kevinkin
-
Posts
3,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by kevinkin
-
-
3 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:
All the persons I met in my life that I know to be considerate and/or compassionate, and who have a reasonable amount of empathy, are usually not belligerent at all. They are full of doubts, do not want to hurt other people, refrain from aggression and sometimes even from assertiveness. They think and learn, wonder and discuss. And doubt again.
But they have opinions and skills that actually might save your life one day.
-
When was that last time the POTUS met with Putin? Or spoke on the hot line?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/biden-putin-summit-live-updates/?id=78286684
This didn't go as planned given what we are discussing. Note: I am not pinning this on the current POTUS nor making a political statement. Just asking the strategic question.
-
5 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:
The US couldn't unilaterally end the war. Ukraine would keep fighting, just less effectively, even if the US withdrew all support overnight (Ukraine is a sovereign country that does not answer to Washington). I really don't think there is any party that can unilaterally end the war (except Russia obviously, but they won't).
Besides, attempting to negotiate a ceasefire now would not end the nightmare, only put it on pause for a few years. The Ukrainians know that. A ceasefire now would mean the next generation of Ukrainians will have to endure even more suffering. We don't want the nightmare to just get put on pause for a few years. We want it to completely end. And the only way to end it is to see it through.
That depends on the end game one imagines. The US could end this tomorrow. Sure, the "war" might go on for years. We are in a constant state war all the time. Good vs Evil ... However, I am very concerned the US is not putting any skin in the game, printing money and letting Ukraine fight on its own with two hands tied behind their backs. Imagine if the US announced I no fly zone over Ukraine and the strategic message that would send. And take it from there.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I think it is likely we are in agreement that there are worse things than this conventional war that Ukraine needs to be concerned about.
Thank you for the well written essay. It establishes a position from which we can all calibrate from.
-
11 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:
I have my doubts whether you "care" as much about the Sudanese war.
I do know. But that would a subject of different thread. I live an breath these issues. Once the Sudanese debacle intersects with the Ukraine debacle maybe we can all solve the problems together. And hold hands.
-
11 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:
In fact there is evidence that natural resources can even hold a non-democratic economy back, since they provide a means for an autocrat to fund their regime without having to actually develop their economy.
Never thought about it that way. Thanks for that. Still I would rather have natural resources. It makes everything else a bit easier. I guess it comes down to the people and their courage to govern themselves.
-
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
You keep conflating Ukraine's position with that of the West. Ukraine is the one that has no incentive to settle this diplomatically, not the West. The reason is that Russia has zero track record of living up to its agreements, which itself would be favorable to Russia otherwise Russia won't agree.
The West has almost no leverage over because almost everything that the West can be doing it already is doing. And the few things it isn't doing won't likely change the equation in any significant way. Russia knows this.
The only thing the West could proactively do is start a shooting war with Russia. That is a non-option as that risks WW3 and there are exceptionally few who would support taking that risk.
So, based on that logic, the natural course of events would have Ukraine would become part of Russia since:
"The West has almost no leverage over because almost everything that the West can be doing it already is doing. And the few things it isn't doing won't likely change the equation in any significant way. Russia knows this."
This comes across as defeatist. Maybe I misunderstand. I am more optimistic than that. Steve, we are all frustrated pissed off and otherwise exhausted by this war and those emotions play into Putin's hands. I can't imagine what a mom in Ukraine is going through.
I don't come to the community to fight. I come to think. Disagreement is good as long as it does not turn into a all out food fight where no learning can take place. You do a good job preventing that. Cheers.
-
22 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:
It could take years for the failing Russian economy to precipitate a battlefield collapse.
Agree. But don't forget the huge amount of natural resources Russia has. Very similar to Canada. The geography is almost the same. So the only way to get rid of current Russia is a quick defeat. Otherwise our grand kids will be speaking on the same topic while we are all pushing up daisies.
-
46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
The ones opposing support for Ukraine are, as Isolationists and appeasers always are, beyond the ability to reason with.
Well, that's one POV anyway. Some Isolationists and appeasers are nice people with just another way to get rich and laid. Isn't that what life is about? But I do agree, we have no influence on policy and discussing all these things is in some way comforting even if it evolves death and destruction. Let's all take a deep breath and analyze. Diplomacy is off the table now. But does anyone think it's not going part of the end game?
-
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Ukraine knows this better than anybody, so their incentives to engage with Russia in diplomacy is zero.
Endless war? Titrate combat losses to a nation's birth rate? What a cruel solution. Not happening. There are too many brave people willing to end this war on western terms. It just takes leadership.
-
2 minutes ago, Butschi said:
How does repeatedly directing your demands at us instead of your government win the war?
And what has NATO got to do with it? NATO is a defensive alliance. By international law every country has the right to support the defender in a war of aggression. You don't need NATO, you need to convince your government.
I agree completely. Only the USA can unilaterally end this nightmare. Everyone else are back benchers. But seriously, NATO is an impotent part of defeating Russian just from a logistic POV.
-
7 minutes ago, riptides said:
They (the Russians) embrace - false hope.
One could argue Russia has been in this state for generations. Yet, they still exist. I sure a house fly has some form of hope until they are squashed.
-
5 hours ago, Butschi said:
preaching
So how would NATO win the war and stop the killing? The current approach might, but with a huge human cost. There are other ways to defeat Putin. Watching videos of soldiers being blown up is not productive. It does not advance the conversation. Very few people on planet Earth know a war of this scale is going on. We care. Too few don't. They are oblivious.
-
12 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
To discuss diplomacy on this forum is a waste of time.
Yep. Maneuver warfare is never discussed. How to stop the death on US terms is never talked about. There was this band in the 80's called Simple Minds. "Don't You (Forget About Me)". I fear the those minds are in DC and we are throwing Ukraine under the bus. Think about it. Please. This war could end fast. It just requires US back bone, courage, and a week of B-52s. Who is staring down Putin given our love of Ukraine? Diplomacy will come up over the winter. Mark my word.
-
Pretty interesting view on things:
https://dnyuz.com/2023/09/04/where-is-the-money-military-graft-becomes-a-headache-for-ukraine/
This is the result of debasing currency and giving it to a poor nation fighting your fight.
It is what it is. But, what is the long term solution? Burning out the Ukrainian populace it not one. Hoping for a Russian collapse is not either. That's why I am bringing up diplomacy. That's how real powers stay real powers i.e. not by printing money and sending it off without a strategy.
-
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
but this is not a discussion
I get it.
-
52 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:
@kevinkin I want to know specifically what the Devil's Advocate negotiating position you are talking about is.
There is no firm position. It is wise to keep all options open. A flexible way to win rather than a rigid costly attritional way. Diplomacy is a card in the deck, however it's never discussed. Diplomacy is not a indication of weakness. It is very often a sign of strength. Someone around here opinioned that Ukraine is better off now than before 2/22/22 because we finely titrated our support to Ukraine. Tell that to a mom.
Was this war inevitable or avoidable? I will say it was avoidable given America's position. US soldiers have not fired a single bullet, but our tax dollars have. Unfortunately the Ivy leaguers in DC did not pay attention and stare down Putin because they just don't know how the world works. Or maybe they are using Ukraine as testing ground for our industry. Either way, it's sad. I advocate staring Putin, the mother ****er, down before the US has to enforce a no fly zone or put troops in theater. The Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff forwarded that the US could not break through the entrenchments with the level of combat support the the west has provide Ukraine. This madness is not a video game. Ever heard the phrase guys "it's my way or the highway"? A nuanced approach to war at this scale kills more people, destroys infrastructure, and will leave wounds for generations. If we don't stare down nuclear blackmail the planet is toast anyway. Get it done USA.
-
3 minutes ago, Tux said:
Clumsy me!
Let the truth be told. And I did apologize if those words hurt feelings. But frankly, in my neck of the woods, they are harmless. I know we don't want this to devolve into mud slinging. But we do deserve the ability to defend our positions even with colorful language. I didn't start this issue. I voiced an opinion to invoke critical thinking. To called it nonsense out of hand is nonsense in itself.
-
22 minutes ago, billbindc said:
There is no credible devil’s advocate position.
In peer review, there is always what is called a devil’s advocate even if the candidate has perfect grades, performed excellent lab work, and written a flawless thesis. It's a major part of getting to the truth. Then everyone goes out for beer and wings.
-
6 minutes ago, billbindc said:
A stalemate on something close to Ukrainian terms is a pretty likely option at this point and it will come when Russia has exhausted its ability to continue.
That will require negotiation since unconditional surrender is not on any table that I have read about. Terms have to be agreed on even if they are with the devil temporarily. Like I said, negotiation is part of the overall equation. I don't understand why we are not asking about how the US and Russia are communicating/deconflicting as this war goes on. It has never come up within all the reporting since last year.
-
55 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:
Could you elaborate on the devil's advocate position?
I don't expect Putin to negotiate in good faith at all in this specific war. But negotiating is a tool to use when you have an advantage in general i.e. it's been used throughout history. It should never been taken out of the toolbox. It's part on maneuver warfare. At this point the lines of communication between the US China Russia and Ukraine are vague to the public watching the war unfold. Given the amount of money and ordinance the US has spent killing Russian troops, I would think there must be some open lines or else this could spin out of control. So "negotiating" is not a vulgar term. It is just a element in strategy.
-
28 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:
This is correct: Ukraine negotiating while they still have military advantage is losing, when faced with an irrational enemy like Russia.
Playing devil's advocate: negotiating while having a military advantage can be a good thing if done right. Assuming Russia is irrational is correct from a western POV sitting in our comfortable armchairs. Today, Genghis Khan would be considered and irrational butcher. But there was a method to his madness.
-
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Did you really re-read the posts where you attacked me personally after issuing a warning?
That's fine. Got it.
But I would like to know what sentence or two of mine attacked you? I have never attacked anyone in my entire life. This would be a first. If you are unwilling to point out what ticked you off, we will all have to assume there is truth in whatever was said. It would be informative to everyone to know where you are coming from.
BTW, associating me with a pro-Russian fascist is a typical indirect insult and is more of an attack on me than whatever the Hell I said two weeks ago.
-
1 hour ago, danfrodo said:
KEVINKIN: I am assuming you just used your words poorly in that one phrase. So hopefully won't feel the need to get into debate w JonS and thereby derail the thread.
Just seeking clarification.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by kevinkin
This is not about the current POTUS. Is about the role the USA in the world. America has a lot problems. But I want my political leadership to explain this war to the American people in a "fire side chat". If they did maybe we could gain a consensus to win. Everyone knows this war is at a turning point. How the US is not all in is cruel. We can't let people die for our fear of nuclear weapons. I recognize it is complicated and acknowledge other POVs. But don't discount my POV and that there other ways to save lives and defeat Russia.