Russia Invades Ukraine XVIII

[4Q Basket Case]

Such as?

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

I agree.

The theory is that countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas will be cut off from US markets. Trouble is, that's kind of like shooting yourself in the foot because you're mad at a business partner.

Cutting off access to US markets means that US consumers will be deprived of goods produced in those countries. Which means lesser choice and higher prices for us. Which have all sorts of downstream implications for the US economy -- inflation, interest rates, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I admit I'm concerned about Putin using time bought by a cease fire to prepare for another invasion a few years in the future. But nobody, including us, is willing to have boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Given that limitation, and to repeat the question you've asked several times, what alternative is better than modifying borders to give Russia some territory in order to save the rest of Ukraine?

 

[4Q Basket Case]

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.

I was composing my post when you posted yours.

You make some fair points, and I fully agree on the outdated kit. We could make it contingent on them drafting 18 - 25 year olds -- which for the life of me I don't understand why they haven't already done.

I don't agree with your bottom-line solution (grind it out) because (1) Putin doesn't have to face the will of his people....so he can continue far past the point where most leaders would give up, and (2) because of #1, I think your solution results in the eventual defeat and total destruction of Ukraine.

But thank you for a reasoned response. It's good debate.

 

[Tidewater]

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.

Not sure, but Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s were pretty chauvinistic culturally. I recall hearing old people from southern Louisiana talk of being punished for speaking French at school, and being told it was "dirty" and "low class." The same happened to Spanish-speakers in Texas and California, and Italian and Polish immigrants to the US were told to learn English (and they wanted to comply).
I suspect the Spanish-speaking residents in former Mexican territories would have had English beaten into them in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
As for slave states, chattel slavery was illegal in Mexico before the war, so slavery would not have extended into acquired Mexican territory by default. Democrats would have pushed to allow it there. Northern Whigs (and then Republicans) would have fought hard to prevent that, not so much out of concern for the slaves, but if slavery were extended into Mexican states, then those states would be more likely to send Democrats to the Senate, upsetting the balance there.
If Democrats had pushed the policy through, it is possible the New England states would have seceded and then we would have had a very different Civil War in that case.
I am just not sure that the agricultural products of Coahuila, Oaxaca, and Yucatan would have lent themselves to slave labor. (By way of comparison, Nebraska had six slaves in the 1860 census). Slavery can be efficient for labor-intensive crops, but I'm not sure Mexican states can grown those.

 

[crimsonaudio]

You are looking for a quick solution, but I am saying that long & grinding war is the solution.

I'm looking for a tenable solution, one where Ukraine continue to exist as an independent country.

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?

Because like Russia, we share a border. Projecting power across an ocean is vastly more difficult than rolling everything you have across a border.

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.

I guess we're just reading different war reports. Putin has basically zero concerns in the homeland and can / will go until he wants to give up. 'Losing his will' means he either dies or changes his mind, but guys like him don't take the off-ramp unless they feel like they can come out viewed as a winner.

IOW, from everything I've read Ukraine will fall long before Putin gets bored or forced out.

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.

Several recent reports have highlighted this - unfortunately, much like iPhones, we can't just immediately start building millions of cheap munitions. But I agree that if anything, this war has highlighted the need to continue development of both hi-tech weapons as well as 'dumb' (read: less-expensive) weapons.

Beyond that, it circles back to the fact that Ukraine's existence may well be measured in months/years rather than decades. Of course, that's unknowable, hence this discussion.

I echo 4QBC's point - I appreciate the respectful debate.[/quote]

 

[some_al_fan]

You make some fair points, and I fully agree on the outdated kit. We could make it contingent on them drafting 18 - 25 year olds -- which for the life of me I don't understand why they haven't already done.

There are several reasons for this, due to demographics:

Why Do Ukrainians Oppose Lowering The Conscription Age?

Suggestions by U.S. politicians that Ukraine lower the conscription age from 25 to 18 are deeply unpopular in the country.

www.rferl.org

 

[UAH]

Such as?

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

No I didn't suggest that Trump has any power to influence China and very little with India but he can support Ukraine and support/encourage Europe to do more in Ukraine. It is possible that we underestimate the cost of the war to Russia and to Putin politically as well!

 

[75thru79]

There are several reasons for this, due to demographics:

Why Do Ukrainians Oppose Lowering The Conscription Age?

Suggestions by U.S. politicians that Ukraine lower the conscription age from 25 to 18 are deeply unpopular in the country.

www.rferl.org

The thing about war is it is waged mostly by young men. You are sacrificing the future of your country in order to save the future of your country. Sounds kind of messed up when you think about it.

 

[some_al_fan]

The thing about war is it is waged mostly by young men. You are sacrificing the future of your country in order to save the future of your country. Sounds kind of messed up when you think about it.

If your war has been going on for 3+ years already and will continue to go on for the next XX years, then from a demographics standpoint, it makes sense for your under-25s to have kids first before being conscripted into the Army.
It is pretty logical.

 

[Tidewater]

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.

Is he though? The domestic political front has been fairly quiet since the Bolotnaya protests in 2011-2. With the FSB and the RosGvardiya out there cracking skulls and kneecaps (or worse), Russians have learned to keep their heads down and keep their thoughts to themselves.

Why else would he be relying on North Korean troops to fight his war.

Because North Koreans don't vote in Russian elections? Because Kim owed Putin and Putin has paid him?

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.

Trump Piles the Pressure on Putin

He is playing a long game and unfortunately the EU countries lack the will to confront Putin or Trump.

I think Putin is an opportunist who will take what is given him

 

[Tidewater]

There are several reasons for this, due to demographics:

Why Do Ukrainians Oppose Lowering The Conscription Age?

Suggestions by U.S. politicians that Ukraine lower the conscription age from 25 to 18 are deeply unpopular in the country.

www.rferl.org

Know what is going to be even less popular with the Ukrainian people?
Being annexed by Russia.

 

[some_al_fan]

Know what is going to be even less popular with the Ukrainian people?
Being annexed by Russia.

That is true.

 

[some_al_fan]

(1) Putin doesn't have to face the will of his people....so he can continue far past the point where most leaders would give up….

Given that limitation, and to repeat the question you've asked several times, what alternative is better than modifying borders to give Russia some territory in order to save the rest of Ukraine?

I am having a hard time understanding how you can believe both statements. They are contradictory. Putin does not want “some territory”. He wants all of Ukraine (at least East & Central).

You do understand that with your Quote N1, but you keep contradicting yourself with the Quote N2.
What is happening right now? Ukraine is slowly pulling back, inflicting heavy losses on the Russian Army. The situation has been getting worse over the last several months, partially due to limiting US support.

There is no ceasefire offer from Putin to “give Russia some territory”. He offers to give him the entire Eastern Ukraine:

"Zelenskyy said Putin wants the remaining 9,000 square kilometers (3,500 square miles) of Donetsk under Kyiv’s control, where the war’s toughest battles are grinding on, as part of a ceasefire plan, in a press briefing on Tuesday in Kyiv.”
( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...kraines-donetsk-region-as-part-of-a-ceasefire )

Here are Russia gains in 2025( https://www.understandingwar.org/ )

• January 2025: Approximately 496 square kilometers were gained.
• February 2025: An estimated 313 square kilometers were added.
• March 2025: Russian forces seized roughly 601 square kilometers.
• April 2025: Around 217 square kilometers were captured.
• May 2025: 498.53 square kilometers were gained.
• June 2025: 466.71 square kilometers were added.

There could be a bit more in July & August, but the total is still under ~4000 sq. km.
Why would you give up an additional 9000 sq km of your best defensive positions that you’ve invested millions of dollars to build for a promise of “ceasefire” that Putin, again, as you wrote, “wants to continue to take over Ukraine” won’t hold for long.

I am genuinely puzzled why you don’t see the doublethink in your quotes.

 

[Huckleberry]

Let’s say Putin agrees ro stop his aggression in exchange for certain parts of Ukraine, some mineral rights, and other concessions reportedly being considered by Trump.

Then next summer he decides that he doesn’t like that agreement and resumes his war. What are we going to do then? Are people willing to concede the likelihood that Russia will eventually conquer Ukraine or will we consider NATO at that time? It’s almost as if some folks are ok with Russia taking the country over but aren’t willing to come out and say it.

 

[some_al_fan]

We should start discussing how brilliant Chamberlain’s diplomacy was during the Munich conference.

 

[UAH]

Is he though? The domestic political front has been fairly quiet since the Bolotnaya protests in 2011-2. With the FSB and the RosGvardiya out there cracking skulls and kneecaps (or worse), Russians have learned to keep their heads down and keep their thoughts to themselves.

Because North Koreans don't vote in Russian elections? Because Kim owed Putin and Putin has paid him?

Trump Piles the Pressure on Putin

I think Putin is an opportunist who will take what is given him

I am not well versed in this but I do believe that there are fewer and fewer Russians and North Koreas desiring to die in Ukraine and this has manifested itself in overall ineffectiveness and massive loss of Russian equipment in the battlefield. I do interpret, perhaps wrongly, the the number of "suicides" by oligarcs in Russia is and indication of Putin's war not being seen as conducive to their business interest.

 

[UAH]

I am having a hard time understanding how you can believe both statements. They are contradictory. Putin does not want “some territory”. He wants all of Ukraine (at least East & Central).

You do understand that with your Quote N1, but you keep contradicting yourself with the Quote N2.
What is happening right now? Ukraine is slowly pulling back, inflicting heavy losses on the Russian Army. The situation has been getting worse over the last several months, partially due to limiting US support.

There is no ceasefire offer from Putin to “give Russia some territory”. He offers to give him the entire Eastern Ukraine:

"Zelenskyy said Putin wants the remaining 9,000 square kilometers (3,500 square miles) of Donetsk under Kyiv’s control, where the war’s toughest battles are grinding on, as part of a ceasefire plan, in a press briefing on Tuesday in Kyiv.”
( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...kraines-donetsk-region-as-part-of-a-ceasefire )

Here are Russia gains in 2025( https://www.understandingwar.org/ )

• January 2025: Approximately 496 square kilometers were gained.
• February 2025: An estimated 313 square kilometers were added.
• March 2025: Russian forces seized roughly 601 square kilometers.
• April 2025: Around 217 square kilometers were captured.
• May 2025: 498.53 square kilometers were gained.
• June 2025: 466.71 square kilometers were added.

There could be a bit more in July & August, but the total is still under ~4000 sq. km.
Why would you give up an additional 9000 sq km of your best defensive positions that you’ve invested millions of dollars to build for a promise of “ceasefire” that Putin, again, as you wrote, “wants to continue to take over Ukraine” won’t hold for long.

I am genuinely puzzled why you don’t see the doublethink in your quotes.

Not to mention the fact that we are negotiating with a war criminal who has killed and kidnapped hundreds of Ukrainian children and civilians. Someone mentioned the Munich appeasement! It has that ring to it doesn't it.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Let’s say Putin agrees ro stop his aggression in exchange for certain parts of Ukraine, some mineral rights, and other concessions reportedly being considered by Trump.

Then next summer he decides that he doesn’t like that agreement and resumes his war. What are we going to do then? Are people willing to concede the likelihood that Russia will eventually conquer Ukraine or will we consider NATO at that time? It’s almost as if some folks are ok with Russia taking the country over but aren’t willing to come out and say it.

Then we're back to where we are, but I can say that unless Russia attacks a NATO country, NATO is not putting boots on the ground as @Tidewater clearly outlined above. If Putin attacks a NATO member I expect the gloves to come off, which is why he won't.

It's not about wanting Russia to win, it's about acknowledging the reality of the situation instead of what we wish were happening. Unless some powerful EU countries (or the US) put boots on the ground, Putin will eventually grind Ukraine to dust (if he wishes) - Russia has 4x the population.

I firmly believe that - yet I'm unwilling to sacrifice fellow Americans to defend Ukraine.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Not to mention the fact that we are negotiating with a war criminal who has killed and kidnapped hundreds of Ukrainian children and civilians. Someone mentioned the Munich appeasement! It has that ring to it doesn't it.

I mean, we can sit back and do nothing and watch him just take the whole country then.

*shrugs*

I hate it for the Ukrainians, but this is reality.

 

[some_al_fan]

Speaking of "doing nothing”, I donate to the Ukrainian military every month and have contributed thousands of dollars so far.

Thus, I can say that I am putting my money where my mouth is

 

[crimsonaudio]

Speaking of "doing nothing”, I donate to the Ukrainian military every month and have contributed thousands of dollars so far.

Kudos for standing up for your principles!