Ukraine War and Politics

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • zackmars

    Novice Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    6,104
    96
    Texas
    It has been my often stated position that George Kennan etc were right when they strongly advised Pres Clinton that expanding to the east would ultimately lead to hostilities. It took almost 30 years but here we are. Ignorance? Intent? I don't know but here we are.

    Russia has been attacking its neighbors for the past 45 years. It's not the west's fault.
    Gun Zone Deals
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    7,059
    96
    Austin, Texas
    "As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

    When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)"
    It's still a so what.


    UKRAINE is sovereign and is free to inquire about joining NATO just as Poland, Finland and Sweden have done without it being provocation. It is protection because they know they border a nation that psychoticlly bullies and invades its neighbors.

    Mexico or Canada (or Cuba) should be free to partner with who they choose if they were concerned about the USA invading them.

    Wanting to join NATO isn't justification for being invaded anymore than calling the police is justification to stab someone when you were "just" roughing them up a bit because they wanted to leave youre little mafia...

    Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
     

    zackmars

    Novice Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    6,104
    96
    Texas
    After Russia destroyed several U.S. M1 Abraham main battle tanks in Ukraine, they now have a trophy one to exploit and build better RPG’s that will destroy the vulnerable areas of the tank’s armor. The Russians have gotten some good NATO trophies they will probably share with China. Nothing better than getting your hands on the technology being use by the other side, to exploit it and share it. Nothing like $1,000 rocket propelled grenade, destroying a $10 million dollar Tank… more so when numerous M1’s have been destroyed on the front lines.


    No one in the west has ever called the Abrams invincible. But that's rich coming from the guys using rebagged T72 death traps. They could kill a hundred M1's and the K/D ratio of the M1 vs T72 would still be totally lopsided in favor of the M1.

    But i would be very careful using national interest as a source. They get real retarded, real quick.
     

    CavCop

    CAVCOP on Rumble
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 2, 2016
    684
    76
    Central TX
    The tech for destroying MBT's isn't a secret and neither was the armor on the Abrams.

    russia already *could* have fielded RPGs with modern tech, but by and large haven't probably because it doesn't fit their tactics and isnt within their ability to manufacture with reliability and quantity.

    Things get captured and destroyed in war...

    Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

    The RPG-29 has been known to damage and disable the imposing M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank in Iraq back in the early days. M1’s were pulled off patrols and put on gate guard.

    But this is the first complete M1 they have for testing.

    Tell me about the front side skirt armor on the M1, or weak spots on the turret? It’s know, but not well known.

    We used to get Russian vehicles to test at Hunter Ligget and Fort Hood. Lots of great information was gained and munitions adapted.

    In the next few years, Russia and China should have more advanced rockets than the RPG 29, and know key areas to hit.
    It’s probably time to retire the M1 Abrams, or give it to the guard.
     

    Dakar34

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2024
    133
    11
    Houston

    zackmars

    Novice Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    6,104
    96
    Texas
    Seems like we’re the pot calling the kettle black

    Not really. Most of our wars were justifiable. We can argue about just how justifiable (and I'm sure you will) but thats neither here nor there.

    Meanwhile Russia quite literally destabilized Afghanistan, they invaded Chechnya and Georgia to keep them in Russias sphere of influence, and are doing the same to Ukraine. Wait, sorry, they did it to Ukraine twice.


    You don't see us invading India or Turkey, despite them playing both sides. If we were Russia we'd be blowing up all their hospitals.
     

    Dakar34

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2024
    133
    11
    Houston
    Not really. Most of our wars were justifiable. We can argue about just how justifiable (and I'm sure you will) but thats neither here nor there.

    Meanwhile Russia quite literally destabilized Afghanistan, they invaded Chechnya and Georgia to keep them in Russias sphere of influence, and are doing the same to Ukraine. Wait, sorry, they did it to Ukraine twice.


    You don't see us invading India or Turkey, despite them playing both sides. If we were Russia we'd be blowing up all their hospitals.
    I agree 100% of your assessment of their reason. A country's motivation seems to get a lot stronger when the perceived threat gets closer.
    How long did we spend in Afghanistan?
    Iraq had a reason to invade Kuwait too. Kuwaitis really were slant drilling to take Iraq's oil. That's no secret. Iraq complained and Kuwait said "Stuff it up your ***, Uncle Sam's got our back." Ultimately they were right. Drove'm back, then went in and finished the job a few years later.
     

    zackmars

    Novice Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    6,104
    96
    Texas
    I agree 100% of your assessment of their reason. A country's motivation seems to get a lot stronger when the perceived threat gets closer.
    How long did we spend in Afghanistan?
    Iraq had a reason to invade Kuwait too. Kuwaitis really were slant drilling to take Iraq's oil. That's no secret. Iraq complained and Kuwait said "Stuff it up your ***, Uncle Sam's got our back." Ultimately they were right. Drove'm back and finished the job a few years later.

    If their motivation gets stronger when threats get closer, why is Russia committing to an action that will add 4 NATO members to it's border?
     

    Paul Saver

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 17, 2023
    375
    76
    North Texas
    Russia is paying a steep price for this conflict.
     

    Attachments

    • ScreenShot_20240429213521.png
      ScreenShot_20240429213521.png
      125.8 KB · Views: 19

    Johnny Diamond

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 6, 2022
    4,286
    96
    US
    Good God, a Patriot

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
     

    Dakar34

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2024
    133
    11
    Houston
    If their motivation gets stronger when threats get closer, why is Russia committing to an action that will add 4 NATO members to it's border?
    Because one of the primary goals of Russian foreign policy since WW2 has been to maintain buffer states between Russia proper and the western powers. Napoleon sacked and burned Moscow. The Germans were within sight of it, and only a late start and winter stopped them from doing the same.
     

    Cool 'Horn Luke

    Come on. Love me, hate me, kill me, anything.
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 22, 2022
    1,670
    96
    Corsicana, TX
    Because one of the primary goals of Russian foreign policy since WW2 has been to maintain buffer states between Russia proper and the western powers. Napoleon sacked and burned Moscow. The Germans were within sight of it, and only a late start and winter stopped them from doing the same.
    Oh, so now you DO admit that Russia intends to create buffer states. But, as usual, you fail to answer the question.
     

    Dakar34

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2024
    133
    11
    Houston
    Oh, so now you DO admit that Russia intends to create buffer states. But, as usual, you fail to answer the question.
    I've always agreed with that assessment. The horse is already out the door with Poland, but Ukraine was just too much for them to stomach. Kinda like Russian nukes in Cuba was too much for us. And I thought the answer was obvious; increasing the time needed for western troops to reach Moscow and the Russian heartland.
     

    Havok1

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 10, 2021
    2,005
    96
    US
    Not really. Most of our wars were justifiable. We can argue about just how justifiable (and I'm sure you will) but thats neither here nor there.

    Meanwhile Russia quite literally destabilized Afghanistan, they invaded Chechnya and Georgia to keep them in Russias sphere of influence, and are doing the same to Ukraine. Wait, sorry, they did it to Ukraine twice.


    You don't see us invading India or Turkey, despite them playing both sides. If we were Russia we'd be blowing up all their hospitals.
    Everythjng can be justified one way or another. Even if the justification is just profit. Whether or not anyone agrees with the justification is a different story.
     
    Top Bottom