The Ukraine War

[SWIM]

Something surely can be said about Europe suddenly realizing that they need to spend more on their own security, but none of what has transpired so far has led me to decide this is by intelligent design by Trump.

It was possible to accomplish what has been accomplished so far without the chaos and bluster and lies Trump and his team have cast on our allies.


Also @Sarge there is no evidence to support your assertion that Ukraine was never going to win. In fact, since Ukraine gained western assistance they gained back much of the ground they initially lost. Russia certainly isn’t winning. It’s a stalemate. Tell me why America should want Russia to win?

Beyond the moral reasons to support Ukraine’s war, there are many strategic reasons. From weakening Russia, maintaining and increasing our strategic manufacturing capability, and being able to test weapons systems against first world militaries without direct confrontation.

To me it seems the mistake was not enough aid, not too much aid.

Sure it costs money. But money is just paper.

[Sarge]

Something surely can be said about Europe suddenly realizing that they need to spend more on their own security, but none of what has transpired so far has led me to decide this is by intelligent design by Trump.

It was possible to accomplish what has been accomplished so far without the chaos and bluster and lies Trump and his team have cast on our allies.


Also @Sarge there is no evidence to support your assertion that Ukraine was never going to win. In fact, since Ukraine gained western assistance they gained back much of the ground they initially lost. Russia certainly isn’t winning. It’s a stalemate. Tell me why America should want Russia to win?

Beyond the moral reasons to support Ukraine’s war, there are many strategic reasons. From weakening Russia, maintaining and increasing our strategic manufacturing capability, and being able to test weapons systems against first world militaries without direct confrontation.

To me it seems the mistake was not enough aid, not too much aid.

Sure it costs money. But money is just paper.

As I've said before, you need men to pull triggers. You could send half our military ground weapons over there and it would do no good without soldiers to operate them. Ukraine never had the people to stop the russians. Running out of people is one of the way you lose a war.

Ukraine has never come close to gaining back ground. Right now, ivan is pretty well entrenched in was used to be Eastern Ukraine, and they've gained back almost all of the Kursk region, which the Ukraines are trying to hold to in the hopes they can trade it for some of eastern ukraine. They were never going to win without a major escalation and manpower intervention from the West, which no western nation was willing to do.

It's a sad situation all around, but it's not the first time one country has rolled into another. It's been happening since the dawn of mankind, and unless other countries are willing to send troops, this one is over. Hell, when it all started, Milley said ivan would be in Kiev in four days. So much for that. The trick will be telling putin "This much and no more".

[PeterMP]

Running out of people is one of the way you lose a war.

That's true, but lots of wars get lost without anybody running out of people.

The Germans didn't run out of people in WW1. The Japanese didn't run out of people in WWII. Iraq didn't run out of people in the first Gulf War. You're literally ignoring history and making things up.

Russia is trying to fight this war in a way that minimizes the impact on the daily life of their middle to upper class and ethnic Russians. There's every reason to believe that a Ukraine with better weapons and less restrictions on those weapons would be able to fight a more offensive war that would more impact those Russians and put more pressure on Putin to come to a negotiating table with terms more favorable to Ukraine or even just pull out of the more recent territories he's gained.

[Sarge]

Running out of people is one of the way you lose a war.

That's true, but lots of wars get lost without anybody running out of people.

The Germans didn't run out of people in WW1. The Japanese didn't run out of people in WWII. Iraq didn't run out of people in the first Gulf War. You're literally ignoring history and making things up.

Russia is trying to fight this war in a way that minimizes the impact on the daily life of their middle to upper class and ethnic Russians. There's every reason to believe that a Ukraine with better weapons and less restrictions on those weapons would be able to fight a more offensive war that would more impact those Russians and put more pressure on Putin to come to a negotiating table with terms more favorable to Ukraine or even just pull out of the more recent territories he's gained.

Let me rephrase. You lose a war by running out of soldiers. Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Just like the Germans and Japanese, who were filling the ranks with old men and boys at the end of the war. Meanwhile, putin and fat boy in North Korea are emptying the gulags and sending those bodies into the meat grinder. Russia is not going to pull out of Eastern Ukraine. Just not happening. So, the question again is, who's willing to go kick them out? Obviously, no one.

[PeterMP]

Let me rephrase. You lose a war by running out of soldiers. Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Just like the Germans and Japanese, who were filling the ranks with old men and boys at the end of the war. Meanwhile, putin and fat boy in North Korea are emptying the gulags and sending those bodies into the meat grinder. Russia is not going to pull out of Eastern Ukraine. Just not happening. So, the question again is, who's willing to go kick them out? Obviously, no one.

Ukraine's mobilization age is 18. And it was in the 20s until April of last year. They're far from where Germany was at the end of WWII. The comparison is not apt.

If somebody had asked 3 years into the Afghani-Russian conflict who was going to remove the Russians from Afghanistan, the answer would have largely the same. Nobody. And Russia certainly did not appear to have any interest in giving up Afghanistan. Who knows what 5 or more years of the status quo will bring? The Russians might kick themselves out, just like they did in Afghanistan.

There's no reason we have to answer questions about how this conflict ends today.

As it has been pointed out, just having the Russian military works for us. It has affect their ability to do other things like support Syria and Assad.

There aren't many good reasons for us to support Ukraine until they have to/want to give it up. And certainly ZERO good reasons to talking about Ukraine starting the conflict or Zelenskyy being a dictator.

[PeterMP]

When Trump took power in 2016, the US war in Afghanistan had been going from more than 12 years, was costing us the amount of money that the right claims the war in Ukraine is, and was costing American lives, there was no hurry to end that war or to answer questions like who is going to kick the Taliban out.

The Syrian Civil War had been going on about as long as the current Ukraine/Russian war, wasn't really costing us anything, but was a humanitarian disaster. He showed no interest in getting involved in ending that war.

[SWIM]

Running out of people is one of the way you lose a war.

That's true, but lots of wars get lost without anybody running out of people.

The Germans didn't run out of people in WW1. The Japanese didn't run out of people in WWII. Iraq didn't run out of people in the first Gulf War. You're literally ignoring history and making things up.

Russia is trying to fight this war in a way that minimizes the impact on the daily life of their middle to upper class and ethnic Russians. There's every reason to believe that a Ukraine with better weapons and less restrictions on those weapons would be able to fight a more offensive war that would more impact those Russians and put more pressure on Putin to come to a negotiating table with terms more favorable to Ukraine or even just pull out of the more recent territories he's gained.

Let me rephrase. You lose a war by running out of soldiers. Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Just like the Germans and Japanese, who were filling the ranks with old men and boys at the end of the war. Meanwhile, putin and fat boy in North Korea are emptying the gulags and sending those bodies into the meat grinder. Russia is not going to pull out of Eastern Ukraine. Just not happening. So, the question again is, who's willing to go kick them out? Obviously, no one.

Ukraine hasn’t fully mobilized via draft. They have plenty of bodies left. Now you could argue we should put pressure on them to fully mobilize. I’m fine with that.

As far as you thinking they will never leave eastern Ukraine, It is entirely conceivable with the right pressure Russia could pull out of a lot of the area in which it currently occupies.

It was inconceivable that the USSR would dissolve in the early 1970s but in ten years later it was facing numerous crisis and just years after that it collapsed.

The point being, you have to play the long game to live in a world you want.

These moves by Trump are short sighted at best.

[Jumbo]

@SWIM I think the main reason trump's takes there have that short sighted element is that they come from a "how do I personally benefit in some material way" focus, which governs all his thinking.

[DCSaints_fan]

As I've said before, you need men to pull triggers. You could send half our military ground weapons over there and it would do no good without soldiers to operate them. Ukraine never had the people to stop the russians. Running out of people is one of the way you lose a war.

Ukraine has never come close to gaining back ground. Right now, ivan is pretty well entrenched in was used to be Eastern Ukraine, and they've gained back almost all of the Kursk region, which the Ukraines are trying to hold to in the hopes they can trade it for some of eastern ukraine. They were never going to win without a major escalation and manpower intervention from the West, which no western nation was willing to do.

It's a sad situation all around, but it's not the first time one country has rolled into another. It's been happening since the dawn of mankind, and unless other countries are willing to send troops, this one is over. Hell, when it all started, Milley said ivan would be in Kiev in four days. So much for that. The trick will be telling putin "This much and no more".

Balance of manpower doesn't tell the whole story.

Iraq had a very favorable balance of manpower against the coalition in 1991. Fat lot of good it did them.

If the US were to commit its airpower to the fight, the calculus would change very quickly.

[Jumbo]

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russ ... aa816158ac


Heard on radio news that zelenskyy is open to stepping down if it somehow will assist in negotiating a fair and quick end to the war.