War in Ukraine

[BeardedVol]

No, it's posturing. I didn't call for a congressional inquiry when Biden injected us into this to begin with, though admittedly I questioned his sanity (senility) but for much more obvious reasons.

I actually supported helping Ukraine........ But at this point Ukraine can't win unless we enter the conflict directly......... And I see nothing for us to gain by doing so.

Lol "Biden injected us into this to begin with"...



Were you even born when we signed the Budapest Memorandum?

 

[MontyPython]

What do you think would happen if we went to war with Russia? Basically you want us involved but only if it doesn’t affect us. That’s not the way it works

Ask yourself this: Has NATO contained USSR / Russia from expansion in allied countries and simultaneously prevented world war since it's inception? Yes. By nearly all metrics, NATO has served its purpose well.

NATO going to war with Russia is highly improbable. We're not seeking a war with them, and Putin is no dummy - he knows very well that any conventional war between the two would - ultimately - result in a staggering loss for him. His de facto sole trump card is the threat of using nuclear weapons... a threat that - again ultimately - would end up with counter-nukes and/or a NATO now committed to regime change in Russia.

Why would Putin risk that? He wouldn't.

How would Russia benefit from an armed conflict with NATO? It wouldn't.

By admitting Ukraine to NATO at a date certain in the future, we'd achieve the dual goals of ending the war and solidifying a new bulwark ally bordering an expansionist Motherland... just like ally Finland now does.

Pearl clutching over threats by Medvedev achieves nothing positive for us, and it's exactly the kind of empty threat and result that Putin wants and uses to great effect.

 

[MontyPython]

Any war fought with Russia would be our become nuclear. MAD being the likely outcome. I don't see a lot of options that don't escalate this to a degree no one is comfortable with.

Say what now?

Mutually Assured Destruction is what prevents nuclear war not causes it. Putin - one of the richest and most powerful people on the planet - has a sweet life. Why would he start a nuclear war that he knows nobody wins. He wouldn't. He's far from a desperate man.

Putin is cunning and ruthless, but no dummy. He gets that he'd lose a conventional war and that he and his country would suffer just as much as the countries that he could attack with nuclear weapons.

 

[rekinhavoc]

Loading…

nationalinterest.org

"Three overarching fears preoccupy Russian officialdom: losing the war, economic collapse, and state fracture."

 

[MontyPython]

Loading…

nationalinterest.org

"Three overarching fears preoccupy Russian officialdom: losing the war, economic collapse, and state fracture."

Nice nugget:

The First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration, Sergei Kiriyenko, told local administrators in July that the Kremlin considers returning veterans to be “the main factor of political and social risks.”

 

[rekinhavoc]

Nice nugget:

The First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration, Sergei Kiriyenko, told local administrators in July that the Kremlin considers returning veterans to be “the main factor of political and social risks.”

The Russian people have to be tired of this meat grinder.

Maybe Putin is in a bind. He will project strength at all costs. Not sure he has an off-ramp at this point.

I trust Putin as much as a post Taco Bell fart.

 

[hog88]

Ask yourself this: Has NATO contained USSR / Russia from expansion in allied countries and simultaneously prevented world war since it's inception? Yes. By nearly all metrics, NATO has served its purpose well.

NATO going to war with Russia is highly improbable. We're not seeking a war with them, and Putin is no dummy - he knows very well that any conventional war between the two would - ultimately - result in a staggering loss for him. His de facto sole trump card is the threat of using nuclear weapons... a threat that - again ultimately - would end up with counter-nukes and/or a NATO now committed to regime change in Russia.

Why would Putin risk that? He wouldn't.

How would Russia benefit from an armed conflict with NATO? It wouldn't.

By admitting Ukraine to NATO at a date certain in the future, we'd achieve the dual goals of ending the war and solidifying a new bulwark ally bordering an expansionist Motherland... just like ally Finland now does.

Pearl clutching over threats by Medvedev achieves nothing positive for us, and it's exactly the kind of empty threat and result that Putin wants and uses to great effect.

If we/NATO goes to war with Russia there will be regime change in not only Russia but probably several European countries since the probability of that war going nuclear is high.

What you refuse to recognize is that if we/NATO goes to war with Russia Putin is out, his life is forfeit and he knows this so he will use every tool he has to inflict as much damage on the west as possible. IS Ukraine worth it?

 

[hog88]

Say what now?

Mutually Assured Destruction is what prevents nuclear war not causes it. Putin - one of the richest and most powerful people on the planet - has a sweet life. Why would he start a nuclear war that he knows nobody wins. He wouldn't. He's far from a desperate man.

Putin is cunning and ruthless, but no dummy. He gets that he'd lose a conventional war and that he and his country would suffer just as much as the countries that he could attack with nuclear weapons.

Putin cannot withdrawal from Ukraine and retain his life, he has no other choice but to go all in and remain breathing.

 

[MontyPython]

If we/NATO goes to war with Russia there will be regime change in not only Russia but probably several European countries since the probability of that war going nuclear is high.

What you refuse to recognize is that if we/NATO goes to war with Russia Putin is out, his life is forfeit and he knows this so he will use every tool he has to inflict as much damage on the west as possible. IS Ukraine worth it?

Seems like we're in agreement that Putin won't risk a war with us. Where we seem to disagree is that I think establishing a date for Ukraine to join NATO would *not* change this calculus. I mean... why would it? If we admit Ukraine to NATO, why would Putin then want to risk a war with us? This whole thing has only brought NATO closer to "threatening" Russia - given bordering Finland is now part of NATO.

 

[MontyPython]

Putin cannot withdrawal from Ukraine and retain his life, he has no other choice but to go all in and remain breathing.

So then this entire 'peace summit' or whatnot with Trump this week is 100% a ruse by Putin?

I don't see that. I see that the risk Putin takes only increases the longer he stays in Ukraine and the more economic pain that normal Russians have to endure. At some point, the economics all comes tumbling down or, less likely, Russians revolt and states try to splinter off. SEE: Collapse of USSR, WWI

 

[hog88]

Seems like we're in agreement that Putin won't risk a war with us. Where we seem to disagree is that I think establishing a date for Ukraine to join NATO would *not* change this calculus. I mean... why would it? If we admit Ukraine to NATO, why would Putin then want to risk a war with us? This whole thing has only brought NATO closer to "threatening" Russia - given bordering Finland is now part of NATO.

My goodness you are obtuse.

 

[MontyPython]

My goodness you are obtuse.

Dispense with the pleasantries and just answer the question. Interested in your perspective.

 

[hog88]

So then this entire 'peace summit' or whatnot with Trump this week is 100% a ruse by Putin?

I don't see that. I see that the risk Putin takes only increases the longer he stays in Ukraine and the more economic pain that normal Russians have to endure. At some point, the economics all comes tumbling down or, less likely, Russians revolt and states try to splinter off. SEE: Collapse of USSR, WWI

I absolutely believe that Russia will collapse at some point within the next decade. A defeat in Ukraine will accelerate that collapse and Putin will go all in to prevent that or at least bring as much destruction possible as it collapses

 

[MontyPython]

I absolutely believe that Russia will collapse at some point within the next decade. A defeat in Ukraine will accelerate that collapse and Putin will go all in to prevent that or at least bring as much destruction possible as it collapses

Rosy outlook, bro.

I don't see how freezing the front lines in Ukraine would be considered a "defeat" for Putin. He's won 20% of Ukraine. And, as Putin has claimed himself, he just wants Russia to "recapture" the 4 regions of Eastern Ukraine. He already has most of them.

Again, I'm not suggesting NATO come into Ukraine with guns blazing in an attempt to recapture lost Ukrainian land... to the contrary, Ukraine's admittance to NATO simply solidifies the current lines and stops Russian aggression.

 

[CobbVol]

EU military support to Ukraine

Find out more about how the European Union and its Member States have provided support to address Ukraine's pressing military and defence needs.

commission.europa.eu

I guess 60 billion doesn't count....

Not near enough. They spend more on climate change.

 

[hog88]

Rosy outlook, bro.

I don't see how freezing the front lines in Ukraine would be considered a "defeat" for Putin. He's won 20% of Ukraine. And, as Putin has claimed himself, he just wants Russia to "recapture" the 4 regions of Eastern Ukraine. He already has most of them.

Again, I'm not suggesting NATO come into Ukraine with guns blazing in an attempt to recapture lost Ukrainian land... to the contrary, Ukraine's admittance to NATO simply solidifies the current lines and stops Russian aggression.

Wouldn’t it be simpler and less risky to take out the funds Russia is paying for the war with? Place draconian sanctions on any country purchasing a single drop of oil/gas from Russia and turn the money off.

But that would harm our “allies” so I understand your reluctance to punish those paying for Russian aggression.

 

[volbound1700]

Ask yourself this: Has NATO contained USSR / Russia from expansion in allied countries and simultaneously prevented world war since it's inception? Yes. By nearly all metrics, NATO has served its purpose well.

NATO going to war with Russia is highly improbable. We're not seeking a war with them, and Putin is no dummy - he knows very well that any conventional war between the two would - ultimately - result in a staggering loss for him. His de facto sole trump card is the threat of using nuclear weapons... a threat that - again ultimately - would end up with counter-nukes and/or a NATO now committed to regime change in Russia.

Why would Putin risk that? He wouldn't.

How would Russia benefit from an armed conflict with NATO? It wouldn't.

By admitting Ukraine to NATO at a date certain in the future, we'd achieve the dual goals of ending the war and solidifying a new bulwark ally bordering an expansionist Motherland... just like ally Finland now does.

Pearl clutching over threats by Medvedev achieves nothing positive for us, and it's exactly the kind of empty threat and result that Putin wants and uses to great effect.

To add to this, NATO was also designed to keep NATO members from fighting each other (i.e. Germany vs France which caused WW1 and WW2). NATO has also been successful in that regard.

 

[volbound1700]

Rosy outlook, bro.

I don't see how freezing the front lines in Ukraine would be considered a "defeat" for Putin. He's won 20% of Ukraine. And, as Putin has claimed himself, he just wants Russia to "recapture" the 4 regions of Eastern Ukraine. He already has most of them.

Again, I'm not suggesting NATO come into Ukraine with guns blazing in an attempt to recapture lost Ukrainian land... to the contrary, Ukraine's admittance to NATO simply solidifies the current lines and stops Russian aggression.

I don't see a scenario where anyone will get peace with Russia without Ukraine giving up some land. How much maybe in question. Another key factor is how long Ukraine can continue the war which none of us truly know as we don't have access to the REAL information about the true battlefield situation.

 

[KB5252]

Lol "Biden injected us into this to begin with"...

View attachment 762570

Were you even born when we signed the Budapest Memorandum?

So wanting Ukraine to give up their nukes was a bad thing? A country that had serious technological and economic challenges, not to mention a notoriously corrupt government, they learned from some of the best.

There were other options available to Biden, he chose the mid option, which I think was the right decision by the way. But the bottom line is it got us involved in this war and he was responsible for it.

 

[KB5252]

Say what now?

Mutually Assured Destruction is what prevents nuclear war not causes it. Putin - one of the richest and most powerful people on the planet - has a sweet life. Why would he start a nuclear war that he knows nobody wins. He wouldn't. He's far from a desperate man.

Putin is cunning and ruthless, but no dummy. He gets that he'd lose a conventional war and that he and his country would suffer just as much as the countries that he could attack with nuclear weapons.

No, entering into the conflict would be the catalyst. It would set off MAD. Any direct conflict with the US on former or current Russian soil would be seen as the beginning of the end. Russia knows they can't beat the US in conventional war. Putin is a sharp man with power, he knows all of that is true.

 

[BeardedVol]

So wanting Ukraine to give up their nukes was a bad thing? A country that had serious technological and economic challenges, not to mention a notoriously corrupt government, they learned from some of the best.

There were other options available to Biden, he chose the mid option, which I think was the right decision by the way. But the bottom line is it got us involved in this war and he was responsible for it.

Ukraine complied with our demands. They put their security in our hands. Gave up billions in missiles and long range bombers, and a nuclear deterrent that has proven the only guarantee of Russia not invading them.

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament/

Ukraine Eliminates Last of Its Strategic Bombers | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

We on the other hand, did not live up to the agreement.

 

[KB5252]

Ukraine complied with our demands. They put their security in our hands. Gave up billions in missiles and long range bombers, and a nuclear deterrent that has proven the only guarantee of Russia not invading them.

View attachment 762640

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament/

Ukraine Eliminates Last of Its Strategic Bombers | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

We on the other hand, did not live up to the agreement.

You think we should have? Started WWII over Ukraine? I have a personal connection to Ukraine but I wouldn't go there.

 

[hog88]

Ukraine complied with our demands. They put their security in our hands. Gave up billions in missiles and long range bombers, and a nuclear deterrent that has proven the only guarantee of Russia not invading them.

View attachment 762640

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament/

Ukraine Eliminates Last of Its Strategic Bombers | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

We on the other hand, did not live up to the agreement.

How so?

 

[lawgator1]

As a related aside, given what we have seen in Ukraine over the last couple of years, what do people think of Russia's nuclear capabilities at this point? Too broken down and aged to be a threat if it really came to that?

 

[hog88]

As a related aside, given what we have seen in Ukraine over the last couple of years, what do people think of Russia's nuclear capabilities at this point? Too broken down and aged to be a threat if it really came to that?

They are probably severally degraded but they only need a couple working ICBMs to enact worldwide carnage.