Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[ixcuincle]

 

 

 

[Larry]

How's this year's budget coming, Senator?  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Gurgeh]

Yes, tiredness is ravaging the Ukrainian soldiers I meet. But they never think of giving up | Nataliya Gumenyuk | The Guardian

 

Ivan has been give the name Decent Man by his fellow soldiers, for being a decent man. As a 40-year-old teacher from central Ukraine and the father of three children, he would have been exempt from fighting at the beginning of the war. But he wanted to fight for his country. He has now spent 18 months on the battlefield and desperately misses his family. He might dream of returning home, but so far doesn’t consider being discharged an option. “The country has already spent money and resources on me. How can I leave?” he asks... Most of the servicemen I spoke to had been serving for between 15 and 20 months. They had survived major battles; many were wounded and had witnessed the deaths of their closest friends. In that time, most had not had more than a week or two off duty. 

 

Contrary to foreign media headlines, Ukrainian soldiers don’t talk so much about the lack of progress in the counteroffensive. Initially, those fighting had a sober view on the possibility of liberating the rest of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions without a decent air force and sufficient demining. (As one soldier, who lost his leg near Bakhmut this summer, told me, “For us, 200 metres of liberated land means a few dead and eight legs”). Now, what Ukrainian soldiers really care about is physical tiredness. There is no procedure for discharging those who went to fight at the start of the invasion, including those who volunteered. They have a duty to serve until the end of the war.

 

The Ukrainian army consists of men who went to fight not because they wanted to, but because it was the only way to defend their towns and families. “Unless the Russian troops are kicked out of Ukrainian territory, the probability that my city will be occupied remains,” one serviceman explains.

 

For those on the battlefield, the idea of a ceasefire sounds not just naive, but ignorant and detached from reality... Ukrainian soldiers now want a better equipped, more efficient army. What they don’t want is to give up.

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Renegade7]

Putin Quietly Signals He Is Open to a Cease-Fire in Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

 

Here's another off-ramp:

 

Ukraine needs to accept if they want all their territory back they gonna have to run point versus being dependent on resources from other countries.  The goal was to prevent the overthrow of their government, it's a stalemate otherwise.

 

Russia needs to be given a deal of accepting the current lines if they are serious before we use their frozen assets to keep fighting. 

 

If we look at this from the standpoint of preventing the toppling of a democracy wanting to forge its own path, this is currently a success. Folks need ro count their blessing and try to get the territory back another way another time before the resources to continue this dries up Putin changes his mind on a cease-fire.

 

The counter offensive failed, time to move on and accept that.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Putin Quietly Signals He Is Open to a Cease-Fire in Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

 

Here's another off-ramp:

 

Ukraine needs to accept if they want all their territory back they gonna have to run point versus being dependent on resources from other countries.  The goal was to prevent the overthrow of their government, it's a stalemate otherwise.

 

Russia needs to be given a deal of accepting the current lines if they are serious before we use their frozen assets to keep fighting. 

 

If we look at this from the standpoint of preventing the toppling of a democracy wanting to forge its own path, this is currently a success. Folks need ro count their blessing and try to get the territory back another way another time before the resources to continue this dries up Putin changes his mind on a cease-fire.

 

The counter offensive failed, time to move on and accept that.

 

I disagree. I could see giving Putin a little land so can have a "win" to walk away with. But giving in too much just shows you ha e to be able to wait it out. Also, Ukraine should demand MUCH stronger protection if not allowed into NATO. A point that is often missed is that Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for protection.  We just told Poland, figuratively, that they need nukes.

[DCSaints_fan]

21 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Putin Quietly Signals He Is Open to a Cease-Fire in Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

 

Here's another off-ramp:

 

Ukraine needs to accept if they want all their territory back they gonna have to run point versus being dependent on resources from other countries.  The goal was to prevent the overthrow of their government, it's a stalemate otherwise.

 

Russia needs to be given a deal of accepting the current lines if they are serious before we use their frozen assets to keep fighting. 

 

If we look at this from the standpoint of preventing the toppling of a democracy wanting to forge its own path, this is currently a success. Folks need ro count their blessing and try to get the territory back another way another time before the resources to continue this dries up Putin changes his mind on a cease-fire.

 

The counter offensive failed, time to move on and accept that.

 

The first country to ask for a ceasefire is admitting their army can't hold on for much longer.  The opposing side should demand more than just a ceasefire on currently held territory

[TradeTheBeal!]

A ceasefire in Ukraine just emboldens and frees up resources Putin’s continued “Cold War” on NATO and western democracies.  After a few months of restocking his military, Russia will simply resume the Ukraine invasion.  
 

An interminable black-hole boondoggle ala 80s Afghanistan is what is needed to usurp his reign…and, so far, Ukraine looks the ideal spot to me.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

The first country to ask for a ceasefire is admitting their army can't hold on for much longer.  The opposing side should demand more than just a ceasefire on currently held territory

 

Well one is implying it while the other is in DC saying it.  We can't garuntee continued funding from our end the way GOP is acting and frankly general support will eventually wane on this, that Defense budget price tag is ridiculous.

3 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

A ceasefire in Ukraine just emboldens and frees up resources Putin’s continued “Cold War” on NATO and western democracies.  After a few months of restocking his military, Russia will simply resume the Ukraine invasion.  
 

An interminable black-hole boondoggle ala 80s Afghanistan is what is needed to usurp his reign…and, so far, Ukraine looks the ideal spot to me.

 

This is a general assumption, the fact is Ukraine needs massive help jus to maintain a stalemate, Russia doesnt.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Renegade7

[China]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Well one is implying it while the other is in DC saying it.  We can't garuntee continued funding from our end the way GOP is acting and frankly general support will eventually wane on this, that Defense budget price tag is ridiculous.

 

This is a general assumption, the fact is Ukraine needs massive help jus to maintain a stalemate, Russia doesnt.

 

Russia is getting weapons from North Korea and Iran, and financial support in dealings with China.  It's incorrect to say they don't need help.

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Well one is implying it while the other is in DC saying it.  We can't garuntee continued funding from our end the way GOP is acting and frankly general support will eventually wane on this, that Defense budget price tag is ridiculous.

 

This is a general assumption, the fact is Ukraine needs help just to maintain a stalemate, Russia doesnt.

A stalemate that eliminates the vast majority of the Russian military, at the cost of roughly 2% of our annual budget, is the absolute best thing that could happen for humanity.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-releases-image-alleged-north-korea-shipment-weapons-russia-white-house-2023-10-13/

 

 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

A stalemate that eliminates the vast majority of the Russian military, at the cost of roughly 2% of our annual budget, is the absolute best thing that could happen for humanity.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-releases-image-alleged-north-korea-shipment-weapons-russia-white-house-2023-10-13/

 

 

 

No, ending the War is, war is hell, not a math problem.

3 minutes ago, China said:

 

Russia is getting weapons from North Korea and Iran, and financial support in dealings with China.  It's incorrect to say they don't need help.

 

You equating the help they are getting to what Ukraine is getting or asking for? 

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, ending the War is, war is hell, not a math problem.

Cool.  
 

The war will end when Russian aggression stops, so come out of your courage bunker every once in a while and check to see how the brave Ukrainian people are getting along!

[China]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

No, ending the War is, war is hell, not a math problem.

 

You equating the help they are getting to what Ukraine is getting or asking for? 

 

They didn't start with comparable military capabilities.  Russian started with a much larger military an a huge amount of military arms and supplies.  They have squandered it, and have needed help from others.  Ukraine needed more just to level the playing field.  The fact that they are holding their own against Russia is huge and worth the extra help.

[Renegade7]

Let's put it this way, they can't get into NATO until this war is over...saying this gives Russia time to come back doesn't make sense in that context...that should be more important than getting territory back, especially because we can't promise Ukraine the help they need to get it back.

6 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Cool.  
 

The war will end when Russian aggression stops, so come out of your courage bunker every once in a while and check to see how the brave Ukrainian people are getting along!

 

This is pathetic attempt to question courage over reality.  You think the Syrian Rebels didn't have courage?

 

Kiev didn't fall. That was the real goal here, not get Crimeia back.

 

Ukraine still has chance to get into EU and NATO...they gonna need help no one can sustain to get them more then that, it will have to be negotiated at a different time.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

Unless a cease fire is coupled with a guarantee of NATO membership (which can't practically be guaranteed because it would need to be approved by our Senate first and I'm sure the other NATO countries have similar processes), settling for anything less than going back to the pre-Russian invasion lines by the Ukrainians would be a mistake.

 

If the Ukrainians can't trust the US to just keep arming them, can they really trust the Senate (and other NATO governments) approver their entry into NATO?

 

If you agree to a cease fire without strong security guarantees (e.g. entry into NATO), Putin will just continue to undermine Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty, and rebuild his military and do it again.  And he'll likely to the first 2 things even with NATO entry.

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, China said:

 

They didn't start with comparable military capabilities.  Russian started with a much larger military an a huge amount of military arms and supplies.  They have squandered it, and have needed help from others.  Ukraine needed more just to level the playing field.  The fact that they are holding their own against Russia is huge and worth the extra help.

 

To what point is the point here?

 

This isn't questioning the effort up to this point. It's where do we go from here?

 

I do not agree continuing what were doing is substainable, we've made our point helping save them from being overthrown.

 

Wasn't that the point of giving them help in the first place?  Them getting their territory back is going to need clearly more then that, yet multiple good guys are showing signs of exhaustion.

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

To what point is the point here?

 

This isn't questioning the effort up to this point. It's where do we go from here?

 

I do not agree continuing what were doing is substainable, we've made our point helping save them from being overthrown.

 

Wasn't that the point of giving them help in the first place?  Them getting their territory back is going to need clearly more then that, yet multiple good guys are showing signs of exhaustion.

 

I'd say the point is to contain Russia, prevent Russia from expanding, thinking this was any kind of win, and thinking that similar future behavior of any kind will not result in something that could be considered ever a partial win.

 

I'll admit I'm not sure we have the political will to achieve that.  But I'm not sure when push comes to shove that if every NATO country will have the political will to allow the Ukraine into NATO after they've signed a peace treaty with Russia (giving up large segments of land).

Edited December 23, 2023 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

Just now, PeterMP said:

Unless a cease fire is coupled with a guarantee of NATO membership (which can't practically be guaranteed because it would need to be approved by our Senate first and I'm sure the other NATO countries have similar processes), settling for anything less than going back to the pre-Russian invasion lines by the Ukrainians would be a mistake.

 

If the Ukrainians can't trust the US to just keep arming them, can they really trust the Senate (and other NATO governments) approver their entry into NATO?

 

If you agree to a cease fire without strong security guarantees (e.g. entry into NATO), Putin will just continue to undermine Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty, and rebuild his military and do it again.  And he'll likely to the first 2 things even with NATO entry.

 

This is where I thought the powers that be were at anyway...

 

But to reiterate, I agree, Putin needs to agree to backing off of blocking NATO membership if he wants a ceasefire AND keep the territory he's gained.

 

But I'm not buying we can help Ukraine get the territory back and get them back in NAYO, the war has to end for them to get admitted, even the US has said that.

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I'd say the point is to contain Russia, prevent Russia from expanding, thinking this was any kind of win, and thinking that similar future behavior of any kind will not result in something that could be considered ever a partial win.

 

Putin is indicating a perception over reality in how the cease fire is presented...so if we're talking 3 out of 4 we can't jus take that and go home already? 

 

The amount of warcrimes going on in the meantime and up to this point is making this more then a stalemate.

 

We aren't even sure how much long Putin will be President given his age, and this was very much push by him in particular.

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This is where I thought the powers that be were at anyway...

 

But to reiterate, I agree, Putin needs to agree to backing off of blocking NATO membership if he wants a ceasefire AND keep the territory he's gained.

 

But I'm not buying we can help Ukraine get the territory back and get them back in NAYO, the war has to end for them to get admitted, even the US has said that.

 

I think that's the position of many people associated NATO.  But you are essentially arguing that the same countries that can't be trusted to keep arming Ukraine are going to sign up to go to war to fight for the Ukraine in the near future.  All you need is one country to vote no to be kept out of NATO.  Even if Biden supports it if it when it goes to a vote in the Senate and the votes aren't there Ukraine doesn't get in.  And if that sort of thing happens in any NATO country, then Ukraine is denied entry into NATO (I don't know the policies of every country for allowing entry of a new country into NATO).

 

If I'm the Ukraine, I'm not betting on the people that won't keep supplying me arms agreeing to signing up to fight a war to support me in the near future unless all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed first.  And we can't let the Ukraine into NATO while they are fighting Russia.

Edited December 23, 2023 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I think that's the position of many people associated NATO.  But you are essentially arguing that the same countries that can't be trusted to keep arming Ukraine are going to sign up to go to war to fight for the Ukraine in the near future.  All you need is one country to vote no to be kept out of Ukraine.  Even if Biden supports it if it when it goes to a vote in the Senate, the votes aren't there Ukraine doesn't get in.  And if that sort of thing happens in any NATO country, then Ukraine is denied entry into Ukraine (I don't know the policies of every country for allowing entry of a new country into NATO).

 

If I'm the Ukraine, I'm not betting on the people that won't keep supplying me arms agreeing to signing up to fight a war to support me in the near future unless all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed first.  And we can't let the Ukraine into NATO while they are fighting Russia.

 

Man, I mean, it took a minute to get countries like Finland in NATO because of countries like Turkey, but they eventually got in.

 

There's a certain level of faith Kiev needs to have in that process...any questioning of Article 5 itself once Ukraine is in is a different conversation.

 

Stalemate should be to centered around getting Ukraine in NATO, it doesn't matter of Russia is replenishing because they know they can't take on NATO directly (and that should matter if and once Ukraine is part of NATO).

[Riggo-toni]

Gotta love how people hold up the delivery of armaments to Ukraine, and then complain about how the counteroffensive has failed.  And the money figures of how much we give to Ukraine are vastly overinflated - the Stingers and older javelins were in storage and we were about to pay a small fortune to have them decommissioned, so we actually saved $ by being able to give them away. The army was pushing for the WH to give Ukraine F16s so they can move on to F35s... 

Congress keeps re-inserting weapons programs into the budget like the $2billion a pop B2 bombers and more tanks that the military doesn't want all of which collect dust and storage costs simply because they are jobs programs...you know, that "socialism" that rightwingers rail about... unless it goes to white people.

The same anal orifices protecting wasteful useless military projects are now pretending that products that are made in America, create US jobs, and are actually USEFUL, are an expense we can't afford, that it is somehow inexplicably more draining than the worthless pork projects they so vigilantly promote and safeguard.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Riggo-toni

[China]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We aren't even sure how much long Putin will be President given his age, and this was very much push by him in particular.

 

I wouldn't hold out hope that Putin is going anywhere.  He's not relinquishing power unless he dies.  But even if he goes away, that's no guarantee that his successor won't be equally as antagonistic or worse:

 

Putin is expected to seek reelection in Russia, but who would run if he doesn’t?