Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

But Taiwan is a US thing, geographically? Or Afghanistan?
I always thought it was about political influence.

A very good question you put up there Catfish

Which country on earth is worth starting a WWIII for ?

Or how far shall we let it pass before we start WWIII ?

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Even I can't understand what NATO/USA have to do in Ukraine-It's not exactly a country worth starting WWIII for.

On the other hand I would understand if NATO deployed troops near the border towards Ukraine in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. In case Russia are planning on invading Ukraine.

Markus

Like'em or not, Ukraine is country that's on the verge of losing a big part of its GDP, industrial and natural resources all located in the Donbass region. Russia is supporting separatists in that area undoubtedly with the hope of annexing those resources for themselves. Ukraine understandably stepped up to the plate by massing its own forces along the contested areas, and just recently invited NATO to play war games.

Not sure about the source but according to the link below Ukraine also changed the language of the conflict too.

Previously, the phrase “aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine” was used in Kiev’s official documents. Today, the war in Donbass was designated as an international armed conflict, that is, war.

Such a definition has significant juridical impact. This statement completely blocks Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Paragraph 2 of the Package of Measures clearly defines that the parties to the conflict are Kiev on the one hand, Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic (LDPR) on the other.

Today the Ukrainian Parliament officially declared, at the highest level, that the parties to the conflict are Ukraine and Russia.


https://southfront.org/kiev-builds-u...on-in-donbass/

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

But Taiwan is a US thing, geographically? Or Afghanistan?
I always thought it was about political influence.

As I repeatedly said, I believe the US is willing to risk a full-scale war with nuclear power China over Taiwan when I see it happening. Until then I take it that they support the claim they will fight as long as the war is in words, not missile barrages exchanged. Since WW2, the US has not willed to get engaged against a military foe on same eye level. In Korea, respect was paid to not push the Chinese too far. In Vietnam, respect was paid to not bomb targets that might trigger full Chinese engagement. Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia were launched in the expectation of them being inferior enemies. The various Middle America expeditions do not even count as full scale wars against major powers.

On Afghanistan, the original thing was Mullah Omar and Bin Laden, and after 9/11 going after Bin Laden, NO MATTER WHAT, was understandable - I would have done the same. Heck I would even have started a war with Russia, if needed - after all it were 3000 of US citizens slain. My problem started when all this nonsense with nation building and beacon of democracy-talking started. My problem with it continued when I saw over years how surreally and unknowing the war was waged. I rate practically all these wars as tactical victories but strategic defeats.

On such things, I have a very simplistic view: either you do it full and then go all the way, or you do not even start. Shatter the enemy and kill and destroy him with all you have, and if you cannot do that, then do not even bother to get engaged.


"We burnt that forest down."

There is no inbetween. Where this is not understood, stay away from even considering war, no matter for what cause. You would loose.

[mapuc]

Been thinking.

These verbal support to Ukraine and Taiwan and these military show-off, could they be some kind of message to Russia and China hoping they will think twice before doing something bad ?

If so, is NATO/USA prepared to walk the line ?

Markus

[Catfish]

1st: Yes, a message.
2nd: No.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Catfish

1st: Yes, a message.
2nd: No.

We "talk the talk" but can we " Walk the Walk"?

[mapuc]

I feared you would write no.

It's a dilemma for me.

Do not make promises, if you can't fulfill them. On the other hand-I'm not interested as a single human being watch how the world once again start a world war.

Following is a thinkable scenario.

Russia invade Ukraine and despite Bidens word of standing side by side with Ukraine. Ukraine gets no help from NATO/USA, only verbal support.

Could this give China blood on the teeth and attack Taiwan or some other country attack another country-Like Iran + Syria attack Israel ?

Markus

[Skybird]

Syria is not in the shape to atack Israel, has other things on mind.

Iran already attacks Israel via proxies, and gets attacked via sabotage and cyber attacks.

China does not need any encouraging example to do like it wants to do, it just does them when it sees fit.

Take this form of a famous one as a source of serenity:

Courage - to change the things I can alter,
Serenity - to accept those things I cannot help,
Wisdom - to know the difference.

This, and a big dose of Stoizism. I like to read Marc Aurel's Reflections.

I just fail in always living up to all that...

[les green01]

Russia did ok during ww2 they was pretty much fighting a one front war where everyone else was a two front but the fly in the buttermilk is Nato/Europe US would have to have the balls tell russia what would happen we know Nato and Europe don't have the balls for that not anymore and biden it would take him 2 months to figure out where his balls are north korea even if they jump in south korea could tear them up and spit them out middle east US could take the leash off of Israel and turn them lose and let them go for broke china don't care for russia dont think they would jump in but let the smoke settle like i said it take balls balls that a lot of people now days don't have

[Skybird]

North Koprea has stationed over 15000 asrtillery pieces at the demarkation line, most of them in striking distance to the bigger area around Seoul with 25+ million inhabitants. Missiles not counted.

Aerial bombardmeent in Yugosloavia was so ineffective due to clever camouflyging by the Serbs that their losses in attacked targets, mostly tanks and artillery, were practically insignificant and the attacked manouver units were able to finally withdraw and pull out practically unharmed, in full cohesion and fully combat capable. The experiences of the NATO air war against active combat units on the ground must be described as extremely sobering.

I do not know where this often seen attitude comes from that America can just defeat any enemy with ease and certainty. The Iraq and Afghanistan and Yugoslavia wars also do not support that optimism. And that were enemies seen as more inferior than North Korea. It still features one of the world's most dangerous and amassed air defence zones.

North Korea is absolutely capable to inflict hair-raising damages and losses to South Korea. They probbaly cannot maintian such an effort for long time, logistically, but a first decisive attack may be enough to break the South's economic backbone and destroy public morale due to unimaginable civilian losses.

An d when you compare Seoul with Pyönyang - what is the rational in assumig that threatening to wipe out Pyönyang in retaliation for striking Seoul has a deterring effect? I would say it is exactly the other way around, Seoul is much more preciosu and juicy a target than Pyönyang. The south has, due to its greater modernity and wealth, much more to lose than the North. And its a relatively open society, compared to the North. Which makes it vulnerable to sabotage, a Northern speciality.

I often have heard a war would most likely be lost by the North. I then usually think that does not mean that the costs for the South are affordable.

China's acting I do no longer predict. They may intervene against the North, to stop them. They may not do so. They may engage actively on behalf of the North. All possible. They will do what maximises the damage for the US and the South, strategically. Or use the opporutnity to open a second front over Taiwan and/or the SCS.

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As I repeatedly said, I believe the US is willing to risk a full-scale war with nuclear power China over Taiwan when I see it happening. Until then I take it that they support the claim they will fight as long as the war is in words, not missile barrages exchanged. Since WW2, the US has not willed to get engaged against a military foe on same eye level. In Korea, respect was paid to not push the Chinese too far. In Vietnam, respect was paid to not bomb targets that might trigger full Chinese engagement. Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia were launched in the expectation of them being inferior enemies. The various Middle America expeditions do not even count as full scale wars against major powers.

On Afghanistan, the original thing was Mullah Omar and Bin Laden, and after 9/11 going after Bin Laden, NO MATTER WHAT, was understandable - I would have done the same. Heck I would even have started a war with Russia, if needed - after all it were 3000 of US citizens slain. My problem started when all this nonsense with nation building and beacon of democracy-talking started. My problem with it continued when I saw over years how surreally and unknowing the war was waged. I rate practically all these wars as tactical victories but strategic defeats.

On such things, I have a very simplistic view: either you do it full and then go all the way, or you do not even start. Shatter the enemy and kill and destroy him with all you have, and if you cannot do that, then do not even bother to get engaged.


"We burnt that forest down."

There is no inbetween. Where this is not understood, stay away from even considering war, no matter for what cause. You would loose.

On such things, I have a very simplistic view: either you do it full and then go all the way, or you do not even start. Shatter the enemy and kill and destroy him with all you have, and if you cannot do that, then do not even bother to get engaged.

Skybird , The U.S. since 1945 Japan...we have never shattered an enemy on our own even when we had help.Every single conflict our politicians have sent our volunteer soldiers to we have had our ass kicked. And those allies that believed in us.They have had to build monuments to their fallen soldiers to. Today in this country, We do not know if our President has command of our nuclear forces or the party he represents has control.We do not Know!! I do know that in the past the United States has attacked countries who had Weapons of mass Destruction if they had unstable Governments.

As a citizen of the USA, Will other countries think of Americans as these peoples are losing their minds and they have Nuclear Weapons and just as we have done to other countries in the past and make a coordinated attack on the USA ? Sorry i do not know how to edit and post .

[Rockstar]

Anyone hear of somebody fleeing to Russia, North Korea, Syria or China? We're not the bad guys here. People flee other countries all the time, risking their lives to come to North America and Europe. When the Soviet Union folded and before Russia could get back on its feet. The Baltic States and other Eastern Bloc countries took advantage of the confusion and ran fast and worked as hard as they possibly could to become integrated into NATO. Ukraine wasn't even close then but have since overcome a lot of obstacles to be considered for NATO membership. Its their right to do so if choose too just as they have the right to preserve well established boundaries and the resources within without interference.


Russia has only one BFF in Europe and that's because they and their former East German buddies are working hard to undermine NATO alliances and Ukraine energy sources by diverting much needed energy through Nordstream2. While Russia secures the coal reserves in the Donbas for themselves.

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Anyone hear of somebody fleeing to Russia, North Korea, Syria or China? We're not the bad guys here. People flee other countries all the time, risking their lives to come to North America and Europe. When the Soviet Union folded and before Russia could get back on its feet. The Baltic States and other Eastern Bloc countries took advantage of the confusion and ran fast and worked as hard as they possibly could to become integrated into NATO. Ukraine wasn't even close then but have since overcome a lot of obstacles to be considered for NATO membership. Its their right to do so as well as well it is their right to preserve their well established boundaries and the resources within without interference.


Russia has only one BFF in Europe and that's because they and their former East German buddies are working hard to undermine NATO alliances and Ukraine energy sources by diverting much needed energy through Nordstream2. While Russia secures the coal reserves in the Donbas for themselves.

Ok so what the hell does that have to do with America ? Look we are are in our own Reset and we certainly don't need to get in another Political war for anybody. We may be targeted by other countries because our political situation is unstable what have we done in those cases . Attack ,yes what goes around comes around. Lol

[Rockstar]

[nikimcbee]

Side question, is our military even capable of fighting a major power? Seriously, we wouldn't be fighting a bunch of goat herders this time, what could go wrong?
Are we gunna draft snowflakes? Russia will just have to shut the internet off or change the wifi PW and we'll cry like lil babies. Can you see Cornpop announcing that we're re-instating the draft?