Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 

you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions.  Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq.  
 

my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

Do you think Ukraine should exist as a country? Because where I see a negotiation that gives up a bunch of Ukrainian territory is another invasion in a few years (like they already did to Crimea). Then another one a few years after that. Then Russia's in Kyiv and there's no Ukrainian government anymore.

In my mind, it's not just about Ukraine. It's about whether we want to set the precedent that bigger nations can just seize territory from smaller ones at will, because we don't think we should get involved in territorial disputes.

I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by pawnman

[GrndPndr]

16 minutes ago, pawnman said:

<snip>

I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

Yeah, there's that hegemony thing - a minor detail.  Besides Russia (and especially Stalin's Soviet) have done nothing but renege on every agreement they've made with the west.

[Lawman]

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 
you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions.  Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq.  
 
my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

That’s a narrative constructed to ignore the previous past of Russia during Stalin’s expansion of the Soviet Union and blame NATO as an aggressor.

It ignores how countries in places like the Baltics became Soviet satellites (or why Russia was fighting a war in Finland before fighting the Nazis). The Russians aggressively annexed those nations under the guise of protecting the smaller nations against the European great powers. Once done it immediately moved to a policy of Russification something plainly evident as still policy in Ukraine with things like changing the spelling of a Nations capital (we all grew up recognizing it as Kiev until they gained independence) along with a host of brutal actions against the native populations.

Russian authority’s in Putins group don’t view things like Latvia as some aggressive preemption by NATO to invade them, they view it as it and other nations maneuvering away from some perverse “rightful position” as vassals to the greater Russian motherland.

This whole “view it from their perspective,” is fine. But let’s not pretend they base that perspective on reality. It’s like asking a Japanese citizen today about why we dropped the bomb. They’ll have a lot to talk about, but somehow things like Nanking or Saipan propaganda causing mass civilian suicide isn’t going to be part of the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frog]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  
 

my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

Putin points at military encroachment by NATO, but the reality is that the NATO force posture is a skeleton of what it was in 1991 and poses absolutely no physical threat to Russia. If Putin was really worried about NATO military power on his border, he would quit threatening his neighbors.
 

What scares Putin is the people in former Soviet “republics” have a pretty fierce independence streak, have no problem highlighting former Soviet/Russian threats and atrocities, and want to pursue Western style democratic governance, so much so that they have run Russian supported leaders out of their countries (e.g. Yanukovych). The growing (but not complete) success of these countries poses an existential threat not to Russia, but to Putin himself as Russians might see the benefit of reform in their own country. Luckily for Putin, he has a ton of power, no conscience, and no problem offing as many people as it takes to maintain power.

To the previous comments about Russia doing better on the battlefield than is being reported - this is a bogus argument. No one is winning. Ukraine knows that they can’t give up territory every five years when Russia needs to scratch an itch, and Putin can’t be seen backing down to a country that is a fraction of its size. Russia has sustained high losses and had their most competent battlefield formation, a band of mercenaries, make a run on Moscow. This is going to continue to be ugly and stalemated, and the big losers are the civilians caught in the middle.

The reason people argue over issues like this so much is that they seek a good outcome. There are no good outcomes; only “least worst” outcomes. The U.S. has no authority and little ability to “end” this war without military engagement. Any U.S. negotiated settlement that cedes Ukrainian territory will not be agreed to by the Ukrainians and will be seen as 21st century Munich Agreement style appeasement. Ask the Czechs how they feel about that.

The U.S. primary goals should be no engagement by/risk to U.S. personnel, a sustained cease fire, weakened Russian influence in the region/world, and Putin remaining in control of Russia (the idiot you know is better than the idiot you don’t, especially when nuclear weapons are involved.) 

Providing weapons to Ukraine supports these goals. The real policy question for Americans is if this is a priority among everything else; our country is slowly spending itself to death. In my mind, we are getting great value out of our Ukraine support and the only way to fix the budget is to fix entitlements, but I am not an economist and don’t pretend to be.

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

This whole “view it from their perspective,” is fine. But let’s not pretend they base that perspective on reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that's fine, just dont tell me it's possible for ukraine to defeat russia in a long, protracted conflict. THAT is fantasy land and ignores the long russian tradition of starting slow, then rumbling to a brutal victory.

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, frog said:

Putin points at military encroachment by NATO, but the reality is that the NATO force posture is a skeleton of what it was in 1991 and poses absolutely no physical threat to Russia.

sure that's how YOU see it. i assure you putin disagrees. how hard of a fucking concept is that for you PME educated people to grasp? it's not about your viewpoint or your truth.

jfc people.

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, frog said:

The U.S. has no authority and little ability to “end” this war without military engagement.

bull. fucking. shit.

we're paying the god damn salaries of the Ukrainian government FFS! don't tell me we have no leverage to end it.

[tac airlifter]

15 hours ago, pawnman said:

Do you think Ukraine should exist as a country? Because where I see a negotiation that gives up a bunch of Ukrainian territory is another invasion in a few years (like they already did to Crimea). Then another one a few years after that. Then Russia's in Kyiv and there's no Ukrainian government anymore.

In my mind, it's not just about Ukraine. It's about whether we want to set the precedent that bigger nations can just seize territory from smaller ones at will, because we don't think we should get involved in territorial disputes.

I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.
 

As a practical matter, I do not think we should continue supporting Ukraine financially at the scale we are because I believe it is a bad investment.  Germany is the richest country in Europe, why are we doing so much more than them despite them being closer to the threat?  The simple answer is they don't feel threatened by Putin which should cause us to reconsider our own conclusions.
 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is terrible. It has created massive human suffering and death.  They are brutal.  However, I am personally unconvinced it is more than a regional dispute, and I don't think it's good policy for us to get involved in every regional dispute. Also, there is value in being able to understand your adversaries position.  99% of people blathering about Russian misinformation every time grown-ups try have a serious discussion are simply retarded.  "The first casualty in war is truth" is an ancient concept.  I get it, there's bullshit on every side, words are weapons, etc.  But if you cannot hear a different perspective because you are convinced it is acidic enemy propaganda that will poison your resolve, you are an idiot and your opinion is unworthy of further consideration.  We have those people posting here, who claim a self-righteous halo for their willful blindness.  People who don't question their own assumptions while being sure other positions are wrong, who insist there's a morale obligation to act regardless of consequences because it's worth the risk even though we don't fully understand the risk, certainly we don't owe citizens a COA analysis but of course we're doing this for democracy, and if it doesn't appear to be working just shut up and keep doing it!

Eerily similar to what our country saw during Covid, BLM, climate "crisis" .... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not an indication we are being manipulated for political reasons. 

[pawnman]

36 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.
 

As a practical matter, I do not think we should continue supporting Ukraine financially at the scale we are because I believe it is a bad investment.  Germany is the richest country in Europe, why are we doing so much more than them despite them being closer to the threat?  The simple answer is they don't feel threatened by Putin which should cause us to reconsider our own conclusions.
 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is terrible. It has created massive human suffering and death.  They are brutal.  However, I am personally unconvinced it is more than a regional dispute, and I don't think it's good policy for us to get involved in every regional dispute. Also, there is value in being able to understand your adversaries position.  99% of people blathering about Russian misinformation every time grown-ups try have a serious discussion are simply retarded.  "The first casualty in war is truth" is an ancient concept.  I get it, there's bullshit on every side, words are weapons, etc.  But if you cannot hear a different perspective because you are convinced it is acidic enemy propaganda that will poison your resolve, you are an idiot and your opinion is unworthy of further consideration.  We have those people posting here, who claim a self-righteous halo for their willful blindness.  People who don't question their own assumptions while being sure other positions are wrong, who insist there's a morale obligation to act regardless of consequences because it's worth the risk even though we don't fully understand the risk, certainly we don't owe citizens a COA analysis but of course we're doing this for democracy, and if it doesn't appear to be working just shut up and keep doing it!

Eerily similar to what our country saw during Covid, BLM, climate "crisis" .... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not an indication we are being manipulated for political reasons. 

Pretty sure Germany isn't paying as much because, despite being the richest country in Europe, they're way behind the US. And then there's also the fact that seems overlooked in all these conversations...most of what we're giving them is weapons and ammo, something we have WAY more of than Germany.

Ironically, the reason most of NATO has so little to give is because NATO never expected to fight Russia, let alone invade them. Most of Europe was winding down military spending in favor of social spending, and getting into business with Russia...something Romney and Trump saw, and got ridiculed for at the time.

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.

Uh, what? 

 

You think Cuba resisted us successfully without the financial and military support of the USSR? Or is relying on a superpower benefactor to resist another vastly powerful invader only ok for some countries?

 

Our entire system of modern geopolitics is predicated on the idea that we do not simply allow for the strong taking the weak. Your life has been incredible because of this, and a whole lot of people like us got to serve in the military with a remarkably low chance of dying because the world stopped the practice of empire building through force. Sovereignty matters.

 

"It's fine because the Aztec are gone too" is a hot take.

[tac airlifter]

50 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Uh, what? 

 

You think Cuba resisted us successfully without the financial and military support of the USSR? Or is relying on a superpower benefactor to resist another vastly powerful invader only ok for some countries?

 

Our entire system of modern geopolitics is predicated on the idea that we do not simply allow for the strong taking the weak. Your life has been incredible because of this, and a whole lot of people like us got to serve in the military with a remarkably low chance of dying because the world stopped the practice of empire building through force. Sovereignty matters.

 

"It's fine because the Aztec are gone too" is a hot take.

Cuba has resisted us well after the USSR fell.  Like them or not (I don't) they've earned it.
 

and I'm not saying it's "fine" that Russia invaded, I'm saying there's a limit to how much I'm willing to help the Ukrainians.  A financial limit but certainly I'm unwilling to send my son to die there (which is not unthinkable).  Sure sovereignty matters, but why is the US always doing heavy lifting while making ourselves broke?  
 

this is more nuanced than your characterization implies, and that's what's frustrating about this (and many) political debates nowadays.

[pawnman]

22 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Cuba has resisted us well after the USSR fell.  Like them or not (I don't) they've earned it.
 

and I'm not saying it's "fine" that Russia invaded, I'm saying there's a limit to how much I'm willing to help the Ukrainians.  A financial limit but certainly I'm unwilling to send my son to die there (which is not unthinkable).  Sure sovereignty matters, but why is the US always doing heavy lifting while making ourselves broke?  
 

this is more nuanced than your characterization implies, and that's what's frustrating about this (and many) political debates nowadays.

Resisted...what? Some sanctions? Pretty sure we haven't tried an armed invasion since the 60s.

[ecugringo]

I think some are against supporting UK because without US support Russia rolls over them.  We are simply delaying the inevitable and causing more damage/death in the process.  

There are some that say its partly our fault for expanding NATO east and being involved in the 14 elections.

I know a lot that want all that money being spent on UK, spent in the US.  But that's not a reality.

I dont know the right answer, I see the benefit of weakening Russias military in the process.  But I also dont think this ends in Ukraine.  I cant see Putin packing up and heading home or just settling for the east.  There had been fighting there since 14 anyway so I dont think that changes anything.

 

[BashiChuni]

Looks like CNN has been compromised by Putin stooges /s

[Day Man]

for some context, A&W's 1/3 lb burger failed because Americans thought it was smaller than the 1/4 lb burger

 

[Boomer6]

Reports saying Ukraine sank a Russian submarine at port in Sevastopol.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-navy-worst-day-moskva-sinking-sevastopol-strike-1826666?amp=1

[StoleIt]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Reports saying Ukraine sank a Russian submarine at port in Sevastopol.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-navy-worst-day-moskva-sinking-sevastopol-strike-1826666?amp=1

And, while not as sexy of a headline, more importantly took out one of the few dry docks that support the entire black sea fleet.

[uhhello]

23 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

And, while not as sexy of a headline, more importantly took out one of the few dry docks that support the entire black sea fleet.

Seems like there possibly could be some more actual high value targets to be hit with such limited precision assets they have.  The Russian Navy isn't doing a whole lot to affect the war effort as far as I can tell.  It looks good on the news so maybe that's a boost for the people I guess.  

[StoleIt]

9 hours ago, uhhello said:

Seems like there possibly could be some more actual high value targets to be hit with such limited precision assets they have.  The Russian Navy isn't doing a whole lot to affect the war effort as far as I can tell.  It looks good on the news so maybe that's a boost for the people I guess.  

True, where else can Ukraine trade "10 cruise missiles and three unmanned boats" and destroy an asset worth $300M (Improved Kilo list price)? And the landing ship and the dock. So definitely a big PR win.

Perhaps this will help their grain export, but that seems like a stretch. Instead, probably more to prevent arms running/resupply of Russian forces.

[ClearedHot]

Full story of the Rivet Joint incident finally coming out.  We came EPICALLY close to Article Five thanks to incompetence.  Crazy that both missiles failed thankfully saving the 30 man crew.  This could have been FUGLEY!

Rogue Russian pilot tried to shoot down RAF aircraft in 2022

[McJay Pilot]

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Full story of the Rivet Joint incident finally coming out.  We came EPICALLY close to Article Five thanks to incompetence.  Crazy that both missiles failed thankfully saving the 30 man crew.  This could have been FUGLEY!

Rogue Russian pilot tried to shoot down RAF aircraft in 2022

I doubt Article 5 would’ve been invoked, but thankfully we won’t know thanks to Ivan’s incompetence. Historically speaking, the Soviet’s shot down 15 of our aircraft during the Cold War outside of combat zones and we never invoked Article 5.

[ClearedHot]

24 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

I doubt Article 5 would’ve been invoked, but thankfully we won’t know thanks to Ivan’s incompetence. Historically speaking, the Soviet’s shot down 15 of our aircraft during the Cold War outside of combat zones and we never invoked Article 5.

It was an RAF airplane and from what I hear they would have responded in kind...

[McJay Pilot]

3 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It was an RAF airplane and from what I hear they would have responded in kind...

Based on your connections, that’s ing terrifying.

[tac airlifter]

On 9/6/2023 at 12:12 PM, Day Man said:

for some context, A&W's 1/3 lb burger failed because Americans thought it was smaller than the 1/4 lb burger

 

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

[Lawman]

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

Yes because we have no historical examples of proxy wars with an opposing “great power” that led to not-a-nuclear-exchange…

Jesus Christ we are giving them munitions to fight a war they aren’t the aggressors in.

When we start flying strike sorties out of Spang to blunt Russian logistics or putting regular Army troops on the ground in Kiev maybe you have substantiated examples and a point to make. Until then vague warnings about WWIII is just grand standing to make a point in an argument. Given the anecdotal evidence it seems that is entirely politically aligned and not actually based on some form of strategic analysis of the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk