Lindsay Graham's remarks already took care of that. He was the mouthpiece for the CW2 faction.

Was there ever anything like the decolonization rhetoric back during the original CW? @Screechjet1

Do you believe it backfired in epic proportions?

If you think the Cold War was expensive relative to benefit, what would that situation going hot would have cost?

In many situations there is no good option, so the objective is to go for the least bad option.

And?
Ukraine actually amended a law to require Ukrainians living abroad to sign up for mobilization.

Nobody has questioned that.  I question the mindset that a Ukrainian "victory" looks like Russians occupying 20% of their country forever and their economy destroyed for decades.  It's a very detached western train of thought to have, driven by the fantasy football aspect of this conflict.  "My team has to win", even if the goalposts for winning change a hundred times and the people so concerned with Ukrainian victory will never sacrifice a single thing as a result.

The offensive campaign is not going anywhere and the chances of expelling Russia grow slimmer every week.  We should be focused on containment at this point, and hitting China and Iran hard through DIME.

The UkeBros actually believe that any Russian regardless of what they actually do are spokesperson's for Putin

It isn't as simple as that. Ukraine isn't Finland if that's what you are referring to. It's like the difference between Mexico and Guatemala to us. Ukraine is like Canada or Mexico. Huge trading partners, and the key to energy exports to the West.

Ukraine holds access to Russian ports. They become landlocked if they lose access. There are a thousand reasons why Russia cannot allow Ukraine to become a member of NATO, and it means almost nothing to us. Putin hammers this point domestically and he has 95% support from the Russian population.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, et al,  these people attain political power by antagonizing Russia into invading by pushing NATO into Russia's border. In direct violation of the Kiev agreement, as well as Reagans deal with Gorbachev. Ukraine is going too far from the Russian perspective.

Failure to understand that is causing hundreds of thousands of young people to die in a meat grinder.

As a father of a U.S. Marine, I have deep sympathy for the parents of the kids getting killed on both sides. I don't want to see Russian kids getting killed any more than I want to see Ukrainian kids getting killed. We could be allies with Russia, but our politicians are creating wars nobody needs.

I hope at least some of you take the time to learn about this stuff. Russia is going to collapse demographically, and their energy sector is quickly re-tooling to supply China.

This war is making that happen faster, and it is bad for US. We need to force peace. And that means Ukraine cannot join NATO, and there will be a loss of territory. Sorry if that hurts to contemplate, but I'm not the dipshit that caused this war to begin with.

This comment started off as a fair question, then went downhill quickly. You are 100% wrong about "people concerned not sacrificing a single thing".

Attached File

Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic

99.9% of the posters here are absolutely not.

Thoughts and prayers aren't real.

That was a lot of words to say "Ukraine must surrender to Russia and become a vasal state". I have more respect for the position of people here that say "Ukraine can fight, just not with our money". At least they recognize a countries right to self-defense and self-determination.

Re: agreements. What the heck is the "Kiev agreement" you mention? And if we are talking about agreements, do you discount the Budapest Memorandum where Russia specifically signed they would "respect Ukraine territory integrity"? I also challenge you to show me the signed agreement about Nato not expanding 1 more inch east.

We could be allies with Russia? Lol. Ukraine getting all their territory back is 100x more likely than Russia being a good ally even if the US was perfect in every way towards Russia.

So we should avoid a notional pyrrhic victory for the Russians at all costs in favor of a notional pyrric victory for Ukraine?

There are no goals set whatsoever right now and we are caught in a loop of blood and treasure loss that can end now or 5 years from now with extremely similar results.  External support is politically driven and will eventually wane or cease.

Absolute best case is an immediate structured cease fire even with Ukraine in a position of weakness to preserve life and resources. The reality is that a longer and harder fight is looming.

Still cold

Explain your position then, or don't...validating mine.

It's unimaginable to think Ukraine can't beat Russia?

I agree with you on the no goals. This is enabling Putin to hold out.

If UA recognizes they can't get all their territory back, they need to at least try and get full control of the Dnipro before a ceasefire. Way to much of their ag commerce happens on that river, and if Russia controls one bank near the mouth, that will keep a stranglehold on UA's economy.

And who's to say when UA and the west signal for ceasefire, Putin doesn't double down at that moment?

Nobody. Its a risk, calculated against the risk of not seeking armistice.

If Ukraine were negotiating from a position of strength they could potentially establish better controls to safeguard their course of action, but in reality they are not.  

It all hinges on the realistic expectation that they can secure a better position for negotiation,  or an even worse one.

Ukraine means everything to Russia. It means almost nothing to the United States. And that is true economically, culturally, and militarily.

Tit for Tat violations of various agreements have happened on both sides, but the Net result has been NATO violating the primary agreement that secured the ending of the Cold War.

I realize you guys have alot invested in your positions you've taken in this thread, so I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind.

My comments here are for the others who are reading and would like to understand why Russia is fighting for its National survival.

It is ignorance to not understand the other side's position. Take the time to learn about it. Generally the side that is most motivated wins, all other things being equal. Ukraine may prevail, but it is more likely that our best negotiation position was 6 months ago and it will be even worse next year.

Peace out!

Now it's my turn to say "you don't know what you don't know"

A large number of the posters here in support of a Ukraine victory have donated tens of thousand of dollars in gear and supplies that have gone directly to front line soldiers thru connections here. Sure you can poke fun at it, say it's not enough, but for those soldiers that received them they were thankful for the merino long johns and socks or Israeli T3 bandages.

I'm just saying, a large quantity of those posting in support of Ukraine have done something, no matter how small you may think it is.

I suppose some here are too young to remember Muhammad Ali and the technique he called "Rope a Dope."

The fight was billed as "The Rumble in the Jungle" and took place in Kinshasa, Zaire.

Ali started out on the offense, peppering Foreman with punches and gaining some points.........and then backed off and let Foreman go on offense.

George Foreman attacked Ali viciously for the rest of the fight as Ali leaned back on the ropes, covered up and smiled.

Foreman wore himself out and soon flopped to the canvas helpless and exhausted after a couple of solid punches from Ali.

Ukraine is the "dope".........George Foreman.

The Russians are Ali.........Putin has taken a page from Ali's book.

Ukraine is rubble.......a nation of ruined stumbling rubble.

Russia looks normal........leaning back on the ropes, smiling and watching the Ukes punch themselves out.

Ali was never even worried.........Putin's not worried either.

I've been to war many times, so my definition of the term "sacrifice" seems to be a bit different than yours.

Donations are commendable but they are by no means granting you direct investment into this war.

There it is, your "I am better than everybody" spiel.

I with Rubik, peace out.

Well, sorry I didn't accept the depth of your investment and sacrifice into the Ukraine war because you sent some socks.  

Thoughts, prayers and donations are the classic first world moral satiation. It definitely doesn't provide any supporting fires towards justifying a mindset that Ukraine should keep fighting until their last man.

I don't see many other outcomes here, so it's implied.

It is, but:

a) is it a realistic outcome if we stop support?
b) is it a realistic outcome if we continue support?
c) is it something that can be avoided through armistice?

At the end of the day, just because something is a concern does not mean it takes priority over all other considerations.

Wait till they replace Zelensky

Biden tells world leaders to stand up to Russia's 'naked aggression' and not let Ukraine be 'carved up': President vows to keep sending money to Kyiv as Zelensky watches on at UN General Assembly



Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky watched President Joe Biden warn Tuesday that no nation is safe if Ukraine is 'carved up' by Russia.

Biden was addressing the United Nations General Assembly, with both Zelensky - dressed in his traditional military fatigues - and Russian Amb. Vaisily Nebenzya in the audience.

The U.S. president hammered Russia's 'naked agression' and vowed to keep funding Kyiv as he again called the present moment 'an inflection point in world history.'



Biden noted that 'for a second year in a row, this gathering dedicated to peaceful resolution of conflict is darkened by the shadow of war.'

The president called it 'an illegal war of conquest' and one that was 'brought without provocation' by Russia into Ukraine.








'Like every nation in the world the United States wants this war to end,' he said. 'No nation wants this war to end more than Ukraine. And we strongly support Ukraine and its efforts to bring about a diplomatic resolution that delivers just and lasting peace.'

But he said that 'Russia alone, Russia alone bears responsibility for this war.'

'Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it's Russia alone that stands in the way of peace because the Russians' price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation, Ukraine's territory and Ukraine's children,' Biden said.

'Russia believes that the world will grow weary and will allow it to brutalize Ukraine without conseqence,' the president added.

Biden then laid out what he thought would be the cost of that weariness.

'But I ask you this, if we abandon the core principles of the United States to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected?' he asked.  

'If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?' the president mused.






'I respectfully suggest the answer is no,' Biden said. 'We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow.'

He didn't call out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name.

'That's why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom,' Biden said.

He received applause from the audience for this pronouncement.

However the pool reporter in the room also observed UNGA attendees on their phones checking Instagram and Google maps during the president's address.

Nebenzya was also spotted on his phone during Biden's speech.


Link

My opinions are based on statements Putin has made explaining the rationale. Among other things, his 2019 manifesto outlining in detail the fact that Ukraine cannot exist as an independent nation, it belongs to Russia. Separation is not possible.

Putin has also said he aims to create a multipolar world by re-establishing the Russian empire. That's already a failure, as Russia's economy and industry are devastated by the war. Russia is in process of becoming nothing more than a proxy for China.

I also read a number of comments by members of the Duma, if you think official state media is not a reliable source. They echo Putin. Ukraine has no right to exist. Russia borders Poland, once the usurpers in Kyiv are liquidated.

I don't have first-hand contacts over there, so I just go by what their leaders say.

Biden just wants to ensure huge campaign contributions from the Military Industrial Complex corporations.

He'll get them, too.  He's doing a fine job of enriching the rich bastards.

Ukraine does not block or control Russian Black Sea ports. The #1 Russian sea port is Novorossiyisk, has been for years. That port is not affected by who controls Crimea, or the Azov, or Odessa. The fact that you don't even know the geography doesn't lend a lot of credence to your statements.

What is the "Kiev agreement"? I'm not familiar. Reagan did not make a deal with Gorbachev about NATO. You can't cite it, because there's no document to cite. The "not one inch east" statement has been debunked. Putin himself said back in the 90s that nations could make agreements with whom they chose. That statement is surely at least as valid as the completely unofficial "not one inch east" that people keep bleating about.

We can't be allies with a country that builds themselves up as our enemy, that regularly declares us to be their enemy, whose entire policy is based on opposing us and our interests around the globe. As I posted earlier, that opportunity was lost in the 90s. Even if we forced a peace deal on Ukraine, Russia won't align with Europe no matter what. They will be pawns of China, because that's their best option for opposing the West, which seems to be their #1 goal. The only conceivable option for changing this is regime change in Russia, and the elimination of the entire Putin/Dugan circle. So unlikely.

Ukraine will join NATO, or they will become a nuclear armed power. There's no way around it. This war is possible because Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in the 90s for empty promises of sovereignty and integrity. The only way to guarantee that their future sovereignty is protected is with nuclear weapons. Since all of Europe is highly likely to oppose Ukraine becoming a nuclear power, that Article 5 umbrella is the only option. Either we give up on nuclear nonproliferation as a policy objective, or we accept Ukraine into NATO. This is a condition for peace, like it or not.

Why shouldn't Ukrainians have what they want - sovereignty and autonomy? Because of Russia's feelings?

Don't forget that option #3 includes another war in the future when Russia rebuilds its military capacity. Unless Ukraine gets nukes or NATO membership, "negotiated settlement" means "we'll fight again some other time."

It's not a question of if it would be a terrible outcome if Ukraine collapses and is taken over by Russia. It would be.

The question is, what are the short, medium and long term impacts of the US's support(and continued support) for Ukraine on the US's ability to maintain and project all of it's interests, globally?

There's zero chance for Ukraine to get nuclear weapons.

When the new borders are established.......what's left of Ukraine will join NATO and will be required to refrain from attacks on Russia.

Sounds fair.  

All the talk of Russia feeling threatened by NATO is hogwash.  Such a war would inevitably go nuclear with world-wide devastation.

Ain't gonna happen and everybody knows it (despite all the trash talk, chirping and threatening).

As for Novorossiyisk, it's very small and unsuitable for military operations so its value is very limited.

Russia will soon have far more suitable ports.

I submit that the US has already lost at least half of its power compared to a generation ago, in all facets of the DIME acronym. Maybe less than half lost in military capability, but everything else we already lost. I'm old enough to remember "strong dollar" policy. Haven't heard that term in a while. We're busy inflating the dollar to garbage status, and the Ukraine conflict is a complete sideshow on that point, a cup against a swimming pool. I'm also old enough to remember US military doctrine calling for maintaining the ability to fight to major conflicts or one war on two major fronts simultaneously. Again, I haven't heard that talked about in years. The idea that the current level of US support for Ukraine poses a serious threat to US capability exposes the incredible weakness of that capability in the first place. I don't see any way that's not so.

In particular, our stocks of ammunition and capacity for replenishment have been exposed as grossly insufficient. I think it's good that we learn this now, instead of three weeks after a hot war with China starts, and we find ourselves unable to continue fighting. Because that's about where we would be. What we've seen is that we don't even have the capacity to fight one major war. At least, that's what it appears, given how critically short we are on key munitions.

The point is, don’t be stupid.

It doesn’t matter what side you’re on, Russia is not the Soviet Union. When you look at the actual Russian Federation, they are TIPTOEING around the mobilization that they’ve done and actual Russians are saying there’s no way they can afford more, but some of you guys act like they could still take the Fulda Gap.

U.N. General Assembly
Zelensky Warns World Leaders That Russian Aggression Could Expand Beyond Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/09/19/world/united-nations-general-assembly

And Russians who say something that you don’t like aren’t Russians at all.



There will be no mobilization in Russia in the near future. That is, the mobilization itself will probably happen more than once, but it is very unlikely - this fall.

The most important problem with the perception of the current SVO is the idea that we started the operation in Ukraine, and therefore everything will be limited to Ukraine.
I will repeat the basics: a challenge was thrown to NATO and the current world order as a whole, and therefore we will not get the “defeat of NATO” and “reassembly of the world order” from any events in Ukraine. NATO is doing well so far: their territories are not involved in hostilities in any way, their soldiers are not dying, and the weapons involved on their side are only a small part of the reserves, and even then, most of them are not modern models that need to be replaced.

Now - to mobilization in Russia. It would be possible to do it urgently only in one case: if there was a chance to go on a serious offensive, turn the situation at the front and reach peace agreements on our terms. I’ll tell you a secret that such a scenario is not possible for us.

Now the focus will be on the autumn recruitment of conscripts, who will be actively recruited as contract soldiers during their service. And for now it’s difficult to even guess how effective recruitment will be. Combining recruitment of conscripts and mobilization is such a monstrous challenge for the army system that it cannot be overcome from the point of view of management.

Much more conscripts will be called up than in previous times, and the system for training them should become the basis for training those who are mobilized. Then the optimal time for recruitment can be called the winter period. Perhaps January.

The question of mobilization is not to announce it, but to prepare for it. And here is psychological work with the population, and the organization of proper systematic training for those mobilized for the necessary higher education institutions, etc. So far, not a single issue has been resolved: the autumn mobilization, due to the escalation of the situation, could have been a disaster for the country: for each conscript, at least five escapees would have been received, and in order to investigate cases of draft evaders, it would have been necessary to mobilize the military police and prosecutor’s office. And this is in conditions of a shortage of people.

Replacing a Russian at the front with a migrant in the rear is a direct mockery of Russia; sending a migrant to the front instead of a Russian peasant is a mockery of the army and the path to military defeat. And here I have to admit that agreements with the DPRK and the formation of working detachments from Kimorossians are some kind of solution. At least they are controlled and can be sent back to Kimorossia at any moment.

With caution, I will express a seditious thought: despite the fact that the period of great wars for Russia has come for a long time and in earnest, we are unlikely to be distracted in the near future by recruiting expeditionary forces to the Baltic states and Poland. Now there is a period when an important task will be the military stabilization of the situation on our territory. UAV strikes on our rear areas are not intimidation, but reconnaissance of capabilities. There will be more to come, believe me - the logic of all military personnel is always the same, and we can unravel the enemy’s plans (taking into account his capabilities). The question is the possibilities of effective counteraction.

Therefore, the tactically correct decision for recruiters is to work with schoolchildren - we will no longer find soldiers who are morally ready for war through mobilizations; they must be cultivated from the school desk. For sure, children starting from grades 6-7 are guaranteed to have time to grow up to a defensive age and take part in the coming war (it’s like now, but much larger and more terrible).

Therefore, they will not speed up mobilization this fall - it will only bring harm. And this is so obvious that even hands can understand everything themselves.
Moreover, our real potential is only being spent: tens of thousands of trained soldiers are being transferred from the front to Africa, and now another hundred thousand (and even more than one) will be transferred to the new military districts of the Moscow and Leningrad regions. So, if you want, there are solutions with people. Desire is worse.

In the meantime, it would be better to pay all attention to the current problems with the provision of those aircraft that already exist. I don’t want to upset anyone, but not everything is perfect here.

https://t.me/shouvalov/95

I say C is unclear, because Russia has such a track record of violating their agreements. Russia signed at least two separate agreements with Ukraine promising to respect their sovereignty and territorial integrity in the 90s, and look where we are now. Russia is completely unserious about negotiating anything, and that's unlikely to change unless they get smashed on the battlefield or government collapses from public outcry.

There's no way we would, or could, fight a conventional war with China.

War with China would be nuclear........which is why it will never happen.

Another reason is that China is not going to go to war with their best customer..........ever.

They need us to buy their crap.

what is the evidence of this? they're fighting over the same ground they were fighting over last year.

Russia gets saddled with a worn torn country, has a diminished conventional military threat that is going to take decades, if ever, to rebuild.

Russia's economy is damaged and poses less of a conventional threat to NATO and 10's of thousands of orcs were killed in the process.

This is what people wanted at fundamental level, no?

Of course that outcome doesn't reward the "ideological crusade against evil" or Cold War blue balls factions(which would really only be satiated with a regime change, and that's not a guarantee of changing anything in itself), neither of which I think you are a part of btw.

Further, I wouldn't treat the West as monolithic. Central Europe has different concerns vs Western Europe. Both within the EU itself and partnerships with the US directly. The US and the EU have different concerns.

As far as the short/medium/long term stuff, it's been detailed quite extensively by R0N/Screech/Carmel and others.

I would posit that keeping Russia from being able to use Ukrainian agri exports to China/India(Which UKR already does plenty of) in order to bolster support in BRICS, may be worth some consideration, to what degree, I'm not sure though.

It's a fair assessment and I don't disagree. The next question is whether China will capitalize on this new information before the US can fix the issue, which is going to take years.

At this point B is unclear as well, and comes with a slew of additional negative baggage for us.

Planning based on what you hope your adversary will or won't do, is poor planning.