Russia has invaded Ukraine

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ultimately America will let Ukraine down, despite all the hype. The Democrats are probably stalling on doing it because it’s an election year and hoping Trump does their dirty work for them. There’s little ongoing value in continuing to throw good money after bad, the Ukrainian troops aren’t up to the task ahead of them and they aren’t being given resources required even if they were. They’re just fodder at the front with little resource and flawed tactics.

Russia having successfully shifted it’s industries from relying on the West to working with China, India and the global south have managed to keep their war economy on track and stronger now in 2024 than it was in 2022. A picture unlikely to change for the rest of the decade unless the west go down the World War 3 route.

If I were American I'd say it's a good use of my tax dollars, degrading Russia's armed forces and tying them up in Ukraine for the foreseeable future for about 1.5% of the military budget and not one drop of American blood spilt

---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And then, in a couple of years, he takes some more bordering Oblasts…

And Moldova, Baltic states

Originally Posted by jfman

Ultimately America will let Ukraine down, despite all the hype. The Democrats are probably stalling on doing it because it’s an election year and hoping Trump does their dirty work for them. There’s little ongoing value in continuing to throw good money after bad, the Ukrainian troops aren’t up to the task ahead of them and they aren’t being given resources required even if they were. They’re just fodder at the front with little resource and flawed tactics.

Russia having successfully shifted it’s industries from relying on the West to working with China, India and the global south have managed to keep their war economy on track and stronger now in 2024 than it was in 2022. A picture unlikely to change for the rest of the decade unless the west go down the World War 3 route.

On that note...

https://wapo.st/3PSCYuQ

When President Biden proposed an additional $24 billion in supplemental funding for Ukraine in August, Moscow spin doctors working for the Kremlin were ready to try to undermine public support for the bill, internal Kremlin documents show.

In an ongoing campaign that seeks to influence congressional and other political debates to stoke anti-Ukraine sentiment, Kremlin-linked political strategists and trolls have written thousands of fabricated news articles, social media posts and comments that promote American isolationism, stir fear over the United States’ border security and attempt to amplify U.S. economic and racial tensions, according to a trove of internal Kremlin documents obtained by a European intelligence service and reviewed by The Washington Post...

...Russia has been ramping up its propaganda operations as part of a second front that current and former senior Western officials said has become almost as important for Moscow as the military campaign in Ukraine — especially as congressional approval for further aid has become critical for Kyiv’s ability to continue defending itself.

“It is Russia’s top priority to stop the weapons, so they are throwing things at the wall to see what sticks,” said one Republican staffer on Capitol Hill. “We are seeing a broad-based campaign that has multiple lines of effort, some of which work better than others. The Russians don’t care. They are just trying to seed the environment.” The staffer and other Western officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive assessments...

...The campaign is part of an increasingly sophisticated strategy that has built on nearly 10 years of Kremlin efforts to elevate the voices of populist anti-establishment politicians opposed to the U.S. global role, analysts and former American officials said.

With the far-right wing of the Republican Party essentially blocking passage of any further assistance to Ukraine since August, the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine support for Ukraine may have so far gained more traction in the United States than anywhere else.

“The impact of the Russian program over the last decade … is seen in the U.S. congressional debate over Ukraine aid,” said Clint Watts, the head of Microsoft’s Threat Analysis Center. “They have had an impact in a strategic aggregate way.”

“You would never have previously heard … politicians in the U.S. saying Ukraine is not significant enough and we will not support NATO. On a digital platform, your ability to do these things works.”

Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Sunday it was “absolutely true” that some Republican members of Congress were repeating Russian propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine. “We see directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages — some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor,” Turner said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

[jfman]

Of course, legitimate criticism of American foreign policy cannot possibly exist. Only enemy propaganda.

America, and it’s allies, would never resort to fabricating stories for the purposes of driving public opinion in their favour, or deploy misinformation onto the population of their enemies.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Russia having successfully shifted it’s industries from relying on the West to working with China, India and the global south have managed to keep their war economy on track and stronger now in 2024 than it was in 2022. A picture unlikely to change for the rest of the decade unless the west go down the World War 3 route.

This is the crux of it.

After Ukraine’s early successes and Russia’s early embarrassing losses, and the exposure of Russia’s aging military equipment, poorly maintained, poorly equipped etc etc.

The narrative was, keep Ukraine supplied and Russia will burn themselves out.

But Russia haven’t burnt themselves out, they are re-equipping, and have not been pushed back……..at all. Ukraine have failed to make any real inroads in the past 12 months, they’ve been given an astronomical amount of money and have depleted the West’s ordnance stocks.

I’m not saying Russia will win, but Ukraine won’t win either.

To paraphrase Blackadder, Zelenskyy has managed to move his drinks cabinet two inches further East in the last year.

This conflict needs to be concluded around the table, as it is obvious it will not be concluded on the battlefield, and Trump is 100% right.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is the crux of it.

After Ukraine’s early successes and Russia’s early embarrassing losses, and the exposure of Russia’s aging military equipment, poorly maintained, poorly equipped etc etc.

The narrative was, keep Ukraine supplied and Russia will burn themselves out.

But Russia haven’t burnt themselves out, they are re-equipping, and have not been pushed back……..at all. Ukraine have failed to make any real inroads in the past 12 months, they’ve been given an astronomical amount of money and have depleted the West’s ordnance stocks.

I’m not saying Russia will win, but Ukraine won’t win either.

To paraphrase Blackadder, Zelenskyy has managed to move his drinks cabinet two inches further East in the last year.

This conflict needs to be concluded around the table, as it is obvious it will not be concluded on the battlefield, and Trump is 100% right.

Thanks to Congress freezing support for Ukraine, Ukraine has not been sufficiently supplied. So the Russians have not burnt themselves out and have actually rebuilt themselves a bit.

I'm struggling to see how just capitulating to Putin will bring peace. What makes you and Trump confident Russia won't come back for another bite of the Ukranian cherry? They have a track record on this.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

If I were American I'd say it's a good use of my tax dollars, degrading Russia's armed forces and tying them up in Ukraine for the foreseeable future for about 1.5% of the military budget and not one drop of American blood spilt

The thing is - are they getting degraded? Or is Russian military capability actually improving based on increased combat experience and the ramping up of the wartime economy?

I’d be pretending if I claimed to know enough, but I suspect most of the western assumptions to date have been flawed and the calculations on what resource Ukraine needs to bog Russia down have been massively underestimated. This resets the question somewhat - a far greater level of investment is needed into a military with a recent track record of failure, already making its way further down the conscript list of women, older men and even some with disabilities initially exempt.

Short of NATO boots on the ground it’s hard to see how Ukraine can meaningfully gain territory back to the 2021 borders, never mind fantasies over Crimea.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm struggling to see how just capitulating to Putin will bring peace. What makes you and Trump confident Russia won't come back for another bite of the Ukranian cherry? They have a track record on this.

I’m not suggesting capitulation, I’m suggesting a negotiated settlement.

Putin will not live forever, I think it would be unlikely he did anything after this. Call it a win (whatever the settlement) he leaves his legacy.

Do you think it’s better to carry on fighting with neither side looking likely to win?

Negotiated settlements after conflict and acquisition of territory is as old as time.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m not suggesting capitulation, I’m suggesting a negotiated settlement.

Putin will not live forever, I think it would be unlikely he did anything after this. Call it a win (whatever the settlement) he leaves his legacy.

Do you think it’s better to carry on fighting with neither side looking likely to win?

Negotiated settlements after conflict and acquisition of territory is as old as time.

Ultimately a lot of effort into convincing Western populations to take in Ukrainian refugees, treble their gas bills and ship billions in aid to defeat Putin.

It’ll be quite the task for behavioural scientists to nudge them into coping with a negotiated outcome since they have an unprecedented level of emotional involvement in the success of Ukraine.

However tying it in a bow and blaming (in Europe at least) a nameless, faceless “Congress” or just blaming Trump would make it somewhat more palatable than the underlying reality this is what America does routinely - uses local populations as a proxy and disposes of them when it’s no longer politically or economically convenient.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m not suggesting capitulation, I’m suggesting a negotiated settlement.

Putin will not live forever, I think it would be unlikely he did anything after this. Call it a win (whatever the settlement) he leaves his legacy.

Do you think it’s better to carry on fighting with neither side looking likely to win?

Negotiated settlements after conflict and acquisition of territory is as old as time.

I can't see Ukraine agreeing to a settlement that doesn't restore its 2014 boundaries. Putin's 10 years older than Biden and doesn't look like he's any intention of giving up. And we don't know his successor won't continue what Putin began.

I think it's best to arm Ukraine properly so that Russia withdraws sooner rather than later. Not arming it effectively - the current situation - is resulting in neither side looking likely to win.

World War II taught us that negotiated settlements with aggressors only reward and encourage them to be more aggressive.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I can't see Ukraine agreeing to a settlement that doesn't restore its 2014 boundaries.

Well they lived with it for eight years.

Ukraine will do what it has to do. Lack of support could see Ukraine having to agree to a whole lot worse settlement.

Ukraine is free to accept or refuse any offer. However, they are not free to receive unlimited support from the West for unobtainable goals.

Putin's 10 years older than Biden and doesn't look like he's any intention of giving up. And we don't know his successor won't continue what Putin began.

we don’t know he will. I don’t think Russia as a people want this war, I think any new leader that ends it will be welcomed.

I think it's best to arm Ukraine properly so that Russia withdraws sooner rather than later.

What more do you suggest? They have been armed and financed very well. You do realise that it is Russia they’re against? It was a very ring rusty Russia that started in 2022, the Russia of 2024 is not the same.

Russia will not be withdrawing from Ukraine. Ukraine can’t do it, and they can’t do it with the current exceptional level of funding. The current level of funding isn’t sustainable.

Ukraine cannot win their objectives without NATO actually engaging, with their weaponary and soldiers……….and that will not happen.

Not arming it effectively - the current situation - is resulting in neither side looking likely to win.

well what has happened, so far, is the best we can do, And it doesn’t seem to be good enough.

World War II taught us that negotiated settlements with aggressors only reward and encourage them to be more aggressive.

Well it’s a bit more complicated than that. Chamberlain did his level best, and should be well remembered for that.

Unfortunately the actions of Nazi Germany and Japan meant that only total surrender would be acceptable. Russia has committed no such atrocities in this campaign. A negotiated peace is in this instance would not be as problematic.

[Corey N Georgie]

Putin likes nothing more than to wage war. Now if it were his daughters lives on the line instead of the sons of the people he doesn't know then it would be a different story.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well they lived with it for eight years.

Ukraine will do what it has to do. Lack of support could see Ukraine having to agree to a whole lot worse settlement.

Ukraine is free to accept or refuse any offer. However, they are not free to receive unlimited support from the West for unobtainable goals.

Russia won't concede any land anyway. 2014 is a pipe dream unless Russia is pushed out of those areas.

I also have deep scepticism Russia would abide by any agreement. They would take the time to rearm and invade again down the line. How much can you depend on a peaceful agreement with an aggressor who has already invaded with no material reason, such as a change in leadership, to suspect their motivations have changed?

For now, I think the best approach is to make sure Ukraine is armed and ready to at least repel any further incursion. Any peace talks need to be contingent on Ukraine otherwise being able to continue to hurt Russia if they are going to get any favourable terms in a deal. Putin isn't going to agree anything if he thinks he can continue to take Ukraine.

[jfman]

Considering Ukraine’s western allies have openly stated the purpose of previous “agreements” was to give Ukraine time to prepare and that they equally had no intention of adhering to them perhaps those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Russia equally has no reason to believe Ukraine, America or anyone else is acting in good faith. Arming itself, and preparing for further instability at it’s borders would be entirely rational. Who knows where the CIA is planning it’s next coup.

Originally Posted by jfman

Of course, legitimate criticism of American foreign policy cannot possibly exist. Only enemy propaganda.

America, and it’s allies, would never resort to fabricating stories for the purposes of driving public opinion in their favour, or deploy misinformation onto the population of their enemies.

Originally Posted by jfman

Considering Ukraine’s western allies have openly stated the purpose of previous “agreements” was to give Ukraine time to prepare and that they equally had no intention of adhering to them perhaps those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Russia equally has no reason to believe Ukraine, America or anyone else is acting in good faith. Arming itself, and preparing for further instability at it’s borders would be entirely rational. Who knows where the CIA is planning it’s next coup.

Oh, the irony...

Anyhoo, you stated "Arming itself, and preparing for further instability at it’s borders would be entirely rational" - could you point out any instability* in the last 20 years on it's borders that have not been instigated** by Russia?

*nb - democratically elected Governments wishing to join the EU and/or NATO does not, in fact, destabilise Russia's borders***

**nb2 - Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine...

***nb3 - unless you are one of the supporters of the Greater Russia myth that states all the old Comecon countries belong to Russia

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

What more do you suggest? They have been armed and financed very well. You do realise that it is Russia they’re against? It was a very ring rusty Russia that started in 2022, the Russia of 2024 is not the same.

Russia will not be withdrawing from Ukraine. Ukraine can’t do it, and they can’t do it with the current exceptional level of funding. The current level of funding isn’t sustainable.

Ukraine cannot win their objectives without NATO actually engaging, with their weaponary and soldiers……….and that will not happen.

well what has happened, so far, is the best we can do, And it doesn’t seem to be good enough.

For starters, the current support for Ukraine is not the best we can do. Republicans need to approve Biden's requested budget and not mix it up with their desire to build a wall on the Mexico border.

Funding Ukraine is a cost-effective way of weakening Russia with the possibility of a more friendly leader coming to power if we don't follow Trump's playbook in rewarding aggressors.