NamEndedAllen
-
Posts
671 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NamEndedAllen
-
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
Still worried about the GOP position?
McCaul is one of the solid guys, and glad he is chair of an important committee.. But if you are talking about actual aid legislation in the House, yes of course. Remember the agonized voting for the Speaker? The tiny majority of Republicans in the house? Five defections out of the 18 or so nay sayers many of whom openly embrace Putin or Russia…no aid for Ukraine. This party only puts legislation forward that will pass with its own party’s votes. So, yeah. You\ should be concerned about new billions for Ukraine passing the House, where spending legislation must originate. That’s the way the Congress works. I do think some legislation will continue to pass, but it will likely be both less in total and only after extended negotiations for concessions for the radicals whose votes are required. That’s what happens when the majority hangs by a thread. The leadership has very little power, and any handful of representatives hold a ton.
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ya not sure where this is coming from and why. I mean the UA is holding on while the RA breaks itself (again), so it is logical that like last time they will follow up with an offensive - this cycle can repeat a few more times at least. So I do not know where the crisis is in all this that would signal that Ukraine needs to sue for peace. I am far more willing to believe that Russia is running to China for a solution as things on their end are more likely approaching breaking points.
NATO nations suddenly knocking knees does not track - sounds more like Russian wishful thinking to be honest.
Yes, let’s hope so. The political stuff going on in NATO back rooms *might* be leaking a bit though. Talks about one (or two?) members unwilling to budge on admitting more new candidates, whether Sweden or Ukraine. So some members float an alternative way forward for Ukraine. And also as a kinda sorta semi-concession for Russian face-saving for a potential peace plan. I haven’t heard any talk at all for a very long time about NATO membership for Ukraine. So possibly some members are trying out compromise possibilities?
I think we all agree that so long as the Western military aid continues to flow, Ukraine should be growing stronger, while Russia struggles to tread water. It’s that caveat about political will and how it varies in each country that is always a bit worrisome the longer the war continues. We all know that is the wild card, the only one that Russia can hope for to get something out of the deep mess it’s mired in.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Easy now, do not attach my ownership to this one. It is one scenario out of many that I have no doubt some western politicians will push for. I personally do not see anything good about Russia gaining a single acre from pre 23 Feb 22 lines. They must not gain from this war - a post 2014 status quo may have to be what we live with, it ain’t great but see my other post as the other outcomes can get pretty stark.
All war is negotiation.
Oh, and for the record I also do not think the UA is spent yet. I am not sure why we think we are at the “need to negotiate” point (we heard this before). The UA needs to be given at least one more major operational level offensive.
Understood! I just recall your outlining a similar scenario (not your endorsement of it as the only possibility), along with cautions about taking back all the post 2014 oblasts, and stressing the importance of negotiation for ending the war. Well short of a dangerous collapse of Russia into several warlord-ish states, with nukes.
Whoever these NATO officials are, they seem to be saying we are with you for *just* one more major offensive. Not your wise “at least” one more. And oh, no NATO membership. My concern is how dangerous it is to tell Ukraine - and Russia! - that Ukraine MUST win this next offensive, big time. Fire all the guns at once, roll the dice NOW. Good luck, because that’s all of your country that you’re going to get back. Even if it doesn’t turn out all that well. Because “we” are done. A message like that is dangerous before the spice, er, major new NATO type weapon systems are REALLY flowing in. Fully trained up-gunned brigades and support systems, much better air defenses.. Let alone what so many wise heads from Western militaries are saying to also supply - as many here have urged. Bottom line, it does matter what Ukraine says. And any peace plan has to be voted on by the citizens of Ukraine.
Lastly, given President Biden’s near simultaneous and opposite public statements to these officials…well, it smacks of a possible crack in the house’s foundation. We do not want that. But Russia and China do.
-
Biden AND DNR puppet both reject China’s plan. Also from today’s ISW:
US President Joe Biden rejected China’s 12-point peace plan as Russian sources continue to capitalize on the announcement of the plan to vilify the West and Ukraine. Biden stated that the Chinese peace plan is only beneficial for Russia and that it would make no sense for China to participate in negotiations on the war in Ukraine.[7] Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) head Denis Pushilin argued that China’s peace plan is a fundamentally different approach to the war in Ukraine from the West’s as the West demands the fulfillment of preconditions while exacerbating the conflict through supporting Ukraine.[8] Pushilin nevertheless also rejected the Chinese plan because it would prevent Russia from achieving its maximalist goals in Ukraine.[9] Russian officials and propagandists continue to assert that Western aid that helps Ukraine resist Russia’s illegal invasion protracts the war and to ignore the role that Russia’s determined pursuit of its maximalist aims plays in prolonging the conflict. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2023
-
Well here is a timely, if somewhat disappointing update on NATO and Ukraine, from today’s ISW:
Deleted most - DesertFox just posted the link. But the explanation does seem important and troubling.
“The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported”
These officials appear to be leaning towards @The_Capt’s ending scenario of territorial concessions by Ukraine due in part to the steep costs of liberating Crimea and the Donbas, and that Western pockets and willingness are not infinite. Iirc, he stipulates granting Russia relief by lifting sanctions, but requiring reparations. Possibly some sort of liminal status of the conquered territories annexed by Russia. Have to say, this all feels pretty murky for Ukraine to accept, unless they find out for themselves that they just can’t get to the finish line.
-
3 minutes ago, sburke said:
well heck, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states could form their own alliance. At the rate Russia is trashing their military Lux. could take them on.
Yes! Especially if Ukraine after thrashes what’s left down to a pathetic grubby stub. So let’s have the West get on with whatever arms and training it takes, and quickly! Not China slithering around the edges.
-
3 hours ago, dan/california said:
I think he is saying it take a Senate vote to let Ukraine into NATO. It is an amendment of the treaty that requires ratification.
I guess it would, and I hope that would get enough votes despite the high hurdle. But I was referring to any *new* treaties, not NATO.. Because someone suggested that a new military alliance could be formed to guarantee Ukraine against yet another Russian invasion. I think that’s unlikely. .
-
3 hours ago, sburke said:
Besides do we really need another alliance? NATO seems to be working pretty good right now.
Well yeah! That’s the point in this little series, along with dealing from a position of strength. Any military guarantees for Ukraine following some sort of negotiated end of the war better be in addition to Ukraine owning a position of inescapable strength: significant battlefield defeats of the Russians. NATO membership is the ideal guarantee, but China’s “peace plan” is unlikely to see Russia willing to accept Ukraine in NATO. Not to mention the complete withdrawal from Ukraine. Both would mean a total Russian defeat, even with the sanctions lifted. So instead of NATO membership someone suggested a new, smaller military alliance could make guarantees to protect Ukraine. That’s why it’s important to understand how the USA actually makes treaties, and its very high bar and lengthy process.
Regardless of all this, I think many here are skeptical of any real juice behind China’s attempt to score international points. AFAIK, they’re amateurs in brokering peace. My hopes are pinned on Ukraine with the Western Allies assistance forcing Russia out of the war by inflicting significant defeats on the battlefield. Then come peace agreements, and NATO membership. Not by China weaseling some sort of shaky agreement during a stalemate that let’s Russia start this cycle all over again. All that is a different discussion.
-
4 hours ago, sburke said:
The debt is an internal political football and has been for decades. The war in Ukraine is not and except for a handful of tik tok politicians there is a high degree of unity in the US gov't and the general population to back Ukraine. The house would be harder than the Senate mainly because McCarthy would have to put it to a vote.
True except the debt vote used to be pro forma until recently. Now it is an excruciating annual game of chicken used to extract ideological concessions. But to the point, the Constitution requires the Senate and only the Senate to ratify treaties. And I was wrong about needing 60 votes. It’s worse. Two thirds, 66 votes. So, very low probability of getting a new military alliance treaty ratified, committing to another war in Europe in any reasonable amount of time. If ever.
I. Treaty Power
The Constitution provides, in the second paragraph of Article II, Section 2, that “the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
-
4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Then the Anglosphere (US-Canada-Britain) sponsors a new 'Amber Alliance*' taking in Norway + Sweden + Finland + Baltics + Poland + Ukraine... keeping a seat warm for a free Belarus.
You are assuming that the USA right wing Congress isn’t the chief nod-nod, wink-wink player? Bad assumption. Even if something were worked out before 2024, to ratify any “Amber” treaty requires Senate ratifification. With 60 votes minimum. Don’t bet on getting those votes any time soon. You think a *new* military commitment to another war in Europe against Russia would be easy and quick to get through? The price demanded for a deal would be so high that senators on the other side would start refusing to go along. Welcome to business as usual now, in the deadlocked Congress. Heck, right now Congress can’t even agree to pay the USA debts, with default looming.
Things would be a lot simpler though if Russia were losing big time on the battlefield, in conspicuous retreat on several fronts. THEN you might get a face-saving deal. Not just because China says, ‘Do it.” But because Ukraine with its free world allies *makes* it. China can add its own little push after that. So get the whole package together. All the training, all the coordination, stop the piecemeal dribbling out of endless quibbling about each platform, inviting more naysayers more time and platforms to whine and moan. Map out the plan with Ukraine and the Allies, and make it do. However long this takes, it would be a day less if started yesterday.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
I too am on the "this is total BS" side, but some things do add up in the right light.
My fear is that enough of the “right” NATO nations might secretly give China/Russia a “wink wink, nod nod” to yes, Ukraine has the right to TRY to join NATO or a smaller western military treaty - but they won’t actually ever let Ukraine in. Not of course that a nation has *ever* in history been deceived in an international agreement. Under that misconception, Ukraine might agree to some sort of thin veneer of a reasonable sounding resolution of its violated borders. Russia drops the annexation, but Ukraine agrees that some sort of UN peacekeeping monitors Russia’s administrators in the three conquered Oblasts. Ultimately, Ukraine is out in the cold and loses the eastern Oblasts. Russia keeps its land bridge. Right wing politicians rejoice throughout the Western World that our senseless warmongering against Russia is over, and trade resumes, the spice flows. Oops. I mean the oil.
-
23 minutes ago, alison said:
If Russia leans on a Chinese-brokered peace negotiation to get itself out of the war it is losing then it saves face for them because it won't be seen as a capitulation to the west.
Awfully large “IF”.
IF Russia ever agrees to retreat out of ALL Ukraine, not just parts of it,
AND keeps quiet about Ukraine either joining NATO or a similarly powerful and purpose-dedicated military treaty alliance with the USA, Britain and some European nations,
AND the USA’s (60 votes required) Senate actually would ratify such a treaty,
Then Russia will have lost everything and more. Everything spent this year, everything they had before last February’s invasion. Plus, Ukraine would have the power of an Atlantic military alliance that Russia has striven to block for years. No face-saving could disguise these fundamental defeats.
On the other hand, if Ukraine fails to achieve these two pillars, the Ukrainian people and much of the world will see what Russia achieved with no destruction of its own territory, no longer any sanctions, and the successful annexation of large areas of a neighboring country that dared to trust Europe and the USA/NATO to preserve it. All thanks to a China/Russo Alliance. Taiwan will read these more-than-tea leaves. China will too.
I am obviously distrustful of this Chinese gambit. If it were somehow to turn out all roses and chocolates for everyone, with a rebuilt, free and intact Ukraine - terrific. I’m all for it. I fear actually what might happen is a grudging pause by Ukraine at the urging of Europe and the USA for negotiations that go nowhere, while Russia rebuilds its military for the next Act (of crimes against humanity). Yes, Ukraine will also rebuild, but the front lines will have been frozen too long, defenses further strengthened, and any reasonable chance for Ukraine to regain any more of its stolen country lost.
-
53 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
if Ukraine wants to join NATO, BRIC or the freakin Star Wars Empire they must be able to do so without Russia throwing a kinetic temper tantrum.
Aye, there’s the rub! And if it came to pass, a clear hands down albeit hard fought bloody victory for Ukraine. And by extension, NATO and Europe. Many a slip twixt cup and lip.
-
And here it is. Very general. Includes ending the sanctions, ending Cold War mentality. Says there should be peace talks.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html
Honestly, after reading it and its vague platitudes it looks more like a stunt to score some points. Tellingly, it solemnly restates China’s oft spoken “respect international borders”…right after refusing to vote for the UN resolution on the anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, for Russia to immediately withdraw its forces from all Ukraine. Oh, right! Russia already annexed that big chunk of invaded territory. So, problem solved tor China!
-
34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I wonder if China, despite some chest puffing, is not actually reining this whole thing in. If they can broker/force a peace in this war it will be a win for them. All we could do was lob kit and kaboodle until China walked in and said “ok, that is enough”?
I think you are right, and that would put Europe and the USA (Canada too!) in an uncomfortable spot around the world; China the adult in the room, and with the gravitas to make it do.
-
26 minutes ago, Seminole said:
If you told me I had to put my savings in one currency and couldn’t purchase anything for five years, I’d select the one that governments can’t print: bitcoin.
Except you could be wiped out. The fraud and the wild volatility make it one heck of a high risk investment.
-
1 hour ago, womble said:
At a putative negotiating table, security guarantees for the territorial integrity of Russia are an easy "give", since nobody has any interest in invading them, never* have. Easy to say, "Russia's boundaries, as accepted when they joined the UN after the USSR ceased to exist, are inviolate." It's just the way things are supposed to be, anyway. For everynation.
It's even a lever to press China to herd Putin towards extracting his genitals from the Ukrainian blender he's stuck 'em in, as per their first point: he wants guarantees, they have to be on the same basis as the state Ukraine ends up in.
It's not going to get that for for a while, natch, but security guarantees (or at least assurances** shouldn't be a stopper when jaw-jaw starts to bring an end to war-war. It's all the other contentious bits that will make the process painful and protracted.
* "never", here, being "since 1945".
** for what little they're worth....
Couldn’t agree more. However, my reaction was about the Chinese mentioning guarantees for RUSSIA but not for Ukraine. I didn’t see a link in the post for that quote, so can’t check the source for that absence. But certainly a peace plan of any credibility would need both sides’ approval. In the absence of guarantees for both countries, it sounded more like a sick joke than an easy bargaining chip.
Not to mention that Ukraine already HAD promises of security guarantees - never ratified, iirc. My sense is at least until seeing the full text of an actual document, I have little faith that Ukraine will find great joy in any Chinese peace plan. Would be happy for Ukrainians if there were one they could embrace. Although such a thing could conceivably be a major blow to the West in terms of international affairs.
-
42 minutes ago, sburke said:
it has been consistent. Russia playbook is always about the threat that NATO represents and encroachment all the while being the aggressor every time. Nothing new there, just more gaslighting
Consistent for Russia, but has that always been China’s position. Security *guarantees* for Russia, and not the same let alone primarily for the victim?!
-
Kevinkin quoted this a while back and I hd to reread a couple times:
China intervened to present itself as above the conflict by proposing a catalogue of measures: a ceasefire, dialogue,security guarantees for Russia, protection of civilians and the upholding of territorial integrity.What!? Security guarantees for Russia? The country currently ravaging every city and civilian it can reach? Raping and pillaging while insisting that Ukraine doesn’t exist as a nation?!! And China says RUSSIA needs security guarantees?? Depending on which official said this, I think we can guess that China’s peace proposal will not be joyfully embraced by Ukraine, sending gifts to China of puppies and rainbows.
-
13 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, let’s say you are totally right. The Col Macgregors of the world have got a bead on reality and we here are deluding ourselves (completely ignoring our track record to date).
The war unfolds as you outline above…so freakin what? It will be a hard fight, so we should quit now? We should quit now and hope that Russian and Chinese expansion stops somewhere “over there”? Especially after we pulled off the field, tails tucked between legs. Or maybe we should negotiate and hope they leave us alone? What possible historical experience points to where backing away from an expansionist dictator is a good idea? That somehow they take a foot off the gas when they win?
Seriously, who are the people who promote this? They cannot be the children of the great generations who built this world. If they are they have forgotten what their grandparents and parents fought and sacrificed for.Yes! Indeed! Or, simply ask him, “What do YOU think the price of freedom is?”
The USA 2022 federal budget was 6.011 TRILLION dollars. A billion dollars is a *thousandth* of a trillion. “Countless” dollars??! That 30 billion dollars “poured” into fighting these crimes against humanity (so-called “special military operation”) is a whopping .005 of the American budget last year. Perspective? Americans spent over *50* billion dollars on freaking VIDEO GAMES last year. Yeah. America can do a heck of a lot more even than walking down the street and chewing gum at the same time. Sometimes people forget this, listening to too much fascist inspired crap trying to pass itself off as news.
-
Movement on the USA armaments tor Ukraine front. Perhaps the Western tanks without Western AirPower issue isn’t going to be so black and white. If the logjam can finally be broken. Along with the damn ATACMS!
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-2-22-23/h_e8cfb3559bd5978327d401aa3bccb2d0
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, told journalists he sees “increasing momentum” in Washington toward providing Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets and long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) rockets.“I think there’s a split in the administration, at the national security council, as to how fast and what weapons to put in, but I am seeing increasing momentum towards getting both the artillery and the planes in, and in any event we can start training pilots right now so they’re ready,” McCaul told journalists in Kyiv on Tuesday after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
McCaul said Zelensky had given him a list of weapons Ukraine needed, namely F-16s and ATACMS, which can be fired from US-supplied HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems and have a range of up to 300 kilometers (about 186 miles).
"I will be a very strong voice on both the ATACMS, the long-range artillery to hit the Iranian drones in Crimea, in addition to the F-16s,” McCaul said
-
9 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
Yes, it was possibly the greatest play in Eagles history and happened in their Super Bowl win 5 years ago.
What a moment in time it was. For me, what is forever tattooed into memory is that previous game vs the Vikings. It was a great game, but for me it was the circumstance. My wife’s only sister had set up a dinner for me in a major Vegas hotel’s dining room, when I came to town. Despite being far far along in the fatal journey of brain cancer. But the dinner coincided with the game. Which was being shown on large screens over the bar. The dinner and company were memorable. And they knew how much this game, and Foles’ amazing resurgence off the bench meant to me. So periodically when a cheer went up my sister-in-law would say, “Go!”, I would make my way to the camaraderie around the bar. I really only got the game’s highlights because the real highlights were being with her for the last time together, going out on the town, enjoying herself and all of us. That and Foles making 352 passing yards and three touchdowns, setting up that great toe to toe SuperBowl against Tom Brady. I had hoped and prayed for Jackie to make her own comeback for the ages, and win her personal Super Bowl. But what she faced was far deadlier than Brady’s throwing arm. And relentless. I miss her.
-
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/futuristic-mortar-turret-seen-in-action-at-u-s-special-ops-base-in-syria
The U.S. military's main special operations task force focused on combating ISIS across the Middle East has released pictures showing personnel firing an XM905 Advanced Mortar Protection System, or AMPS, in Syria. The XM905 is a turreted, computer-assisted 120mm mortar specially developed to help provide an added layer of defense at forward operating bases. The complete system looks like it could belong in a video game like Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare or Command & Conquer -
2 hours ago, danfrodo said:
This is totally possible, especially if UKR gets missiles to the cut the Crimea bridges.
“How long, oh Lord, how long” -Psalm 13
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by NamEndedAllen
That was then, this is now. Remember, this Party just changed a LOT of the House Rules. If you are saying aid will be passed, you are agreeing with my belief. But if you are betting on it sliding through quickly, in as large or larger amounts, and no demands for ideological concessions attached just to get out of committee…we’ll, we’ll have ringside seats. The vote you mentioned was legislation with a different majority Party. This is now. The “other Party”. With the Speaker warning of putting on the brakes, “no blank checks”, etc. He has bizarro members that you mentioned. This Party is different, prefers to put forward only legislation it can pass with its own votes. Using the other Party’s is considered compromising. And betrayal etc. As I said, I believe Ukraine aid will indeed pass. But watch for it taking longer, for vicious debates and the extraction of ideological concessions in order to make it so. I’d rather you were right! But…that was then. This is now.