Ukraine

[DMC]

I don't need anything, I don't gain anything with anybody's war.. I'm simply looking at what's going on. If the west wouldn't be fighting a clear proxy war with Russia, then I wouldn't be stating that the west is at war with Russia. It's pretty simple, really. China or North Korea haven't invaded anybody, though in the North Korean case (as well as Iran), you can certainly submit we're waging an economic war with them. I don't think anybody that sees what's going on would bat an eye on that claim.

Your claim depends on Russia being at war with the US. That's why I said "you need" it. I said as much. Pretty sure you don't need that in your personal life

Let's not move the goalpost from "at war" to "proxy war". The US and Russia have long been toe to toe as proxies in conflict, doesn't mean they were at war.

It doesn't matter who has or has not invaded in this case. Those were not caveats you offered to economic sanctions equating to being at war. These are you conditions, I am just working through the maze you're building. You invoked the term "officially", of course I am going to refer to it.

Nah, I actually called early on, and you can go look this up in this very thread, that you're going to find CIA operatives captured by Russia over there. My line of thinking back then was this was going to be another 80's Afghanistan proxy war, but instead devolved into something much more explicit.
I can quote myself on that, let me know if you can't find it.

I trust you, no need for references. Either way. I understood we were involved via proxy as always, but we are no more at war with Russia now than we were in Afghanistan or Vietnam. Russia and the US have played the military need game with their respective populations for decades, and they justify military funding this way but they avoid killing the golden goose (the opposition) because they need a constant enemy they never have to actually engage.

This is exactly why I said "technicalities aside", since I knew exactly this is where you were going. Yet, all parties involved have been pretty clear on what's at stake here, and actions on both sides speak pretty loudly on what's going on.

Still doesn't equate to being at war.

This is a bold, unsupported claim. Let's not forget that Russia was the first to meddle there, and their original claim was that they wanted to 'de-nazify' Ukraine. Not sure how the West fits into that (then again, nobody believes a word of what Russia claims).

Not nearly as bold as saying the US and Russia are at war even after the POTUS said the opposite. I think it's fairly obvious that the encroachment of NATO and the consideration of allowing Ukraine into NATO while having so many American interests basically infesting Ukraine played a role in fueling the conflict. You can disagree and demand proof but that's a double standard since you don't have proof the US is at war with Russia but you want in on a subjective backdoor condition of "same basic thing".

I mean, this is the earliest from me:

I don't get how your quote has anything to do with the US being at war with Russia. Plenty mercs act as insurgents if the money is right (or they can get a good selfie all dressed in tacticool gear).

A proxy war is still a war. Economic sanctions are indeed one way to wage war as well, the end goal being choking the purse that pays for the military conflict. Again, this isn't very complicated at all. It's no different than Russia weaponizing their gas supply to Europe.

We can agree the US is acting as a proxy, however you omitted the term "proxy" and just said the US is at war. This is what I disagreed with. You cannot just ignore the proxy aspect, unless you want to really marginalize the importance of being at war. The US has served as a proxy for many wars, but we don't talk about winning or lose these. If Ukraine makes concessions, did the US lose the war?

But I still want to use your claim of Russia being at war with the US to counter other claims that Ukraine can beat Russia as these are conflicting claims.

As far as attack, Ukraine didn't attack Russia (the opposite happened), yet Ukraine is in a war with Russia now. Do you understand how a country can find itself at war without attacking first?

But you said we are waging war. You equated economic sanctions with waging war. If what you say is true, then we have attacked Russia by waging war against them yet they did not do that to us. So then who is the adult in the room?

[DMC]

the US hasnt had a declaration of war since WW2... is that really the technicality derp wants to hang his hat on?

Since no war was declared by NATO or the US, we are not officially at war. Now you'll talk about how the US never declared war in other regions where we had boots on the ground, so make up your mind. You're not going to turn that turd you laid into a golden egg.

Philo once again swinging wildly looking for a like without even knowing what he's swinging at

gotheem again

Hey, at least you suckered Chumpy

[Brazil]

This is the whole idea I think most of us are having trouble understanding, and what some of the back and forth in this thread is really centered on. Yes, Ukraine left to its own devices would likely not be able to stand up to Russia for very long, but even before the HIMARS and howitzers rolled in Russia was still doing asinine in the field, like that embarrassing traffic jam to Kyiv that ended in disaster with them having to vacate Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy regions completely.

How can a country so rich in military resources put absolutely no premium on strategy and tactics? They do the dumbest I’ve ever seen from a supposed superpower, and have remarkably atrocious discipline when faced with any adversity in the field.

They’re a walking disaster and an embarrassment to military doctrine.

Ukraine with 0 help during the first weeks and months was holding up against Russian invasion. Ukraine defended Kiev with near 0 support from NATO.
Russia has been incapable to dominate the air space of Ukraine and it is not like NATO sent hundreds of modern jets.

Without help Ukraine would struggle to keep up long term for obvious reasons but this country is huge and people are defending their home against an invasion.

On the other hand, Russian capability has been severely overestimated, their jets are , their navy is , most of their tanks are outdated and most importantly as you said their strategy has been to put it mildly weak. As for each and every dictator Putin has been lied by his generals about Russian military capability.

[ChumpDumper]

Philo once again swinging wildly looking for a like without even knowing what he's swinging at

gotheem again

Hey, at least you suckered Chumpy

your whole argument about Ukraine's beating the out of your Russia is US assistance in the waging of war.

Is the US assisting Ukraine in this war or not?

You're going to have to decide how you're wrong, and you're going to be the only one who is wrong.

[Brazil]

Putin has been a disaster for Russia tbh...

Russia was once the future economical powerhouse and today is the weakest link of the BRIC.

Just to give an example of what I'm talking about. When Renault announced the merger with Nissan under Carlos Ghosn, both companies divide the market, Renault for Europe and Nissan for Asia. On top of it it has been decided Renault will develop Russia and Nissan China. It was more than 20 years ago, at the time the split seemed quite fair with a lot of analysts saying that Renault has been favored with Russia on the short term... which is, in retrospect, hilarious.

To put things into perspective, in 2000 China produced 0,6 m vehicles and Russia 1,0 m. in 2019 China produced 25,7 m vehicles and Russia 1,7 m

Putin took the power in 2000

and this is the dude that Hater and all those ers are praising everyday in this thread...

[DMC]

Exactly...and they aren't going to use them on the Ukraine.

It's not like the world is giving any sort of huge, advantageous technology to the Ukraine. If Russia is as powerful as some seem to think they are then they should still be able to win fairly easily...but they aren't...because they are using antiquated military tactics. Its like the big strong guy who can't fight worth a walking up on a trained boxer who is only 160 lbs.

The US was in Afghanistan for 20 years, didn't beat anyone there. For intents and purposes, Russia is still occupying parts of Ukraine, not the other way around. Nukes just ensures others with bigger clubs don't get involved. Russian strategy being doesn't mean they don't have the 2nd most powerful military in the world, or that Ukraine stands even an outside chance of beating them head to head. All these caveats and cherry picked tweets and narratives saying otherwise are dishonest at best. Without outside help Ukraine doesn't stand a chance. It's common sense.

[Ef-man]

Chuncko keeps polishing the turd he laid in hope of turning it into a golden egg, classic.

[ChumpDumper]

derp insists we're not helping Ukraine, then says Ukraine wouldn't be making any gains without our help.

[Isitjustme?]

The US was in Afghanistan for 20 years, didn't beat anyone there. For intents and purposes, Russia is still occupying parts of Ukraine, not the other way around. Nukes just ensures others with bigger clubs don't get involved. Russian strategy being doesn't mean they don't have the 2nd most powerful military in the world, or that Ukraine stands even an outside chance of beating them head to head. All these caveats and cherry picked tweets and narratives saying otherwise are dishonest at best. Without outside help Ukraine doesn't stand a chance. It's common sense.

[DMC]

Surely a win for the US.

[DMC]

Chuncko keeps polishing the turd he laid in hope of turning it into a golden egg, classic.

Cookie cutter, low effort retort from another mimic twin.

[ChumpDumper]

derp caught his own tail

[ChumpDumper]

.

[pgardn]

DMC still trying to equate Russia and their invasion into Ukraine with US misadventures.

sorry this is a very different conflict in a very different time frame
you have perfected the art of arguing without having an argument.

[Winehole23]

Posting to create plausible deniablity for own takes. Very plausible. Sometimes goes full Marcus Aurelius, pretending to have none, in impeccable philosophical repose.

[benefactor]

Nukes just ensures others with bigger clubs don't get involved.

But here's the US, fully and openly involved with no s given. Russia's nukes are irrelevant. The US has has already proven that. They aren't nuking anyone.

Russian strategy being doesn't mean they don't have the 2nd most powerful military in the world, or that Ukraine stands even an outside chance of beating them head to head.

But it means exactly what I said...being a big, strong military superpower doesn't mean if you don't know how to fight. The US had all the might in the world but still lost in Vietnam and had to tuck tail and head home. On paper the US should have walked through Vietnam with minimal effort...just like on paper Russia should do the same. But just like the US, Russia will have to eventually cut their losses and retreat. If they haven't taken the country yet they aren't going to. They are just delaying the inevitable.

[ElNono]

Your claim depends on Russia being at war with the US. That's why I said "you need" it. I said as much. Pretty sure you don't need that in your personal life

Let's not move the goalpost from "at war" to "proxy war". The US and Russia have long been toe to toe as proxies in conflict, doesn't mean they were at war.

It doesn't matter who has or has not invaded in this case. Those were not caveats you offered to economic sanctions equating to being at war. These are you conditions, I am just working through the maze you're building. You invoked the term "officially", of course I am going to refer to it.

What part of proxy war is not clear? It's a type of warfare.

prox·y war
/ˈpräksē wô(ə)r/

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.
"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

Russia is at war with the West, they've made that plenty clear. The West has responded in kind. The fact that the West isn't directly involved in hostilities doesn't make it any less of a war.

I trust you, no need for references. Either way. I understood we were involved via proxy as always, but we are no more at war with Russia now than we were in Afghanistan or Vietnam. Russia and the US have played the military need game with their respective populations for decades, and they justify military funding this way but they avoid killing the golden goose (the opposition) because they need a constant enemy they never have to actually engage.

Still doesn't equate to being at war.

Well, I disagree. Afghanistan back in the 80s when Russia was the aggressor was another proxy war fought by the US. The big difference then was that the stakes where nowhere near as high as they are now (didn't happen in NATO's backyard, China wasn't a player, there were two well defined superpowers, etc).

Not nearly as bold as saying the US and Russia are at war even after the POTUS said the opposite. I think it's fairly obvious that the encroachment of NATO and the consideration of allowing Ukraine into NATO while having so many American interests basically infesting Ukraine played a role in fueling the conflict. You can disagree and demand proof but that's a double standard since you don't have proof the US is at war with Russia but you want in on a subjective backdoor condition of "same basic thing".

POTUS said NATO wasn't at war with Russia, not the US (you quoted him). POTUS is also the pushing the military aid packages to Ukraine, approved by Congress nonetheless.

And to round up about your bold claim, this conflict dates back to pre-2014, when Putler's installed puppet (Yanukovych) was kicked out and had to flee. So if we're going to talk about meddling in Ukraine, Russia was always at the forefront of that.

I don't get how your quote has anything to do with the US being at war with Russia. Plenty mercs act as insurgents if the money is right (or they can get a good selfie all dressed in tacticool gear).

It was a joke to the fact that the CIA conducted these proxy wars all the time during the Cold War. I don't even know if Russia invaded by the time I made that post, but the connotation clearly was that the US was going to be involved (the joke being former CIA in quotes).

We can agree the US is acting as a proxy, however you omitted the term "proxy" and just said the US is at war. This is what I disagreed with. You cannot just ignore the proxy aspect, unless you want to really marginalize the importance of being at war. The US has served as a proxy for many wars, but we don't talk about winning or lose these. If Ukraine makes concessions, did the US lose the war?

If we're going to agree, let's call things by their name. It's not just a proxy, it's waging a proxy war. Not just the US, but the entire West. The difference for the US is that it didn't used to be overt about this stuff, but it is now. I suppose the end of the Cold War changed that.
And if Russia succeeds, it's going to be very difficult for the West to spin they didn't lose this conflict. Plus all the other knockoff effects like reinvigorating China and North Korea. This is exactly why the West can't afford to lose this.

But I still want to use your claim of Russia being at war with the US to counter other claims that Ukraine can beat Russia as these are conflicting claims.

My claim was that Russia can't be allowed to win this, thus the "Whatever it takes", which spurred this conversation. Russia attacked an European country, the West decided (this time) to push back. The aggressor here was Russia, period. You could argue they tested the waters with Crimea and noticed nothing was going on, so they decided to go for the whole enchilada.

But you said we are waging war. You equated economic sanctions with waging war. If what you say is true, then we have attacked Russia by waging war against them yet they did not do that to us. So then who is the adult in the room?

We're waging a war in many areas: economic, military, energy, etc. The war wasn't started by the West, it was started by Russia when it invaded Ukraine.

[Ef-man]

Cookie cutter, low effort retort from another mimic twin.

Keep polishing that turd.

[RandomGuy]

Saw that. More Russians need to be treated this way, everywhere.

[CosmicCowboy]

Russia is still an incredibly rich country with natural resources. A crazy "what if". What if China sensed weakness and moved on Russia after they had exhausted their military in Ukraine. I know its far fetched but Germany and Russia were buddies in WWII until they weren't. Would we just sit back and watch it instead of taking sides?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You guys trying to hold a narcissistic nihilist to account is entertaining. He literally does the same over and again to deflect and obfuscate while you actually try to be reasonable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Russia is still an incredibly rich country with natural resources. A crazy "what if". What if China sensed weakness and moved on Russia after they had exhausted their military in Ukraine. I know its far fetched but Germany and Russia were buddies in WWII until they weren't. Would we just sit back and watch it instead of taking sides?

Rich in natural resources to exploit but in terms of production beyond extraction and currency worthwhile on the world market they are not "rich."

[RandomGuy]

Russian strategy being doesn't mean they don't have the 2nd most powerful military in the world.

I think RUS has fully slipped into a distant fourth of fifth at this point. They have some number of functioning nukes left, a destroyed army, a depleted air force, and a navy that can't deploy against a country with no navy, with an economy that is rapidly deteriorating.

[Isitjustme?]

Surely a win for the US.

Finally, we agree. Thanks for rooting for the US and The West here finally

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think RUS has fully slipped into a distant fourth of fifth at this point. They have some number of functioning nukes left, a destroyed army, a depleted air force, and a navy that can't deploy against a country with no navy, with an economy that is rapidly deteriorating.

China would be 2 obviously but who do you have past that?