Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that your hatred leads to irrational thinking, but the picture is not all that simple as you imagine - "NATO vs Russia, NATO wins automatically."
If it were that easy - this war would have been over in a few months.
But so far I can only see how skillfully NATO is destroying Ukrainians first of all, giving them just enough of ammunition so that they'd keep on fighting, yet never enough so that they'd be winning.
Agree. The US and NATO just sit on the sidelines and watch, only giving money and weapons to Ukraine but no NATO troops on the ground. If "NATO wins automatically" NATO would have already engaged Russia fully and won. But they won't. What are they afraid of? They talk big but act meekly. Giving money and weapons just won't cut it in defeating Russia. The Ukrainians, with their contractors, their NATO "game changer" weapons, and supplies haven't even breached Russia's first line of defense in this offensive! The Ukrainians have taken appalling casualties and are still mucking around in the gray zone and have yet to overcome the first three lines of Russian defensive positions. If the Ukrainians can't make real progress, then they don't have any chance of cutting off Crimea's land bridge, let alone taking Crimea itself!
Been reading about "thunder runs," and few kilometers here and a few gained there, but haven't seen anything involving a ton of tanks, air support, and so forth.
Seems like this is more like testing things out before the real counterattack gets underway.
I understand that your hatred leads to irrational thinking, but the picture is not all that simple as you imagine - "NATO vs Russia, NATO wins automatically."
If it were that easy - this war would have been over in a few months.
But so far I can only see how skillfully NATO is destroying Ukrainians first of all, giving them just enough of ammunition so that they'd keep on fighting, yet never enough so that they'd be winning.
Oh, but it literally IS that simple. Putin's pre-invasion demands were for NATO to halt any further eastern expansion, and a demilitarization of NATO's eastern flank of all multinational forces.
And look at NATO now, did Russia win that? Quite the contrary. And yet there's more! Whereas before the Baltic states were strategically/geographically in very bad spot sitting out there by their lonesome, now with Finland and soon Sweden, they're in a much more defendable position! Baltic sea is now gonna be the NATO sea.
Furthermore, a big chunk of Russia's nuke arsenal is up there near Finland. So now NATO could install all sorts of toys up there near Russia's border, to keep eye on all that.
This is just part of it, a lot more could be said how Russia got owned with this NATO thing...but in short, Russia made demands of NATO, and instead got the polar opposite. Russia lost to NATO. Any contrary viewpoint to that is in fact "irrational thinking".
As for your "NATO is destroying Ukrainians" comment, typical z-patriot mouth breathing. Ukraine is fighting off a rape by Russia. We're giving Ukraine weapons to do that. Meanwhile, Russia is fighting in Ukraine for a concession prize, which keeps getting smaller and smaller as Ukraine is regaining territory.
Oh, but it literally IS that simple. Putin's pre-invasion demands were for NATO to halt any further eastern expansion, and a demilitarization of NATO's eastern flank of all multinational forces.
And look at NATO now, did Russia win that? Quite the contrary. And yet there's more! Whereas before the Baltic states were strategically/geographically in very bad spot sitting out there by their lonesome, now with Finland and soon Sweden, they're in a much more defendable position! Baltic sea is now gonna be the NATO sea.
Furthermore, a big chunk of Russia's nuke arsenal is up there near Finland. So now NATO could install all sorts of toys up there near Russia's border, to keep eye on all that.
This is just part of it, a lot more could be said how Russia got owned with this NATO thing...but in short, Russia made demands of NATO, and instead got the polar opposite. Russia lost to NATO. Any contrary viewpoint to that is in fact "irrational thinking".
As for your "NATO is destroying Ukrainians" comment, typical z-patriot mouth breathing. Ukraine is fighting off a rape by Russia. We're giving Ukraine weapons to do that. Meanwhile, Russia is fighting in Ukraine for a concession prize, which keeps getting smaller and smaller as Ukraine is regaining territory.
Putin will definitely think twice before trying anything against those tiny Baltic states now.....
Putin blundered big time....a real eye opener for NATO....will make NATO stronger than ever....
Agree. The US and NATO just sit on the sidelines and watch, only giving money and weapons to Ukraine but no NATO troops on the ground. If "NATO wins automatically" NATO would have already engaged Russia fully and won. But they won't. What are they afraid of? They talk big but act meekly. Giving money and weapons just won't cut it in defeating Russia. The Ukrainians, with their contractors, their NATO "game changer" weapons, and supplies haven't even breached Russia's first line of defense in this offensive! The Ukrainians have taken appalling casualties and are still mucking around in the gray zone and have yet to overcome the first three lines of Russian defensive positions. If the Ukrainians can't make real progress, then they don't have any chance of cutting off Crimea's land bridge, let alone taking Crimea itself!
The dumb thing to do is just go balls in and give Russia a royal NATO beatdown. Fun as it would be to watch Russia get the living crap beat out of it in a conventional war (or do you think they could hang with NATO lol?), unfortunately there would be one of two outcomes, a) Russia chucks some nukes, or b) Russia quicky runs of to the UN to sue for peace, with it's military capabilities still largely intact.
No no no, this way is much better. First off, all glory will go to Ukraine with it's own storied great patriotic war, which this totally is for them.
And secondly, as this goes on, Russia is getting degraded in all sorts of ways which they can't readily recover from, be it their military capability, politically, socially, just all of it.
Do you guys remember the movie Colors and the joke about the 2 bulls sitting up on a hill, staring down at the cows in the valley? No son, let's WALK down..."
The dumb thing to do is just go balls in and give Russia a royal NATO beatdown. Fun as it would be to watch Russia get the living crap beat out of it in a conventional war (or do you think they could hang with NATO lol?), unfortunately there would be one of two outcomes, a) Russia chucks some nukes, or b) Russia quicky runs of to the UN to sue for peace, with it's military capabilities still largely intact.
No no no, this way is much better. First off, all glory will go to Ukraine with it's own storied great patriotic war, which this totally is for them. And secondly, in terms of Russia, do you guys remember the movie Colors and the joke about the 2 bulls sitting up on a hill, staring down at the cows in the valley?
I'm just curious.
If Russia owned Ukraine, so to speak, for several hundred years, why it didn't "rape" it and, pretty much, turned a backward peasants farmland into flourishing economic stronghold during soviet times? As, pretty much, everything in the current Ukraine potential was built during that era.
Oh, but it literally IS that simple. Putin's pre-invasion demands were for NATO to halt any further eastern expansion, and a demilitarization of NATO's eastern flank of all multinational forces.
And look at NATO now, did Russia win that? Quite the contrary. And yet there's more! Whereas before the Baltic states were strategically/geographically in very bad spot sitting out there by their lonesome, now with Finland and soon Sweden, they're in a much more defendable position! Baltic sea is now gonna be the NATO sea.
Furthermore, a big chunk of Russia's nuke arsenal is up there near Finland. So now NATO could install all sorts of toys up there near Russia's border, to keep eye on all that.
This is just part of it, a lot more could be said how Russia got owned with this NATO thing...but in short, Russia made demands of NATO, and instead got the polar opposite. Russia lost to NATO. Any contrary viewpoint to that is in fact "irrational thinking".
As for your "NATO is destroying Ukrainians" comment, typical z-patriot mouth breathing. Ukraine is fighting off a rape by Russia. We're giving Ukraine weapons to do that. Meanwhile, Russia is fighting in Ukraine for a concession prize, which keeps getting smaller and smaller as Ukraine is regaining territory.
Of course it's not that simple.
When I was listening to pre-war demands by Putin, I was under impression that they were intentionally unrealistic, so that they wouldn't be accepted by the US. Because Putin already set his mind on smashing Ukraine and removing the government that was installed there since 2014.
So all these altercations with NATO were an expected thing - that NATO would still try to gain some ground and to move closer to the Russian borders, be that via Finland or what not.
Which they did, and that in turn only confirmed the alarm for many Russians that those were West's intentions in Ukraine to begin with, and Putin was not lying, when pointing at the growing danger.
So it's not of course some "NATO victory" but just a "second round" of the events, if I can put it this way.
As for my "NATO is destroying Ukraine" - this is just my personal observation.
Because of course while destroying Ukraine ( which NATO ( or rather the "collective West") is definitely doing,) the intention to destroy Russia as much as possible in the process is also a plan.
Russia "winning" this war lol, Russia lost! It's over and done with, and whatever Russia will be able to hold onto in Ukraine is a participation trophy, nothing else. Painful as it would be for Ukraine, that's all it would be for Russia. Nothing. Else.
I don't think you understand the problem. The whole basis for this war is that Ukraine refuses to cede any territory or political control. For Ukraine to hand over not only the separatist-held territories, but additional territories, with their country in ruins, would be a total embarrassment. The only way to salvage that situation would be for Ukraine to refuse any permanent settlement and agree to a ceasefire while the United States prepares the Ukrainian Army for more war.
That would be unacceptable for Russia. Russia will not accept a frozen conflict unless it is to the advantage of Moscow(not the West). Thus there are only two outcomes to this war. Either Russia gets what it wants, or Russia is totally defeated and there is regime-change in Moscow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G in MP
Russia bills this war as them vs NATO, in which case it's over, NATO won. Without even firing a shot or single NATO casualty, NATO won. NATO has expanded right to Russia's border, and NATO's eastern flank will henceforth be heavily militarized. All that was Russia's butthurt as a leadup to this invasion, and it's done.
Finland is not a threat to Russia, Ukraine is. A third of Finland aren't Russian speakers. Finnish land wasn't historically Russian for 250-1000 years. The Finnish government wasn't overthrown in a US-backed coup. George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski didn't have a plan to use Finland to defeat Russia.
Russia isn't happy about Finland being in NATO, but Finland has less population than the Baltics. Ukraine is also extremely poor and corrupt. The Ukrainian oligarchs are essentially prostituting their entire country for Western money. The women literally, and the men as mercenaries for America.
PS: This war isn't really NATO vs Russia. Russia is being supported directly or indirectly by dozens of other countries. China will never allow Russia to lose but they're not going to lift a finger unless they have to.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-15-2023 at 03:00 PM..
When I was listening to pre-war demands by Putin, I was under impression that they were intentionally unrealistic, so that they wouldn't be accepted by the US. Because Putin already set his mind on smashing Ukraine and removing the government that was installed there since 2014.
So all these altercations with NATO were an expected thing - that NATO would still try to gain some ground and to move closer to the Russian borders, be that via Finland or what not.
Which they did, and that in turn only confirmed the alarm for many Russians that those were West's intentions in Ukraine to begin with, and Putin was not lying, when pointing at the growing danger.
So it's not of course some "NATO victory" but just a "second round" of the events, if I can put it this way.
As for my "NATO is destroying Ukraine" - this is just my personal observation.
Because of course while destroying Ukraine ( which NATO ( or rather the "collective West") is definitely doing,) the intention to destroy Russia as much as possible in the process is also a plan.
But so far Ukraine of course suffers more.
Much more.
So what happens after the war ends, Ukraine either joins NATO or is furthered armed and trained for the next invasion with all NATO equipment? Did Putin succeed? Based on your telling Putin predicted everything that will happen and decided to move the timeframe up by several years. So that's winning for Russia?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)....
