The Crimea Bridge has been hit again

They need to hit that bridge again,and again, and again.

Take it out and sink the whole thing.

I still think we should stop sending aid till we have accountability for everything sent.

That said at this point Putins hopes and dreams tour of a rebuilt soviet union are dead in the water, If Ukraine gave them this much trouble poland alone would roll moscow and steal their lunch money, finland to, heck possibly Lithuania Latvia and Estonia would give them a rough time.

Thats if Nato sat it out... which they wouldnt.

ETA: every land connection to crimea is a war target, if the russian people dont realize that I feel for them, but drive into a war zone you take your chances.

a reply to: putnam6



And the Freak Show Continues........

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: putnam6

Ukraine are never going to get the oblasts back, it's simply impossible as they are running out of men to fight.

Anyway, I hope the retaliation is swift and massive for this terrorist act.

Attacking a legitimate target, a supply route, is a terrorist act? How about Russia's missile attacks on a McDonald's, a pizza place and a school filled with children?

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Taking out the bridge makes sense regarding the Crimea.

Freedom To Ukraine and down with Putin's war and invasion.

I agree, so give the plan of action or a rough estimate of the years and the cost involved to realistically obtain that outcome.

ie how long do we need to make approximately 24,000 artillery shells per month? for Slavi Ukraine?

right now we are 75 billion American dollars every 500 days or so.

Good thing China hasn't invaded Taiwan, because we couldn't supply them with artillery shells.

Let's not forget Ukraine isn't our only benefactor, but they do get the most and will for the foreseeable future till the SMO is over. Ukrainian aid is at .33% of the US's GDP, that's the highest ratio of aid to any country in the 60 years.

Not even going to mention what exactly is the US getting for all of this expenditure.

Respectfully it would be a shame to spend billions and billions and in the end, Russia keeps the eastern Oblasts and we have made Russia closer to China and Iran.

Anything short of Ukraine getting the eastern oblasts back AND some sort of peaceful period with Russia where they can rebuild, it's gonna be difficult to identify what the average American taxpayer got out of this transaction. It certainly doesn't make Europe or NATO more secure, in any way shape, or form.

and what of the rumored peace deal...

The plan for Taiwan is to not let China invade it in the first place. This involves naval and air forces. Even if the Chinese were to make it to the beaches of Taiwan, US doctrine is for air support to provide the majority of ordinance lobbing.

With respect to the aid provided to Ukraine, about $55 billion/year, that's less than 7% of the US defense budget, and it is going to degrading the military of our major adversary in Europe. Seems a good investment. Besides, a good portion of this monetary amount involves giving already existing equipment, some of it obsolete or at least quite old; makes sense to rotate artillery stock. And all the economic sanctions are weakening Russia as well. Compare the cost so far to the US compared to what was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan; it's a drop in the bucket in comparison, and doesn't cost US lives. And this time around we are defending international law instead of breaking it.

As for the timeline, I imagine it could be another year and a half before it is over. Might be sooner, might be later, of course. Given Russia's worsening economy, the purging of competent generals and colonels (15 or more so far), and Putin's weakening position, things are likely to give sooner rather than later.

a reply to: putnam6

You do know if American aid dries up, it's over?

America are not the only one contributing monies, arms, ammunition, and machines to Ukraine putnam6.

And this won't be over until Russia admits defeat.

If the better part of Europe falls to Russia, because they simply won't stop at Ukraine, you won't be able to stand against that sort of combined might anymore than the UK will.

Hence the reason we need to help Ukraine stop the Russian invasion in its tracks and send them back home to whence they came.

Search your own feelings putnam6 because Russia is the new Nazi Germany attempting to perpetrate Operation Barbarossa in reverse and it simply won't be allowed to stand.

Picture what Adolf Hitler would have perpetrated or tried to get away with if he had 6000-odd nukes at his back making the rest of the world give pause, because that's Putin in spades.

You don't back down against someone like that or show weakness of any sort.

a reply to: putnam6

The plan for Taiwan is to not let China invade it in the first place. This involves naval and air forces. Even if the Chinese were to make it to the beaches of Taiwan, US doctrine is for air support to provide the majority of ordinance lobbing.

With respect to the aid provided to Ukraine, about $55 billion/year, that's less than 7% of the US defense budget, and it is going to degrading the military of our major adversary in Europe. Seems a good investment. Besides, a good portion of this monetary amount involves giving already existing equipment, some of it obsolete or at least quite old; makes sense to rotate artillery stock. And all the economic sanctions are weakening Russia as well. Compare the cost so far to the US compared to what was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan; it's a drop in the bucket in comparison, and doesn't cost US lives. And this time around we are defending international law instead of breaking it.

As for the timeline, I imagine it could be another year and a half before it is over. Might be sooner, might be later, of course. Given Russia's worsening economy, the purging of competent generals and colonels (15 or more so far), and Putin's weakening position, things are likely to give sooner rather than later.

This isn't the 80s as far as Russia goes it's obvious their potential threat was played up

So we have Dick Cheney's almost 20 years double doon-boggle in the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are gonna triple down in Ukraine?

Brilliant!!!! well, I suppose it is brilliant for those connected politicians, like Cheney, Bush, Biden etc. For the AAC not so much

Russia isn't the threat you play it up to be, beyond its nuclear capabilities. Must admit Im concerned your inquisitive nature hasn't ascertained the US's military superiority over the Russians In conventional warfare is obvious the US would be the heavy favorite solo against Russia, not suggesting the Yanks wouldn't get their nose bloodied, but if Ukraine is just a partial indication, one-on-one the US has the established advantage. But China and Russia together are much more formidable Regardless the US in Iraq and Afghanistan lasted how long and do you believe this will be over in a year and a half? That's ridiculously short of a time period, the US isn't pulling out, Ukraine isn't stopping, and the EU and NATO aren't stopping nor is Putin he would have to be run off for that to happen. It's not likely and the longer this goes the less likely it is to occur.

www.newsweek.com...

Michael Ignatieff, history professor, Central European University, Budapest and Vienna
"I would not predict an overthrow of Putin any time soon. The wish becomes father to the thought and wishful thinking is a real enemy here.

"They [Russian troops] performed badly on the battlefield but they have an overwhelming preponderance of fire power. The Ukrainian resistance is heroic but let's not forget the brute facts.

"The Russians have one of the largest militaries in the world and I think that you can only assume given this preponderance of military strength, he will just blunder on and it will get more and more bloody and more and more painful."

"He has been in power for 23 years, he has absolute mastery of the security apparatus and the state."

David Rivera, assistant professor of government, Hamilton College, Clinton (NY)
"Putin's involuntary removal from office becomes likely only in two scenarios. The first is a humiliating rout of Russian forces and their retreat inside the borders of the Russian Federation.

"The second scenario is one in which Putin pushes ahead with a grinding war for months while international sanctions bring about a general collapse of the country's economy.

"If Putin opts to ignore voices recommending a change of course while the army and economy disintegrate around him, then he could just go the way of Russia's last Tsar, Nicholas II—that is, pressured or even forced to step down.

"While such an outcome seems very improbable at this point in time, Putin has been exceedingly overconfident in regard to both his knowledge and abilities for over a decade now."

Matt Qvortrup, political science professor, Coventry University, U.K.
"Putin will stay for now, but in a weaker position. Remember Saddam Hussein stayed on after he lost the First Gulf War.

"Dictators sometimes lose power—as the Junta did in Argentina in 1982 after the Falklands War. But, often they stay on, especially as they control the media and the state apparatus."

Michal Baranowski, Warsaw Office Director of the German Marshall Fund
"We are still more likely than not to see Russia's escalation in Ukraine and certainly the continued destruction of Ukrainian civilian lives.

"That said, if Russia is indeed considered a defeated power in this war, it would very likely mean the end of Vladimir Putin—as president, at the very least."

Peter Rutland, professor of Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, Wesleyan University (CT)
"I'm afraid that Putin will be unwilling to accept defeat or any compromise solution that could appear to be a defeat for Russia.

"So the war might drag on for some time. At a minimum, I think Russia will try to secure a land bridge between Russia and Crimea, that is why the fighting over Mariupol is so intense.

"Given the structure of political power in Russia I find it hard to imagine a scenario where Putin steps down from the presidency."

Ltc. William Astore, ex-professor of history at the US Air Force Academy (USAF)
"If the war persists for months and months with no victory in sight for Russian forces, it's possible Putin could lose his grip on power, leading to chaos in the region that could make matters worse.

"For if Russia becomes increasingly desperate, the nuclear option may become increasingly attractive. And that could very well lead to World War III."

Secondly, this faux proxy war between the US and Russia is likely a significant Chinese wet dream for a number of obvious reasons. Thirdly it's 75 Billion for the approximate 500 days of the war not yearly, this was stated clearly. Furthermore, no telling the cost in the next 500 days monetarily.

If you think China is gonna launch a conventional invasion by itself, you aren't inquisitive enough. All of our think tanks have played the scenario over and over CSIS below expects significant US Naval losses, China does get on the beach, but where it has a problem is establishing that beachhead, because once landed they are blitzed with heavy artillery fire from coastal defenses and of course the US aircraft is also reigning fire upon them. IIRC the war does last 3-6 months with the Chinese failing to establish a beachhead. Other places have similar scenarios, Im sure by now you saying that's just a think tank, what do they know? Well if you look at the current Russo/Ukrainian situation their playbook was/is correct in a lot of key areas to. Like I was laughed at when I quoted CSIS saying artillery shells were likely to be at a premium months ago. Now what does Biden say, we are low on the 155s.

My concerns aren't political, but logistical, economic, and short-term and long-term strategic defense.

originally posted by: putnam6

So Vegas is saying he is gone this year...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

You do know if American aid dries up, it's over?

America are not the only one contributing monies, arms, ammunition, and machines to Ukraine putnam6.

And this won't be over until Russia admits defeat.

If the better part of Europe falls to Russia, because they simply won't stop at Ukraine, you won't be able to stand against that sort of combined might anymore than the UK will.

Hence the reason we need to help Ukraine stop the Russian invasion in its tracks and send them back home to whence they came.

Search your own feelings putnam6 because Russia is the new Nazi Germany attempting to perpetrate Operation Barbarossa in reverse and it simply won't be allowed to stand.

Picture what Adolf Hitler would have perpetrated or tried to get away with if he had 6000-odd nukes at his back making the rest of the world give pause, because that's Putin in spades.

You don't back down against someone like that or show weakness of any sort.

We spent how much on NATO and Russia is still gonna conquer Europe

More nonapplicable WWII analogies.

Don't make me pull up the totals by country

RESPECTFULLY Russia couldn't maintain a move on Kyiv and yet they are gonna blitzkrieg Europe, you know that's not the case he couldn't even if he wanted to. Hell he had to negotiate to stop the Wagner march on Moscow

Once again Putin isn't Hitler, Hitler had the dominant military at the time evidenced by the Nazi's annihilation of the American troops at Kasserine Pass. Hitler's blitzkrieg across most of Europe in 3 years vs. Putin's is stagnating in eastern Ukraine.

Respectfully even if the Allies were ready it took years before they challenged Germany in any meaningful way. Hell the EU alone should be able to fight Russia to a stalemate, so it really isn't an applicable comparison, sounds heroic and patriotic though.

Here's a fair and balanced article that partially if not fully exposes your hyperbole, the only thing Putin has that's more threatening than Hitler is Putin's nukes and it's unlikely he will use those in Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter.

www.grunge.com...

a reply to: putnam6

Respectfully even if the Allies were ready it took years before they challenged Germany in any meaningful way.

Battle Of Britain July-October 1940.

I think the Nazi's found that more than " meaningful "

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: putnam6

So Vegas is saying he is gone this year...

No, if Vegas believed he was going to leave office for ANY REASON, it would be even money or less ergo it was at + 135 300 days ago now it's +175 in 2024 it's +250

www.compare.bet...

The previous pic FWIW it's from 300 days ago, updated below with some words of wisdom



www.gamblingsites.com...

Is Putin’s Position a Strong One?
Putin Smiling
These aren’t necessarily Putin overthrow odds, but rather odds that he leaves office. You can get a good idea of what experts believe will happen by looking at the prices for certain years.

Contrary to the BS floating around online, he is in a position of great strength. Not that you would believe that if you relied on the “experts” who suggest Putin is facing annihilation.

I must point out that I do not support this war in any form. Nor am I a Kremlin agent sent here to try and push pro-Russian spin. I’m anti-propaganda in all its forms.

If you want a real sense of Russia’s president’s political playing field, go back up and look at the odds!

It’s OK to ask whether Putin will ever step down. But there would have to be some seismic screw-ups in Moscow for him to go any time soon.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: putnam6

Respectfully even if the Allies were ready it took years before they challenged Germany in any meaningful way.

Battle Of Britain July-October 1940.

I think the Nazi's found that more than " meaningful "

Would you count the heroic, determined, and utterly brilliant Battle of Britain won by a few British pilots and a mishmash of conquered countries' pilots, as an offensive thrust by Britain? or purely a defensive measure?

More importantly, and germane to the WWII analogies.

Do you think currently Russia could launch multiple bombers ballistic, and cruise missiles daily without a devastating return volley immediately and repeatedly?

You know kind of what NATO is for.

I don't believe much our esteemed President says, but I do believe him when he said "Not one inch of NATO land"

a reply to: putnam6

I woild say that German loses of 2,000 aircraft and over 2,500 aircrew killed or captured and over 700 wounded was meaningful for the Nazi's.

Or would you think it was just nothing to them ? Poor old Adolf wen't into a rage.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: putnam6

I woild say that German loses of 2,000 aircraft and over 2,500 aircrew killed or captured and over 700 wounded was meaningful for the Nazi's.

Or would you think it was just nothing to them ? Poor old Adolf wen't into a rage.

Again the Battle of Britain was a brilliant DEFENSE, there is no denying it. Don't forget the importance of Radar and the Dowding system. Without it, Germany would have likely overwhelmed the airforce and we would have had an attempt at Operation Sea Lion

Respectfully, however, the Nazis had already blitzkrieg most of Europe, what saved Britain first was Dunkirk and the Channel.

Regardless at that point every country in Europe with a substantial military had capitulated, had been conquered, or declared themselves neutral.

Respectfully this wasn't the point, which was Putin isn't Hitler nor is Russia the same threat to Europe and Britain that Nazi Germany was.

a reply to: putnam6

Again the Battle of Britain was a brilliant DEFENSE

Oh, they did a man's job and then some, no denying that fact, whilst Britain stood alone against the Axis powers.

Just a point all the same, if Hitler had not had Göring start hitting London, and all the major cities, instead of the airfields, like they were doing, we may well have lost the battle, given the numbers of men and machines we had at our disposal which were becoming less every day.

a reply to: putnam6

We spent how much on NATO and Russia is still gonna conquer Europe

You're nation is also a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty, just like my own, and there is a reason as to why America chooses to contribute and remain part of said treaty.

The main reason for NATO's existence was to stop the USSR/Russia from taking over the greater part of Europe, that's just a fact, and its as relevant today as it was at anytime in the past given Putins current antics.

a reply to: putnam6

Again the Battle of Britain was a brilliant DEFENSE.

Lets try you with this one.

The Battle Of Narvik. Half of Hitlers naval destroyers eliminated in the first few months of the war. Meaningful ?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Again the Battle of Britain was a brilliant DEFENSE

Oh, they did a man's job and then some, no denying that fact, whilst Britain stood alone against the Axis powers.

Just a point all the same, if Hitler had not had Göring start hitting London, and all the major cities, instead of the airfields, like they were doing, we may well have lost the battle, given the numbers of men and machines we had at our disposal which were becoming less every day.

respectfully Hitler had no chance of invading.. the best he could hope for in trying to tie down the raf was a peace treaty.. most fail to fully conder the royal navy, the Britain is a paranoid maritime nation or get how hard it is to invade without being invited..

William the bar steward only managed it because he attacked Harold's family holdings, taking his wife and child hostage while slaughtering Harold's servants and looking for the Anglo-Saxon hoard of gold otherwise Harold had no reason to rush back to meet William in battle where he did.. there was no need to meet in battle the other side of the high weald the same was true of napoleons and Hitlers invasion plans..

towns like Eastbourne where built from the get go to be flooded to 6/10ft to push invaders into traps, even now excess rain floods Hastings within feet of the seashore it dips to 10 ft down..

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

We spent how much on NATO and Russia is still gonna conquer Europe

You're nation is also a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty, just like my own, and there is a reason as to why America chooses to contribute and remain part of said treaty.

The main reason for NATO's existence was to stop the USSR/Russia from taking over the greater part of Europe, that's just a fact, and its as relevant today as it was at anytime in the past given Putins current antics.

All Im suggesting is that Russia isn't the Europe-wide threat that is being bandied about as a good reason to help Ukraine. It's just not, yet the consensus seems to be a coalition of the UK France, Germany, Poland can't even hold Russia at bay conventionally

I hope Russia gives up, I hope the Ukrainians get all the oblasts back and the Crimea.

500 plus days into this it's not likely to even be conceivable without double or triple the expenditure of Ukrainian heroes military and civilian and NATO military, financial and humanitarian aid. True or False?

Anything less than getting the eastern Oblasts back will be a complete failure, even now with all that's been invested and lost, each day it looks worse. True or False

With 100,000 Russian troops poised to move on to Kharkiv, is not a good sign nor is this below. True or False

If you ask the right questions I think you can see where I'm heading with this

WBW in the 70s and 80s Americans were taught worst-case scenario would be facing a then-Soviet/China partnership. The thought was at some point the UK, France, and Germany, etc would be strong enough to hold Russia.

Back then it seemed less likely than it is now.

It would be a shame to have invested and lost so much and in the end, have a much less secure and safe world

[url]https://www.tricitynews.com/world-news/china-prepares-for-naval-drills-with-russia-in-sign-of-continuing-support-amid-ukraine-conflict-7295911[/u rl]

China said Wednesday it has dispatched navy ships in preparation for joint exercises with Russia’s sea forces, in a sign of Beijing’s continuing support for Moscow’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine.

The move comes despite the growing economic and humanitarian repercussions of the bloody 16 month-old air, sea and ground assault.

China claims to be neutral in the conflict, but has accused the U.S. and its allies of provoking Russia and has maintained robust economic, diplomatic and trade ties with Moscow. The exercise involves more than 10 ships and 30-plus aircraft, according to China’s Xinhua News Agency.

The ministry and Xinhua gave no details, but the exercises are believed to be set for parts of the Sea of Japan in coming days.

China has reliably backed Russia in opposing U.S. condemnation of the Ukraine invasion in international forums, but says it won't provide arms to either side in the war.

a reply to: putnam6

All im suggesting is that NATO still exists for a very good reason.

And that both our nations are founding members.

With the obligations and commitments that go hand in hand with such.

Oh aye, and that the Russian invasion forces should be sent back home to think again with their tale stuck firmly between their legs.

And that will not happen without NATO's continued support.

Once again freedom to Ukraine and down with Putin's war and invasion.