Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 12-07-2022

A couple of weeks ago, when Stanford WBB played South Carolina in a nationally televised game, the coaches wore sweatshirts in support of Brittany Griner, and the players' uniforms had a patch in support.

I haven't heard anything of substance recently about the efforts (which I'm sure are happening) to try to get her released. (Last I heard, there was a second prisoner we wanted out, and there was at least one person Russia wanted.)  I imagine/hope that someday we'll hear that a swap was made the day before, with no prior public knowledge.

I can imagine that it is very politically sensitive internationally because other countries might suspect the US secretly agreed to something related to the Russian invasion in order to get Griner released.   I can see that the US might prefer to see the war get to a stable state (Russian withdrawal, or a stalemate) before giving up something to get her out.

If someone has heard anything recently, can you point me at it?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 12-07-2022

(12-06-2022, 10:25 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(12-05-2022, 10:55 PM)81alum Wrote:  I don't have a suggestion.  I just would like our erudite and well informed participants on this board to suggest a plausible end-game strategy.

Since the erudite and well informed participants haven't stepped up, I will take a try at it. First, it has to be said that nothing in this war is certain. Things that are just "impossible" have already happened, and will continue to do so. That is one thing that makes war so dangerous, this one in particular. Both Russia and Ukraine have the possibility of their governments collapsing without warning. There are lots of political and social forces that we don't understand in play, and as history shows, stressed societies can behave unpredictably. The Russian military could also collapse because of poor morale and tensions within the leadership. The Ukrainian army could fragment in a political upheaval, but it would keep fighting as long as it physically could.

Assuming these events don't happen, you are correct. It is abundantly clear Ukraine cannot continue this war indefinitely. Their economy is a wreck, and with the assault on the electric grid things will just get worse. Eventually the point will be reached they just can't continue. Their choices are so starkly bad however that they will continue the fight long after everybody else has written them off. So, one possible outcome is that Russia and Ukraine continue to pound each other until Ukraine finally physically can't go on. This is just about everybody's worst case outcome. How long would that take? I figure about 18 to 24 months, max. However, long before that day comes people will start reading the handwriting on the wall, stop supporting Ukraine, and urge a "political" settlement, which is of course actually impossible but looks good on paper. Ukraine knows all this, and is going to do all in their power to avoid this situation. Russia OTOH will not be confronted with the inability to continue. Despite sanctions and the loss of the major gas and oil markets, they can go on with the war. The population may be miserable, hungry, and dispirited, but they can continue as long as their politicians force them to do so.

The Ukraine knows they aren't going to bring Russia to it's knees by invading it. Ukraine also know that Russia could be driven out of all the occupied territory in the Donbas and still keep fighting. What I THINK the Ukraine intends is to take back Crimea and cut Russia's free access to the Sea of Azov. This is a good strategy for three reasons. First, Ukraine found out how much losing free access to the Sea of Azov cost them when Russia took Crimea in 2014. It was both a political and a commercial disaster. Ukraine needs it back to allow ports like Mariupol and Berdyans'k to engage in cabotage and international shipping. They can deny Russia the ability to safely export and import through the strait and the shoe will be on the other foot. This is one of the few costs Ukraine can actually impose on Russia, and it is a significant one.

Second, the military benefit to taking Crimea is large and it is probably easier than taking ground in the Donbas. The threat to Ukraine's southern coast would be removed. The Black Sea fleet would lose the shipyard and all the associated facilities. Ukraine would gain them. The Black Sea fleet and all the coastal defense units would have to retreat to Novorossiysk. The Crimea is supplied only by one bridge and one GLOC along the Sea of Azov. OTOH the Donbas has lots of GLOCs and abuts the Russian border. Ukraine can't cut off Donbas but they can cut off Crimea in a straightforward manner. The know it, and Russia knows it. Russia's actions show they are concerned about that and have committed lots of troops to defend Crimea that right now are doing nothing. For Russia, retaining Crimea is a strategic and political necessity as it also is for Ukraine. Geography favors Ukraine.

Third, and most importantly, the loss of Crimea would be a political disaster for the current Russian leadership, i.e. Putin. Russians could definitely say they are now much worse off on every front than they were before the war. This situation could bring about regime change, and it is about the only thing bad enough to do so IMO. Ukraine knows that Putin will keep fighting if he is still in power. They need to get him out. This would probably do it. The government and army wouldn't implode. They would just get a new leader. The question is, would the new leadership end the war? Lots of reasons to fear they wouldn't. At that point NATO may need to agree to lift sanctions if Russia stops the war, even though we really want to force Russia to take responsibility for their actions. This is IMHO the best possible outcome Ukraine can hope for. They get all their territory back, but Russia is still there. Unfortunately, if the new leadership behaves like the old and continues, Ukraine is still in a tough spot. I don't know what to do then.

This all sounds reasonable to me, but one variable it doesn't really address is the potential for increased US support.  If stalemate continues and the situation above comes to pass, I wouldn't be surprised (and would hope to see) Biden double down on long term support. We are just now seeing more articles about the (very partial) mobilization of US industry to ramp up artillery shell production. We could and should start the major process training Ukranians and their logistics corp/engineers on Abrams and F16s, so they can be brought to the front in volume. Seized Russian assets could be used to prop up the Ukrainian economy, and we could consider even more drastic measures like you've described in terms of an effective oil embargo or seizure of oil tankers.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TreesAndBirds - 12-07-2022

(12-07-2022, 09:35 AM)gocard14 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022, 10:25 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(12-05-2022, 10:55 PM)81alum Wrote:  I don't have a suggestion.  I just would like our erudite and well informed participants on this board to suggest a plausible end-game strategy.

Since the erudite and well informed participants haven't stepped up, I will take a try at it. First, it has to be said that nothing in this war is certain. Things that are just "impossible" have already happened, and will continue to do so. That is one thing that makes war so dangerous, this one in particular. Both Russia and Ukraine have the possibility of their governments collapsing without warning. There are lots of political and social forces that we don't understand in play, and as history shows, stressed societies can behave unpredictably. The Russian military could also collapse because of poor morale and tensions within the leadership. The Ukrainian army could fragment in a political upheaval, but it would keep fighting as long as it physically could.

Assuming these events don't happen, you are correct. It is abundantly clear Ukraine cannot continue this war indefinitely. Their economy is a wreck, and with the assault on the electric grid things will just get worse. Eventually the point will be reached they just can't continue. Their choices are so starkly bad however that they will continue the fight long after everybody else has written them off. So, one possible outcome is that Russia and Ukraine continue to pound each other until Ukraine finally physically can't go on. This is just about everybody's worst case outcome. How long would that take? I figure about 18 to 24 months, max. However, long before that day comes people will start reading the handwriting on the wall, stop supporting Ukraine, and urge a "political" settlement, which is of course actually impossible but looks good on paper. Ukraine knows all this, and is going to do all in their power to avoid this situation. Russia OTOH will not be confronted with the inability to continue. Despite sanctions and the loss of the major gas and oil markets, they can go on with the war. The population may be miserable, hungry, and dispirited, but they can continue as long as their politicians force them to do so.

The Ukraine knows they aren't going to bring Russia to it's knees by invading it. Ukraine also know that Russia could be driven out of all the occupied territory in the Donbas and still keep fighting. What I THINK the Ukraine intends is to take back Crimea and cut Russia's free access to the Sea of Azov. This is a good strategy for three reasons. First, Ukraine found out how much losing free access to the Sea of Azov cost them when Russia took Crimea in 2014. It was both a political and a commercial disaster. Ukraine needs it back to allow ports like Mariupol and Berdyans'k to engage in cabotage and international shipping. They can deny Russia the ability to safely export and import through the strait and the shoe will be on the other foot. This is one of the few costs Ukraine can actually impose on Russia, and it is a significant one.

Second, the military benefit to taking Crimea is large and it is probably easier than taking ground in the Donbas. The threat to Ukraine's southern coast would be removed. The Black Sea fleet would lose the shipyard and all the associated facilities. Ukraine would gain them. The Black Sea fleet and all the coastal defense units would have to retreat to Novorossiysk. The Crimea is supplied only by one bridge and one GLOC along the Sea of Azov. OTOH the Donbas has lots of GLOCs and abuts the Russian border. Ukraine can't cut off Donbas but they can cut off Crimea in a straightforward manner. The know it, and Russia knows it. Russia's actions show they are concerned about that and have committed lots of troops to defend Crimea that right now are doing nothing. For Russia, retaining Crimea is a strategic and political necessity as it also is for Ukraine. Geography favors Ukraine.

Third, and most importantly, the loss of Crimea would be a political disaster for the current Russian leadership, i.e. Putin. Russians could definitely say they are now much worse off on every front than they were before the war. This situation could bring about regime change, and it is about the only thing bad enough to do so IMO. Ukraine knows that Putin will keep fighting if he is still in power. They need to get him out. This would probably do it. The government and army wouldn't implode. They would just get a new leader. The question is, would the new leadership end the war? Lots of reasons to fear they wouldn't. At that point NATO may need to agree to lift sanctions if Russia stops the war, even though we really want to force Russia to take responsibility for their actions. This is IMHO the best possible outcome Ukraine can hope for. They get all their territory back, but Russia is still there. Unfortunately, if the new leadership behaves like the old and continues, Ukraine is still in a tough spot. I don't know what to do then.

This all sounds reasonable to me, but one variable it doesn't really address is the potential for increased US support.  If stalemate continues and the situation above comes to pass, I wouldn't be surprised (and would hope to see) Biden double down on long term support. We are just now seeing more articles about the (very partial) mobilization of US industry to ramp up artillery shell production. We could and should start the major process training Ukranians and their logistics corp/engineers on Abrams and F16s, so they can be brought to the front in volume. Seized Russian assets could be used to prop up the Ukrainian economy, and we could consider even more drastic measures like you've described in terms of an effective oil embargo or seizure of oil tankers.

Another variable is a crisis in another area of the world, possibly instigated by Putin or just happening coincidentally. China/Taiwan and Iran/Middle East are most likely hot spots which could force the US to allocate resources elsewhere, to the potential detriment of Ukraine. It is reported that US is delaying arms shipment to Taiwan to focus on Ukraine and that some in Congress are concerned about this. I dont know if Putin has the ability to engineer/encourage conflicts in other areas of the world, but if Im him Im trying to give the West other things to focus on.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 12-07-2022

American support already waning:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/american-support-ukraine-poll/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 12-07-2022

(12-07-2022, 10:08 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  American support already waning:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/american-support-ukraine-poll/

Americans' support for Ukraine flagging, poll says. Nearly half of Americans (47%) now say Washington should urge Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal as soon as possible, up from 38% in July, a new poll shows. And 48% of Americans believe Washington should support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” down from 58% in July, according to the survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-war-crosses-russia-drone-141132010.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 12-07-2022

There are countries, however, that are motivated to increase arms production:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/turkey-finland-end-arms-embargo-join-nato-94568628
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/12/06/sweden-getting-into-the-nato-groove-by-aiding-ukraine-boosting-budget/

I'll be interested to see how this plays out over the coming months.  I don't think SWE and FIN can replace the US by any means, but they may provide more help than anticipated at the start of the war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 12-07-2022

(12-07-2022, 11:10 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(12-07-2022, 10:08 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  American support already waning:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/american-support-ukraine-poll/

Americans' support for Ukraine flagging, poll says. Nearly half of Americans (47%) now say Washington should urge Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal as soon as possible, up from 38% in July, a new poll shows. And 48% of Americans believe Washington should support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” down from 58% in July, according to the survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-war-crosses-russia-drone-141132010.html

I wonder how much of this depends on the phrasing of the question. Most people obviously see peace as preferable to war. I obviously agree. But saying you hope that Kiev will "negotiate a peace deal" doesn't mean you want Ukraine to surrender, which is basically what negotiations would entail at this point given the current Russian stance. 

In terms of support, it just seems like such a no-brainer for the US, even without diving into the obvious moral side of the war. Not only is Ukraine decimating the military and economy of one of 2 chief rivals, but this war gives a massive boost to our defense industry. I would be shocked if our donations to Ukraine (much of which were old stock that needed to be retired) were not more then made up for increased export of military hardware.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 12-07-2022

(12-07-2022, 12:12 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  

(12-07-2022, 11:10 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(12-07-2022, 10:08 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  American support already waning:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/american-support-ukraine-poll/

Americans' support for Ukraine flagging, poll says. Nearly half of Americans (47%) now say Washington should urge Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal as soon as possible, up from 38% in July, a new poll shows. And 48% of Americans believe Washington should support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” down from 58% in July, according to the survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-war-crosses-russia-drone-141132010.html

I wonder how much of this depends on the phrasing of the question. Most people obviously see peace as preferable to war. I obviously agree. But saying you hope that Kiev will "negotiate a peace deal" doesn't mean you want Ukraine to surrender, which is basically what negotiations would entail at this point given the current Russian stance. 

In terms of support, it just seems like such a no-brainer for the US, even without diving into the obvious moral side of the war. Not only is Ukraine decimating the military and economy of one of 2 chief rivals, but this war gives a massive boost to our defense industry. I would be shocked if our donations to Ukraine (much of which were old stock that needed to be retired) were not more then made up for increased export of military hardware.

You are exactly right to question the meaning of these results.  In fact, it was a similar poll question during the Vietnam War that is now a famous example of ambiguous questions that lead to misleading results.  The question was "Are you in favor of ending the war in Vietnam" and an overwhelming majority said "yes."  Given that the question was asked at the height of the peace movement, it was thought that Americans were coming around to the demands to withdraw from the war.  

But follow up surveys showed that most of those who said "yes" turned out to be people in favor of ending the war by winning it, even if that meant escalation or even nuking Hanoi.  There were at least as many hawks as doves, and they both could say they were in favor of ending the war.  The survey question wound up telling us almost nothing about American attitudes about alternative policies on the war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-07-2022

It’s not worth much more than the paper it’s printed in, but FWIW, Zelenskyy was the Time magazine person of the year.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/time/status/1600470652363866113?s=46&t=tr2X4IT9dsJvYNgrJN9jNw[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 12-08-2022

MT, good timing with your question about Griner:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/08/brittney-griner-freed-russia-viktor-bout/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-08-2022

(12-07-2022, 09:35 AM)gocard14 Wrote:  This all sounds reasonable to me, but one variable it doesn't really address is the potential for increased US support.  If stalemate continues and the situation above comes to pass, I wouldn't be surprised (and would hope to see) Biden double down on long term support. We are just now seeing more articles about the (very partial) mobilization of US industry to ramp up artillery shell production. We could and should start the major process training Ukranians and their logistics corp/engineers on Abrams and F16s, so they can be brought to the front in volume. Seized Russian assets could be used to prop up the Ukrainian economy, and we could consider even more drastic measures like you've described in terms of an effective oil embargo or seizure of oil tankers.

Indeed it is important to consider what the US can and should do to create a favorable outcome. These actions fall into two broad categories, those that help Ukraine fight Russia and take back their territory and those that impose direct costs on Russia if this war continues. I think you are correct that the US needs to ensure that we will be able to supply Ukraine's needs for things like 155 mm shells. Our country has IMO been remiss in considering and gaming out what our own military might need in fighting a "real" war against a near-peer competitor. For our own benefit, as well as Ukraine's, we need to be sure we can ramp up production quickly in a crisis. The operative word is quickly.

It is also absolutely obvious that Ukraine is going to run out of S-300 missiles eventually. The more "junk" Russia lobs at them, the more missiles they have to use. Two NASAMS aren't going to come anywhere close to solving this problem. This has to be addressed NOW, because when Ukraine is out of missiles it will be too late. The Hawk systems and the like will help, but they too aren't manufactured anymore. We need to ensure a supply of these obsolete weapons as well. Lots there to be done.

Ukraine is going to deplete their limited supply of Soviet era fighters and attack aircraft relatively soon. There are losses due to enemy action, losses due to operations, and losses due to unavailability of parts. It adds up. Like it or not the US is going to have to help solve his problem. Without at lease some air power, Ukraine can't dislodge Russia from their land.

Ukraine has for some time wanted to get NATO tanks into their inventory. It is not abundantly clear this desire is proportional to the actual need. Ukraine has so far been able to keep their Soviet era tanks going and even increase the inventory through captures. They are also not presently capable (it seems) of combined arms mobile tactics using armor as a primary element. That said, the day will come when they will have to replace their worn out tanks. Abrams tanks are not the best solution. Their more complicated engines are more unfamiliar to the Ukrainian's than the Leopard's diesel engines (T-80s nonwithstanding). Besides, according to the Germans, the Russians already suffer from Panzerangst :-). What the US needs to do is make that happen. We may need to give Abrams to NATO countries to get them to give Leopards to Ukraine. Prepare now for what must be done later.

All these efforts help Ukraine "win" and drive Russia out. However, even if these efforts succeed fully, Russia can still sit there and attack Ukraine with cruise missiles that will reduce Ukraine's infrastructure to rubble if it continues. No amount of money, whatever it's source, can allow Ukraine to be a functional society if this missile barrage continues. There will be no electricity, few trains, no computers, no cell phones, etc. Unfortunately it appears Russia has the means to do this for the foreseeable future. The sanctions are inflicting damage on the Russian economy and the Russian ability to make war. However, it appears Russia is still manufacturing Kalibr and KH-101 missiles. The have the means and it isn't going away anytime soon it seems.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-cruise-missiles-were-made-124055680.html

The US IMO needs to find a way to attack Russia's vital interests in a manner that will deny them the means to continue this aggression via missiles. We have applied economic sanctions that are designed to inflict pain and cause Russia to lose the will to continue. That hasn't yet worked. Any rational actor would have quit already, but then again any rational actor wouldn't have started. It is folly to assume that Putin will allow Russia to lose the will to continue. While Putin may be removed, an equally (or worse) irrational replacement may chose to continue the war. We need to recognize and deal with these possibilities.

Attacking/impounding the tankers was my attempt to deny Russia the finances it needs to continue this war. They simply wouldn't have the money to keep going. There may be other ways. If we are going the tanker route we need to do it soon, because Russia is aware of this vulnerability and are trying madly to build pipelines to reduce/eliminate it. The longer we wait, the more probable it is that such an embargo won't work. If we can't figure out a way to force Russia to stop this war, we are faced with the probability that Ukraine will be only the first step. Wars are fought to compel the enemy to do what you demand. We don't want to go there, but to avoid it we need to find another way.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TheWildJacko - 12-08-2022

(12-07-2022, 02:53 AM)M T Wrote:  A couple of weeks ago, when Stanford WBB played South Carolina in a nationally televised game, the coaches wore sweatshirts in support of Brittany Griner, and the players' uniforms had a patch in support.

I haven't heard anything of substance recently about the efforts (which I'm sure are happening) to try to get her released. (Last I heard, there was a second prisoner we wanted out, and there was at least one person Russia wanted.)  I imagine/hope that someday we'll hear that a swap was made the day before, with no prior public knowledge.

I can imagine that it is very politically sensitive internationally because other countries might suspect the US secretly agreed to something related to the Russian invasion in order to get Griner released.   I can see that the US might prefer to see the war get to a stable state (Russian withdrawal, or a stalemate) before giving up something to get her out.

If someone has heard anything recently, can you point me at it?

Just posted about this in the (old) Brittney Griner thread, but she's been released and is on her way home as of this morning. Prisoner swap for arms dealer Viktor Bout. They weren't able to include the other prisoner, in the deal, but not for lack of trying. Whelan's brother released a statement saying that the Biden administration made the right call (from KKTV/com):

“As the family member of a Russian hostage, I can literally only imagine the joy she will have, being reunited with her loved ones, and in time for the holidays,” David Whelan, Paul’s brother, said in a statement. “There is no greater success than for a wrongful detainee to be freed and for them to go home. The Biden Administration made the right decision to bring Ms. Griner home, and to make the deal that was possible, rather than waiting for one that wasn’t going to happen.”

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 12-08-2022

[Tweet]


https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1600909630846242820?s=20&t=beOjpca45dOxvg_VMWdX6w[/tweet]

I really want one of these drone guns for all the asshole tourists who are always flying drones around my house.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - cardcrimson - 12-08-2022

(12-08-2022, 11:10 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  [Tweet]


https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1600909630846242820?s=20&t=beOjpca45dOxvg_VMWdX6w[/tweet]

I really want one of these drone guns for all the asshole tourists who are always flying drones around my house.

You must have a really nice house. . . .

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 12-09-2022

A bit rambling, but always of interest to me what might be going on in the background

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/peace-accords/?utm_source=GPF+Free+Newsletter&utm_campaign=744a126cf3-20221209_FL_ReadersChoice&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f716b3bf65-744a126cf3-264940373&mc_cid=744a126cf3&mc_eid=be94f95b1a

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 12-09-2022

The two “world wars” lasted multiple years. This one-theater war hasn’t lasted a year yet. I guess the US didn’t think Russia could last this long without winning. Would the US be able to spin up production of ammo if we were dragged into this, especially if China was another front?  I’m not in position to know but I am worried we wouldn’t be. 

Thinking of Russia’s invasion as a parallel to the start of WWII is sobering. Thinking that the bravery & resilience of Ukraine might have stopped a much bigger war is a bright hope.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-09-2022

(12-09-2022, 12:10 PM)M T Wrote:  The two “world wars” lasted multiple years. This one-theater war hasn’t lasted a year yet. I guess the US didn’t think Russia could last this long without winning.

As to what the politicians thought, I have no idea. The military/intelligence community more thought Ukraine couldn't last this long without losing. There was never any real question that Russia was physically capable of undertaking a fairly long war. There were questions about what might happen internally and their will to do so. There still are.

Quote:Would the US be able to spin up production of ammo if we were dragged into this, especially if China was another front?  I’m not in position to know but I am worried we wouldn’t be.

The US has a long history of being slow to ramp up production before a war starts and immediately after. In the past we were very good at converting our civilian industrial base to military use. What the military has worried about for years is that they would get beat before that happened. IMO we actually have worse problems than that today. Our civilian manufacturing capability has greatly eroded over the past 60 or so years. We simply don't have the civilian industrial base to convert.

The second and possibly more serious problem is that the consolidation of the defense industry into a small number of very, very large companies has created so much inertia and delay in every endeavor that NOTHING can happen quickly. There are too many layers of management for that to be possible. The pentagon has created a mirror image of itself in the industrial sector. In the 1970s and 1980s there were over 100 companies in the Bay Area involved in electronic warfare. Now there is Lockheed, Raytheon and ? In an emergency situation, there are very few choices.

Quote:Thinking of Russia’s invasion as a parallel to the start of WWII is sobering. Thinking that the bravery & resilience of Ukraine might have stopped a much bigger war is a bright hope.

Indeed. Now we in the US and the EU just have to make sure that effort by Ukraine isn't wasted by our inability to find a way to hurt Russia enough to make them stop. Right now, it isn't clear to me we have a method in place that can work fast enough to keep Ukraine in the game.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - oldalum - 12-09-2022

(12-08-2022, 11:10 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  I really want one of these drone guns for all the asshole tourists who are always flying drones around my house.

No need for violence; just stop the backyard nude sunbathing and they'll go away.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 82lsju - 12-09-2022

(12-09-2022, 07:04 PM)oldalum Wrote:  

(12-08-2022, 11:10 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  I really want one of these drone guns for all the asshole tourists who are always flying drones around my house.

No need for violence; just stop the backyard nude sunbathing and they'll go away.

a long time ago we were looking at adding a small 2nd floor addition to our house, the neighbors were very opposed to it.  We go to the planning commission for a hearing, the wife says she doesn't want to allow the addition because she likes to skinny dip and doesn't want us watching her (she was ~75 years old at the time).  We said no problem, we'll plant two trees big enough to block the view since we really did not want to see that.....the planning commission say OK....

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-10-2022

Banksy painted a mural in Ukraine

---