Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

Trump hates Zelensky because he refused to blackmail Biden in 2020

convenient use of the word blackmail...

 

 

much like the open blackmail biden did as VP in regards to firing the Ukrainian prosecutor? the same prosecutor looking into Burisma....which his crack head son was on the BoD?

 

THAT type of blackmail?!

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Trump hates Zelensky because he refused to blackmail Biden in 2020

You misspelled “Zelensky covered for Biden’s blatant corruption when Trump shined light on his illegal behavior.”

[BashiChuni]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

TBH when this war is eventually over and there’s the nice little Wikipedia page that shows the different sides, America is gonna show up on both sides.

 

little secret....america has funded both sides A LOT post WWII...

our foreign policy is out of control

[Day Man]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

which his crack head son was on the BoD?

what power do you think 1 person on a BoD yields?

[uhhello]

42 minutes ago, Day Man said:

what power do you think 1 person on a BoD yields?

Lol.  come on man.  

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

what power do you think 1 person on a BoD yields?

Are you kidding? It’s not the BoD seat…

it’s the fact his dad was the fucking vice president of the United States who was threatening to withhold a 1 billion dollar USAID grant. 
 

 

[BashiChuni]

Listen to Biden tell it himself!

 

https://oversight.house.gov/timeline/ukraine-11/biden-firing-ukraine-prosecutor-clip/

[Splash95]

The war sucks and I wish Russia hadn't started it. But they did, and the limits of our ability to get them to "stop" have become quite evident. As someone whose views would likely get me labeled a Putin shill by much of this forum, I in fact think Trump has sounded too conciliatory in talking about a peace agreement, possibly for reasons outlined in the posts above. He and his administration should at least talk tough, as Russia i.e. Putin is a significant geopolitical rival, not someone to trust, and should not get the impression we'll easily hand him what he wants.

All that said, it's been clear to me for quite some time that given what we (and to a much smaller extent the Europeans) are and are not willing to throw into this proxy war, it will end in a negotiation which will likely involve Russia keeping Crimea and giving back some portion of the Donbas. The raging against that reality by so much of BO.net has always struck me as a little bizarre. The best time to end this war was before it started, but now is a better time than X years in the future after more death and destruction. 

[ViperMan]

7 hours ago, Splash95 said:

The war sucks and I wish Russia hadn't started it. But they did, and the limits of our ability to get them to "stop" have become quite evident. As someone whose views would likely get me labeled a Putin shill by much of this forum, I in fact think Trump has sounded too conciliatory in talking about a peace agreement, possibly for reasons outlined in the posts above. He and his administration should at least talk tough, as Russia i.e. Putin is a significant geopolitical rival, not someone to trust, and should not get the impression we'll easily hand him what he wants.

All that said, it's been clear to me for quite some time that given what we (and to a much smaller extent the Europeans) are and are not willing to throw into this proxy war, it will end in a negotiation which will likely involve Russia keeping Crimea and giving back some portion of the Donbas. The raging against that reality by so much of BO.net has always struck me as a little bizarre. The best time to end this war was before it started, but now is a better time than X years in the future after more death and destruction. 

Nah, we have no interest in this war ending. We should continue to shovel weapons to Ukraine so Putin can slowly feed more and more of his society into the wood chipper.

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, ViperMan said:

Nah, we have no interest in this war ending. We should continue to shovel weapons to Ukraine so Putin can slowly feed more and more of his society into the wood chipper.

This is the most honest/understandable representation of the pro-war side of the argument:

Cheering for the feeding of an entire society into the wood chipper.

https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1630672196510138377

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Nah, we have no interest in this war ending. We should continue to shovel weapons to Ukraine so Putin can slowly feed more and more of his society into the wood chipper.

Same logic : We need to allow the tyrant to have what he wants so he doesn't destroy his own society.

 

ETA: my impression is this was sarcasm.  If serious, shrewd real-politic.

Edited February 20 by busdriver

[tac airlifter]

51 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Nah, we have no interest in this war ending. We should continue to shovel weapons to Ukraine so Putin can slowly feed more and more of his society into the wood chipper.

This is the concise idea behind the pro-war movement and I applaud your brevity.  Aside from its ghoulish nature, which I can get over, the pragmatic problem is you’re also feeding generations of Ukrainians into the wood chipper.  Easy for us to accept that cost, but you’ve surrendered the moral high ground given Zelensky has suspended elections and imprisoned the opposition.  

It’s obvious to anyone this war will end with negotiated settlement allowing Russia to keep portions of Ukraine.  
 

break break

Side note: it’s been infuriating to watch the same pussy US generals that wouldn’t sign off on structure strikes where we had 99% confidence it was all AQ inside now enthusiastically enabling UKR partner structure strikes with known civilians inside.  They called off strikes on IS armed first responders pulling wounded HVIs out of vehicles but now cheer HD videos of surrendering unarmed Russians murdered by SUAS…. Where was this kill energy when we could have killed our way to victory in Afghanistan?  The Taliban was way smaller than the Russian army, yet they shied away from attrition strategies which they now embrace on a larger and better armed/funded force?  Our senior generals are total idiots.  It’s clear they never fought to win the GWOT.

Edited February 20 by tac airlifter

[gearhog]

33 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

This is the concise idea behind the pro-war movement and I applaud your brevity.  Aside from its ghoulish nature, which I can get over, the pragmatic problem is you’re also feeding generations of Ukrainians into the wood chipper.  Easy for us to accept that cost, but you’ve surrendered the moral high ground given Zelensky has suspended elections and imprisoned the opposition.

I'm still disgusted. Such talk is incredibly incompetent. A 50,000 word rebuttal instantly formed in my mind on the subject of moral character, but I'm gonna set that aside for now because I hesitate to dignify the above.

Instead, I want to approach this from a different, less controversial angle. A few ideas.

Here are some basic concepts: Obviously, we are at a critical moment in history. The more we find out about our financial system, the more we realize it's afflicted with various cancers. I think we'd all like to see the United States continue to be the greatest country on Earth. The only way we can achieve that is through prosperity and excising the tumors (bad policies) that are holding us back. Prosperity requires technology, resources, and a capacity to produce. We're also embarking on a period of potential technological advancements that will fundamentally change our world. There's a race on for that technology.

Problem 1: The race for that technology requires economic investment. Who has the capacity to challenge our ability to invest in it? Look at this chart and think about how we choose who is and isn't on our team. Who do we cooperate and not cooperate with? Who is already on our team? Who do we spend money on bringing into the fold or relegating to the other side?

Problem 2: The energy required run our existing economy is massive. The technology coming from AI, quantum computing, chip manufacturing, and downstream techs require incredible amounts of additional energy. You can't have unlimited growth in a world of finite resources. Thus, competition. Where do we find that energy? We need it now, not however many years into the future it takes to build nuke plants. Where does it lie?

 

Problem 3: Who poses an existential threat to the US? First, what makes the US the US? I'd say a way of life based upon the principles of the Constitution. To find out who our enemy is, ask which countries operate in ways that are the most far removed from the way we want to live. Isn't the most glaring answer to that question China? We don't want anything to do with that system of government. Do we want to live in an Islamic Caliphate, either? We're even watching Europe devolve a collection of leftist governments.

The real threats to you and I should be calculated and sorted as: Economic power + Access to energy + System of government disparity.

Russia has little economic power, but has massive energy reserves. Their system of government sucks, Putin sucks, but it is not nearly as shitty as others with greater economic power. Put Ukrainians, Russians, Europeans, Americans in room together. You'd have a very difficult time sorting who's who on the basis of the things they value. Russia's energy is going to flow somewhere. Do you think it's just going to stay in the ground? Say Russia collapses. What are we going to do, occupy Russia to deny China's access to energy when they share a border? We are driving Russia into the arms of China, with or without Putin.

War destroys prosperity. A nation will gravitate towards relationships that give them prosperity. The most logical approach is to create a security agreement where we stand to gain prosperity from the ability to purchase energy while they stand to gain prosperity from selling it. Why do we want to make China more prosperous?

There is a time and place for conflict. But for 20 years I was directly involved in wars that were fought, but never decisively won. Our country experienced a near-exponential increase in debt while our leadership saw a near-exponential increase in wealth while on a government paycheck, all while people here still believe it's all been a net-benefit for our citizens. That's a pretty impressive jedi mind trick.

Negotiate an end to the conflict. Start from scratch. Create a comprehensive security agreement that guarantees mutual economic benefits and access to energy while denying China the ability to become and even greater threat.

[Stoker]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

This is the concise idea behind the pro-war movement and I applaud your brevity.  Aside from its ghoulish nature, which I can get over, the pragmatic problem is you’re also feeding generations of Ukrainians into the wood chipper.

What's the alternative? The Russians have been perfectly happy to massacre Ukrainians or conscript every man from 18-65 in occupied territories and use them to clear minefields with their feet. The Ukrainians should roll over and let bad things be done to them because at least then one side will survive (to invade the Baltics in a few years, at least)?

Regimes that don't have moral compasses are often confused by those that do. The Russians and now the US government doesn't understand why the Ukrainians would fight for freedom when it will cost them so much. Much cheaper to accept a degree of oppression than to fight. We're lucky we felt differently when it was us against the British.

[Guest nsplayr]

We should not abandon democratic Europeans to a despotic Russian invasion just so we can buy their natural gas, which OBTW we don’t need? Worst analysis I’ve read in a while!

We already are world leaders in energy and have the resources and technology to do even more. We can and should back democratic countries over autocratic ones out of principle. We can and should stand with allies and against adversaries at every turn.

Theres realpolitik and then there’s just abandoning your values for basically nothing…

I think everyone here knows Ukraine isn’t going back to the pre-2014 borders or joining NATO immanently. Shit, even the Ukrainians know that. BUT they aren’t preemptively conceding in the peace talks while the war is still raging. Hell, they weren’t even invited!

They are sticking to their maximal position and will likely work down from there. Meanwhile Mr. Art of the Deal has already given Putin about 2/3 of what he wanted and is looking to offer up more…for what? A temporary ceasefire that lets Putin waltz into Kiev unscathed a year from now? Hard pass.

Either have real peace talks with both belligerents at the table or let them fight. TBH it serves us just fine to let Russia crash its military against the hard rocks of Ukraine, while at the same time we should be leading the world toward a just end to the conflict. A just end, not just any end.

Edited February 20 by nsplayr

[brabus]

3 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

it serves us just fine to let Russia crash its military against the hard rocks of Ukraine,

Agreed. But let them do it without us sending more billions (which Z man says he didn’t even receive a large portion of…hmm). 
 

12 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

A just end

What does that look like? And what is that “just end” worth in time, money and lives?

[Guest nsplayr]

12 minutes ago, brabus said:

Agreed. But let them do it without us sending more billions (which Z man says he didn’t even receive a large portion of…hmm).

I am fine with continuing to supply them, it’s been a great bargain for us to destroy lots of Russian gear and war fighting capacity for pennies on the dollar and zero American lives, and it has allowed Ukraine to still exist, so that’s a major part of the upside.

12 minutes ago, brabus said:

What does that look like? And what is that “just end” worth in time, money and lives

I mean this barely qualifies as “just” but realistically at this point Ukraine trades Kursk for most of Donbass and Putin goes home. He already kind of fait accompli’d Crimea previously. Sign a nonaggression pact that maybe also includes a Ukrainian pledge not to join NATO for X years or something.

We and Europe can still sell or give Ukraine whatever military gear we’d like to, because Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has agency to secure their continued freedom. No third party like Russia gets to veto their sovereignty just because they are neighbors. We’d then lift some sanctions if/when that all happens and the ink is dry and the Russians are back in Russia. That’s my realistic end to the conflict.

True justice is Putin on trial at The Hague, Russia paying restitution and giving back every fucking inch of Ukrainian territory. In return Russians could elect a new representative government and rejoin the world economic, diplomatic and rules-based system.

That seems pretty fair to me.

Edited February 20 by nsplayr

[brabus]

Fair response, I’m not opposed to that (the second part). Is there a signal that Putin would only agree to terms that included no western mil sales to UKR? Curious because you mentioned that topic. 

Supplying them - maybe some (and only mil/medical…I’m not paying for your teachers’ salary, etc.), but I don’t support the continued rate we’ve been executing for years. We’ve accomplished a lot, let’s scale it way back and support minimally until the ink dries. 

Edited February 20 by brabus

[gearhog]

49 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

We should not abandon democratic Europeans to a despotic Russian invasion just so we can buy their natural gas, which OBTW we don’t need? Worst analysis I’ve read in a while!

We don't need energy? False. Supply and demand. The more energy available on the global market affects price. China does need that energy.

49 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

We can and should back democratic countries over autocratic ones out of principle. We can and should stand with allies and against adversaries at every turn.

You're calling Ukraine a democracy. Explain to me how Ukraine is a democracy.

49 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Theres realpolitik and then there’s just abandoning your values for basically nothing…

What values are being abandoned? Meddling in foreign elections? Ensuring Ukrainians don't have a right to choose their fate? Debt spending to help overthrow foreign governments? Supplying weapons to enable the slaughter of soldiers and civilians on both sides?

49 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I think everyone here knows Ukraine isn’t going back to the pre-2014 borders or joining NATO immanently. Shit, even the Ukrainians know that. BUT they aren’t preemptively conceding in the peace talks while the war is still raging. Hell, they weren’t even invited!

If everyone knows that, what exactly are you arguing? How many miles East or West the line will be drawn? You've just conceded Russia is going to retain some of Ukraine. Ukraine wasn't invited because they were never in charge of their own fate. The war goes the way the US goes.

49 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

They are sticking to their maximal position and will likely work down from there. Meanwhile Mr. Art of the Deal has already given Putin about 2/3 of what he wanted and is looking to offer up more…for what? A temporary ceasefire that lets Putin waltz into Kiev unscathed a year from now? Hard pass.

Either have real peace talks with both belligerents at the table or let them fight. TBH it serves us just fine to let Russia crash its military against the hard rocks of Ukraine, while at the same time we should be leading the world toward a just end to the conflict. A just end, not just any end.

Maximal position? Huh? What does that mean? Do you really think any negotiated settlement would allow for the "waltzing" of Russia into Kiev? That makes zero sense.

Let them fight. This is where I would agree with you. If it is, in fact, a fight between them... leave them to it. Let's completely disengage and see where the chips lie in a year. It is an undeniable fact that our leadership at the time had a hand in creating the conditions that led to this conflict and the death of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. Poor choices were made. We now have a chance to correct the mistakes and establish peace.

https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1868662146122535098

How is it none of you Lindsey Graham neo-con pro-war advocates cheering for the killing of Russians will not acknowledge that it also necessitates the death of Ukrainians? If the Ukrainian cause is near and dear to your heart, why have you not made any voluntary sacrifices for it beyond posts on a message board? I don't believe you really care.

Edited February 20 by gearhog

[gearhog]

Weapons transfers to Ukraine are halted - Ukrainian MP Kostenko.

The end is near.

https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1892634846104608848

[GrndPndr]

The thing on my mind is Keir Starmer deploying UK boots on the ground in Ukraine (as he's suggested he will do).  Will we keep our precious blood out of that and let the UK loose there?

[LiquidSky]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Weapons transfers to Ukraine are halted - Ukrainian MP Kostenko.

The end is near.

https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1892634846104608848

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

As a heavy Bubba the weapons lifts into Poland have been one of the highlights of my career. If not the highlight. I watched the live feeds of the Russians pouring across the border and next thing I knew I was in Poland. Watching pallets get moved off my planes onto trucks and knowing within the week it'd all be gone.

Used to put a Russian into an early grave. 

It was an action that I can proudly share to any westerner. It was an action that put our country back into a well respected light with any European. 

We've nearly dismantled one of our two biggest geopolitical enemies of the last 80 years without costing a single American life. Spending a fraction of the snafu that was Afghanistan/Iraq. Boosting the American defense industry immensely both through our tax dollars being spent and through a massive influx of international sales. 

And now we're tossing it away? This war has been an Intel,strategy, and systems testing goldmine as well. A goldmine we're just going to walk away from.

We're alienating ourselves from our closest allies. We're ceding soft power left and right all for what? A few billion in savings? Billions that were going to our own military industries. Check the stock market. LM, GD, etc. have all fallen 10% or more over the past month as a result while Rheinmetall, BAE, etc. are seeing 20% growth as Europe realizes they can't trust their oldest and strongest ally. Can't wait to see how many more skilled workers we add to the unemployed list next to the other 10s of thousands who've been fired recently.

Don't even get me started on our brothers in arms that will die as a result. We've trained with many of those men and are abandoning them now for no reason. 

How we as a nation have come to the point where materially supporting a war against an undeniable tyrant is a bad thing astounds me. Can you imagine if we had stopped the lend-lease act and told the UK "good luck with the war buddy?" This is the nation that stuck with Afghanistan and Iraq for decades despite the lack of progress, yet we can't stomach 3 years of monetary support?

Rant over. I'm off to go get drunk and pray that I don't have to explain to my grandkids one day why grandpa stopped helping. Why he stepped aside and let Russia walk across the fledgling democracy of Ukraine.

 

Edited February 20 by LiquidSky

[disgruntledemployee]

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, Stoker said:

What's the alternative? 

Fair question.  Here's the alternative: let people vote on how to respond.  Trump was very clear he wanted the war to end, and the US voted for him to execute those policies.  Zelensky won't let his people vote, so they're stuck with forced conscription into the wood chipper.  
 
I'm not pro-Putin or condoning his actions.  But explore this hypothetical with me: what if most Ukrainians would rather give ethnically Russian territory to the Russians than have their kids & grandkids die?  Do they have a right to advocate politically for that?  Zelenskyy says no. 

[blueingreen]

20 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

Rant over. I'm off to go get drunk and pray that I don't have to explain to my grandkids one day why grandpa stopped helping. Why he stepped aside and let Russia walk across the fledgling democracy of Ukraine.

What is America's goal in Ukraine? What does victory look like to you in this war? Ukraine has absolutely zero chance of winning, with or without the aid we've been providing. You made the comparison to Afghanistan, aptly describing the decades of conflict without progress (but plenty of bloodshed and resources expended). Do you want to go through that whole process again? I thought hindsight was 20/20. And calling Ukraine a "fledgling democracy" is laughable. They've quite literally suspended democratic elections, and some sources even have Zelensky polling lower than one of his dismissed generals, Zaluzhniy, in the event that elections were to resume. 

Europe needs to expand its defense capabilities. It's not healthy for EU - USA relations -- or international security -- that the entire continent of Europe has to rely on the United States for its defense in perpetuity. But if European countries want to continue to exist as quasi-American vassal states, they need to stop offending American sensibilities with Orwellian censorship and destructive immigration policies, among other things. VP Vance touched on this at the Munich Security Conference and nobody in Europe has provided an intelligent response yet. Right now they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.