How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FlemFire]

2 hours ago, Zeleban said:

The Second World War. 40-year-old Ukrainians conscripted from the streets captured Berlin in 1945

Every side drafted 40+ year olds. This was not an average age, however. You couldn't go to any given unit and interview soldiers and only be coming across 35-45 year old men, as I have unfortunately seen a few times while reading news stories from the front.

 

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Care to cite some sources for this?  Because that's not how I remember it happening.  After Russia failed to heed the West's attempts to head off the war before it began, Ukraine immediately sought a way to get it to stop.  Russia laid out its terms (the same ones Putin just reiterated yesterday) and Ukraine rejected them because acceptance would mean ceasing to exist.  Then, very quickly, it became clear to Ukraine that Russia wasn't going to win quickly or easily, and so it continued to fight.

 

Naftali Bennett and former-German Chancellor Schroeder have stated peace was on the table and that the Americans were the ones who 'ended' those talks. A lot of rumors have been flying around about the nature of these talks and why they suddenly concluded like this, but those are two very legitimate sources.

 

Quote

Sure we do.  Putin just restated them, including that all of Ukraine should be a part of Russia.  Anybody that has paid even the smallest amount of attention to Russia's actions over the past 20 years would know this even if Putin didn't say this out loud.

 

If you paid the smallest amount of attention to the West's actions the past 20 years you'd think they were the most aggressively militaristic party on the planet. Wait a second -- they were. In fact, one of them is bombing civvies right this second! But you'd also think there were WMDs in Iraq, that al-Qaeda had a huge network of supervillain caves in Afghanistan, and a long litany of other lies used to justify mayhem on spread. Leaders lie, and they lie most predominantly to their own people. I won't pretend to know Putin's goals at this point and, like in the West, I'd take anything he says to his own people with a grain of salt. I just gave you the above information, though, to demonstrate they were absolutely not his goals early on.

 

Actions by Americans, particularly those with ties to things like PNAC and general neocon-funfair, also clearly demonstrate an intention in Washington to drive Ukraine headfirst into a meatgrinder. So these news articles do not surprise me at all. You people will believe things like Russia is running out of troops, running out of ammo, fighting with shovels, etc., but it never occurs whether or not the intentions of American neocons met its expected conclusion by design or if it all just went in their favor by some coincidence. I don't think it was a coincidence at all. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that bad faith actors like Rumsfeld go from "bulletproof" evidence of WMD in Iraq to "I never said we knew where they were" one year later. I expect to see such reverses in statements about this war just as well, and I also expect people to compartmentalize these statements like they did with that era of politicians, leaving them scot free of any consequences at all.

 

Quote

 

Again, what war have you been watching?  Because the war that actually happened was pretty clear.  Putin intended on collapsing the Ukrainian government, taking the entire Azov and Black Sea coasts, and having another Yanukovich take over (and his name is Medvedchuk, BTW) to keep the rest of Ukraine firmly in Russia's control.  Like Belarus.

Just because the plan didn't work doesn't mean these weren't the goals.  I mean, if you're going to go down that route then why not conclude Hitler didn't really intend on taking Russia because the size of the Wehrmacht was woefully inadequate for the task, did not plan on the war lasting more than a few months, and there were zero provisions for carrying the war into the winter.

 

 

The above comments made by the Israeli and German statesmen do not align with your fantasies here. The 150,000 men beelining straight to the capital a la Georgia 2008 also don't really agree with any sort of occupation plan either, just by common sense. The only portion I agree with is that they intended to flip Ukraine's government and install a pro-Russian in there. Those soldiers were then likely going to be used to de-arm Ukraine and defang it. The operation was a pretty clear shock attack and Putin no doubt had (very bad) intelligence that told him it'd get wrapped up in a month at most. Like I said, there's no real getting around this. It's too foundational. I also don't know if it's strictly even that important to the conversation -- by either metric, Russia invaded. I don't think "neutralizing" Ukraine or "conquering" Ukraine have huge differences when at the end of the day it's one nation invading another and seeking to basically operate it from the inside.

[Zeleban]

 

[fireship4]

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

You couldn't go to any given unit and interview soldiers and only be coming across 35-45 year old men

Speculation, not obvious, just a statement with no context.

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Naftali Bennett and former-German Chancellor Schroeder have stated peace was on the table and that the Americans were the ones who 'ended' those talks. A lot of rumors have been flying around about the nature of these talks and why they suddenly concluded like this, but those are two very legitimate sources.

Schroeder, Putin's personal friend?  To some extent responsible for Germany's energy dependence on Russia?  And peace on what terms?

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

If you paid the smallest amount of attention to the West's actions the past 20 years you'd think they were the most aggressively militaristic party on the planet. Wait a second -- they were. In fact, one of them is bombing civvies right this second!

Nonsense.  They are simply the most capable.  And Israel is dismantling a terrorist junta whose only purpose is to make fat stacks and kill Jews - and they have a decent amount of support both in the middle east and increasingly in the West.  The IDF go to quite some lengths to avoid killing civilians.

Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York?

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Leaders lie, and they lie most predominantly to their own people. I won't pretend to know Putin's goals at this point and, like in the West, I'd take anything he says to his own people with a grain of salt. I just gave you the above information, though, to demonstrate they were absolutely not his goals early on.

What information?

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Actions by Americans, particularly those with ties to things like PNAC and general neocon-funfair, also clearly demonstrate an intention in Washington to drive Ukraine headfirst into a meatgrinder.

A neocon should want to give Americans something to believe in by fighting for a democratic state abroad if they followed someone like Leo Strauss.

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

I expect to see such reverses in statements about this war just as well

In what context?  "We were wrong to help defend this country we promised to defend against an invading force of barbarians"? "Should have just saved the money and let them rot behind a new iron curtain"?

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

The 150,000 men beelining straight to the capital a la Georgia 2008 also don't really agree with any sort of occupation plan either, just by common sense.

In Georgia, Russia moved mostly through two separatist regions which it supported, and has since run directly.  The goverment of Georgia remained intact.

If the men you refer to had changed the government by force, they would indeed have needed an occupation force, to keep order and resist the inevitable efforts of the population and military at reversing such, and then to carry out "de-nazification" (the destruction of Ukrainian national identity, and notions of identification with Western ideals) something that is now obvious.  If they didn't understand that then, it was because they expected Ukrainians to fold like Russians have been taught to, and that their government wasn't real anyway, just a US/Anglo puppet, like the Russians have in their proxies.

 

Your post has unsound reasoning and does not read like the words of someone who knows what they are talking about, rather someone who has a lens they view each event through which you fight for.  It is fine to just use logic or google stuff to -refute- statements, I would say that can work out OK if you did that properly, but you could actually commit yourself to creating some workable models which bear some resemblance to how things actually work in real life and learning some in-depth history on a subject.  What you are doing here is just advocating a straw-man image of the West through cherry-picking and non-arguments.

Edited December 15, 2023 by fireship4

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

former-German Chancellor Schroeder

Now that is trustworthy source.

And Naftali Benett clearly stated both sides were thinking they were winning and that negotiations broke finally when Ukrainians discovered level of atrocities Russians commited.

[Haiduk]

17 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Speculation, not obvious, just a statement with no context.

This is true and 35 is very optimistic lower threshold. In some brigades average age of soldiers is 50+ years. 

Now is sharply put a question about mobilization of more young people, because of men over 45 y.o., having many health problems (and trench life doesn't add health to them) can't be effective infantrymen, especially in assault actions. 

Currently you can be mobilized from 27 y.o. All youngers can be enlisted only by own free-will as contract servicemen. But indeed most people, who are mobilized are older than 40-45 years. Recently a law was passed, reducing the lower age of mobilisation from 27 to 25 years, but president didn't sign it yet

On other hand example of 3rd assault brigade and Azov brigade, having own recruitment system, shows most of their soldiers are young and middle-age people, having good motivation and much better physical conditions. This was one of factors of 3rd brigade effectiveness in offensive. But one brigade can't tow whole front

Edited December 15, 2023 by Haiduk

[FlemFire]

2 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Speculation, not obvious, just a statement with no context.

 

Schroeder, Putin's personal friend?  Reputedly responsible for Germany's energy dependence on Russia?  And peace on what terms?

I included the former Israeli PM for this reason. Schroeder's connections with Putin are obvious. This does not automatically mean he is incorrect and the arrival of corresponding stories highlights this. You did not talk at all about the Israeli PM, so you left the discussion at a half-step.

 

Quote

 

Nonsense.  They are simply the most capable.  And Israel is dismantling a terrorist junta whose only purpose is to make fat stacks and kills Jews - and they have a decent amount of support both in the middle east and increasingly in the West.  They go to quite some lengths to avoid killing civilians.

Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York?

 

Nonsense? How is it nonsense when you then agree, but add in the qualifier that they are only the most "capable." The capability of the invading nations does not have anything to do with the aggressiveness of invasions by said nations. You just disagreed to disagree here, and didn't even really disagree. Bizarre comment.

 

Quote

A neocon should want to give Americans something to believe in by fighting for a democratic state abroad if they followed someone like Leo Strauss.

 

Neocons are not to be trusted, period. That is my bottom line on those people. Victoria Nuland is married to Kagan, a major neocon architect, who has outlined American expansionism/imperialism for the 21st century. Why is it that when these people go places, war and misery follows in their footsteps? Is that just a coincidence? Judging by what they state and print, the answer is clear.

 

Quote

In what context?  "We were wrong to help defend this country we promised to defend against an invading force of barbarians"? "Should have just saved the money and let them rot behind a new iron curtain"?

 

If the U.S. is not willing to invest the actual resources required to win a war with Russia, then yes, it should not have involved itself at all. Dogwalking another people into conflict and then playing gotcha with it is insane to me. The U.S. has the material capabilities to lay down some serious material into Ukraine and it has not done it. The West in general has the economic capability to go on a war footing and has not done it. Everything is nominal, and nominal contributions when the other side is very dead-set in their intentions is flagrantly stupid.

I do not forgive half-measures when hundreds of thousands of people are dying.

 

Quote

 

In Georgia, Russia moved mostly through two separatist regions which it supported, and has since run directly.  The goverment of Georgia remained intact.

If the men you refer to had changed the government by force, they would indeed have needed an occupation force, to keep order and resist the inevitable efforts of the population and military at reversing such, and then to carry out "de-nazification" (the destruction of Ukrainian national identity, and notions of identification with Western ideals) something that is now obvious.

 

 

Don't see much disagreement here. I mean, moving into separatist regions... like they're doing in Ukraine right now? And pray tell, what major partisan efforts are currently ongoing in those Russian-held regions? After Afghanistan and Chechnya, I don't think Russians have much interest or desire to 'occupy' places they are not wanted. They want to bully and flex, fighting isn't really their forte but anyone who understands Russia knew this already, though a thousand videos of military disasters is pretty sufficient evidence just as well.

 

Quote

Your post has unsound reasoning and does not read like the words of someone who knows what they are talking about, rather someone who has a lens they view each event through which you fight for.

...

you could actually commit yourself to creating some workable models which bear some resemblance to how things actually work in real life

Almost a year ago, I stated that offenses in this war were almost suicidal and one should avoid engaging Russia in static warfare due to their massive artillery advantage. I was correct. I stated that the Russian economy was not buckling beneath the sanctions. I was correct. I stated that non-West spheres of the world were not responding to West's compulsion to sanction Russia. That was correct. Actually, so correct that we now see Western imports into Russian border-nations, suggesting not even some in the West care anymore, and we see other nations welcoming Putin on their stages. I stated that this notion of Russia running out of materials for anything is a pipedream as they have significant infrastructure to support war efforts. That was correct. I stated that the economic contributions of the West involve stockpiles which necessarily dwindle, and if you do not have a replacement in line for when that happens, bad things are going to come to a head. That is coming to a head right now. My models are fine, thank you.

[FlemFire]

18 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Now that is trustworthy source.

And Naftali Benett clearly stated both sides were thinking they were winning and that negotiations broke finally when Ukrainians discovered level of atrocities Russians commited.

You can see what he 'clearly stated' right here.

By the way, these peace talks were in early March and through to the end of the month. Bucha came to light in early April. Peace talks renewed in April, but even more fruitlessly. Around this time, the sanctions were coming in hard. President Biden was stating things like Russia was on track to have its economy cut in half. I don't want to be too cynical here, but I don't think murdered civilians are so important to the West as to end something they want or don't want.

They thought that the Russian economy was on its way to crumbling and so told Ukraine to stand pat. If they honestly believed this, I actually endorse the strategy. It is the correct strategy to deploy. It failing to work doesn't change that it was the correct move, it just unfortunately did not work. When something does not work, then you need to reassess. I do not see any desire to reassess and I find that very troubling.

 

 

 

[fireship4]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

This is true and 35 is very optimistic lower threshold. In some brigades average age of soldiers is 50+ years.

He was saying it wasn't true.

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

You did not talk at all about the Israeli PM, so you left the discussion at a half-step.

Don't know anything about him, didn't have anything to say, couldn't be bothered to refute your statistically weak output.

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Nonsense? How is it nonsense when you then agree, but add in the qualifier that they are only the most "capable." The capability of the invading nations does not have anything to do with the aggressiveness of invasions by said nations. You just disagreed to disagree here, and didn't even really disagree. Bizarre comment.

 

Allow me to clarify:

2 hours ago, fireship4 said:

3 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

If you paid the smallest amount of attention to the West's actions the past 20 years you'd think they were the most aggressively militaristic party on the planet. Wait a second -- they were. In fact, one of them is bombing civvies right this second!

Nonsense.  They are simply the most capable.  And Israel is dismantling a terrorist junta whose only purpose is to make fat stacks and kill Jews - and they have a decent amount of support both in the middle east and increasingly in the West.  The IDF go to quite some lengths to avoid killing civilians.

Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York?

The West is technologically and ideogically and systematically superior, and if they are successful in their wars it is largely because of this.  Were hamas able or intending to create a society that could sustain scientific endeavor, it could bomb Israel from space!  If Russia had not been opposed by the West, it would have taken Europe, etc. etc.

As far as the last 20 years goes, I suppose the militarism you speak of refers to Afghanistan and Iraq?  Both under the aegis of one event (though the waters were perhaps muddied on the latter) and both in the same area of the world.  One fought a medievally backward religious regime, the other a rogue dictator who regularly attacked his neighbours.

But why stick to the last 20 years?  Don't you want to extend it to the cold war when the West was overhyping the Soviet Union to increase defense spending?

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Neocons are not to be trusted, period. That is my bottom line on those people. Victoria Nuland is married to Kagan, a major neocon architect, who has outlined American expansionism/imperialism for the 21st century. Why is it that when these people go places, war and misery follows in their footsteps? Is that just a coincidence? Judging by what they state and print, the answer is clear.

Do delight us with you knowledge of these people, your analysis of the neocon movement, and why it is bad, and how it can be charactarised as "expansionism/imperialism".  Dictators have no recourse to justice, only to strength - there is nothing that protects them as far as another stronger country coming along and entirely legitimately turning them into a fine mist.

You are just using emotional language with no content.  Did you see Victoria Nuland running around the middle east killing babies in a dream or something?  Who the hell is that anyway?  All I know about Kagan is that his dad did a really good course at Yale on Ancient Greece, and that he wrote a bunch of books on the subject.

Make an argument, an actual argument, based on something solid.  Maybe start small.

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

If the U.S. is not willing to invest the actual resources required to win a war with Russia, then yes, it should not have involved itself at all. Dogwalking another people into conflict and then playing gotcha with it is insane to me. The U.S. has the material capabilities to lay down some serious material into Ukraine and it has not done it. The West in general has the economic capability to go on a war footing and has not done it. Everything is nominal, and nominal contributions when the other side is very dead-set in their intentions is flagrantly stupid.

I do not forgive half-measures when hundreds of thousands of people are dying.

Help or don't help, that was the choice - they were going to resist no matter what.  Dogwalking them into the conflict... who are you f'ing John Pilger?  Is everything the US's fault?  Russia invades Ukraine, there is a good case to be made they would have commited some kind of genocide had they been successful.  They resist this actual imperialism, the US/UK/NATO helps them, but not enough for you, and you know why that is, because you have tapped the Western hivemind datacentre via Alex Jones and the cocaine residue you managed to sift out of your carpet this morning.  Answer: the US cynically sacrifices Ukraine for it's benefit?!  Wow such Russian take!

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

 

Quote

 

In Georgia, Russia moved mostly through two separatist regions which it supported, and has since run directly.  The goverment of Georgia remained intact.

If the men you refer to had changed the government by force, they would indeed have needed an occupation force, to keep order and resist the inevitable efforts of the population and military at reversing such, and then to carry out "de-nazification" (the destruction of Ukrainian national identity, and notions of identification with Western ideals) something that is now obvious.

 

 

Don't see much disagreement here. I mean, moving into separatist regions... like they're doing in Ukraine right now? And pray tell, what major partisan efforts are currently ongoing in those Russian-held regions? After Afghanistan and Chechnya, I don't think Russians have much interest or desire to 'occupy' places they are not wanted. They want to bully and flex, fighting isn't really their forte but anyone who understands Russia knew this already, though a thousand videos of military disasters is pretty sufficient evidence just as well.

You don't see why invading and holding in a seperatist region is different from a total invasion?  And I don't know what's going on in SO and Abkhazia (they are probably not allowing many reporters in to nose aroun), but a resistance is harder to maintain when you have no overland route for supplies, the sea is full of Ruskies, the people in the land who were against secession were driven out, and the milita guys fighting you have help from the Russian military and SF stationed in your country.

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Almost a year ago, I stated that offenses in this war were almost suicidal and one should avoid engaging Russia in static warfare due to their massive artillery advantage. I was correct. I stated that the Russian economy was not buckling beneath the sanctions. I was correct. I stated that non-West spheres of the world were not responding to West's compulsion to sanction Russia. That was correct. Actually, so correct that we now see Western imports into Russian border-nations, suggesting not even some in the West care anymore, and we see other nations welcoming Putin on their stages. I stated that this notion of Russia running out of materials for anything is a pipedream as they have significant infrastructure to support war efforts. That was correct. I stated that the economic contributions of the West involve stockpiles which necessarily dwindle, and if you do not have a replacement in line for when that happens, bad things are going to come to a head. That is coming to a head right now. My models are fine, thank you.

"I was correct": you keep saying it, but saying it doesn't make it true.

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

When something does not work, then you need to reassess. I do not see any desire to reassess and I find that very troubling.

You prefer the West to **** or get off the pot is what you're saying?  Because you assess that what they are doing won't work?  Well so what?  Your opinion is worth as much as your analysis reveals: a fart in the wind.  Bring some insight, tell us something we don't know, show us your model of what you know the US to be doing on what timescale and how it might be best to force Ukraine to negotiate away land to Russia under threat of withdrawing assistance.

I should have had my breakfast by now you tiresome fellow!

Edited December 15, 2023 by fireship4

[Ales Dvorak]

1 hour ago, fireship4 said:

Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York?

I didn't know the USA borders Iraq.

[fireship4]

25 minutes ago, Ales Dvorak said:

I didn't know the USA borders Iraq.

Yes but if they were of the same mind as Hamas, and had a lust for their blood, they would have flown them back.  Do you see the difference?  I know there were plenty racists that joined up, do you see them doing that in a million years?!

Edited December 15, 2023 by fireship4

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

You can see what he 'clearly stated' right here.

By the way, these peace talks were in early March and through to the end of the month. Bucha came to light in early April. Peace talks renewed in April, but even more fruitlessly. Around this time, the sanctions were coming in hard. President Biden was stating things like Russia was on track to have its economy cut in half. I don't want to be too cynical here, but I don't think murdered civilians are so important to the West as to end something they want or don't want.

Yes, he does states that he thought reaching ceasefire was possible at that very moment (=before Bucha, 2:45) but he is not sure from a posteriori point of view if it had even worked ("Cause statemenship is very complex" and "there were many factors", 4:51, a part you missed). Murdered civilians were a potent fact in both Western and internal UA politics- there was no coming back to talks after it became obvious what Ivans did, especially from Ukrainian perspective.

Additionally, Arakhamia on other interview too stated that they were simply not trusting Putin enough to sign agreements with him about neutrality. The fact that talks were in place, Putin was willing to make some concessions when wounded after his army became stuck spectacularly or that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv to promote not signing deals with Vova does not change basic premise- if Ukraine would dismantle bulk of its own military forces and finlandize, it was only a question of time before it become swallowed again by muscovia. They would have Russian tanks over their necks anyway, sooner or later. And Ukrainians understood it from the start; Bucha was just a confirmation.

You may not get inner workings of Kremlin politics since you focus on America, but Putin couldn't allow in long term to have image of a loser in this war- and that would be effect if potentiall ceasefire of the kind we discuss here would take place, while Russian columns took such looses in the north, both on Eastern and Western side of Dnieper. Perception of his war as military failure could be deadly for his imperial mojo, and even making small concessions to Ukraine would put him in very difficult position internally.

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

They thought that the Russian economy was on its way to crumbling and so told Ukraine to stand pat. If they honestly believed this, I actually endorse the strategy. It is the correct strategy to deploy. It failing to work doesn't change that it was the correct move, it just unfortunately did not work. When something does not work, then you need to reassess. I do not see any desire to reassess and I find that very troubling.

Agree, sanctions should be much stonger and West do lack coherent strategy for this war after 2023- but is is a topic touched upon many times in this thread. Also book by Z. Parafianowicz gives some details of behind-the-courtain talks between US and CEE countries- initial US plan for this war was supporting insurgency, not conventional conflict on such massive scale. White House did reevaluate its stance to support heavy weapons to Ukraine quite dramatically, so they did changed their strategy when learned Ukrainians can in fact defend. Doesn't sound idiotic nor lazy on western behalf, at least at that time.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Beleg85

[LongLeftFlank]

OK, the longer you guys try to engage @kevinkin replacement and his Gish Gallop (look it up) blasts of overconfident yet entirely unsupported broad projectile vomits of 'alternative facts' the more unreadable this thread becomes.

If he really wants to be our good faith house contrarian, he needs to post credible third party information, then give his take, one or two points at a time and allow time for reubuttal.

Otherwise, this is just garden variety trolling.

...This is what happens when nobody posts information and just bloviates and emotes.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, fireship4 said:

Your post has unsound reasoning and does not read like the words of someone who knows what they are talking about, rather someone who has a lens they view each event through which you fight for.  It is fine to just use logic or google stuff to -refute- statements, I would say that can work out OK if you did that properly, but you could actually commit yourself to creating some workable models which bear some resemblance to how things actually work in real life and learning some in-depth history on a subject.  What you are doing here is just advocating a straw-man image of the West through cherry-picking and non-arguments.

Just don't bother.  This crowd have exactly two gimmicks and they build everything on top of that:

When not in power - Do the opposite, no matter what.  Had Biden said "nope" and held back at the Polish border, they would be howling for blood because he failed to defend the global order.  It doesn't matter context or facts (just make up your own) whatever the issue take the diametrically opposite side of "them".  Build an entire framework - even if it makes no sense - around that.

When in power - Blame everyone, anyone for not getting a damn thing done.  It is "the system", the swamp, the democratic process.  No matter what never be accountable for your own decisions or inaction, blame, blame, blame.  And if you manage to be like a broken clock and get something right - make like it was a shining defining moment in the history of humanity.

This is not even new.  Despots and autocrats have used this same scheme forever.  Fascism did it.  Communism did it.  And now various far-right political groups are doing it - this is not a solely US based phenomenon.

This strategy is particularly focused on two main groups:

- The mob.  They do not really have any idea of how things actually work nor do they want to.  They want easy solutions and binary lenses.  First clue on whoever this guy is was "simple math".  I recall during the previous US presidential administration when aluminum tariffs were being imposed on Canadian trade on "national security grounds".  CBC went down south and interviewed an aluminum can factory owner, and then guy on the shop floor.  Owner was very concerned that he was going to have to lay people off because all tariffs is pass cost increases onto him, the manufacturer.  They then cut to the guy working the floor, "Damn straight!  We gotta show those Canadians they cannot take advantaged of the USA."  That is what we are dealing with.

- The elites.  There is a small minority of people with a lot of power who know exactly what they are doing.  They understand the risks and damage but do not care as the gains far outweigh them.  They are supporting all this to grab more power (never enough). 

If anyone is thinking "I recognize this", well you probably do - it is exactly how Russia is working right now.  It is how other autocrats are working.  China has a similar system.  The major failing of democracy is that it expects the voter - the one with decision power - to actually care enough to stay informed enough to make sound decisions.  The reality is very different.  Autocracy is beautiful in its simplicity: "Don't worry about all that uncertainty.  I will give you certainty and take care of it.  Just give me all the power."

The rest is just noise and soundbites from talking heads who string together datapoints to "prove their point".   Or transparent tactics that a 7 year old would recognize - pretend to have empathy and point out the "humanity".  I could see this from the start and likely why my reaction was visceral.  Any one who can come on this board and arrogantly claim with authority that "WW1 was simple" clearly has no idea what they are talking about and is rolling in on an agenda.

If the past is any indication, Steve will put up with it for awhile and boot the guy.  Or he will slink back into the shadows before coming to that point and we can do this all over again in 6 months. 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...This is what happens when nobody posts information and just bloviates and emotes.

Definitely overeducated nihilistic liberal.  Actually it does not seem to matter what we do, these drive-bys will happen.  The reason people are not posting any real new information is largely because there isn't any.  Imagine this thread in roughly late 1916 after the Somme.  "Ok, so what to we talk about until Vimy?"

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Naftali Bennett and former-German Chancellor Schroeder have stated peace was on the table and that the Americans were the ones who 'ended' those talks. A lot of rumors have been flying around about the nature of these talks and why they suddenly concluded like this, but those are two very legitimate sources.

Schroeder is not a reliable source and even if he was your comments lack any form of context.  The context was that there was a push for a cease-fire by all parties except Russia.  Russia was pushing for the destruction of the Ukrainian state.  Those were Russia's terms then, since, and to this day.

The way you are deliberately distorting this is to paint a picture that Russia was offering acceptable conditions for ceasing its war of aggression and that the ONLY reason it didn't happen is that the US scuttled the deal.  That is what I asked you to provide sources for and you did not.  Therefore, you are wrong to push this false narrative.

4 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

If you paid the smallest amount of attention to the West's actions the past 20 years you'd think they were the most aggressively militaristic party on the planet. Wait a second -- they were. In fact, one of them is bombing civvies right this second! But you'd also think there were WMDs in Iraq, that al-Qaeda had a huge network of supervillain caves in Afghanistan, and a long litany of other lies used to justify mayhem on spread. Leaders lie, and they lie most predominantly to their own people. I won't pretend to know Putin's goals at this point and, like in the West, I'd take anything he says to his own people with a grain of salt. I just gave you the above information, though, to demonstrate they were absolutely not his goals early on.

You said we don't know what Russia's goals are.  I said they are as clear as day and I spelled them out.  You offered nothing to dispute this, but instead went with a tired old Russia "whataboutism" that poor little Russia was forced to do this because the evil West does it to everybody.

If you want to have a debate, then debate.  If you make a claim that is challenged, dodging it with a "whataboutism" is a clear sign that you're not up for a real debate.

4 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

The above comments made by the Israeli and German statesmen do not align with your fantasies here.

They did not say anything to dispute what I said.  Not only that, we have a lot of other evidence than two people, one of whom is in Putin's pocket, who have said otherwise.  You duck and weave around the obvious which is Russia's stated goals.  I just pointed out that Putin just reiterated them.  This is not "fantasy", this is what Putin actually said:

"He reiterated that Moscow’s goals in Ukraine — “de-Nazification, de-militarization and a neutral status” of Ukraine — remain unchanged. He had spelled out those loosely defined objectives the day he sent in troops February 2022.

The claim of “de-Nazification” refers to Russia’s false assertions that Ukraine’s government is heavily influenced by radical nationalist and neo-Nazi groups — an allegation derided by Kyiv and the West.

He reaffirmed his claim that much of today’s Ukraine, including the Black Sea port of Odesa and other coastal areas, historically belonged to Russia and were given away by Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/us/an-emboldened-confident-putin-says-there-will-be-no-peace-in-ukraine-until-russias-goals-are-met/ar-AA1ltUaB

You do realize that in 2014 Russia invaded and took Crimea and a big chunk of the Donbas, right?  Are you saying Putin didn't intend on taking these when he invaded?  You do realize that all of the captured territories added since then, and territories it has yet to capture, are also part of Russia according to Russian law?

In short, if you want to argue that I'm wrong, you have to start by explaining why Putin is making statements like this if he doesn't really want to take Ukrainian territory AND then explain to us how it is that Russia was apparently forced against its will to administratively incorporate all currently held Ukrainian territories into Russia.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

OK, the longer you guys try to engage @kevinkin replacement and his Gish Gallop (look it up) blasts of overconfident yet entirely unsupported broad projectile vomits of 'alternative facts' the more unreadable this thread becomes.

If he really wants to be our good faith house contrarian, he needs to post credible third party information, then give his take, one or two points at a time and allow time for reubuttal.

Otherwise, this is just garden variety trolling.

Yup, I think we're nearing the point where I put out the "cease and disses" notice.  Otherwise, I will impose one upon him.  Which would be fitting since he chose to take on the moniker of the only person I can remember having to ban this year for similar behavior.

Steve

[OBJ]

Apologies if a repeat, did not find a duplicate reference, so...2021 JFQ paper on defense again becoming dominant in warfare, all domain and inter-domain discourse to include space, cyber and EM, global economic and military implications, multi-domain warfighting, the difficulty of synchronizing cross domain attacks, acknowledgement no one really knows what new technologies are capable of until they are employed, implications for the US/west success in resisting Chinese and Russian armed aggression.

Also this, in the EM discussion, which was new to me, possibly not to others here, 'At the tactical level, the United States has demonstrated a drone that can create an EMP directed at specific targets.'

The paper reinforces the opinion expressed here the world is seeing the emergence of defense as the current dominant form of warfare.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-103/jfq-103_10-17_Hammes.pdf?ver=OMgkzdhCeQLSxaHs_SvOdw%3D%3D

Defense becomes dominant again JFQ 103 Q4 2021.pdf

[FlemFire]

1 hour ago, fireship4 said:

He was saying it wasn't true.

 

Don't know anything about him, didn't have anything to say, couldn't be bothered to refute your statistically weak output.

 

If you don't know anything about it, why not inform yourself? Again, I don't understand this.

 

Quote

Allow me to clarify:

 

There is nothing to clarify -- either a state is aggressive or it is not. Capability has nothing to do with it. And the totality of Western aggression does not in fact end at Afghanistan and Iraq, no. Extending the timeline to the Cold War does the West even worse favors in this regard as they acted maniacally to counterbalance Communism.

 

 

Quote

 

Do delight us with you knowledge of these people, your analysis of the neocon movement, and why it is bad, and how it can be charactarised as "expansionism/imperialism".  Dictators have no recourse to justice, only to strength - there is nothing that protects them as far as another stronger country coming along and entirely legitimately turning them into a fine mist.

...

Did you see Victoria Nuland running around the middle east killing babies in a dream or something?  Who the hell is that anyway? 

 

 

You are free to 1) Read the Neoconservative literature which is readily available online, written by themselves. 2) Observe Neocons in power. If you think this is not "bad", then that is your opinion. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is you shouldn't even be commenting on this at all, to be very frank.

 

Quote

Help or don't help, that was the choice - they were going to resist no matter what.  Dogwalking them into the conflict... who are you f'ing John Pilger?  Is everything the US's fault?  Russia invades Ukraine, there is a good case to be made they would have commited some kind of genocide had they been successful.  They resist this actual imperialism, the US/UK/NATO helps them, but not enough for you, and you know why that is, because you have tapped the Western hivemind datacentre via Alex Jones and the cocaine residue you managed to sift out of your carpet this morning.  Answer: the US cynically sacrifices Ukraine for it's benefit?!  Wow such Russian take!

 

There are individuals in the U.S. who stand to gain regardless of the outcome here. This is called outcome-independence. You typically need to be wary of such individuals inviting themselves into your own interests, because they can cut and run at a moment's notice. If the U.S. was genuinely interested in defeating Russia, it has the capabilities to do so. It is not using these means so therefore I have to conclude that there ulterior motives at play. The incestual nature of military command and corporate military production greatly muddies these waters. Need I point out examples of American military leaders proposing specific weapon-use concepts, and then retiring and going to work for the contractor who just coincidentally happens to make said specific weapons? Would such an individual, who has $$$ to make, be more concerned with the livelihoods of foreigners he doesn't know than he is with his own bank account? Human nature says no.

 

 

Quote

 

You prefer the West to **** or get off the pot is what you're saying?  Because you assess that what they are doing won't work?  Well so what?  Your opinion is worth as much as your analysis reveals: a fart in the wind.

 

 

 

 

 

"Well so what" is not much of a discussion, nor are the long list of unnecessary insults you trotted out across your entire post.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yes, he does states that he thought reaching ceasefire was possible at that very moment (=before Bucha, 2:45) but he is not sure from a posteriori point of view if it had even worked ("Cause statemenship is very complex" and "there were many factors", 4:51, a part you missed). Murdered civilians were a potent fact in both Western and internal UA politics- there was no coming back to talks after it became obvious what Ivans did, especially from Ukrainian perspective.

Additionally, Arakhamia on other interview too stated that they were simply not trusting Putin enough to sign agreements with him about neutrality. The fact that talks were in place, Putin was willing to make some concessions when wounded after his army became stuck spectacularly or that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv to promote not signing deals with Vova does not change basic premise- if Ukraine would dismantle bulk of its own military forces and finlandize, it was only a question of time before it become swallowed again by muscovia. They would have Russian tanks over their necks anyway, sooner or later. And Ukrainians understood it from the start.

 

He literally states the West stepped in and said no. The words could not be more clear.

The goals of the Russians are to functionally disable Ukraine, yes. Distrusting this is not the discussion, though. I agree that distrusting it is a perfectly viable reason to decline the offer. However, as I said earlier, the consequences are that the war then goes onward and you might end up at a worse bargaining position later. 

 

Quote

 

You may not get inner workings of Kremlin politics since you focus on America, but Putin couldn't allow in long term to have image of a loser in this war- and that would be effect if potentiall ceasefire of the kind we discuss here would take place, while Russian columns took such looses in the north, both on Eastern and Western side of Dnieper. Perception of his war as military failure could be deadly for his imperial mojo, and even making small concessions to Ukraine would put him in very difficult position internally.

Agree, sanctions should be much stonger and West do lack coherent strategy for this war after 2023- but is is a topic touched upon many times in this thread. Also book by Z. Parafianowicz gives some details of behind-the-courtain talks between US and CEE countries- initial US plan for this war was supporting insurgency, not conventional conflict on such massive scale. White House did reevaluate its stance to support heavy weapons to Ukraine quite dramatically, so they did changed their strategy when learned Ukrainians can in fact defend. Doesn't sound idiotic nor lazy on western behalf, at least at that time.

 

 

I've stated the nature of Putin protecting his prestige earlier this year. I think this is something actually most everyone understands. I seem to be the only one extending it to a logical conclusion, though, which is that the more costly the war becomes, the more the Russians are likely going to steal to justify said losses.

 

 

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Definitely overeducated nihilistic liberal.  Actually it does not seem to matter what we do, these drive-bys will happen.  The reason people are not posting any real new information is largely because there isn't any.  Imagine this thread in roughly late 1916 after the Somme.  "Ok, so what to we talk about until Vimy?"

 

The question is not of posting new information -- which nobody is doing -- but of analyzing what we have before us and coming to different conclusions. How is this not understood? Is posting fresh drone strikes considered 'new information'? I don't find it pertinent, personally, unless said drone strike is taking out some high-value target then by all means. My understanding is the nihilistic liberals are hardcore on the Ukrainian side, but I'm not tuned into the college-aged population as of late.

 

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Schroeder is not a reliable source and even if he was your comments lack any form of context.  The context was that there was a push for a cease-fire by all parties except Russia.  Russia was pushing for the destruction of the Ukrainian state.  Those were Russia's terms then, since, and to this day.

The way you are deliberately distorting this is to paint a picture that Russia was offering acceptable conditions for ceasing its war of aggression and that the ONLY reason it didn't happen is that the US scuttled the deal.  That is what I asked you to provide sources for and you did not.  Therefore, you are wrong to push this false narrative.

 

How is it that every single response on this topic plainly ignores that there is a corresponding story? I do not disagree that Schroeder might be acting in bad faith. I do not believe that it is an automatic discount of what he might have to say. Were he saying it alone, then you might be correct. But he is not alone in saying it so therefore one has to adjust their approach to what is being said.

 

 

Quote

You said we don't know what Russia's goals are.  I said

 

So you said-I said. My assumption is Putin wanted demilitarized zones and the possible annexation of eastern Ukraine. My assumption is that we don't know what his goals are now and, as stated above, he might steal more of Ukraine to justify a war he did not plan to go on for so long. I don't think there need be much contention here -- neither of us know his true intentions and can only guess. We just guess differently.

 

 

Quote

You do realize that in 2014 Russia invaded and took Crimea and a big chunk of the Donbas, right?  Are you saying Putin didn't intend on taking these when he invaded?  You do realize that all of the captured territories added since then, and territories it has yet to capture, are also part of Russia according to Russian law?

 

No need to tailor questions in an insulting manner. There's no debate about Russian expansionism and imperialism. However, the areas Russia has absorbed are ethnically Russian. There is zero partisan effort in Crime and Donbas. Would you say this is correct? Does that make it 'right' for Russia to do what it did? No, of course. But if we're discussing Russia's future intentions, there is a considerable leap from it going after what it believes it can take for "free" (using this word loosely), and going after, say, a very hostile Ukraine central that would spend its every living breath sniping, bombing, and basically ruining Russian occupation. Would you agree that these are widely different end goals in concern to the mechanisms required to maintain them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, OBJ said:

Apologies if a repeat, did not find a duplicate reference, so...2021 JFQ paper on defense again becoming dominant in warfare, all domain and inter-domain discourse to include space, cyber and EM, global economic and military implications, multi-domain warfighting, the difficulty of synchronizing cross domain attacks, acknowledgement no one really knows what new technologies are capable of until they are employed, implications for the US/west success in resisting Chinese and Russian armed aggression.

Also this, in the EM discussion, which was new to me, possibly not to others here, 'At the tactical level, the United States has demonstrated a drone that can create an EMP directed at specific targets.'

The paper reinforces the opinion expressed here the world is seeing the emergence of defense as the current dominant form of warfare.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-103/jfq-103_10-17_Hammes.pdf?ver=OMgkzdhCeQLSxaHs_SvOdw%3D%3D

Defense becomes dominant again JFQ 103 Q4 2021.pdf 282.11 kB · 0 downloads

Thanks for posting this.  I'm going to give it a read tonight, but the fact that this was written in 2021 means someone was thinking ahead.

Steve

[Beleg85]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Schroeder is not a reliable source and even if he was your comments lack any form of context.  The context was that there was a push for a cease-fire by all parties except Russia.  Russia was pushing for the destruction of the Ukrainian state.  Those were Russia's terms then, since, and to this day.

Right about this Kremlin shill Schroeder, but If Bennet is to be believed (and we have no reason not to, albeit he too could have Israeli interests in mind) situation with talks looked slightlly diiferently. West indeed advised Ukrainians to fight and Putin was willing to make some temporary concessions when stuck, which Israeli former PM find good signs as to willingness to coooperate from his mediator point of view. But clue is (as Arakhamia confirmed) he was not being believed enough in Kiyv as reliable partner to have ceasfire with. Talks loomed for some time until Bucha and others massacres were discovered, and they realized Muscovy will do everything to swallow UA state.

[Splinty]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, I think we're nearing the point where I put out the "cease and disses" notice.  Otherwise, I will impose one upon him.  Which would be fitting since he chose to take on the moniker of the only person I can remember having to ban this year for similar behavior.

Steve

I put him on Ignore as soon as I saw his User Name.

[FlemFire]

40 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

OK, the longer you guys try to engage @kevinkin replacement and his Gish Gallop (look it up) blasts of overconfident yet entirely unsupported broad projectile vomits of 'alternative facts' the more unreadable this thread becomes.

If he really wants to be our good faith house contrarian, he needs to post credible third party information, then give his take, one or two points at a time and allow time for reubuttal.

Otherwise, this is just garden variety trolling.

...This is what happens when nobody posts information and just bloviates and emotes.

 

Average age of Ukrainian soldier is over 40, posted in this topic.

The Russians have a 7:1 drone advantage, posted in this topic.

The Russians have a 20:1 artillery advantage (by tube), posted in this topic.

The Russian economy is increasing its GDP with a stabilized war expenditure, posted in this topic (by you).

 

How is this trolling, exactly? I'm dealing with the same information as everyone else.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is you shouldn't even be commenting on this at all, to be very frank.

I certainly know the name.  This was one of the top pro-Russian justifications for invading Ukraine in 2014.  The fact that you are mentioning her now is enlightening.

5 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

I. If the U.S. was genuinely interested in defeating Russia, it has the capabilities to do so. It is not using these means so therefore I have to conclude that there ulterior motives at play.

AKA conspiracy theory.

While I agree that there's unstated reasons for the US not doing everything that it could be doing, the more logical and factually supported case is that the US is concerned about the ramifications of Russia collapsing.  We have discussed these concerns here and many of us, including me, share them.  However, I think it's inevitable and so I'm more inclined to take the risk that Russia can be kicked out of Ukraine without it happening.

Further, the US is not acting alone.  Europe and other partners are deeply involved and the US is trying to keep everybody part of a united front.  There is ample evidence that Germany, France, and others are quite concerned about pushing Russia too far.  Therefore, it is possible that the US holding back is not entirely voluntary.

The above is far more likely than a cabal of US defense industry executives and lobbyists calling the shots.  Especially since if Russia does break up they are probably going to have even more defense spending money to keep them happy for the rest of their lives.

5 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

"Well so what" is not much of a discussion, nor are the long list of unnecessary insults you trotted out across your entire post.

The tone and construction of your posts is being responded to appropriately.  If you argue like a Russian sympathizer, then you should be prepared for the consequences.

 

5 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

How is it that every single response on this topic plainly ignores that there is a corresponding story? I do not disagree that Schroeder might be acting in bad faith. I do not believe that it is an automatic discount of what he might have to say. Were he saying it alone, then you might be correct. But he is not alone in saying it so therefore one has to adjust their approach to what is being said.

Ignoring?  No, it's being addressed head on.  You are the one who is distorting what they said to support a point of view that is at odds with other sources that contradict your characterization. 

5 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

So you said-I said. My assumption is Putin wanted demilitarized zones and the possible annexation of eastern Ukraine. My assumption is that we don't know what his goals are now and, as stated above, he might steal more of Ukraine to justify a war he did not plan to go on for so long. I don't think there need be much contention here -- neither of us know his true intentions and can only guess. We just guess differently.

And I said that you are woefully ill informed about Russia's history with Ukraine.  Russia has ALWAYS viewed Ukraine as a part of Russia.  Hundreds of years of precedent here.  This was openly stated as the goal of the Novorossiya movement that was used as cover for the 2014 invasion.  Putin would have preferred Ukraine be a vassal state (as Belarus is) because that is the Russian way.  But it was very clear that wasn't the direction things were headed in and so that, more than anything, is at the heart of why he invaded in 2022.

BTW, Russia started talk of annexing Ukrainian lands almost as soon as the war started.  It officially announced such moves in August 2022 IIRC.  Maybe sooner.

Steve

[The_Capt]

14 minutes ago, Splinty said:

I put him on Ignore as soon as I saw his User Name.

[FlemFire]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I certainly know the name.  This was one of the top pro-Russian justifications for invading Ukraine in 2014.  The fact that you are mentioning her now is enlightening.

 

A Neocon mucked around in an area that then went to war? No need to clutch pearls: this is modus operandi.

 

 

Quote

While I agree that there's unstated reasons for the US not doing everything that it could be doing, the more logical and factually supported case is that the US is concerned about the ramifications of Russia collapsing.  We have discussed these concerns here and many of us, including me, share them.  However, I think it's inevitable and so I'm more inclined to take the risk that Russia can be kicked out of Ukraine without it happening.

 

Your argument is they don't want to be too victorious, am I reading this correctly?

 

Quote

 

The above is far more likely than a cabal of US defense industry executives and lobbyists calling the shots.  Especially since if Russia does break up they are probably going to have even more defense spending money to keep them happy for the rest of their lives.

The tone and construction of your posts is being responded to appropriately.  If you argue like a Russian sympathizer, then you should be prepared for the consequences.

 

I've said Putin is a dictator who murders his opponents in broad daylight. I described Russia as an expansionist imperial power. How long do you think these sympathies would last me inside Russia? What is more likely, that the Russians would have me in a jail cell in a flash, or that you mistake a difference of opinion as a matter of black and white reductionism?

 

Quote

Ignoring?  No, it's being addressed head on.  You are the one who is distorting what they said to support a point of view that is at odds with other sources that contradict your characterization. 

You say it's addressed head on, yet once again there is no mention of the Israeli PM. Please talk about the Israeli PM's words. 

 

Quote

 

And I said that you are woefully ill informed about Russia's history with Ukraine.  Russia has ALWAYS viewed Ukraine as a part of Russia.  Hundreds of years of precedent here.  This was openly stated as the goal of the Novorossiya movement that was used as cover for the 2014 invasion.  Putin would have preferred Ukraine be a vassal state (as Belarus is) because that is the Russian way.  But it was very clear that wasn't the direction things were headed in and so that, more than anything, is at the heart of why he invaded in 2022.

BTW, Russia started talk of annexing Ukrainian lands almost as soon as the war started.  It officially announced such moves in August 2022 IIRC.  Maybe sooner.

 

 

I mean, what part of my comments disagree with this? As for annexation, I just want to point out that August is a whopping six months after February. "Almost as soon as" is quite the stretch there, wouldn't you agree? I think it appears more likely that Putin went "uh oh" and scrambled to justify his ambitions. I do consider, and have said before, that the annexation itself may have been a hidden ambition anyway. That Putin's stated goal was to develop a rump state, but that he was after those territories on the side is entirely feasible. Again, I am not overly concerned with the exact timing of what-if-when-why, as the parameters remain the same (Russian invasion).