How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

 

[panzermartin]

11 minutes ago, kraze said:

in Russia people "walked out of the window" for much less in the past 7 months. Why is Navalny still fine?

Wasn't he hospitalized with life threatening poisoning in Germany? Why should Russia go that far in his "acting". 

We have to keep in mind Russia is like all the other countries. It has national interests. No Russian politician, nationalist or leftist Marxist is going to just give back Crimea, a russian populated area of huge strategic and symbolic value. They are going to fight for it untill the end (of Russia as we know it) . They have been colliding with the West, Ottomans etc over Crimea for centuries. Behind the ethics wrapping, it's just another imperialistic war of the great powers. In retrospect its not that much different than 1850 (except nuclear) 

[Zeleban]

12 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Wasn't he hospitalized with life threatening poisoning in Germany? Why should Russia go that far in his "acting". 

We have to keep in mind Russia is like all the other countries. It has national interests. No Russian politician, nationalist or leftist Marxist is going to just give back Crimea, a russian populated area of huge strategic and symbolic value. They are going to fight for it untill the end (of Russia as we know it) . They have been colliding with the West, Ottomans etc over Crimea for centuries. Behind the ethics wrapping, it's just another imperialistic war of the great powers. In retrospect its not that much different than 1850 (except nuclear) 

 

Ok, as far as I understand, the first empire that participates in this war is Russia, then who is the second empire in your opinion? Ukraine?

[panzermartin]

12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Ok, as far as I understand, the first empire that participates in this war is Russia, then who is the second empire in your opinion? Ukraine?

Well primarily the one orchestrating the UA operations and funding with billions of aid, US. UK and the rest european countries follow. 

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Well primarily the one orchestrating the UA operations and funding with billions of aid, US. UK and the rest european countries follow. 

 

Ok, let's say Ukraine is not a party to the conflict (at least that's what Russian propaganda tells us). What do you think is the benefit for the United States from this war? What will the US get from winning?

[FancyCat]

 

[Zeleban]

LPR soldiers are looking for a cache of drugs. This is a popular way to sell drugs without the risk of being caught by the police. The drug dealer leaves drugs in the cache and, after receiving the money to the account, gives the drug addict the coordinates of the cache. In this video, the operator threatens to call the police and the drug addicts run away.

[keas66]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

I actually found this strangely consoling . They are  backing away from the line in the sand they drew themselves .

[panzermartin]

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Ok, let's say Ukraine is not a party to the conflict (at least that's what Russian propaganda tells us). What do you think is the benefit for the United States from this war? What will the US get from winning?

To borrow Kraze's phrasing early in this thread, empires either expand or crumble. There is so much to win in Ukraine war for US. 

Your main adversary since the end of WW2 will be kaput. 

If you achieve this with no nuclear holocaust, a deadly threat of almost a century will cease to exist and rival you. 

West for the first time will have the chance to securely expand so deep towards East. 

Black Sea no longer primarily a Russian lake. 

Containment of China becoming more possible. 

A blow to Europe's economical and political strength and thus autonomy. 

US returning to the continent and reestablishing itself as the dominant player, like in post WW2. 

Gaining the upper hand in the energy game. 

Troublemakers Syria, Iran will probably suucumb after Russia's collapse. 

Turkey back in NATO yard. 

Honestly, the gains are too many to count... And all this without loss of US personnel. 

In your opinion why US is that much involved in Ukraine ? 

 

 

[Huba]

Meanwhile, as we continue to beat that poor dead horse, Rybar published another map:
- UA continues push on Dutchany
- attacks the RU salient from the west
- pushes from Archangelske along the Inhulets

Looks like RU didn't manage to mount a meaningful counterattack, and Ukrainians are looking to exploit the breakthrough. If they manage to reduce the salien, I believe that whole Ru position around Nova Kakhovka will become untenable very shortly.

 

[Maquisard manqué]

2 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

To borrow Kraze's phrasing early in this thread, empires either expand or crumble. There is so much to win in Ukraine war for US. 

Your main adversary since the end of WW2 will be kaput. 

If you achieve this with no nuclear holocaust, a deadly threat of almost a century will cease to exist and rival you. 

West for the first time will have the chance to securely expand so deep towards East. 

Black Sea no longer primarily a Russian lake. 

Containment of China becoming more possible. 

A blow to Europe's economical and political strength and thus autonomy. 

US returning to the continent and reestablishing itself as the dominant player, like in post WW2. 

Gaining the upper hand in the energy game. 

Troublemakers Syria, Iran will probably suucumb after Russia's collapse. 

Turkey back in NATO yard. 

Honestly, the gains are too many to count... And all this without loss of US personnel. 

In your opinion why US is that much involved in Ukraine ? 

 

 

I’d largely agree with the US - Russia bits but the US - EU stuff is pretty off the wall. A peaceful and stronger EU is  best for the US, they’re partners and share the burden (ideally!) of the current/US economic and political order (rules based system as some call it, but it’s not like others don’t have rules…).

[Zeleban]

14 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

To borrow Kraze's phrasing early in this thread, empires either expand or crumble. There is so much to win in Ukraine war for US. 

Your main adversary since the end of WW2 will be kaput. 

If you achieve this with no nuclear holocaust, a deadly threat of almost a century will cease to exist and rival you. 

West for the first time will have the chance to securely expand so deep towards East. 

Black Sea no longer primarily a Russian lake. 

Containment of China becoming more possible. 

A blow to Europe's economical and political strength and thus autonomy. 

US returning to the continent and reestablishing itself as the dominant player, like in post WW2. 

Gaining the upper hand in the energy game. 

Troublemakers Syria, Iran will probably suucumb after Russia's collapse. 

Turkey back in NATO yard. 

Honestly, the gains are too many to count... And all this without loss of US personnel. 

In your opinion why US is that much involved in Ukraine ? 

 

 

and now in order:

1. How exactly will the US expand after the victory over Russia. Which regions of Russia will become part of the United States.

2. At the expense of the Black Sea, it has never been a Russian lake. Turkey has always controlled the Black Sea and decided who will enter it and who will not.

3. How exactly the fall of Russia will affect the possibility of containing China (I think that this, on the contrary, will cause the expansion of China by seizing new territories of Russia inhabited by the Chinese).

4. How exactly will the fall of Russia affect the autonomy of Europe (and autonomy from whom?). 3. Why will Iran and India die after the collapse of Russia?

5. List US wins that you find difficult to count

[Zeleban]

16 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

To borrow Kraze's phrasing early in this thread, empires either expand or crumble. There is so much to win in Ukraine war for US. 

Your main adversary since the end of WW2 will be kaput. 

If you achieve this with no nuclear holocaust, a deadly threat of almost a century will cease to exist and rival you. 

West for the first time will have the chance to securely expand so deep towards East. 

Black Sea no longer primarily a Russian lake. 

Containment of China becoming more possible. 

A blow to Europe's economical and political strength and thus autonomy. 

US returning to the continent and reestablishing itself as the dominant player, like in post WW2. 

Gaining the upper hand in the energy game. 

Troublemakers Syria, Iran will probably suucumb after Russia's collapse. 

Turkey back in NATO yard. 

Honestly, the gains are too many to count... And all this without loss of US personnel. 

In your opinion why US is that much involved in Ukraine ? 

 

 

In my opinion, the United States is striving to prevent the expansion of the war further into Europe, beyond the borders of Ukraine

[Hister]

Thank you Kraze and others for the Navalny answers. 

How would Gari Kasparov thread if he happened to become a president (not that he has a chance)? 

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

 

Ok, let's say Ukraine is not a party to the conflict (at least that's what Russian propaganda tells us). What do you think is the benefit for the United States from this war? What will the US get from winning?

Let's not imply imperialistic motives, otherwise this leads nowhere productive. 

But let's also not be naive. Of course the US have interests beyond just doing The Right Thing™ - which is probably true for many or all other countries.

The USA are the only remaining superpower and want to stay it, so although costs are by no means to be neglected, some benefits are obvious:

* A soon to be NATO member that otherwise would have had a very slim chance of becoming one any time soon.

* Said NATO member at the southern flank of Russia, with (I think?) shortest range to Moscow so far. With all the geostrategical benefits this position brings.

* Another good position for a missile shield?

* A bit replacing Turkey, which was somewhat unreliable of late, in the role of guarding this side of Russia/the black sea

* An opportunity to test the latest weapons, sensors, concepts, you name it, without risk to US soldiers.

* Keeping Russia down (which had shown ambitions to become a superpower again at some point)

* A much more close knit NATO than before

* Cheap Russian gas and oil is no longer a competition to US energy exports

* ...

Most of this is also a benefit to NATO but NATO was always dominated by the US (by design, and I think the rest of NATO was usually happy with that arrangement).

Still, let's not forget that it was Russia who attacked Ukraine and not the other way round. That doesn't change just because others benefit from it.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Butschi

[panzermartin]

19 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

In my opinion, the United States is striving to prevent the expansion of the war further into Europe, beyond the borders of Ukraine

There is no evidence of Russia ability to threaten conventionally the rest of Europe. It's crystal clear that they lacked the will and readiness to wage a war of a larger scale and had only hoped for a quick collapse. Now their impotency is right in front our eyes. No doubt it's also thanks to tenacious fight of the Ukrainians. But what army that wants to conquer the world is drunk, deserter, and abandons brand new equipment in the woods? That's not the way Wehrmacht conquered Europe. 

Will mobilization change this? I doubt. 

Yes there is the nuclear threat remaining but that takes two to tango and if the West does not want to dance, it won't happen. Some  here want to but thankfully they are in the minority. 

 

 

 

[Zeleban]

12 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

There is no evidence of Russia ability to threaten conventionally the rest of Europe. It's crystal clear that they lacked the will and readiness to wage a war of a larger scale and had only hoped for a quick collapse. Now their impotency is right in front our eyes. No doubt it's also thanks to tenacious fight of the Ukrainians. But what army that wants to conquer the world is drunk, deserter, and abandons brand new equipment in the woods? That's not the way Wehrmacht conquered Europe. 

Will mobilization change this? I doubt. 

Yes there is the nuclear threat remaining but that takes two to tango and if the West does not want to dance, it won't happen. Some  here want to but thankfully they are in the minority. 

 

 

 

Russian nationalists led by Prigogine fundamentally disagree with you. The Baltic countries Poland and Finland are legitimate targets for joining Russia from their point of view. The inability of NATO to stop Russia in Ukraine will be proof of the possibility of a successful capture of these countries by Russia (of course, after making up for losses and reorganizing the army following the war in Ukraine). This will strengthen them in the idea that despite all the commitments, the European countries of NATO do not have enough political will to stand up for the Baltics, and then for Poland, which will actually be the end of the North Atlantic Alliance.

[Butschi]

6 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Russian nationalists led by Prigogine fundamentally disagree with you. The Baltic countries Poland and Finland are legitimate targets for joining Russia from their point of view. The inability of NATO to stop Russia in Ukraine will be proof of the possibility of a successful capture of these countries by Russia (of course, after making up for losses and reorganizing the army following the war in Ukraine). This will strengthen them in the idea that despite all the commitments, the European countries of NATO do not have enough political will to stand up for the Baltics, and then for Poland, which will actually be the end of the North Atlantic Alliance.

It is of no consequence whether Russian nationalists agree or not.

[Zeleban]

19 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Said NATO member at the southern flank of Russia, with (I think?) shortest range to Moscow so far. With all the geostrategical benefits this position brings.

 

This is a favorite myth of Russian propaganda. Both from the side of Latvia and from the side of Ukraine, the distance to Moscow is almost the same.

22 minutes ago, Butschi said:

A bit replacing Turkey, which was somewhat unreliable of late, in the role of guarding this side of Russia/the black sea

 

Ukraine cannot control the Black Sea because it does not own the strait. Turkey is the only true owner of the Black Sea.

23 minutes ago, Butschi said:

An opportunity to test the latest weapons, sensors, concepts, you name it, without risk to US soldiers.

What types of weapons that were not previously used in combat conditions did the United States transfer to Ukraine for testing? (M777? Himars? MRAP? Javelin? M113?)

 

27 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Keeping Russia down (which had shown ambitions to become a superpower again at some point)

as I said, the suppression of Russia will lead to the strengthening of China, which the United States considers its enemy No. 1

 

28 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Cheap Russian gas and oil is no longer a competition to US energy exports

 

As I understand it, this did not affect the supply of liquefied gas to Europe in any way. Gas will be supplied from Norway

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

It is of no consequence whether Russian nationalists agree or not.

On the contrary, this is the most important thing, because it is they who, like the party of hawks under Putin, determine the foreign aggressive policy of Russia. It was they who influenced Putin's decision to attack Ukraine (they have been asking for this since 2014). And if the invasion succeeds, they will remain the determining factor in Putin's decision-making.

[kraze]

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Wasn't he hospitalized with life threatening poisoning in Germany? Why should Russia go that far in his "acting". 

We have to keep in mind Russia is like all the other countries. It has national interests. No Russian politician, nationalist or leftist Marxist is going to just give back Crimea, a russian populated area of huge strategic and symbolic value. They are going to fight for it untill the end (of Russia as we know it) . They have been colliding with the West, Ottomans etc over Crimea for centuries. Behind the ethics wrapping, it's just another imperialistic war of the great powers. In retrospect its not that much different than 1850 (except nuclear) 

Of course he isn't acting - but it's obvious putin and his cronies find him a lot more valuable than people, who were bringing putin billions just yesterday. And it's what I find weird. Bridges with the West are burned so Navalny getting shived by a "random inmate" would've cost putin literally nothing. Unless Navalny has his use. And since we even hear Navalny's statements, despite being in a FSB cage - it means he does.

As for Crimea being a "russian populated area" - it wasn't until 1944 when natives got deported to die in Siberia. And it's why stuff like Crimea shouldn't happen again anywhere else and why Crimea can't be allowed to remain in russian hands.

Edited October 3, 2022 by kraze

[Bulletpoint]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63118050

"Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov says his three sons, aged 14, 15 and 16, will soon travel to the Ukraine front line to fight with Russian forces. "

 

How about going there, himself, and show them how it's done?

[kraze]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63118050

"Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov says his three sons, aged 14, 15 and 16, will soon travel to the Ukraine front line to fight with Russian forces. "

 

How about going there, himself, and show them how it's done?

But he did. He already filmed himself "in Ukraine" in front of his gas station network in Chechnya, advertising it. His boys are now mature enough to finally do the same.

[Butschi]

8 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

This is a favorite myth of Russian propaganda. Both from the side of Latvia and from the side of Ukraine, the distance to Moscow is almost the same.

Er, distances on the globe are not affected by Russian propaganda. Unless google map is wrong, the shortest distance from Ukraine to Moscow is around 275 miles, Latvia to Moscow is 360 miles.

10 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Ukraine cannot control the Black Sea because it does not own the strait. Turkey is the only true owner of the Black Sea.

True but it can restrict Russian access to the black sea, especially if it controls Crimea.

11 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

What types of weapons that were not previously used in combat conditions did the United States transfer to Ukraine for testing? (M777? Himars? MRAP? Javelin? M113?)

Which of those weapons were tested in any near-peer conflict?

13 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

as I said, the suppression of Russia will lead to the strengthening of China

How so?

 

14 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

As I understand it, this did not affect the supply of liquefied gas to Europe in any way. Gas will be supplied from Norway

Gas from Norway will be delivered via pipeline. But a number of LNG terminals are being constructed in addition. Norway can't replace all Russian gas in the EU. If the additional gas will come from the US will be determined by the market but the chances have certainly increased.

 

14 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

On the contrary, this is the most important thing, because it is they who, like the party of hawks under Putin, determine the foreign aggressive policy of Russia. It was they who influenced Putin's decision to attack Ukraine (they have been asking for this since 2014). And if the invasion succeeds, they will remain the determining factor in Putin's decision-making

But it doesn't matter what they want to do. They just don't have the means to.

[poesel]

16 minutes ago, kraze said:

Of course he isn't acting - but it's obvious putin and his cronies find him a lot more valuable than people, who were bringing putin billions just yesterday. And it's what I find weird. Bridges with the West are burned so Navalny getting shived by a "random inmate" would've cost putin literally nothing. Unless Navalny has his use. And since we even hear Navalny's statements, despite being in a FSB cage - it means he does.

I don't think Navalny is still alive because of Putin. Just the contrary: he is alive because he is the only Putin alternative that can be sold to the west. My guess is that non-Putin groups hold their hand over him so that he can be useful later.

I’m not having illusions about Navalny himself. He is a politician and as thus opportunistic. If he is the way out of this, so be it. Let him be judged by his actions.

Or is there a (better & realistic) alternative?