How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, photon said:

Here's my take from reading the thread and a bunch of OSINT:

This is one where I think it's meaningful to separate "Russia winning" from "Putin's regime winning". I'd suggest that on day 1 of the war, those two were in alignment: Russia wins by absorbing a large neighboring state into its sphere of influence with only targeted bloodshed (at the ruling elite). Putin's regime wins by propping up a vision of pan-Russian nationalism and empire building that cements Putin as Czar.

On day today of the war, those visions of victory are no longer in alignment. Russia has lost - they will not absorb Ukraine into their sphere of influence with only targeted bloodshed, and have actively reinforced the global ruleset by pushing Finland and Sweden into NATO and reawakening Europe to the necessity of self-defensive capability. They've also offered the west a huge opportunity to figure out what fighting a 21st century peer war looks like.

For Putin's regime, victory looks like staying in power. And he's been far more successful at that than we collectively predicted. Even Prigozhin's coup-like thing proved a manageable threat (for reasons that are unclear to me). Somehow recon-by-meat-assault isn't provoking civil unrest, &c. &c. So that one's not a loss for Putin yet. Economy still appears to be sort of functioning? Though it's hard to see how he can keep it that way indefinitely?

For Ukraine, the day 1 objective was "remain an independent and free society". That still appears to be their objective, and they're doing a yeoman's job of that. Jury's still out, though, on what the end state looks like.

Excellent post, Photon.  Succinct & clear & concise and well reasoned.  Just using words like 'win' and 'lose' are too simple for what's going on at this point.

[sfhand]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

...

Thanks for posting your answer to my question, it is greatly appreciated.

[sfhand]

6 minutes ago, photon said:

@The_Capt did this very thing:

 

 

6 minutes ago, photon said:

@The_Capt did this very thing:

 

I appreciate it, it happened while I was responding to Steve, or I would have used it as an example of the type of response my question was meant to elicit.

[riptides]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

.....

I'm still willing to have yet another debate about how to define "winning" and "losing".  I mean, cripes, it's probably been a couple of months since we had one.  I don't think anything has improved from the Russian perspective, but hey... I'm open to the possibility that I've missed something.

I'll start.

 

Russia wins by Putin remaining in power and occupying portions of Ukraine.

The collect west loses by the above. It loses more if and when sanctions are lifted in a return to "normalcy". Normalcy being defined as business as usual with Putins Russia.

 

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The thing I hate most about people flaming out after so many years is that I don't want them to go out that way.

Sometimes these events may be only the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know whether or not things in a personal life have piled up or exploded. One contributing factor can be enormous loss and grief. And/Or substance abuse stemming from other problems. Or just bad acid! And a person turns to the familiar confines of this forum. What follows is not much more than a stream of consciousness series of rants. Regardless, it’s pretty clear after the first few posts that he isn’t in Kansas any longer. I may be wrong, but feeding these sorts of posts after that never seems to serve either the forum or the person in whatever form of distress or bad humor. Instead, we have to plough through a heap of turgid nonsense for pages. Perhaps wiser use of everyone’s time and lives to cut them loose from further replies after the obvious is clear. 

[Beleg85]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

There is no reasonable critique of the Havana Syndrome claims on the grounds of Russia willingness or ability to directly attack American officials. The big question is if it is scientifically or otherwise plausible. So far, we have only seen effects without evidence of the cause. In addition, we are to believe that Russia has had this capability since perhaps the 1980's, they have been carting it around the world and no revelation of its existence has escaped the waves of file releases, defectors and intense American surveillance of the main enemy.

Is it possible. Sure.

Is it likely?  

Before 2018 I wouldn't think it was likely to simply use top nerve agent on the streets of cosy British town against a turncoat agent, who had zero value for years already- at least when comes to will of Kremlin. On techncial side, we don't get scope of US intelligence insight and how much it knows about such potentiall program; limited sonic or microwaves weapons likely do not need some super-advanced technology to be effective in such environments (is it?). Investigators suggest US may know a lot more about it but is unwilling to share, most probably due to potentiall dyplomatic repercussions.

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

I am in the same boat. People are in real pain. Something happened to at least some of them. The problem is that there is no scientifically plausible explanation yet and that there is some unknown, decades old Russian super weapon out there which is frankly the least plausible idea of all given how thoroughly much of the Russian intel services have been surveilled, infiltrated, defected from. Anything is possible but caveat emptor.

Perhaps it is devoped some joint cooperation with someone or in cell in third country. Iran, Cuba, China may be less penetrated by US intelligence (vide this Cuban spy serving yers  as American diplomat). Russians could be as well just testers of such device. Overall, it is perhaps more prudent to not suppose we know everything about Russia in and out, just bacause it is Russia. They still may have their own mysteries, even despite leaking like damaged ship.

Edited April 1 by Beleg85

[Tux]

1 hour ago, riptides said:

I'll start.

 

Russia wins by Putin remaining in power and occupying portions of Ukraine.

The collect west loses by the above. It loses more if and when sanctions are lifted in a return to "normalcy". Normalcy being defined as business as usual with Putins Russia.

 

So the West lost in 2014, then.

Someone aught to tell the Russians.

[billbindc]

43 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Before 2018 I wouldn't think it was likely to simply use top nerve agent on the streets of cosy British town against a turncoat agent, who had zero value for years already- at least when comes to will of Kremlin. On techncial side, we don't get scope of US intelligence insight and how much it knows about such potentiall program; limited sonic or microwaves weapons likely do not need some super-advanced technology to be effective in such environments (is it?). Investigators suggest US may know a lot more about it but is unwilling to share, most probably due to potentiall dyplomatic repercussions.

Perhaps it is devoped some joint cooperation with someone or in cell in third country. Iran, Cuba, China may be less penetrated by US intelligence (vide this Cuban spy serving yers  as American diplomat). Russians could be as well just testers of such device. Overall, it is perhaps more prudent to not suppose we know everything about Russia in and out, just bacause it is Russia. They still may have their own mysteries, even despite leaking like damaged ship.

The story that's being presented is that a weapon developed as early as the 1970's has been used hundreds of times without being discovered. That is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. I was around pre and post Cold War and I can assert with some confidence that what the USG knew about secret programs before the wall came down was far more complete than it realized. This would literally be a unique case. 

On the technical side, I would strongly encourage reading Cheryl Rofer's article I posted above. There are very basic limitations in modern physics that powerfully militate against a directed energy weapon being capable of doing what is asserted. Again, we can't entirely rule it out but that claim is even more extraordinary than the one in the paragraph above. It needs equally extraordinary proof.

There is a powerful urge around this town to assume things that are not yet in evidence...driven in many cases by extremely faulty logic. One prominent claim is that the Biden administration is afraid to confront Russia. I would love to query the tens of thousands of dead mobiks at the hands of American materiel ask them if they concur. Somehow I doubt it.

So...I would say don't rule it out but the evidence so far is that while we know the Russians were up to something we don't have anything but circumstantial evidence so far. I, of course, do not expect such a prudential view will be the majority view around this town.

[sfhand]

19 hours ago, Baneman said:

So, sfhand - Steve asked some questions and you waved them away. Perhaps you would clarify - for example. for Steve's Point 

1. The Putin regime is a brutal dictatorship that has increasingly less tolerance for anything that questions its legitimacy

And you decided the answer was 

1.partially true partially false

Now I'd love to hear what part of the Putin regime is tolerant or not a brutal dictatorship  ? Because if the statement is partially false, then there must be some tolerance shown. I ( we here ) have not seen any, but perhaps you have access to info we do not ?

1. Russia unilaterally launched a war against Ukraine, unprovoked and without any rational justification.

Again, you go half half

4.partially true partially false in part depending on what one considers a provocation (not universal; see individuals per inverse Plato's Republic) and what one considers violations of treaties and ethnic cleansing

Apparently you think that Russia DID have some provocation, could you state what you believe it is ? Otherwise you're just throwing in "partially false" to try and justify the war somehow.
What treaties are you referring to ? And ethnic cleansing ?

You imply these are involved somehow, but again, fail to tell us what/how they inform your opinion.

So c'mon, this forum is a pretty vigorous place for peer review - give us some facts/info to back up your position - everyone else here has.

Baneman, how are you? Well I hope. Long time no see.

Before you think I am dodging you please stop to consider the bandwidth of comments directed at me. I am definitely not addressing all of them, in part because I question the motives of many of the posters, due mainly to their belligerence. Due to our history I will take the time to respond to you now. I am going to be very brief...

1. Are dictators elected over and over again? I say no. You may say the elections there are rigged and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm more concerned, along with both major political parties in the US depending on who's ahead in the polls, about rigged elections in the US.

I do believe Putin is increasingly less tolerant of dissent, so I said partially true on that. Do I need to point out our leadership, I would say in the "West", is growing less tolerant of anything that questions their legitimacy? See free speech laws in Europe. Obviously you are free to draw your own conclusions. Hopefully you know it is not my way label you for holding them.

4. The tripping point here is unprovoked and without rational justification. To answer your questions about the treaties see: Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. The German chancellor was caught on tape admitting Minsk 2 was entered into to buy time for Ukraine to build up an army revealing that the diplomatic actions undertaken to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from continued attacks, and allow for autonomy to prevent a civil war in Ukraine, were duplicitous and served to buy time in the preparation for war against the east's ethnically Russian population.

Couple this with the fact the CIA, US foreign policy establishment, and intelligence services, along with Senators McCain, Klobuchar, and Graham, were operating in Ukraine in a realized effort to overthrow the democratically elected president of the Ukraine, who still had a year on his term. After the goon squad was done overthrowing the president they went east to kill all who opposed the coup. Russia responded to this by militarily supporting the ethnic Russians.

These are my current understandings of the situation back then. Of course I am open to changing my opinion should compelling information come to my attention, but as it stands the Russians acted rationally, way more rationally than the US and its allies did when invading Iraq. So, grading on a curve...

And yes, one man's goon squad are another mans freedom fighters, who just incidentally overthrew a democratically elected government.

Be well Baneman, it's good to see you still around. All my best to you brother.

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, sfhand said:

1. Are dictators elected over and over again? I say no. You may say the elections there are rigged and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm more concerned, along with both major political parties in the US depending on who's ahead in the polls, about rigged elections in the US.

See kids, this is the problem with rejecting the "reality based community". You just become a red pilled font of balderdash.

[Bearstronaut]

30 minutes ago, billbindc said:

See kids, this is the problem with rejecting the "reality based community". You just become a red pilled font of balderdash.

That's a more polite word then I would use. 

 

33 minutes ago, sfhand said:

 

1. Are dictators elected over and over again? I say no. You may say the elections there are rigged and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm more concerned, along with both major political parties in the US depending on who's ahead in the polls, about rigged elections in the US.

 

Kim Jong Un is elected over and over again. Surely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't a dictatorship. I mean, it's right there in the name. Kim Jong Un and his father and grandfather are simply the inheritors of the Baektu bloodline and therefore are/were chosen by the minjok of North Korea in proper, totally above board elections.

[Offshoot]

Looking at the news cycle, Havana syndrome is having another moment in the limelight. Maybe it is like flesh-eating disease - case numbers remain relatively stable year on year but every now and then the media picks up on it, starts feeding on itself and then mass reports it like it is a new thing come to get us all.

As it happens, a scientific report (not clear if it has been peer-reviewed and officially published yet) and a literature review have just been released too (March 2024) if anyone is interested.

NIH studies find severe symptoms of “Havana Syndrome,” but no evidence of MRI-detectable brain injury or biological abnormalities

“Havana Syndrome”: A post mortem

Edited April 1 by Offshoot

[Sojourner]

2 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Any evidence that sfhand and MTG are NOT the same person?

Plenty, MTG is nowhere near as articulate, plus her vocabulary doesn't extend beyond monosyllables.

[dan/california]

33 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Looking at the news cycle, Havana syndrome is having another moment in the limelight. Maybe it is like flesh-eating disease - case numbers remain relatively stable year on year but every now and then the media picks up on it, starts feeding on itself and then mass reports it like it is a new thing come to get us all.

As it happens, a scientific report (not clear if it has been peer-reviewed and officially published yet) and a literature review have just been released too (March 2024) if anyone is interested.

NIH studies find severe symptoms of “Havana Syndrome,” but no evidence of MRI-detectable brain injury or biological abnormalities

“Havana Syndrome”: A post mortem

I can tell you from painful personal experience that you can be bleeping near crippled from long COVID while every test they can think to run comes back negative. On some level Havana Syndrome is same kind of the same thing. 

[Jiggathebauce]

1 hour ago, sfhand said:

 

4. The tripping point here is unprovoked and without rational justification. To answer your questions about the treaties see: Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. The German chancellor was caught on tape admitting Minsk 2 was entered into to buy time for Ukraine to build up an army revealing that the diplomatic actions undertaken to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from continued attacks, and allow for autonomy to prevent a civil war in Ukraine, were duplicitous and served to buy time in the preparation for war against the east's ethnically Russian population.

Couple this with the fact the CIA, US foreign policy establishment, and intelligence services, along with Senators McCain, Klobuchar, and Graham, were operating in Ukraine in a realized effort to overthrow the democratically elected president of the Ukraine, who still had a year on his term. After the goon squad was done overthrowing the president they went east to kill all who opposed the coup. Russia responded to this by militarily supporting the ethnic Russians.

These are my current understandings of the situation back then. Of course I am open to changing my opinion should compelling information come to my attention, but as it stands the Russians acted rationally, way more rationally than the US and its allies did when invading Iraq. So, grading on a curve...

And yes, one man's goon squad are another mans freedom fighters, who just incidentally overthrew a democratically elected government.

Be well Baneman, it's good to see you still around. All my best to you brother.

The maidan movement was not a us goon squad, it was a popular uprising against a guy who was previously thrown out already once before, the first time he was president.  For great background on all of this that would challenge your narrative watch the following video and the rest of the series

 

https://youtu.be/exJ024Zdzdk?si=W3_R2k0E7tVFqDn0

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, sfhand said:

4. The tripping point here is unprovoked and without rational justification. To answer your questions about the treaties see: Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. The German chancellor was caught on tape admitting Minsk 2 was entered into to buy time for Ukraine to build up an army revealing that the diplomatic actions undertaken to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from continued attacks, and allow for autonomy to prevent a civil war in Ukraine, were duplicitous and served to buy time in the preparation for war against the east's ethnically Russian population.

Wait a minute.  So the Minks agreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

These were drafted after Russia had taken Crimea and Donbas.  The first one failed after Russia broke it.  This casts serious doubt as to Minsk 2 and whether it was conducted in good faith by either side.  So your theory is that Minsk Treaties were designed to allow Ukraine to go in and “finish the job”?  With western support?  This would be after Russia basically used conventional troops to back the rebel forces.  Minsk 2 was largely viewed as held together by bailing twine and frankly most are surprised it lasted as long at it did.

Even if this somewhat dubious theory held water, how does this justify a full scale invasion of Ukraine along 5-6 operational axis, including the capital by Russia?  They did it to protect LNR/DPR?  That does not make sense.  If Russia wanted to intervene to stabilize a potential Ukrainian ethnic cleansing there are a lot of way to do this that do not involve a full scale invasion.  Also, what proof is there that Ukraine was preparing to go into the Donbas?  Reports from the opening days of the war show how unprepared Ukraine really was.  This was not a state reading for a large scale military operation.

So, we have an opinion here that really does not add up based on what we think we know.  Do you have other facts or analysis we are missing?

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, sfhand said:

1. Are dictators elected over and over again?

Yes! In fact that's one of the clearest signs that you're looking at a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. Democratic elections are competitive. Elections in single-party democracies* (a.k.a. dictatorships) are not competitive, and are really only conducted at all in order to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy.

*A single-party democracy either only allows one party to run, or may allow other parties to run as straw-men but will only ever allow one party to win. Almost all modern dictatorships are single-party democracies. They provide an advantage over classic dictatorships if you are the dictator since you get a little extra legalistic justification for your rule, without ever really challenging your rule.

[Kinophile]

Oh for God's sake, are we still engaging with this guy? 

Cmon,  that last post ("rigged elections in the US") pretty much seals the political troll label. 

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm still willing to have yet another debate about how to define "winning" and "losing".  I mean, cripes, it's probably been a couple of months since we had one.  I don't think anything has improved from the Russian perspective, but hey... I'm open to the possibility that I've missed something.

I don't watch this thread as closely as I used to, so I hadn't realized the victory conditions had been cast into doubt. They're worth reiterating in case anyone forgot what's at stake. Based on what I've been reading from ISW, Putin still maintains his maximalist objectives (despite those becoming less and less realistic as the war goes on). And I think we all know what victory means for Ukraine.

The victory conditions are clearly asymmetric. So defeat for one side is not the same as victory for the other side (this is a point I recall you making a number of times). It's definitely impossible for both sides to win. But it is very possible for both sides to lose.

Victory for Ukraine I think means driving Russia completely out of Ukraine's 1991 internationally recognized borders. Defeat for Ukraine means being forced to accept anything less than driving Russia completely out of Ukraine's 1991 internationally recognized borders.

Victory for Russia (if Putin still maintains his maximalist objectives, as ISW assesses, and I'm correctly interpreting "demilitarize and denazify") means the complete overthrow of the legitimately elected Ukrainian government, followed either by replacement with a government friendly to Russia or complete annexation of Ukraine into the Russian Federation. Defeat for Russia means anything less than the complete overthrow of the legitimately elected Ukrainian government, followed either by replacement with a government friendly to Russia or complete annexation of Ukraine into the Russian Federation.  

[Desertor]

He's not leaving, Steve don't ban him. And I am feed up with so much nonsense. 

I'll try for first time the ignore button. Bye SFhand, have a perfect day

[sfhand]

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Wait a minute.  So the Minks agreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

These were drafted after Russia had taken Crimea and Donbas.  The first one failed after Russia broke it.  This casts serious doubt as to Minsk 2 and whether it was conducted in good faith by either side.  So your theory is that Minsk Treaties were designed to allow Ukraine to go in and “finish the job”?  With western support?  This would be after Russia basically used conventional troops to back the rebel forces.  Minsk 2 was largely viewed as held together by bailing twine and frankly most are surprised it lasted as long at it did.

Even if this somewhat dubious theory held water, how does this justify a full scale invasion of Ukraine along 5-6 operational axis, including the capital by Russia?  They did it to protect LNR/DPR?  That does not make sense.  If Russia wanted to intervene to stabilize a potential Ukrainian ethnic cleansing there are a lot of way to do this that do not involve a full scale invasion.  Also, what proof is there that Ukraine was preparing to go into the Donbas?  Reports from the opening days of the war show how unprepared Ukraine really was.  This was not a state reading for a large scale military operation.

So, we have an opinion here that really does not add up based on what we think we know.  Do you have other facts or analysis we are missing?

Did you read the actual agreement, particularly points 9 - 11?

If so, what does restoring territorial integrity to the Ukraine mean to you?

The referendums on territorial autonomy were very messy, see here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27360146

Of course the west supports these types of referendums, i.e. splitting territory from established countries, when it supports their agenda, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Croatian_independence_referendum

Like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight and have no interest in justifying any state actions, including our own, but to say these types of events aren't driven by rational reasoning given the state of the world seems a bridge too far for me. Of course I don't expect you or anyone else here to agree, which I am 100% okay with.

Enjoy your evening...

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, sfhand said:

Baneman, how are you? Well I hope. Long time no see.

Before you think I am dodging you please stop to consider the bandwidth of comments directed at me. I am definitely not addressing all of them, in part because I question the motives of many of the posters, due mainly to their belligerence. Due to our history I will take the time to respond to you now. I am going to be very brief...

1. Are dictators elected over and over again? I say no. You may say the elections there are rigged and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm more concerned, along with both major political parties in the US depending on who's ahead in the polls, about rigged elections in the US.

I do believe Putin is increasingly less tolerant of dissent, so I said partially true on that. Do I need to point out our leadership, I would say in the "West", is growing less tolerant of anything that questions their legitimacy? See free speech laws in Europe. Obviously you are free to draw your own conclusions. Hopefully you know it is not my way label you for holding them.

4. The tripping point here is unprovoked and without rational justification. To answer your questions about the treaties see: Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. The German chancellor was caught on tape admitting Minsk 2 was entered into to buy time for Ukraine to build up an army revealing that the diplomatic actions undertaken to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from continued attacks, and allow for autonomy to prevent a civil war in Ukraine, were duplicitous and served to buy time in the preparation for war against the east's ethnically Russian population.

Couple this with the fact the CIA, US foreign policy establishment, and intelligence services, along with Senators McCain, Klobuchar, and Graham, were operating in Ukraine in a realized effort to overthrow the democratically elected president of the Ukraine, who still had a year on his term. After the goon squad was done overthrowing the president they went east to kill all who opposed the coup. Russia responded to this by militarily supporting the ethnic Russians.

These are my current understandings of the situation back then. Of course I am open to changing my opinion should compelling information come to my attention, but as it stands the Russians acted rationally, way more rationally than the US and its allies did when invading Iraq. So, grading on a curve...

And yes, one man's goon squad are another mans freedom fighters, who just incidentally overthrew a democratically elected government.

Be well Baneman, it's good to see you still around. All my best to you brother.

And there we finally have something to dig into!  Unfortunately, it is exactly as I suspected from the first vague posting... a thick line of BS propagated by a totalitarian state in order to help serve it's imperialistic, racial, and religious (well, if you can call Russian Orthodoxy a religion) quest to be on top so that it's ruling elite can get even richer.  As I mentioned already, if you see "BRICS" mentioned you know where it is headed.

Sfhand, you think you are some free thinker who has found all the right answers that have eluded everybody else.  Ironically, you're the one that's bought a line of thick propaganda BS that is put out by a ruthless dictatorship intent on undermining the very things you supposedly hold dear to you.  You are an agent of Moscow, and not knowing that doesn't make it any less true.

False equivocation, everything is directed by the hidden hand (primarily the US), people can't possibly act on their own without the US being involved, Russia isn't to blame for anything, etc.  These are all Russian talking points that could easily be found on Russia Today before it was (thankfully) banned.  Russian trolls have been spouting this nonsense since long before Maidan.  I know because I've argued with them since the days of USENET (anybody under 40 might have to look that up).

I've been down this road so many times and it never goes anywhere productive.  Trying to correct someone firmly disbelieves in objective truth is like playing and endless game of whack-a-mole... as quickly as you knock one Russian propaganda point down another one pops up.  Whataboutisms abound.

Sooo... I'm bowing out.  I am not going to spend my time on this Earth arguing about it's shape.  The damned thing is round.

However, I'm not going to swing the "ban hammer threat" quite yet (though that is often where conspiracy theorist arguments wind up).  Maybe sfhand is one of the rare adherents to the anti-West BS that flows from Moscow that can be shown the errors of his ways.  Stranger things have been known to happen.  So I'm not going to shut this down quite yet, but I'm also not going to let us be too distracted from talking about what is really happening in this complicated world of ours.

Steve

[sfhand]

38 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Yes! In fact that's one of the clearest signs that you're looking at a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. Democratic elections are competitive. Elections in single-party democracies* (a.k.a. dictatorships) are not competitive, and are really only conducted at all in order to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy.

*A single-party democracy either only allows one party to run, or may allow other parties to run as straw-men but will only ever allow one party to win. Almost all modern dictatorships are single-party democracies. They provide an advantage over classic dictatorships if you are the dictator since you get a little extra legalistic justification for your rule, without ever really challenging your rule.

Do you know why the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was enacted. Do you know how many consecutive terms FDR held the presidency? Those elections weren't competitive, per se. Are you implying the US was under a dictatorial rule then?

Link here:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/franklin-d-roosevelt-public-approval

[sfhand]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And there we finally have something to dig into!  Unfortunately, it is exactly as I suspected from the first vague posting... a thick line of BS propagated by a totalitarian state in order to help serve it's imperialistic, racial, and religious (well, if you can call Russian Orthodoxy a religion) quest to be on top so that it's ruling elite can get even richer.  As I mentioned already, if you see "BRICS" mentioned you know where it is headed.

Sfhand, you think you are some free thinker who has found all the right answers that have eluded everybody else.  Ironically, you're the one that's bought a line of thick propaganda BS that is put out by a ruthless dictatorship intent on undermining the very things you supposedly hold dear to you.  You are an agent of Moscow, and not knowing that doesn't make it any less true.

False equivocation, everything is directed by the hidden hand (primarily the US), people can't possibly act on their own without the US being involved, Russia isn't to blame for anything, etc.  These are all Russian talking points that could easily be found on Russia Today before it was (thankfully) banned.  Russian trolls have been spouting this nonsense since long before Maidan.  I know because I've argued with them since the days of USENET (anybody under 40 might have to look that up).

I've been down this road so many times and it never goes anywhere productive.  Trying to correct someone firmly disbelieves in objective truth is like playing and endless game of whack-a-mole... as quickly as you knock one Russian propaganda point down another one pops up.  Whataboutisms abound.

Sooo... I'm bowing out.  I am not going to spend my time on this Earth arguing about it's shape.  The damned thing is round.

However, I'm not going to swing the "ban hammer threat" quite yet (though that is often where conspiracy theorist arguments wind up).  Maybe sfhand is one of the rare adherents to the anti-West BS that flows from Moscow that can be shown the errors of his ways.  Stranger things have been known to happen.  So I'm not going to shut this down quite yet, but I'm also not going to let us be too distracted from talking about what is really happening in this complicated world of ours.

Steve

So, to be clear, you are saying that disagreeing on geopolitics is a bannable offense here now? Well I'm not gonna recant but I am not trying to offend your geopolitical sensibilities. By the way, I'm not conspiring with anyone. I feel like I've been thrown back into the 1950s.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I don't watch this thread as closely as I used to, so I hadn't realized the victory conditions had been cast into doubt.

sfhand brought it up before it was confirmed he's operating on a Russian script, so I figure it is at least revisiting as we haven't done so in a few months.

12 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

They're worth reiterating in case anyone forgot what's at stake. Based on what I've been reading from ISW, Putin still maintains his maximalist objectives (despite those becoming less and less realistic as the war goes on). And I think we all know what victory means for Ukraine.

The victory conditions are clearly asymmetric. So defeat for one side is not the same as victory for the other side (this is a point I recall you making a number of times). It's definitely impossible for both sides to win. But it is very possible for both sides to lose.

Victory for Ukraine I think means driving Russia completely out of Ukraine's 1991 internationally recognized borders. Defeat for Ukraine means being forced to accept anything less than driving Russia completely out of Ukraine's 1991 internationally recognized borders.

Victory for Russia (if Putin still maintains his maximalist objectives, as ISW assesses, and I'm correctly interpreting "demilitarize and denazify") means the complete overthrow of the legitimately elected Ukrainian government, followed either by replacement with a government friendly to Russia or complete annexation of Ukraine into the Russian Federation. Defeat for Russia means anything less than the complete overthrow of the legitimately elected Ukrainian government, followed either by replacement with a government friendly to Russia or complete annexation of Ukraine into the Russian Federation.  

I think it's pretty clear that traditional definitions of "winning" are off the table.  Even if all of Russia's forces withdrew from Ukraine, including the 2014 seizures, the amount of death, destruction, and ethnic cleansing is difficult to feel victorious about.  "Won" may still be an appropriate term if that were to happen, but it's not likely and hence why I say it's off the table.

It's also off the table for Russia.  Anybody who understands why Russia invaded Ukraine, what it has suffered by doing so, and is likely to suffer for the next 10-20 years will be very hard pressed to show Russia being ahead of where it would (or could) otherwise be.  So no, there's no way Russia can "win" this war even if Ukraine were to completely surrender tomorrow.

Therefore, when the fighting ceases (as it eventually will) relative success/failure will be based on what each nation set out to do at the beginning of this war.  We've been over this many times before, but Ukraine has an advantage in that it's goal is to simply exist. 

Russia, on the other hand, has a complex array of goals for this war, the most important of which is erasing Ukraine as a nation state and as a culture distinct from Russia's.  This might still be achievable, but the rest clearly is not.  Challenging NATO expansion... fail.  Checking NATO's power in former Soviet/Warsaw Pact territories... fail.  Keeping the Near Abroad in line with Moscow's economic, political, and military policies... fail.  Gaining, or at least maintaining economic leverage over Europe... fail.  Having European leaders give in to whatever Russia demands... fail.  There's more of this, but I think that's enough.

The one other thing Russia might have a shot at gaining ground on is undermining Western democracies from within.  The decades of careful planning and lavish spending on undermining the West have left their mark (sfhand being an example).  Although Russian influence peddling and corrupting influences have been curbed, they may have done enough to get balls rolling enough that they can carry on under their own power now.  We're seeing far right, fascist based movements sympathetic to Russia still gaining ground even as Russian fails militarily.

So, militarily Russia has lost this war by an objective accounting of cost:benefit.  But it doesn't mean Russia will walk away with nothing. It could even be something significant, however I don't think Russia can survive the costs it's expended and therefore might not be able to realize much from it.

Steve