1 hour ago, Hummin said:

That depends on his allies and future allies.

 

Russia is not alone, and Russia is not the only country who have beef with USA or the western world. 

 

If you only read western allies news, it is not that noticeable, but at once you open your view for more broad and wide news channels, you see putin have alot more support and emphasis than we would thought.

 

Future is not decided if world economy will be connected to Usd as status Q, 

 

Brics is one serious attempt. Next big economy threat coming from India, and who they choose as their future allies to. Nothing is carved in stone yet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

These supporters must not be very supportive if Putin must spend 40% of the Russian government's budget to fund his war.

Edited September 23, 20232 yr by heybruce

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

These supporters must not be very supportive if Putin must spend 40% of the Russian government's budget to fund his war.

And his allies will only buy his gas and oil at heavily reduced prices.

 

 

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

These supporters must not be very supportive if Putin must spend 40% of the Russian government's budget to fund his war.

That's another side of it, and a huge factor for how much longer Russia can continue to spend resources and human life's. When Russia loose this war, it is not over, it is the continue of the change of world order. 

 

This is a much bigger conflict than Russia attacks Ukraine as we all might have understood now? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-will-send-ukraine-atacms-long-range-missiles-biden-tells-zelenskiy-nbc-2023-09-22/

Ah yes, the man that likes to spend other people's money.

Congress may have different ideas and it is THEY that control the money, not Biden.

 

IF Biden does manage to send them ( a single missile costs around $850,000 ) and the Ukrainians escalate the war by attacking targets in Russia it may come back to haunt him, when the war escalates to the use of nukes.

 

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-comes-close-to-getting-atacms-how-will-it-change-the-war/

The White House also cited concerns over limited U.S. stockpiles of ATACMS and unnecessary escalation with Moscow in case they would be used to attack Russian territory among the reasons to reject Ukraine’s bid for the coveted missiles.

..............................

According to Borsari, other issues explaining the hesitancy could be the ATACMS cost-effectiveness per round, with a single missile costing around $850,000 compared to just $160,000 for a GMLRS rocket

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

 

 

That's another side of it, and a huge factor for how much longer Russia can continue to spend resources and human life's. When Russia loose this war, it is not over, it is the continue of the change of world order. 

 

This is a much bigger conflict than Russia attacks Ukraine as we all might have understood now?

Yes, it's a conflict between a rules based world order and a "might makes right" world order in which powerful nations feel free to go on wars of conquest. 

 

There are many problems with the latter option, the biggest one being that the surest defense against attack is possession of nuclear weapons.  A world in which many small, poorly governed countries with paranoid leaders possess nuclear weapons (think North Korea a hundred times over) is not a pleasant idea.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah yes, the man that likes to spend other people's money.

Congress may have different ideas and it is THEY that control the money, not Biden.

 

IF Biden does manage to send them ( a single missile costs around $850,000 ) and the Ukrainians escalate the war by attacking targets in Russia it may come back to haunt him, when the war escalates to the use of nukes.

 

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-comes-close-to-getting-atacms-how-will-it-change-the-war/

The White House also cited concerns over limited U.S. stockpiles of ATACMS and unnecessary escalation with Moscow in case they would be used to attack Russian territory among the reasons to reject Ukraine’s bid for the coveted missiles.

..............................

According to Borsari, other issues explaining the hesitancy could be the ATACMS cost-effectiveness per round, with a single missile costing around $850,000 compared to just $160,000 for a GMLRS rocket

We're giving Ukraine what we no longer need:

 

"But the cluster-armed version of ATACMS are more plentiful than those topped with a single — or “unitary” — warhead and are no longer considered a front-line U.S. weapon."  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/22/atacms-ukraine-cluster-munitions/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, it's a conflict between a rules based world order and a "might makes right" world order in which powerful nations feel free to go on wars of conquest. 

 

There are many problems with the latter option, the biggest one being that the surest defense against attack is possession of nuclear weapons.  A world in which many small, poorly governed countries with paranoid leaders possess nuclear weapons (think North Korea a hundred times over) is not a pleasant idea.

Some Asian, African, South American and Middle East countries might have an different view of our view of law and order based world, and do tend to involve history further back than our western generations care to think of. That's the real problem, not Putins internal propaganda war feeding his own people with half truths and lies. 

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah yes, the man that likes to spend other people's money.

Congress may have different ideas and it is THEY that control the money, not Biden.

 

IF Biden does manage to send them ( a single missile costs around $850,000 ) and the Ukrainians escalate the war by attacking targets in Russia it may come back to haunt him, when the war escalates to the use of nukes.

 

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-comes-close-to-getting-atacms-how-will-it-change-the-war/

The White House also cited concerns over limited U.S. stockpiles of ATACMS and unnecessary escalation with Moscow in case they would be used to attack Russian territory among the reasons to reject Ukraine’s bid for the coveted missiles.

..............................

According to Borsari, other issues explaining the hesitancy could be the ATACMS cost-effectiveness per round, with a single missile costing around $850,000 compared to just $160,000 for a GMLRS rocket

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-official-says-ukraine-struck-black-sea-navy-hq-with-missile-2023-09-22/

 

The Russian Naval HQ was destroyed, but Russia reports one person missing.

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Some Asian, African, South American and Middle East countries might have an different view of our view of law and order based world, and do tend to involve history further back than our western generations care to think of. That's the real problem, not Putins internal propaganda war feeding his own people with half truths and lies. 

Yes, the world one hundred years ago, then still in the age of empires, was very different from the world today.  No doubt the world in one hundred years will also be very different.  I want it to be better.  Moving away from might makes right is movement in a better direction.

 

A lot of these countries are understandably cynical about the games the great powers play and apathetic about the war and its outcome.  They are pragmatically willing to play both sides for maximum advantage.  I can't fault them for that, but we shouldn't let there opportunistic policies change our support for Ukraine.

Too bad no one wants peace.  There's no money to be made in peace.  Fire up the war machine and the printing presses.

1 hour ago, dhupverg said:

Too bad no one wants peace.  There's no money to be made in peace.  Fire up the war machine and the printing presses.

I think everybody outside of Moscow wants peace.

On 9/23/2023 at 8:55 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah yes, the man that likes to spend other people's money.

Congress may have different ideas and it is THEY that control the money, not Biden.

 

IF Biden does manage to send them ( a single missile costs around $850,000 ) and the Ukrainians escalate the war by attacking targets in Russia it may come back to haunt him, when the war escalates to the use of nukes.

 

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-comes-close-to-getting-atacms-how-will-it-change-the-war/

The White House also cited concerns over limited U.S. stockpiles of ATACMS and unnecessary escalation with Moscow in case they would be used to attack Russian territory among the reasons to reject Ukraine’s bid for the coveted missiles.

..............................

According to Borsari, other issues explaining the hesitancy could be the ATACMS cost-effectiveness per round, with a single missile costing around $850,000 compared to just $160,000 for a GMLRS rocket

Why would anyone negotiate with Putin, if Putin can be so easily provoked into shooting off nukes?

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Why would anyone negotiate with Putin, if Putin can be so easily provoked into shooting off nukes?

Who said that on here?

Other than by reducing Ukraine and EU to charred rubble, this conflict will have to be resolved by negotiation.

On 9/23/2023 at 3:22 PM, Hummin said:

 

 

That's another side of it, and a huge factor for how much longer Russia can continue to spend resources and human life's. When Russia loose this war, it is not over, it is the continue of the change of world order. 

 

This is a much bigger conflict than Russia attacks Ukraine as we all might have understood now? 

 

 

Russia isn't even on a war footing. If it gets to that stage IMO it's game over for Ukraine.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Russia isn't even on a war footing. If it gets to that stage IMO it's game over for Ukraine.

Okay, same approach as in Afghanistan and Tsjetsjenia? War is strategy and time, and also about available personnel and keep them alive, lines of supplies, risk, keeping Russias borders safe, and right now at the Norwegian border 20% of the soldiers is gone because of the war in Ukraine. Verified in Norwegian news channels, 

 

Time will show, and as we know how Tsjetsjenia went, Putin have time. If you have time, read yourself up on the Tsjetsjenia war. A war no western country bothered to support in same way they support Ukraine now. 

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-troops-withdraw-norway-border-drop-since-start-ukraine-war-official

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

Okay, same approach as in Afghanistan and Tsjetsjenia? War is strategy and time, and also about available personnel and keep them alive, lines of supplies, risk, keeping Russias borders safe, and right now at the Norwegian border 20% of the soldiers is gone because of the war in Ukraine. Verified in Norwegian news channels, 

 

Time will show, and as we know how Tsjetsjenia went, Putin have time. If you have time, read yourself up on the Tsjetsjenia war. A war no western country bothered to support in same way they support Ukraine now. 

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-troops-withdraw-norway-border-drop-since-start-ukraine-war-official

Plenty of conflicts ignored by western nations but they involve non white nations.

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Plenty of conflicts ignored by western nations but they involve non white nations.

There is several border conflicts that can escalate under the right circumstances. Armenia and Azerbaijan is a heating conflict because of Russia is for the moment short of arms, and someone will take advantage.

 

Kosova Serbia? Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya, all this countries can escalate a conflict as quick Russia put more resources they do not have in to Ukraine. 

 

what about Irland? Still unsolved issues there

 

The peace in Europe we had, have no guarantees to continue if we let go of Ukraine.

 

To late for peace talks now, but it could had been solved temporarily with giving up Crimea, and a peace treaty making Ukraine a buffer zone between Nato and Russia, but as said to late by three years soon.

 

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Russia isn't even on a war footing. If it gets to that stage IMO it's game over for Ukraine.

We will see what is going to happen sooner than later, or if this is just empty rhetoric 

 

Russia running out of options except to engage in head-on clash with NATO — Medvedev

 

https://tass.com/politics/1680669

On 9/23/2023 at 9:00 AM, Hummin said:

If you only read western allies news, it is not that noticeable, but at once you open your view for more broad and wide news channels, you see putin have alot more support and emphasis than we would thought.

You must read all the news with an open mind.

 

Then reverse anything from the Russian State, if they say 'not shot down', it was. If they say 'he's alive', then he's dead. If it 'can't be shot down', then it's easy. Like that. Been that way from Soviet days. 

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who said that on here?

Other than by reducing Ukraine and EU to charred rubble, this conflict will have to be resolved by negotiation.

Naaa it can be resolved easily Russia exits out of all of Ukraine pays reparations and is allowed to rejoin the world otherwise they remain isolated pariahs trading with the likes of n Korea the Chinese prefer trading with countries that have wealth

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Plenty of conflicts ignored by western nations but they involve non white nations.

Examples?  Please identify the conflicts, groups involved, and tell us what you think the west should do.

On 9/27/2023 at 7:04 PM, Hummin said:

To late for peace talks now, but it could had been solved temporarily with giving up Crimea, and a peace treaty making Ukraine a buffer zone between Nato and Russia, but as said to late by three years soon.

As I have been saying all along.

IMO it will eventually come to that after western countries get tired of supporting a never ending war.

23 hours ago, Hummin said:

We will see what is going to happen sooner than later, or if this is just empty rhetoric 

 

Russia running out of options except to engage in head-on clash with NATO — Medvedev

 

https://tass.com/politics/1680669

I have no idea if that's just sabre rattling, but IMO any idea that Russia would actually attack a NATO country is just insane. I'm sure certain individuals in NATO are just waiting for an excuse to get militarily involved, as they were in Iraq, and look how that turned out.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no idea if that's just sabre rattling, but IMO any idea that Russia would actually attack a NATO country is just insane. I'm sure certain individuals in NATO are just waiting for an excuse to get militarily involved, as they were in Iraq, and look how that turned out.

The difference will be, we fighting on a soil where we are welcome and needed. There will never be a fight against Russia in Russia. Russians and former Soviet members will fight in Russia. 

 

If there will be a nuclear war, not one foreign soldier will enter Europe or USA, just war heads.

 

 

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As I have been saying all along.

IMO it will eventually come to that after western countries get tired of supporting a never ending war.

To late for that, Ukraine will be a Nato member in future.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

To late for that, Ukraine will be a Nato member in future.

 

I very much doubt that, unless they want WW3.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I very much doubt that, unless they want WW3.

Still an open game, and time will show

13 hours ago, Hummin said:

Still an open game, and time will show

Indeed. Given I and everyone on here is NOT psychic, who can tell what tomorrow will bring, let alone in a year, two years, or longer?

On 9/22/2023 at 9:42 PM, dhupverg said:

Too bad no one wants peace.  There's no money to be made in peace.  Fire up the war machine and the printing presses.