Politics

I like this idea (y)
Yep, "disinformation". Putin and his thugs use it all the time. We laugh at it, dismiss it, and it continues. Time we play their stupid game and let them find evidence to deny it?
 
This war will indeed end in negotiations. Those negotiations will begin in earnest when Putin - not Zelensky - concludes the war is no longer worth the cost.
Which leads to two thoughts:
1. Given the Clear & Present lack of any meaningful intellect being demonstrated by the present US executive administration I think the Russian strategy will be to exploit it where ever they can- Knowing that there will likely be an expiration date of Nov.2024.
2. Russia has shown a propensity to attack that correlates with the price of oil. If the US were to resume Trump era oil policies, the price of oil would plummet- I think this may be the fastest way to have a resolution to the conflict- but as noted such changes are pending Nov 2024 election results.
 
Which leads to two thoughts:
1. Given the Clear & Present lack of any meaningful intellect being demonstrated by the present US executive administration I think the Russian strategy will be to exploit it where ever they can- Knowing that there will likely be an expiration date of Nov.2024.
2. Russia has shown a propensity to attack that correlates with the price of oil. If the US were to resume Trump era oil policies, the price of oil would plummet- I think this may be the fastest way to have a resolution to the conflict- but as noted such changes are pending Nov 2024 election results.
I believe Putin will continue this was against Ukraine until before our Presidential elections in 2024. China will invade Taiwan at that time and ALL of our focus and military resources will be shifted to Taiwan, allowing Putin to at least make huge gains or subjugate Ukraine. Putin might be mentally ill but he's not completely stupid. He saw our folly in Asscrackistan, when having pushed the Taliban through their tunnels and over the mountains and were then neutralized, and then we shifted our military resources to Iraq to stop Saddam's non existent WMDs stockpile from being used, based on a 99.9% probability of manufactured intelligence by Donald "Recall" Rumsfeld and/or his TOP aides. He couldn't recall anything about it. Hmm, kind of like Brandon about EVERYTHING? LOL
 
1675284562594.jpeg
 
I shall try not to respond to your questions in the vein in which they were asked.

Equating NATO assistance value to one year of Russian defense spending is a false comparison. It sounds meaningful which is why critics of the war use it, but the economic reality is that Russia (and the latter years of the Soviet Union) spent decades creating the army that invaded Ukraine a year ago. The primary tank used by Russia is the T72 - I assume you understand why it has that model designation. Yes, it has been modernized, but original investments in design and assembly lines were over decades. The same is true of the Russian Air Force. The more pertinent question might be how, after decades of investment of hundreds of billions of dollars, the Ukrainians still defeated the Russian Army in its effort to seize control of the country, forced their retreat from Kyiv, Karkhiv, and Kherson and have fought them to a standstill in the Donbas. That ongoing defensive stand is after Russia consolidated its surviving striking strength there in an attempt to seize and hold all of that region.

It is equally nonsensical to say Putin has achieved his territorial objectives. The VDV and most of a tank army were essentially destroyed in the attempt to take Kyiv and Kharkiv. If anyone believes that he will be satisfied with what he essentially already had but for the south bank of the Dnieper, they are naïve, delusional, or complicit. Any truce along those lines will simply be a pause while Russia attempts to rebuild its army.

It is instructive to me at least that Russia has been forced to depend to an ever greater extent on the Wagner Group for its assault troops. In turn Wagner has been forced to use the sweepings from Russian prisons to attempt to replace its own unsustainable casualties. Hardly the actions of a modern, well organized, and successful army.

Both sides have suffered serious losses. I again recommend you peruse the Oryx tabulations. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html They represent a third party tracking effort based in Europe and Turkey maintaining a count of equipment losses of both sides. A platform only makes the list if there is photographic evidence of its damage, destruction, or capture. Obviously, actual losses will be much higher, but this service offers a good comparison to the claims of both the Russian and Ukrainian MODs. To date, Oryx lists 8953 Russian platforms destroyed damaged or captured. These range from tanks, to IFVs, to trucks, to aircraft, to naval vessels. 1663 of those were main battle tanks. In the same period, Ukraine has lost 2287 of which 453 were tanks. Not a bad exchange rate, though the losses obviously affect Ukraine disproportionately.

Yes, to conduct a successful breakthrough of Russian defensive lines, Ukraine needs adequate armor, artillery, and training. You are correct that 45 modern tanks are inconsequential. I find it infuriating that we have not done more sooner. Russian troops are struggling in the current winter conditions in Ukraine. They are inadequately supplied and trained for such a combat environment. Two fully NATO equipped mechanized BDEs could rupture the Russian line at any place of Ukraine's choosing. Sadly, neither this administration nor Europe has had the courage to make those armament decisions in a timely manner.

As a result, I suspect that Ukraine will be forced to husband its strength through the winter rather than carry out the winter counter offensive I anticipated a few weeks ago. This is particularly true if Putin orders an attempt to resume offensive operations in the spring. We can thank the machinations of Jake Sullivan, Biden's National Security Advisor, and the absence of a competent Chief Executive for this dithering.

If the Leopard consortium comes through as promised now that Germany has finally acquiesced to the export of their tanks, Ukraine will have around 250 modern MBTs by summer. That will be enough to form the core of two modern mechanized brigades. I am not sure that will be decisive.



Foxi, I think nuclear weapons are of very limited utility. But if we allow ourselves to be blackmailed once by their threatened use, we will be subject to such blackmail forever.

But to my main point, while it is true that no one will win a strategic nuclear exchange, Russia would clearly lose it. Some portion of the Russian arsenal would indeed get through to Western Europe and the US. Some portion of that would hit where it was aimed and explode as designed. I frankly would be stunned if their nuclear equipped submarines successfully launched a single missile before being destroyed by a lurking Virginia class attack boat. But the damage done to the West would indeed be catastrophic.

However, virtually all the US strike would get through. Those warheads would hit exactly where they were aimed and explode exactly as designed. Whatever the damage done by Russian weapons, Putin knows that Russia, as a country and a culture, would cease to exist. Committing national suicide is not a retaliatory choice whatever the ravings of Russian propagandists over on RT.

This war will indeed end in negotiations. Those negotiations will begin in earnest when Putin - not Zelensky - concludes the war is no longer worth the cost. Increasing the flow of counter offensive capability to Ukraine can only hasten Russia reaching that conclusion.
With respect Redleg, I think you might be looking at this from a military commanders' perspective, not from that of a politician.

Yes, America could do more to help Ukraine, but why would they? It's not strategically beneficial.

This is not an existential threat to America, America does not need to go all out and win as quickly and decisively as possible.

America's strategic objectives from this conflict could be summarized thusly:

1 - Maintain Ukraine, her people and her resources in the western sphere of influence to maintain trade and geopolitical position through enforcing and mediating a peace agreement with favorable terms.
2 - Ideally, achieve 1 in such a way as to increase the indebtedness of Ukraine to NATO countries and draw them further into the EU / NATO.
3 - demonstrate that NATO is willing to act militarily to protect nations against foreign aggression and maintain world order as a deterrent to China and other bad actors.
4 - Gain an understanding of Russian military capability and ideally reduce this in terms of skills and materiel as much as possible so that they're a less dangerous potential future ally to China against the West.
5 - Achieve 1-4 with the lowest possible expenditure and without escalating the conflict to a nuclear exchange.
6 - Stretch goal - put enough pressure on Putin for him to be deposed and replaced with someone more friendly to US interests, or at least force him to play nice for the foreseeable.

The current half-assed actions of the US are achieving these objectives perfectly. Risk is minimized, cost is minimized, all strategic goals will be achieved. Pretty much ideal from a political perspective.

Yes, doing the bare minimum does increase the duration of the conflict, it does hurt the Ukrainian people and it does increase Ukrainian casualties, but from a pure utilitarian political perspective, those considerations are pretty much irrelevant, or at least have minimal bearing on the calculus being performed. It also reduces the risk of failing at goal #5.

Honestly, I think it's been handled quite effectively within the context of the above. Ukraine has suffered but is more closely aligned to NATO than ever, Russia has suffered just as much if not more, have formed a rift between them and China and has depleted 30 years of military hardware for very little gain, the US has done relatively little and no nukes have yet come into play. A perfect operation from a geopolitical perspective, I'd say.
 
With respect Redleg, I think you might be looking at this from a military commanders' perspective, not from that of a politician.

Yes, America could do more to help Ukraine, but why would they? It's not strategically beneficial.

This is not an existential threat to America, America does not need to go all out and win as quickly and decisively as possible.

America's strategic objectives from this conflict could be summarized thusly:

1 - Maintain Ukraine, her people and her resources in the western sphere of influence to maintain trade and geopolitical position through enforcing and mediating a peace agreement with favorable terms.
2 - Ideally, achieve 1 in such a way as to increase the indebtedness of Ukraine to NATO countries and draw them further into the EU / NATO.
3 - demonstrate that NATO is willing to act militarily to protect nations against foreign aggression and maintain world order as a deterrent to China and other bad actors.
4 - Gain an understanding of Russian military capability and ideally reduce this in terms of skills and materiel as much as possible so that they're a less dangerous potential future ally to China against the West.
5 - Achieve 1-4 with the lowest possible expenditure and without escalating the conflict to a nuclear exchange.
6 - Stretch goal - put enough pressure on Putin for him to be deposed and replaced with someone more friendly to US interests, or at least force him to play nice for the foreseeable.

The current half-assed actions of the US are achieving these objectives perfectly. Risk is minimized, cost is minimized, all strategic goals will be achieved. Pretty much ideal from a political perspective.

Yes, doing the bare minimum does increase the duration of the conflict, it does hurt the Ukrainian people and it does increase Ukrainian casualties, but from a pure utilitarian political perspective, those considerations are pretty much irrelevant, or at least have minimal bearing on the calculus being performed. It also reduces the risk of failing at goal #5.

Honestly, I think it's been handled quite effectively within the context of the above. Ukraine has suffered but is more closely aligned to NATO than ever, Russia has suffered just as much if not more, have formed a rift between them and China and has depleted 30 years of military hardware for very little gain, the US has done relatively little and no nukes have yet come into play. A perfect operation from a geopolitical perspective, I'd say.
I respectfully disagree with your number one point. As long as Putin is in power, a "peace agreement" is not worth the paper it's written on. He has some $200 BILLION of his own wealth stashed away somewhere and doesn't give a rat's ass about the Russian people or his soldiers dying in MASS during this conflict. I believe he does care about losing given his mentally ill state and narcissistic personality. I do agree with your number six goal. He needs to go away, one way or another, and replaced with somebody SANE that realizes this attempted "annexation" of Ukraine is not worth the blood of Russian soldiers or Ukranian people and destroying Russia's economy, nor the mirage of gaining riches (more power) by bringing Ukraine to its knees. Just my 2 centavos.
 
A perfect operation from a geopolitical perspective, I'd say.
I wonder what Farmer Joe, who can’t farm his family’s fields because there are in the middle of no man zone, would think about this situation?
 
I wonder what Farmer Joe, who can’t farm his family’s fields because there are in the middle of no man zone, would think about this situation?
I expect he's pretty sad, but then as he doesn't get to vote in US elections, I don't suppose US politicians care much one way or another. Politics is a dirty business... what can ya do?
 
I respectfully disagree with your number one point. As long as Putin is in power, a "peace agreement" is not worth the paper it's written on. He has some $200 BILLION of his own wealth stashed away somewhere and doesn't give a rat's ass about the Russian people or his soldiers dying in MASS during this conflict. I believe he does care about losing given his mentally ill state and narcissistic personality. I do agree with your number six goal. He needs to go away, one way or another, and replaced with somebody SANE that realizes this attempted "annexation" of Ukraine is not worth the blood of Russian soldiers or Ukranian people and destroying Russia's economy, nor the mirage of gaining riches (more power) by bringing Ukraine to its knees. Just my 2 centavos.
What other solve is there though?

Putin can't agree to a unconditional surrender, he'd never survive it politically. We can't conquer Russia to end the conflict, that'd just lead to nuclear war and even if the Us would win the exchange, it'd be a real hollow victory.

It's a case of 'what's the best solve that's actually feasible' and that's got to be a negotiated peace with favorable terms.

Unless you have a better idea (that sounds snarky as I read it back, but it's a genuine question. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it!)
 
I expect he's pretty sad, but then as he doesn't get to vote in US elections, I don't suppose US politicians care much one way or another. Politics is a dirty business... what can ya do?
Sadly, we fall far short of this statement

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I believe that Farmer Joe in Ukraine is one of those men.
 
Unless you have a better idea (that sounds snarky as I read it back, but it's a genuine question. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it!)
The answer is to not rely on a military solution- as noted previously, a better solution is to stop funding Russia's ability to make war. This can be done by returning to the Trump policies regarding oil production/transportation. Barrel will go from $80 to $40 or less- without funding the checks for the military will bounce.
 
What other solve is there though?

Putin can't agree to a unconditional surrender, he'd never survive it politically. We can't conquer Russia to end the conflict, that'd just lead to nuclear war and even if the Us would win the exchange, it'd be a real hollow victory.

It's a case of 'what's the best solve that's actually feasible' and that's got to be a negotiated peace with favorable terms.

Unless you have a better idea (that sounds snarky as I read it back, but it's a genuine question. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it!)
Status quo, if we have to negotiate with Putin, these would be MY terms in a peace agreement SIGNED OFF by Ukraine:
1. Russia admits to illegally annexing Crimea. They can keep the territory if they pay Ukraine fair market value as determined by Ukraine. ALL Ukrainian commercial ships and cargo would continue to traverse unimpeded to and from the ports of Crimea.
2. Russia removes ALL their military from the rest of Ukraine. The Russian speaking people who live in Donbas, Luhansk, etc., who want to leave, will be afforded a stipend to move to Russia by the Russian Government. The UN will provide a "peace" force in those areas paid for by Russia.
3. The sanctions on Russian oil and gas will be lifted if the above two conditions come to fruition. However, a set amount of the proceeds will be impounded and used to pay for the reconstruction of Ukranian cities and infrastructure destroyed by the war. This includes reparations for Ukranian families.
4. Russian assets, including those of the so called "oligarchs", currently "seized" by Governments around the world, would be used to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Many of the oligarchs funded Putin's military even before Ukraine, so those that did are SOL.
5. If the above agreements aren't agreed to, the UN will remove Russia from the UN Security Council and remove them from every financial monetary institution available.
There you go Alistair! You were pushing me to come up with something quick! If I had more time, I could have thought about it and tweaked my response. Live with it and get 'er done! LOL
 
Sadly, we fall far short of this statement
Sadly, we always will.

It's a just and noble sentiment, but one that doesn't mesh well with the harsh and uncomfortable realities of realpolitik...

The answer is to not rely on a military solution- as noted previously, a better solution is to stop funding Russia's ability to make war. This can be done by returning to the Trump policies regarding oil production/transportation. Barrel will go from $80 to $40 or less- without funding the checks for the military will bounce.

That might go some way to preventing future engagements, but I rather think that the die is cast for this particular Russian misadventure and that Putin is invested far enough now that he simply doesn't have much option to continue, no matter the state of his finances.

He needs a face saving way out if he's to retain his leadership (and quite probably his life) in the face of an internal coup. Either we give him one in a negotiated settlement that gets us what we want and allows him to spin it as a 'win' on state media, or he will continue until he is deposed, which may be as far as a nuclear exchange, and is certainly long after the point he might discontinue the fight if given an opportunity.

Going back to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is it 'moral' to negotiate terms, allow him to save face, if in return it ends the conflict faster and saves Ukranian lives? I'd say it probably is, even balanced against the chance of future hostilities ( and it's Russia, so there's little to no chance that his replacement will be any less corrupt or belligerent after all).
 
Let me know how Das Kapital is working out for you in Seattle.
Seattle? Who would live there? Businesses are leaving faster than there are available rental trucks. You need to wear Kevlar sneakers to prevent the needles on the sidewalks from penetrating your shoes. If you rent an apartment, the management issues Kevlar bedspreads for protection from stray bullets. I'm all for adventure, but ......? LOL
 
Let me know how Das Kapital is working out for you in Seattle.

Not in Seattle - 430 miles away.
Das Kapital ...lol
Your favorite "Mein Kampf" ?

"The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter, either side of the hill"
 
What other solve is there though?

Putin can't agree to a unconditional surrender, he'd never survive it politically. We can't conquer Russia to end the conflict, that'd just lead to nuclear war and even if the Us would win the exchange, it'd be a real hollow victory.

It's a case of 'what's the best solve that's actually feasible' and that's got to be a negotiated peace with favorable terms.

Unless you have a better idea (that sounds snarky as I read it back, but it's a genuine question. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it!)
I think I actually agree with much of what you said except that none of those objectives are obtainable if Ukraine is defeated - either militarily which is unlikely - or through a bad ceasefire agreement like 2014. The only way that I see to achieve that political outcome is to convince Putin that the military cost has become unsustainable. To my admittedly military oriented mind, the surest way to achieve a favorable result to that calculus is to provide Ukraine with the means to old the deployed Russian army a ever more significant risk. That can be accomplished with readily available armor. Clausewitz was correct that war is politics carried out by other means - sometimes politicians forget that as well. The political solution to this crisis runs through the military cost decision that Putin must be forced to make.

I agree this will end with negotiations. A best case for Ukraine probably accepts Crimea will remain Russian, the Donbas will be administered internationally in some way pending an eventual plebiscite, and Putin will agree he misspoke when Kherson and Zaporizhzhia were annexed. A less favorable outcome leaves the left bank of the Dnieper and the land bridge intact to Crimea. None of this happens as long as Putin believes a better outcome is achievable on the battlefield.
 
Status quo, if we have to negotiate with Putin, these would be MY terms in a peace agreement SIGNED OFF by Ukraine:
1. Russia admits to illegally annexing Crimea. They can keep the territory if they pay Ukraine fair market value as determined by Ukraine. ALL Ukrainian commercial ships and cargo would continue to traverse unimpeded to and from the ports of Crimea.
2. Russia removes ALL their military from the rest of Ukraine. The Russian speaking people who live in Donbas, Luhansk, etc., who want to leave, will be afforded a stipend to move to Russia by the Russian Government. The UN will provide a "peace" force in those areas paid for by Russia.
3. The sanctions on Russian oil and gas will be lifted if the above two conditions come to fruition. However, a set amount of the proceeds will be impounded and used to pay for the reconstruction of Ukranian cities and infrastructure destroyed by the war. This includes reparations for Ukranian families.
4. Russian assets, including those of the so called "oligarchs", currently "seized" by Governments around the world, would be used to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Many of the oligarchs funded Putin's military even before Ukraine, so those that did are SOL.
5. If the above agreements aren't agreed to, the UN will remove Russia from the UN Security Council and remove them from every financial monetary institution available.
There you go Alistair! You were pushing me to come up with something quick! If I had more time, I could have thought about it and tweaked my response. Live with it and get 'er done! LOL
It's a starting point for negotiations, sure and probably not far off the accepted end goals in at least some ways, with a few minor tweaks to make it clear that all of this is purely voluntary on Russias part and they of course make no admission of 'wrongdoing' in any way.

Item 1, I'd maybe lean towards some kind of externally monitored referendum but the locals around remaining Russian or rejoining Ukraine, go from there. Either way could work.
2. Item 2, probably pretty acceptable to both parties with some negotiation of certain contested border areas.
3. Probably not far off, with the usual negotiation around amounts, administration and admissions of culpability.
4. Probably not gonna fly. It's a tricky one the seizure of public assets, and I doubt Putin has enough power over those guys at this point to be able to dictate such terms on them without seeing an internal coup.
5. Seems fair.

See, it's easy this negotiated peace lark! I dunno why they had such a hard time of it at Versailles...
 
I think I actually agree with much of what you said except that none of those objectives are obtainable if Ukraine is defeated - either militarily which is unlikely - or through a bad ceasefire agreement like 2014. The only way that I see to achieve that political outcome is to convince Putin that the military cost has become unsustainable. To my admittedly military oriented mind, the surest way to achieve a favorable result to that calculus is to provide Ukraine with the means to old the deployed Russian army a ever more significant risk. That can be accomplished with readily available armor. Clausewitz was correct that war is politics carried out by other means - sometimes politicians forget that as well. The political solution to this crisis runs through the military cost decision that Putin must be forced to make.

I agree this will end with negotiations. A best case for Ukraine probably accepts Crimea will remain Russian, the Donbas will be administered internationally in some way pending an eventual plebiscite, and Putin will agree he misspoke when Kherson and Zaporizhzhia were annexed. A less favorable outcome leaves the left bank of the Dnieper and the land bridge intact to Crimea. None of this happens as long as Putin believes a better outcome is achievable on the battlefield.
I'd agree with the above. However, I'd also tentatively suggest that the current state of affairs is getting us there quite nicely, although I'd bow to your superior knowledge and experience on that topic!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,616
Messages
1,131,189
Members
92,671
Latest member
MorrisFloc
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top