On 7/30/2023 at 1:12 AM, swissie said:

There is the political Neutrality. Economic and Moral Neutrality does not exist. Nowhere. We all take sides. But if 2 countries have decided to bang each others head in, a neutral country is allowed to sell weapons to both parties.

 

Otherwise the feuding countries will find ways to get their weaponery from "non-neutral-countries".

Generally, I believe the world needs more "chickens" rather than more "war heroes".

I personnally am glad that I am part of the neutral chicken crowd in the middle of a world that worships war heros more than neutral bystanders. Once again.

'Once again'!

 

'Neutral bystanders'?

 

I would suggest Putin enablers.

 

'Long known as a destination for war criminals and kleptocrats to stash their plunder, Switzerland is a leading enabler of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his cronies'.

 

Russia's Swiss Enablers | CSCE

 

On 7/29/2023 at 9:55 PM, heybruce said:

Afghanistan:  Very poor, backwards, thinly populated country that doesn't want to be dominated by outsiders.

 

Ukraine:  Comparatively prosperous, modern, populated country that doesn't want to be dominated by outsiders.

 

Russia's economy, well:

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/russia-economy-putin-gdp-forecast-ukraine-war-western-sanctions-oil-2023-4?op=1

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/russia-economy-worsens-current-account-ruble-energy-exports-2023-7?op=1

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/31/1176769042/russia-economy-brain-drain-oil-prices-flee-ukraine-invasion

 

History is full of examples of smaller powers outlasting greater powers.  That's how the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, how Russia lost in Afghanistan, how colonial powers lost to their colonies (including Britain to the US in the 18th century) and how Yemen is currently getting the better of Saudi Arabia. 

What about the majority of wars that were won by the party that had more weapons and personnel?

On 8/1/2023 at 12:39 PM, LosLobo said:

'Once again'!

 

'Neutral bystanders'?

 

I would suggest Putin enablers.

 

'Long known as a destination for war criminals and kleptocrats to stash their plunder, Switzerland is a leading enabler of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his cronies'.

 

Russia's Swiss Enablers | CSCE

 

There are a few other countries where one can "stash their plunder": The state of Delaware in the US, the British Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, Panama etc etc. The list is not complete.

Mythologie Switzerland: Today, if I want to deposit 10'000 CHF on my Swiss bank account in cash, my bank wants to know exactly where the money came from. Wire transfers are also monitored. If I wanted to "hide" money, my choice would certainly not be Switzerland these days.

The only thing that can be said with certainty at this point is: One is subjected to the war propaganda from both sides. Those "news" can not be veryfied independently. So whatever one wants to believe, it's "take your pick". (Serious news agencies point that out).

Not surprisingly, westen news sources are biased in favour of the Ukraine. Western "war correspondants" prefer to report 200 km's away from the frontline and taking their clues from Ukrainian Facebook posters.

I remain: The longer this war goes on, the more the odds are stacked against the Ukraine.

 

19 hours ago, swissie said:

What about the majority of wars that were won by the party that had more weapons and personnel?

I take it you now concede that nations defending themselves against larger invaders sometimes do win by outlasting their opponents.  That's Ukraine's goal; they don't want to invade and occupy Russia, they just want Russia out of Ukraine. 

 

With sufficient support Ukraine will win, Putin will lose and probably be deposed or fall down an elevator shaft, and Russia will put its imperial ambitions aside for a while.

Edited August 3, 20232 yr by heybruce

On 7/29/2023 at 10:42 PM, swissie said:

There is the political Neutrality. Economic and Moral Neutrality does not exist.

And certainly not in Switzerland, whose banking system still holds upwards of 2 billion dollars worth of gold looted ( mostly from Jews) by the NAZIS, along with huge amounts of other capital and assets. 

 

I suppose, in the final analysis, neutrality comes at a price!

Edited August 21, 20232 yr by herfiehandbag

If the United States does not support Ukraine sufficiently to evict Russia from Ukrainian territory, how can the US deter China?

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

If the United States does not support Ukraine sufficiently to evict Russia from Ukrainian territory, how can the US deter China?

USA couldn't deter CH even if they wanted to.  Not that they do.

13 hours ago, KhunLA said:

USA couldn't deter CH even if they wanted to.  Not that they do.

After China sees what happens to Russia, they will think twice about invading Taiwan.

 

Unless the appeasers win in 2024, and abandon Ukraine.

16 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

After China sees what happens to Russia, they will think twice about invading Taiwan.

 

Unless the appeasers win in 2024, and abandon Ukraine.

News Flash:  CH has no intension of invading Taiwan, IMHO

 

Why would they ? CH & Taiwan are intertwined economically, and disrupting the present arrangement, would benefit nobody.  Same as Hong Kong, Taiwan enjoys their special 'nominal administrative division' and would be foolish to rock the boat.

 

Taiwan is & always will be, part of mainland CH...IMHO

Edited August 27, 20232 yr by KhunLA

On 7/26/2023 at 6:48 AM, swissie said:

In the aftermath, confronted with huge "rebuilding costs" , to be payed with money from the EU/US will further destabilise already fragile "western democracies". This time around, "western taxpayers" will not go along, as eastern european countries are detaching themselves further from "democratic values" on a monthly basis, while asking for more money from "the western countries." (Poland, Hungary mainly).

It surely has to be only a matter of time before western taxpayers demand an end to massive amounts of their money being used in Ukraine despite no end in sight, when their countries are in financial strife.

All Russia has to do is dig in and wait.

Happened before when the US gave up on Sth Vietnam and let the North have it. IMO will happen here; just a matter of time.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It surely has to be only a matter of time before western taxpayers demand an end to massive amounts of their money being used in Ukraine despite no end in sight, when their countries are in financial strife.

All Russia has to do is dig in and wait.

Happened before when the US gave up on Sth Vietnam and let the North have it. IMO will happen here; just a matter of time.

People are mostly stupid aren't they? It's cheaper in the long run to fund Ukraine as long as it takes to stop Russia than it would be to fight WW III. Same with NATO. Cheaper to let countries not paying their 2% continue to be members than to fight the inevitable war that would result if NATO collapsed. 

There can only be one winner ????. 

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It surely has to be only a matter of time before western taxpayers demand an end to massive amounts of their money being used in Ukraine despite no end in sight, when their countries are in financial strife.

All Russia has to do is dig in and wait.

Happened before when the US gave up on Sth Vietnam and let the North have it. IMO will happen here; just a matter of time.

Part of your analogy has some merit the time issue .the rest of it is off.financially it’s a bargain big time we spend a lot on defense big money massive amounts of money in light of that and keeping in mind the spectacular results the Ukrainians have achieved it’s a bargain.think about it for a minute putin is hat in hand begging N Korea for weapons (he used to be the big bad bear) not so anymore he has been utterly humiliated.also it’s the right thing morally to do.as far as Vietnam we made a bad decision big time not to mention we lost 58,000 dead and we saw every night what WE were doing to a country.Ukraine is doing their own fighting we and the rest of the free world are helping as it should be!salva Ukraine evict the orks!

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It surely has to be only a matter of time before western taxpayers demand an end to massive amounts of their money being used in Ukraine despite no end in sight, when their countries are in financial strife.

All Russia has to do is dig in and wait.

Happened before when the US gave up on Sth Vietnam and let the North have it. IMO will happen here; just a matter of time.

Destroying the Russian army for a tiny fraction of our military budget sounds good to me.

 

Do you disagree?

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Destroying the Russian army for a tiny fraction of our military budget sounds good to me.

 

Do you disagree?

Destroying the Russian army

Are you having a laugh?

 

It was a long time since the Russians had a major conflict, so they had to learn the lessons all over again. They'll learn, adapt and re arm. The tanks and other equipment they lost were probably old and not very good, and will be replaced by upgraded and better ones.

 

Russia doesn't have any problems with conscription, so feet on the ground will continue, and they have a much larger population to conscript from than Ukraine.

1 hour ago, gargamon said:

People are mostly stupid aren't they? It's cheaper in the long run to fund Ukraine as long as it takes to stop Russia than it would be to fight WW III. Same with NATO. Cheaper to let countries not paying their 2% continue to be members than to fight the inevitable war that would result if NATO collapsed. 

Irrelevant. If a populace that isn't involved in the actual fighting is suffering financially they will demand that the money be spent on them and not bullets for somewhere else.

Anyway, so long as the west doesn't escalate the war, there is no reason to think WW3 will eventuate.

1 hour ago, gargamon said:

Cheaper to let countries not paying their 2% continue to be members than to fight the inevitable war that would result if NATO collapsed. 

If they ain't able to pay their 2% they probably don't spend enough to make their military any good. NATO doesn't need useless armies that can't do the job.

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Destroying the Russian army

Are you having a laugh?

 

It was a long time since the Russians had a major conflict, so they had to learn the lessons all over again. They'll learn, adapt and re arm. The tanks and other equipment they lost were probably old and not very good, and will be replaced by upgraded and better ones.

 

Russia doesn't have any problems with conscription, so feet on the ground will continue, and they have a much larger population to conscript from than Ukraine.

Ww1 they got their asses handed to them and surrendered ww2 they had no choice victory or annihilation the free world helped them. this time around they are doing what Hitler tryed to do .the modern world is against them and they are on the correct side of history.heck Phuket looks like Russia with all the draft dodgers they are having problems filling the manpower quotas now their currency is in the toilet they are begging N Korea for weapons because they are so dysfunctional.all of that being said it still hurts to see anyone getting killed in this whole un necessary war its heinous cruel and criminal all at the behest of one mr Putin salva Ukraine evict the invaders!

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Destroying the Russian army

Are you having a laugh?

 

It was a long time since the Russians had a major conflict, so they had to learn the lessons all over again. They'll learn, adapt and re arm. The tanks and other equipment they lost were probably old and not very good, and will be replaced by upgraded and better ones.

 

Russia doesn't have any problems with conscription, so feet on the ground will continue, and they have a much larger population to conscript from than Ukraine.

You certainly don't understand the impact of the war on Russia.
 

First off, Russia has big problems with conscription  which is why they emptied the jails earlier this year. 

 

As for replacing tank losses, good luck with that. They don't have the capacity to produce the optics that tanks require. And they have already tapped out their supply of viable tanks in storage.

 

You may have noticed that Russia is no longer on the offensive. Any idea why?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Destroying the Russian army

Are you having a laugh?

 

It was a long time since the Russians had a major conflict, so they had to learn the lessons all over again. They'll learn, adapt and re arm. The tanks and other equipment they lost were probably old and not very good, and will be replaced by upgraded and better ones.

 

Russia doesn't have any problems with conscription, so feet on the ground will continue, and they have a much larger population to conscript from than Ukraine.

You think Russia is going to build new stuff even though it can't maintain what it has now? 

 

Russia lost its best soldiers and equipment at the start of the war and is now getting old stuff out of storage and going to North Korea to beg for munitions, yet you have them building new and better stuff.  How do you think that is going to happen?

Even in the last days of the Soviet Union, the economy was much more dynamic than today. Although there was corruption in the USSR, it was tiny compared to today's Russia.

 

Meanwhile, the birth rate has dropped, so the loss of 250,000 young men killed, wounded or captured has a big impact.

 

Putin normally would call for a general mobilization, but that would mean recruiting in Moscow and St Petersburg - his base. So, he can't do that.

 

Also, I can tell you from personal experience that Ukraine can produce long range weapons that produce Hell in Moscow. Its only a matter of time before these come into use.

Edited September 17, 20232 yr by Danderman123

Russia definitely has a political problem with mass conscription.

Go too big and the regime risks revolution. 

Now Russia is scamming Cubans to do non military stuff and hijacking them to the front.

If they have no problem with conscription that wouldn't be happening.

I expect North Koreans are next.

It is true that Russia has a large population and general support for their genocidal war.

But support to the point of wanting to serve is quite weak.

Edited September 17, 20232 yr by Jingthing

On 9/17/2023 at 2:47 PM, Danderman123 said:

You certainly don't understand the impact of the war on Russia.
 

First off, Russia has big problems with conscription  which is why they emptied the jails earlier this year. 

 

As for replacing tank losses, good luck with that. They don't have the capacity to produce the optics that tanks require. And they have already tapped out their supply of viable tanks in storage.

 

You may have noticed that Russia is no longer on the offensive. Any idea why?

Possibly because they already got what they wanted.

 

If they are now only holding the line they don't need tanks, which are an offensive weapon.

 

BTW, how is that counter offensive that was going to throw the "orcs" out of Ukraine going?

General Winter is almost here, and with that the "offensive" will likely stop.

On 9/17/2023 at 3:59 PM, Danderman123 said:

Also, I can tell you from personal experience that Ukraine can produce long range weapons that produce Hell in Moscow. Its only a matter of time before these come into use.

Do you think that if Russia fails with conventional weapons it won't use nukes? I think it will, as Putin can't afford to fail.

 

Meanwhile, the war is so unimportant that it's almost vanished from Al Jazeera news hours. If it were going well for Ukraine I'm pretty sure it would be reported all over the place, but it's not. Ergo, IMO it's stalemate.

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Possibly because they already got what they wanted.

 

If they are now only holding the line they don't need tanks, which are an offensive weapon.

 

BTW, how is that counter offensive that was going to throw the "orcs" out of Ukraine going?

General Winter is almost here, and with that the "offensive" will likely stop.

Watch and learn.

 

Ukraine will never stop fighting until Russia is evicted from Ukrainian territory.

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you think that if Russia fails with conventional weapons it won't use nukes? I think it will, as Putin can't afford to fail.

 

Meanwhile, the war is so unimportant that it's almost vanished from Al Jazeera news hours. If it were going well for Ukraine I'm pretty sure it would be reported all over the place, but it's not. Ergo, IMO it's stalemate.

Far from a stalemate. Russia's defensive lines are being breached.

On 9/17/2023 at 1:30 PM, Jingthing said:

 

Now Russia is scamming Cubans to do non military stuff and hijacking them to the front.

If they have no problem with conscription that wouldn't be happening.

 

Surprisingly, the Cuban government opposes Cubans fighting in Ukraine. The scammers are third party recruiters, working to snatch Cubans under false pretenses. Some scammers have already been caught.

20 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Watch and learn.

 

Ukraine will never stop fighting until Russia is evicted from Ukrainian territory.

Correction. Ukraine will never stop fighting till the west stops giving them bullets and shells. Bullets and shells cost a lot.

I do not doubt the heroism and patriotism of Ukrainian soldiers, but it takes a lot of bullets to kill one enemy, and a lot of shells to take a well dug in enemy defensive position.

Many western countries are broke, and a war in a far off land are not anywhere near a priority for most citizens if their own troops are not involved.