1. #31521
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Ukraine would have folded in one week if we didn't send them weapons, intelligence and mercenaries. Even today, if we stp the help, they loose in no time. I never took in consideration such a strong resolve (proxy war) from us.
    How would weapons, intelligence and mercenaries help, if "Russia has the capacity of folding Ukraine in pieces, without risking casualties" by way of "Chaos commences, country bankrupts in a matter of weeks, government falls etc."?
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  2. #31522
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    How would weapons, intelligence and mercenaries help, if "Russia has the capacity of folding Ukraine in pieces, without risking casualties" by way of "Chaos commences, country bankrupts in a matter of weeks, government falls etc."?
    Hmm let's see:
    - No sat images / intelligence= gg
    - No hundreds of billions worth of weapons and equipment = fight with bows
    - No A/A systems RAF would have got air superiority from day one and would have just bombed them into oblivion.

    Wait, wait, are you actually implying that Ukraine without western help (weapons, equipment, training, intelligence, mercs, etc) would've been able to hold their own?

  3. #31523
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    How? Assuming I understand you correctly, that means you think Russia in this war has already done the most unspeakably evil shit beyond comprehension at the start, and what they do now is pretty pathetic or dull.
    I've been told about the horrors that the Russian military inflicts on civilians since before I was able to walk. Nothing that has come out of Ukraine has surprised me in the slightest, and I'm loving the collective surprise Pikachu face that the West is currently having.

    It's the same shit that Russia has been doing for centuries, but couple of decades of "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT, THAT'S MEAN AND RUSSOPHOBIC!" brainwashed 1,5 generations into believing that the Russian military of today is somehow different from how it has been since before none of us were even alive yet.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post

    That's a fallacy. Nukes are surprisingly cheap. To be precise, it's the cheapest means of deterrence that a nation can have.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lion%20dollars.
    You continue having the worst takes and understanding on nukes.

  4. #31524
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Russia losing this war and breaking up, is a nightmare scenario for China. Imagine multiple nuclear armed nations on your 12 with some of them with pro western / nato government. It's gg wp for them.

    Xi would be completely mad if he allows such a thing to take place.
    If Russia falls apart to such an extent, expect China to try to gobble up as much of the Russian far east as they can, rather than letting multiple smaller states with independent governments emerge in the region.

  5. #31525
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    If Russia falls apart to such an extent, expect China to try to gobble up as much of the Russian far east as they can, rather than letting multiple smaller states with independent governments emerge in the region.
    Maybe,,, who knows? However, it's in their interest to have a 3rd country keeping US/NATO busy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    You continue having the worst takes and understanding on nukes.
    It's really not that expensive to own, maintain and upgrade a nuclear arsenal. Old article, have linked to you in the past, but gives a very good idea of the costs.

    https://www.sipri.org/commentary/top...uclear-weapons

  6. #31526
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post

    It's really not that expensive to own, maintain and upgrade a nuclear arsenal. Old article, have linked to you in the past, but gives a very good idea of the costs.

    https://www.sipri.org/commentary/top...uclear-weapons
    Russia spends pennies on their nukes because they are mega poor from how much money the higher ups embezzle, and because what they spend is not enough to maintain anything, and as a result, none of their shit probably even work by now.

  7. #31527
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Maybe,,, who knows? However, it's in their interest to have a 3rd country keeping US/NATO busy.
    It doesn’t get brought up as much when Russia is still useful to them as a counter to the west and takes priority, but Russia were very much a part of the group of European nations that forced themselves upon China during what the Chinese so lovingly calls the “century of humiliation”.

    That they’ve well and truly forgiven that score deep down is highly questionable when even now territories in much of Outer Manchuria ceded are still part of Russia today.

  8. #31528
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Russia losing this war and breaking up, is a nightmare scenario for China. Imagine multiple nuclear armed nations on your 12 with some of them with pro western / nato government. It's gg wp for them.

    Xi would be completely mad if he allows such a thing to take place.
    Or Xi would be the man who had Hǎishēnwǎi returned.

  9. #31529
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Ukraine would have folded in one week if we didn't send them weapons, intelligence and mercenaries. Even today, if we stp the help, they loose in no time. I never took in consideration such a strong resolve (proxy war) from us.

    - - - Updated - - -



    That's a fallacy. Nukes are surprisingly cheap. To be precise, it's the cheapest means of deterrence that a nation can have.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lion%20dollars.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Hmm, did you ever read what happened after USSR collapse and where NATO expanded?
    Why would you speak like this? Wasn't it determined like a couple years ago that you were Russian?

  10. #31530
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Hmm let's see:
    - No sat images / intelligence= gg
    - No hundreds of billions worth of weapons and equipment = fight with bows
    - No A/A systems RAF would have got air superiority from day one and would have just bombed them into oblivion.

    Wait, wait, are you actually implying that Ukraine without western help (weapons, equipment, training, intelligence, mercs, etc) would've been able to hold their own?
    Your implication was Russia could break Ukraine's neck within days and without losing a single man. Meanwhile in the real world it took still ridiculously long for the west to actually send meaningful supplies to Ukraine, mostly because they believed the same nonsense as you did in that post from last year.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  11. #31531
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    Your implication was Russia could break Ukraine's neck within days and without losing a single man. Meanwhile in the real world it took still ridiculously long for the west to actually send meaningful supplies to Ukraine, mostly because they believed the same nonsense as you did in that post from last year.
    While aid indeed took a while because the west didn't want to send a bunch only to have Ukraine lose right away and give it all to Russia, certain western countries, including but not limited to Canada, UK, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, have been training the Ukrainian military since 2015.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unifier
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  12. #31532
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Hmm, did you ever read what happened after USSR collapse and where NATO expanded?
    NATO didn't expand in a vacuum.
    The countries that have joined have done so explicitly because they don't trust Russia.

    Had Russia mot attacked Ukraine Finland wouldn't have joined
    - Lars

  13. #31533
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    While aid indeed took a while because the west didn't want to send a bunch only to have Ukraine lose right away and give it all to Russia, certain western countries, including but not limited to Canada, UK, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, have been training the Ukrainian military since 2015.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unifier
    And the fact the Ukrainian military was being trained by various Western nations was not unknown back then so anyone who was making informed speculation on the course of such a war should have taken that into account.

    That said, let's not pretend that we all expected Ukraine to do this well or rather for Russia to do this poorly. The general sentiment here was that it was unlikely for Russia to invade, not that it would fail at it.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2023-06-07 at 11:37 AM.

  14. #31534
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    And the fact the Ukrainian military was being trained by various Western nations was not unknown back then so anyone who was making informed speculation on the course of such a war should have taken that into account.

    That said, let's not pretend that we all expected Ukraine to do this well or rather for Russia to do this poorly. The general sentiment here was that it was unlikely for Russia to invade, not that it would fail at it.
    I'm one of the people who were dead wrong about how long Ukraine would last. I admit it, and I've rarely been more happy of having been wrong about something.

  15. #31535
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I'm one of the people who were dead wrong about how long Ukraine would last. I admit it, and I've rarely been more happy of having been wrong about something.
    It is just crazy to see people try to redefine the past when we can just go and see past responses. It wasn't just the usual Russian shills that had that opinion, almost everyone thought that. People just thought the invasion was unlikely because it just did not make sense to anyone on either side.

  16. #31536
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I'm one of the people who were dead wrong about how long Ukraine would last. I admit it, and I've rarely been more happy of having been wrong about something.
    I felt and feel the same.

  17. #31537
    So there has to be an actual response to this by the West. The more deranged vatniks are currently salivating over the fact that the Kyiv Hydroelectric Power Plant exists, and is located right upstream of the Kyiv city.



    If the West does not make it clear to Putin that a deliberately caused humanitarian and ecological disaster like this is out of bounds, the Russians might actually think this viable target.

  18. #31538
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I'm one of the people who were dead wrong about how long Ukraine would last. I admit it, and I've rarely been more happy of having been wrong about something.
    I was wrong because i didn't factor in western support.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    So there has to be an actual response to this by the West. The more deranged vatniks are currently salivating over the fact that the Kyiv Hydroelectric Power Plant exists, and is located right upstream of the Kyiv city.



    If the West does not make it clear to Putin that a deliberately caused humanitarian and ecological disaster like this is out of bounds, the Russians might actually think this viable target.
    So are we sure that RU blew it? I mean wouldn't be much easier to open the flood gates (just like turning off the valves in north stream instead of blowing it up?)

  19. #31539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    So are we sure that RU blew it? I mean wouldn't be much easier to open the flood gates (just like turning off the valves in north stream instead of blowing it up?)
    If Russia did what was easy for Russia they would have used 8x the men in the first week to get the job done. We've learned Russia isn't really smart either.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  20. #31540
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    I was wrong because i didn't factor in western support.

    - - - Updated - - -



    So are we sure that RU blew it? I mean wouldn't be much easier to open the flood gates (just like turning off the valves in north stream instead of blowing it up?)
    I mean, Scorched earth tactic?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •