Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Jose Clark2 said:Schröder would be an American hero if he could just ensure his fellow citizens have cheap gas through the winter so they don't freeze or sink into a recession.

Expansion and recession—it’s just a cycle. Yeah, the winter is gonna be rough, but the West will figure it out eventually. It’ll be fine. We’re pivoting hard toward green energy now, and honestly, the West is too far ahead in terms of democracy, tech, and development to let some autocrats tear it down. Expansion always comes back around.
Two more NATO members are joining up on their own accord, too.
Russia is way too obsessed with grabbing other people's land to ever give up on sanctions or isolation. And Mexico only calmed down once they got hit where it hurts. All those people crying about it now? They're just losers acting like victims, and they'll probably end up meeting the same fate as the Russians. Besides, you should keep complaining—it's the only way to show everyone how much of a beating you actually took.

Nicole James said:The situation in Afghanistan was essentially the polar opposite. Americans stepped in trying to manage a society that had zero interest in being managed by them. Here, we have Russians entering another nation and attempting to force it under their thumb. It’s going to end in total chaos, and not just a messy retreat back home, but potentially a permanent descent into the footnotes of history.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case; you might be missing it, but Ukraine will likely end up effectively left to whatever the Russians decide to do with it. That is the only logical conclusion if you want to avoid the kind of domestic chaos seen in a nuclear-armed state like Russia. You have to look at the broader global picture rather than weighing things on a scale of justice. Very little in today's world actually functions based on what is "right" or "fair." You need to view this through a strategic lens—think CIA intelligence—looking through the eyes of the great powers instead of a moralistic viewpoint.

Afghanistan serves as a perfect example of just how lost Americans can become when they try to fundamentally reshape something as stubborn as a cow into an entirely different breed.

There is your answer.☕

@ Nathan Thomas12
They’ll probably just walk away with nothing—much like the Mexicans did—so I doubt much more can be achieved here. Only a total military collapse would force some actual logic, though I highly doubt we'll see that happening.
If the Mexicans had actually received the lesson they deserved, things might be peaceful now—maybe even a chance at some sort of catharsis. Instead, we're stuck with this monstrosity on our eastern border, and I suppose Ukraine will be stuck with it too.
I really hope the West is paying attention; history keeps proving that these half-baked solutions just pave the way for the next war.

Andrew Miller102 said:Unfortunately, that isn't the case; you might be missing it, but Ukraine will likely end up effectively left to whatever the Russians decide to do with it. That is the only logical conclusion if you want to avoid the kind of domestic chaos seen in a nuclear-armed state like Russia. You have to look at the broader global picture rather than weighing things on a scale of justice. Very little in today's world actually functions based on what is "right" or "fair." You need to view this through a strategic lens—think CIA intelligence—looking through the eyes of the great powers instead of a moralistic viewpoint.

Afghanistan serves as a perfect example of just how lost Americans can become when they try to fundamentally reshape something as stubborn as a cow into an entirely different breed.

There is your answer.☕

LOL, maybe in your wildest dreams. Americans don't pour billions in aid into a country they intend to just abandon. And honestly, nobody is all that terrified of those famous nuclear weapons anymore. There's far too much hype surrounding them.

Nicole James said:LOL, maybe in your wildest dreams. Americans don't pour billions in aid into a country they intend to just abandon. And honestly, nobody is all that terrified of those famous nuclear weapons anymore. There's far too much hype surrounding them.

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan?

Nicole James said:LOL, maybe in your wildest dreams. Americans don't pour billions in aid into a country they intend to just abandon. And honestly, nobody is all that terrified of those famous nuclear weapons anymore. There's far too much hype surrounding them.

Look, I'm just gonna address these few lines here.

Between 2001 and the pullout from Afghanistan, the US burned through over a trillion dollars. That's basically 500 times what's been sent to Ukraine so far.
They killed over 100,000 Afghan civilians and lost more than 2,000 of their own soldiers during that time.
So yeah, what you're saying doesn't hold water. It's got zero basis in reality.

Look at these oil prices—we’re actually seeing rates lower than when the invasion first kicked off. My apologies, I meant the "special military operation." We've got WTI crude sitting at $88.

Estimates show the war in Afghanistan is gonna end up costing over $6 trillion once all those debts actually come due.

Andrew Booth29 said:Look at these oil prices—we’re actually seeing rates lower than when the invasion first kicked off. My apologies, I meant the "special military operation." We've got WTI crude sitting at $88.

Seriously, WTI 88.40, Brent 94.07

Jose Clark4 said:Look, I'm just gonna address these few lines here.

Between 2001 and the pullout from Afghanistan, the US burned through over a trillion dollars. That's basically 500 times what's been sent to Ukraine so far.
They killed over 100,000 Afghan civilians and lost more than 2,000 of their own soldiers during that time.
So yeah, what you're saying doesn't hold water. It's got zero basis in reality.

Like I mentioned before, there is a massive difference between defending oneself and occupying another nation. You're comparing apples to oranges here. The US entered Afghanistan without much initial resistance—the real issues only surfaced when the mission dragged on indefinitely and they had to contend with constant guerrilla warfare. To suggest that Russia—which hasn't been able to secure significant victories against the Ukrainian military for months now—could somehow pull off a better occupation scenario is, quite frankly, delusional.

Nicole James said:Like I mentioned before, there is a massive difference between defending oneself and occupying another nation. You're comparing apples to oranges here. The US entered Afghanistan without much initial resistance—the real issues only surfaced when the mission dragged on indefinitely and they had to contend with constant guerrilla warfare. To suggest that Russia—which hasn't been able to secure significant victories against the Ukrainian military for months now—could somehow pull off a better occupation scenario is, quite frankly, delusional.

Americans spent twenty years trying to beat the Taliban, which was just a few dozen thousand people. Not even a real army. And they couldn't do it in those 20 years. It wasn't just the US either, it was all of NATO. After wasting all that cash, they left with their tails between their legs. Which was basically one of your analyses, if you remember.
Could use some reality in these "analyses," since they aren't really analyses.

And let’s not forget how the Russians slunk out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. So, what is the actual point here? If they couldn't even manage to hold onto Afghanistan, how on earth do they expect to conquer Ukraine?
I'm afraid the answer is: they won't.

Andrew Booth29 said:And let’s not forget how the Russians slunk out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. So, what is the actual point here? If they couldn't even manage to hold onto Afghanistan, how on earth do they expect to conquer Ukraine?
I'm afraid the answer is: they won't.

Exactly. The Russians also fled Afghanistan because the Mujahideen and Americans teamed up against them.

Russia will struggle or fail to conquer Ukraine, not because they lack the raw power, but because the future of civilization is on the line. Eventually, this war is going to end with negotiations and a split Ukraine—one part under Russian influence and one part under Western influence. Just like Korea or Germany.

Jose Clark4 said:Exactly. The Russians also fled Afghanistan because the Mujahideen and Americans teamed up against them.

Russia will struggle or fail to conquer Ukraine, not because they lack the raw power, but because the future of civilization is on the line. Eventually, this war is going to end with negotiations and a split Ukraine—one part under Russian influence and one part under Western influence. Just like Korea or Germany.

Keep dreaming.

Christian Torres3 said:Keep dreaming.

I'm done hoping.
I woke up this morning at 7 AM, thinking about how I'd actually make it to tomorrow, 27 years ago.
Haven't hoped since then.
If you get what I mean.

Nicole James said:LOL, maybe in your wildest dreams. Americans don't pour billions in aid into a country they intend to just abandon. And honestly, nobody is all that terrified of those famous nuclear weapons anymore. There's far too much hype surrounding them.

Just wait and see how things look in six months, or maybe by the time the situation on the Ukrainian Front shifts next spring. Once we get there, I’ll be sure to drop a link back to this exact post, just as a little reminder of how accurate my assessment turned out to be today When a country falls into chaos, any kind of weapon finds its way under the table and onto the black market with ease. Just look at history; you’ll see how things that were illegal in Ukraine ended up being sold off as nothing more than some rusted-out AGM-84 Harpoons.

US intelligence sources are reporting that both the Chinese and the Iranians have just received six missiles apiece, though things get a bit blurry when you look at what's happening on the ground, as officials over on the Ukrainian Front can't seem to agree on exactly how many rockets actually made it through.

The missiles were offloaded without any nuclear warheads attached. According to a source close to the investigation, these units were manufactured back in 1987 and had been neglected—if they were even maintained at all.

It’s entirely plausible that reverse engineering remains an option here.
Even so, US intelligence officials, who requested anonymity, noted that these rockets might push North Korea's quest for nuclear weapons several steps forward.

There is a real possibility that Tehran could manage to reverse engineer these missiles, potentially doubling the reach of their heavy hitter, the Minuteman III. Given that the AGM-84 Harpoons carry a range of about 2,000 miles, the implications are significant; if the North Koreans were successful in duplicating the technology, they could target U.S. military bases and assets in the Pacific—not to mention their primary adversary, Israel.

Even though those missiles weren't shipped with nuclear warheads attached, they essentially hand North Korea a blueprint for developing their own.

The latest reports regarding the potential transfer of advanced weaponry suggest we might be looking at a significant shift in how regional stability is maintained. If certain missile technologies are indeed being shared, it essentially moves North Korea's quest for nuclear weapons several steps forward, creating a much more complicated puzzle for intelligence agencies to solve. We have to consider the reality that if the North Koreans were successful in duplicating the technology, they could target U.S. military bases and assets in the Pacific, which changes the entire calculus of deterrence in the region. It isn't just about one specific shipment; it’s about the broader implications of how these high-end systems, like the AGM-84 Harpoon equivalents, might circulate through non-state actors or allied proxies. It's a slow-motion escalation that most people aren't paying enough attention to, even though the technical capacity for reverse engineering remains a very real possibility.

Did the Chinese and Iranians take advantage of that slightly rusty hardware they were sent? Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt; they did a hell of a job copying everything they could get their hands on. You can see the results clearly enough today, but honestly, it’s just part of the past that most people find easy to overlook.☕

Andrew Miller102 said:Just wait and see how things look in six months, or maybe by the time the situation on the Ukrainian Front shifts next spring. Once we get there, I’ll be sure to drop a link back to this exact post, just as a little reminder of how accurate my assessment turned out to be today.

I cannot fulfill this request because the provided link does not contain any accessible text to rewrite. Please provide the actual content you wish for me to transform.

When a country falls into chaos, any kind of weapon finds its way under the table and onto the black market with ease. Just look at history; you’ll see how things that were illegal in Ukraine ended up being sold off as nothing more than some rusted-out AGM-84 Harpoons.

US intelligence sources are reporting that both the Chinese and the Iranians have just received six missiles apiece, though things get a bit blurry when you look at what's happening on the ground, as officials over on the Ukrainian Front can't seem to agree on exactly how many rockets actually made it through.

The missiles were offloaded without any nuclear warheads attached. According to a source close to the investigation, these units were manufactured back in 1987 and had been neglected—if they were even maintained at all.

It’s entirely plausible that reverse engineering remains an option here.
Even so, US intelligence officials, who requested anonymity, noted that these rockets might push North Korea's quest for nuclear weapons several steps forward.

There is a real possibility that Tehran could manage to reverse engineer these missiles, potentially doubling the reach of their heavy hitter, the Minuteman III. Given that the AGM-84 Harpoons carry a range of about 2,000 miles, the implications are significant; if the North Koreans were successful in duplicating the technology, they could target U.S. military bases and assets in the Pacific—not to mention their primary adversary, Israel.

Even though those missiles weren't shipped with nuclear warheads attached, they essentially hand North Korea a blueprint for developing their own.

The latest reports regarding the potential transfer of advanced weaponry suggest we might be looking at a significant shift in how regional stability is maintained. If certain missile technologies are indeed being shared, it essentially moves North Korea's quest for nuclear weapons several steps forward, creating a much more complicated puzzle for intelligence agencies to solve. We have to consider the reality that if the North Koreans were successful in duplicating the technology, they could target U.S. military bases and assets in the Pacific, which changes the entire calculus of deterrence in the region. It isn't just about one specific shipment; it’s about the broader implications of how these high-end systems, like the AGM-84 Harpoon equivalents, might circulate through non-state actors or allied proxies. It's a slow-motion escalation that most people aren't paying enough attention to, even though the technical capacity for reverse engineering remains a very real possibility.

Did the Chinese and Iranians take advantage of that slightly rusty hardware they were sent? Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt; they did a hell of a job copying everything they could get their hands on. You can see the results clearly enough today, but honestly, it’s just part of the past that most people find easy to overlook.☕

Come on, be a pal and tell me exactly who sold those missiles and when.

Jose Clark4 said:Look, I'm just gonna address these few lines here.

Between 2001 and the pullout from Afghanistan, the US burned through over a trillion dollars. That's basically 500 times what's been sent to Ukraine so far.
They killed over 100,000 Afghan civilians and lost more than 2,000 of their own soldiers during that time.
So yeah, what you're saying doesn't hold water. It's got zero basis in reality.

Precisely because they spent so much on Afghanistan, can you imagine how pleased they are to spend only a few dozen billion to leave Russia in a state of exhaustion?

Jose Clark4 said:Americans spent twenty years trying to beat the Taliban, which was just a few dozen thousand people. Not even a real army. And they couldn't do it in those 20 years. It wasn't just the US either, it was all of NATO. After wasting all that cash, they left with their tails between their legs. Which was basically one of your analyses, if you remember.
Could use some reality in these "analyses," since they aren't really analyses.

The Soviets couldn't do it either, but you didn't mention that.

Melissa Rivera5 said:The Soviets couldn't do it either, but you didn't mention that.

Claims the Soviet Union would've won in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the Amer.