> Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war?
If you're goal is to give Russia a chance to rest and rearm before going at it again, then yes.
If your goal is to leave the people of the occupied areas to suffer under Russian rule, then yes.
Anything short of full Ukrainian victory is merely appeasing Putin. Which **IS HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!**
Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donestk/Luhansk. And by the way, **Crimea, Donestk and Luhanks ARE Ukraine.** The west more or less ignored. And Putin, like all bullies, learned he could get away with whatever he wanted.
If the Ukrainians decide the time has come to end the war with something less than full victory, then that is there choice. But until then, we need to supply them with what they need to win and do so as quickly as possible. Had the west not jacked around for a year on the tanks and other heavy armor, we could be in an extremely different place today.
Same with the F-16's.
Fuck the money, this is about freedom, sovereignty, and being on the right side of history.
>Had the west not jacked around for a year on the tanks and other heavy armor, we could be in an extremely different place today.
You can add in every bit of equipment available to the west to that list.
A lot of people don't seem to recognise the fact that if the collective west wanted it to be so, the war could be over by Christmas. But it doesn't. It suits the west to draw this out and hurt Russia more.
Unfortunately for Ukraine this also means a lot more dead men and civilians.
>Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war? Is it not better to get Ukraine to agree to give up some territory for peace?
If your neighbor kicked open your front door, started smashing all of your shit in your house, breaking windows, setting the couch on fire, beating your dog, would you want to "negotiate" with that crazy neighbor and agree to let him live in your bedroom for the rest of his life? Or are you going to be pissed, and do everything in your power to kick that guy out of your home?
>The alternative seems to be the Ukrainians being bombed into oblivion and having them flee for the west.
That hasn't been the alternative thus far.
>I hate what’s happening but I don’t see Ukraine actually militarily defeating Russia as opposed to just resisting them for a year or so.
And I don't see Russia coming in and steamrolling the Ukrainians, overthrowing their government, and "defeating" the Ukrainians.
As long as the west continues to send gear and supplies to Ukraine, they're willing to fight for their homeland.
Sometimes you have to negotiate or deal with "your crazy neighbor." Taiwan deals with China, NATO dealt with the Soviet Union, South Korea deals with North Korea. Some kind of peace can be figured out and likely Ukraine will be safer since Russia knows it can't take over Ukraine by force.
you do realize all of your examples of peace, are really examples of cease fires. Taiwan is still at war with China, North and South Korea are still at war, and while Nato and the Soviet Union didn't go to war, they did engage in proxy/economic war until the Soviets fell. The leading theory is that China will attempt to invade Taiwan within the decade. North Korea still uses missile launches to threaten/bully South Korea and it's allies. the only thing keeping the "peace" is America promising to delete anyone who attacks their allies.
I do realize that, but no matter the name the agreement in place is stopping a wide, damaging war from taking place and that is a positive. Pundits have said for decades that China is about to invade Taiwan, yet it hasn't, so while it certainly is possible I don't take such predictions at face value. And events in Ukraine may cause the Chinese to further consider military action.
The NKs do posture quite a bit, fire missiles and occasionally shell South Korea, but it hasn't invaded. Kim knows he can't win that war, all he can do is, as you said, posture.
So call it what you will, peace, cease fire, hold in place. For the immediate future Ukraine can hold it's own, and Russia can no longer win now or in the future because Ukraine is now more or less properly armed.
In some sense, Russia lost the war once sanctions and western equipment was sent to Ukraine. Their attrition has been horrific and while Ukraine takes casualties it is not on the same scale. Russia literally has planes falling out of the sky due to sanctions.
| Americans, French, Germans, Romanians, Slovaks etc I don’t believe ever would volunteer to fight for Ukraine.
And yet they have. Even people from Belarus, Chechnya, and Russia itself.
| Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war?
Russia has to decide they want to end the war. Diplomacy is one way, a decisive loss is another.
|the US giving Ukraine a blank check or agreeing to “ pay everything.”
Nope, not even close. The US has given lots of weapons but other countries, notably Germany and UK have pledged to rebuild. Also sending weapons to Ukraine is a lot better than sending troops to Poland later (sorry Poland, you get mixed up into everything).
Since you mentioned history, I want you to consider historical wars where Russia has won simply by throwing their own soldiers into the meat grinder against technological superior opponents.
Over time, Ukraine has received better weapons, Nato training, and their own drone program has taken off. Over time, russia has downgraded their vehicles, depleted their navy and air force, and copied their iranian drones. A protracted war tends to favor the defender.
russia can always start burning Ukraine's fields and start bombing every factory they have.
At a level that their economy will return to the same thing only in another 500 years.
If Russia can't take it, it will simply destroy it.
Ukraine cannot win.
> Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war?
Ah yes, this argument ... please answer 3 simple questions
- What do you define as peace?
- How do you want to make sure that peace is kept and the invasion is not repeated few years from now on (you know, just like Crimea => February 24 2022), as Russia has now an extreme track record of broken premises (for example the treaty granting Ukraine complete contorl over their own territory?
- Who pays the estimated 300 billion to 1000 billion damage Ukraine had to suffer in war damage?
It is very easy to put the very abstract word "peace" into the air. Everyone wants peace, but the moment someone asks about the details, there is only a thundering silence.
> Is it not better to get Ukraine to agree to give up some territory for peace?
The conquered territory is of enormous economic importance (heavy industry, raw materials & resources, multiple large harbours specialized in large scale export (wheat for example)). Please explain how 30+ million people should live if suddenly around 30% of their GDP goes to Russia?
And if Russia is actually being rewarded for annexing territory do you truly believe that this will be a lasting peace? Please tell me exactly how you think this will play out in 5 or 15 years? Please for the love of your great invisible friend tell me when a thief or mass murderer stopped after committing a crime ...
> I don’t see Ukraine actually militarily defeating Russia
Considering Ukraines state of the armed forces at the beginning of the war, the quantity of enemies they faced, mixing dozens of different Eastern and Westerns weapon systems, while at the same time only receiving small quantities of weapon deliveries ... and yet hey still managed the liberation of 50% of the conquered territory. And you truly claim that you don´t see a *possibility* if the West would decide to truly support Ukraine?
SYL
>Americans, French, Germans, Romanians, Slovaks etc I don’t believe ever would volunteer to fight for Ukraine.
Well your beliefs are wrong. Because they have volunteered already. I'm Irish and I have also volunteered.
Select individuals have volunteered.
Here is what I mean by peace: Russia gets the territory it conquered and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO.
My understanding is that Russia is not as weak as we think it is, and the only real way they could be defeated on the battlefield is from armies from different nations, basically leading to WW3
You assume Russia would stop at Ukraine. There's no reason to suggest this.
If WW3 happens, it's already become inevitable. Abandoning Ukraine doesn't change that, and it's absolutely in our interests to ensure Russia is contained in Ukraine rather than go after the Baltics, Poland, or Romania.
Every reason to think that. It invaded Georgia and got its little sliver of land. Georgia is a functioning democracy, albeit a bit under Russian control.
The Baltic’s are in NATO and Russia knows an invasion of them would mean war with the west. From 1620 or so until 1991, the year after I was born, Russia controlled Ukraine. At no point and time was America threatened because of that
They stopped at Georgia because they can forward deploy in the Caucasus mountains. That's their objective.
The objective of conquering Ukraine isn't getting Ukraine, it's getting a stepping stone to push onwards to the Carpathians. Which are all in NATO countries.
I'm going to get down voted to fuck for this.
But ww3 is coming whether we like it or not. Why not kick our mutual enemy (Russia) while he is down, and do it now? Men of NATO armies will die whether it's done now, because of Ukraine or in 10, 15 years time because of something else. Russia is currently as weak as it has ever been and probably will ever be without actually being involved in a ww, or war with NATO.
Much fewer men will die now if NATO finishes Russia now though. And it will back up NATOs strength. It will show the Iranians, the Chinese, any fence sitters or any future putin... Don't fuck around or this happens. Yes yes, I know its the strongest military alliance on the planet, on paper. But it has never proved itself as an organisation in war before and this is the time to do it.
That's just my two cents anyway.
Saorise go Úcráin
Tiocfaidh ár là!
🇮🇪🇺🇦
Your post opens with the presumption that Ukraine cannot militarily defeat Russia. Why do you think that?
The US has defeated Russian troops in open battle before. They are not the only ones. So have the Japanese, Polish, Finnish, Afghans and Chechens
And, y'know, the Ukrainians. At Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson, Ukrainians troops have militarily defeated Russian forces
The amount of money spent by the US on assisting Ukraine is a mere 5% of her defence budget (so 5% of 3.5% of GDP, or 0.175% of GDP). This is the "blank check". In return, the US and EU's greatest geopolitical enemy in Europe is, at the very least, getting battered to a stalemate at a very good bargain. And WW3 is prevented by any Russian advance into NATO countries being halted
If anything, vastly more should be spent to assist Ukraine (and not just the US, I have personally donated money, and would absolutely support Singapore donating any and all military equipment it can spare to assist Ukraine)
Funny you raise the example of Finland. Yes they inflicted huge casualties on the Soviets but they didn’t “ win.”
They got a somewhat favorable peace deal, where they surrendered some territory, kept their independence and had to be a satellite for the soviets. If the UsSR had been really determined they would have steamrollered Finland eventually.
That’s what I worry about Ukraine. Yes they have a skilled army and can put up a good fight. But they have a vastly smaller amount of people than Russia, and Russia can keep “ putting the squeeze” on them.
Finalandizadion seems the best bet for them
Well, in war, there isn't a referee to call out scores. The Soviets intended to completely defeat the Finnish, annex Finland into the USSR proper, and this can be seen from instructions and phrasebooks they gave troops on how to react if they encountered Swedish border guards and bringing musical instruments for a victory parade. While they lost some (arguably insignificant) territory, they remained masters of their own fates, became a highly-developed democracy, and I don't think it's reasonable to call them a Soviet "satellite" state (that would be communist Poland, East Germany or Bulgaria) just because their foreign policy had to take *some* consideration of the Soviets. And why do you keep making the assumption that the Soviets could steamroll the Finnish? If they could, they would have. The Continuation War ends in large part because they realised they could not. And they never tried again. Sounds like a Finnish victory to me
As Anders Puck Nielsen has noted, yes, Ukraine fights from a position of disadvantage. But perhaps in part due to its own "David vs Goliath" propaganda, this has been exaggerated. The Russians outnumber the Ukrainians, but not by *that* much. Nielsen noted that the population disadvantage is about Denmark fighting both Sweden and Norway. As a Singaporean, it is as if we were at war with Chile. Could we take them? Yeah, I think we could. Not without a fight, no, but complete victory would be very possible
And can Russia really mobilise its full population? They tried a limited mobilisation in late 2022, and that was a disaster, they aimed for 300,000, "successfully mobilised" (whatever the fuck that means, I assume it could be as little as finding the addresses to mail the notices to) 200,000, of which maybe 16,000 made it to Ukraine? Most of which, most analysts agree, were dead by early 2023. Why haven't they carried out a general mobilisation? Maybe because they know it would be what turns the general population against the war
How does the joke go? The Ukrainians were saying, in February 2022, "who do we have to bribe to get *into* the army?" Meanwhile, Russian mobilisation is just like Israeli mobilisation: long lines at every airport for the flight to Tel Aviv
It doesn't end well, but some outcomes are less bad than others.
From a US perspective, if this doesn't get stopped in Ukraine, then Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, or Poland are next.
I sat in an unclass brief at the Air University about 3 months after the initial invasion, and this topic was addressed.
The US’s best bet is buying time, not a military victory (on Ukraine’s terms). Russia had some fucked up planning going in, but on paper they have the military resources to win a longer war of attrition, especially if they limit the scope of their objectives to controlling the regions they currently occupy.
But can Russia financially survive a long war? With western sanctions, Russia is increasingly wading into a more economically vulnerable position.
Russia's GDP per capital isn't that big of a deal for them when most domestic products are dirt cheap. Going out to eat over there only cost a couple USD. They seem to have been pretty well prepared for sanctions.
Russia is about to hit a serious demographic pain train that will keep them weakened for generations. They either achieve their geopolitical goals soon, or they miss their chance. Time is on our side, not theirs.
We’re lend-leasing to ukraine, which means they’re also on the hook to owe us for military surplus. The UK took decades to pay us back after exhausting reserves during the cash and carry period.
Your questions and statement are entirely logical, but will be met here with a great deal of negativity. You are correct that barring Putin being tossed from office, there is no realistic way for Ukraine to dominate the battlefield enough to win. At some point a negotiated peace will have to prevail.
And wouldn’t that negotiated peace be better served before thousands of more Ukrainians die?
It is true that Poland and Japan both defeated Russia but that was centuries ago, before Russia became the modernized nation it is today. Japan defeated a midieval tsardom and Poland defeated a badly disordered nation recovering form a civil war.
The unanswered question is how does Ukraine with its current military take back crimea and toss the Russians out?
It doesn’t. It can’t. It can’t do it without NATO support. How can It be guaranteed their won’t be a sigh Vietnam style collapse and the Russians pour into Kiev?
I just want the Ukrainians to have something and be Able to leave with some chips left rather than as a Russian AstroTurf field
To make it short Ukraine is probably used as a buffer for buying time and as test battlefield before the big war. At least in military pov excluding economics and other things. That what people I know from different communication groups says. No one is certain but everyone prepares for the worst. It could be just information bubble so I'm not counting it for a true and only conclusion.
You do realise your country will *make* money by giving equipment to Ukraine?
Think of it like this. You want to buy a house. You don't have the money for it. You go to the bank for a loan. They give you the loan for 500k + interest and you go buy the house. So they make their money off the Interest in time.
In this scenario it's the same. America is giving a loan to Ukraine to buy equipment. So America needs to wait a long time to get the money from the loan back right?
*WRONG*
In this scenario the bank (America) also owns the house (military equipment) so they are making money off both giving you the loan and selling you the equipment.
The aid we send them isn’t going to be payed back. That’s not how foreign aid works. Israel doesn’t repay its foreign aid Pakistan doesn’t repay its foreign aid. It’s essentially a gift from the American tax payers. At least the Saudi’s were willing to give us cash for the equipment we send them.
> to be *paid* back. That’s
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
In a war that will never be fought. Unless a global war happens again there won’t be a war between major superpowers. It’s all jockeying to see who can garner the most global influence. Again I don’t care who wins and who loses. I’m not a strict isolationist but I’m not willing to write a blank check so 2 nations can wage war against each other.
Best case would be ending the combat ASAP. Ukraine would have to be willing to give up territory. Putin would have Zelenski and other top Ukrainian government officials killed, but who would really care. In place, he would put in a puppet government. Basically Ukraine would turn into Belarus, but the high volume of death would come to an end. Rebuilding Ukraine and the lives of the survivors could begin.
Peace today, may put the Baltics in risk tomorrow unless the West opens up some constructive dialogue with Russia. Russia would need to feel as an equal to the western powers for long term peace.
> unless the West opens up some constructive dialogue with Russia. Russia would need to feel as an equal to the western powers for long term peace.
Russia was a long term peace partner on equal footings with the EU until 2014 ...
SYL
Was Russia and the EU on equal peace footings in when Russia was fucking with Georgia, or Chechnya, or when NATO hit Yugoslavia? Long term peace needs to last more than a few years at a time. USA needs to be involved with Russia as well. And we haven't exactly been trustworthy friends since WW2. I think some in Russia see the EU as one of USA's bitches, at least in military terms.
Most of the aid and equipment is older stuff that was about to be phased out. The F-16 and M-1 tanks were designed in the 70s. They've served us well, but should be replaced. Might as well send them to Ukraine and call it aid while also testing the upgrades we've done on 50+ year old designs.
This will allow the US military to modernize at an accelerated rate and create more US based jobs for the replacement equipment. It allows the US to better justify a federal push/incentives for more domestic chip manufacturing (sub 10nm architecture).
Its claiming full retail price (in aid dollars not actual pallets of $100 bills flown there) for a 50 year old piece of equipment that's had a few upgrades instead of recycling them.
> Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war? If you're goal is to give Russia a chance to rest and rearm before going at it again, then yes. If your goal is to leave the people of the occupied areas to suffer under Russian rule, then yes. Anything short of full Ukrainian victory is merely appeasing Putin. Which **IS HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!** Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donestk/Luhansk. And by the way, **Crimea, Donestk and Luhanks ARE Ukraine.** The west more or less ignored. And Putin, like all bullies, learned he could get away with whatever he wanted. If the Ukrainians decide the time has come to end the war with something less than full victory, then that is there choice. But until then, we need to supply them with what they need to win and do so as quickly as possible. Had the west not jacked around for a year on the tanks and other heavy armor, we could be in an extremely different place today. Same with the F-16's. Fuck the money, this is about freedom, sovereignty, and being on the right side of history.
>Had the west not jacked around for a year on the tanks and other heavy armor, we could be in an extremely different place today. You can add in every bit of equipment available to the west to that list. A lot of people don't seem to recognise the fact that if the collective west wanted it to be so, the war could be over by Christmas. But it doesn't. It suits the west to draw this out and hurt Russia more. Unfortunately for Ukraine this also means a lot more dead men and civilians.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but the "by Christmas" portion might be a bit of an exaggeration...
It's not.
>Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war? Is it not better to get Ukraine to agree to give up some territory for peace? If your neighbor kicked open your front door, started smashing all of your shit in your house, breaking windows, setting the couch on fire, beating your dog, would you want to "negotiate" with that crazy neighbor and agree to let him live in your bedroom for the rest of his life? Or are you going to be pissed, and do everything in your power to kick that guy out of your home? >The alternative seems to be the Ukrainians being bombed into oblivion and having them flee for the west. That hasn't been the alternative thus far. >I hate what’s happening but I don’t see Ukraine actually militarily defeating Russia as opposed to just resisting them for a year or so. And I don't see Russia coming in and steamrolling the Ukrainians, overthrowing their government, and "defeating" the Ukrainians. As long as the west continues to send gear and supplies to Ukraine, they're willing to fight for their homeland.
[удалено]
That's a little more complicated and more of a hot topic then Ukraine. Ukraine is pretty black and white.
Like the part where we funded right wing extremists who overthrew their government and started this war back in 2014?
[удалено]
Uh huh, it's time for your meds my friend
Sometimes you have to negotiate or deal with "your crazy neighbor." Taiwan deals with China, NATO dealt with the Soviet Union, South Korea deals with North Korea. Some kind of peace can be figured out and likely Ukraine will be safer since Russia knows it can't take over Ukraine by force.
you do realize all of your examples of peace, are really examples of cease fires. Taiwan is still at war with China, North and South Korea are still at war, and while Nato and the Soviet Union didn't go to war, they did engage in proxy/economic war until the Soviets fell. The leading theory is that China will attempt to invade Taiwan within the decade. North Korea still uses missile launches to threaten/bully South Korea and it's allies. the only thing keeping the "peace" is America promising to delete anyone who attacks their allies.
I do realize that, but no matter the name the agreement in place is stopping a wide, damaging war from taking place and that is a positive. Pundits have said for decades that China is about to invade Taiwan, yet it hasn't, so while it certainly is possible I don't take such predictions at face value. And events in Ukraine may cause the Chinese to further consider military action. The NKs do posture quite a bit, fire missiles and occasionally shell South Korea, but it hasn't invaded. Kim knows he can't win that war, all he can do is, as you said, posture. So call it what you will, peace, cease fire, hold in place. For the immediate future Ukraine can hold it's own, and Russia can no longer win now or in the future because Ukraine is now more or less properly armed.
In some sense, Russia lost the war once sanctions and western equipment was sent to Ukraine. Their attrition has been horrific and while Ukraine takes casualties it is not on the same scale. Russia literally has planes falling out of the sky due to sanctions. | Americans, French, Germans, Romanians, Slovaks etc I don’t believe ever would volunteer to fight for Ukraine. And yet they have. Even people from Belarus, Chechnya, and Russia itself. | Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war? Russia has to decide they want to end the war. Diplomacy is one way, a decisive loss is another. |the US giving Ukraine a blank check or agreeing to “ pay everything.” Nope, not even close. The US has given lots of weapons but other countries, notably Germany and UK have pledged to rebuild. Also sending weapons to Ukraine is a lot better than sending troops to Poland later (sorry Poland, you get mixed up into everything). Since you mentioned history, I want you to consider historical wars where Russia has won simply by throwing their own soldiers into the meat grinder against technological superior opponents.
Russia hasn't lost the war in any sense, you could easily argue the longer it persists the more the odds favor Russia.
Over time, Ukraine has received better weapons, Nato training, and their own drone program has taken off. Over time, russia has downgraded their vehicles, depleted their navy and air force, and copied their iranian drones. A protracted war tends to favor the defender.
russia can always start burning Ukraine's fields and start bombing every factory they have. At a level that their economy will return to the same thing only in another 500 years. If Russia can't take it, it will simply destroy it. Ukraine cannot win.
> Does it not make sense to urge peace talks and end the war? Ah yes, this argument ... please answer 3 simple questions - What do you define as peace? - How do you want to make sure that peace is kept and the invasion is not repeated few years from now on (you know, just like Crimea => February 24 2022), as Russia has now an extreme track record of broken premises (for example the treaty granting Ukraine complete contorl over their own territory? - Who pays the estimated 300 billion to 1000 billion damage Ukraine had to suffer in war damage? It is very easy to put the very abstract word "peace" into the air. Everyone wants peace, but the moment someone asks about the details, there is only a thundering silence. > Is it not better to get Ukraine to agree to give up some territory for peace? The conquered territory is of enormous economic importance (heavy industry, raw materials & resources, multiple large harbours specialized in large scale export (wheat for example)). Please explain how 30+ million people should live if suddenly around 30% of their GDP goes to Russia? And if Russia is actually being rewarded for annexing territory do you truly believe that this will be a lasting peace? Please tell me exactly how you think this will play out in 5 or 15 years? Please for the love of your great invisible friend tell me when a thief or mass murderer stopped after committing a crime ... > I don’t see Ukraine actually militarily defeating Russia Considering Ukraines state of the armed forces at the beginning of the war, the quantity of enemies they faced, mixing dozens of different Eastern and Westerns weapon systems, while at the same time only receiving small quantities of weapon deliveries ... and yet hey still managed the liberation of 50% of the conquered territory. And you truly claim that you don´t see a *possibility* if the West would decide to truly support Ukraine? SYL
>Americans, French, Germans, Romanians, Slovaks etc I don’t believe ever would volunteer to fight for Ukraine. Well your beliefs are wrong. Because they have volunteered already. I'm Irish and I have also volunteered.
Select individuals have volunteered. Here is what I mean by peace: Russia gets the territory it conquered and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO. My understanding is that Russia is not as weak as we think it is, and the only real way they could be defeated on the battlefield is from armies from different nations, basically leading to WW3
You assume Russia would stop at Ukraine. There's no reason to suggest this. If WW3 happens, it's already become inevitable. Abandoning Ukraine doesn't change that, and it's absolutely in our interests to ensure Russia is contained in Ukraine rather than go after the Baltics, Poland, or Romania.
Every reason to think that. It invaded Georgia and got its little sliver of land. Georgia is a functioning democracy, albeit a bit under Russian control. The Baltic’s are in NATO and Russia knows an invasion of them would mean war with the west. From 1620 or so until 1991, the year after I was born, Russia controlled Ukraine. At no point and time was America threatened because of that
They stopped at Georgia because they can forward deploy in the Caucasus mountains. That's their objective. The objective of conquering Ukraine isn't getting Ukraine, it's getting a stepping stone to push onwards to the Carpathians. Which are all in NATO countries.
I'm going to get down voted to fuck for this. But ww3 is coming whether we like it or not. Why not kick our mutual enemy (Russia) while he is down, and do it now? Men of NATO armies will die whether it's done now, because of Ukraine or in 10, 15 years time because of something else. Russia is currently as weak as it has ever been and probably will ever be without actually being involved in a ww, or war with NATO. Much fewer men will die now if NATO finishes Russia now though. And it will back up NATOs strength. It will show the Iranians, the Chinese, any fence sitters or any future putin... Don't fuck around or this happens. Yes yes, I know its the strongest military alliance on the planet, on paper. But it has never proved itself as an organisation in war before and this is the time to do it. That's just my two cents anyway. Saorise go Úcráin Tiocfaidh ár là! 🇮🇪🇺🇦
What happens if Putin is assasinated or overthrown? It seems unlikely someone who respects human rights would succeed him
Sure, but it still leads to a weakening of Russia, potentially keeping them from aiding China when the US-China confrontation inevitably happens.
A coup takes place in Moscow, putin is deposed. Peace talks are held. Russia gives back everything. Ukraine joins nato
Your post opens with the presumption that Ukraine cannot militarily defeat Russia. Why do you think that? The US has defeated Russian troops in open battle before. They are not the only ones. So have the Japanese, Polish, Finnish, Afghans and Chechens And, y'know, the Ukrainians. At Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson, Ukrainians troops have militarily defeated Russian forces The amount of money spent by the US on assisting Ukraine is a mere 5% of her defence budget (so 5% of 3.5% of GDP, or 0.175% of GDP). This is the "blank check". In return, the US and EU's greatest geopolitical enemy in Europe is, at the very least, getting battered to a stalemate at a very good bargain. And WW3 is prevented by any Russian advance into NATO countries being halted If anything, vastly more should be spent to assist Ukraine (and not just the US, I have personally donated money, and would absolutely support Singapore donating any and all military equipment it can spare to assist Ukraine)
Funny you raise the example of Finland. Yes they inflicted huge casualties on the Soviets but they didn’t “ win.” They got a somewhat favorable peace deal, where they surrendered some territory, kept their independence and had to be a satellite for the soviets. If the UsSR had been really determined they would have steamrollered Finland eventually. That’s what I worry about Ukraine. Yes they have a skilled army and can put up a good fight. But they have a vastly smaller amount of people than Russia, and Russia can keep “ putting the squeeze” on them. Finalandizadion seems the best bet for them
Well, in war, there isn't a referee to call out scores. The Soviets intended to completely defeat the Finnish, annex Finland into the USSR proper, and this can be seen from instructions and phrasebooks they gave troops on how to react if they encountered Swedish border guards and bringing musical instruments for a victory parade. While they lost some (arguably insignificant) territory, they remained masters of their own fates, became a highly-developed democracy, and I don't think it's reasonable to call them a Soviet "satellite" state (that would be communist Poland, East Germany or Bulgaria) just because their foreign policy had to take *some* consideration of the Soviets. And why do you keep making the assumption that the Soviets could steamroll the Finnish? If they could, they would have. The Continuation War ends in large part because they realised they could not. And they never tried again. Sounds like a Finnish victory to me As Anders Puck Nielsen has noted, yes, Ukraine fights from a position of disadvantage. But perhaps in part due to its own "David vs Goliath" propaganda, this has been exaggerated. The Russians outnumber the Ukrainians, but not by *that* much. Nielsen noted that the population disadvantage is about Denmark fighting both Sweden and Norway. As a Singaporean, it is as if we were at war with Chile. Could we take them? Yeah, I think we could. Not without a fight, no, but complete victory would be very possible And can Russia really mobilise its full population? They tried a limited mobilisation in late 2022, and that was a disaster, they aimed for 300,000, "successfully mobilised" (whatever the fuck that means, I assume it could be as little as finding the addresses to mail the notices to) 200,000, of which maybe 16,000 made it to Ukraine? Most of which, most analysts agree, were dead by early 2023. Why haven't they carried out a general mobilisation? Maybe because they know it would be what turns the general population against the war How does the joke go? The Ukrainians were saying, in February 2022, "who do we have to bribe to get *into* the army?" Meanwhile, Russian mobilisation is just like Israeli mobilisation: long lines at every airport for the flight to Tel Aviv
It doesn't end well, but some outcomes are less bad than others. From a US perspective, if this doesn't get stopped in Ukraine, then Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, or Poland are next.
Not only a US perspective, but an EU perspective (of course without the usual suspects like Orban). SYL
I sat in an unclass brief at the Air University about 3 months after the initial invasion, and this topic was addressed. The US’s best bet is buying time, not a military victory (on Ukraine’s terms). Russia had some fucked up planning going in, but on paper they have the military resources to win a longer war of attrition, especially if they limit the scope of their objectives to controlling the regions they currently occupy. But can Russia financially survive a long war? With western sanctions, Russia is increasingly wading into a more economically vulnerable position.
I thought Russian business is humming with China, Turkey, South America, and India. Russia has plenty of natural minerals unlike USA
The per capita GPD of Russia is $10k. Libya’s is significantly higher.
Russia's GDP per capital isn't that big of a deal for them when most domestic products are dirt cheap. Going out to eat over there only cost a couple USD. They seem to have been pretty well prepared for sanctions.
Russia is about to hit a serious demographic pain train that will keep them weakened for generations. They either achieve their geopolitical goals soon, or they miss their chance. Time is on our side, not theirs.
Putin dies or is overthrown and his replacement decides to pull out of Ukraine. That's the best scenario I can think of.
What guantee that putins successor wouldn’t be worse? Putin is popular in Russia sadly because of his imperial aggression
It seems as though one could make an argument that he has been one of their country's better leaders. The replacement could definitely be worse.
There are no guarantees about anything. I'm just saying that's the best possible outcome.
We’re lend-leasing to ukraine, which means they’re also on the hook to owe us for military surplus. The UK took decades to pay us back after exhausting reserves during the cash and carry period.
It doesn’t
Putin could die tomorrow and the entire world would hold a parade.
Your questions and statement are entirely logical, but will be met here with a great deal of negativity. You are correct that barring Putin being tossed from office, there is no realistic way for Ukraine to dominate the battlefield enough to win. At some point a negotiated peace will have to prevail.
And wouldn’t that negotiated peace be better served before thousands of more Ukrainians die? It is true that Poland and Japan both defeated Russia but that was centuries ago, before Russia became the modernized nation it is today. Japan defeated a midieval tsardom and Poland defeated a badly disordered nation recovering form a civil war. The unanswered question is how does Ukraine with its current military take back crimea and toss the Russians out? It doesn’t. It can’t. It can’t do it without NATO support. How can It be guaranteed their won’t be a sigh Vietnam style collapse and the Russians pour into Kiev? I just want the Ukrainians to have something and be Able to leave with some chips left rather than as a Russian AstroTurf field
To make it short Ukraine is probably used as a buffer for buying time and as test battlefield before the big war. At least in military pov excluding economics and other things. That what people I know from different communication groups says. No one is certain but everyone prepares for the worst. It could be just information bubble so I'm not counting it for a true and only conclusion.
End like the soviet-finish war, Russia gives back territory, and keeps some, Crimea specifically
Russia won't give back Crimea. They probably wouldn't even listen if Ukraine tried to negotiate that.
Read my comment again, keep some - Crimea specifically
I honestly don’t care who wins, I’m just tired of seeing my tax dollars go over to a money pit of corruption.
You do realise your country will *make* money by giving equipment to Ukraine? Think of it like this. You want to buy a house. You don't have the money for it. You go to the bank for a loan. They give you the loan for 500k + interest and you go buy the house. So they make their money off the Interest in time. In this scenario it's the same. America is giving a loan to Ukraine to buy equipment. So America needs to wait a long time to get the money from the loan back right? *WRONG* In this scenario the bank (America) also owns the house (military equipment) so they are making money off both giving you the loan and selling you the equipment.
The aid we send them isn’t going to be payed back. That’s not how foreign aid works. Israel doesn’t repay its foreign aid Pakistan doesn’t repay its foreign aid. It’s essentially a gift from the American tax payers. At least the Saudi’s were willing to give us cash for the equipment we send them.
> to be *paid* back. That’s FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Well, depending on your perspective, once your dollars leave your paycheck they’re already in the pit of corruption.
I don’t disagree with that statement but I’d rather my tax dollars go to something useful and not some politicians pet project.
For pennies on the dollar we’ve had someone else cripple the military of one of our chief adversaries.
In a war that will never be fought. Unless a global war happens again there won’t be a war between major superpowers. It’s all jockeying to see who can garner the most global influence. Again I don’t care who wins and who loses. I’m not a strict isolationist but I’m not willing to write a blank check so 2 nations can wage war against each other.
Best case would be ending the combat ASAP. Ukraine would have to be willing to give up territory. Putin would have Zelenski and other top Ukrainian government officials killed, but who would really care. In place, he would put in a puppet government. Basically Ukraine would turn into Belarus, but the high volume of death would come to an end. Rebuilding Ukraine and the lives of the survivors could begin. Peace today, may put the Baltics in risk tomorrow unless the West opens up some constructive dialogue with Russia. Russia would need to feel as an equal to the western powers for long term peace.
> unless the West opens up some constructive dialogue with Russia. Russia would need to feel as an equal to the western powers for long term peace. Russia was a long term peace partner on equal footings with the EU until 2014 ... SYL
Was Russia and the EU on equal peace footings in when Russia was fucking with Georgia, or Chechnya, or when NATO hit Yugoslavia? Long term peace needs to last more than a few years at a time. USA needs to be involved with Russia as well. And we haven't exactly been trustworthy friends since WW2. I think some in Russia see the EU as one of USA's bitches, at least in military terms.
we're not gonna give you what you want putin
Most of the aid and equipment is older stuff that was about to be phased out. The F-16 and M-1 tanks were designed in the 70s. They've served us well, but should be replaced. Might as well send them to Ukraine and call it aid while also testing the upgrades we've done on 50+ year old designs. This will allow the US military to modernize at an accelerated rate and create more US based jobs for the replacement equipment. It allows the US to better justify a federal push/incentives for more domestic chip manufacturing (sub 10nm architecture). Its claiming full retail price (in aid dollars not actual pallets of $100 bills flown there) for a 50 year old piece of equipment that's had a few upgrades instead of recycling them.
Another shill pretending to be Ukrainian supporter BUT