How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

ou've been swimming in Russian and Soviet propaganda your whole life.

Well, every nation has its own shortcomings and we have them like this

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, Splinty said:

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

 

Well. I'll be happy to be wrong. But the facts say otherwise. Americans are choosing Trump (I just don’t see any other significant candidates for this post) and this already says a lot

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Not at all. I love America and American culture, but I look at things objectively. American support for Russia is much more than 9%, and recently it has only been growing. Not least due to independent American media

Again, your ignorance is showing. The fight over aid to Ukraine isn't pro-Russian. It's an internal political fight. The new Speaker...who voted against it months ago is now saying "We can't allow Putin to prevail in Ukraine". Why? Because he's in a position of more responsibility and has to take it seriously. You really, seriously don't know what you are talking about.

[Zeleban]

Just now, billbindc said:

The new Speaker...who voted against it months ago is now saying "We can't allow Putin to prevail in Ukraine".

No, because he is a politician and these are just words that don't mean anything.

[Splinty]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

 

Well. I'll be happy to be wrong. But the facts say otherwise. Americans are choosing Trump (I just don’t see any other significant candidates for this post) and this already says a lot

The election isn't for another year. There's NO guarantee Trump will win. He's not even the Republican candidate yet, AND he's still on trial. If he's convicted he can't even run for office. 

[billbindc]

Just now, Zeleban said:

No, because he is a politician and these are just words that don't mean anything.

You are talking about the much greater likelihood that Ukraine gets a substantial increase in aid this year from the US so flippantly that I can't but believe that you are either a bot or something much worse.  

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Splinty said:

If he's convicted he can't even run for office. 

OK, we will see. It will be good if so

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

You are talking about the much greater likelihood that Ukraine gets a substantial increase in aid this year from the US so flippantly that I can't but believe that you are either a bot or something much worse.  

What difference does it make if Ukraine capitulates this year?

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

What difference does it make if Ukraine capitulates this year?

So...something much worse.

[Battlefront.com]

To summarize where we're at right now, from my perspective of course:

1. there is no condition that Russia sought to achieve for itself with this war that it has satisfied.  In fact, most of the major goals have been made worse by the war.  There is no case to make that Russia can reverse this through continued fighting, therefore it is logical and rational to conclude that Russia has lost this war by any reasonable and informed metric.
2. the only thing worse for Russia than losing this war is admitting it has lost it.  Therefore, Russia's primary focus for some time now has been to achieve a frozen conflict where it can retain the territory it currently occupies.  It will then claim "victory", however that doesn't change the facts.
3. even if Russia hasn't yet admitted to itself that it can't possibly win this war according to its own metrics, it likely has long understood that it is causing significant internal stress that could suddenly undermine the regime's ability to hold onto power.  Therefore, the regime likely wants to end the full on warfare as soon as possible before the stress becomes unmanageable.
4. provided it can continue to manage the stress the war is causing, it still remains capable of keeping the war going for some time even without aid from Iran, North Korea, and China.  Simple mass is enough.
5. Western aid to Ukraine has too many sources that are not at risk of politics, therefore an end to aid is not a realistic possibility.
6. Western aid will likely be reduced in 2024 over 2023.  Even if the Democrats win back control of Congress and keep the White House, it doesn't seem that US aid will increase beyond what is being attempted now and it does seem certain that some aid from Europe will be reduced. How much of a decline is unknown as is how much it will matter.
7. Ukraine has its own internal stress to be concerned about.  If it has come to the conclusion that it can not win back significant territory then it too has incentives to freeze the conflict.
8. a frozen conflict provides immediate benefit to both sides, but long term Ukraine should benefit more because it is capable of rebuilding and improving its integration into the world economy.  Russia does not have the same opportunities.
9. long term Ukraine can survive as a nation without the occupied territories.  Russia, however, will not see much benefit from what it has secured.  Yes, Crimea will be more firmly under its control than before the war, but it doesn't appear this is a net positive for the Russian Federation as a nation state.  It and the newly taken territories will continue to be a drain on its coffers every single year without providing much in the way of tangible benefit.
10. over time Ukraine will become a stronger nation, economically and politically, while the opposite is most likely for Russia.  In particular Putin's lifespan is not indefinite and when he leaves office a lot of things may change very quickly.  Not necessarily for the better.

There's obviously a lot more, but I wanted to stick to 10 points

Steve

[Beleg85]

He is single-handadely going against all wise guys on this board already for third page, let's respect that at least.

 

Meanwile, let's prepare the ceremonial peace pipe as real Indians do...by communally watching dirty movies:

 

[Holien]

26 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

What difference does it make if Ukraine capitulates this year

Hmmm I think he is a smart Russian Troll...

That or needs to take a break and up the Meds...

[billbindc]

Just now, Holien said:

Hmmm I think he is a smart Russian Troll...

That or needs to take a break and up the Meds...

This. It’s like listening to Solovyov trying to sound reasonable. 

[Letter from Prague]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

This sounds like an Austro-Hungarian general, blotto on pálinka, planning world domination. 

And no, the US isn't afraid of Moscow. It's been made clear that the nukes are off the table for anything short of an actual invasion of Russia proper and the bloody incompetence of the Russian armed forces wouldn't let them take on Finland, much less the armed combination of all of NATO. It would be messy but decisively short. 

 

US has no reason to fear Russia because Russia was never threat to it in the first place (aside from getting Trump on the throne, that is). Just like US is no threat to Russia - they exist on different continents and will never invade each other.

However, I hope that Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians (and also Finns in smaller measure) are planting minefields like crazy and buying a lot of drones, because if Trump gets reelected and dissolves NATO by removing US from it, they will be completely defenceless even to Russia's zombie mobik army.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Letter from Prague

[Haiduk]

50 minutes ago, Splinty said:

You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities.

As told somebody of our officials - full scale wars begin professionals, but finish teachers, engineers and workers. Are you shure if US/NATO be in front of full-scale war with Russia or China all theese civilians will be ready to fight, when professional army will suffer inevitable losses? Will be they ready to meat assaults under artillery fire. Yes, western armies have strong aviation and sea component, but success of war maintain soldiers boot.

[sburke]

5 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

US has no reason to fear Russia because Russia was never threat to it in the first place (aside from getting Trump on the throne, that is). Just like US is no threat to Russia - they exist on different continents and will never invade each other.

However, I hope that Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians (and also Finns in smaller measure) are planting minefields like crazy and buying a lot of drones, because once Trump gets reelected and dissolves NATO by removing US from it, they will be completely defenceless even to Russia's mobik army.

Trump says a lot of things, however that doesn't usually translate to action.  Regarding NATO, assuming he is elected, it seems highly unlikely he would leave NATO.  It would be wildly unpopular.  A little history from wiki on the suggestions and responses.

Quote

 

Donald Trump expressed interest in withdrawing from the organization during his 2016 presidential campaign. However, after he was inaugurated in 2017, he stated that the United States would protect allies in the event that Article V is invoked. Nevertheless, the New York Times reported in 2019 that a year earlier, he had already mentioned several times privately that he wanted the United States to leave NATO due to many members not paying the required 2% of GDP funding. Such concerns led the House of Representatives in January 2019, to pass the NATO Support Act (H.R. 676), confirming Congress' support for NATO and prohibiting Trump from potentially withdrawing from NATO. On 11 December 2019, the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee passed a bill to be put in front of Congress which would require congressional approval for American withdrawal from NATO.

Polling conducted by Pew Research Center in 2017, said that 62% of Americans are favorable to NATO compared to 23% who are not favorable. In terms of voters, over three-quarters of Democrats are favorable with just 48% of Republicans favorable. Also they said that a plurality of those surveyed, 47% said NATO does too little globally.[14] In further polling in 2019 on the eve of the 70th anniversary of NATO's founding, 77% of Americans say being a member of NATO is good for the United States.[78]

 

 

[dan/california]

Note the level of control in the drones flight path...

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

As told somebody of our officials - full scale wars begin professionals, but finish teachers, engineers and workers. Are you shure if US/NATO be in front of full-scale war with Russia or China all these civilians will be ready to fight, when professional army will suffer inevitable losses? Will be they ready to meat assaults under artillery fire. Yes, western armies have strong aviation and sea component, but success of war maintain soldiers boot.

well considering that not a single tanker would be able to traverse the ocean with Russian oil, I'd lay odds that this wouldn't be much of a problem.  Ukraine is fairly limited to the kind of war it can wage, NATO not so much.

War with China is a whole other matter and not relevant to this thread.

[billbindc]

30 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

As told somebody of our officials - full scale wars begin professionals, but finish teachers, engineers and workers. Are you shure if US/NATO be in front of full-scale war with Russia or China all theese civilians will be ready to fight, when professional army will suffer inevitable losses? Will be they ready to meat assaults under artillery fire. Yes, western armies have strong aviation and sea component, but success of war maintain soldiers boot.

NATO has something around 2.4 million on active duty and another 2.9 million or so on reserve....*without* the United States. That doesn't include another 800k plus paramilitaries. Manpower would not be an issue.

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Splinty said:

The election isn't for another year. There's NO guarantee Trump will win. He's not even the Republican candidate yet, AND he's still on trial. If he's convicted he can't even run for office. 

I'm no expert on your legal system but it seems you might be wrong here.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigation-conviction.html

Legally, Mr. Trump would remain eligible to be president even if he were imprisoned. The Constitution says nothing to the contrary.

Fun fact, if he was elected while in prison:

On the federal charges only, he could also try to pardon himself — or to commute his sentence, leaving his conviction in place but ending his imprisonment.

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Butschi

[Harmon Rabb]

45 minutes ago, Holien said:

Hmmm I think he is a smart Russian Troll...

That or needs to take a break and up the Meds...

Zeleban is not a Russian troll. I have been following his posts for over a year and he seems like a really honest guy who just says what he thinks. I do not agree with a few things he said in the last few pages but in the grand scheme of things lets not forget he is actually living in Ukraine right now.

He sees this war in a way us who just follow it on the Internet cannot, so lets give him a break for passionately voicing his opinions even if we do not agree with some of those opinions.

[Battlefront.com]

24 minutes ago, sburke said:

well considering that not a single tanker would be able to traverse the ocean with Russian oil, I'd lay odds that this wouldn't be much of a problem.

The US, in particular, has built up a capacity to fight and win wars from the air and sea without having to commit ground troops.  How effective this is depends on the specific circumstances, of course.  The biggest factor is how sophisticated the opponent's economy and military are.  Bombing Serbia worked, bombing Afghanistan never would.

Russia and China are complex economies and militaries.  They are highly vulnerable to air and naval interdiction.  There would be no need to commit ground forces except in defense.  And on defense, my money is that the US military would clean the clock of anybody trying to gain ground from it.  The war in Ukraine makes that very clear to me.

In short, Russia and China present exactly the type of war that the US is most ready to fight and best suited to win.  It better be after all those trillions of Dollars in defense spending

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

3 hours ago, Carolus said:

The dreaded "military-industrial complex", which has haunted us since Iraq, is a myth. As real as a boogeyman under my nephews' beds. 

We are seeing the largest conventional war in Europe since WW2 and the West is pushing more vehicles to the scrapyard than out of the factories. No sinister cabal has managed to bring military expenditures even remotely to the level where they should be, given the situation.

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I'm no expert on your legal system but it seems you might be wrong here.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigation-conviction.html

Legally, Mr. Trump would remain eligible to be president even if he were imprisoned. The Constitution says nothing to the contrary.

Fun fact, if he was elected while in prison:

On the federal charges only, he could also try to pardon himself — or to commute his sentence, leaving his conviction in place but ending his imprisonment.

 

Correct.  Technically speaking there is no law against a politician serving in office and a prison sentence at the same time.  However, it is very unlikely that it would work out like that in reality due to other circumstances.  For example, not being able to perform the duties of elected office.  Such a person would be impeached and removed from office pretty quickly.  The polls suggest a large percentage of those predisposed towards voting for Trump would not do so if he were convicted of a felony, not to mention imprisoned because of one.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Zeleban is not a Russian troll. I have been following his posts for over a year and he seems like a really honest guy who just says what he thinks. I do not agree with a few things he said in the last few pages but in the grand scheme of things lets not forget he is actually living in Ukraine right now.

He sees this war in a way us who just follow it on the Internet cannot, so lets give him a break for passionately voicing his opinions even if we do not agree with some of those opinions.

I agree.  Couple a lifetime of hearing lies from Russia with a VERY understandable pessimism about both the West and the situation his country is in, I am not surprised by his reaction to the current state of affairs.  I just wish he'd acknowledge that he has some basic presumptions about the West that come from dubious sources (i.e. the same one that says this war was the result of Ukrainian and NATO aggression).

Steve