another, while they were being supplied with weapons and ammo, the draft would have been begrudgingly accepted by the Ukrainians. I find it hard to believe they have gone this long, with this amount of success and not had it active.More weapons arent going to help if there are no soldiers to use them..
Desperate for soldiers, Ukraine weighs unpopular plan to expand the draft
As the war enters its third year, the most urgent and politically sensitive challenge is whether Ukraine can muster enough new soldiers to repel an enemy with far more fighters.
I still think it's less of a known risk to escalate now, than all at once, early. But yeah they are pushing the boundaries.
Would they have made the call early? Today the chance would have increased. Would it have increased to more than 50/50, shoulder shrug. All you can do is plan for the reality today.
All bets are off if and when our F16s start bombing targets inside of Russia.
If Putin admits it is happening. Ukraine would sometimes bomb on the Russian side w/o claiming it, and Putin wouldn't admit it happened. I don't know if he would play the same game with the U.S. Plus the U.S. could provide jets, but not admit to using U.S. pilots on certain missions. Letting everybody assume it was Ukranian pilots.
Not sure we can provide the jets and provide the pilot training and wash our hands when those jets and US trained pilots start bombing targets in Russia. Interesting point re Putin. He will admit as much as he believes is politically advantageous.
Yeah Putin has exported his sense of verisimilitude to the world, via Trump. It spread throughout the world like a bonfire.
Hard to hold a line when you have little ammunition. I think if they get the resources they need instead of the US backing off due to conservative political machinations you don’t see such gains in Ukraine. Matt Gaetz and the freedom caucus are legitimately traitors to the constitution, aiding and abetting Russia.
Would anyone actually be surprised if 4-5 years from now we find out they were being puppeteered through intermediaries supported by the Kremlin?
You keep ignoring the fact that Ukraine lacks the manpower to win this war without NATO boots on the ground.
I support the proposed arms shipment for the record. I also acknowledge the real life situation on the ground. We need a solution. Of course I’ve been saying that now going on three years.
Ukraine has 43 million people. Their current deployment is much fewer than even a percentage of that. They have the manpower to keep going. Maybe not for 10 years, but for 3-4.
Look at Israel, with the help of the USA their country has been able to fend off (or downright beat) countries that have 10x their population.
I say we send in NATO peace keepers by the way… and dare Putin to shoot at them. He’s spent a lot of time calling the bluff of the west the last couple years. Let’s call his.
Last edited:
If they do indeed have the manpower then they need new leadership as those troops are not in place. Population really doesn’t matter if you can’t get that manpower trained and into the theater. Ukraine is failing at both of those marks. As of now they do not have the manpower to win or even hold this war to a stalemate. That is the current situation and I see no realistic plan to remedy the same. Again…it’s a manpower issue until further notice.
Honestly I think the damage has already been done for Ukraine. Delaying weapons and ammunition to them has likely done a large detriment to their ability to hold territory. It’s hard to recover from that type of supply issue and dig into defensible positions again. Ask Germany in WWI.If they do indeed have the manpower then they need new leadership as those troops are not in place. Population really doesn’t matter if you can’t get that manpower trained and into the theater. Ukraine is failing at both of those marks. As of now they do not have the manpower to win or even hold this war to a stalemate. That is the current situation and I see no realistic plan to remedy the same. Again…it’s a manpower issue until further notice.
Thats why I think the freedom caucus aided and abetted Russia. They purposefully undermined our ally’s ability to defend itself.
It’s almost like you didn’t the Wash Post article interviewing commanders from the front line all saying lack of manpower is their #1 issue in holding their lines.
Considering we only produce about half of what we need per day, we have to purchase it somewhere. Dazed & confused as always. It's natural gas that we export primarily. We should be buying it from opec instead of India/Russia.
We produce almost almost a million bbl more per day than we use. Unfortunately our refineries are old and cannot refine the crude we produce. So we export light crude and import heavy crude. Unfortunately our refining capacity wont meet demand so we import gasoline from Mexico, India, Venezuela and others..
Even with the oil we export to refineries, still not even close to our needs. But we export natural gas. It all comes out in the wash. We just need to quit importing refined crude from India.
Oil imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
U.S. crude oil imports sources including OPEC and Persian Gulf, and top five source countries of U.S. oil imports and destinations of U.S. crude oil exports.
I had looked at something recently that I thought said our production was about 11mil, must have read it wrong. It was for '23 I believe, but I can't believe our production went down that much from 1 year to the next.Oil imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
U.S. crude oil imports sources including OPEC and Persian Gulf, and top five source countries of U.S. oil imports and destinations of U.S. crude oil exports.www.eia.gov
The collective West mostly played a game of three card Monty on where the oil is sourced from when Ukraine kicked off. Global supply is still global supply, but we don't buy from Russia anymore.... we buy from someone else who used to sell to a 3rd party that now buys from Russia. It probably hasn't helped Russia's oil industry overall, but it hasn't crippled it either.
NATO Mainline Battle Tanks not faring well....
www.kyivpost.com
Big-Ticket, Expensive, Heavily Armored NATO Tanks Mostly Overweight Duds in the Russo-Ukrainian War
Considering how much kerchief-twisting there was about it in the first place, and how they are doing in the war right now, handing over top-end NATO tanks to Ukraine doesn’t look like a great idea.
www.kyivpost.com
Sounds like they wouldn't be good in at least half the battle situations in the world at this point, maybe more. Maybe we should be cutting back on the # we manufacture and rethinking what is needed in a modern warfare situation with the addition of drones. Of course, if they had training on our jets done by now,. they could provide them with air support. The tanks might be a bit more useful than they are without it.NATO Mainline Battle Tanks not faring well....
Big-Ticket, Expensive, Heavily Armored NATO Tanks Mostly Overweight Duds in the Russo-Ukrainian War
Considering how much kerchief-twisting there was about it in the first place, and how they are doing in the war right now, handing over top-end NATO tanks to Ukraine doesn’t look like a great idea.
I agree that tanks are facing obsolescence... i dont think F16s would be much use against the drones taking out the tanks.. those drones can be bought at Sharper Image..
This is fundamentally untrue. They have been kicking ass over there. They would love to have more. Go read more ding dong. The Ukrainians love the stufff.NATO Mainline Battle Tanks not faring well....
Big-Ticket, Expensive, Heavily Armored NATO Tanks Mostly Overweight Duds in the Russo-Ukrainian War
Considering how much kerchief-twisting there was about it in the first place, and how they are doing in the war right now, handing over top-end NATO tanks to Ukraine doesn’t look like a great idea.
I was talking bout taking out the front lines that the tanks are trying to get through. It would be nice if there was knowledge about where they were keeping the pilots of the drones, if they aren't spread out over several locations in most situations. That would take some heavy duty tactical spying success though, to infiltrate their lines somehow.
I think the problem will be trying to make F16 pilots out of the Ukranians in a short time period. It will be like putting a newly licensed driver in an F1 car..
Many of the battlefield drones are controlled by frontline forces.. these arent predators we are talikng about..
Europe knows what's next if we drop Ukraine. Putin will be emboldened and move on to a NATO country. If that happens the risks and cost for the US will go up astronomically. Putin of course is counting on the Donald to hand Ukraine to him or at least for the MAGA Republicans to keep undermining Ukraines's ability to defend itself.
Are we ignoring the fact that over the past 15 years Trump is the only President which Putin didn’t invade another country ?
Are we ignoring the fact that this was likely coincidence? If Trump had won in 2020, it would have probably still started in 2022. At the very most Putin delayed his actions in Ukraine over Trump being in office. He would have done it within the next 5 years, regardless of who was in office. So what is the difference between 2022 and 2027. Essentially nothing, except that Putin would be closer to death. It certainly wasn't because Putin feared McPuppet Trump.
Maybe. I simply saw no evidence of Trump giving Putin a pass militarily during his time in office. In fact, wasn’t he the first President in some time to directly attack and kill Russian personnel? If there are examples of Trump giving Putin a pass militarily I’m open to change my mind.
Similar threads
