What are your thoughts? Search of youtube on "drone army":
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Poll: Are you in favor or against U.S. doing more in Ukraine?
- Thread starter Terminator857
- Start date
- Status
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
The war in Ukraine is a very difficult geopolitical problem, perhaps the most difficult one since the Cuban missile crisis.
If we get involved too much to help Ukraine, we risk a direct war with Russia which would basically mean WW3. Certainly, direct military intervention would mean war with Russia. Even a no-fly zone would likely mean war with Russia since a no-fly zone would very likely require NATO planes to shoot down Russian planes. And Putin has said that a no-fly zone would be viewed as an act of war. Providing indirect military assistance to Ukraine, like giving Ukraine weapons, get close to the line. Putin could view it as an act of war. Putin has even said the economic sanctions are equivalent to an act of war. If we impose sanctions that are too harsh and crush Russia's economic too hard, Putin could be forced to retaliate. For obvious reasons, NATO wants to avoid war with Russia since we both have nukes.
On the other side, Putin's war on Ukraine is causing a tragic humanitarian crisis. We are also seeing over 1M refugees pour into Poland and other countries. And Ukraine borders NATO territory. We don't want to see a democracy friendly to Europe and so close to Europe's borders fall under Russian authoritarianism. Furthermore, Ukraine is incredibly brave and will resist to the last man but they are weaker than Russia. If Ukraine continues to fight alone, it is likely that Ukraine will eventually fall to Russia. So if we do nothing, we could watch the slow decimation of a country, the deaths of countless innocent lives. And we might still end up with Russia on NATO's borders, threatening another country. So even doing nothing could still lead to war and we let an entire country get wiped out.
So the trick is to do just enough to help Ukraine successfully resist Russia's invasion without crossing the line and starting a war with Russia.
I don't know what the perfect answer is. I do think we should help Ukraine as much as we can without actually going to war with Russia (if we can help it). But I hate seeing what is happening to the people in Ukraine. I do think that Putin is determined to rebuild the Russian empire by force. He will not negotiate. He will crush Ukraine until they submit and rejoin Russia. And I don't think he will stop at Ukraine. If he really wants a new Russian empire, he will want the Baltic states like Latvia too.
If we get involved too much to help Ukraine, we risk a direct war with Russia which would basically mean WW3. Certainly, direct military intervention would mean war with Russia. Even a no-fly zone would likely mean war with Russia since a no-fly zone would very likely require NATO planes to shoot down Russian planes. And Putin has said that a no-fly zone would be viewed as an act of war. Providing indirect military assistance to Ukraine, like giving Ukraine weapons, get close to the line. Putin could view it as an act of war. Putin has even said the economic sanctions are equivalent to an act of war. If we impose sanctions that are too harsh and crush Russia's economic too hard, Putin could be forced to retaliate. For obvious reasons, NATO wants to avoid war with Russia since we both have nukes.
On the other side, Putin's war on Ukraine is causing a tragic humanitarian crisis. We are also seeing over 1M refugees pour into Poland and other countries. And Ukraine borders NATO territory. We don't want to see a democracy friendly to Europe and so close to Europe's borders fall under Russian authoritarianism. Furthermore, Ukraine is incredibly brave and will resist to the last man but they are weaker than Russia. If Ukraine continues to fight alone, it is likely that Ukraine will eventually fall to Russia. So if we do nothing, we could watch the slow decimation of a country, the deaths of countless innocent lives. And we might still end up with Russia on NATO's borders, threatening another country. So even doing nothing could still lead to war and we let an entire country get wiped out.
So the trick is to do just enough to help Ukraine successfully resist Russia's invasion without crossing the line and starting a war with Russia.
I don't know what the perfect answer is. I do think we should help Ukraine as much as we can without actually going to war with Russia (if we can help it). But I hate seeing what is happening to the people in Ukraine. I do think that Putin is determined to rebuild the Russian empire by force. He will not negotiate. He will crush Ukraine until they submit and rejoin Russia. And I don't think he will stop at Ukraine. If he really wants a new Russian empire, he will want the Baltic states like Latvia too.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
If NATO is serious about its credibility, it should make a rule that anyone desiring membership would be under the protection of NATO.
Georgia learned its lesson when it was invaded by Russia in 2008 after it wanted to join NATO but without NATO's protection and it lost 20% of its territory as the result. Since then, it has been a neutral country with no wish to join NATO and it enjoys diplomatic relations with both the West and Russia.
Ukraine did not learn its lesson in 2014 when Russia invaded and took over Crimea. The financial penalty is a nice symbolic gesture but it's an incentive for those who want to do bad and just have to pay the fine.
NATO does not want to directly confront Russia so it encourages the expansion of NATO. If someone dies because of its ambition of expansion, it's the lowly pawn that is sacrificed and not NATO.
Thus, does Ukraine understand that it is an expendable pawn for NATO?
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Yes. I think that is one reason why Zelensky called out NATO for rejecting a no-fly zone. He called NATO weak. He was basically saying to NATO, "You claim to be on our side but you will basically sit by and watch us die." So I think Zelensky gets it. He was literally begging NATO not to let Ukraine to be an expendable pawn.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
I’m in favor of this Tesla enthusiast Forum being free of politics. Yeah, I vote for that.
People dislike politics because of political bulldogs trying to persuade why their position is correct. In the U.S. this seems to be a blue vs red argument. For this topic it seems to me that both sides are united to do something. From that perspective I'm not sure this is political. Don't think this thread will devolve into personal attacks like other political threads do, which is the reason people dislike political threads. Especially mods who are then tasked into policing those threads.
Last edited:
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
I see several possible scenarios:
Scenario #1: military assistance is enough and Ukraine is able to resist Russia long enough that Russia is forced to sue for peace. Perhaps, the Russian speaking eastern parts of Ukraine are allowed to join Russia. In exchange, Ukraine agrees never to join NATO.
Scenario #2: military assistance is enough and Ukraine is able to resist Russia. But Russia does not sue for peace. Rather, Putin doubles down and uses even more force, maybe even using tactical nukes, in a desperate last attempt to crush Ukraine.
Scenario #3: Military assistance is not enough and Ukraine is not able to resist Russia. Ukraine surrenders. NATO laments the fall of Ukraine but does nothing.
Scenario #4: Military assistance is not enough and Ukraine is not able to resist Russia. Ukraine is on the verse of surrendering. NATO feels obligated to intervene to save Ukraine. NATO intervenes military to save Ukraine.
Scenario #5: Sanctions bring the Russian economy on the brink of total collapse and NATO's indirect military weapons to Ukraine, Putin feels he has no choice and preemptively declares war on NATO.
Scenario #6: Tentions rise and a Russian plane accidentally bombs inside of Poland or shoots down a NATO plane that it thought was inside Ukrainian airspace. NATO responds with military action.
What scenario do you think is most likely? Did I miss a scenario?
Scenario #1: military assistance is enough and Ukraine is able to resist Russia long enough that Russia is forced to sue for peace. Perhaps, the Russian speaking eastern parts of Ukraine are allowed to join Russia. In exchange, Ukraine agrees never to join NATO.
Scenario #2: military assistance is enough and Ukraine is able to resist Russia. But Russia does not sue for peace. Rather, Putin doubles down and uses even more force, maybe even using tactical nukes, in a desperate last attempt to crush Ukraine.
Scenario #3: Military assistance is not enough and Ukraine is not able to resist Russia. Ukraine surrenders. NATO laments the fall of Ukraine but does nothing.
Scenario #4: Military assistance is not enough and Ukraine is not able to resist Russia. Ukraine is on the verse of surrendering. NATO feels obligated to intervene to save Ukraine. NATO intervenes military to save Ukraine.
Scenario #5: Sanctions bring the Russian economy on the brink of total collapse and NATO's indirect military weapons to Ukraine, Putin feels he has no choice and preemptively declares war on NATO.
Scenario #6: Tentions rise and a Russian plane accidentally bombs inside of Poland or shoots down a NATO plane that it thought was inside Ukrainian airspace. NATO responds with military action.
What scenario do you think is most likely? Did I miss a scenario?
I’m confused by the question and answer choices? If I answer yes, what do I want?
Thanks for asking. If answer "yes" then you are in favor of the U.S. doing more than it is currently.
>Confused
Yes, meant to be a bit silly to lighten the tone.
Tam
Well-Known Member
As a conventional war, Ukraine does not have enough man power and weapons to win the war.
However, Ukraine seems to win the propaganda war because it has not collapsed just in a few days, 96 hours, as predicted by US military intelligence.
It seems the preparation of Molotov Cocktails has successfully repelled the bogged down Russian column.
However, Russia does not have obey US timeline so it's premature to be surprised that Russia has not captured Kyiv in just 96 hours. Notice that it took 3 weeks for the US to capture Bagdad in Shock and Awe Iraq war.
Thus, Russia will win the Ukraine conventional war but the issue would be: Will it be able to govern after winning the war? It couldn't after winning the Afghanistan war.
Without a direct intervention from NATO or the US, Ukraine will lose the conventional war despite economic/weapons assistance (jet fighters, 16,000 international mercenaries...)
However, it could have a chance by adopting guerrilla warfare that proved to be effective in Russia-Afghanistan war by terrorizing and wearing down the enemy.
However, Russia might bring in a pro-Russia government for Ukraine. So it will be guerrilla Ukrainians killing the pro-Russia Ukrainians instead of Russians.
Tam
Well-Known Member
141 countries voted to condemn Russia
35 abstain
5 against
So if there's a WW3, the world would fight against nuclear countries: Russia, China, India, Pakistan...
While Tesla is getting into India, the US is thinking about sanction:
Could India face US sanctions over its ties to Russia?
The US sanctioned India last in 1998 following the underground nuclear tests in Pokhran.
qz.com
So which to choose: Sacrifice the pawn or risking WW3? The US has a good record of betraying its allies:
In 1954, the French got the commitment from Eisenhower administration to deploy enormous air support to make sure the French would win against the communists in the battle of Điện Biên Phủ, Vietnam. The US did not keep its promise and it watched the French slaughtered and defeated.
During Vietnam War against the communists, Kissinger and Nixon threw its ally under the bus so the US could open up business opportunities with the red Soviets and China.
Same betrayal deal for the Kurds, Afghanistan, Tiananmen Square Protests, Hong Kong Freedom Fighters, Georgia-Russia war...
I doubt we'd be fighting those countries. The no votes on the resolution came from five authoritarian nations: North Korea, Eritrea, Syria, Russia and Russia’s close ally Belarus.
Nations that abstained were Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, China, and more.
Similar articles:
Why do you think India would join Russia in a fight? Have similar thoughts about Pakistan. I think they would be content to watch, except China, which would likely indirectly support Russia.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
India has been violating the sanction by buying weapons from Russia.
Pakistan is not obeying US' lead on the sanction either:
What sanctions? Pakistan signs new trade deal with Russia
Pakistan inked the first new trade agreement with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine on March 1, making it the first big country to back president Vladimir Putin.Following a meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin on February 24, Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan announced that his coun
thenewsmill.com
Tam
Well-Known Member
There's a request for US company Tesla to impose tech embargo on Russia and Belarus:
Elon Musk asked by Twitter users to deactivate all Teslas in Russia, following the country's invasion of Ukraine
Musk did not respond to any calls for deactivation but previously said he would help Ukrainians by providing EV chargers and internet access.
www.businessinsider.com
Is Elon Musk working for both sides? Letting Ukraine enjoy the Starlink while Russia enjoys their Teslas,?
Tam
Well-Known Member
A possibility to expand the war beyond Ukraine:
1) No fly zone:
Russia has been known for very good air defense system including shooting down the U-2 in the early days. If NATO planes are shot down, things could go down hill from there.
Russia could retaliate by bombing the origin airports like Poland.
2) Jet fighters:
The US suggests 3-way deal: Poland to give its MIG-29 jet fighters to Ukraine and the US would back fill with F-16.
Most likely, Ukrainian pilots will have to fly from Poland airports since Ukraine airports are now insecured.
That might trigger a retaliation from Russia to neutralize Poland airports. Russian pilots do not have to fly to Poland as they have cruise missiles and drones.
Poland is a NATO country so it will be messy once the war is expanded to it.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Some claim that Ukraine does have Baykar TB2 drones that cost about $1 to 2 million each and it's been cheap and effective to destroy Russia's military convoy columns.
What also more interesting is as of March 4, 2022:
Ukraine Still Has 'Significant Majority' of Its Military Aircraft -U.S. Official
If so, why Ukraine's air force and drones have not destroyed most of the very long, 40-mile long, Russian convoy?
If so, why Ukraine is still asking for more planes?
So, the picture is still very confusing.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I am biased against Putin so I don’t believe what he says.
However, what is confusing is there’s a French reporter Anne-Laure Bonnel surfacing on Youtube claiming that she’s been witnessing Kyiv government killing residents in Donbass, Eastern Ukraine every day for the past 8 years since 2014 and she’s very frustrated because most of the West does not care. Most of its residents don’t care who’s in charge Kremlin or Kyiv: They just want their peace back.
That sounds like an excuse from Putin but then there’s a 2019 report from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation funded by the Canadian Government that also confirmed what she witnessed.
Last edited:
Put me in the category of not afraid to go to war with Russia. Although afraid not / afraid and what is the right thing to do are different things. I do strongly feel we can do so much more. I wish this country didn't act like it was afraid of a confrontation with Putin.
My wife is from Russia. I have Russian associates. They are strongly hinting that Putin is feeling the pressure. I'm seeing social posts calling for / expecting a change in regime. Biased view though, Russians in U.S. aren't subject to the brainwashing in Russia. People in Russia are afraid to speak badly of Putin, even private conversations over phones and apps, because they believe Putin is listening.
- Status
Similar threads
