Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia-Ukraine War (continuing)

11011131516414

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,509 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Multiple statements of fact without foundation or merit.

    You have posted this nonsense on the thread already, it was challenged and picked apart, you had no response.

    Your claims have negative credibility.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,893 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    On the other hand, I doubt Trump would have made the incredibly idiotic definitive statement that the US would not get involved if Russia invaded Ukraine, which Biden did. His being a wildcard had certain advantages.

    As for threatening NATO, his remarks were addressed particularly at certain countries. He seemed to have a fine military relationship with Poland and the Baltic states, for example, nations which took military defense seriously even before the Zeitenwende (Both in terms of personal interactions with leaders, and the movement of US military forces to those nations). It is difficult to say the remarks were unjustified, even if they were undiplomatic. NATO countries letting the US shoulder the military load for them has been a pain point in the US for years, Trump was the first President to be as publicly direct about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    There wouldnt have been a war if Trump had been in for the second term as it obviously came down to bad politics/negotiations (thanks Biden).

    Straight from Trumps mouth. As though that claim were in any way believable or verifiable.

    It also ignores the fact that the war was ongoing under Trumps nose(remember now Crimea and chunks of Donbas were under Russian occupation during his term). And the only substantive thing Trump did was blackmail Zelensky to try dig up dirt on Biden.

    Its water under the bridge now so best policy now is end it sooner rather than later as it only means more death every day it goes on.

    Yup. Putin can end the war tomorrow by withdrawing troops from Ukraine. No more bloodshed. If Trump can achieve that immediately after being elected, as he has claimed he will(before even being sworn in mind you), then I will literally eat my f*cking laptop.

    However far more likely is that he'll pressure Ukraine to give up their territory by withholding aid. Then the Russians will genocide the Ukranians still living on the occupied territory. We kick the can down the road and Putin has another go in a few years before he dies. Why wouldn't he sure? He got away with it last time. And the time before in Crimea. And the time before that in Georgia. And the time before that in Chechnya.

    Your idea for a peace is nothing but Chamberlin treaties and surrender.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    It is difficult to say the remarks were unjustified, even if they were undiplomatic. NATO countries letting the US shoulder the military load for them has been a pain point in the US for years, Trump was the first President to be as publicly direct about it.

    Apart from his abject nonsensical story about a country leader approaching him and asking him "Sir pretty please protect us if we don't pay up". The problem is that the 2% spending is not a mandatory minimum. It's a guideline.

    Nato Guideline

    He's equating NATO, as evident from his statement, to a Mafia racket. Where if you don't pay the boss you don't get protection.

    Trump's statements on NATO countries is the same populist, grievance filled, isolationist nonsense he's always peddled. Like the way he moans about Zelensky fleecing the US public for 60 billion every time he visits.

    He's not some genius who saw the threat in Russia and the problem of countries underspending on defence. It's crowd baiting and nothing more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭randomuser02125


    Atrributing a level of intelligence and wisdom to the proven rapist that he just does not possess.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    A European nation being invaded by Russia is a risk to European security. Then there's the ensuing genocide that would follow if he's allowed to keep what he wants. We also know for a fact that there are other territories that he wants. So leaving him off, that can very well affect prosperity and security at a global level.

    Also worth remembering that we handled Putin like that for two decades. Nothing was done when he assassinated Litvinenko in the UK, same for Skripal. That's ignoring the scale of election interference across the globe. The fake peace you want will result in them further testing limits as they have done for decades.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,893 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It's got nothing to do with the 2% guideline, which is a relatively recent thing in the grand scheme of things and is far more recent than the US complaints.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/04/politics/trump-us-presidents-nato-defense-spending/index.html

    It's that nations were not even spending their own internal mandatory minima as defined by "Keeping the stuff we have working". Remember when Germany had to hold off on promised support to Ukraine when they discovered that a bunch of equipment hadn't been maintained and was unserviceable? The disastrous state of the German military was known long before Trump, but nobody in Germany paid attention because there were votes in hospitals and housing assistance and whatever else. If the entire submarine fleet -and- the entire airlift fleet is non-operational at the same time (as it was a few years back), that's nothing to do with a 2% problem, that's a "government not caring" problem.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43134896

    As another example of a 'not a 2% problem', from a year ago.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-nato-leaked-memo-defense-budget-boris-pistorius/

    Or as another case, to field a just battlegroup to Lithuania, the Germans are having to raid units from the entire Army in order to cobble together enough vehicles that work. And they still will be short artillery because there isn't enough in serviceable condition in the entire army.

    Somehow Germany is so underesourced that it can't keep the much smaller force it has today working. But they managed to keep the larger force working 30 years ago.

    image.png

    It's not just a German problem, though that's the country which famously laughed at Trump in the UN when he chastised them for being too dependent on Russian fuels. (Well, that aged well). Countries like Belgium just said 'sod it', and removed their entire high-intensity warfighting capability. The Dutch, at least, weren't so stupid to loose the skillset. They sold all their stuff, but leased some equipment from the Germans to make a shared unit in order to keep a few people who knew what they were doing. Last month they announced they might have made a mistake and are buying heavy gear again, something the Belgians cannot easily do because they've lost the skillset.

    The British haven't done much better.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/03/how-the-british-army-lost-its-way/

    The entire British Army is down to 150 tanks, just over 10% the fleet of Jordan. This chart is from last month. The Belgians, not exactly a NATO military powerhouse, had a 300-tank fleet until they sold them, the last ones being removed in 2014.

    They're just not up to par.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/26/weakened-uk-military-two-months-war-russia/

    image.png

    The bottom line is that NATO countries have let their militaries atrophy for years, but nobody cared, the US would come and save them. And Korea. And Taiwan. In the meantime, the US also gets hassle for spending the money. Care to imagine how many times on Boards people have lambasted the US (at least prior to 2022) for spending its money on the military?

    Better yet, when the US does decide to up stakes, the argument isn't military, it's 'bad for our economy'. US military tax dollars going to prop up European economies. There's probably an irony in that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

    It's also worth noting that we're talking about Americans here, there's a slightly different attitude which is the same domestically as it is to NATO.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39516346

    Even if a stopped clock is only right twice a day, when it's right, it's still right.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    I agree, Putin should withdraw and end the war.

    Let’s be clear about one thing, the people who are now anti war all of a sudden are just anti standing up to Putin.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,419 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    Feel genuinely sorry for Zelensky. US in limbo because of election. France and Germany too far too west to really care about Ukraine. Baltic states and Poland care but not rich enough. Slovakia, Hungary and Austria rather pro- Putin these days. Too many Europeans don’t care. So not enough pressure politically. Feels currently like Ukraine slowly but surely losing the war in incremental losses.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,612 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Let's be honest, the US with all it's wealth and troops and technology couldn't hold Afghanistan or Iraq. There's no way Russia can do more than make incremental gains at huge cost of life in Ukraine.

    Winning a town here and a village there is no way to win a war.

    We've seen the war slow down at this time of year due to the weather, so Ukraine has plenty of time for international politics to sort itself out in a few months.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Listen we could get into how European militaries have allowed themselves to depend on the US and let their armies fall into disrepair and I don't disagree with this(and honestly it seems to be your thing so I don't have the depth of knowledge on it nor do I care to) but it's aside from the original point I was responding to.

    Which is that Biden is making nonsensical statements about not getting the US involved as some sort of doddery moron and Trump is the savvy warhawk calling out European military atrophy.

    He's not. So if that's the not the angle you were getting at and your point amounts to:

    Even if a stopped clock is only right twice a day, when it's right, it's still right.

    Moronic demented windbag makes sense on an issue for the first time in years for all the wrong reasons. You won't find much opposition from me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭Mike3549


    Ukraine intelligence is doing a great work. Couple of warehouses with NK/iranian missiles stored hit recently and now this



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,573 ✭✭✭rogber


    Ukraine summit postponed, not hugely significant but still symptomatic of the waning interest and the sense that if trump gets in Ukraine is probably f*cked big time either way...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,327 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    You are right but all that detail and analysis in the post of the way Europe assumed big devastating nation state war was in the past in our neighbourhood (and stopped spending and disarmed accordingly) is just far over Trump's head I think.

    He has a simplistic mafiosi view of the NATO alliance very much based on the magic 2 % he's heard about, much of which should be spent on products of the US MIC.

    If the deadbeats don't "pay up" to the big dog, they are ripping off the US and they don't get to avail of protection.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,725 ✭✭✭yagan


    I read recently that the US had been negotiating with Japan and South Korea about making ship for the US navy as US contractors were costing too much. These ships can't be built outside the US because of the Jones Act, so the Japanese and Koreans weren't really interesting in having to deal with the existing labour costs and pork barrel bloat culture of US defense contracts.

    It's mad to think though that the US needed to consult their former enemy to replenish their navel fleet.

    Trump could cut off NATO spending and still have to deal with these cost issues. There's lots of shades of "Leave the EU and give the money to the NHS" about Trump and NATO.

    Anyhow interestingly today my youtube feed seems to have had a dump of very negative spins of Ukraines prospects, so we must be close to a Russian implosion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,011 ✭✭✭scottser


    Sorry now but the situation would be arguably worse for Ukraine if Trump got a 2nd term.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,327 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    It is all linked in a way, I think. (May be) harder to justify more drafts (or even encourage people to sign up for military service) when there is no proper plan here (as far as I can see?) from Ukraine's allies.

    Most of them (the key wealthy supporters anyway, US, Western Europeans) want to go on helping Ukraine at the current level (no more, no matter how the war changes) and have it all be mostly painless for them.

    There is no will to really put the screws onto the Russian economy (that will hurt us and our companies too), weapons supplies are fairly slow (military production for a war costs money, think of the budget and what else we want to spend it on), and they shackle Ukraine's military regarding how they may fight Russia with the weapons they supply (Putin could hold us responsible and escalate [in some way], the war could come to us).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,419 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,443 ✭✭✭zv2


    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 183 ✭✭Mannesmann


    The best way to end the war would be for the EU and US to give a massive donation of arms and equipment to Ukraine. They know how to fight the Russians they just need the resources.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,419 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 835 ✭✭✭junkyarddog


    Hey Kids,tired of leading a carefree life?

    Park in the wrong place and gain an all expenses paid pass the the front line of the"SMO"

    The meat market must be drying up!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Jon Doe


    Goodness… Ukraine's fate got sealed with Euromaidan. Putin's regime can't afford a democratic Ukraine right next door - might give Russians ideas… Same principle for CCP & Taiwan… Consider this: what if there had been no Corona virus?… What if in 2020 February there had been no pandemic and instead Russia had invaded Ukraine? Keep this in mind: Trump.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭Addmagnet


    I reckon Putin didn't invade in 2020 because he wasn't ready - he doesn't strike me as the kind to care about lockdowns and social distancing (for others) if it interferes with his plans.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,544 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Really good summation of why those calling for a "negotiated peace" are morons:

    https://www.readthedetox.com/p/a-peace-deal-in-ukraine-is-not-going

    The TLDR version: even if Zelensky's government were to concede the currently occupied territory to Russia via a "negotiated settlement" (which is itself unlikely due to the lack of the West's appetite to provide iron-clad security guarantees) and stand idly by while Putin's henchmen continue their genocide in those territories, not only will Russia just use this farcical "peace" to re-build it's shattered military before invading the rest: the Ukrainian people themselves won't stand for it.

    Based on polling of support for the resistance to Russian occupation (whether with, or without, foreign support) it's clear that Zelensky's govt would fall in the aftermath of such a decision and to an opposition determined to fight on. Even in the absence of political leadership, a significant cohort of the Ukrainian population (circa 10%, rising to 15% of active duty military) claim they'd continue armed resistance if they disagreed with the terms of such a surrender (which is, rightly, how they'd see such a treaty).

    The West can either give Ukraine everything it needs to win this war, or it can watch on as it continues for decades. If the US and EU decide to abandon Ukraine to this fate, they won't like the consequences of those actions either: the admirable restraint being shown by the Ukrainian military to date would evaporate overnight.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭randomuser02125


    The proven rapist wasn't right about anything. He was simply regurgitating talking points from the likes of Limbaugh. Dunning Kruger in all its glory.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    To highlight what has been commented for a long time now:

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/10/09/russias-army-recruits-are-increasingly-older-less-capable-men-vyorstka-a86622

    "The Russian military is seeing an influx of older contract soldiers who are largely seen as detrimental to its war effort in Ukraine, the investigative news outlet Vyorstka reported Wednesday, citing anonymous military and parliamentary sources.

    Volunteer fighters aged 45 and over now make up half of new recruits in Moscow, a senior Mayor’s Office source was cited as saying. The average age of recruits has risen from 40 at the start of the year to about 50, said another Moscow Mayor’s Office source.

    “They’re all sick,” a Russian soldier fighting in Ukraine was quoted as saying of these troops. “Their legs hurt, their heads hurt, and they’re slow.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,725 ✭✭✭yagan


    I wonder how if many of them were gung ho for invading Ukraine when it was younger men being sent to the slaughter.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Strikes me that Putin couldn't care less… keep pumping the criminals and old men into the frontlines and gradually wear down the Ukrainian defences seems to be his game plan. A callous view that nobody will cry too hard for the deaths of that cohort, as opposed to young and urban Russians. His view of measuring success (don't laugh!) is that, at the end of the day its the position of the front lines and territory gained that matters, not how it was achieved. He seems to view Russian lives the same way other people view money.

    To think that the US and Europeans are sitting on the solution to how to defeat him is infuriating.



Advertisement