Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[DSG]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/19/cluster-bombs-biden-liberalism-war/

 

Quote

I should probably be more tolerant of some of my liberal antagonists. They might be loath to admit it, but their willingness to abandon their liberal convictions in the face of uncomfortable international realities is itself a powerful vindication of the basic realist perspective. It would be nice if the liberal voices who dominate U.S. foreign-policy discourse were more willing to acknowledge these lapses and less self-righteous when defending their policy recommendations. Public discourse would be more civil and productive, and the success rate of U.S. foreign policy would almost certainly improve.

Some of us just want the self-righteousness to stop.  Is it so much to ask?

[gearhog]

Just doing a little reading.

20 July - Grassley released the FBI memo regarding the foreign bribery scheme.

Three of the people mentioned are:

1. the CHS (Confidential Human Source)
2. Zlochevsky - Burisma CEO who claims to have text messages and proof of bribery.
3. Ostapenko - Works in the Zelensky administration, connected the source and Zlochevsky.

All three were associates working together.

Sources are now claiming that Zelensky, through Ostapenko, has had possession of all information and materials related to the bribery scheme.

Zelensky became president in 2019.

Biden in 2020.

In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

Jan 25, 2021 - The Biden administration immediately began spending billions on Ukraine - all before the invasion.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/biden-has-proven-track-record-ukraine-what-can-we-expect-his-administration

Coincidence? What would you do if you were a foreign leader with proof of crimes committed by the current US presidential administration?

 

 

 

 

[BashiChuni]

shhhhh just shut up and send more money to ukraine!

don't be a putin stooge!

[gearhog]

This American goes by the name of Sarah Ashton-Cirillo.

Sarah has been hired by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to be its official spokesperson for Western/English speaking audiences.

- that'd be you.

https://twitter.com/SarahAshtonLV/status/1687759882294861824?s=20

[gearhog]

In yet another article about the rampant corruption in the Ukrainian military, the New York Times says the losses on the Ukr side top 150,000. I wonder what the real number is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/world/europe/ukraine-fires-recruitment-chiefs.html

[Lawman]

In yet another article about the rampant corruption in the Ukrainian military, the New York Times says the losses on the Ukr side top 150,000. I wonder what the real number is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/world/europe/ukraine-fires-recruitment-chiefs.html

Hey everybody, the crew of people insisting they are interested in the “middle ground” approach are here to remind of a bunch of reasons we should stop helping the Ukrainians.

But remember they want Russia to fail. We just have to wait until we find the flawless pure allied entity to do it for us, because until then we can’t allow our resources to be used for that purpose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[raimius]

Corruption is a major problem in Ukraine. Check.

Some people may be pressured to keep aid flowing in order to keep some Ukrainians quiet about certain American financial/political issues.  Check 

 

At the end of the day, Ukraine is still fighting against an unjustified invasion by one of our "competitors," and stopping that sort of thing is in our interests and the interests of basic justice.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

Corruption is a major problem in Ukraine. Check.

Some people may be pressured to keep aid flowing in order to keep some Ukrainians quiet about certain American financial/political issues.  Check 

 

At the end of the day, Ukraine is still fighting against an unjustified invasion by one of our "competitors," and stopping that sort of thing is in our interests and the interests of basic justice.

I swear, I think if China invaded California half of these guys would say we shouldn't respond because governor Newsome is corrupt...

[Biff_T]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I swear, I think if China invaded California half of these guys would say we shouldn't respond because governor Newsome is corrupt...

I live here and I would question responding lol.  

Just joking.   Id go down to Camp Pendleton and see if I can find an old N Model Huey laying around and pick up a few of my friends along the way to the FUPA i mean FEBA.  Lol

[Clark Griswold]

Corruption is a major problem in Ukraine. Check.
Some people may be pressured to keep aid flowing in order to keep some Ukrainians quiet about certain American financial/political issues.  Check 
 
At the end of the day, Ukraine is still fighting against an unjustified invasion by one of our "competitors," and stopping that sort of thing is in our interests and the interests of basic justice.

It’s (Ukrainian war)become a proxy war between the globalist left (not meant derogatorily) and the sovereignty focused populist right (again not derogatorily) in Western particularly American politics.

I think both things are true at once but which do you prioritize?

I suspect we need to call it (supporting counter offensive Ukrainian operations) but not quit supporting the Ukrainian state.
They’ve taken back about 100 sq miles of territory at an unsustainable loss rate against the Russians so far, the Ukrainians know this hence the anecdotal stories like the above conscription bribery ones.
I’m not for ever recognizing that territory as Russian and not for treating Russia in a antebellum manner until Putin is gone but it seems to me that we are approaching the point of negative returns if we push, encourage, support and resource continued Ukrainian offensive ops to reclaim territory.
Free Ukraine has to be long term viable and I think the cost in blood and treasure to retake more territory probably works against that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

It’s (Ukrainian war)become a proxy war between the globalist left (not meant derogatorily) and the sovereignty focused populist right (again not derogatorily) in Western particularly American politics.

I think both things are true at once but which do you prioritize?

I suspect we need to call it (supporting counter offensive Ukrainian operations) but not quit supporting the Ukrainian state.
They’ve taken back about 100 sq miles of territory at an unsustainable loss rate against the Russians so far, the Ukrainians know this hence the anecdotal stories like the above conscription bribery ones.
I’m not for ever recognizing that territory as Russian and not for treating Russia in a antebellum manner until Putin is gone but it seems to me that we are approaching the point of negative returns if we push, encourage, support and resource continued Ukrainian offensive ops to reclaim territory.
Free Ukraine has to be long term viable and I think the cost in blood and treasure to retake more territory probably works against that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Access to the Sea of Azov and the Kirch straight bridge are really the make/break on this offensive. If they can do both and effectively cut off access to Crimea they set themselves up very well for a negotiated settlement where they walk away with gains that would otherwise need to be purchased through force of arms.

Laying siege to a city like Sevastopol would take a lot of resources and time and sap it from other fronts. Worse, fighting in a city like Sevastopol would generate a lot of unsustainable casualties both in personnel and vital equipment (IFVs etc). It also never looks good to onlookers and that’s the support base. City battles being measured in months, I doubt they would make that play when the open field war of position/logistic lines is an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

I swear, I think if China invaded California half of these guys would say we shouldn't respond because governor Newsome is corrupt...

Its sad when political ideology clouds common sense, for pennies on the dollar and no American lives we have humbled the Russian military for a long time to come.

[SocialD]

7 hours ago, pawnman said:

I swear, I think if China invaded California half of these guys would say we shouldn't respond because governor Newsome is corrupt...

 

 

Lol right, as if our own damn gov isn't corrupt, à la any one of the numerous contracts awarded in the GWOT.   Also, what CH said. 

[RedEye1911]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Its sad when political ideology clouds common sense, for pennies on the dollar and no American lives we have humbled the Russian military for a long time to come.

We should make them fight until the last Ukranian dies. They are not American, so their deaths mean nothing as long as it makes Russia look bad.

[Lawman]

We should make them fight until the last Ukranian dies. They are not American, so their deaths mean nothing as long as it makes Russia look bad.

Is this supposed to be some appeal to world peace where they wouldn’t be resisting the Russian invasion if they didn’t have western weapons?

Because I’ve got news for you, like so many invaded peoples before they have a means and will to resist. They just do it a hell of a lot better with our stuff in hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

Access to the Sea of Azov and the Kirch straight bridge are really the make/break on this offensive. If they can do both and effectively cut off access to Crimea they set themselves up very well for a negotiated settlement where they walk away with gains that would otherwise need to be purchased through force of arms.

Laying siege to a city like Sevastopol would take a lot of resources and time and sap it from other fronts. Worse, fighting in a city like Sevastopol would generate a lot of unsustainable casualties both in personnel and vital equipment (IFVs etc). It also never looks good to onlookers and that’s the support base. City battles being measured in months, I doubt they would make that play when the open field war of position/logistic lines is an option.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with the idea of cutting them off and then beating them in logistical support for a better position for a tenuous settlement to a likely frozen conflict, I hope they can but judging from what the Russians have built to defend their positions in occupied Ukraine, I am dubious it could be done or done at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure, but if the people of Ukraine and their government decide it is in their interest to continue to fight, then fight on.

My tin foil hat side is suspicious that Ukraine is in a damned if you do damned if you don't position vis a vis their aid from the US / some Europeans.  We want them to continue to fight so we tell them to not sue for peace or they risk being cut off, they'll need aid to recover, deter and probably have to have to fight the Russians again when they likely will try round 2 so no matter what they have to fight, or is that too cynical.

Kofffman and Zeihan have been good to listen to on commutes, they concur with an isolate Crimea strategy and roll up

Michael Kofman, Author at War on the Rocks

https://youtu.be/Hrv7HzUXhcE

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, RedEye1911 said:

We should make them fight until the last Ukranian dies. They are not American, so their deaths mean nothing as long as it makes Russia look bad.

We are not "making" them fight, they choose to fight because well you know the Russians INVADED their country.   I guess we should have forced them to roll over and surrender rather than defend their sovereignty. 

[Clark Griswold]

Series of articles arguing for an armistice and negotiated settlement to the Ukranian War:

3rd in the series, 1 and 2 linked in the page

The Hard Truth: Ukraine Has No Realistic Path to Victory Over Russia - 19FortyFive

Just to add to the discussion.

I argue for my position with no enthusiasm but only because I think it is the least bad and best in the long term. 

[Splash95]

What do you argue for, @Best-22? Or are you content to keep looking like a particularly impotent loser with your ubiquitous and utterly predictable downvotes from the sidelines?

[Best-22]

5 hours ago, Splash95 said:

What do you argue for, @Best-22? Or are you content to keep looking like a particularly impotent loser with your ubiquitous and utterly predictable downvotes from the sidelines?

In general I downvote bad faith arguments and people who exclusively post content that echoes Russian talking points. I don't bother engaging with gearpig or bashichuni, but I don't know you so I'll assume you're a reasonable person. I don't really have a lot free time to go in circles arguing on the internet. I appreciate the user's who take the time to counter the disinformation though and post things a little more grounded in reality. 

 

The last thing I downvoted for example: if you look at the authors other work it seems he only writes stories about how Ukraine has no chance and how the US shouldn't help Taiwan in a conflict. It seems that author would prefer the US lets Russia and China bully their neighbors while we sit at home on our hands. He's been posting with shaky logic and half truths since the start of the war about how Ukraine is doomed and we should just make concessions to Russia. It's very obvious that guy is pushing an agenda and is not an unbiased reliable source. 

 

To answer your question: I argue for a rules based international order, and supporting our allies. 

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Best-22 said:

In general I downvote bad faith arguments and people who exclusively post content that echoes Russian talking points. I don't bother engaging with gearpig or bashichuni, but I don't know you so I'll assume you're a reasonable person. I don't really have a lot free time to go in circles arguing on the internet. I appreciate the user's who take the time to counter the disinformation though and post things a little more grounded in reality. 

 

The last thing I downvoted for example: if you look at the authors other work it seems he only writes stories about how Ukraine has no chance and how the US shouldn't help Taiwan in a conflict. It seems that author would prefer the US lets Russia and China bully their neighbors while we sit at home on our hands. He's been posting with shaky logic and half truths since the start of the war about how Ukraine is doomed and we should just make concessions to Russia. It's very obvious that guy is pushing an agenda and is not an unbiased reliable source. 

 

To answer your question: I argue for a rules based international order, and supporting our allies. 

 Lame and weak. I haven't posted under the username gearpig in going on 6 years, right around the time you arrived here. You're obviously posting under a sock-puppet account because you're afraid to engage using your primary account.

"Rules Based International Order" LOL. And you accuse me of repeating talking points. You don't have an original thought or phrase that hasn't been gleaned from a political talk show. Hypocrite.

Edited August 17, 2023 by gearhog

[SurelySerious]

I haven't posted under the username gearpig in going on 6 years

That time of transition may have been an important time to you, but I’m probably not the only one who just reads “gearpig” whenever you post instead of “gearhog.” Honestly hadn’t noticed. Unaffiliated with Best, just saying in general.

[gearhog]

33 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

That time of transition may have been an important time to you, but I’m probably not the only one who just reads “gearpig” whenever you post instead of “gearhog.” Honestly hadn’t noticed. Unaffiliated with Best, just saying in general.

That's an interesting thought. /s

[SurelySerious]

That's an interesting thought. /s

The subtext is (since you’re unlikely to understand it): you’re not nearly as important as you think you are

[gearhog]

Just now, SurelySerious said:

The subtext is (since you’re unlikely to understand it): you’re not nearly as important as you think you are

Your opinion is duly noted.