How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Cost vs gains - cost here is also time and narrative.

I question the western resolve to support a war that drags on for another 3 yrs so that Ukraine can take back stuff it has not held since 2014.  Without western support, particularly ISR, this conflict has a good chance of freezing back to where it was on 22 Feb 22.

Ukrainian economically stronger with Donbas - c'mon, we have covered this.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GRP.  The Donbas constitutes $6.8 billion GRP (2020) our of a national $113.8 billion.  At this point is is cheaper for the west to pay Ukraine to not try and take it back, than whatever they expect to develop in a hostile territory that shares a border with the enemy - that actively supports that border.

Sure, except the for the facts that 1) Crimea is a freakin nightmare to try and take back militarily, 2) see Donbas on local hostility potential and 3) it is the one spot that might trigger a true nuclear escalation...sorry not worth it either.  Declare Sevastopol an open city, whatever, and move on.

The only way it happens easy - and ffs we should not be falling into that trap anymore than Putin did at the start of this thing - is a total Russian collapse.  Not military but national.  If that happens, sure go for it, there is no more Russia to push back.  Short of that, I am pretty sure we already proved our point.

Opponents of the West have already got the message.  [aside: I do not for second want to under value the frankly breathtaking efforts of the UA and Ukrainians but we are talking projected narrative here] We took an underdog nation that by all military metrics we understand should have fallen months ago, and turned it into a terrifying war beast that is crushing a P5 nation on the battlefield. Do you seriously think we really care where lines on the map line up right now?  Do you think China is going to go "well sure, but you did not take Crimea back"...?! 

There is tons of disincentives for Ukraine not to go all the way, given current conditions (see Russian collapse).  There will be a point when the sacrifice equation for the west splits from Ukraine on this trajectory because we 1) already proved our point, 2) want stability, more war for symbolic land gains really is not a sold concept for us, and 3) Russia sucks and we can continue to punish it; however, this war is not existential for the west at this point - it was back in Feb.  So dragging this well out, at this point is likely to start to take the shine off. 

I have said for some time - Russia back in line, regime of gangsters we can deal with, strong rebuilt Ukraine with a westward facing.  None of these are hinging on Donbas or Crimea. 

Last point of narrative - right now Ukraine is on top.  The underdog little guy who really knocked the bully on his ***.  Re-take Kharkiv and Kherson, Melitopol and Mariupol - have a parade: "today is our independence day!"  Oh wait, Ukraine wants another year or two of slugging to retake land it hasn't held since the Obama administration?  Oh and we are going to spend billions more on that instead of re-building Ukrainian schools and businesses?  Oh, look another election cycle. 

I am not an expert on Ukrainian, or Russian political mechanisms, personalities or perspectives as they relate to military affairs.  I am an expert on US/5EYES and NATO, but I do not need to be to know how this will go in the west, without a major strategic shift to reframe these regions as existential to us.  The "oh, no not another Afghanistan/Iraq voices will get louder" and once seats change this could risk the entire reconstruction momentum.  As I wrote, China is shackled to a zombie right now - you can fill in the blanks if the West wakes up one morning and thinks it is shackled to a rabid dog.  

One thing that has saved in my opinion, the complete destruction of Russian/Soviet equipment vs the West is the way how Ukraine has, despite having less than Russia, been able to use Soviet era equipment in a much more skillful manner in general. Lots of reasons for it, and obviously western equipment has changed a lot of the game, but i think it would be folly to not recognize the Ukrainians and their mindset and culture militarily, socially, and civically vs that of Russia as contributing much if not most of the war success they have seen. Morale, culture, the rhetorical underpinnings of this war and conflict, we are seeing with this conflict very clear benefits of that for a country that was not supposed to succeed in a conventional conflict vs Russia. 

No offensive to Russia (nah **** Russia, full offensive to them for launching a genocidal war) but I'm going to suggest any economic drag in the Donbas is due largely to the fact that Russia is a mafia state intent only on resource extraction since you can steal money from that the easiest. Russian GDP is vastly under what such a country should be capable of on paper. No surprise that their administration of occupied Donbas, hell their administration of the currently occupied areas of Ukraine is utter trash. 

Again, majority of those in the Donbas sided with Ukraine, Ukraine was about to crush the separatists had the Russian military not intervened, with how Russia is using the occupied people right now, there is a decent chance there won't be much a base for hostile action against Ukraine anyhow. Manpower in the republics is by all accounts, fully exhausted, they are pulling the sick, too old into the frontlines. 

I just laid out in a prior response why the nuclear escalation between Ukraine and Russia is much more narrow than the West vs Russia, but again, if Ukraine folds to nuclear escalation, Russia will be able to pull that card again and again. There is no other option for Ukraine except to dare Russia to do so, because Russia has nearly or in some sense, exhausted all conventional escalation steps.

By launching the red button option, the full invasion of Ukraine with the goal of ending the state and Ukrainian people, one of the reasons why analysts didn't see this happening was it was absolutely a foolish, all in response, instead of a scenario that many predicted, had Russia simply opted for limited offensives into the Donbas region, most of Western backlash wouldn't have occurred, and Russia could still threaten higher escalatory moves to force Ukraine to fold. 

Why the peace talks where Zelensky tried to offer some sort of deal, cause the Russians had them on the ropes (and i must point out those were also deescalating steps), the fact that Russia basically refused all of them is also just basically pressing the big red "No more Ukraine" button ten times over!

If the West folds to nuclear escalation (which it can't either lest nuclear armed states are legitimized into seizing territory, AND since Russia is threatening it after announcing the impending annexation of the occupied regions of Ukraine, this is also a escalatory response from the prior demands of denazification and neutrality of Ukraine!!!  ), Ukraine cannot fold, cause then Ukraine would be offering itself up to nuclear blackmail with a reachable goal of ending Ukraine as a state.

I want to note that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan lasted from 2001 to 2021. 20 years!! For crying out loud, the U.S period of active occupation of Iraq from 2001 to 2013 is eight years, the same time period from 2014 when Russia took over Crimea to 2022! And we still went back in 2014 into Iraq till 2021 for ISIS!

And the amount of money for both, quick google says its 4-6 trillion dollars, which is 4000 billions at least, the amount spent since the invasion began in February for Ukraine is only about $50 billion. The amount spent on the Afghani military by the U.S, therefore omitting U.S costs of its actual forces, from 2001 to 2021 was $73 billion according to info on this link. Again, that isn't including reconstruction, or the cost of deploying U.S forces. The $50 billion to Ukraine includes both military and non-military aid and financing. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you on the ability of the West or the U.S to stay the course in Ukraine. Let us not forget the psychological toll (toll isnt the right word, too harsh in my opinion but I'll call it that for now) that deploying American troops incurred on the desire of the American people to end the U.S involvement in both those conflicts. 

By comparison, Ukraine is a freaking children's book. With bipartisan agreement mind you. 

A year supporting Ukraine with no boots on the ground is gonna break the will of the American people, big doubt. hell, 2021, decent chance had we stayed in Afghanistan, the American people would right now present day probably give less a damn about Afghanistan and the continuing investment in it than had we left.  

[kraze]

3 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

We have seen how popular uprisings go. It gets bloody for the guys without guns and tanks.

Only good outcomes if the guys with guns have at least partial change of heart.

In that case we need not worry - those protesters that get grabbed right now - will have guns really soon. That will change things.

[Combatintman]

24 minutes ago, sburke said:

another window mishap

Russian Aviation Scientist Anatoly Gerashchenko Falls to His Death in Latest Plunge Mystery (thedailybeast.com)

An aviation expert has become the latest Russian official to fall to his death in mysterious circumstances.

Anatoly Gerashchenko, the former head of Moscow’s Aviation Institute (MAI), died in a mysterious fall inside the institute’s headquarters in the Russian capital on Tuesday.

The organization’s press office released a statement describing the 73-year-old’s death as “the result of an accident,” adding that his untimely demise was a “a colossal loss for the MAI and the scientific and pedagogical community.”

Russian news outlet Izvestia, citing an unnamed source, reported that Gerashchenko “fell from a great height” and careened down several flights of stairs. He was reportedly pronounced dead at the scene.

Planned suicide ... I mean he was an aviation scientist ...

[kevinkin]

Will the Allies allow Putin a way out by not forcing him into a corner like a rat where his life and/or his regime are threatened? Perhaps yesterday's declarations are a means to provide his sorry *** more time to figure out if he can stay in power or even alive. This is a delicate period and we all want the jugular. But the critical thing is bring about a peace that is overwhelmingly advantageous for Ukraine having security for generations. That would be historic. 

[DesertFox]

Kherson

 

 

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

And I will do you one better - we in the west do not want Russia to totally collapse. 

I think a big reason why we differ, is the risk of Russian collapse, I don't think its likely, and whatever does happen will not be anywhere as bad as the breakup of the Soviet Union. Kamil Galeev, who despite being quite wrong on many things, is a Tatar separatist, and so if he thinks that Russia won't collapse due to ethnic conflicts but more on economic and geographic grounds where political divisions aren't really cracking till much later after economic cracking, I'm quite inclined to see someone who would want the breakup along ethnic lines acknowledge that's not gonna be the main reason why.

Any battles for control of Russia have so far taken place so far among the elite, without too much visibility on the general public. A loud breakup or fight for control risks money flows, money that still flows largely. And aside from slow economic collapse paving the way for political breakup, I just don't see how Russia collapses otherwises in a big fashion. States that are near death still take a lot to collapse, and can last a long time. 

[Chibot Mk IX]

So, here we go. 300 thousands fresh cannon fodders. No surprise this is not a mass mobilization.  

I think this has been discussed before. Russian military cannot handle a mass mobilization.

Kamil Galeev : Why mass mobilisation in Russia won't work?

The existing Russian training facilities that survives Serdykov's reform can only handle 200K-300K at most, assuming Russian Army can pull all the training school instructors out of the frontline,  put them back to the training schools. 

 

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

И я сделаю вам еще лучше - мы на западе не хотим, чтобы Россия полностью развалилась. Мы определенно хотим смены режима и привлечения нынешних к ответственности за вопиющие преступления против человечности. Мы хотим стабильности и повторной нормализации  , потому что это то, что мы продаем . Мы хотим смены власти в России, и хотим, чтобы она была как можно более бескровной.

Мы прошли через это, Россия в полном свободном падении — полная противоположность стабильности и перенормализации. Вплоть до того, что если это произойдет в самом мрачном воплощении, мы можем говорить о вмешательстве Запада. Для Запада это всегда было поражением России  на Украине. Не тотальное поражение России как нации. Мы хотим, чтобы он был сдержанным, сдержанным и на коротком поводке. Мы хотим, чтобы он продавал СПГ для выплаты репараций, мы хотим, чтобы он был между нами и Китаем, а не в их заднем кармане.  

Теперь то, что мы получаем, скорее всего, другая история. 

In the West, people very afraid of the collapse of Russia into several enclaves with nuclear weapons. But history knows an example of such a collapse without any negative consequences for the countries of the West. I'm talking about the collapse of the USSR and the Russian Federation and Ukraine as such enclaves with nuclear weapons (Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal after the US and Russia). But neither Russia nor Ukraine posed any threats to Western countries after their appearance. The West easily found a common language with these countries. I am sure that this will also be the case in the event of the collapse of the Russian Federation, and all fear of unmanaged nuclear enclaves is simply pumped up by the media affiliated with Moscow.

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I want to note that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan lasted from 2001 to 2021. 20 years!! For crying out loud, the U.S period of active occupation of Iraq from 2001 to 2013 is eight years, the same time period from 2014 when Russia took over Crimea to 2022! And we still went back in 2014 into Iraq till 2021 for ISIS!

And the amount of money for both, quick google says its 4-6 trillion dollars, which is 4000 billions at least, the amount spent since the invasion began in February for Ukraine is only about $50 billion. The amount spent on the Afghani military by the U.S, therefore omitting U.S costs of its actual forces, from 2001 to 2021 was $73 billion according to info on this link. Again, that isn't including reconstruction, or the cost of deploying U.S forces. The $50 billion to Ukraine includes both military and non-military aid and financing. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you on the ability of the West or the U.S to stay the course in Ukraine. Let us not forget the psychological toll (toll isnt the right word, too harsh in my opinion but I'll call it that for now) that deploying American troops incurred on the desire of the American people to end the U.S involvement in both those conflicts. 

By comparison, Ukraine is a freaking children's book. With bipartisan agreement mind you. 

A year supporting Ukraine with no boots on the ground is gonna break the will of the American people, big doubt. hell, 2021, decent chance had we stayed in Afghanistan, the American people would right now present day probably give less a damn about Afghanistan and the continuing investment in it than had we left.

Herein lies the central problem - we are living in a post-Afghanistan world.  We are also living in a post-pandemic world - our resolve is shaken and will remain shaken.  The single biggest fear for the West now in Ukraine, is that it becomes another Afghanistan.  You have hit the nail directly on the head why western resolve is shakier.

Hell, we can barely stand each other post-pandemic, let alone bighting off yet another war on the other side of the planet. Let alone one that could escalate into something really bad. This is the reason why a journey into pre-2014 lines, or dragging this out carries so much risk.  The US and the West have been the global police force for 30 years and all it got us was unsolvable ethnic-based messes that we had to pay for and f#cking terrorism in our back yard.  We are tired of doing this but are kind of stuck with it - turned out winning the Cold War meant holding the bag.  China is in the backfield waiting for its moment and we want hands on the pens that re-write things so we are, again, stuck with the job.  However, we do not want any more misadventures - they days of a great new world order and shining city on a hill are over - humanity is crazy and we are tired of managing it, especially when we have our own crazy to deal with.

We need to stay committed and in this fight because it matters; however, the second it looks like it does not you can count on people voting with their...well, votes.  We need to finish the job, but that job likely does not include what you are proposing under the current conditions.  So everyone put on your negotiating shoes.  You do not have to like it, nor does it make it "right", but it is the reality.

I honestly hope I am wrong and either the RA falls, timed perfectly with a soft Russian power vacuum and Ukraine can take back those lines, and magically all those people that live there who prefer to be Russian either leave or change their minds.  Then we can have peace and happiness.  Russia will abandon autocrats and embrace real democracy and we can all link arms as we try and then put China back into a box - I can see the Federation starships from here. 

Just don't try and be too disappointed when that does not happen and we have to settle for bad and not worse.

[Harmon Rabb]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

In the West, people very afraid of the collapse of Russia into several enclaves with nuclear weapons. But history knows an example of such a collapse without any negative consequences for the countries of the West. I'm talking about the collapse of the USSR and the Russian Federation and Ukraine as such enclaves with nuclear weapons (Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal after the US and Russia). But neither Russia nor Ukraine posed any threats to Western countries after their appearance. The West easily found a common language with these countries. I am sure that this will also be the case in the event of the collapse of the Russian Federation, and all fear of unmanaged nuclear enclaves is simply pumped up by the media affiliated with Moscow.

I'm out of likes but this post definitely deserves one.

I'm just thinking out loud here and I know we are talking purely hypothetically here about a scenario that may not happen anytime soon. 

If the Russian Federation does indeed collapse would it be possible for the west to use a sort of carrot and stick approach(I'm thinking sweet financial incentives and sanctions) ,to get RF's successor states to get rid of their nuclear weapons?I think we can all agree that would be a nice possibility but is it realistic?

I'm just interested if this is a possible scenario and would like to hear other people's opinions.

Edited September 21, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

In the West, people very afraid of the collapse of Russia into several enclaves with nuclear weapons. But history knows an example of such a collapse without any negative consequences for the countries of the West. I'm talking about the collapse of the USSR and the Russian Federation and Ukraine as such enclaves with nuclear weapons (Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal after the US and Russia). But neither Russia nor Ukraine posed any threats to Western countries after their appearance. The West easily found a common language with these countries. I am sure that this will also be the case in the event of the collapse of the Russian Federation, and all fear of unmanaged nuclear enclaves is simply pumped up by the media affiliated with Moscow.

Big difference in this instance...enormous difference.  The USSR was a collection of functioning states, puppet states but still with the internal architecture to manage the state.  When it fell apart, it fell apart into those functioning states.  It was ugly and it was scary but it was orderly and manageable because we still had people in charge with whom to negotiate.

If Russia falls apart, there are no guarantees that it will do so along structured lines - in fact history supports the idea that it will collapse into micro-social lines below the state.  The immediate problem is that means there is no central control of the nuclear arsenal, and the next problem is that we in the West, have no idea who to negotiate with.

I am glad you are "sure", it means you sleep well at night; however, there is no one in defence and security that is going to run with that unless they have no other choice.  We cannot guarantee the alignment nor rationality of those "enclaves" and as such once they get their hands on nuclear weapons and become global powers, we have no idea how they may employ them.  They might simply destroy them, in fact 99 percent can do exactly that - oh my what a wonderfully civilized world.  That still leaves 60 rogue arrows out there that can either be employed for every reason under the rainbow, or worse, sold to someone who really wants to use them against us, each other or whatever their problem is.

You are damned right we are afraid of a Russian total collapse. 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Cost vs gains - cost here is also time and narrative.

I question the western resolve to support a war that drags on for another 3 yrs so that Ukraine can take back stuff it has not held since 2014.  Without western support, particularly ISR, this conflict has a good chance of freezing back to where it was on 22 Feb 22.

Ukrainian economically stronger with Donbas - c'mon, we have covered this.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GRP.  The Donbas constitutes $6.8 billion GRP (2020) our of a national $113.8 billion.  At this point is is cheaper for the west to pay Ukraine to not try and take it back, than whatever they expect to develop in a hostile territory that shares a border with the enemy - that actively supports that border.

Sure, except the for the facts that 1) Crimea is a freakin nightmare to try and take back militarily, 2) see Donbas on local hostility potential and 3) it is the one spot that might trigger a true nuclear escalation...sorry not worth it either.  Declare Sevastopol an open city, whatever, and move on.

The only way it happens easy - and ffs we should not be falling into that trap anymore than Putin did at the start of this thing - is a total Russian collapse.  Not military but national.  If that happens, sure go for it, there is no more Russia to push back.  Short of that, I am pretty sure we already proved our point.

Opponents of the West have already got the message.  [aside: I do not for second want to under value the frankly breathtaking efforts of the UA and Ukrainians but we are talking projected narrative here] We took an underdog nation that by all military metrics we understand should have fallen months ago, and turned it into a terrifying war beast that is crushing a P5 nation on the battlefield. Do you seriously think we really care where lines on the map line up right now?  Do you think China is going to go "well sure, but you did not take Crimea back"...?! 

There is tons of disincentives for Ukraine not to go all the way, given current conditions (see Russian collapse).  There will be a point when the sacrifice equation for the west splits from Ukraine on this trajectory because we 1) already proved our point, 2) want stability, more war for symbolic land gains really is not a sold concept for us, and 3) Russia sucks and we can continue to punish it; however, this war is not existential for the west at this point - it was back in Feb.  So dragging this well out, at this point is likely to start to take the shine off. 

I have said for some time - Russia back in line, regime of gangsters we can deal with, strong rebuilt Ukraine with a westward facing.  None of these are hinging on Donbas or Crimea. 

Last point of narrative - right now Ukraine is on top.  The underdog little guy who really knocked the bully on his ***.  Re-take Kharkiv and Kherson, Melitopol and Mariupol - have a parade: "today is our independence day!"  Oh wait, Ukraine wants another year or two of slugging to retake land it hasn't held since the Obama administration?  Oh and we are going to spend billions more on that instead of re-building Ukrainian schools and businesses?  Oh, look another election cycle. 

I am not an expert on Ukrainian, or Russian political mechanisms, personalities or perspectives as they relate to military affairs.  I am an expert on US/5EYES and NATO, but I do not need to be to know how this will go in the west, without a major strategic shift to reframe these regions as existential to us.  The "oh, no not another Afghanistan/Iraq voices will get louder" and once seats change this could risk the entire reconstruction momentum.  As I wrote, China is shackled to a zombie right now - you can fill in the blanks if the West wakes up one morning and thinks it is shackled to a rabid dog.  

 

2 hours ago, Huba said:

And 

 

In general, my impression is that Russia's neighbours have smelled the blood and if things keep going the way they are, we'll see RU collapse and massive change of security arrangements across it's whole (former) sphere of influence. Turkey, China, US/ NATO will gain a lot of influence, perhaps Iran too in the southern 'stans too. 
As for Belarus, if 1917 situation develops, I'm really hoping that it will 'pivot to the east'. It's really hard to predict how exactly that would happen, but some points I think are important:

- there's significant internal opposition to Luka, that was visible during the last rigged elections. He almost lost it to the protesters and is now completely dependent on RU for keeping his power. With collapsing RU, I can see the ground being  ready for a colour revolution
- there are significant Belarussian units fighting russians in Ukraine right now, a few battalions at least. I really see them playing a role in the future
- unless RU is in total chaos, I don't see a direct intervention in Belarus even from UA side, much less so from any NATO member. But if RU collapses, then all bets are off, it's just really hard to predict with any certainty.

 

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So how does $150B sound?  Worth more than the entire Donbas itself.

https://diplomacy.state.gov/exhibits/diplomacy-is-our-mission/the-marshall-plan/#:~:text=Under the Marshall Plan%2C the,nations between 1948 and 1951.

Now that commitment is on us in the West, we start going soft on it, hey fill your boots.  It likely will not matter where the lines on the map wind up if we do not reconstruct Ukraine on a scale the matches or exceeds post-WW2.  A shattered Ukraine will be picked up by China or fall apart and then what was the entire point of our support in this war?

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I had dinner last night with a recently retired US Army Colonel who spent most of his career in military intelligence.  Two other retired US Army guys in the mix.  We all agreed that regime change is going to be messy enough and lots of very bad things can happen.  Administrative collapse makes all that go up exponentially.  We've discussed all of this here, and frankly I've yet to find a scenario that is anything other than scary.  That was the consensus at the table (that and the beer and food were quite good!).

Ukraine is Russia's neighbor.  It needs to be mindful of the various scenarios and consider how they impact their own quality of life.  Some of the scenarios are quite awful for Ukraine, others just crappy.  The best scenario for Ukraine is a regime change that produces some sort of ceasefire and no administrative collapse at the Kremlin level.  I say "best" because every realistic scenario we've come up with here is much worse.

A sci-fi book I read a while back had Humans invading an enemy stronghold planet for the first time.  They started taking it over and thinking everything was going to be great in a week or so when they finished mopping up.  What they didn't know was the enemy had rigged the core of the planet to explode.  Boom, all gone.

There's probably several axioms out there advising the time to be most cautious is the time right before you think victory is in hand.  We're nearly at that point.

Steve

I one hundred percent agree with The_Capn that multiple years of High intensity trench warfare are not worth it. I am not talking about taking back Donbass and the Crimea centimeter by centimeter and paying out in blood the same way. I am saying that we owe the Ukrainians one fully supported winter/spring offensive. By fully supported it I mean enough gas, I mean enough ammo, I mean as many NATO weapons as they can physically absorb. Steve's point about being cautious at the very end there's also quite relevant but I just don't think we can afford to leave a total victory off the table if it's there for the taking.

There are two somewhat conflicting long-term goals about managing the end of this conflict. We do want Russia to remain in existence and more or less its current form, simply because it's break up entitles us to who knows how many more unpleasant wars, and that's while we get to chase nukes around like very dangerous marbles. At the same time we really really, really want to crush Russian imperial ambitions forever, and convince them right down to their bones that they are done playing superpower. These goals are somewhat in conflict. So much of the question comes down to does the loss of Crimea get the point across, or does the loss of Crimea either collapse Russia completely or result in an utterly in embittered post Versailles type situation. Does letting Russia keep Crimea make better or worse outcomes more likely? I am not sure our crystal ball is that good. Given the difficulty in predicting longterm outcomes I am strongly inclined for the total the Ukrainian victory scenario if it on the table soonish, and at a reasonable price. To repeat NOTHING is worth three years of grinding trench warfare.

In regards to Ukraine's future, as opposed to Russia's I wrote a post 1000+ pages ago agreeing with everything The Capn just said about quitting at the 2022 lines. At the 2022 lines Ukraine is a unified, relatively easy to run country. If fully incorporated into the EU and NATO it would be a very prosperous one, I just don't think we can get the Ukrainians to realize that easily, not after Russia has turned every square mile they've taken into a badly run concentration camp. But perhaps The Capn is correct and checks with enough zeros on when will work their usual magic.

And as I have also been saying for a 1000 pages, a successful coup/revolution in Belarus that pulls it into the Western camp would be the ultimate, absolute, drop the mic victory in this war. It is worth a lot of money and at least some risk to pursue that. Success in Belarus would be worth 100 times Crimea in terms of long term stability and prosperity, even for Ukraine, never mind the rest of us.

Lastly let me remind everyone how lucky we are that people like Steve and The Capn even talk to us, with as many other things as they must have going on.

 

1 hour ago, kraze said:

If I point out that 100 "protesters" idly watch a single guy being grabbed by three out of few surviving members of OMOH - and it's the reason why so called russian "opposition" deserves zero sympathy - will it be racist or very racist?

RAILROAD SABOTAGE!!! It is the only thing that moves the needle. Can somebody do some nice how to videos in Russian and plaster Telegram with them?

 

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

We have seen how popular uprisings go. It gets bloody for the guys without guns and tanks.

Only good outcomes if the guys with guns have at least partial change of heart.

Shoving the army full of unhappy, unwilling people does seem quite unwise, but wisdom has not made an appearance in Moscow just lately.

Edited September 21, 2022 by dan/california

[akd]

Ahahaha. Some one needs to hack Russian TV to play this over and over again:

 

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

NATO-friendly Ukraine with Crimea would also make Turkey slightly less important, which might be useful since it is pretty unstable lately.

Of course, if the West pushes Ukraine to appease Russia by giving up Crimea, sacrificing millions of people in the process, there will likely not be NATO-friendly Ukraine, and I'm not sure how nations like Poland or Estonia might look at this. It might cause more fracture in EU and NATO.

Agreed, engaging in the same sort of deal making EE alleges France and Germany are doing is the easy way to throw American goodwill out into the trash. Mind you, there's a very good reason why the UK has taken a almost opposite position to France and Germany, largely to do with wedging EE from France and Germany. And indeed, its been long standing policy to be more aggressive with Russia than France and Germany simply to reassure the Eastern flank of NATO. 

Also, frankly, the West needs to ignore Putin and Russia. Things like hitting the nuke button, or that Russia is on the verge of chaos, or that Russia is gonna collapse. This did not come to pass due purely to Russia being a bastard, had the West been more forceful in 2014, maybe Putin might not have betted the farm in 2022. Russia has time and time again, acted like complete lying scum, deception, with near abandon in Europe assassinating opposition, hacking, damaging Europe and the world via hybrid warfare, etc. This action, the annexation of Ukraine must be placed into context as a huge, huge attack on the West. This idea that we need Russia to be a gas station for the West or in between us and China is stupid as hell, (and it was just as stupid when the head of the German Navy said it out loud and got fired for it) implying Russia just didn't try to destroy NATO and the EU in one go, collapse the international order, and show the U.S as a declining power unable to do anything, anywhere. 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

And I will do you one better - we in the west do not want Russia to totally collapse.  We definitely want regime change and for the current lot to be held accountable for egregious crimes against humanity.  We want stability and re-normalization because it is what we are selling.  We want a transition of power in Russia, and we want it to be as bloodless as possible.

We have gone over this, a Russia in complete freefall is the exact opposite of stability and re-normalization.  To the point that if it happens in its darkest incarnation, we could be talking western intervention.  For the West this has always been about defeat of Russia in Ukraine. Not total defeat of Russia as a nation.  We want it contained, restrained and on a short leash.  We want it selling LNG to make reparation payments, we want it in between us and China, not in their back pocket.  

Now what we get is very likely another story. 

Now, you have said some variation of this over and over, and up until now, I've been sorta confused about it, tbh, I think i got it now, and frankly its stupid as hell, same stuff as Merkel and cooperation co and discredited as such. Nothing about Russia since the collapse of the USSR has ever indicated a viability in Russia being a gas station, or a puppet? and absolutely not a small dime player to bounce off China, and everything about this attitude expressed is actually a validation of Russian Nationalist worse fears. RU Nat worst nightmares are not collapse of the Federation, it isn't, Russia does not have a fear of the dismemberment of its nation by force, the nuclear triad assures its existence. Its the destruction of Russian superiority and the degeneration of Russia into a puppet state, in both mind and body, that is the worse nightmare for Russia and those nationalists. 

One, nothing about Putin's rise to power, the maintenance of Russian power since 1991, the use of hybrid warfare, indicates any willingness on Russia's part to enter a "puppet state" willingly. As long as its nuclear weapons are there, Russia has no fear of invasion. 

Two, the use of hybrid warfare to counter the EU, the threat posed by the EU in Ukraine and not NATO (it has never, ever been NATO) are because the cultural values that the EU brings are direct threats to Russian power, not in body, but in the mind. The nukes will keep Russia safe physically, but the sneaking influence of the EU is much harder to oppose. 

Three, the reason why we did not expect the full scale invasion of Ukraine has precisely to do with NATO and the EU and our confusion with the goals of Russian hardliners, nationalists. Again, there is no risk to Russia from NATO. What is the risk is the encroachment of EU values with Ukraine turning away from Russia and towards the EU, and the disappearance of the Russian mir, the abandonment of its subject peoples and the turning of Russia from a  regional/world-ish power to insignificant backwater. 

Four, Russia is the superior nation and people, and Ukraine, and its people are supposed to aspire to Russia, be grateful for being part of Russia, and certainly not supposed to wave ****ing EU flags, and liberalize gays and weak values like feminism and blah, blah. 

The Donbas means nothing, only worth to Russia for its value in forcing the Ukrainians to heel. And Crimea may be worth something to Russia, but letting "poor old Russia" keep a island is not going to smooth stuff over and make them grateful for Western benevolence and be suddenly okay with snatching their slaves and freeing them. 

The goal has always been the restoration of Russia as a great power and the Russian people as a great people and part of that goal is the subjection of Ukraine and its people. Hell, one should say that the only way for the Russian Empire to exist, to flourish is with Ukraine under its heel first. 

If you want to spare Russia from collapse, you need to stop supporting Ukraine and let Russia take it over, cause otherwise, it will be the success of Ukraine that drives the Russians over the cliff. 

There is no point in accommodating Russia cause what Russia wants is opposed to everything the West stands for, in both physical power and mindset. And we only barely made it to this point, cause that bastard Putin figured he was a viper that snuck in and got too greedy and the West got lucky. Trying to turn Russia into a gas station got us to this point. 

[Letter from Prague]

Some people are saying "West is just using Ukrainians to die to weaken Russia, but never really cared." I thought it was Russian propaganda.

Now that I'm seeing people explaining why telling Ukraine "Hold on there little buddy, we don't want you to be too successful in defending yourself. You need to keep few millions of your people as Russian slaves, otherwise we might hurt Russians too much. And the Russians actually matter, not you." in case they get too close to winning their freedom is, actually the smart and prudent thing to do, I'm not so sure it is.

To be quite honest, this makes me feel worse than Bucha. Maybe a nuclear holocaust would not be such a bad thing, this "humanity" experiment is not working out.

I'll go get some vacation from this place.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Now, you have said some variation of this over and over, and up until now, I've been sorta confused about it, tbh, I think i got it now, and frankly its stupid as hell, same stuff as Merkel and cooperation co and discredited as such. Nothing about Russia since the collapse of the USSR has ever indicated a viability in Russia being a gas station, or a puppet? and absolutely not a small dime player to bounce off China, and everything about this attitude expressed is actually a validation of Russian Nationalist worse fears. RU Nat worst nightmares are not collapse of the Federation, it isn't, Russia does not have a fear of the dismemberment of its nation by force, the nuclear triad assures its existence. Its the destruction of Russian superiority and the degeneration of Russia into a puppet state, in both mind and body, that is the worse nightmare for Russia and those nationalists. 

One, nothing about Putin's rise to power, the maintenance of Russian power since 1991, the use of hybrid warfare, indicates any willingness on Russia's part to enter a "puppet state" willingly. As long as its nuclear weapons are there, Russia has no fear of invasion. 

Two, the use of hybrid warfare to counter the EU, the threat posed by the EU in Ukraine and not NATO (it has never, ever been NATO) are because the cultural values that the EU brings are direct threats to Russian power, not in body, but in the mind. The nukes will keep Russia safe physically, but the sneaking influence of the EU is much harder to oppose. 

Three, the reason why we did not expect the full scale invasion of Ukraine has precisely to do with NATO and the EU and our confusion with the goals of Russian hardliners, nationalists. Again, there is no risk to Russia from NATO. What is the risk is the encroachment of EU values with Ukraine turning away from Russia and towards the EU, and the disappearance of the Russian mir, the abandonment of its subject peoples and the turning of Russia from a  regional/world-ish power to insignificant backwater. 

Four, Russia is the superior nation and people, and Ukraine, and its people are supposed to aspire to Russia, be grateful for being part of Russia, and certainly not supposed to wave ****ing EU flags, and liberalize gays and weak values like feminism and blah, blah. 

The Donbas means nothing, only worth to Russia for its value in forcing the Ukrainians to heel. And Crimea may be worth something to Russia, but letting "poor old Russia" keep a island is not going to smooth stuff over and make them grateful for Western benevolence and be suddenly okay with snatching their slaves and freeing them. 

The goal has always been the restoration of Russia as a great power and the Russian people as a great people and part of that goal is the subjection of Ukraine and its people. Hell, one should say that the only way for the Russian Empire to exist, to flourish is with Ukraine under its heel first. 

If you want to spare Russia from collapse, you need to stop supporting Ukraine and let Russia take it over, cause otherwise, it will be the success of Ukraine that drives the Russians over the cliff. 

There is no point in accommodating Russia cause what Russia wants is opposed to everything the West stands for, in both physical power and mindset. And we only barely made it to this point, cause that bastard Putin figured he was a viper that snuck in and got too greedy and the West got lucky. Trying to turn Russia into a gas station got us to this point.

Well I am glad you are clear because to be honest, having read this twice I cannot pull out what your thesis is here.

I am not saying we want Russia as a Chinese gas station, in fact that is not aligned with western interests at all.  Cheap energy for China or India, that they can get at bargain prices is not good for us. 

The fact that it is happening as a direct result of this war is a reality.  Why?  Because no one else but China, and India are going to do business with Russia...and they are going grind every concession our of Russia they can.  Hell Putin just got publicly spanked by India, which part of "you are not in the game anymore" does Russia not understand?  They do have nuclear weapons, it is the only reason why we are not doing airstrikes on Moscow, but they do nothing to promote or project Russian power in any meaningful way. 

Let me be absolutely clear, because there is likely a language barrier - I do not care what Russia wants or thinks in this regard, it is happening because any hope they had at projecting themselves as a global power started dying at the gates of Kyiv and pretty much collapsed at Kharkiv.  Russia is currently a joke-state, with nukes...yay and it will be a de facto puppet state of the only global power willing to do business with them when the full bill comes due or become North Korea.

I am really not sure what the point on hybrid warfare is to be honest. Russia used their version of hybrid warfare because they were at a disadvantage.  One employs subversive strategies when one does not have hard power to get things done - about 2000 years of history back me up on that one.  Russia's mistake was thinking it had enough hard power to to the job and get away with it.

Perhaps it is on me.  Let me try to be clearer:

- We, in the west, do not want this war to drag on.  We are bruised and battered from 30 years of cleaning up the worlds crap, more often than not making it worse when we do.  If Ukraine looks like it is going to drag this out past the point it is in our interests we will get off the train.  Not all at once but there will be splits, which will do Ukraine no favors post-war.

- I am saying: We want Russia to remain a functional state within the context of the current global order.  We want normalization with Russia so that it remains out of China's orbit, which is exactly where it is going on this trajectory, and continues to do business with the West (hopefully we are less exposed this time).  We do not want a Russia in freefall - 6000 loose nukes on the dance floor et al.  We do want Russia to 1) pay for this war in a meaningful way, 2) turn over war criminals for full prosecution and 3) a new regime in Russia because Putin is done.  Until we get that then sanctions will very likely remain in place and the fun continues. My bet is that you will say "well that will never happen because, Russia", well then Russia can go to whatever grave it is digging for itself. The Russian people need to re-assert their power and make it happen or they deserve whatever happens next.  We in the western world are the most powerful bloc in the history of humanity - we will deal with the consequences.

- We do need to commit to finish this war to some sort of agreeable end state and then swiftly swing towards national reconstruction and bringing Ukraine into the western sphere (NATO, EU).

- I do not want to accommodate Russia, or whatever.  I definitely do not propose we abandon Ukraine now - sunk costs and all. I want stability and less crazy.  We will keep on directly supporting the killing of Russians until it looks like we can get that, and where that lands with respect to lines on the map is secondary.

I hope this clears thing up a bit.

[Twisk]

54 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Herein lies the central problem - we are living in a post-Afghanistan world.  We are also living in a post-pandemic world - our resolve is shaken and will remain shaken.  The single biggest fear for the West now in Ukraine, is that it becomes another Afghanistan.  You have hit the nail directly on the head why western resolve is shakier.

I think this is overstated unless it becomes political hay for Republican party (since Democrats seem very hawkish on Ukraine) this will not be a problem. American public is very patient with arms payments to other nations and most Republicans also seem hawkish. So far election in November and Ukraine has not become focus of electioneering and instead is focused on internal U.S. politics. Trump is big focus.  Maybe if enough fringe Republican (only ones who have voted against Ukraine) are elected this becomes problem but they seem not doing so well. Ukraine has until at least 2024 so 3 fighting seasons left until this becomes large problem. And even then it only happens if one party decides to make it big focus of election.

Where I think you are correct is in "Marshal Plan" style recovery post-war which might be threatened by worries about economics and large fundings. But this may still pass since core of Dems/Republicans seem rational on foreign policy even if elsewhere they are not so much.


Anecdotal story but family is concentrated in Texas area and political discussion of Ukraine is not focus and most common sentiment is that war is bad and little man getting short end of the stick. But no strong feelings about war but instead talking of inflation, police, immigrants, school lessons on gender, crime.  Even discussion of inflation people do not link to Ukraine war but focus on Democrats.

I mention U.S. politics in post but please do not create argument about right or  wrong. Mention only to situate Ukraine situation and western support.

[FancyCat]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Well I am glad you are clear because to be honest, having read this twice I cannot pull out what your thesis is here.

I am not saying we want Russia as a Chinese gas station, in fact that is not aligned with western interests at all.  Cheap energy for China or India, that they can get at bargain prices is not good for us. 

The fact that it is happening as a direct result of this war is a reality.  Why?  Because no one else but China, and India are going to do business with Russia...and they are going grind every concession our of Russia they can.  Hell Putin just got publicly spanked by India, which part of "you are not in the game anymore" does Russia not understand?  They do have nuclear weapons, it is the only reason why we are not doing airstrikes on Moscow, but they do nothing to promote or project Russian power in any meaningful way. 

Let me be absolutely clear, because there is likely a language barrier - I do not care what Russia wants or thinks in this regard, it is happening because any hope they had at projecting themselves as a global power started dying at the gates of Kyiv and pretty much collapsed at Kharkiv.  Russia is currently a joke-state, with nukes...yay and it will be a de facto puppet state of the only global power willing to do business with them when the full bill comes due or become North Korea.

I am really not sure what the point on hybrid warfare is to be honest. Russia used their version of hybrid warfare because they were at a disadvantage.  One employs subversive strategies when one does not have hard power to get things done - about 2000 years of history back me up on that one.  Russia's mistake was thinking it had enough hard power to to the job and get away with it.

Perhaps it is on me.  Let me try to be clearer:

- We, in the west, do not want this war to drag on.  We are bruised and battered from 30 years of cleaning up the worlds crap, more often than not making it worse when we do.  If Ukraine looks like it is going to drag this out past the point it is in our interests we will get off the train.  Not all at once but there will be splits, which will do Ukraine no favors post-war.

- I am saying: We want Russia to remain a functional state within the context of the current global order.  We want normalization with Russia so that it remains out of China's orbit, which is exactly where it is going on this trajectory, and continues to do business with the West (hopefully we are less exposed this time).  We do not want a Russia in freefall - 6000 loose nukes on the dance floor et al.  We do want Russia to 1) pay for this war in a meaningful way, 2) turn over war criminals for full prosecution and 3) a new regime in Russia because Putin is done.  Until we get that then sanctions will very likely remain in place and the fun continues. My bet is that you will say "well that will never happen because, Russia", well then Russia can go to whatever grave it is digging for itself. The Russian people need to re-assert their power and make it happen or they deserve whatever happens next.  We in the western world are the most powerful bloc in the history of humanity - we will deal with the consequences.

- We do need to commit to finish this war to some sort of agreeable end state and then swiftly swing towards national reconstruction and bringing Ukraine into the western sphere (NATO, EU).

- I do not want to accommodate Russia, or whatever.  I definitely do not propose we abandon Ukraine now - sunk costs and all. I want stability and less crazy.  We will keep on directly supporting the killing of Russians until it looks like we can get that, and where that lands with respect to lines on the map is secondary.

I hope this clears thing up a bit.

What I'm saying is Russia does not want to be a part of the global order. It wants a new order, or better to say, it wants a old world order back again. The problem is they have nukes, as you have acknowledged. Part of their vision of that old world order is Ukraine is Russian once again. And the Baltics. Finland. Poland. The Balkans. And so on. Russia thinks the West is weak. Russia thinks it can break apart the West and regain her status. Russia got into this mess cause it believed the West was ready to fold. In 2014, the West closed their eyes to what Russia wanted, and figured Russia had moved on from the old world order, and therefore didn't punish Russia when we had the chance. 

Let me emphasize, in the same way the West ignored what Russia was doing, what it wanted, what Putin has expressed in clear terms regarding Ukraine for far too long till we reached this point, Russia now is going to ignore what the West says. It's going to keep pushing, its going to hold out as long as it can, and it will threaten the nuclear option cause Russia thinks the West will fold. 

That means if Russia pulls out the nukes, the West needs to do the same. If Russia says Crimea is forever Russian, the West needs for Ukraine to seize it. We cannot fold because what you think Russia wants and what Russia wants do not match. 

When you say that Russia will blink first, and won't go eye to eye with the West, what I'm saying is our interest needs to be to match Russia at every step. 

What I'm trying to say, there is no point in coaxing Russia back with Crimea or whatever. Russia will regard it as a sign of weakness. 

[Haiduk]

 

[FancyCat]

Looks like Izyum bagged a few people Russia wants back. 

 

 

[Huba]

Something to lighten the mood: an official Space Force song! 

 

[The_Capt]

30 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

What I'm saying is Russia does not want to be a part of the global order. It wants a new order, or better to say, it wants a old world order back again. The problem is they have nukes, as you have acknowledged. Part of their vision of that old world order is Ukraine is Russian once again. And the Baltics. Finland. Poland. The Balkans. And so on. Russia thinks the West is weak. Russia thinks it can break apart the West and regain her status. Russia got into this mess cause it believed the West was ready to fold. In 2014, the West closed their eyes to what Russia wanted, and figured Russia had moved on from the old world order, and therefore didn't punish Russia when we had the chance. 

Let me emphasize, in the same way the West ignored what Russia was doing, what it wanted, what Putin has expressed in clear terms regarding Ukraine for far too long till we reached this point, Russia now is going to ignore what the West says. It's going to keep pushing, its going to hold out as long as it can, and it will threaten the nuclear option cause Russia thinks the West will fold. 

That means if Russia pulls out the nukes, the West needs to do the same. If Russia says Crimea is forever Russian, the West needs for Ukraine to seize it. We cannot fold because what you think Russia wants and what Russia wants do not match. 

When you say that Russia will blink first, and won't go eye to eye with the West, what I'm saying is our interest needs to be to match Russia at every step. 

What I'm trying to say, there is no point in coaxing Russia back with Crimea or whatever. Russia will regard it as a sign of weakness. 

Ah, now we are getting somewhere, revisionist state.  Totally agree.  I also agree that no small part of this is on us as we kinda lost the bubble on Russia after 2014 - pandemic did not help.

If Russia pulls out nukes, it will not go well for Russia; however, we do not need/want the collateral.

Ah, ok I think I see the misunderstanding.  The Crimea and Donbass are not about coaxing or preserving Russia, in fact beyond the nuclear equation, they are barely about Russia at all.  If we wanted to preserve Russia we would simply lift sanctions, although I am not entirely sure that would do it at this point.  Those sanctions are there to stay, hell Europe looks like they are institutionalizing them.  Military support is still strong and I do not think anyone has a problem with taking back every inch of post-2014 territory, and gleefully killing Russian soldiers while doing it. 

This is about "winning enough" so we can get off this thing before it goes into dark places.  There is going to come a point where we are going to have to play the western nuclear card and simply say "ya go for it and see what happens" - and mean it.  I am not sure Donbass and Crimea are it.  Look and I get if people are sore and pissed off, disappointed but hear it from me, given with love and tenderness.  I am also not sure that the political calculus of the western world supports dragging this war out for years to re-take the Crimea or Donbass under the current conditions.

It may change as things unfold.  For example if Russia does use battlefield nuclear weapons - we might balk, or we might double down, hard - "Here you go Ukraine, here are 100 HIMARs systems with ATACMS and a Wing of F-35s.  We have been weirded out by the effect this war has had on tanks, so here is a Brigades worth of M1A1s to test things out".  The West has in fact been remarkably restrained in its support - too restrained according to many - for this war.  There are likely veils in the C4ISR world that we have not crossed as well.

Anyway, whether we like it or not, all war is negotiation, and we are going to need to negotiate on this one.  Probably earlier than many want to, sorry, it sucks but at the end of the day every nation has to protect the interests of its own citizenry.  We want Russia back in a box, we do not want an uncontrolled nuclear escalation over the freakin Donbas.  Nor do I think we want a 5 year grinding campaign to re-take the Crimea - we have been to that movie. Should every Ukrainian in Donbass and Crimea who want to live free of Russian oppression be able to do so, absolutely - we will pay billions to build them new cities to live in, they just might be in another place.

Now if the UA were to take them very quickly, and Russia backs off...well we will all claim that great victory together. 

But hey, let's not get all down and despaired here.  Ukraine took on a global power and is crushing it on the battlefield - I mean the UA is re-writing the book on modern warfare. Russia has been blunted, even if they do not know it yet, for at least a couple decades.  I mean they are literally a punchline and this debacle rivals 1905 - now if we can just keep it from rolling into WW1, we are laughing.    

Edited September 21, 2022 by The_Capt

[Bulletpoint]

32 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

 

I wish they would stop trying to make the war into a music video.

 

[Haiduk]

Russian Duma deputy Kartapolov, co-author of the law about mobilization in own intrvew clarified some things, which of course will maintain highest motivation of conscripts:

- all conscipts have to repay own ipothec loans during own service (in UKR conscripted don't repay loan percents)

- employers have to fire own employee if he is conscripted (in UKR the employee hasn't a right to fire own mobilzized employee and have to continue to pay his salary)

- any surrendering by Russian servicemen will be considered as "voluntary surrender" even in case of desperate situation, when you remained 1 against 100 - because in Army Charter surrendering is not allowed. So who, will surrender will be punished with 10 years of jail

Edited September 21, 2022 by Haiduk

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I think this is overstated unless it becomes political hay for Republican party (since Democrats seem very hawkish on Ukraine) this will not be a problem. American public is very patient with arms payments to other nations and most Republicans also seem hawkish. So far election in November and Ukraine has not become focus of electioneering and instead is focused on internal U.S. politics. Trump is big focus.  Maybe if enough fringe Republican (only ones who have voted against Ukraine) are elected this becomes problem but they seem not doing so well. Ukraine has until at least 2024 so 3 fighting seasons left until this becomes large problem. And even then it only happens if one party decides to make it big focus of election.

Where I think you are correct is in "Marshal Plan" style recovery post-war which might be threatened by worries about economics and large fundings. But this may still pass since core of Dems/Republicans seem rational on foreign policy even if elsewhere they are not so much.


Anecdotal story but family is concentrated in Texas area and political discussion of Ukraine is not focus and most common sentiment is that war is bad and little man getting short end of the stick. But no strong feelings about war but instead talking of inflation, police, immigrants, school lessons on gender, crime.  Even discussion of inflation people do not link to Ukraine war but focus on Democrats.

I mention U.S. politics in post but please do not create argument about right or  wrong. Mention only to situate Ukraine situation and western support.

I am not touching US politics with a 10 foot pole.  I will call you on the fact that the US is not the only nation in the western world and all of those nations have to deal with this phenomenon, particularly those that sent people to fight and die in Afghanistan.  Every nation has its own political dance to deal with and as this war drags on, or worse escalates, the calculus is more likely to change over time.

We are not just talking about US support here.