|
|
Post by mhbruin on May 23, 2022 5:14:04 GMT -8
I agree with this guy: The Tankies have long demanded Ukraine give Russia some of its territory for “peace,” really concerned for Vladimir Putin’s ability to “save face.” Apparently, it’s very important for bullies to get what they want. French President Emmanuel Macron warned Ukraine and Europe against “giv[ing] in to the temptation” to humiliate Russia. Weirdly, he didn’t offer up any part of France for Putin to save face. The New York Times editorial board claimed that a “decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.” Of course, it is absolutely a realistic goal, yet they proclaimed that “If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.” Why should they? Why not offer up Alaska to Russia to salve their wounded pride? Too many people are uncomfortable at the sight of a bloody war and would rather it end, rewarding Putin for his violent actions, than work to deny him any gains. In the end, whether it’s Macron or The NY Times editorial board, they all pay service to Ukraine’s choice in the matter. But what they’re really saying, as the NY Times did, is that allies “should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain.” How magnanimous of the NY Times editorial board to decide for President Joe Biden and Congress what kind of aid to send, and how much of its own destruction Ukraine should be able to tolerate. Did I say “magnanimous”? I meant arrogant. The proper response to that pile of bullshit was “fuck you,” but Ukraine was far more diplomatic: Today, any concession to Russia is not a path to peace, but a war postponed for several years. Ukraine trades neither its sovereignty, nor territories and Ukrainians living on them. It's a pity that we have to explain such simple things to such reputable media as @nytimes. pic.twitter.com/NJdLm7fWOV — Михайло Подоляк (@podolyak_M) May 21, 2022 If you want to read more. |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on May 23, 2022 7:40:05 GMT -8
If the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting, then we should be willing to supply the arms. Putin = Hitler and we need to recall how "peace for our time" worked out.
We must stay the course and keep the pressure on. The people running Russia are ruthless, but I doubt they're crazy enough to start a nuclear war.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on May 24, 2022 7:07:52 GMT -8
What you stated is basically Vindman's position that I still don't fully support. As soon as the American people tire of sending billions to Ukraine while they struggle and go broke with inflation the US congressional support will begin to dry up. If that happens Ukraine will quickly go backwards as military supplies dwindle.
I simply don't believe the American people at large will be willing to make great personal sacrifices for Ukraine IF they begin to perceive that much of their personal suffering could be alleviated with money we are sending to Ukraine. We are no longer the Americans of the 1940's. Would cutting dollars to Ukraine solve America's economic disaster? Of course not but all that matters is perception and social media and the news will follow the drift to sell media whether or not it's the truth.
It is certainly Ukraine's decision not ours but IF they could end the war with some territorial negotiations IMO it would definitely be in their best interests. Is it probable that Ukraine can re-take all of the contested areas? No one knows but it doesn't seem likely to me. Russia has infinitely more fire power than Ukraine even with our help, which again probably won't continue forever. Remember some parts have already been at war for years. Should we plan to continue to arm them for another endless war? I think we know where the American voters stand on that one.
If they could end the war with permanent territorial agreements, let the dust settle while they re-build for a few years, then be accepted into NATO, that would solidify Ukraine's security. By then Russia would also be weaker as a result of continuing sanctions. At that point I don't think even Putin would be foolish enough to re-start the whole war. He knows beyond any doubt that he can't defeat NATO and I also don't think he's crazed enough to end humanity by hurling nuclear ICBM's.
Then again, all of our opinions are worth about as much as a used MAGA hat.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on May 24, 2022 12:11:06 GMT -8
What you stated is basically Vindman's position that I still don't fully support. As soon as the American people tire of sending billions to Ukraine while they struggle and go broke with inflation the US congressional support will begin to dry up. If that happens Ukraine will quickly go backwards as military supplies dwindle. I simply don't believe the American people at large will be willing to make great personal sacrifices for Ukraine IF they begin to perceive that much of their personal suffering could be alleviated with money we are sending to Ukraine. We are no longer the Americans of the 1940's. Would cutting dollars to Ukraine solve America's economic disaster? Of course not but all that matters is perception and social media and the news will follow the drift to sell media whether or not it's the truth. It is certainly Ukraine's decision not ours but IF they could end the war with some territorial negotiations IMO it would definitely be in their best interests. Is it probable that Ukraine can re-take all of the contested areas? No one knows but it doesn't seem likely to me. Russia has infinitely more fire power than Ukraine even with our help, which again probably won't continue forever. Remember some parts have already been at war for years. Should we plan to continue to arm them for another endless war? I think we know where the American voters stand on that one. If they could end the war with permanent territorial agreements, let the dust settle while they re-build for a few years, then be accepted into NATO, that would solidify Ukraine's security. By then Russia would also be weaker as a result of continuing sanctions. At that point I don't think even Putin would be foolish enough to re-start the whole war. He knows beyond any doubt that he can't defeat NATO and I also don't think he's crazed enough to end humanity by hurling nuclear ICBM's. Then again, all of our opinions are worth about as much as a used MAGA hat. You're probably correct about American, and NATO/European Union, resolve. If we start to walk away, Europe will run away. All Putin has to do is to wait us out. History is repeating itself right in front of our eyes. And I'm watching to see when the wall of sanctions begin to show cracks. And the Putin-American Party (Republicans) in Congress continues to fold, with more and more of them questioning and voting against aid to Ukraine. The right-wing echo chamber will become more active too, asking why are we involved, as Russia is not invading us. It's time to dust off the history books and turn the pages to the events that preceded WWII. We were lucky that time, but our luck could run out this time. If Americans want to trade their freedoms for those enjoyed by the Russians and Chinese, then they'll reap what they've sown. And it will be a bitter harvest. If NATO can expand and stick together and the sanctions hold up, then there's still hope. It's going to be a contest of wills and the most willing will win, both on the battlefield and in the eyes of the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on May 25, 2022 4:39:36 GMT -8
If I understand the situation correctly (and I could easily be long), Ukraine is slowly giving up land for time, while Russia is trying to get all the land up to the Donets River and dig in to defensive positions.
The reason Ukraine seems to think time is on their side is that they have mobilized and army of 700,000 people and is heading toward 1 million. I don't think Russia is going to match that manpower. It seems at this point they are working to train and arm all those soldiers. Then they are going to launch their counter-offensive.
If I am right about this, you point out a problem with this strategy, which is the West might decide that if Ukraine is slowly losing land, they are fighting a losing cause, and no one wants to back a loser, except for some sports fans.
So there are two time dynamics: 1) Training and arming the soldiers pushes them toward taking their time. 2) Keeping the West engaged calls for faster action.
I think they need to launch an offensive in the next 30 days. We will see if this happens.
If it does, we will see how they do against Russian prepared defensive positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on May 25, 2022 6:02:03 GMT -8
Putin Wants to Keep Fighting. Who Will Fill the Ranks?Moscow has to figure out how to replenish unprecedented losses in just under three months of fighting. British military intelligence estimates that Russia has lost one-third of the ground combat forces it had gathered ahead of its invasion as Moscow’s forces have been bedeviled by both their own operational shortcomings and a fierce Ukrainian resistance, backed by sophisticated Western weapons. The U.S. Defense Department has not seen evidence of a mass Russian mobilization so far, officials said. But as Russia is trying to throw more forces into the fight, it is sometimes bringing in combat groups at less than full strength, including units that took losses in their failed effort to capture the capital, Kyiv. In lieu of a mass mobilization campaign, which is likely to prove unpopular, Russia has cobbled together reinforcements by redeploying troops from occupied territories in Georgia, bringing in mercenaries from Syria, recruiting civilians in occupied regions in the Donbas, and coercing soldiers to stay on the battlefield by dangling financial incentives at new recruits. Ukrainian officials and lawmakers have also noticed Russia taking less experienced troops from more far-flung areas, such as the easternmost Russian port city of Vladivostok, instead of using elite units that suffered severe casualties in the beginning of the war. And the Pentagon believes that the paramilitary Wagner Group is active in the Donbas region. “They’ve been really scraping every barrel’s bottom that they can possibly find,” said Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats project at the American Enterprise Institute. While Ukraine trains new soldiers, Russia looks for them.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on May 25, 2022 7:48:41 GMT -8
mhb: If I am right about this, you point out a problem with this strategy, which is the West might decide that if Ukraine is slowly losing land, they are fighting a losing cause, and no one wants to back a loser, except for some sports fans.
My point had nothing to do with Ukraine's performance or success. As I said in the paragraph below I simply do not believe Americans will approve of continuing to send billions to Ukraine when things are perceived to be so bad here at home.
"I simply don't believe the American people at large will be willing to make great personal sacrifices for Ukraine IF they begin to perceive that much of their personal suffering could be alleviated with money we are sending to Ukraine. We are no longer the Americans of the 1940's. Would cutting dollars to Ukraine solve America's economic disaster? Of course not but all that matters is perception and social media and the news will follow the drift to sell media whether or not it's the truth."
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on May 25, 2022 10:55:16 GMT -8
mhb: If I am right about this, you point out a problem with this strategy, which is the West might decide that if Ukraine is slowly losing land, they are fighting a losing cause, and no one wants to back a loser, except for some sports fans. My point had nothing to do with Ukraine's performance or success. As I said in the paragraph below I simply do not believe Americans will approve of continuing to send billions to Ukraine when things are perceived to be so bad here at home. "I simply don't believe the American people at large will be willing to make great personal sacrifices for Ukraine IF they begin to perceive that much of their personal suffering could be alleviated with money we are sending to Ukraine. We are no longer the Americans of the 1940's. Would cutting dollars to Ukraine solve America's economic disaster? Of course not but all that matters is perception and social media and the news will follow the drift to sell media whether or not it's the truth." > "I simply don't believe the American people at large will be willing to make great personal sacrifices for Ukraine IF they begin to perceive that much of their personal suffering could be alleviated with money we are sending to Ukraine. We are no longer the Americans of the 1940's. Would cutting dollars to Ukraine solve America's economic disaster? Of course not but all that matters is perception and social media and the news will follow the drift to sell media whether or not it's the truth." Since this country is known for its short attention span, you could be right. Add to that "Question Authority", which I believe originated in the 60's. And facts based on sound findings no longer mater, because anyone with an internet connection can fabricate their own. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on May 27, 2022 7:24:52 GMT -8
The other problem is that our government doesn't seem to care much what the public wants any more. Even if public support for Ukraine remains high, there is no guarantee our "leaders" will continue to support them.
|
|
