Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Without defending the actions of our current administration, I'll say that maybe we shoulda been leaning on the rest of NATO the last several years.  Even today, too many of them aren't putting enough into their militaries.*  Our current admin is going about it in the literal worst way possible, but it's good to see movement.

*Other than Poland, the Baltics and a few others of course.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Without defending the actions of our current administration, I'll say that maybe we shoulda been leaning on the rest of NATO the last several years.  Even today, too many of them aren't putting enough into their militaries.*  Our current admin is going about it in the literal worst way possible, but it's good to see movement.

*Other than Poland, the Baltics and a few others of course.

On the other hand, many of them were with us for a decade+ in Afghanistan (including Denmark and Canada and France).

There have been things happening since February of 2022 (holy shit three years this coming week) but it's slow to turn various mentalities around.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Apart from everything else, the French and British are showing that they sense an end to American hegemony, and it opens an avenue for a Franco-British alliance to take over as the primary players running the Western Alliance.

Their play is to put troops on the ground and expect that will turn the weight of the fighting in short order and force Russia to seek an armistice.  And in so doing, they basically remove the United States as the driver of Western security going forward.

It’s honestly a good play.  Ukraine has softened them up. Now the Brits and Frogs get to come in and get the credit and benefits of the big win just like we did in 1918.

I don’t think they’re talking about putting troops into Ukraine in combat, but rather as security forces after any armistice.

  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

On the other hand, many of them were with us for a decade+ in Afghanistan (including Denmark and Canada and France).

There have been things happening since February of 2022 (holy shit three years this coming week) but it's slow to turn various mentalities around.

Yes almost all of them were there. Germany, UK, France and Canada ran sectors.

But an issue with NATO is since the mid 1990's they have lost their mission. Portugal, Iceland, Greece are not worried about invasion. They know no one is going to let them fall, so they turned their militarizes to look internally. Spain as well. Italy? well...

NATO's one time to shine was in Bosnia. And they sucked. Their internal and historical ties into the region caused not a thing to happen. This caused us to go in. France is the only ally who can project strength and will when needed.

They have got their act together, somewhat. I mean, is Spain really worried about air defense it cannot send more patriots, or HAWKS to Ukraine?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I don’t think they’re talking about putting troops into Ukraine in combat, but rather as security forces after any armistice.

Then they are armed hostages. Might as well send in the Pakistani's, Nigerians, etc.

Posted
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Without defending the actions of our current administration, I'll say that maybe we shoulda been leaning on the rest of NATO the last several years.  Even today, too many of them aren't putting enough into their militaries.*  Our current admin is going about it in the literal worst way possible, but it's good to see movement.

*Other than Poland, the Baltics and a few others of course.

We discussed earlier - based on gdp the balkans and the rest of Europe have been carrying their weight wrt to Ukraine. 

17 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I don’t think they’re talking about putting troops into Ukraine in combat, but rather as security forces after any armistice.

I think it still sends the signal LL states and a good one. The free world in Europe needs to take the reins in every way they can. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted

Just a quick AI scan.

During the Bosnian War, Bosnian Serbs took hundreds of UN peacekeepers hostage in retaliation for NATO air strikes. The hostages were used as human shields to prevent further air attacks.

Hostage incidents
  • May 25–26, 1995
    Bosnian Serbs took 370 UN peacekeepers hostage after NATO air strikes on ammunition depots.
  • May 27, 1995
    Bosnian Serbs captured 12 French peacekeepers at gunpoint at the Vrbanja Bridge. They took 10 of the peacekeepers away and left two behind as human shields.
NATO response
  • NATO responded to the hostage incidents with air strikes on targets in the Srebrenica area.
  • NATO also established Joint Military Commissions to meet with military commanders from the former warring parties.
Impact
The hostage incidents and the UN's decision to return to traditional peacekeeping principles sent a message to the Bosnian Serbs that they could pursue their strategy of ethnic cleansing. The Bosnian Serbs used this strategy to drive Muslims and Croats from territory they wanted to claim
 
There has to be a real Peace before they can go in. A ceasefire with the irregulars in the field accomplishes little.
Sorry, it sounds great, but don't see how it work.
 
 
 
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

If they want a real peace, they need to fucking kill Putin for starters.

Nah, just keep collapsing the economy and his people will do it. I do not mean Boris the sausage dealer. I mean his military/oligarchs, etc.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Apart from everything else, the French and British are showing that they sense an end to American hegemony, and it opens an avenue for a Franco-British alliance to take over as the primary players running the Western Alliance.

Their play is to put troops on the ground and expect that will turn the weight of the fighting in short order and force Russia to seek an armistice.  And in so doing, they basically remove the United States as the driver of Western security going forward.

It’s honestly a good play.  Ukraine has softened them up. Now the Brits and Frogs get to come in and get the credit and benefits of the big win just like we did in 1918.

They could at least protect Ukrainian skies and push Russian glide bombsrs back

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Nah, just keep collapsing the economy and his people will do it. I do not mean Boris the sausage dealer. I mean his military/oligarchs, etc.

 

So, like, welcome russia back into the G8 yeah?

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 7
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, troph said:

We discussed earlier - based on gdp the balkans and the rest of Europe have been carrying their weight wrt to Ukraine. 

I think it still sends the signal LL states and a good one. The free world in Europe needs to take the reins in every way they can. 

Certainly we have military interests beyond Europe, but I'll say those nations just barely above the NATO minimum, and only got there recently, need to do more.  That isn't me being isolationist.  That's me looking at a map and measuring how close a bunch of them are to an asshole despot.

image.thumb.png.84a59d0c2cf43066a40427f872d5dcbe.png


 


https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/nato-us-trump-pete-hegseth-europe-b2698355.html
 

 

Edited by Parliament
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Certainly we have military interests beyond Europe, but I'll say those nations just barely above the NATO minimum, and only got there recently, need to do more.  That isn't me being isolationist.  That's me looking at a map and measuring how close a bunch of them are to an asshole despot.

image.thumb.png.84a59d0c2cf43066a40427f872d5dcbe.png


 


https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/nato-us-trump-pete-hegseth-europe-b2698355.html
 

 

Yes but we have to be careful because of the rhetoric. More should be done, and frankly  we can say the US should do more for Ukraine, but you are correct, and I tend to be in the same camp, though I disagree with Trump on 98% of what he does and consider his admin an existential threat to me and democracy, he’s not always wrong. In fact he might be right just a smidge more than a stalled clock (twice a day). But when discussing these items it’s imperative to understand he’s doing way more harm than good.

in the end I hope France and the UK step up and drive European security. Yes the US will be needed but unfortunately we have become intensely unreliable. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Certainly we have military interests beyond Europe, but I'll say those nations just barely above the NATO minimum, and only got there recently, need to do more.  That isn't me being isolationist.  That's me looking at a map and measuring how close a bunch of them are to an asshole despot.

image.thumb.png.84a59d0c2cf43066a40427f872d5dcbe.png


 


https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/nato-us-trump-pete-hegseth-europe-b2698355.html
 

 

They do not see it that way. They look at history. When was the last time anyone rolled into Spain? Slovenia? Canada? Italy? Go east then the perspective of history changes.

Croatia is surprising. Guess they still have all that Yugoslav shit sitting around.

Something to consider. it is just not what they spend. It is how they spend it. Lots of conscripts? a few high dollar items? Modernization and integration vs. surplus storage fees and older single net systems?

I think these are also needed to frame a more accurate of a picture on what they can realistically contribute.

 

NATO was created for one thing. To hold Russia at bay. Many did not see that as a real need until Russia invaded Ukraine.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If modern history is anything to go by, I don't think even quintupling their spending could make the Italian military an effective fighting force. 

it is interesting to go back in time to February 2022 and see what all the extremely well informed and intelligent posters, including myself, said about Ukraine’s chances at the moment of invasion and a day or two after.   THAT  Russia, the second army in the world, is gone.   The Russia that invaded Ukraine is gone.  Huge numbers of the most productive, educated and talented Russians left the country. They essentially don’t have a navy anymore. They are out of modern tanks. Even an RPG will take out the T 64s.   They are running out of pilots to fly the helicopters and attack jets they still have, and they are all out of armored personnel carriers.

It is beyond question that if February 2022, Russia had invaded properly without advancing in long unsupplied columns accompanied by Benny Hill theme song music, we would’ve had a different result.  Europe would have a difficult time defending itself from a Russia who attacked confidently with the assets they had in February 2022.     Now that those assets are gone, the elite units all dirt napping and making sunflowers - and their ranks replaced by 60-year-old asthmatic drunks - I feel that Europe on its own can surely take care of what Russia has become. 

The real question is the same one that has always been sitting around pregnant: at what point will they consider using tactical nuclear weapons.   Because if they stick with traditional military equipment, just Poland or Finland alone would wreck their shit if they joined Ukraine in its defense.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

it is interesting to go back in time to February 2022 and see what all the extremely well informed and intelligent posters, including myself, said about Ukraine’s chances at the moment of invasion and a day or two after.  

I was the same.  Figured the 3 operation would take...3 days.  Ukraine would roll over and that's that.  Then they shot down those Russian helicopters/planes over the Kiev airport and we said. "Woah, maybe?"  Then that big convoy was stopped.

It's ironic, but the war has made me more Christian.  If there is TRUE evil in this World, not just bad guys doing bad things, then there has to be good too.  If there's a Satan there must be a God.  Disappointing I didn't figure that out until now, but here we are.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

I was the same.  Figured the 3 operation would take...3 days.  Ukraine would roll over and that's that.  Then they shot down those Russian helicopters/planes over the Kiev airport and we said. "Woah, maybe?"  Then that big convoy was stopped.

It's ironic, but the war has made me more Christian.  If there is TRUE evil in this World, not just bad guys doing bad things, then there has to be good too.  If there's a Satan there must be a God.  Disappointing I didn't figure that out until now, but here we are.

False premise my friend.  The existence of A =/= existence of B.  There can true evil out there without any good. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

If modern history is anything to go by, I don't think even quintupling their spending could make the Italian military an effective fighting force. 

Put them in charge of the Nato Mess.  Let them play to their strengths

Posted
37 minutes ago, Parliament said:

We each believe our own thing.

This is true, but I'm not talking about beliefs at all.  You do you.  This is no swipe.  Rather, I'm talking about logic.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Parliament said:

Certainly we have military interests beyond Europe,

5 hours ago, troph said:

Yes the US will be needed but unfortunately we have become intensely unreliable. 

We are in a bad situation.  While there is some waste in our military, we have a big military because we are The Superpower.  Our businesses buy and sell good globally, and our businesses thrive globally because we mostly keep the world fairly stable (or at least our trading partners) and we keep the sea lanes open, all of which applies to the UK for arguably a few centuries.  We are in a bad situation because we have people who are running the show who do not understand why we have a big military, and some want to bring much of it back home and shrink it.  If that happens, we turn into the UK post-WWII.

Ironically, China building up their military is making the case for us to keep a strong military that can project power, such that not even the powers that be can ignore that.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Trumps deal with Ukraine is coming to light. I posted about it in the CR since there is no way for that to not be seen as political.

No words.

 

Terrible editorial in Al Jazeera:

 

It is not Trump that betrayed Ukraine

Those who set it on a path to full-scale war with Russia did.

Leonid Ragozin

Former President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Trump Tower, on September 27, 2024 in New York [File: AP/Julia Demaree Nikhinson]

Those who set it on a path to full-scale war with Russia did.

United States President Donald Trump did not stop the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of his inauguration, as he promised during the election campaign last year. But three weeks into his presidency, things got moving in that direction at a breakneck speed.

On February 12, Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin and then posted on Truth Socialthat they agreed to work together in order to stop “millions of deaths taking place” in the Ukraine-Russia war. This was followed by the announcement of a possible summit between the two in Saudi Arabia.

On February 13, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out some of the specifics of the US proposal to end the war during a speech at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In an abrupt departure from the key talking points of the previous US administration, he said Ukraine cannot hope to restore sovereignty over its entire territory and that its NATO membership should be off the table to get the talks going.

With these statements, the Trump administration effectively struck down the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership which laid out mutual commitment to territorial integrity and inviolability of borders and identified Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions (NATO and the European Union) as a priority policy goal.

Some Western media outlets were quick to declare “Ukraine’s betrayal” following the statements of Trump and Hegseth. Washington is indeed abandoning Kyiv, but this is not a surprise development. The abandonment has always been a likely outcome of the US approach to relations with Ukraine.

And Trump is not to blame for setting it up. Kyiv was betrayed by those who promised it NATO and EU membership so it fights Russia and rejects any compromise in a war it cannot win.

In the past three years, the West reached the upper limit of what it could feasibly do in terms of supplying weapons and imposing economic sanctions without triggering World War III or badly damaging the world economy. Continuing this costly backing longer would not have changed the reality that Russia is bigger and richer than Ukraine and is able to sustain an army that has adapted to modern warfare and cannot be defeated by large quantities of state-of-the-art Western military technology. Above all, Russia would always have the final word in any regional war as a major nuclear power – a factor that restricts Western involvement in the conflict.

Sooner or later a US administration was going to cut support for Ukraine because it was unsustainable. It just so happened that the decision was made by a Republican administration. The Democrats are lucky that they did not have to do it and now get to use it in their domestic battle against the GOP.

Meanwhile, despite a few angry escapades in recent days, Ukraine’s European partners may begin to fall in line with the US on Ukrainian membership. On February 14, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said there was never a guarantee that Ukraine would join the alliance as part of a peace deal with Russia.

This statement contradicted some of his earlier pledges. In December 2024, the newly appointed Rutte said at a joint news conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine’s “path to membership is irreversible” and that it was “closer to NATO than ever”.

While NATO membership now seems completely off the table for Ukraine, the Trump administration does not appear to be completely ignoring Ukraine. In a nod to Ukrainian demands for Western security guarantees, Hegseth mentioned the possibility of deploying European and non-European peacekeepers to observe and enforce a ceasefire. He did rule out the deployment of American troops and said peacekeepers from NATO countries should not be covered by NATO’s Article 5 which allows for a joint response against an attack on any alliance member.

This proposition will hardly reassure Ukrainians. Zelenskyy has repeatedly said that Western security guarantees are of little value without US involvement. At the same time, the Kremlin will likely see any NATO troops on Ukrainian territory as a Trojan horse, so the idea is unlikely to take off when the talks begin in earnest.

Non-NATO European troops should not be an issue for Moscow, but non-NATO European states like Austria and Serbia can likely supply just a few thousand troops. The main contingents will, therefore, have to come from the Global South.

That said, the whole peacekeeper issue is overblown. The only way to guarantee stable peace is to establish Ukraine’s genuine non-alignment and advance rapprochement between Russia and the West.

Does this mean a win for the Kremlin? Yes, it does, but this has been the only realistic outcome since Ukraine got thrown under Putin’s bulldozer by Western hawks.

Contrary to various Western predictions that the Russian economy will collapse and the regime will crumble under war pressure, Russia has managed to fare relatively well throughout this conflict. Its economy has been booming thanks to lavish defence spending and – unlike Ukrainians – the Russian population has been effectively shielded from the war becoming a major factor in their lives.

Putin clearly cannot be defeated on the battlefield. He can only be brought down if the Russian people are on board. But the West and Ukraine have done everything to alienate even the most staunchly pro-Ukrainian anti-Putin Russians through xenophobic rhetoric and discriminative policies. It seemed that the hawkish crowd always wanted war, not a better Ukraine and Russia.

The choices Ukraine is left with are all grim. This was apparent in Zelenskyy’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, which was meant to show defiance but smacked of desperation.

He turned to the EU proposing that the Ukrainian army become the core of a new European military force. This is also unlikely to work because it brings the EU into direct confrontation with Russia. The Ukrainian president also tried to interest Trump in Ukraine’s mineral riches only to receive an ultimatum from his administration tantamount to an imperialist confiscation of Ukrainian resources.

But all of this is intended for his domestic audience. Zelenskyy needs to show that he has tried every avenue, even the most improbable ones, and that the West still betrayed him. With that, he can then succumb to the inevitable.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted

Pravda: Zelenskyy: US saying things today that are very pleasing to Putin

 

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that the rhetoric of the United States is now aimed at pleasing Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin and speeding up the conclusion of a certain "peace deal".

Source: Zelenskyy in an interview with German public broadcaster ARD, as reported by European Pravda

Details: Zelenskyy commented on the possibility of territorial concessions to Russia in the upcoming "peace talks," emphasising that Ukraine "will not surrender its territories legally".

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The good news is that Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia of 1938.  And the Soviets needed the Ukrainians to drive their war machine, and Putin's troops are not even the best army in Kursk.

Still shitty though.

Also didn't have nukes in 1938.

Posted

It is interesting Z went to Turkey. Hehehe, Russia wants to declare historical borders based on some old shit? Well so can the Turks.

Yeah, well see, we claim the Crimea in partnership with our old allies the Cossacks. Ottoman out front should have told ya.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted

Reading between the lines and it looks like nothing of any real significance was done yesterday. Both sides claimed some victories, re-establishing communications, etc. But nothing of any value.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
16 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Reading between the lines and it looks like nothing of any real significance was done yesterday. Both sides claimed some victories, re-establishing communications, etc. But nothing of any value.

 

Nope. Posturing. Only thing I saw today was Lavarov saying they would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

Reading between the lines and it looks like nothing of any real significance was done yesterday. Both sides claimed some victories, re-establishing communications, etc. But nothing of any value.

 

 I was told it would be handled in one day by the master negotiator.  One day.  On day one.   But I guess since this is not day one....  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-ukraine-should-never-have-started-it-remarks-war-russia-rcna192710


Trump says Ukraine 'should have never started it' in comments about war with Russia
Trump made the remark while deriding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose country was invaded by Russia in February 2022.

President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Ukraine was responsible for Russia's invasion of the country three years ago, arguing Kyiv could have made a deal to avoid the conflict.

“You should have never started it,” Trump said of Ukraine while criticizing President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who had expressed concern that his country was not included in talks between the U.S. and Russia in Saudi Arabia.

"I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it's going very well. But today I heard, 'Oh, well, we weren't invited.' Well, you've been there for three years," Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort. "You should have never started it. You could have made a deal."

US, Russia meet to talk end of Ukraine war — without Zelenskyy
Trump went on to say: "I could have made a deal for Ukraine that would have given them almost all of the land, everything, almost all of the land, and no people would have been killed, and no city would have been demolished, and not one dome would have been knocked down. But they chose not to do it that way."

  • Rage+1 5
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Nope. Posturing. Only thing I saw today was Lavarov saying they would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine.

 

That sounds like another rEdLiNe to me and we’re just stupid pussies for not “preemptively escalating” ... reminder: Russia already has North Koreans fighting for them in Russia to liberate (technically correct for once) Kursk… it’s not an escalation for European troops to help liberate Ukraine. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
He’s a fucking idiot and and an asshole parroting Russian propaganda. There’s a 1% chance this is part of some spectacular art of the deal 4D chess. We all know it’s not. He’s overplaying the US’ hand, alienating our allies, and doing what Putin wants because he’s easy to manipulate. 
Now why would you go and make things all political in a thread that is completely tied into who is the potus in the US and how dare you be concerned that a shift in potus might shift US policy. I want my Ukraine news political free!
  • Like 1
  • Haha 8

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...