FlemFire
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
Posts posted by FlemFire
-
-
9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
changed the leopards spots is... well... head shakingly at odds with the history of our species (not just Russia).
Humans by definition want to live a good life with a good standard of living. You call me anti-global while making the painstaking argument that certain countries will never be able to sit at the table. This is a pretty strong contradiction, no?
I've seen strictly religious individuals come to the West and gradually open up to the liberties and, frankly, excesses of Western life. We've all watched countries rapidly change just this past century alone, almost entirely due to liberal ideals. Japan, for example, went from a brutish, closed-off almost medieval Empire hellbent on massacring China to making sweet cars and Nintendos with more life and vibrancy than you can shake a stick at. Your way of thinking is extremely fatalistic. Nobody has "spots." People are just people.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
Some people "called the ball" on this one, but really these were nothing more than guessing. No one truly knew or understood force ratios until they happened. Find me a ground warfare doctrine book that says a deliberate defence can be sustained at 300 troops per km...even with minefields. And no conventional air cover to speak of. This wasn't about Russian stick-too in my opinion. This was something else. And now analysts are starting to catch up.
Not really guesswork if one articulates the exact problems arrayed against the offensive side in this war, and then those issues rear their head when you go on offense. I would certainly hope the analysts are not "catching up", but perhaps instead hitting the book of yore that can tell them everything they need to know before they decide on sending men to a meatgrinder. This applies to both sides, but it's fair to say that the Ukrainians need to be far more careful than the side who is pulling actual prisoners out of cages and using them to catch bullets as a form of recon.
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:Something fundamental has happened to mass. Honestly I am not sure why this surprises everyone. Something happens to mass in just about every major war we have had - WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War. Mass worked very differently in each of those wars for various reasons. Why one earth we thought it would work like the Gulf War in this one is beyond me.
Corrosive warfare should have worked, again. But it did not. I am fascinated to understand why. What prevented the UA from engineering another collapse? They were still attacking all along the RA system. Did that drop off? Was it not enough for the new shortened lines? Was it a shift in RA capability? Corrosive warfare failed. Instead the UA fell back on more conventional attritional warfare and basically went nowhere because you can gnaw at the front end for years before the RA will break.
It is really not that hard. Russians pre-sited the entire front. You have a battlefield which is Normandy-esque in that it's large expanses of terrain cut up with tree lines (instead of hedges). The Russians sited every single one of those tree lines and if you watch enough Russian-side footage it's becoming very clear their response time and accuracy have improved. One of the "famous" clips I saw was of a Russian tank "solely" taking on a Ukrainian attack. Except it wasn't just that Russian tank -- it was an obvious kill zone with a crossfire of ATGMs and soon enough artillery.
Because Russians are on defense, enemy forward units are very unlikely to be carrying heavy AA assets as their primary concern will be the capture of trenches and significant territories. That means Russian aircraft can actually freely operate, which is why we saw a huge amount of Ka-52 and other strike-craft vids coming out during the counter-offensive and just blowing up Ukrainian units left and right, virtually free of charge. If you thought this counter-offensive would "work like the Gulf War" while sharing almost none of its attributes, well, I dunno. Maybe read more. For starters, the Gulf War started with a massive, around-the-clock air campaign completed by the most well-trained and equipped air force on the planet...
-
16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I think most people here will agree on this part. At least I do.
Here is where it gets a bit controversial. I think the USA (and therefore NATO) is pretty happy about where the current frontline goes.
Ukraine's independence has been saved, because there is no way Russia can take the rest of the 80 percent of the country.
But on the other hand, Russia won't lose the remaining 20 percent of Ukraine that they are most interested in - large amount of Russian speakers and a vital land bridge to Crimea.
This means Putin will be able to sell this war as a win, despite the cost. He feels secure he will stay in power, and no real escalation happens.
This is also why Western support for Ukraine is now being dialled down. We are in a process of Ukrainian leadership and public slowly getting more and more used to the idea of not being able to win a total victory.
(I should add that I would personally like Ukraine to regain everything, but I do not think this will happen).
So everyone is coming around to the realities other acknowledged more than a year ago, slowly but surely.
I'd just caution, as I personally said a year ago, that the longer you fight the war, the more likely it is that it ends with Russia taking more and more. Because you're right that Putin has to sell a win, but what if it gets to a state where they're obviously going to get what they want (like right now), but they can see Ukraine no longer has the fighting capabilities to stop them from taking more? Because one could not submit to the realities of the situation, they end up at the worst position possible.
Ukraine's available bargaining chips were very strong after they counter-attacked and the Russian shock attack limped back to the east. It was my thought they should have immediately pursued peace from there, and likely would have ended up in an absolutely awesome state had they done so (massive prestige gain, a sense of solidarity, a sense of independence, even if there's no NATO/EU). But this just wasn't good enough for those who think war is a Marvel movie.
-
On 12/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:
Er, I was just repeating your characterization of it. I have no idea what really went on. Nobody does.
Seriously, how in the name of whatever deity you choose to mention did you get THAT out of what I said? In fact, I said the opposite. Ukraine is in the driver's seat on this, not the West. While I don't agree with how well they are handling getting Ukraine everything it needs to fight this war, it certainly can't be seen as shrugging it off either. As I pointed out a bunch of pages ago, the West has collectively provided Ukraine with 2x its annual GDP in various forms of direct assistance. It might not be enough or the right mix of things, but it certainly is a massive commitment. Historically it is abnormally large, as a chart I posted at the time demonstrated.
Ukraine is not in the driver seat, per the Israeli PM, and frankly per anyone with a set of eyes. Let's just assume the opposite case, that the West didn't want conflict with Russia. Do you think Ukraine is able to "take the wheel" so to speak and run off to war anyway? The West has far more influence than you are letting on, and has been all over Ukraine for nearly 10 years now. If the West told Ukraine we're out, then Ukraine would have never buckled down to fight a war with a much larger enemy next door.
GDP numbers are pointless, btw. You and I both know the existence of funny money and bloviated costs when it comes to military expenditure. The metrics mean virtually nothing when it's all a question of what is the gear, and how can it be fielded, and when can it be replaced. Ukraine needs a replacement stream of equipment at best, and that literally does not exist. This really shouldn't even be a debate. The existing state of the battlefield speaks for itself.
On 12/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:You are flinging around so much stuff so fast and so lose that you are losing track of it as much as I am. The "conspiracy theory" charge I made against you was specific to your premise that there's a cabal of military industrialists teamed up with Neocons running the show, somehow, under a Democratic controlled US government which is acting in concert with a few dozen other nations. That's the conspiracy theory I was referring to.
If your point is neocons do not have imbalanced influence on the world stage we'll just have to disagree.
On 12/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:As for the notion that NATO expansion was the cause of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, in any way, I will challenge any policy expert who holds that opinion to a debate on that topic.
I'm not an interlocutor for those people but they do exist and with plenty of credentials to back up their viewpoints. You should seek them out and bring them here heh.
On 12/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:Even if Russia wasn't a lost cause in the 1990s, and there's a great debate about that for sure, the fact is by the time the 2000s rolled around it was firmly headed down the authoritarian path. And even if it wasn't, there was no reason for the Eastern European countries to think that Russia had really changed. History shows they were correct.
So no, it wasn't the West's fault. Russia chose its path and that is the path we have to deal with.
Difference of opinion again, just going in circles. By 2000s they were going down the authoritarian path, yes. The shock therapy basically left them as a criminal state and you're not going to legitimately vote your way to stability when oligarchs are running half of everything.
On 12/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:It doesn't track because they are not related. The mistake with WW1 was the "Guilt Clause", impossibly high reparations, obvious selfish land grabs by the victors, as well as giving traditionally German controlled lands to other nations without the people's consent.
The analogy does not apply to Russia at all. The Soviet Union broke itself apart, it was not defeated. Lands were not given away by foreign powers. Lands were not occupied by foreign powers. Russia was not forced to pay reparations to any of the countries it subjugated for decades, including two bloody military actions. Russia was not forced to pay the West for all the money it spent over the years confronting the Soviet Union. Russia wasn't forced to sign some declaration that everything that happened since 1945 was its fault.
None of that.
Apologies, I'm not comparing Versailles to the breakup of the Soviet Union. I'm illuminating an example of how decisions made in the past have a tendency to plant seeds for ugly futures. This is obviously not a 1:1 comparison. My firm belief is that Russia was so dramatically weak in the early 90s that the West was firmly in the driver seat on how to approach it. If you believe their actions in regards to their economy and the dubious elections of Yeltsin were "friendly" to Russia's interests, then we'll just have to disagree. I'll just point out one thing: it seems to be quite the contradiction that a defense alliance would push their borders toward Russia, and then at the same time this same Western group would be sincerely trying to help Russia.
On 12/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:Could the West have done more to help Russia not slide back into authoritarianism? Some say yes, some say no. I take the position that no was more likely than yes, given 100s of years of history.
I believe we only live in the history that we know, but that does not mean it is the way things have to be. In my measurement of the 90s, it was the West who had all the resources and capabilities to try and assist Russia and they chose not to. If you think otherwise, fair enough.
-
On 12/15/2023 at 9:43 PM, JonS said:
I mean, in one sense you're right - pretty much every historian of the rise of the Nazis and the outbreak of WWII does mention Versailles. But they are definitely not all saying the same thing.
You are either being dishonest by implying they are, or being ignorant in thinking they are.
A lot of words to just say Versailles had a huge impact on the lead up to WWII which was indeed the point.
QuoteWhat does this actually mean?
The UK, its Dominions, and France entered a war against Germany in September 1939 to - amongst other things - guarantee the independence of Poland. Six years later that war ended. Had Poland's independence been secured? Can the UK be said to have 'won' in those terms? What about France, or even Poland?
If they didn't win, does that mean Germany did?
I don't know what part is confusing. My calculus is that Ukraine can never win militarily on its own. Therefore, the involvement of the West needs to be of substantial material or direct involvement. Neither of these things are happening. What is happening is something I judge as a half-measure that is only extending the length of war for no actual gain. I asked earlier this year how Ukraine wins militarily and got a lot of answers which have been proven definitively wrong in every regard. If you want to take another crack at it as to how Ukraine succeeds militarily now, I'm all ears.
14 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:How does this have any relevance to anything? Ukraine is in a war for its very existence, and it’s only natural that they recruit and conscript anywho they feel can make a contribution. Case-in point, when I was in Norway on a NATO joint operation, I learned that EVERY Norwegian citizen, from the time they graduated secondary school, was REQUIRED to serve 15 months in the Army, or 24 months in the Air Force/Navy as long as they were physically and mentally qualified. They then served in the Active Reserve until age 45, and then in the Inactive Reserve until age 65! That was in case they were invaded again (this time by the Soviet Union). Your comments about “50-year olds” in Ukraine are nothing more than “Red Herrings.”
You have ONE chance to address this intelligently, before I put you on ignore.
Drafting middle-aged people does not equate to having the average age of your soldiers be middle-aged. The former is not unusual, particularly in a time of war. The latter indicates that your frontlines are completely exhausted and you are nearly out of manpower.
-
55 minutes ago, Astrophel said:
You introduce the word ethnicity which is in itself provocative. For me ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon. To cite the American Heritage Dictionary: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a group of people sharing a common cultural or national heritage and often sharing a common language or religion".
So yes there are other groups influenced by russian ethnicity - some 15-20% of Israelis share this heritage. We are all familiar with Serbian sympathies. Bulgarians are not far removed.
At the end of the day we all should take responsibility for our actions. Ethnicity is not an excuse for setting up filtration centres, torture centres, brainwashing children, bombing hospitals, or genocidal intent.
To return from your engaging distraction, the russian "ethnicity" over the past few hundred years has regularly engaged in unreasonable domination of neighbours and cruelty.
Coincidentally I spoke today with a senior diplomat who spent several years in Moscow - "In russia human lives don't count" - she said. This would seem to be true on current evidence and constitute a huge ethnic divide between them and us.
This war is 100% caused by russia - they invaded. Your attempts to share the blame are frankly disgusting.
Sorry to talk about ethnicity, but you brought it up.
I brought it up? You were the one who brought up their "nature." What are your thoughts on Arabs? The Moors? The Chinese? The Japanese? What do they have in their nature? Amazing that I am called a troll while you have people spouting racist dog whistles like this.
-
47 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
Well, KevinKin is having his fun. he KNEW that UKR would fail this summer. He's like a sports gambler that wins a bet and thinks he prophesied the result. No, folks looked at data and made guesses, and a bunch of us guessed wrong. We had good reasons for our guesses, but were wrong for lots of reasons (mines!, UKR not as good as we thought, defensive supremecy, etc). And you were right, congrats, you are the smartest. I was wrong about this summer, I thought UKR better and RU worse than they actually were.
Now KevinKin thinks he knows everything about anything. Good for him. He must be having a good time. Now we are being lectured in long screeds, which I now just skip, hoping for something more insightful & interesting to come along.
Meanwhile, in the war.... looks like a long slog. Maybe UKR loses all the occupied territory because it just can't bust through and finally settles into some kind ceasefire w low grade violence sometimes along the line. Maybe RU soldiers mutiny. Maybe there's a coup in moscow. Maybe zelensky is thrown out of power. Lots of unknowns ahead. Kevinkin, however, will tell us how all these unknowns will turn out, with complete certainty.
I'm not lecturing. I am responding in kind to those who want to have a discussion. Plenty, like yourself, melt down into childish insults. Everything is too emotionally charged. I even responded in such kindness to a person that I gave him his own post to discuss, which was a Tooze blogpost, about as dry and crispy as datapoints can get. Still didn't take. Still reverted to insults. That's fine. I don't think it's fruitful, but this is the internet.
-
29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
In the end the West "walked out" because dismemberment was the only thing Russia was offering.
Just responding to this part because it's the only part that is remotely relevant. Note, the West walked out. You words, truth to power. That's all you need to know. It is the West's guiding hand which thereafter leads to full-out conventional war, therefore it is very much the West's responsibility to handle it appropriately. Is the West handling it appropriately? No, not in my opinion. If it were Western people dying, then so be it. But the one paying the piper is a 3rd party which makes this endeavor especially cruel to me.
15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Look, I do understand that some people thought that NATO expansion was poking the bear.
You characterized my opinions as conspiracy. I gave you George Kennan, the guy who literally designed the containment policy against Russia. Now you recategorize the opinion as being held by "some people." I guess that's an improvement. You're free to disagree, but perhaps do so without flinging insults first.
QuoteAnd again, your cherry picked comments lack context. Was NATO expansion like waiving a cape in front of a bull? Absolutely. But not waiving the cape doesn't mean the bull wasn't going to charge anyway. That is where the anti-expansionist perspective has its fatal flaw.
I don't disagree, but unfortunately we do not live in that world. The world we do live in is in a state of war so we know to a certainty where one path leads. People like Kennan believed that Russia should have been brought into the Western fold. Russia was not a expansionist dictatorship when he was making those comments. Oligarchs were ruling the wastelands and Russia was a criminal hellhole with barely a pulse. There's a reason why some people see Putin's ascent as blowback against the West's treatment of a defeated Russia. I'm of the opinion that Russia could have been in the Western fold. How do I know this? Because we flattened two other nations completely and turned them into allies. We killed millions of Vietnamese, yet they became an ally. By now of course this is all pointless, the horse is pretty far out of the barn and the only reconciliation of it would be for China to start a war and Russia to turn their back on them. Putin would become Uncle Putin so fast our heads would spin.
QuoteThe better analogy is the one I just made about Chamberlain's "Peace In Our Times" appeasement concepts. At the time he did this Nazi Germany's path was already set for expansion.
Yes, it was set for expansion because of the Treaty. When the war was concluded, what did the people look to so as to asses what not to do? The Treaty. The cogs were well in motion before Chamberlain said a word. We all know this now. So why is it that when Keynes assesses a post-WWI Germany, he sees it as a mistake to be punitive and that inclusivity is the path to peace; but if we apply such metrics to a post-Soviet Russia it's suddenly conspiracy? Keynes going "uh oh" about the Treaty is all well and good, but Kennan going "uh oh" about NATO expansion is flirting with conspiracy. Doesn't track with me. But this is going in circles, both sides are clear I believe.
QuoteBut you didn't answer my question. I asked what your point was and to speak it clearly. You still aren't doing that.
There are multiple discussions going on with various points so you will have to be more specific here.
I'll think of a name change. I changed it initially out of lightheartedness. I don't know who kevin at all, amusingly.
-
Just now, Beleg85 said:
There is nothing particulary breaking or spectacular in this (rather chill-out) interview that we wouldn't know before; it basically overlaps well with other sources. We know USA/UK were convinced at that time Ukraine can get more from it than what would be initially negotiated.
Just to balance this out a second, the dictation here is that it was the West's call. How you arrive at the conclusion can come any number of ways. As I said, a general distrust of Russia is sufficient (and unsurprising). But the point is that it was the West (Americans) who stepped in and put a stop to it. That's an important distinction because without the West's support this war would already be over, and with the West's support the war could theoretically be won, or it could be theoretically dragged out into a brutal quagmire, and then lost. It's more and more their responsibility from that point on. And this is why I bring up that it is all well and fine, on its surface, but in actuality the West does not have a historical record worth blindly trusting. When I see the West not going on a war footing, I start to ponder. When I see the West trickling in support, I start to ponder.
QuoteYou can, but it is always a bet and Kyiv call. There are always pros and cons, like is always the case with such heavy decisions- everyone can be smart in retrospect. First year of this war showed that Russians failed to even properly encircle Kyiv, Ukrainians could and did repulse Russians in two successfull offensives, retook Kherson and hold lower Dnieper line and even crossed it, that RuAF took unbelievable amount of casualties and that even with firepower advantage muscovites cannot push the front beyond some village or small town; and even that by terrible cost. Hell, we almost saw Russian system of power close to crumbling during Prigozhin march- first such event faced by Putin ever.
Thnigs started to loom on Western and Ukriane side only in late phase of this war, circa after failure of Zaporizhia offensive. Perhaps West can keep its sh**t together, or not- we will need to see. I seriously doubt that in the end Ukraine will be in worse position than being disarmed and served to Putin on a plate, saute and with sauce.
I suppose I disagree here because I'm not sure what expenditure of life is 'worth it.' People will eventually find out the casualties of this war and they will not be good. The economic situation is already quite clear. Pre-war, in its alignment with the West, how did Ukraine fare compared to Belarus, who is aligned with Russia? Is the tradeoff so grand as to be worth the expenditure? Is the expenditure worthwhile when you don't know if it will even conclude with your stated goals (a Ukraine with Russia off its back)? It is this latter point that sticks out to me.
I believe trying at the start is well and good. Nobody will shame an effort and there is far more dignity in resistance than rolling over. However, reality has to set in eventually. For a time I thought the economic damage and isolation to Russia was worth the cost of Ukraine's valiant effort, even if it failed, but I'm slowly realizing that maybe even this analysis is wrong, and that the West has inadvertently advertised its own weaknesses to the rest of the world -- meaning this conflict entails far more than Ukraine's future, but instead the future of the balance of power as a whole. When such a thing is tilting and swaying, the world, literally always, becomes vastly more chaotic and violent. Most people here have presumably lived the bulk of their lives in the unipolar status and so it is difficult to conceive of anything else.
-
1 minute ago, Astrophel said:
I disagree. Russians are 100% to blame. Perhaps not consciously because a lot of it is in their nature and driven by their historical perspective. They like to dominate what they believe to be their space and it has been this way for a few hundred years. They are always looking for someone to fight.
In my lifetime I do not know of any one serious thinker or politician on the western side who even engaged seriously with the prospect of invading and conquering russia. The policy has been one of containment. Even after the fall of the soviet union nobody seriously suggested taking over in russia, and it was NOT because we were afraid of the nukes. Nato is a DEFENSIVE alliance. There are no protocols for attacking anybody. We would not know how to organise an attack even.
So please stop playing the victim card. There is only one victim currently and that victim is Ukraine.
"In their nature."
Are there any other ethnic groups for which you would like to use such phrasing?
Please point out where I said Russia was a victim in this. Be very explicit with the highlighting. Also, if you wouldn't mind, please tell me your thoughts on Kennan's observations above. If China had a defensive alliance and they invited Mexico into it, would you still consider this defensive? Just curious.
I don't think NATO wants to invade a country filled to the brim with nukes and with a ruling class of ex-Cold War whackos, no. States bordering this country definitely should try and enter NATO, yes. If there is a cost to that, you have to analyze those costs very carefully. If Mexico were offered a seat at some fanciful Chinese defense alliance, their statesmen would also have to start doing calculations on whether or not that is a good idea. Nations around Mexico would be running similar analyses, judging whether or not they want a Chinese defense alliance on their doorstep. I don't see any controversy there, do you?
-
1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:
Again, we've covered this topic in detail more times than I can count. If you are convinced that NATO expansion is morally and legally on par with Russian expansion, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Steve
You didn't mention Kennan or Burns in any part of this, btw. I'm only bringing the realist perspective to the table. Returning to Russia is acting inappropriately is fine, I get that, but it wasn't exactly the point there.
25 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:If I choose, I can get the tankie view over on NakedCapitalism, which is basically the same rubbish you're spouting here. You're done.
I offered to discuss the matter on your terms, offering one of your own posts as a starting point. And the response to this is to call it (yourself?) rubbish, and that I am a tankie and a "naked capitalist" (I don't know this one).
Just now, Battlefront.com said:Then let's do this. Why don't you restate, in a cohesive manner, your point of view and why you are raising it now. Because honestly, amidst the conspiracy theories, pro-Russian talking points, and "whataboutisms" you've been using I am honestly not sure what your point is any more.
Steve
Sure. Can you find me a single historian discussing the start of WWII who does not refer to the Versailles Treaty? No, right? Now, why is that? The invasion of Europe by Germany is, as an action, clearly black and white. German tanks go over the border, mayhem ensues. But things don't just happen out of thin air. Nobody would suggest it is right of 1939 Germany to go buckwild on account of the Versailles Treaty, yet one cannot quite place the whys and hows of Europe going from one world war to another without bringing up said treaty. If your sense of the world is simply that "things happen" and there is nothing but a vacuum around events, then we simply perceive things very, very differently.
-
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
And yet you think the most likely scenario is the West, in particular the US, is to blame for all of this. In doing so you repeat Russian state sponsored talking points. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion it is your use of "whataboutisms", especially those pushed by Russia, as a primary debate tactic. It is appropriate to call you out on it.
Steve
I don't think either side is 100% to blame when it comes to the road to war. When it comes to war itself, Russia is to blame because, obviously, they started one. How you get from A to B is a different topic entirely. Black-and-white reductionism produces elementary analyses. You can't really be a serious observer of international relations and see things in this manner. Or you can, obviously. But these men did not:
George Kennan in regards to NATO expansion: "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. The Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else."
Bill Burns, current head of the CIA: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite."
^ What about these men strikes you as pro-Russian? Is it more a matter of international intrigue that if you poke around a foreign nation's borders it might react in some manner? I don't think this is pro-Russian at all; I think it's just pro-reality. Every power that can behave in this manner, does.
-
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I certainly know the name. This was one of the top pro-Russian justifications for invading Ukraine in 2014. The fact that you are mentioning her now is enlightening.
A Neocon mucked around in an area that then went to war? No need to clutch pearls: this is modus operandi.
QuoteWhile I agree that there's unstated reasons for the US not doing everything that it could be doing, the more logical and factually supported case is that the US is concerned about the ramifications of Russia collapsing. We have discussed these concerns here and many of us, including me, share them. However, I think it's inevitable and so I'm more inclined to take the risk that Russia can be kicked out of Ukraine without it happening.
Your argument is they don't want to be too victorious, am I reading this correctly?
QuoteThe above is far more likely than a cabal of US defense industry executives and lobbyists calling the shots. Especially since if Russia does break up they are probably going to have even more defense spending money to keep them happy for the rest of their lives.
The tone and construction of your posts is being responded to appropriately. If you argue like a Russian sympathizer, then you should be prepared for the consequences.
I've said Putin is a dictator who murders his opponents in broad daylight. I described Russia as an expansionist imperial power. How long do you think these sympathies would last me inside Russia? What is more likely, that the Russians would have me in a jail cell in a flash, or that you mistake a difference of opinion as a matter of black and white reductionism?
QuoteIgnoring? No, it's being addressed head on. You are the one who is distorting what they said to support a point of view that is at odds with other sources that contradict your characterization.
You say it's addressed head on, yet once again there is no mention of the Israeli PM. Please talk about the Israeli PM's words.
QuoteAnd I said that you are woefully ill informed about Russia's history with Ukraine. Russia has ALWAYS viewed Ukraine as a part of Russia. Hundreds of years of precedent here. This was openly stated as the goal of the Novorossiya movement that was used as cover for the 2014 invasion. Putin would have preferred Ukraine be a vassal state (as Belarus is) because that is the Russian way. But it was very clear that wasn't the direction things were headed in and so that, more than anything, is at the heart of why he invaded in 2022.
BTW, Russia started talk of annexing Ukrainian lands almost as soon as the war started. It officially announced such moves in August 2022 IIRC. Maybe sooner.
I mean, what part of my comments disagree with this? As for annexation, I just want to point out that August is a whopping six months after February. "Almost as soon as" is quite the stretch there, wouldn't you agree? I think it appears more likely that Putin went "uh oh" and scrambled to justify his ambitions. I do consider, and have said before, that the annexation itself may have been a hidden ambition anyway. That Putin's stated goal was to develop a rump state, but that he was after those territories on the side is entirely feasible. Again, I am not overly concerned with the exact timing of what-if-when-why, as the parameters remain the same (Russian invasion).
-
40 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:
OK, the longer you guys try to engage @kevinkin replacement and his Gish Gallop (look it up) blasts of overconfident yet entirely unsupported broad projectile vomits of 'alternative facts' the more unreadable this thread becomes.
If he really wants to be our good faith house contrarian, he needs to post credible third party information, then give his take, one or two points at a time and allow time for reubuttal.
Otherwise, this is just garden variety trolling.
...This is what happens when nobody posts information and just bloviates and emotes.
Average age of Ukrainian soldier is over 40, posted in this topic.
The Russians have a 7:1 drone advantage, posted in this topic.
The Russians have a 20:1 artillery advantage (by tube), posted in this topic.
How is this trolling, exactly? I'm dealing with the same information as everyone else.
-
1 hour ago, fireship4 said:
He was saying it wasn't true.
Don't know anything about him, didn't have anything to say, couldn't be bothered to refute your statistically weak output.
If you don't know anything about it, why not inform yourself? Again, I don't understand this.
QuoteAllow me to clarify:
There is nothing to clarify -- either a state is aggressive or it is not. Capability has nothing to do with it. And the totality of Western aggression does not in fact end at Afghanistan and Iraq, no. Extending the timeline to the Cold War does the West even worse favors in this regard as they acted maniacally to counterbalance Communism.
QuoteDo delight us with you knowledge of these people, your analysis of the neocon movement, and why it is bad, and how it can be charactarised as "expansionism/imperialism". Dictators have no recourse to justice, only to strength - there is nothing that protects them as far as another stronger country coming along and entirely legitimately turning them into a fine mist.
...
Did you see Victoria Nuland running around the middle east killing babies in a dream or something? Who the hell is that anyway?
You are free to 1) Read the Neoconservative literature which is readily available online, written by themselves. 2) Observe Neocons in power. If you think this is not "bad", then that is your opinion. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is you shouldn't even be commenting on this at all, to be very frank.
QuoteHelp or don't help, that was the choice - they were going to resist no matter what. Dogwalking them into the conflict... who are you f'ing John Pilger? Is everything the US's fault? Russia invades Ukraine, there is a good case to be made they would have commited some kind of genocide had they been successful. They resist this actual imperialism, the US/UK/NATO helps them, but not enough for you, and you know why that is, because you have tapped the Western hivemind datacentre via Alex Jones and the cocaine residue you managed to sift out of your carpet this morning. Answer: the US cynically sacrifices Ukraine for it's benefit?! Wow such Russian take!
There are individuals in the U.S. who stand to gain regardless of the outcome here. This is called outcome-independence. You typically need to be wary of such individuals inviting themselves into your own interests, because they can cut and run at a moment's notice. If the U.S. was genuinely interested in defeating Russia, it has the capabilities to do so. It is not using these means so therefore I have to conclude that there ulterior motives at play. The incestual nature of military command and corporate military production greatly muddies these waters. Need I point out examples of American military leaders proposing specific weapon-use concepts, and then retiring and going to work for the contractor who just coincidentally happens to make said specific weapons? Would such an individual, who has $$$ to make, be more concerned with the livelihoods of foreigners he doesn't know than he is with his own bank account? Human nature says no.
QuoteYou prefer the West to **** or get off the pot is what you're saying? Because you assess that what they are doing won't work? Well so what? Your opinion is worth as much as your analysis reveals: a fart in the wind.
"Well so what" is not much of a discussion, nor are the long list of unnecessary insults you trotted out across your entire post.
23 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:Yes, he does states that he thought reaching ceasefire was possible at that very moment (=before Bucha, 2:45) but he is not sure from a posteriori point of view if it had even worked ("Cause statemenship is very complex" and "there were many factors", 4:51, a part you missed). Murdered civilians were a potent fact in both Western and internal UA politics- there was no coming back to talks after it became obvious what Ivans did, especially from Ukrainian perspective.
Additionally, Arakhamia on other interview too stated that they were simply not trusting Putin enough to sign agreements with him about neutrality. The fact that talks were in place, Putin was willing to make some concessions when wounded after his army became stuck spectacularly or that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv to promote not signing deals with Vova does not change basic premise- if Ukraine would dismantle bulk of its own military forces and finlandize, it was only a question of time before it become swallowed again by muscovia. They would have Russian tanks over their necks anyway, sooner or later. And Ukrainians understood it from the start.
He literally states the West stepped in and said no. The words could not be more clear.
The goals of the Russians are to functionally disable Ukraine, yes. Distrusting this is not the discussion, though. I agree that distrusting it is a perfectly viable reason to decline the offer. However, as I said earlier, the consequences are that the war then goes onward and you might end up at a worse bargaining position later.
QuoteYou may not get inner workings of Kremlin politics since you focus on America, but Putin couldn't allow in long term to have image of a loser in this war- and that would be effect if potentiall ceasefire of the kind we discuss here would take place, while Russian columns took such looses in the north, both on Eastern and Western side of Dnieper. Perception of his war as military failure could be deadly for his imperial mojo, and even making small concessions to Ukraine would put him in very difficult position internally.
Agree, sanctions should be much stonger and West do lack coherent strategy for this war after 2023- but is is a topic touched upon many times in this thread. Also book by Z. Parafianowicz gives some details of behind-the-courtain talks between US and CEE countries- initial US plan for this war was supporting insurgency, not conventional conflict on such massive scale. White House did reevaluate its stance to support heavy weapons to Ukraine quite dramatically, so they did changed their strategy when learned Ukrainians can in fact defend. Doesn't sound idiotic nor lazy on western behalf, at least at that time.
I've stated the nature of Putin protecting his prestige earlier this year. I think this is something actually most everyone understands. I seem to be the only one extending it to a logical conclusion, though, which is that the more costly the war becomes, the more the Russians are likely going to steal to justify said losses.
8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:Definitely overeducated nihilistic liberal. Actually it does not seem to matter what we do, these drive-bys will happen. The reason people are not posting any real new information is largely because there isn't any. Imagine this thread in roughly late 1916 after the Somme. "Ok, so what to we talk about until Vimy?"
The question is not of posting new information -- which nobody is doing -- but of analyzing what we have before us and coming to different conclusions. How is this not understood? Is posting fresh drone strikes considered 'new information'? I don't find it pertinent, personally, unless said drone strike is taking out some high-value target then by all means. My understanding is the nihilistic liberals are hardcore on the Ukrainian side, but I'm not tuned into the college-aged population as of late.
3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Schroeder is not a reliable source and even if he was your comments lack any form of context. The context was that there was a push for a cease-fire by all parties except Russia. Russia was pushing for the destruction of the Ukrainian state. Those were Russia's terms then, since, and to this day.
The way you are deliberately distorting this is to paint a picture that Russia was offering acceptable conditions for ceasing its war of aggression and that the ONLY reason it didn't happen is that the US scuttled the deal. That is what I asked you to provide sources for and you did not. Therefore, you are wrong to push this false narrative.
How is it that every single response on this topic plainly ignores that there is a corresponding story? I do not disagree that Schroeder might be acting in bad faith. I do not believe that it is an automatic discount of what he might have to say. Were he saying it alone, then you might be correct. But he is not alone in saying it so therefore one has to adjust their approach to what is being said.
QuoteYou said we don't know what Russia's goals are. I said
So you said-I said. My assumption is Putin wanted demilitarized zones and the possible annexation of eastern Ukraine. My assumption is that we don't know what his goals are now and, as stated above, he might steal more of Ukraine to justify a war he did not plan to go on for so long. I don't think there need be much contention here -- neither of us know his true intentions and can only guess. We just guess differently.
QuoteYou do realize that in 2014 Russia invaded and took Crimea and a big chunk of the Donbas, right? Are you saying Putin didn't intend on taking these when he invaded? You do realize that all of the captured territories added since then, and territories it has yet to capture, are also part of Russia according to Russian law?
No need to tailor questions in an insulting manner. There's no debate about Russian expansionism and imperialism. However, the areas Russia has absorbed are ethnically Russian. There is zero partisan effort in Crime and Donbas. Would you say this is correct? Does that make it 'right' for Russia to do what it did? No, of course. But if we're discussing Russia's future intentions, there is a considerable leap from it going after what it believes it can take for "free" (using this word loosely), and going after, say, a very hostile Ukraine central that would spend its every living breath sniping, bombing, and basically ruining Russian occupation. Would you agree that these are widely different end goals in concern to the mechanisms required to maintain them?
-
29 minutes ago, fireship4 said:
Are you writing from the early 2000s? Hello! Please tell my dad to shave my head next time he cuts my hair!
I travel the world and operate out of Belgium. This is very, very common when interacting with people on the topic of America. It is anecdotal. What is not anecdotal is the massive lines of people waiting to get into America, proving quite verifiably that there is meat on those bones.
The hostility toward American foreign policy is harder to measure, but it has moments of clarity I need not expound upon.
-
18 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
Now that is trustworthy source.
And Naftali Benett clearly stated both sides were thinking they were winning and that negotiations broke finally when Ukrainians discovered level of atrocities Russians commited.
You can see what he 'clearly stated' right here.
By the way, these peace talks were in early March and through to the end of the month. Bucha came to light in early April. Peace talks renewed in April, but even more fruitlessly. Around this time, the sanctions were coming in hard. President Biden was stating things like Russia was on track to have its economy cut in half. I don't want to be too cynical here, but I don't think murdered civilians are so important to the West as to end something they want or don't want.
They thought that the Russian economy was on its way to crumbling and so told Ukraine to stand pat. If they honestly believed this, I actually endorse the strategy. It is the correct strategy to deploy. It failing to work doesn't change that it was the correct move, it just unfortunately did not work. When something does not work, then you need to reassess. I do not see any desire to reassess and I find that very troubling.
-
2 minutes ago, fireship4 said:
Speculation, not obvious, just a statement with no context.
Schroeder, Putin's personal friend? Reputedly responsible for Germany's energy dependence on Russia? And peace on what terms?
I included the former Israeli PM for this reason. Schroeder's connections with Putin are obvious. This does not automatically mean he is incorrect and the arrival of corresponding stories highlights this. You did not talk at all about the Israeli PM, so you left the discussion at a half-step.
QuoteNonsense. They are simply the most capable. And Israel is dismantling a terrorist junta whose only purpose is to make fat stacks and kills Jews - and they have a decent amount of support both in the middle east and increasingly in the West. They go to quite some lengths to avoid killing civilians.
Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York?
Nonsense? How is it nonsense when you then agree, but add in the qualifier that they are only the most "capable." The capability of the invading nations does not have anything to do with the aggressiveness of invasions by said nations. You just disagreed to disagree here, and didn't even really disagree. Bizarre comment.
QuoteA neocon should want to give Americans something to believe in by fighting for a democratic state abroad if they followed someone like Leo Strauss.
Neocons are not to be trusted, period. That is my bottom line on those people. Victoria Nuland is married to Kagan, a major neocon architect, who has outlined American expansionism/imperialism for the 21st century. Why is it that when these people go places, war and misery follows in their footsteps? Is that just a coincidence? Judging by what they state and print, the answer is clear.
QuoteIn what context? "We were wrong to help defend this country we promised to defend against an invading force of barbarians"? "Should have just saved the money and let them rot behind a new iron curtain"?
If the U.S. is not willing to invest the actual resources required to win a war with Russia, then yes, it should not have involved itself at all. Dogwalking another people into conflict and then playing gotcha with it is insane to me. The U.S. has the material capabilities to lay down some serious material into Ukraine and it has not done it. The West in general has the economic capability to go on a war footing and has not done it. Everything is nominal, and nominal contributions when the other side is very dead-set in their intentions is flagrantly stupid.
I do not forgive half-measures when hundreds of thousands of people are dying.
QuoteIn Georgia, Russia moved mostly through two separatist regions which it supported, and has since run directly. The goverment of Georgia remained intact.
If the men you refer to had changed the government by force, they would indeed have needed an occupation force, to keep order and resist the inevitable efforts of the population and military at reversing such, and then to carry out "de-nazification" (the destruction of Ukrainian national identity, and notions of identification with Western ideals) something that is now obvious.
Don't see much disagreement here. I mean, moving into separatist regions... like they're doing in Ukraine right now? And pray tell, what major partisan efforts are currently ongoing in those Russian-held regions? After Afghanistan and Chechnya, I don't think Russians have much interest or desire to 'occupy' places they are not wanted. They want to bully and flex, fighting isn't really their forte but anyone who understands Russia knew this already, though a thousand videos of military disasters is pretty sufficient evidence just as well.
QuoteYour post has unsound reasoning and does not read like the words of someone who knows what they are talking about, rather someone who has a lens they view each event through which you fight for.
...
you could actually commit yourself to creating some workable models which bear some resemblance to how things actually work in real life
Almost a year ago, I stated that offenses in this war were almost suicidal and one should avoid engaging Russia in static warfare due to their massive artillery advantage. I was correct. I stated that the Russian economy was not buckling beneath the sanctions. I was correct. I stated that non-West spheres of the world were not responding to West's compulsion to sanction Russia. That was correct. Actually, so correct that we now see Western imports into Russian border-nations, suggesting not even some in the West care anymore, and we see other nations welcoming Putin on their stages. I stated that this notion of Russia running out of materials for anything is a pipedream as they have significant infrastructure to support war efforts. That was correct. I stated that the economic contributions of the West involve stockpiles which necessarily dwindle, and if you do not have a replacement in line for when that happens, bad things are going to come to a head. That is coming to a head right now. My models are fine, thank you.
-
The U.S. has immense soft power in regards to the internals of the nation itself. People love America. They see it on T.V. and in the movies and want to go there. It's, legitimately, very much the light on the hill for many, and a land of milk and honey from which opportunities abound. Compared to most places on Earth, it is basically Heaven. I mean that seriously. Even compared to places like Europe, USA blows everyone out of the water.
There is another aspect, though, and that is American foreign policy. Everything I just said? When it comes to political action, imagine the exact opposite assessment. The U.S. is lucky that only one faction of hardcore Islamists carry any umbrage with the U.S., because if all of America's 'victims' carried the torch like they do it'd be nothing but terror and mayhem.
I mentioned this in the Ukraine thread, but it's worth mentioning here: in a question of how this world works, many are awaiting the West's decline. After centuries of colonization and/or economic manipulation, they're done with it. The only reason people still play ball with the West is because it is the financial core of the world. As those dynamics change, these nations will depart the Western sphere. Like I've said, the lack of engagement with sanctions on Russia is one of the clearest indicators that the West's soft power has radically declined. You see what's happen in Gaza (rightly) as another strike against the West's virtues. What you probably don't see is this one strike among many. To you it's shocking to see the West eschew all these laws and morals. To others, it's just another day in the world. This one just happened to hit your news feed, that's all.
-
2 hours ago, Zeleban said:
The Second World War. 40-year-old Ukrainians conscripted from the streets captured Berlin in 1945
Every side drafted 40+ year olds. This was not an average age, however. You couldn't go to any given unit and interview soldiers and only be coming across 35-45 year old men, as I have unfortunately seen a few times while reading news stories from the front.
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Care to cite some sources for this? Because that's not how I remember it happening. After Russia failed to heed the West's attempts to head off the war before it began, Ukraine immediately sought a way to get it to stop. Russia laid out its terms (the same ones Putin just reiterated yesterday) and Ukraine rejected them because acceptance would mean ceasing to exist. Then, very quickly, it became clear to Ukraine that Russia wasn't going to win quickly or easily, and so it continued to fight.
Naftali Bennett and former-German Chancellor Schroeder have stated peace was on the table and that the Americans were the ones who 'ended' those talks. A lot of rumors have been flying around about the nature of these talks and why they suddenly concluded like this, but those are two very legitimate sources.
QuoteSure we do. Putin just restated them, including that all of Ukraine should be a part of Russia. Anybody that has paid even the smallest amount of attention to Russia's actions over the past 20 years would know this even if Putin didn't say this out loud.
If you paid the smallest amount of attention to the West's actions the past 20 years you'd think they were the most aggressively militaristic party on the planet. Wait a second -- they were. In fact, one of them is bombing civvies right this second! But you'd also think there were WMDs in Iraq, that al-Qaeda had a huge network of supervillain caves in Afghanistan, and a long litany of other lies used to justify mayhem on spread. Leaders lie, and they lie most predominantly to their own people. I won't pretend to know Putin's goals at this point and, like in the West, I'd take anything he says to his own people with a grain of salt. I just gave you the above information, though, to demonstrate they were absolutely not his goals early on.
Actions by Americans, particularly those with ties to things like PNAC and general neocon-funfair, also clearly demonstrate an intention in Washington to drive Ukraine headfirst into a meatgrinder. So these news articles do not surprise me at all. You people will believe things like Russia is running out of troops, running out of ammo, fighting with shovels, etc., but it never occurs whether or not the intentions of American neocons met its expected conclusion by design or if it all just went in their favor by some coincidence. I don't think it was a coincidence at all. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that bad faith actors like Rumsfeld go from "bulletproof" evidence of WMD in Iraq to "I never said we knew where they were" one year later. I expect to see such reverses in statements about this war just as well, and I also expect people to compartmentalize these statements like they did with that era of politicians, leaving them scot free of any consequences at all.
QuoteAgain, what war have you been watching? Because the war that actually happened was pretty clear. Putin intended on collapsing the Ukrainian government, taking the entire Azov and Black Sea coasts, and having another Yanukovich take over (and his name is Medvedchuk, BTW) to keep the rest of Ukraine firmly in Russia's control. Like Belarus.
Just because the plan didn't work doesn't mean these weren't the goals. I mean, if you're going to go down that route then why not conclude Hitler didn't really intend on taking Russia because the size of the Wehrmacht was woefully inadequate for the task, did not plan on the war lasting more than a few months, and there were zero provisions for carrying the war into the winter.
The above comments made by the Israeli and German statesmen do not align with your fantasies here. The 150,000 men beelining straight to the capital a la Georgia 2008 also don't really agree with any sort of occupation plan either, just by common sense. The only portion I agree with is that they intended to flip Ukraine's government and install a pro-Russian in there. Those soldiers were then likely going to be used to de-arm Ukraine and defang it. The operation was a pretty clear shock attack and Putin no doubt had (very bad) intelligence that told him it'd get wrapped up in a month at most. Like I said, there's no real getting around this. It's too foundational. I also don't know if it's strictly even that important to the conversation -- by either metric, Russia invaded. I don't think "neutralizing" Ukraine or "conquering" Ukraine have huge differences when at the end of the day it's one nation invading another and seeking to basically operate it from the inside.
-
Quote
You state opinion like it was fact and frankly are spewing pro-Putin lines as though they are gospel.
Here's a response, btw:
I am only asking questions which relate to details that can be observed. Also, can we cool it with the red scare crap? Not to repeat myself, but I have repeatedly made clear that Putin is a totalitarian dictator who literally kills his enemies in broad daylight. And if you'd like to know, I personally know someone who died in this conflict, so you should perhaps keep this "pro-Putin" type stuff firmly in your own throat. My concern is and always has been with limiting the loss of life. My judgments come from the same intentions I'd apply to any conflict. So these nasty assertions? Retreads. I was there in 2003, saying the stated reasons for war against Iraq did not make a lick of sense and were, very clearly to anyone who had studied the region, untrue. I never got any apologies from the waves of people who were hoodwinked back then, either, so I'm probably barking up the wrong tree now anyway.
Quote"How is Ukraine losing this war?" "How is Russia winning it?" Feel free cite MacGregor.
I don't follow McGregor. I did listen to about two YouTube clips of him with the Italian guy with the slick back hair (I repeat myself). I did not get the feeling he knew what he was talking about. Most people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to warfare. Too much fascination with maneuver, too much clinging to technology. Surface level analyses don't really grab me, but that's about all you'll get from media heads. I don't watch T.V. Most of my information comes from books. I prefer texts that predate conflicts so I can situate myself into the thinking before all the emotionality muddies the waters. I've also read all the major books on realism and idealism from the past 100 years. I've read all of Kissingers books (that toad). Most of George Kennan's work. etc. etc. I consider myself well-read and not easily fooled by someone like some dime-a-dozen YouTube grifter.
QuoteYour position is that Ukraine has somehow "lost" by not achieving goals set out in the Summer '23 offensive. What were those goals? How do those goals determine the outcome of the war?
I stated a long time ago (I'm not being negative here, just refreshing) that my perception of this conflict was an economic one. That is to say, the way Ukraine wins is for Russia's economy to fall apart. That is the lens through which I see this conflict. My metrics of victory then follow more closely what is going on within Russia than what is going on in some trench in eastern Ukraine. When the sanctions did not send Russia reeling, I knew Ukraine was in major trouble and that the West as a whole had made a significant misstep. The isolation of Russia from Europe being countered by a swelling of economic throughputs going directly to Asia has alarmed far, far more people than your 'betters' are putting on. You just won't see that on the news cause it's distressing to the ruling class and, like most international matters of economics, it's boring.
QuoteThe Ukrainian military has already won this war. Unlike whatever HBO/Hollywood narratives you subscribe to, wars rarely end in totals. Victory parades and Johnny marching home. The end somewhere in the middle.
Every war I have seen that "ended in the middle" was a war lost by one side who, thereafter, operated a procedure of protecting their prestige. Democracies and dictatorships are weirdly similar in this behavior, by the way.
QuoteIn this case we have outlined repeatedly how Russia totally failed to achieve both their stated strategic objectives, and their most likely true ones. Ukraine has achieved it major strategic objective...it still exists and is able to resist. It retook roughly the same area of land as the size of freakin Ireland from what was supposed to be the second largest army in the world.
Yes, Russia invaded with a shock force intended to Georgia-fy the Ukrainians. And we now know that peace was indeed in talks until the West intervened and headed it off. At this juncture, again as I've said before, we actually don't know Russia's war goals anymore. Of the land the Ukrainians kicked them out of, I am not of the belief the Russians had any intention of actually occupying. I don't think the Russian military wing is particular competent, but they are not 150,000 men occupying the entirety of Ukraine incompetent, either. This is a matter of disagreement on ground foundations, so it's hard to get past so I'll move on:
QuoteThe Russian military is in tatters. Blown all to hell. They are still twitching but until I see an actual RA offensive that does not look like glorified leg humping, they are basically only good for holding the line. NATO got Finland and will get Sweden. Ukraine is in talks to join the EU.
Russia has had 1 mobilization which does not indicate to me an armed force "in tatters." When it comes to materials: pre-war, we know that Russia had a significant portion of labor already dedicated to arms production and their method of sales receipts on the global stage was to target quality missiles and "quantity" everything else. At this stage, the %-of labor dedicated to the task is going to be higher. I'm well aware that the West's GDP and industrial capacity outweighs Russia by a considerable sum. What people don't seem to grasp is that little of that GDP is on a war footing. A smaller GDP on a war footing is going to produce more material than 10x the GDP that is... not on a war footing. Again, I've pondered a couple of times now that if the West was really dedicated to winning this war, the economic slack to do so is still unused and yet there is no urgency in changing that. I find this contradiction astounding, yet nobody seems to care. This is why I refer to these cash agreements as monopoly money. Ukraine does not need funny money and a vomiting of parts. They need what Russia is doing: an established replacement stream. Because, look, things run out. You can only exhaust a stockpile so much when you do not have it being actively replaced. How it is that such a reality flies over peoples heads is beyond me. Either you are in a war to win it or you are not. I would think we could all agree that half-measures in any given conflict only permit the extending of a conflict's worst elements.
Quoteare now crowing because the UA was unable to re-take back those last few acres of the strategic corridor. That is not only incredibly sh#tty given the loses they took in that effort, it is desperately trying to rejuvenate a broken narrative. This war could freeze right where it is. Ukraine could become like Korea, split. And history will judge this a major Ukrainian victory.
My qualm with the counter-offensive is that it was a turkey shoot that need not have happened at all. I've said elsewhere, way back in January in fact, that Ukraine should play maneuver defense because 1) Russians lose cohesion almost instantly when on the move; and 2) without air supremacy the defending side will have advantages of extreme magnitudes a la 1915. I was "proven" correct. I put "proven" in quotes because any basic military theory dating back a 100 years could have told you this would've been the outcome. Why or how the Ukrainians were led into that slaughter anyway is beyond me.
Quote"Ukraine lost (yay!), we were right all along about US isolationism and the world will be such a better place if we stayed out of it altogether. Oh and look who is blocking funding to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and then blaming everyone else because 'they are losing the war'"
I have never celebrated any aspect of this war. My concerns are actually heavily with Ukraine, but they are two-faceted. Yours is one-faceted: Russia. Mine is Russia and the West. I do not see just cause to trust the West's intentions at all. Again, I do not really care for placing these words in my mouth. The war is a WWI-esque tragedy to me and, just like WWI actually, I'm beginning to suspect the conflict is setting up bigger implications that will lead to something far, far worse.
My perception of American politics is that it is simply 1-party firmly captured by moneyed interests. So if you think blaming one side or the other is a fruitful venture, by all means be my guest. It's just a discussion very beyond me.
-
1 minute ago, Blazing 88's said:
Heh, thought some might enjoy a bit of humor.
And yes, that is why I did not bother responding to much of anything. I do not understand why one would list out a screed then ignore any response. This is not the nailing of a manifesto to a wooden door. This is supposedly a conversation. I believe I have asked a number of very reasonable questions. For example, is Russia and China being pushed into alignment a good thing for the world? Or how do 40+ year old Ukrainians find the means to win the war at this stage? Ping-ponging an, "Aha, but you see, Ukraine has already won!" while the war is ongoing is, to me at least, not a sufficient answer. Because the war is ongoing, you see.
-
On 12/6/2023 at 7:25 PM, Bulletpoint said:
I'm still wondering if the real aim of this war is to expel the civilian population from Gaza.
The $64,000 question. Definitely up there with how did Hamas, watched like a hawk from multiple intel agencies with both high-tech sigint and installed humint, manage to execute a long planned and trained operation with attack vectors being... broad daylight open skies and entry points of see-through chainlink fences? The Israelis are pretty explicit about their long-term intentions and they do not suffer from things like consequences or culpability. You add all these things together and you will have quick demystification of the situation at hand.
The saddest element of all of this is that the Palestinians, at no point in time, have had any allies in the region. Obviously the Israelis are just eradicating them piece by piece. Anyone with eyes and a decent enough attention span should be able to see this. Genocide must be done in slow-motion lest people get upset -- we live in the daily news hour, after all. Frog boiling is harder to perceive when it is multi-generational. And the Arabs? No interest in the Palestinians either. Even dating back to King Abdullah I, the primary concern of the Palestinians was the value of the land on which they sat. Truly, there is no more isolated a group of people.
Btw, international law is not real. Things like the U.N. are not real. You had best realign your perspective on these things under actual realities. These things are written on pieces of paper and they are handled amicably until they are not. There is nothing tangible which holds countries to task, it is a reciprocal system, therefore it breaks very, very easily (that is, when one side stops reciprocating; e.g., literally the first domino). I mean, no offense, but imagine detailing matters of international law when matters of spirituality and religion have vastly more pressures on these conflicts. You're detailing a conflict in which one side will carpet bomb civilians because they can, and the other party will quite literally commit suicide by exploding themselves in car bombs or with vests. The language used to try and stitch together some semblance of international structure does not have the vocabulary, either by semantics and certainly not by idioms or norms or mores, to encompass a battlefield that has such people fighting on it.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, lets put all the rest of that uncited nonsense to the side. I mean your theory of us "pushing" Ukraine into this war is frankly breathtakingly obtuse and directly from the red-hat camp. I mean after this you can go back to whatever conspiracy websites you call home.
But let's just pull on this one singular thread. So for once, I am calling on you...the kevinkin replacement we seem to get in various versions on this forum to actually prove your point beyond your own keyboard. You state opinion like it was fact and frankly are spewing pro-Putin lines as though they are gospel.
"How is Ukraine losing this war?" "How is Russia winning it?" Feel free cite MacGregor. Your position is that Ukraine has somehow "lost" by not achieving goals set out in the Summer '23 offensive. What were those goals? How do those goals determine the outcome of the war?
The Ukrainian military has already won this war. Unlike whatever HBO/Hollywood narratives you subscribe to, wars rarely end in totals. Victory parades and Johnny marching home. The end somewhere in the middle. In this case we have outlined repeatedly how Russia totally failed to achieve both their stated strategic objectives, and their most likely true ones. Ukraine has achieved it major strategic objective...it still exists and is able to resist. It retook roughly the same area of land as the size of freakin Ireland from what was supposed to be the second largest army in the world.
The Russian military is in tatters. Blown all to hell. They are still twitching but until I see an actual RA offensive that does not look like glorified leg humping, they are basically only good for holding the line. NATO got Finland and will get Sweden. Ukraine is in talks to join the EU.
So basically the Macgregor crowd - of which I am placing you - are now crowing because the UA was unable to re-take back those last few acres of the strategic corridor. That is not only incredibly sh#tty given the loses they took in that effort, it is desperately trying to rejuvenate a broken narrative. This war could freeze right where it is. Ukraine could become like Korea, split. And history will judge this a major Ukrainian victory.
Actually, change that. Don't even bother to try and prove your point because I already know what you are going to say- I have heard it a dozen times over now. "Ukraine lost (yay!), we were right all along about US isolationism and the world will be such a better place if we stayed out of it altogether. Oh and look who is blocking funding to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and then blaming everyone else because 'they are losing the war'"
Ok, we are done here...ignore.
I mean, I can cite George Kennan. Is the guy who wrote the Cold War policy of containment too red hat for you? Would you like me to throw in other names? How about the current head of the CIA? To state it is conspiracy when there is historical record of people warning about this West-Ukraine-Russian relationship is insulting to yourself. It demonstrates a total lack of knowledge about a war you are cheerleading. I would personally feel compelled to FULLY understand every nook and cranny of a conflict if I was to, on the sidelines, usher and support the carnage that unfolds from it.
QuoteThe Ukrainian military has already won this war.
I'm going to take this as a point of frustration as in your very next comment:
QuoteI can agree with most Republicans who want accountability and good stewardship. But trying to lose a war while blaming someone else for it is just really low.
How can they lose a war that is already won?
Shame to put me on ignore. I won't respond in kind or else I might miss out on the most insightful reasoning around.
)
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I'm not going to respond, Steve, because you're now engaging in conversation for which you just threatened to ban me for participating.
"Far right nutjob" -- your ability to freely throw around insults without a slap on the wrist is neutering your ability to converse, as you can now default to petty name-calling in place of actual conversation. I'm still very much curious how it is you thought the counter-offensive would cut through so easily. "Gulf War-esque" you said, yet it failed at the skirmish lines. This is, dare I say, a massive gulf of difference between projection and reality. I'm genuinely curious what data points gave you the idea.