|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 26, 2024 14:36:25 GMT
I think the kindest thing to do would be to stop funding Ukraine's war with Russia and get them agree peace terms with Russia. After all the Ukraine
only seems to want to join the EU - and the EU and Russia are pretty much the same thing. They're both undemocratic dictatorships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 26, 2024 15:11:53 GMT
Spoken like Haw Haw in WW2.
Sorry, but until the dictatorship in Russia stops attacking its neighbours and stealing their land, there can be no peace.
Appeasement does not work.
You cannot negotiate with a tiger whilst your head is in its mouth.
Ukraine have two choices fight to live, or surrender and die.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2024 15:25:45 GMT
It does seem that after 2 years of throwing money, arms, equipment, training and aircraft at Ukraine, the enthusiasm is wearing off.
Putin will be so pleased, he'll have it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 26, 2024 15:35:56 GMT
The west/ US doesn’t want to beat Russia. If it did then Ukraine wouid have been given enough assets to do it .
Instead the US has a proxy war / military testing site with no US casualties.
Imo the US is waiting for the right time to pull back from Ukraine and push for a settlement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 26, 2024 15:59:18 GMT
The west/ US doesn’t want to beat Russia. If it did then Ukraine wouid have been given enough assets to do it . Instead the US has a proxy war / military testing site with no US casualties. Imo the US is waiting for the right time to pull back from Ukraine and push for a settlement. What the US wants is to deter Putin from invading Poland and other Eastern European NATO countries, which would draw America into a NATO war in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 26, 2024 16:08:30 GMT
I think the kindest thing to do would be to stop funding Ukraine's war with Russia and get them agree peace terms with Russia. After all the Ukraine only seems to want to join the EU - and the EU and Russia are pretty much the same thing. They're both undemocratic dictatorships. Yes I definitely think this is the right thing to do. Ukrainians are bloody stupid and their own worst enemy. I've seen enough Ukrainians and enough Russians to tell what is going on. It's the Ukrainians who are the evil warmongers. They have been acting like Hamas who go and kill the innocent Israeli citizens in terror attacks, so Russia finally had to put a stop to it. Their mission is to take away all their guns and the means to make more of them. Yes I know the Russians can be very unsubtle, but they are alright as long as you don't take the piss. Compared to the Middle East, the Russians are pretty civilised and have strong ties with the European cultural traditions which go back centuries, much unlike it was re our relations to the Middle East where most of them hate our guts and want to invade us. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 26, 2024 16:10:27 GMT
The west/ US doesn’t want to beat Russia. If it did then Ukraine wouid have been given enough assets to do it . Instead the US has a proxy war / military testing site with no US casualties. Imo the US is waiting for the right time to pull back from Ukraine and push for a settlement. What the US wants is to deter Putin from invading Poland and other Eastern European NATO countries, which would draw America into a NATO war in Europe. How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that? would Russia invade Poland if it was driven out of Ukraine ? Would Russia invade Nato countries if a settlement was achieved? Pull the other one . |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 26, 2024 16:52:26 GMT
What the US wants is to deter Putin from invading Poland and other Eastern European NATO countries, which would draw America into a NATO war in Europe. How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that? would Russia invade Poland if it was driven out of Ukraine ? Would Russia invade Nato countries if a settlement was achieved? Pull the other one . Do you think America should be solely responsible for helping Ukraine win against Russia? Like all other countries, the US can only do as much as it is able without compromising its own stockpiles of military hardware. Why are you not holding the other NATO European countries equally responsible for giving enough? They are the ones most at risk of Russian aggression. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 26, 2024 17:01:05 GMT
How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that? would Russia invade Poland if it was driven out of Ukraine ? Would Russia invade Nato countries if a settlement was achieved? Pull the other one . Do you think America should be solely responsible for helping Ukraine win against Russia? Like all other countries, the US can only do as much as it is able without compromising its own stockpiles of military hardware. Why are you not holding the other NATO European countries equally responsible for giving enough? They are the ones most at risk of Russian aggression. No, but it should play its part. Ukraine need their aid and without it they cannot advance. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 26, 2024 17:03:24 GMT
How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that? would Russia invade Poland if it was driven out of Ukraine ? Would Russia invade Nato countries if a settlement was achieved? Pull the other one . Do you think America should be solely responsible for helping Ukraine win against Russia? Like all other countries, the US can only do as much as it is able without compromising its own stockpiles of military hardware. Why are you not holding the other NATO European countries equally responsible for giving enough? They are the ones most at risk of Russian aggression. Now you moving the goalposts. The fact is that the US is the far most militarily power in the world and has been happy to be so . I believe that the US is using the Ukraine war for its own interests ie draining the resources of a rival power, testing military and warning other rivals of its resolve . Had Europe invested in more military assets and technology it wouid have become another rival to the US ….the US gained by being the big dog and Europe gained by being its loyal lieutenant. Now is certainly the time for Europe to rearm and reassess. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 26, 2024 17:10:33 GMT
Do you think America should be solely responsible for helping Ukraine win against Russia? Like all other countries, the US can only do as much as it is able without compromising its own stockpiles of military hardware. Why are you not holding the other NATO European countries equally responsible for giving enough? They are the ones most at risk of Russian aggression. Now you moving the goalposts. The fact is that the US is the far most militarily power in the world and has been happy to be so . I believe that the US is using the Ukraine war for its own interests ie draining the resources of a rival power, testing military and warning other rivals of its resolve . Had Europe invested in more military assets and technology it wouid have become another rival to the US ….the US gained by being the big dog and Europe gained by being its loyal lieutenant. Now is certainly the time for Europe to rearm and reassess. I'm struggling a bit with your logic. A minute ago you were asking "How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that?" Now you're saying the US is using Ukraine for its own ends. The US is the backbone of NATO and doesn't want to be drawn into a fullscale European NATO war with Russia. The US would prefer if Europe invested more in its own security rather than depend on America to pay the lion's share of NATO bills. After all, it is Europe, not America, that is Putin's more likely next target. If Trump becomes president again, he will very likely withdraw the US from NATO altogether precisely because many European NATO countries have still not been meeting their 2% defence spending targets. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 26, 2024 17:20:38 GMT
Now you moving the goalposts. The fact is that the US is the far most militarily power in the world and has been happy to be so . I believe that the US is using the Ukraine war for its own interests ie draining the resources of a rival power, testing military and warning other rivals of its resolve . Had Europe invested in more military assets and technology it wouid have become another rival to the US ….the US gained by being the big dog and Europe gained by being its loyal lieutenant. Now is certainly the time for Europe to rearm and reassess. I'm struggling a bit with your logic. A minute ago you were asking "How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that?" Now you're saying the US is using Ukraine for its own ends. The US is the backbone of NATO and doesn't want to be drawn into a fullscale European NATO war with Russia. The US would prefer if Europe invested more in its own security rather than depend on America to pay the lion's share of NATO bills. After all, it is Europe, not America, that is Putin's more likely next target. If Trump becomes president again, he will very likely withdraw the US from NATO altogether precisely because many European NATO countries have still not been meeting their 2% defence spending targets. I’m struggling to understand why you are struggling. How is draining the resources and resolve of one of your main rivals , having a test site for your weapons and sending a warning to a potential enemy …without losing a single US soldier not in the interests of the US? Hence my point that the US could have given Ukraine enough resources to win the war but hasn’t . Yes Europe hasnt pulled its weight in investing in military resources yet so far the was happy to accept this . Ive gone over thst in my last two posts . If Europe becomes a formidable military force it may decide that Russia and its vast resources will make a better friend than the failing US. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 26, 2024 17:44:42 GMT
The Republicans are in Putin's pocket and have done everything they can to prevent sufficient aid being given to Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 26, 2024 18:00:59 GMT
I'm struggling a bit with your logic. A minute ago you were asking "How does not giving Ukraine enough weapons to win and just enough weapons not to lose achieve that?" Now you're saying the US is using Ukraine for its own ends. The US is the backbone of NATO and doesn't want to be drawn into a fullscale European NATO war with Russia. The US would prefer if Europe invested more in its own security rather than depend on America to pay the lion's share of NATO bills. After all, it is Europe, not America, that is Putin's more likely next target. If Trump becomes president again, he will very likely withdraw the US from NATO altogether precisely because many European NATO countries have still not been meeting their 2% defence spending targets. I’m struggling to understand why you are struggling. How is draining the resources and resolve of one of your main rivals , having a test site for your weapons and sending a warning to a potential enemy …without losing a single US soldier not in the interests of the US? Hence my point that the US could have given Ukraine enough resources to win the war but hasn’t . Yes Europe hasnt pulled its weight in investing in military resources yet so far the was happy to accept this . Ive gone over thst in my last two posts . If Europe becomes a formidable military force it may decide that Russia and its vast resources will make a better friend than the failing US. By the same token, you could equally say that the UK and other NATO countries are doing the same thing. Winning the war is not just a matter of the sort of resources the US has given Ukraine. To end the war soon would likely need contributions in the form of nukes or at the very least boots on the ground, and no country is willing to do that because that would spark a wider conflict. I think that the US has already been exceedingly generous to Ukraine and I'm not even sure that they could have given Ukraine more resources than they already have without depleting the supplies they need for their own protection. But why do you think it's America's responsibility to solve this problem? America isn't at risk. Europe is. If Europe becomes a formidable military force, they will not have to rely on American generosity, which in my opinion is a good thing, because American generosity always depends on who is in power and what the Opposition wants, and as we are seeing of late, aid to Ukraine can be delayed for long periods because of political squabbling. Resources or not, I don't see Europe becoming friends with Russia any time soon, do you? Russia is failing a lot faster than the US. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 26, 2024 18:13:36 GMT
I’m struggling to understand why you are struggling. How is draining the resources and resolve of one of your main rivals , having a test site for your weapons and sending a warning to a potential enemy …without losing a single US soldier not in the interests of the US? Hence my point that the US could have given Ukraine enough resources to win the war but hasn’t . Yes Europe hasnt pulled its weight in investing in military resources yet so far the was happy to accept this . Ive gone over thst in my last two posts . If Europe becomes a formidable military force it may decide that Russia and its vast resources will make a better friend than the failing US. By the same token, you could equally say that the UK and other NATO countries are doing the same thing. Winning the war is not just a matter of the sort of resources the US has given Ukraine. To end the war soon would likely need contributions in the form of nukes or at the very least boots on the ground, and no country is willing to do that because that would spark a wider conflict. I think that the US has already been exceedingly generous to Ukraine and I'm not even sure that they could have given Ukraine more resources than they already have without depleting the supplies they need for their own protection. But why do you think it's America's responsibility to solve this problem? America isn't at risk. Europe is. If Europe becomes a formidable military force, they will not have to rely on American generosity, which in my opinion is a good thing, because American generosity always depends on who is in power and what the Opposition wants, and as we are seeing of late, aid to Ukraine can be delayed for long periods because of political squabbling. Resources or not, I don't see Europe becoming friends with Russia any time soon, do you? Russia is failing a lot faster than the US. I could say it and it might be the case but as the US is overwhelming more powerful than Europe and therefore the war against Russia is driven by the US. Ukraine thinks the war could end sooner if the US gave it more and more sophisticated weaponry. They have never requested nukes and no one has ever said that nukes could end the war . The US is not generous . They use resources strategically to look after their own interests . As all countries do. The vast difference in military power has suited the US . Europe has always had the capability to become a militarily power to rival the US but the US has never encouraged it . Of course they wouldn’t. If Trump pulls the plug in NATO then Europe and Russia could become close within a generation . Why wouldn’t they? |
|
