As far as media coverage goes this is true. I'm guessing most Americans weren't paying much attention anyway before the Middle East dustup. I think the Pro-Putin Republicans are trying to take advantage of this too.
The Q-Anon faction has framed Ukraine as a nation of pedophiles, so they support Russia. (Again making it painfully obvious which countries have infiltrated our social media systems to our detriment.)
Hamas/Israel has made people generally forget that this is still going on.
As far as media coverage goes this is true. I'm guessing most Americans weren't paying much attention anyway before the Middle East dustup. I think the Pro-Putin Republicans are trying to take advantage of this too.
Most experts would disagree that NATO has only supplied the bare minimum of armaments. But many experts would agree that serial miscalculations have been made by NATO and Ukrainian military planners in this war. That includes those sympathetic to pushing NATO membership up against the Russian border.
Sorry if this comes as a shock to you, but NATO was already up against the Russian border and has been since 2004. Russia's invasion of Ukraine brought it another 1,340 km of border with NATO when Finland joined. If Ukraine having the distant prospect of someday joining NATO was a threat dire enough to invade and annex large parts of the country should we just accept an invasion of Finland?
You may not be aware, but there have been more than a few discussions concerning the inadequacy of western defence industrial bases to meet the requirements of this kind of artillery-intensive 'stand-off' conflict or war of attrition.
You just made a case for expanding the western defense industrial base. Maybe you had some other point?
Then there is always the nuclear option for the truly impatient..... Except the USA in particular is unusually vulnerable to nuclear conflict due to horrifically awful health outcomes.
Only one party to this conflict has threatened nuclear war. It also has a horrifically awful healthcare system, but has the advantage of not giving a rat's ass how its populace suffers.
The Russians are fighting an existential war. From their perspective.
From Putin's perspective, certainly. He needs this conflict to justify his regime. Once he no longer has an external enemy to blame Russia's myriad problems on what's his case for remaining in power?
Even a cursory knowledge of Russian history makes that proposition easy to understand. Russia will not fall apart regardless of how badly the war goes in the next year or two.
Fortunately you have just such a cursory knowledge of Russian history! Especially recent history.
If Putin's regime failsâif the next mutiny manages to roll unchallenged the last 200 miles to Moscow from Rostov-On-Don, or if Putin chokes on a caviar-covered crackerâthe Russian Federation's iron grip on its fractious empire looks exceedingly rusty. Who is his successor? Ruthlessly removing his rivals for 20 years has left him as the only object filling an immense power vacuum.
Russia has ruthlessly crushed dissent and separatist movements within its empire, but now can't even keep pipsqueak Azerbaijan from annexing Armenian territory. The countries that left the Russian orbit at the end of the Cold War have prospered; those still under Mother Russia's boot have lagged far behind. It has ruled by fear alone. What's the incentive for Dagestan or Chechnya or Karelia to stay vassals if not fear?
So the Russian empire is certainly at risk of dissolution. This is one reason for NATO's reluctance to provide all Ukraine needs to kick Russia out: Russia is holding Europe hostage against that prospect. Rather than the option you're offering (pushing one of its victims to surrender in hope that that will appease Russia's imperial ambitions) how about we encourage Russia to see this prospect of growing by conquest as untenable?
NATO country member economic and financial sanctions will continue to be largely ineffective in terms of crushing Russian will but will sap public support for a continuing military effort, especially in Europe. Moreover, I would expect that over time increasing numbers of Germans will be asking themselves: What have we done to ourselves? Or.... Given the history of the 20th century, should we not have known better?
Given the history of the 20th century we absolutely should have known better.
Russia got away with invading Georgia in 2008. If it hadn't we might not be facing this crisis now.
well, I wouldn't rule out negotiations at some stage as that is basically how all wars end. Also that particular choice is at the sole discretion of the Ukrainians.
But I don't buy into the thesis that US and NATO have sunk that much political capital into a "glorious military victory" because in terms of real hardware it still looks like they giving Ukraine the barest minimum to survive and NOT what they need to win the war. Why this is so beats me. The only credible argument I can think of is that they do not want Russia to break apart which would allow rogue states and actors to get their hands on the Russian nuclear arsenal. So the west seems quite happy to leave Russia and Ukraine in a confined space and is consequently giving them just enough to allow them to keep knocking their heads in, but not actually defeat each other. No other interpretation makes any sense to me.
........
Happy Monroe Doctrine!
Please. Whether the Ukrainians go to the negotiating table and when is not entirely up to the Ukrainians. NATO-member countries can easily indirectly influence this decision by simply drying up the supply of munitions, withdrawing or threatening to withhold financial support and similar. Even if what remains of Ukraine ultimately is denied NATO membership, the USA and other NATO members will be called upon to de facto assure the security of what remains of Ukraine.
The real politics is simple. There will be no sustainable negotiated settlement without US involvement.
Most experts would disagree that NATO has only supplied the bare minimum of armaments. But many experts would agree that serial miscalculations have been made by NATO and Ukrainian military planners in this war. That includes those sympathetic to pushing NATO membership up against the Russian border.
You may not be aware, but there have been more than a few discussions concerning the inadequacy of western defence industrial bases to meet the requirements of this kind of artillery-intensive 'stand-off' conflict or war of attrition.
Then there is always the nuclear option for the truly impatient..... Except the USA in particular is unusually vulnerable to nuclear conflict due to horrifically awful health outcomes.
Of course none of this makes sense to you because you are unwilling to revise your initially mistaken assumptions. The Russians are fighting an existential war. From their perspective. Even a cursory knowledge of Russian history makes that proposition easy to understand. Russia will not fall apart regardless of how badly the war goes in the next year or two.
NATO country member economic and financial sanctions will continue to be largely ineffective in terms of crushing Russian will but will sap public support for a continuing military effort, especially in Europe. Moreover, I would expect that over time increasing numbers of Germans will be asking themselves: What have we done to ourselves? Or.... Given the history of the 20th century, should we not have known better?
Actually, I think the glorious US-lead proxy war in Ukraine was already in trouble well before the Hamas incursion into Israel and has now become the first casualty of the Israeli and US response.
I am expecting negotiations in earnest with the Russians will start in about 14 months or later from now. There is too much US and other NATO country member sunk political capital in a glorious military victory; moreover, the November 2024 US elections must be cleared first.
If the proxy war bogs down as expected, there should be no more than an additional 250K Ukrainian deaths at the outside. Likely much fewer.
When do you expect negotiations to commence? Care to guess?
well, I wouldn't rule out negotiations at some stage as that is basically how all wars end. Also that particular choice is at the sole discretion of the Ukrainians.
But I don't buy into the thesis that US and NATO have sunk that much political capital into a "glorious military victory" because in terms of real hardware it still looks like they giving Ukraine the barest minimum to survive and NOT what they need to win the war. Why this is so beats me. The only credible argument I can think of is that they do not want Russia to break apart which would allow rogue states and actors to get their hands on the Russian nuclear arsenal. So the west seems quite happy to leave Russia and Ukraine in a confined space and is consequently giving them just enough to allow them to keep knocking their heads in, but not actually defeat each other. No other interpretation makes any sense to me.
Yes the Ukrainian losses are appalling. But so are the Russian losses, which are only going to exacerbate its demographic problems. Whatever way you look at it, Russia's future under the current constellation doesn't look too bright. Ukraine OTOH will benefit from massive capital influx after the war from the EU and other nations, and should grow quickly.
Next point:
If Putin did in fact play a part in encouraging the Hamas attack (Russia/Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas axis) as some say then I think he has miscalculated. The prime goal for Putin should have been to encourage the Trumpists and hope for Trump to win the next election. This, coupled with nationalist parties getting into government in Europe, would have given him scope to defeat Ukraine and exert influence over Europe (read sell them oil and gas again, remove sanctions and continue infiltrating both the public and private sectors of European nations as he was successfully doing before the war.
But by rekindling the Israeli / Hamas conflict he has made the isolationist MAGA arm of the Republicans weak and is forcing the US (regardless of whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat) back into an active global policing role. I can't see this harming the Ukrainians in any way. On the contrary, the defence industry is going to be smacking its lips at all the new business. Ukraine doesn't need a US intervention, it only needs their aging stocks of hardware that are anyway getting scrapped. It can do the rest by itself.
In this context, how the coming elections pan out in Europe is going to be very interesting. Will the current coalition of the anti-semites/nationalists/anti-vaxxers/neo-fascists/climate deniers enjoy a renaissance and plunge us all back into the dark ages? As things currently stand, I wouldn't rule this out either. As gloomy as that might be.
so you don't want the war to finish? Good to know.
You are so funny NoEnzo.
Actually, I think the glorious US-lead proxy war in Ukraine was already in trouble well before the Hamas incursion into Israel and has now become the first casualty of the Israeli and US response.
I am expecting negotiations in earnest with the Russians will start in about 14 months or later from now. There is too much US and other NATO country member sunk political capital in a glorious military victory; moreover, the November 2024 US elections must be cleared first.
If the proxy war bogs down as expected, there should be no more than an additional 250K Ukrainian deaths at the outside. Likely much fewer.
When do you expect negotiations to commence? Care to guess?
1. From a Ukrainian perspective:
The Ukrainians simply have no other option than to keep defending, even if they have to use pitchforks. To surrender would mean allowing the Russians to roll in and commit mass atrocities and ethnically cleanse all the land they take. The old adage still holds true:
If Russia stops fighting, the war will be over. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine as it is known today will be over. So Ukraine will just keep on doing whatever it has to do.
Russia has breached absolutely every pact it has entered into with Ukraine. There is ZERO trust remaining, so even a peace deal is highly unlikely, even if the war does come to a stalemate (which is not actually the case at the moment with Ukraine still effectively destroying Russian military assets at a rate of roughly 3:1)
2. From a Russian perspective:
To stay in power Putin needs either a victory or a perpetual war. He is using the bogeyman of NATO and the west to control his own people. It is quite simply not in his interest to find a resolution to the conflict, bar an outright victory.
3. From a U.S. perspective:
apart from the whole western ideals thing and supporting democracies against tyrants, which are valid ends in themselves, the U.S. would be crazy not to keep supporting Ukraine. For very little cost and no boots on the ground and not one serviceman/woman having to fight, they get to keep one of their main adversaries tied up and weakened for the long term. There is NO benefit for the States in giving Russia the breathing space it needs to rejuvenate its military and reassert is geopolitical hegemony (if it even still can). Secondly, apart from the obvious benefits of a weakened Russia, this sends a strong message to China re Taiwan, i.e. an invasion is simply not worth it.
4. From a CEE perspective:
none of the CEE states (excluding a couple of minority parties in one or two of these states) want to have a strong aggressive Russia breathing down their necks and threatening reoccupation. They are firmly behind Ukraine and will continue to do what they can to support it. Poland is rearming at an extremely rapid rate for instance. Moreover, formerly neutral states, Finland and Sweden have joined NATO.
5. From an EU perspective:
The European project is heavily anchored in EU law and for it to succeed, that law needs to be respected. Ukraine's application to join the EU is already well advanced and this will be given priority. This is the way forward for the EU. Not military might. Not wars of aggression, but laws, treaties and a common market. For all its pitfalls the EU project has been extraordinarily successful. The biggest threat to it comes from nationalist movements feeding off Russian propaganda to get into power and disrupt the EU from the inside (that this is one of Putin's key objectives should be blindingly obvious to everyone).
1. From a Ukrainian perspective:
The Ukrainians simply have no other option than to keep defending, even if they have to use pitchforks. To surrender would mean allowing the Russians to roll in and commit mass atrocities and ethnically cleanse all the land they take. The old adage still holds true:
If Russia stops fighting, the war will be over. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine as it is known today will be over. So Ukraine will just keep on doing whatever it has to do.
Russia has breached absolutely every pact it has entered into with Ukraine. There is ZERO trust remaining, so even a peace deal is highly unlikely, even if the war does come to a stalemate (which is not actually the case at the moment with Ukraine still effectively destroying Russian military assets at a rate of roughly 3:1)
2. From a Russian perspective:
To stay in power Putin needs either a victory or a perpetual war. He is using the bogeyman of NATO and the west to control his own people. It is quite simply not in his interest to find a resolution to the conflict, bar an outright victory.
3. From a U.S. perspective:
apart from the whole western ideals thing and supporting democracies against tyrants, which are valid ends in themselves, the U.S. would be crazy not to keep supporting Ukraine. For very little cost and no boots on the ground and not one serviceman/woman having to fight, they get to keep one of their main adversaries tied up and weakened for the long term. There is NO benefit for the States in giving Russia the breathing space it needs to rejuvenate its military and reassert is geopolitical hegemony (if it even still can). Secondly, apart from the obvious benefits of a weakened Russia, this sends a strong message to China re Taiwan, i.e. an invasion is simply not worth it.
4. From a CEE perspective:
none of the CEE states (excluding a couple of minority parties in one or two of these states) want to have a strong aggressive Russia breathing down their necks and threatening reoccupation. They are firmly behind Ukraine and will continue to do what they can to support it. Poland is rearming at an extremely rapid rate for instance. Moreover, formerly neutral states, Finland and Sweden have joined NATO.
5. From an EU perspective:
The European project is heavily anchored in EU law and for it to succeed, that law needs to be respected. Ukraine's application to join the EU is already well advanced and this will be given priority. This is the way forward for the EU. Not military might. Not wars of aggression, but laws, treaties and a common market. For all its pitfalls the EU project has been extraordinarily successful. The biggest threat to it comes from nationalist movements feeding off Russian propaganda to get into power and disrupt the EU from the inside (that this is one of Putin's key objectives should be blindingly obvious to everyone).
I think you can take your answer and flip it to apply to Ukraine...Russia is not going to give up...to my original point, how does or will this war ever end?
Probably not until Putin is kaput.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2023 - 9:32am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Your question is worded the wrong way around:
How does Russia win? Or better said how does it get Ukraine to just roll over and die?
(Opening the path for torture, rape and ethnic cleansing of the entire nation?)
Answer: it can't. Ukraine is not going to give up with or without US arms deliveries. Nor are the Baltic states. Poland is rapidly ramping up its arms production. The rest of Europe is slowly realising it may not be able to rely on the U.S. if Trump actually did get re-elected so is beginning to reassess its defence policies.
Russia is a dysfunctional neighbour that has proven it cannot be appeased. Ergo, Europe will need to support Ukraine for the long haul. It can and it will.
The one alternative scenario to all of this is if pro Putin nationalist governments get elected in France and Germany in the coming years and Trump also gets re-elected. In that case I'm out of here. That would be one horrible highway to hell for the entire western hemisphere.
This will be tested and it likely will be critical. At some point, the U.S. will pull back its funding. We already are seeing a growing number of Republicans in the House saying the funding should decrease, if not stop altogether, and polling is showing more Americans saying the same. Americans generally have short-attention spans and rather myopic views on matters of foreign policy. That and the growing strain of isolationism could spell an end to funding on the scale it has been.
It seems that Russia is counting on this and believes maintaining a stalemate is all it needs to do until this happens. If, however, Europe can provide the necessary support without the U.S., as you predict, then it would seem it will be the Russians who grow tired of a war that, stripped of ideological rhetoric, has no real meaning or justification for them.
I think you can take your answer and flip it to apply to Ukraine...Russia is not going to give up...to my original point, how does or will this war ever end?
Probably not until Putin is kaput.
Precisely, whereas Ukraine's stance does not rely on Zelensky.
Ukraine is opposing an invader. Russia is (edit: following a leader who is) just dreaming of days of glory past.
How does Russia win? Or better said how does it get Ukraine to just roll over and die?
(Opening the path for torture, rape and ethnic cleansing of the entire nation?)
Answer: it can't. Ukraine is not going to give up with or without US arms deliveries. Nor are the Baltic states. Poland is rapidly ramping up its arms production. The rest of Europe is slowly realising it may not be able to rely on the U.S. if Trump actually did get re-elected so is beginning to reassess its defence policies.
Russia is a dysfunctional neighbour that has proven it cannot be appeased. Ergo, Europe will need to support Ukraine for the long haul. It can and it will.
The one alternative scenario to all of this is if pro Putin nationalist governments get elected in France and Germany in the coming years and Trump also gets re-elected. In that case I'm out of here. That would be one horrible highway to hell for the entire western hemisphere.
I think you can take your answer and flip it to apply to Ukraine...Russia is not going to give up...to my original point, how does or will this war ever end?
Probably not until Putin is kaput.
How exactly does Ukraine win, or better said, how do they get Russia to quit and leave their territory?
Your question is worded the wrong way around:
How does Russia win? Or better said how does it get Ukraine to just roll over and die?
(Opening the path for torture, rape and ethnic cleansing of the entire nation?)
Answer: it can't. Ukraine is not going to give up with or without US arms deliveries. Nor are the Baltic states. Poland is rapidly ramping up its arms production. The rest of Europe is slowly realising it may not be able to rely on the U.S. if Trump actually did get re-elected so is beginning to reassess its defence policies.
Russia is a dysfunctional neighbour that has proven it cannot be appeased. Ergo, Europe will need to support Ukraine for the long haul. It can and it will.
The one alternative scenario to all of this is if pro Putin nationalist governments get elected in France and Germany in the coming years and Trump also gets re-elected. In that case I'm out of here. That would be one horrible highway to hell for the entire western hemisphere.
Well, the Ukrainians seem to be effectively taking out Russian air defences. If the West finally got its shit together and supplied enough F-16s the war would soon be over,
which is what everyone wants.
And before anyone starts thinking this is war-mongering on my part and only serves the interests of the arms industry. It is not. There are huge stockpiles of retired F-16s that could be given to Ukraine without it costing anyone anything, except maybe the Russians their illusions of grandeur. It would also be the fastest, cleanest, least bloody way to end this for all concerned.
How exactly does Ukraine win, or better said, how do they get Russia to quit and leave their territory?
