Russia Invades Ukraine XVIII

[Bazza]

Biden has approved the first batch of weapons for Ukraine 2 days after the war started ( https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-approves-350-million-military-aid-ukraine-2022-02-26/ )

We have not waited four years for it.

Oh. I thought you were talking about bringing an end to the war.

Because that's what I was talking about.

 

[crimsonaudio]

This can't be true. It just can't. Even the MAGA crew and the Trump apologists can't possibly accept such terms. How could any American support a bending of the knee to Putin?

PLEASE don't read this as me defending trump, but you guys keep acting like there are tons of options.

We can arm Ukraine to the teeth and they WILL lose this war. Putin doesn't care one bit about sending his people to the meat grinder while Ukraine refuses to send their fighting-age men to war, meaning Putin will literally outlast Ukraine.

If you can stop Putin from continuing to chew up more and more land in Ukraine, what other option is there?

I don't particularly care for trump but put your hatred aside and consider what options there are. Unless you want US troops on the ground (and no other EU country is willing to do that, either), it's a game of attrition.

So what is the option? What's the solution other than striving for peace for now while helping Ukraine prepare to defend itself from future attacks?

 

[some_al_fan]

PLEASE don't read this as me defending trump, but you guys keep acting like there are tons of options.

We can arm Ukraine to the teeth and they WILL lose this war. Putin doesn't care one bit about sending his people to the meat grinder while Ukraine refuses to send their fighting-age men to war, meaning Putin will literally outlast Ukraine.

If you can stop Putin from continuing to chew up more and more land in Ukraine, what other option is there?

I don't particularly care for trump but put your hatred aside and consider what options there are. Unless you want US troops on the ground (and no other EU country is willing to do that, either), it's a game of attrition.

So what is the option? What's the solution other than striving for peace for now while helping Ukraine prepare to defend itself from future attacks?

How can you strive for peace if Putin doesn't want peace?
Please re-read your own post. You understand that Putin wants Ukraine and he doesn't care about the cost.
What you are trying to call "piece" is not actually piece, but a cheaper and easier way for Putin to achieve his goals and then continue his quest to attack Moldova and possibly Baltic countries.

 

[some_al_fan]

Highly recommend deep state maps: https://deepstatemap.live/en#9/48.5381411/37.5681256

They are the best to understand the situation from the geographic point of view. They also allow you to see the changes over time as you can select a past date and compare with today
There is some misinformation here, possibly due to Trump's words, that "Russia can take over Ukraine in 4 hours". But that is simply not true

 

[crimsonaudio]

How can you strive for peace if Putin doesn't want peace?
Please re-read your own post. You understand that Putin wants Ukraine and he doesn't care about the cost.
What you are trying to call "piece" is not actually piece, but a cheaper and easier way for Putin to achieve his goals and then continue his quest to attack Moldova and possibly Baltic countries.

If we wanted Mexico, no amount of foreign arms or negotiations could stop us. This is no different.

So again I ask - what is your solution? If we can delay the war through a ceasefire, maybe something happens and Ukraine remains free (Putin could die, etc). At the current rate, Ukraine will fall.

 

[some_al_fan]

If we wanted Mexico, no amount of foreign arms or negotiations could stop us. This is no different.

So again I ask - what is your solution? If we can delay the war through a ceasefire, maybe something happens and Ukraine remains free (Putin could die, etc). At the current rate, Ukraine will fall.

What is your definition of "ceasefire"?

It is a serious question, since we might have a misunderstanding of what Putin demands are. He wants control of Ukraine.

 

[crimsonaudio]

What is your definition of "ceasefire"?

It is a serious question, since we might have a misunderstanding of what Putin demands are. He wants control of Ukraine.

I think we all know Putin wants Ukraine. If he hasn’t outright declared it he’s made it clear in so many words.

A ceasefire is just that - a pause in hostilities. Delaying the otherwise inevitable is better (knowing something could happen to alter the otherwise inevitable) than crashing headlong into the inevitable.

I’ll ask again - what is the alternative? How do you propose we stop Putin? Because dumping billions upon billions in weapons isn’t going to do it.

 

[some_al_fan]

I think we all know Putin wants Ukraine. If he hasn’t outright declared it he’s made it clear in so many words.

A ceasefire is just that - a pause in hostilities. Delaying the otherwise inevitable is better (knowing something could happen to alter the otherwise inevitable) than crashing headlong into the inevitable.

I’ll ask again - what is the alternative? How do you propose we stop Putin? Because dumping billions upon billions in weapons isn’t going to do it.

There is no offer of a ceasefire to pause or delay hostilities.
I think that is where we might be talking past each other. The current offer from Putin is that, in exchange for stopping hostilities, Ukrainian troops need to leave their current well-constructed positions and move back towards the middle of the country.
That will put major Ukrainian cities, such as Kharkiv, Zaporozhye, and Dnipro, within shooting distance of Russian artillery and make it hard or impossible to defend them.
It is also not clear either one of the demands is to give away this city of 700,000 people to Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia

That is why what Trump is calling “a ceasefire” is entirely unacceptable for Ukraine and is not a ceasefire, but a defeat that will lead to losing the rest of the country.

 

[JDCrimson]

Would it be possible for NATO forces to set up a defense wall in Ukraine that would essentially stop Russian advance then allow Ukraine to initiate offensive actions with that backstop in attempt to drive out Russia? I think it would be better for NATO to take the fight to Russia on non-NATO soil imo. There is really no avoiding a future Russia-NATO engagement. Its inevitable.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

It's a tough call for Ukraine. The right outcome is for Putin's aggression to go wholly unrewarded, for Ukraine to get all its territory back and to have a peacekeeping force consisting of troops from NATO countries to keep the Russians back in the future.

Unfortunately, that isn't in the cards. Ukraine can't force the Russians back without foreign aid in the form of boots on the ground, actually participating in combat. And that isn't happening.

So the choice is whether to (1) fight on and eventually get ground to dust by superior Russian numbers or (2) cede the Donbas and in the process reward Putin's aggression. No, Putin wouldn't get what he originally wanted -- which was all of Ukraine. But he got something.

Reluctantly, and assuming there are forces from NATO countries in Ukraine to prevent Putin from repeating at a later date, I think #2 is the better option.

Yes, I know it's far from perfect. But it beats an almost-certain total defeat. And a lot of the population in Donbas is pro-Russian anyway. So Ukraine no longer has to deal with "breakaway republics."

Does anybody see a better option?

 

[Tidewater]

Would it be possible for NATO forces to set up a defense wall in Ukraine that would essentially stop Russian advance then allow Ukraine to initiate offensive actions with that backstop in attempt to drive out Russia? I think it would be better for NATO to take the fight to Russia on non-NATO soil imo. There is really no avoiding a future Russia-NATO engagement. Its inevitable.

Good luck convincing Europeans of that.
Look, NATO is a consensus-based organization. In order for the Alliance to do anything it requires all 32 members agreeing. Luxemburg gets as many votes as the US do: 1. If one country in the North Atlantic Council says, "I do not concur," then the policy is dead. Period. And the Alliance includes Spain, Portugal, and France, countries in northwest Europe who tend to not see a threat from Russia. Yes, they all condemn Russian aggression in theory, but they are not really worried about T-72s in their capitals.
In reality, what "consensus" leads to is a lot of horse-trading and negotiations behind the scenes before NATO announces a policy. The NAC does not "make sausage" in public. All we see in public is smiling politicians clasping hands (after all the behind the scenes deal-making has been completed).

If by "defense wall" you mean unmanned field fortifications built by NATO but to be manned by Ukrainians, the Ukrainians already have field fortifications with defensive positions and minefields.
If you mean fortifications manned by NATO troops, good luck convincing the Spanish to support that policy. The Spanish have already said that they will not join the rest of NATO in raising defense spending to 4% of GDP.

 

[crimsonaudio]

There is no offer of a ceasefire to pause or delay hostilities.
I think that is where we might be talking past each other. The current offer from Putin is that, in exchange for stopping hostilities, Ukrainian troops need to leave their current well-constructed positions and move back towards the middle of the country.
That will put major Ukrainian cities, such as Kharkiv, Zaporozhye, and Dnipro, within shooting distance of Russian artillery and make it hard or impossible to defend them.
It is also not clear either one of the demands is to give away this city of 700,000 people to Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia

That is why what Trump is calling “a ceasefire” is entirely unacceptable for Ukraine and is not a ceasefire, but a defeat that will lead to losing the rest of the country.

I understand what you're saying, but you act like what we want matters to Putin. If we can effectively stop hostilities, even for a short time, we avoid the inexorable takeover of Ukraine. Again, US vs Mexico.

I get that you don't like the 'offer' - I don't either - but again I ask, what's your alternative? If we just continue down the path we're on Ukraine will fall, so please answer the question I've asked a half dozen times - how do we save Ukraine? What is YOUR solution other than this ceasefire?

 

[Bazza]

Good read for those interested in expanding their understand of the big picture:

I've worked with 4 presidents — Trump's Putin strategy shows his negotiation genius

Washington elites are already attacking Trump’s planned Putin summit. But his flexible, results-first style may succeed in ending the war in Ukraine where other leaders have failed.

www.foxnews.com

Washington elites – of both parties – are clutching their pearls at the prospect of the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska. "He’s Putin’s stooge!" scream Trump Derangement Syndrome Democrats. "He’ll betray Ukraine to get a deal!" scream the forever war Republican NeoCons. "He’ll abandon America First and get us embroiled in Europe’s problem!" scream the isolationists in the Republican Party.

None of them understand what makes Donald Trump tick. They think he’s just like them – another standard issue politician who cares more about perception than reality, who values process over progress. He may have an end goal, but is usually unwilling to make compromises to achieve it.

Donald Trump approaches problems from the other direction. He has an end goal, even if he’s not yet sure how to get there. He’s willing to improvise, to compromise, to completely change his approach, even if it’s unorthodox.

(more at the linked article)

 

[spidermayin]

Good read for those interested in expanding their understand of the big picture:

I've worked with 4 presidents — Trump's Putin strategy shows his negotiation genius

Washington elites are already attacking Trump’s planned Putin summit. But his flexible, results-first style may succeed in ending the war in Ukraine where other leaders have failed.

www.foxnews.com

Washington elites – of both parties – are clutching their pearls at the prospect of the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska. "He’s Putin’s stooge!" scream Trump Derangement Syndrome Democrats. "He’ll betray Ukraine to get a deal!" scream the forever war Republican NeoCons. "He’ll abandon America First and get us embroiled in Europe’s problem!" scream the isolationists in the Republican Party.

None of them understand what makes Donald Trump tick. They think he’s just like them – another standard issue politician who cares more about perception than reality, who values process over progress. He may have an end goal, but is usually unwilling to make compromises to achieve it.

Donald Trump approaches problems from the other direction. He has an end goal, even if he’s not yet sure how to get there. He’s willing to improvise, to compromise, to completely change his approach, even if it’s unorthodox.

(more at the linked article)

 

[Tidewater]

I understand what you're saying, but you act like what we want matters to Putin. If we can effectively stop hostilities, even for a short time, we avoid the inexorable takeover of Ukraine. Again, US vs Mexico.

That is the best analogy. The US went to war with Mexico (in disputed territory), beat Mexican army after Mexican army. Occupied Veracruz, San Diego, Albuquerque, Monterrey, Mexico City, etc. etc. and seemed poised to continue gobbling up Mexican territory and destroying Mexican armies.
In exchange for a cessation of hostilities and returning territory to Mexico, the US accepted Tejas and California.
Say Mexico had said, "No way. You gringos are the aggressors. We refuse to reward your aggression, so we will fight on!" What would have been the outcome? The complete conquest and annexation of all of Mexico, and probably the forced anglicization of the Mexican population (in 2025, would would have English-speaking US citizens from Vera Cruz, Cancun, Acapulco, Puebla, etc.)
In exchange for the cessation of hostilities and the return of American-occupied Mexican territory (including Mexico's capital), the Mexicans had to cede Tejas and Alta California. Today Mexicans gripe about it, but the alternatives in 1848 were not (a) the 1824 borders:

or (b) the 1848 borders:


The alternatives on the table were (a) the 1848 borders or (b) the American annexation of all of Mexico and the disappearance of Mexico as an independent country.
Given the latter set of alternatives, the Mexican authorities agreed to the 1848 borders.

 

[spidermayin]

Ukraine will have to make some concessions even though Russia was the aggressor and in the wrong. As stated above, if Mexico decided to keep fighting, we wouldn't be having this illegal immigration debate.

 

[Its On A Slab]

That is the best analogy. The US went to war with Mexico (in disputed territory), beat Mexican army after Mexican army. Occupied Veracruz, San Diego, Albuquerque, Monterrey, Mexico City, etc. etc. and seemed poised to continue gobbling up Mexican territory and destroying Mexican armies.
In exchange for a cessation of hostilities and returning territory to Mexico, the US accepted Tejas and California.
Say Mexico had said, "No way. You gringos are the aggressors. We refuse to reward your aggression, so we will fight on!" What would have been the outcome? The complete conquest and annexation of all of Mexico, and probably the forced anglicization of the Mexican population (in 2025, would would have English-speaking US citizens from Vera Cruz, Cancun, Acapulco, Puebla, etc.)
In exchange for the cessation of hostilities and the return of American-occupied Mexican territory (including Mexico's capital), the Mexicans had to cede Tejas and Alta California. Today Mexicans gripe about it, but the alternatives in 1848 were not (a) the 1824 borders:
View attachment 52160
or (b) the 1848 borders:
View attachment 52161

The alternatives on the table were (a) the 1848 borders or (b) the American annexation of all of Mexico and the disappearance of Mexico as an independent country.
Given the latter set of alternatives, the Mexican authorities agreed to the 1848 borders.

I can only imagine how the alternative history would have played out - had the US annexed Mexico. Would Mexican states become slave states? How would this play out in the War Between The States? The nation-building among a culture somewhat foreign to Anglo-American.

Calling Harry Turtledove.

 

[UAH]

There is no offer of a ceasefire to pause or delay hostilities.
I think that is where we might be talking past each other. The current offer from Putin is that, in exchange for stopping hostilities, Ukrainian troops need to leave their current well-constructed positions and move back towards the middle of the country.
That will put major Ukrainian cities, such as Kharkiv, Zaporozhye, and Dnipro, within shooting distance of Russian artillery and make it hard or impossible to defend them.
It is also not clear either one of the demands is to give away this city of 700,000 people to Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia

That is why what Trump is calling “a ceasefire” is entirely unacceptable for Ukraine and is not a ceasefire, but a defeat that will lead to losing the rest of the country.

One other consideration is that Putin is in trouble at home due to massive losses on the battlefield and drone strikes by Ukraine deep inside of Russia. Why else would he be relying on North Korean troops to fight his war. Without China and India purchasing oil the Russian economy would collapse completely. Trump has a number of cards to play but Putin will attempt to buy Trump off in an attempt to end a conflict he desperately needs to end. He is playing a long game and unfortunately the EU countries lack the will to confront Putin or Trump.

 

[crimsonaudio]

One other consideration is that Putin is in trouble at home due to massive losses on the battlefield and drone strikes by Ukraine deep inside of Russia. Why else would he be relying on North Korean troops to fight his war. Without China and India purchasing oil the Russian economy would collapse completely. Trump has a number of cards to play but Putin will attempt to buy Trump off in an attempt to end a conflict he desperately needs to end. He is playing a long game and unfortunately the EU countries lack the will to confront Putin or Trump.

Such as?

You think India or China will stop buying cheap and plentiful Russian oil/gas because we want them to?

 

[some_al_fan]

I understand what you're saying, but you act like what we want matters to Putin. If we can effectively stop hostilities, even for a short time, we avoid the inexorable takeover of Ukraine. Again, US vs Mexico.

I get that you don't like the 'offer' - I don't either - but again I ask, what's your alternative? If we just continue down the path we're on Ukraine will fall, so please answer the question I've asked a half dozen times - how do we save Ukraine? What is YOUR solution other than this ceasefire?

I’ve replied about the alternative above: https://www.tidefans.com/forums/threads/russia-invades-ukraine-xviii.339188/post-4344586

You are looking for a quick solution, but I am saying that long & grinding war is the solution. You keep using Mexico as an example. But how about Vietnam? Afghanistan? How well did we do there?
Why do you think that we’d fare better in Mexico than in Vietnam / Afghanistan?

Thus, my solution is to continue to support Ukraine in its grinding war until Putin gives up, since that is the only alternative there is right now.
If you'd like me to go into more details, I can. There is a significant gap in our weapons system for a cost-effective solution. We are the best in the world in the $3 million (PAC 3) to $100 million (F–35, etc.) range, and we have nearly nothing in the $10-$ 30,000 range. The Ukraine war theater provides an excellent opportunity to develop and test these types of low-cost UAVs/UGVs. In addition to that, we should be sending them our Cold War tanks & Bradleys from storage.