3 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Just accept that HE has once again "won the thread" and move on.

I'm not sure if he returned after that.  And if he did, I mentally filtered him out  

4 hours ago, Bill said:

Of the two of us, I'm the only one carrying an iodine tablet in his wallet.

Even so, there's essentially a non-zero risk of things going nuclear. That's about it.

You have a good education and good intelligence; this is one of those times when it's handy to have street smarts, which you lack.

Tbh right now you're the geopolitical equivalent of a liberal mom who's terrified of assault rifles. We always fear what we don't understand. You are a businessman, thus you understand business. You a neither a politician nor a warrior.

 

Cutting south of Kreminna, which is where the Russians reportedly retreated to following Lyman:

 

Trying to draw the Russians to collapse back go Severodonetsk? Or are they actually going to try and take Severodonetsk directly?

17 minutes ago, paco said:

I know.  Calling the dead cap hit 2 years prior within a 5% margin of error long before anyone was talking about it was a huge faceplant on my part.  

 

Please keep coming  with hard hitting takes like "We probably have more now with all that dead cap, than we could have" and implying "effective cap space" is something we were making up.  It makes my day watching you not understanding why your take is incorrect even when I post clearly defined charts that show otherwise.  

 

So yeah, speaking of people who die on a hill, I present exhibit A.

speaking like someone who hasnt realized he is wrong yet. Even while Howie continues to make any move he wants to make and builds amazing talented rosters in spite of all of your whining about dead cap. Its interesting to see how much obvious evidence has to smack you in the face till you start to get it right. 

15 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Just accept that HE has once again "won the thread" and move on.

correct.

9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

Cutting south of Kreminna, which is where the Russians reportedly retreated to following Lyman:

Trying to draw the Russians to collapse back go Severodonetsk? Or are they actually going to try and take Severodonetsk directly?

So far the UFA strategy has been to "hit them where they aren't" and it works well because they empower field leaders to make snap decisions to pivot. My guess is, based on everything I've seen about Kreminna, RU decided to reform a defensive position there thinking the UA forces in pursuit would try to take it. If RU were to reinforce it's likely that they pulled some units from Severodonetsk. So maybe US intel and advanced recon units gave information that said there were favorable fighting conditions in Severodonetsk after RU forces committed and overabundance of fighting power to Kreminna and the UFA quickly decided to pivot.

It's a problem that RU is going to continually have. All decisions are made in Moscow so by the time they hear about a bad situation and they need to react it's already too late.

10 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No, I'm saying we need to not fear the possibility of military action. Let Ukraine into NATO. Give Putin an ultimatum to withdraw. He will. He's a coward. 

As I posted earlier, I think Ukraine in NATO comes during the peace treaty that is signed with Putin's successor.  I think the end here is Putin toppled internally and Russia signing a formal treaty recognizing Ukraine's borders pre Crim invasion and also signing on to Ukraine's full rights to apply to join NATO.  By that point, Ukraine in NATO will be a foregone conclusion and the process will be underway.  Russia will simply be agreeing to it.

I mean, all this back and forth aside, let's remember...the current strategy is WORKING. The Biden administration has gotten this 100% correct -- they have rallied the Europeans and strengthened NATO, supplied arms to Ukraine and allowed them to take back their country. There's no need to IMMEDIATELY admit Ukraine into NATO. As part of the end of this conflict, then yes...we should seriously consider admitting Ukraine into NATO. 

The real trick would be to use near-term NATO admission as a threat to get Putin to withdraw. Tell him to go back to the original borders or we will admit Ukraine into NATO ASAP, and the western alliance will begin defending it under Article 5 obligations. Then, after he limps home, admit them to NATO anyway.

There's no need for US and Russian troops shooting at each other while we're winning. Now, if Russia turns the tide, we can revisit.

11 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Where he is wrong is advocating for bending to Putin's will. He was willing to sacrifice the entire country of Ukraine FFS. We are the stronger military power. It's not even in dispute. They should be afraid of engaging directly with us, and my argument is that they are. We need to use that to support Ukraine, which is a western style democracy and an ally. 

I haven’t read everything that TEW has said but Its not bending to Putin’s will to realize that going head to head with Russia would have escalated a regional war into a world war with nuclear implications. I don’t know how much of Ukraine I would have been willing to risk and glad that so far, the proxy war approach is working. 
 

"Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, a national security and military analyst for CNN, told What Matters on Sunday, "The key to diplomacy is to limit the potential for war. While the current war of Russian illegal invasion into Ukraine is tragic, chaotic and devastating, it is still a regional conflict."

"If NATO or the US sent troops into Ukraine to help them fight the Russians, the dynamic would shift to a multinational conflict with potential global implications due to the nuclear power status of both US and Russia.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/27/politics/us-troops-ukraine-russia-what-matters/index.html

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

As I posted earlier, I think Ukraine in NATO comes during the peace treaty that is signed with Putin's successor.  I think the end here is Putin toppled internally and Russia signing a formal treaty recognizing Ukraine's borders pre Crim invasion and also signing on to Ukraine's full rights to apply to join NATO.  By that point, Ukraine in NATO will be a foregone conclusion and the process will be underway.  Russia will simply be agreeing to it.

Status quo ante FTW

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, all this back and forth aside, let's remember...the current strategy is WORKING. The Biden administration has gotten this 100% correct -- they have rallied the Europeans and strengthened NATO, supplied arms to Ukraine and allowed them to take back their country. There's no need to IMMEDIATELY admit Ukraine into NATO. As part of the end of this conflict, then yes...we should seriously consider admitting Ukraine into NATO. 

The real trick would be to use near-term NATO admission as a threat to get Putin to withdraw. Tell him to go back to the original borders or we will admit Ukraine into NATO ASAP, and the western alliance will begin defending it under Article 5 obligations. Then, after he limps home, admit them to NATO anyway.

There's no need for US and Russian troops shooting at each other while we're winning. Now, if Russia turns the tide, we can revisit.

Exactly.  That is exactly what I'm saying.

4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

I haven’t read everything that TEW has said but Its not bending to Putin’s will to realize that going head to head with Russia would have escalated a regional war into a world war with nuclear implications. I don’t know how much of Ukraine I would have been willing to risk and glad that so far, the proxy war approach is working. 
 

"Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, a national security and military analyst for CNN, told What Matters on Sunday, "The key to diplomacy is to limit the potential for war. While the current war of Russian illegal invasion into Ukraine is tragic, chaotic and devastating, it is still a regional conflict."

"If NATO or the US sent troops into Ukraine to help them fight the Russians, the dynamic would shift to a multinational conflict with potential global implications due to the nuclear power status of both US and Russia.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/27/politics/us-troops-ukraine-russia-what-matters/index.html

Putin has threatened military and nuclear action against us if weapons we supply are used in annexed regions. I am saying we should not capitulate to those threats. At the start of the war I supported putting our troops in the Ukraine ahead of the invasion, which would have put onus on Putin. Obviously that ship has sailed. I would also support what @vikas83 suggested with regard to NATO membership.

What I have always been dead set against, is letting Putin dictate who can and who cannot be a member of NATO. 

48 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

speaking like someone who hasnt realized he is wrong yet. Even while Howie continues to make any move he wants to make and builds amazing talented rosters in spite of all of your whining about dead cap. Its interesting to see how much obvious evidence has to smack you in the face till you start to get it right. 

correct.

I see you are continuing with the strawman that my take is "The eagles cant sign anyone!".  You should probably keep that up, doesn't make you look foolish at all.

 

(If anything, one of the negatives I've stated is that it FORCES them to keep expensive players due to the detrimental cap hit, not that they are out of money  )

11 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, all this back and forth aside, let's remember...the current strategy is WORKING. The Biden administration has gotten this 100% correct -- they have rallied the Europeans and strengthened NATO, supplied arms to Ukraine and allowed them to take back their country. There's no need to IMMEDIATELY admit Ukraine into NATO. As part of the end of this conflict, then yes...we should seriously consider admitting Ukraine into NATO. 

The real trick would be to use near-term NATO admission as a threat to get Putin to withdraw. Tell him to go back to the original borders or we will admit Ukraine into NATO ASAP, and the western alliance will begin defending it under Article 5 obligations. Then, after he limps home, admit them to NATO anyway.

There's no need for US and Russian troops shooting at each other while we're winning. Now, if Russia turns the tide, we can revisit.

Yeah I don't think fast tracking Ukraine into NATo is in anybody's interest.  And yes, Biden has played this like a boss.  Dude was pretty dead in the water as a POTUS until he pretty much took down Putin without losing any US soldiers (officially at least ).

 

Oh yeah and the Nordstrom was total him.

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Putin has threatened military and nuclear action against us if weapons we supply are used in annexed regions. I am saying we should not capitulate to those threats. At the start of the war I supported putting our troops in the Ukraine ahead of the invasion, which would have put onus on Putin. Obviously that ship has sailed. I would also support what @vikas83 suggested with regard to NATO membership.

What I have always been dead set against, is letting Putin dictate who can and who cannot be a member of NATO. 

I agree we should not stop supplying the Ukraine and that the expectation is that our weapons WILL be used in the regions that Putin has declared as annexed.  Was TEW actually suggesting we should stop supplying Ukraine with weapons?

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I agree we should not stop supplying the Ukraine and that the expectation is that our weapons WILL be used in the regions that Putin has declared as annexed.  Was TEW actually suggesting we should stop supplying Ukraine with weapons?

He was saying NATO membership should be off the table for Ukraine. That's ridiculous. 

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Putin has threatened military and nuclear action against us if weapons we supply are used in annexed regions. I am saying we should not capitulate to those threats. At the start of the war I supported putting our troops in the Ukraine ahead of the invasion, which would have put onus on Putin. Obviously that ship has sailed. I would also support what @vikas83 suggested with regard to NATO membership.

What I have always been dead set against, is letting Putin dictate who can and who cannot be a member of NATO. 

Yup -- this is a non-starter. The messed up part is there was no desire among NATO members to admit Ukraine before this, but there was also no way in hell we were going to publicly say that Ukraine would never be admitted. We can't let Putin dictate our foreign policy to us. And NATO came out of the Trump years fractured badly. 

Putin's invasion has legitimately done everything he feared -- NATO has coalesced, expanded, and now will admit Ukraine in the future. It's harder to think of a more ridiculous strategic blunder in recent memory.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Yup -- this is a non-starter. The messed up part is there was no desire among NATO members to admit Ukraine before this, but there was also no way in hell we were going to publicly say that Ukraine would never be admitted. We can't let Putin dictate our foreign policy to us. And NATO came out of the Trump years fractured badly. 

Putin's invasion has legitimately done everything he feared -- NATO has coalesced, expanded, and now will admit Ukraine in the future. It's harder to think of a more ridiculous strategic blunder in recent memory.

It's not a blunder! He's a genius, damnit. A genius! This wasn't a miscalculation, he planned for this. You just don't understand his motivations!

16 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

Would it have been justifiable in 1968? The U.S. has used once and has come close to using nukes in Vietnam yet has the audacity to lecture others. 

The only government with a first use doctrine is the U.S..

In Vietnam, No.......and I question how close they got to using them.  

And WHO CARES who used it first when the use was justifiable?  So what?  The use of nukes in WW2 saved the lives of millions of people that would have died in the invasion of Japan.....military and civilian.  The battle of Okinawa saw half of their civilian population die.

There has been nothing even close to those reasons since then.  But we should know that weapons like that in the hands of dictators or crazy men like Putin, something bad will eventually happen.  Whether it's strategic or wide spread......once the launching starts, it will escalate quickly.  

1 minute ago, birdman#12 said:

In Vietnam, No.......and I question how close they got to using them.  

And WHO CARES who used it first when the use was justifiable?  So what?  The use of nukes in WW2 saved the lives of millions of people that would have died in the invasion of Japan.....military and civilian.  The battle of Okinawa saw half of their civilian population die.

There has been nothing even close to those reasons since then.  But we should know that weapons like that in the hands of dictators or crazy men like Putin, something bad will eventually happen.  Whether it's strategic or wide spread......once the launching starts, it will escalate quickly.  

There's also 2 factors that morons don't consider:

1. In 1945, the United States was the only country with nuclear weapons, so there was no risk of escalation or retaliation. Hell, we used the 2 we had at that time and couldn't have dropped another one for months. Using nuclear weapons post 1949 was a very different calculation.

2. We had some idea of the long term impacts of the weapons, but not nearly what we have now. 

As you said, dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki likely saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. The revisionist history BS is just dumb.

6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

He was saying NATO membership should be off the table for Ukraine. That's ridiculous. 

Yeah, it would have been possible to keep it as a long term threat but not executed pre invasion but that ship has also sailed.  The question now is not IF but how and when.  I don't think it is now.  Hopefully quite soon though.  I'd like to think we are just months away and not years.

45 minutes ago, birdman#12 said:

In Vietnam, No.......and I question how close they got to using them.  

And WHO CARES who used it first when the use was justifiable?  So what?  The use of nukes in WW2 saved the lives of millions of people that would have died in the invasion of Japan.....military and civilian.  The battle of Okinawa saw half of their civilian population die.

There has been nothing even close to those reasons since then.  But we should know that weapons like that in the hands of dictators or crazy men like Putin, something bad will eventually happen.  Whether it's strategic or wide spread......once the launching starts, it will escalate quickly.  

How close they came to using nukes in Vietnam is beside the point. They considered using them. The U.S. could not consider using nukes if they didn't have a first strike doctrine. The real danger of nuclear war emanates from the crazies in the U.S. who've demonstrated the willingness to use nukes on at least two occasions. 

These same crazies have already breached another red line no other nation has been maniacal to do thus far when they attacked civilian undersea infrastructure. 

The Russians, on the other hand, have shown enormous restraint. 

September electricity bill just came.  The price is 2.5x more per kWh vs. September 2021.  We managed to reduce our usage by almost 30% so the actual amount due was high but could have been a good bit worse.

4 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

How close they came to using nukes in Vietnam is beside the point. They considered using them. The U.S. could not consider using nukes if they didn't have a first strike doctrine. The real danger of nuclear war emanates from the crazies in the U.S. who've demonstrated the willingness to use nukes on at least two occasions. 

These same crazies have already breached another red line no other nation has been maniacal to do thus far when they attacked civilian undersea infrastructure. 

The Russians, on the other hand, have shown enormous restraint. 

Sure, if restraint can mean attacking your neighbor, do it poorly, get your ass handed to you, and then whining like bishes when it goes poorly and you threaten to use nukes.

1 hour ago, paco said:

I see you are continuing with the strawman that my take is "The eagles cant sign anyone!".  You should probably keep that up, doesn't make you look foolish at all.

 

(If anything, one of the negatives I've stated is that it FORCES them to keep expensive players due to the detrimental cap hit, not that they are out of money  )

Wrong again