Ukraine - Russia Conflict

DasBoot said:
So do we just commit to ending Russia at this point? That’s not hyperbole, I would also like the opinion of someone who has been on the ground.

I know we (America) have our skeletons in our closet regarding invading and generally interfering in the affairs of other nations. I do feel like, post OIF and OEF we have collectively said “that was a phase, our bad.”

Russia has been, for hundreds of years, doing shit like this. Is this when the West, plus’s maybe India, says it’s time to demilitarize?

@pardus and @Marauder06 (the resident professor) what do you guys think?
Click to expand...
I've never been to Ukraine or Russia and I don't study the area closely so consider that when you read my response.

Like many people, I'm torn on this issue and my views are clouded by the shadows cast by my limited experiences. But I think we have a really, really poor track record when it comes to getting involved in other peoples' conflicts. Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... lots of blood and treasure for what was, in almost every case I just listed, some very limited results.

At the same time, as I've said many times here on the site, appeasement never works. That's the same if the bully is here on the page, or is the leader of a nuclear-armed country. So by not intervening as we have, an emboldened Putin might be even stronger by the time he goes after something that we decide we do care about.

At the same (same-same?) time, we are throwing A LOT of money we don't have, at a fight that's not directly ours. Our focus should be on China. They're the ones who are going to upset the US-led world order, not the f'ing Russians. So yeah, I'm conflicted...

The thing I respect the most about Ukraine is that they actually have the will to fight. And (with extensive help from us) they are good at it. Like most people who (unlike me) are actual experts in the region, I expected Ukraine to fold in a matter of weeks. It's refreshing to me for us to be supporting a side that actually has the will to not only fight, but to win.

When it comes to regime change in Russia, I'm not sure that's in our long term interests, at least not if it's a sudden cataclysmic change. I think Putin is a terrible human being and the Russian regime is a bad one. But we saw in Iraq, Syria, and Iran (and many other places) that sometimes stability is better than having a good (by Western standards) national leader. In addition to geography and people, another major difference between Russia and the Middle Eastern states I just named is that Russia has nukes. Like... a lot of them. And given the level of corruption in that country, a lot of that material, as well as mass-casualty conventional weapons, might find its way into the black market and be used against our interests. I've seen what happens when you take down a regime and don't have the means and/or will to install something better. Three times. I'm not looking for Round 4.
 
Cookie_ said:
Almost all of the "pro-Putin" takes are from people in the right-wing "outrage coverage" media space. Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, and Tucker Carlson have all made comments about Putin attacking the "globalists" in Ukraine, or Putin fighting against "woke-western ideology". I don't think any of them are Pro-Putin as much as they are fitting culture war talking points into an international incident.

The same is true of the politicians like MTG and Madison Cawthorn, who called Ukraine Neo-Nazis and woke, respectively. It's not really about Ukraine or Putin as much as it is finding a way to turn the war into anti-Biden/Dem talking points.

The only legit "Putin is doing a good thing" takes I've seen are from dudes like Nick Fuentes, and that guy is a legit white nationalist, so not really someone I think should be representative of a "right-wing" pro-Putin take.
Click to expand...


I just love how none of you guys are bringing up the Democrats who also are pro-Putin. Here's one. There are many others of his ilk. Why this discussion even went anywhere I don't know other than certain folks political persuasion. I also find it funny how hard google makes it to find these articles from legitimate news sources that discuss the pro Russia democrats.

Meet the Democrat siding with Putin on the Ukraine war
 
ThunderHorse said:
I just love how none of you guys are bringing up the Democrats who also are pro-Putin. Here's one. There are many others of his ilk. Why this discussion even went anywhere I don't know other than certain folks political persuasion. I also find it funny how hard google makes it to find these articles from legitimate news sources that discuss the pro Russia democrats.

Meet the Democrat siding with Putin on the Ukraine war
Click to expand...
We briefly mentioned Pro-Putin dems, but nobody had an example readily available

Thanks for providing one.
pardus said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1574865224108220423
Click to expand...

As much as I'd believe the subtitles are their actual feelings (particularly the "ethnic minorities should fight for me"), it seems that account just posts satirical subtitles.

I wonder how close the translation actually is.
 
So, what to make of the damage to the Nord Stream pipeline off Sweden?

Western leaders blame 'deliberate' sabotage after Nordsteam pipeline

Confidence appears to be high that it's the result of sabotage. But who did it? Easy finger points at the Soviets. Repairs are estimated to take a week. So, while a leak isn't really in their interest right now, it's only short term and possibly sends some sort of message to greater Europe?

It's been a busy day for general jackassery.
 
Blizzard said:
So, what to make of the damage to the Nord Stream pipeline off Sweden?

Western leaders blame 'deliberate' sabotage after Nordsteam pipeline

Confidence appears to be high that it's the result of sabotage. But who did it? Easy finger points at the Soviets. Repairs are estimated to take a week. So, while a leak isn't really in their interest right now, it's only short term and possibly sends some sort of message to greater Europe?

It's been a busy day for general jackassery.
Click to expand...
Russians seem like the obvious culprits, kind of a “nice civilization you’ve got there… shame if… everyone should freeze to death this winter” reminder. But there are many other potential perpetrators, if this was indeed sabotage.

I do t know the details but it seems like something like this would take a little bit of equipment and expertise. Not the usual “Molotov on a police station” type of action.
 
I read this article in Foreign Policy this morning and thought it was interesting:

With Russia greatly diminished and an economic recession looming, current pledges to increase European defense capabilities will lose steam, and America’s NATO allies will go back to relying on Uncle Sam for protection. Despite many past failures, proponents of liberal hegemony will claim vindication, at least temporarily.

So, what’s wrong with that?
Click to expand...
 
Marauder06 said:
Russians seem like the obvious culprits, kind of a “nice civilization you’ve got there… shame if… everyone should freeze to death this winter” reminder. But there are many other potential perpetrators, if this was indeed sabotage.

I do t know the details but it seems like something like this would take a little bit of equipment and expertise. Not the usual “Molotov on a police station” type of action.
Click to expand...

My first thought is, who gains the most from new gas contracts to replace Nord Stream and that Europe had hesitated to do business with recently.
 
Marauder06 said:
I've never been to Ukraine or Russia and I don't study the area closely so consider that when you read my response.

Like many people, I'm torn on this issue and my views are clouded by the shadows cast by my limited experiences. But I think we have a really, really poor track record when it comes to getting involved in other peoples' conflicts. Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... lots of blood and treasure for what was, in almost every case I just listed, some very limited results.

At the same time, as I've said many times here on the site, appeasement never works. That's the same if the bully is here on the page, or is the leader of a nuclear-armed country. So by not intervening as we have, an emboldened Putin might be even stronger by the time he goes after something that we decide we do care about.

At the same (same-same?) time, we are throwing A LOT of money we don't have, at a fight that's not directly ours. Our focus should be on China. They're the ones who are going to upset the US-led world order, not the f'ing Russians. So yeah, I'm conflicted...

The thing I respect the most about Ukraine is that they actually have the will to fight. And (with extensive help from us) they are good at it. Like most people who (unlike me) are actual experts in the region, I expected Ukraine to fold in a matter of weeks. It's refreshing to me for us to be supporting a side that actually has the will to not only fight, but to win.

When it comes to regime change in Russia, I'm not sure that's in our long term interests, at least not if it's a sudden cataclysmic change. I think Putin is a terrible human being and the Russian regime is a bad one. But we saw in Iraq, Syria, and Iran (and many other places) that sometimes stability is better than having a good (by Western standards) national leader. In addition to geography and people, another major difference between Russia and the Middle Eastern states I just named is that Russia has nukes. Like... a lot of them. And given the level of corruption in that country, a lot of that material, as well as mass-casualty conventional weapons, might find its way into the black market and be used against our interests. I've seen what happens when you take down a regime and don't have the means and/or will to install something better. Three times. I'm not looking for Round 4.
Click to expand...

I love most of the Russian people. They are awesome. I hate Russia. It is not awesome. People assume that because they look like us (westerners) they think like us, and that ain't true. The people are in a real pickle.

I pretty much agree with you. Appeasement does not work. Our type of engagement does not work. How much is enough especially in light that China is watching with interest? I hate throwing bad money after good, but right now we don't have ANY money to be throwing at them (and yet, we do, while we slide to recession and worsening inflation).

I don't like Putin. Never have. I waffle on regime change, I see both sides of the argument, but maybe it's the devil you know. I DO know that in order for it to have the best odds it needs to be organic. I fear if we/the west tries to interfere we'll fuck it up like we always do (see all situations, ever).
 
Blizzard said:
Confidence appears to be high that it's the result of sabotage. But who did it? Easy finger points at the Soviets.
Click to expand...
Assuming it was sabotage, that is certainly possible, whether Putin wanted to send a message about Russian capabilities to other fuel sources ahead of the Baltic Pipe launch or, given his all-in mentality during this invasion, permanently remove the cashcow incentive for Russian oligarchs to try and overthrow him.

RackMaster said:
My first thought is, who gains the most from new gas contracts to replace Nord Stream and that Europe had hesitated to do business with recently.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson argued it was just as possible - if not more likely - that Americans were responsible, since the US only stood to profit by putting the final nail in the coffin of Russia's main bargaining chip with the EU.

CIA's advanced warning to Berlin weeks ago about possible future attacks on both the pipelines that were sabotaged doesn't exactly erode Carlson's claim, either, for those prone to conspiratorial thinking about the federal government and the IC in particular.

Also (though the claim may not directly apply since Germany ultimately did cancel it shortly after the invasion), in before a bloodthirsty airborne rabbit reminds us how President Biden famously threatened to end Nord Stream II back in February if Russia invaded Ukraine.

This will be an interesting European winter.
 
Marauder06 said:
Now that that's settled, I'm curious about what the board's thoughts are on this piece. To sum up, Putin claims his callup is "limited" and will only involve 300,000 troops. I don't think that's enough for what he says its for, and it may be a ruse for... I don't know, something else.
@pardus @DasBoot

Link to story






View attachment 40637
Click to expand...

I think that is an excellent article and quite accurate. I'd be very surprised if the mobilization stops at 300k. Kudos to the author.

Marauder06 said:
I've never been to Ukraine or Russia and I don't study the area closely so consider that when you read my response.

Like many people, I'm torn on this issue and my views are clouded by the shadows cast by my limited experiences. But I think we have a really, really poor track record when it comes to getting involved in other peoples' conflicts. Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... lots of blood and treasure for what was, in almost every case I just listed, some very limited results.

At the same time, as I've said many times here on the site, appeasement never works. That's the same if the bully is here on the page, or is the leader of a nuclear-armed country. So by not intervening as we have, an emboldened Putin might be even stronger by the time he goes after something that we decide we do care about.

At the same (same-same?) time, we are throwing A LOT of money we don't have, at a fight that's not directly ours. Our focus should be on China. They're the ones who are going to upset the US-led world order, not the f'ing Russians. So yeah, I'm conflicted...

The thing I respect the most about Ukraine is that they actually have the will to fight. And (with extensive help from us) they are good at it. Like most people who (unlike me) are actual experts in the region, I expected Ukraine to fold in a matter of weeks. It's refreshing to me for us to be supporting a side that actually has the will to not only fight, but to win.

When it comes to regime change in Russia, I'm not sure that's in our long term interests, at least not if it's a sudden cataclysmic change. I think Putin is a terrible human being and the Russian regime is a bad one. But we saw in Iraq, Syria, and Iran (and many other places) that sometimes stability is better than having a good (by Western standards) national leader. In addition to geography and people, another major difference between Russia and the Middle Eastern states I just named is that Russia has nukes. Like... a lot of them. And given the level of corruption in that country, a lot of that material, as well as mass-casualty conventional weapons, might find its way into the black market and be used against our interests. I've seen what happens when you take down a regime and don't have the means and/or will to install something better. Three times. I'm not looking for Round 4.
Click to expand...
As I've stated previously, this is our war, just not directly, and just not yet. It will be a lot cheaper in money and blood if we get in now as we have done, rather than wait for an article 5 situation to happen and we have to roll a few divisions into Ukraine. If we continue what we are doing, we can roll Putin back to his side of the playground and contain him. He's not going to beat Ukraine now, whether we can push him back behind his own border is probably up to us. I'm proud of what the USA is doing over there, most of Europe are acting like weak bitches, with notable exceptions of the Baltics and Poland (and I could probably put Slovenia in there too though I'm not really up on the Intel there), Germany is going to freeze this winter and it's their own fault for sucking up to Russia for gas, Trump offered Merkel a deal but she snubbed him and went with Putin, Germany voted for her so now they and Ukrainians suffer as a result (she was probably a KGB/FSB plant anyway and can die slowly in a fire as far as i'm concerned).
Leave Putin in power, that's not our place, he's shot himself in the foot, we just need to wait until he blleds out, but we need to keep the sanctions strong.
ThunderHorse said:
I just love how none of you guys are bringing up the Democrats who also are pro-Putin. Here's one. There are many others of his ilk. Why this discussion even went anywhere I don't know other than certain folks political persuasion. I also find it funny how hard google makes it to find these articles from legitimate news sources that discuss the pro Russia democrats.

Meet the Democrat siding with Putin on the Ukraine war
Click to expand...
Fuck anyone who supports Putin. My issue is with T Carlson.
Cookie_ said:
We briefly mentioned Pro-Putin dems, but nobody had an example readily available

Thanks for providing one.


As much as I'd believe the subtitles are their actual feelings (particularly the "ethnic minorities should fight for me"), it seems that account just posts satirical subtitles.

I wonder how close the translation actually is.
Click to expand...
I now believe that was satirical/fake news and I have deleted it, my apologies everyone.
 
Marauder06 said:
Russians seem like the obvious culprits, kind of a “nice civilization you’ve got there… shame if… everyone should freeze to death this winter” reminder. But there are many other potential perpetrators, if this was indeed sabotage.

I do t know the details but it seems like something like this would take a little bit of equipment and expertise. Not the usual “Molotov on a police station” type of action.
Click to expand...

Russia is a convenient culprit, obvious, maybe too obvious, however Putin has shown that he's not above doubling down on a dumb idea, or lashing out like a cornered, injured animal. I would've thought it'd be more beneficial for him to take out the Norwegian pipeline but what would I know. The rational part of me says Putin won't use a tactical nuke in Ukraine but I think it's entirely possible.

————————————————-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575236893008363521
 
Last edited:
Blizzard said:
So, what to make of the damage to the Nord Stream pipeline off Sweden?

Western leaders blame 'deliberate' sabotage after Nordsteam pipeline

Confidence appears to be high that it's the result of sabotage. But who did it? Easy finger points at the Soviets. Repairs are estimated to take a week. So, while a leak isn't really in their interest right now, it's only short term and possibly sends some sort of message to greater Europe?

It's been a busy day for general jackassery.
Click to expand...
Fuxking Biden and his New Green Deal. He had the Umbrella Company do it
 

Similar threads

Sock'em_Slav
Sock'em_Slav Intro: 18X
Replies
4
Views
1K
Muppet
Muppet
S
Future role in Ukraine for SOF?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Florida173
Florida173
Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
Gunz
RackMaster
Russian jets buzz Canadian frigate in Black Sea
Replies
3
Views
2K
BloodStripe
BloodStripe
AWP
Germany Winning WWII
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Red Flag 1
R
Back
Top