S-70 lost over Ukraine

[BMWTurboDzl]

It is not armor issue. More maneuverability etc. So far best weapon system, most useful that we delivered is Bradley.

Ya. They really like the Bradley.

 

[ecotourist]

I agree with you that aggression must not be rewarded.
My idea of a negotiated settlement would be status quo ante, IOW formalize Russia's annexation of Crimea, Russia vacates all other areas of Ukraine, including its fake republics, give them about half of their sequestered foreign holdings back, with the rest going to Ukraine as reparations and agree to allow at least limited resumption of trade in at least crude and natural gas, with a more gradual resumption of broader trade but maybe not technically sensitive goods absent a decade or so of good Russian behavior.
Ukraine's membership in NATO would be left between the member states and Ukraine as would any accession to EU membership.
IOW, Russia gains nothing it didn't already have and still loses a lot, as is fitting.

Not a bad plan but I don't think they should even keep Crimea. That was taken by Russia a few years ago, before Ukraine got serious about being able to defend itself.

The Russians taking Crimea and then no-one doing anything about it only gave the Russians a bit of encouragement. Which is a good argument for not letting them keep anything (not even Crimea) this time. There needs to be a cost for invading your neighbours. Giving Ukraine all the Russian assets seized around the world as partial reparations would be a good start.

Arguably the Russians taking Crimea, and Ukraine not being able to stop them helped prepare Ukraine to stop them this time. Ukraine used to use the Russian command system ie the little guys are to do exactly what they're told (even if it makes no sense and obviously isn't working) and all the decisions are made by senior officers. Since then Ukraine adopted the NATO approach of empowering junior and mid level officers and encouraging them to adjust plans on the fly (under the general direction of senior officers of course). NATO forces taught Ukrainian forces how to do that - which I'm told works way better.

 

[fdcg27]

Not a bad plan but I don't think they should even keep Crimea. That was taken by Russia a few years ago, before Ukraine got serious about being able to defend itself.

The Russians taking Crimea and then no-one doing anything about it only gave the Russians a bit of encouragement. Which is a good argument for not letting them keep anything (not even Crimea) this time. There needs to be a cost for invading your neighbours. Giving Ukraine all the Russian assets seized around the world as partial reparations would be a good start.

Arguably the Russians taking Crimea, and Ukraine not being able to stop them helped prepare Ukraine to stop them this time. Ukraine used to use the Russian command system ie the little guys are to do exactly what they're told (even if it makes no sense and obviously isn't working) and all the decisions are made by senior officers. Since then Ukraine adopted the NATO approach of empowering junior and mid level officers and encouraging them to adjust plans on the fly (under the general direction of senior officers of course). NATO forces taught Ukrainian forces how to do that - which I'm told works way better.

You have to throw Russia a bone if we want this meat grinder to come to an end and Crimea would be that bone.
Lavarov's pious pronouncements about peace plans must be viewed in the light of an aggressor suing for peace, no more and no less, but they may show a willingness for Moscow to negotiate a way out of this horrible miscalculation.
Ceding Crimea leaves Ukraine as well off as it was before the Russian's attempted invasion and the Soviet military is left massively weakened in men and hardware while Russia's demographics and economy are left in ruins.
A win for the West and for Ukraine as well, since Ukraine will be free of Russian aggression as well as to engage the welcoming embrace of NATO and Ukraine will then be rid of any future threats from Russia.

 

[ecotourist]

You have to throw Russia a bone if we want this meat grinder to come to an end and Crimea would be that bone.
Lavarov's pious pronouncements about peace plans must be viewed in the light of an aggressor suing for peace, no more and no less, but they may show a willingness for Moscow to negotiate a way out of this horrible miscalculation.
Ceding Crimea leaves Ukraine as well off as it was before the Russian's attempted invasion and the Soviet military is left massively weakened in men and hardware while Russia's demographics and economy are left in ruins.
A win for the West and for Ukraine as well, since Ukraine will be free of Russian aggression as well as to engage the welcoming embrace of NATO and Ukraine will then be rid of any future threats from Russia.

Arguably Crimea should be part of Russia. It was part of Russia until Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine (Kruschev was actually a Ukrainian) for no apparent reason. It's the site of Russia's most important naval base.

But the Russians should not be rewarded for military aggression.

Then again, Russia has also paid dearly. They've had much of their military equipment destroyed. They've lost tens of thousands of lives. A lot of Russian world-wide assets have been seized. Who will now buy Russian arms when they've been shown to be so useless? Two previously neutral neighbours having powerful armed forces (Sweden and Finland) joined NATO as a direct result of the invasion of Ukraine. They've also lost an enormous amount of prestige. And they've been embarrassed in front of the world.

I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.

 

[dubber09]

Russia will not give up the land it already took over, don't live in illusions.

 

[ecotourist]

Russia will not give up the land it already took over, don't live in illusions.

And perhaps Ukraine will not give up the land it has occupied either. Though I suppose they might agree to trade it for the return of their own territory.

 

[dubber09]

I highly doubt that. US said it'd fight Russia to last Ukrainian.

 

[Dave Hess]

I have NEVER seen so much absolute FAKE GARBAGE news!

Lots of money flowing into overseas bank accounts and some folks laughing all the way to the Swiss Bank (pun intended).

Nobody knows how much money has disappeared to shell companies helping to fight this war.
Patriot Services, LLC and they have PO Box in Bermuda…..

Maybe I can sell some refurbished medical equipment and get $25M deposited into my Bermuda bank account….?

 

[fdcg27]

Lots of money flowing into overseas bank accounts and some folks laughing all the way to the Swiss Bank (pun intended).

Nobody knows how much money has disappeared to shell companies helping to fight this war.

This is probably not the case, since the governments providing support know exactly where their money is going and most of it never leaves their countries.
Not as good a story, though.

 

[Dinoburner]

Didn't Putin recently say he wants Alaska back. Also Russian aircraft has been teasing the coast of Alaska.

 

[edyvw]

Arguably Crimea should be part of Russia. It was part of Russia until Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine (Kruschev was actually a Ukrainian) for no apparent reason. It's the site of Russia's most important naval base.

But the Russians should not be rewarded for military aggression.

Then again, Russia has also paid dearly. They've had much of their military equipment destroyed. They've lost tens of thousands of lives. A lot of Russian world-wide assets have been seized. Who will now buy Russian arms when they've been shown to be so useless? Two previously neutral neighbours having powerful armed forces (Sweden and Finland) joined NATO as a direct result of the invasion of Ukraine. They've also lost an enormous amount of prestige. And they've been embarrassed in front of the world.

I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.

No it should not. That is not how international law works. Should them Crimea be sought by French too? Or Turkey?
After WWII we have a thing called post WWII international order where the MOST important thing is that no country can take territory of another country by force and annex it. That is why this war is so important, bcs. it would set really bad precedent.

 

[ecotourist]

No it should not. That is not how international law works. Should them Crimea be sought by French too? Or Turkey?
After WWII we have a thing called post WWII international order where the MOST important thing is that no country can take territory of another country by force and annex it. That is why this war is so important, bcs. it would set really bad precedent.

That's why I said "arguably". I don't actually think it should. For whatever reason Khrushchev, on behalf of Russia, gave it to Ukraine.

But if I had to give up one thing to end the war, Crimea just might be at the top of my list.

 

[edyvw]

That's why I said "arguably". I don't actually think it should. For whatever reason Khrushchev, on behalf of Russia, gave it to Ukraine.

But if I had to give up one thing to end the war, Crimea just might be at the top of my list.

So what then stops Russians to take part of Lithuania? Georgia? Estonia?

 

[dubber09]

No it should not. That is not how international law works. Should them Crimea be sought by French too? Or Turkey?
After WWII we have a thing called post WWII international order where the MOST important thing is that no country can take territory of another country by force and annex it. That is why this war is so important, bcs. it would set really bad precedent.

Tell that to Israel, Golan Heights etc.
There are many examples where country/s attacked another, overthrown gov, not approved by UN. Split country into two or many, used banned weapons during their attacks, still have troops in other countries, exterminated millions of civilians.
Winner has always ruled and always will. Loser cannot dictate rules to the winner.

 

[GON]

Does anyone know the "con" where someone comes to your front door and thoroughly distracts the homeowner, while another party enters the back door and robs the house of all its valuables?

 

[edyvw]

Tell that to Israel, Golan Heights etc.
There are many examples where country/s attacked another, overthrown gov, not approved by UN. Split country into two or many, used banned weapons during their attacks, still have troops in other countries, exterminated millions of civilians.
Winner has always ruled and always will. Loser cannot dictate rules to the winner.

As usual, you don;t know what you talking about.

 

[dubber09]

As usual, you don;t know what you talking about.

Glad I don't disappoint being consistent

 

[Owen Lucas]

It may be likewise with the Ukraine vs Russia war. It may have to get to a point where both sides are seriously thinking of surrendering, before real talk of ending this war happens. Some wars do end this way.

I think the ultimate goal is to bleed both countries dry, preferably Russia the most, and then carve up what’s left. Russia will be controlled via western friendly oligarchs and the rest via proxy governors. It’s a multi decade operation but I can see Russia falling and Ukrainian resources ultimately in control by Blackrock or other banking interests. Not shocking to me, this is just the human condition and history repeating itself.

The Russians taking Crimea and then no-one doing anything about it only gave the Russians a bit of encouragement.

Obama never honored his “red line” when Russia invaded. Manpads could have made a huge difference against the invasion and Ukraine asked for them. Obama denied the manpads but I guess this might have been part of a greater plan.

You have to throw Russia a bone if we want this meat grinder to come to an end and Crimea would be that bone.

Not one inch. Like General Patton said, we were fighting the wrong enemy…

I highly doubt that. US said it'd fight Russia to last Ukrainian.

Let the Ukrainians do the dirty work, not our men. The Ukrainians have a lot of generational karma to pay off for their atrocities during WWII.

 

[edyvw]

Glad I don't disappoint being consistent

Next time, just put three dots. We know exactly what you think.

 

[JimPghPA]

I think the ultimate goal is to bleed both countries dry, preferably Russia the most, and then carve up what’s left. Russia will be controlled via western friendly oligarchs and the rest via proxy governors. It’s a multi decade operation but I can see Russia falling and Ukrainian resources ultimately in control by Blackrock or other banking interests. Not shocking to me, this is just the human condition and history repeating itself.

Don't forget that China would like a huge slice of Russia. Russia has resources that China would love to own.

If Russia and or Ukraine appear extremely weak after this war, that would make them attractive for China to try to take them.

While historical China has been a country that does not care about indivuals, which would lead most people to think they would not mind loss of soldiers for obtaining a huge slice of Russia, China does have a huge demographics problem of no where near enough young people. So, that is a deterant regarding China wanting to fight any war. But also, China is facing a huge food supply problem. So, China would love to own the sections of Russia and or Ukraine that can grow crops.

Everyone expects China to try to acquire other countries besides Russia and Ukraine, but Russia and or Ukraine are much bigger prizes.

Of course China is controlled by only one person, so what ever he decides is what China will try to do.