Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Gotta love how people hold up the delivery of armaments to Ukraine, and then complain about how the counteroffensive has failed. 

 

Have to ask if this is an admission the counter offensive to get the territory Ukraine lost back can't happen without outside help.

 

That's not the same thing as preventing them from being overthrown and protecting their right to self-determination.

 

You make fair points in regards to book cooking that goes into the defense budget.

 

But it's not jus our country that's slowed down their fiscal and kinetic weapons support to Ukraine.  Convincing GOP to not fall behind is turned into a fight that even if Biden wins the next round there's no promise of the next or one after.

 

This is the reality that concerns me the most, not what sounds good.  Being pragmatic means taking what you can get sometimes as part of the bigger picture, Biden saved their country to give chance to get into NATO...now what?

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

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).

 

You've got it mixed up.  Sweden still isn't in because Turkey is holding it up.  Turkey didn't object to Finland and it took nearly a year from applying to being approved.

 

Fundamentally, Russia sees the Ukraine different than Finland and Sweden.  Which is why they invaded the Ukraine and not Finland or Sweden.  And the Russian misinformation/distraction was already busy working on the Ukraine situation to do much about Finland or Sweden.  And Sweden still hasn't been approved.  And Finland's approval was like record time for approval.

 

If I were Ukraine, I would not make a settlement based on getting into NATO until all of the i's were dotted and t's were crossed for the approval.  Which essentially means we would have to be going through the process of approving a country for entry that was at war with Russia, and I think that's very unlikely.

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

and protecting their right to self-determination.

 

You mean protecting their right to self-determination other than the people that live on the land that you are suggesting that they give to Russia.

Edited December 23, 2023 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You've got it mixed up.  Sweden still isn't in because Turkey is holding it up.  Turkey didn't object to Finland and it took nearly a year from applying to being approved.

 

Fundamentally, Russia sees the Ukraine different than Finland and Sweden.  Which is why they invaded the Ukraine and not Finland or Sweden.  And the Russian misinformation/distraction was already busy working on the Ukraine situation to do much about Finland or Sweden.  And Sweden still hasn't been approved.  And Finland's approval was like record time for approval.

 

If I were Ukraine, I would not make a settlement based on getting into NATO until all of the i's were dotted and t's were crossed for the approval.  Which essentially means we would have to be going through the process of approving a country for entry that was at war with Russia, and I think that's very unlikely.

 

You mean protecting their right to self-determination other than the people that live on the land that you are suggesting that they give to Russia.

 

Thanks for correcting me on which one Turkey held up.  Are you buying the notion they arent in as evidence it may take too long to get Ukraine in for them to be comfortable with? 

 

That's fair, but shouldn't be a blocker as there's no doubt US is pulling strings behind the scenes to hit the ground running once thr war was in a place that NATO would continue with their application, Ukraine practically begged for this. Similar to what work US is doing to mend this matter between Turkey and Sweden.

 

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the entry process for Ukraine is paused until there's either a ceasefire or formal end to the war.  I'm not against Ukraine wanting i dotted and t crossed, jusnif that perfect becoming enemy of good is them getting their territory back, I'm sorry, folks should have the right to call out potential scope creep while putting ourselves in the middle of a fight involving another nuclear power.

 

At what point do we agree to turn the temperature down?  When we get everything we want?  I don't belive that's how negotiations typically work.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

34 minutes ago, China said:

 

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?

 

I remember reading somewhere how Russia has had a tendency to lean towards some for of authoritarian government because their territory is so huge in an attempt to add fair as a mechanism to hold it together.

 

That doesn't mean everyone that's been in charge of that country's history, throughout its time as USSR as well, were the type of "in power by any means" dictator Putin became or Xi became in China.

 

Putin's party is still firmly in control of his country no matter what happens to him.  That list looks like a mix of folks that will come out the party, but hard to say which one actually wants to be the next Putin.  The guy who took Putin’s place for a brief minute because of term limits (which they fixed) I remember when he was more moderate. Hearing he's anymore, buy it once he doesn't have to prove how loyal he is to Putin while Putin is still alive.

 

Authoritarian governments can and do negotiate in an effort to normalize relations.  See Iran and Venezuela. Maybe that's jus me being optimistic, ill admit to that happening to me every once in a while.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Renegade7

[DCSaints_fan]

Ukraine will never recognize Russian territorial gains, but even if you can get both parties to a ceasefire, there's the issue of Ukrainian "neutrality" which was one of the cited reasons for the invasion.  Ukraine will not agree to this because they (quite reasonably) assume that Russia will not respect it anyway.  There will continue to be insurgent attacks inside the occupied territories which Russia will use as a justification for launching new assaults

 

I can only see this war ending with at least the political collapse of one side or the other.  I guess the question is do we want to continue funding the UAF or do we want them right up against the Polish/Romanian/Hungarian  Russia is not going to stop at the Dnipro.  They are hoping that by somehow suggesting that Poland, Hungry and Romania get Ukrainian territory they can dismember Ukraine while undermining NATO and the West (this is straight out of Hitler's playbook)

 

Personally I think we should at least threaten to completey shut down their Russians oil exports out of the Baltics and the Black Sea.  They can't redirect because thats where the pipelines flow.  These are all through NATO controlled territory but we would have to get them on board.   If we can do this it would crater the Russian economy because its something like half of their income

[Renegade7]

@DCSaints_fan

 

I agree not all the levers have been pulled in regards to squeezing Russia's economy.

 

I have concerns over your assessment this likely ends in one of the two countries collapsing.

 

Russia is the largest country on earth with Nukes spread throughout its territory.  It's hard to argue that country collapsing not being worse then present situation.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours 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.

To think Putin is going to be able to rebuild their forces after this in a few months is laughable.

 

1 hour ago, China said:

 

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?

 

I think Biden should be backchanneling to someone who he thinks can take out putin and restore some kind of order. Putin is incredibly weak after the whole PMF uprising thing.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

To think Putin is going to be able to rebuild their forces after this in a few months is laughable.

 

 

I agree with this, I'm not buying Russia will be ready to invade again in his lifetime and not come to a similar result as this one.  So begs the question when or if his successor will try the same

[DCSaints_fan]

59 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@DCSaints_fan

 

I agree not all the levers have been pulled in regards to squeezing Russia's economy.

 

I have concerns over your assessment this likely ends in one of the two countries collapsing.

 

Russia is the largest country on earth with Nukes spread throughout its territory.  It's hard to argue that country collapsing not being worse then present situation.

Political collapse does not necessarily imply a broader social collapse.  It just means the country's leadership changes significantly enough to not continue a certain policy, in this case a war.

 

Democracies, functioning ones at least, have the rule of law and peaceful transfers of power so can have a political collapse without social ones.  For instance, if Trump were to win in 2024 and radically change course on Ukraine as I would expect, that would count as a political collapse with respect to Ukraine policy, but it wouldn't necessarily mean a social collapse in the US.

 

It is harder in authoritarian states to avoid a social collapse during a political collapse because often the pursuit of a policy is intertwined with the survival of the regime.  Russia is a democracy, at least on the surface, but I can't imagine Putin would ever voluntarily give up power to a successor, so it would have to be a coup which is almost certain to trigger a broader social collapse.  Since many of the policies were justified on the basis of "might makes right", when that might disappears you have a power vacuum and all the people with grievances start to assert themselves and you have an absence of the rule of law, i.e. a social collapse.

 

As a historical example, the loss of South Vietnam was due to a political collapse in the US, who pulled the troops and funding, but it didn't trigger a social collapse.  OTOH the loss of Afghanistan by the Soviets did in part lead to both a political and social collapse
 

Edited December 23, 2023 by DCSaints_fan

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Thanks for correcting me on which one Turkey held up.  Are you buying the notion they arent in as evidence it may take too long to get Ukraine in for them to be comfortable with? 

 

That's fair, but shouldn't be a blocker as there's no doubt US is pulling strings behind the scenes to hit the ground running once thr war was in a place that NATO would continue with their application, Ukraine practically begged for this. Similar to what work US is doing to mend this matter between Turkey and Sweden.

 

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the entry process for Ukraine is paused until there's either a ceasefire or formal end to the war.  I'm not against Ukraine wanting i dotted and t crossed, jusnif that perfect becoming enemy of good is them getting their territory back, I'm sorry, folks should have the right to call out potential scope creep while putting ourselves in the middle of a fight involving another nuclear power.

 

At what point do we agree to turn the temperature down?  When we get everything we want?  I don't belive that's how negotiations typically work.

 

Negotiations don't always work the same way.  Some times one side does lose and gets very little to nothing of what they want.

 

You don't think the US is pulling strings to get Sweden in?  And it hasn't done any good.

 

All you need is one person like Erdogan or Orban of Hungary to say they will approve it, and then in the end not doing it.

 

Yes, there is a pause, but it isn't like they are very far into the process or really even started the process.  Even when a peace agreement is in place (based on what I know), the final approval of Ukraine into NATO is likely to take at least months.

 

Also, if you are the Ukraine do you trust Trump to sign off on them entering NATO much less pushing other countries to do so behind the scenes?  Do you think he doesn't partly blame Ukraine for not giving him dirt on Hunter Biden?  He's not the vindictive sort of person to hold it against them now?  That if Hungary or Turkey say they won't approve it, that he's going to put much pressure on them to do so?

 

I can't see how it makes sense for Ukraine to come to any sort of peace agreement where they are giving up land until the 2024 US Presidential election comes into better focus. If Trump is essentially not a possibility (e.g. he's off the ballot in some key states), then they have a very different hand than if it appears Trump is going to win.

 

They also have the pending shipment of F-16s that are supposed to be coming.  Again, some of that will depend on elections in the relevant countries (e.g. Belgium).  

But F-16s are likely to dramatically affect the war and give them a pretty big advantage.  As long as they are comfortable those deliveries are likely, I'd hold out if I were them.

 

We turn down the temperature when the Ukrainians decide they want to turn down the temperature.  Currently, they are talking about wanting back the Crimea.  I suspect their leadership knows that's not practical (Crimea is majority Russian and the Russians have had time to get their military well integrated into its defense).  If it comes down to fighting for Crimea, then I'd consider telling them they are on their own.  But I suspect by the time it gets that far, the war will lose the support of the majority of the Ukrainian population, and they'll be politically forced to come to an agreement.

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Negotiations don't always work the same way.  Some times one side does lose and gets very little to nothing of what they want.

 

You don't think the US is pulling strings to get Sweden in?  And it hasn't done any good.

 

All you need is one person like Erdogan or Orban of Hungary to say they will approve it, and then in the end not doing it.

 

Yes, there is a pause, but it isn't like they are very far into the process or really even started the process.  Even when a peace agreement is in place (based on what I know), the final approval of Ukraine into NATO is likely to take at least months.

 

Also, if you are the Ukraine do you trust Trump to sign off on them entering NATO much less pushing other countries to do so behind the scenes?  Do you think he doesn't partly blame Ukraine for not giving him dirt on Hunter Biden?  He's not the vindictive sort of person to hold it against them now?  That if Hungary or Turkey say they won't approve it, that he's going to put much pressure on them to do so?

 

Yeah, sometimes negotiations can be more like Treaty of Varsallies, which really a negotiation. 

 

I don't see this current topic as a current place where either side is negotiating from that type of position of power, though, not even close.

 

I don't believe it's fair to say US talking with Turkey over Sweden has gotten nowhere...there's been some pieces of potential breakthroughs to looks for in early 2024. 

 

I'll concede your point that it taking this long could be a concern, but to be clear, who's indicated directly they'll hold up Ukraine admission following a ceasefire or end of the war the way Turkey is doing Sweden right now?  Finland took a year, it's been a year and half since both them and Sweeden formally applied for NATO membership.

 

I do believe Russia will need more time then that to regroup and make any difference in their effort to topple Kiev. 

 

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I can't see how it makes sense for Ukraine to come to any sort of peace agreement where they are giving up land until the 2024 US Presidential election comes into better focus. If Trump is essentially not a possibility (e.g. he's off the ballot in some key states), then they have a very different hand than if it appears Trump is going to win.

 

They also have the pending shipment of F-16s that are supposed to be coming.  Again, some of that will depend on elections in the relevant countries (e.g. Belgium).  

But F-16s are likely to dramatically affect the war and give them a pretty big advantage.  As long as they are comfortable those deliveries are likely, I'd hold out if I were them.

 

We turn down the temperature when the Ukrainians decide they want to turn down the temperature.  Currently, they are talking about wanting back the Crimea.  I suspect their leadership knows that's not practical (Crimea is majority Russian and the Russians have had time to get their military well integrated into its defense).  If it comes down to fighting for Crimea, then I'd consider telling them they are on their own.  But I suspect by the time it gets that far, the war will lose the support of the majority of the Ukrainian population, and they'll be politically forced to come to an agreement.

 

This is reasonable, especially the bold because it feels more like natural gravity then wishful thinking.  Waiting for clarity in our election is almost fair.

 

Time is one thing, the goal with respect to saying it's time to agree to a ceasefire, claim victory, or what the goal of victory is is my concern here because folks are robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to move the goal post.  It's not sustainable, imo.  We're are running a deficit and borrowing money to give to Ukraine, that may not be why GOP is blocking it, but if they ever said that it wouldn't not be true.

 

I'm not a fan of making promises I can't keep, raising my hand here that we may be walking into making a promise we can't keep and should take the reality seriously when Russia hints at offramps to stop this.  Again, not so much questions how we got here, where do we go from here.

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Yeah, sometimes negotiations can be more like Treaty of Varsallies, which really a negotiation. 

 

I don't see this current topic as a current place where either side is negotiating from that type of position of power, though, not even close.

 

I don't believe it's fair to say US talking with Turkey over Sweden has gotten nowhere...there's been some pieces of potential breakthroughs to looks for in early 2024. 

 

I'll concede your point that it taking this long could be a concern, but to be clear, who's indicated directly they'll hold up Ukraine admission following a ceasefire or end of the war the way Turkey is doing Sweden right now?  Finland took a year, it's been a year and half since both them and Sweeden formally applied for NATO membership.

 

I do believe Russia will need more time then that to regroup and make any difference in their effort to topple Kiev. 

 

This is reasonable, especially the bold because it feels more like natural gravity then wishful thinking.  Waiting for clarity in our election is almost fair.

 

Time is one thing, the goal with respect to saying it's time to agree to a ceasefire, claim victory, or what the goal of victory is is my concern here because folks are robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to move the goal post.  It's not sustainable, imo.  We're are running a deficit and borrowing money to give to Ukraine, that may not be why GOP is blocking it, but if they ever said that it wouldn't not be true.

 

I'm not a fan of making promises I can't keep, raising my hand here that we may be walking into making a promise we can't keep and should take the reality seriously when Russia hints at offramps to stop this.  Again, not so much questions how we got here, where do we go from here.

 

Nobody thought 2 years into WW1 either side would achieve that sort of superiority either.  We don't join the war and really tip the balance until 1917.  The Ukraine is still integrating many of the more offensive NATO weapons into their military (with the F16s yet to come).  It isn't impossible that now you say that but another year of grinding down Russia and then the introduction of the F16s does put Ukraine in that situation.

 

To my knowledge, nobody has publicly stated they don't support entry into NATO.  But I'm not aware of the political considerations and requirements of every NATO country.  Much less that people might change their mind with Russian pressure/disinformation campaigns.  But Trump has openly talked about withdrawing from NATO and said things like "their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.”

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-reelection-pull-out-of-nato-membership/676120/

 

If I'm Ukraine, that's not exactly the type of thinking I want to be in charge when I'm depending on entry into NATO to limit future Russian aggression.

 

How much the war in Ukraine is costing us isn't very clear.  As @Riggo-toni has pointed out, many of the weapons we are giving them are/were being phased out by the US military, can't be mothballed indefinitely, storage was costing us money, and we likely in the near future would have either given them to somebody else or paid to have them decommissioned.  And the money is heavily going back into the US economy (e.g. going to US military contractors).

 

There's also the cost of paying the money now vs. the future.  What is happening now is the direct result of a lack of action due to past Russian actions.  If we had stepped up more after the invasion of the Crimea, it would have cost us more than but probably less now.  And if we don't pay this cost now, will we just ending up paying more later.

 

From my perspective, we make it clear to Russia and other countries with similar thoughts, that aggression isn't going to be rewarded with a robust response here and now, or we pay the cost later at a multitude of hot spots all over the world later.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

(There is also the issue of how important the deficit is because we print our money and ideas associated with MMT.  I'm not a huge fan of MMT but to worry about the deficit in terms of Ukraine and not a lot of our other expenditures, to me doesn't make sense.  But it isn't actually completely clear that we can't in fact do this forever.)

Edited December 23, 2023 by PeterMP

[TradeTheBeal!]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

To think Putin is going to be able to rebuild their forces after this in a few months is laughable.

 

 

I think Biden should be backchanneling to someone who he thinks can take out putin and restore some kind of order. Putin is incredibly weak after the whole PMF uprising thing.

1.  I used “restock and resume”, not “rebuild”.  Important distinction, perhaps…
2.  You know more about this stuff than I do and I’m stepping into a Xmas gummy/IPA, so take it easy on me.

[Riggo-toni]

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:46 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think Biden should be backchanneling to someone who he thinks can take out putin and restore some kind of order. Putin is incredibly weak after the whole PMF uprising thing.

 

I actually kinda see more as elminating one of his few potential rivals, and stregthening his power.  For those who think of taking out Putin, they have to think if someone as powerful as Prigozhin failed, then surely they don't stand a chance

 

Hitler only got more powerful, with respect to his grip on the German state, after the failure of Operation Valkyrie in July 1944

 

Also, even if Putin is taken out, his replacement surely will not withdraw the troops (but may start negotiations).  Because they will be blamed for "losing the war". 

 

Similar to how the Karensky provincial government kept fighting after the Tsar was deposed.

[Riggo-toni]

Patrushev or Medvedev would likely be even worse than Putin. Americans always have the delusion that regime change will result in beneficial policy change, but it almost never does.  Breshnev died, but the Afghan war continued for another 7 years under 3 different leaders.

[EmirOfShmo]

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Bada boom.

 

 

[China]

14 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Bada boom.

 

 

 

The Ukraine Army just blew up the Russian landing ship Novocherkassk in Crimea (See description)
 

1.) The Ukrainian Army just blew up the Russian landing ship Novocherkassk ship off the coast of Crimea.

If there was a full crew on the ship, dozens of Russian sailors are likely to have been killed.

2.) According to the Commander of the Air Force of Ukraine, Russian landing ship Novocherkassk was destroyed in Feodosia during tonight’s attack. 

Novocherkassk: 
• In February 1998, the BDK was included in the forces of the 30th Division of Surface Ships of the Black Sea Fleet;
• Displacement 2,812 tons;
• Length 112.5 m;
• Width 15.01 m;
• Capacity 500 tons of cargo;
• Crew 87.

 

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

500 tons doesn’t seem like a whole lot, but perhaps I’ve played to much Silent Hunter

 

I see 2800 tons displacement (500 tons cargo). That is actually fairly large

Edited December 27, 2023 by DCSaints_fan

[Gurgeh]

On 12/27/2023 at 3:20 AM, DCSaints_fan said:

500 tons doesn’t seem like a whole lot, but perhaps I’ve played to much Silent Hunter

 

I see 2800 tons displacement (500 tons cargo). That is actually fairly large

 

Apparently it was carrying a few hundred tons of Shahed drones and their warheads, which is why we got the big boom. Heads are apparently already rolling over this.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

Heads are apparently already rolling over this.

 

So you're saying the Ukes are still hearing "secondary explosions", so to speak?  They're still reaping more benefits?  

[DCSaints_fan]

5 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

 

Apparently it was carrying a few hundred tons of Shahed drones and their warheads, which is why we got the big boom. Heads are apparently already rolling over this.

 

I guess the cargo is more important than the ship itself.  In WW2 they didn't seem to care about the cargo so much - they were fighting a tonnage war

[China]

Czechs refuse to attend UN security council meeting called by Russia

 

The Czech Republic is refusing to attend an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting that was called by Russia, arguing Moscow was responsible for the nearly two-year war in Ukraine.

 

“We refuse to be summoned anywhere by Russia. Czechia will not serve the lie-poisoned propaganda of the aggressor,” Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský wrote in a post on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter.

 

“When Russia wants to discuss the withdrawal of its occupying troops at the Security Council, we will be happy to come,” he wrote, referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s first deputy permanent representative to the U.N., had announced in a social media post Saturday that Russia would be calling an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting after the Russian city of Belgorod was attacked by Ukraine.

 

Click on the link for the full article 

[EmirOfShmo]

Ukrainian forces destroy key Russian bridge near Mariupol

 

Ukrainian forces destroyed a partially built railway bridge, fuel tanks, and engineer-ing machinery in the vicinity of the village of Hranitne, near the occupied city of Mariupol on Jan. 6, Mariupol mayoral advisor Petro Andriushchenko reported on Telegram on Jan. 7.

The destroyed bridge was part of Russian plans to lay down a railway stretching from Russia to Mariupol, said Andriushchenko, adding that the invaders attempted to intercept the missiles used to attack the bridge.

The attack also revealed the location of new anti-aircraft missile systems in the Mariupol region, he said. Their coordinates were provided to the relevant authorities.

 

https://post.news/@/NewVoiceUkraine/2acuCohOEApbktZpxHmGFXe9hOz