11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Define "win”

That's a question for those in here arguing that we should stay the course.  I am of the opinion that there is no path to victory for the Ukrainians other than them being accepted into NATO. 

I don't hear a single western leader proposing that. 

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

That was Biden's plan.  It didn't work.  

A "three day war" has been ongoing for years now. NATO has recruited more members.  A top 3 enemy state of the US and its allies has been economically and militarily devastated. All without risking any American lives. Define "didn't work"

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

That's a question for those in here arguing that we should stay the course.  I am of the opinion that there is no path to victory for the Ukrainians other than them being accepted into NATO. 

I don't hear a single western leader proposing that. 

If there is a peace treaty tomorrow with Ukraine returning occupied Russian land and the Russians returning a similar sized chunk of occupied Ukrainian land (I.e. Russia keeps a smaller piece) do you consider that a win for Ukraine? Let’s say it includes no NATO for Ukraine for 20 years and maybe a small dmz for a period. 

29 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I don't understand your reference to France in 1941.  The US had not yet entered the war and Germany was already occupying Paris.  What's your point? 

All the western nations are in financial support of Ukraine already and none of them are offering to put boots on the ground. 

Democrats have been hoping for Russia's resolve to implode since the war began.  And yet, despite most western business pulling out of Russia, major economic sanctions and trade restrictions, the Russian people still overwhelmingly support Putin and the war.  There is no end in sight.

Russia has a long history of feeding bodies to war efforts over many years, and their internal propaganda machine keeps public opinion right where they want it.  They will grind away at Ukraine for as long as it takes...while the west wastes trillions trying to keep them afloat.  

The only people benefiting from this war are the western military industrial complex.  

 

28 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

That was Biden's plan.  It didn't work.  

Only because weaklings like yourself lack resolve.

3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Ukraine is a nation that has sacrificed so many of its young men to battle that they are now struggling to fill their ranks

a nation that's female and child population has migrated elsewhere the tune of 5.5 million

a nation who's primary export has been cut by nearly 90%, leaving them no ability to finance the war on their own

a nation that has taken half a trillion dollars from the west and is now asking for more

in a war that has raged off and on for 10 years and has had no major developments in territory taken in 2 years

in a war that Russia is winning and is supported by nearly 70% of Russian citizens

it is a proxy war for the West, nothing more. 

 

The only way for Ukraine to win this war is for them to be allowed to immediately join NATO, which would almost assuredly start WW3.

So no, it's not horse crap.  It's simple logic. 

 

Ok, lets go line by line.

So many of it's young men? This line alone tells me that you do not even entertain in your mind a superficial understanding of the conflict, let alone enough of an understanding to make the pedestrian points that you do.  The average age of the Ukrainian soldier is in their mid 30s.  Hardly "young men".  You're regurgitating Kremlin online psy-op talking points made by a bot farm.  Ukraine has specifically resisted mobilizing men under the age of 26.  Under 26 can enlist, but they can't be drafted.  Everyone who has read into this conflict for more than five minutes understands this.  Yet, somehow even the most obvious of surface level information escapes you.

In terms of the struggling to fill ranks, the Ukrainian government isn't doing another large mobilization wave until they get more equipment from the west.  Kind of hard to stand up battalions if they have no equipment.  We, and other western countries, have the motorized and mechanized equipment they could use, and it's collecting dust not doing anything.  It would be such a simple fix that would actually be cheaper for us because we would no longer have to maintain the equipment and we could get it off our books.  We have massive amounts of Abrams tanks sitting around the world that we didn't want or need, and only have them because a Congressman in Michigan pulled enough strings to that Congress kept buying tanks the Army didn't want.  I'm talking an Abrams surplus in the magnitude of thousands.  And that's just Abrams.  Not counting the countless amounts of Bradleys, Strikers, MRAPs, etc. All that are continuing to cost us money. Day after day, over and over while we have them.  So it would be a net benefit to the taxpayer to donate them to Ukraine.

Then you talk about women and children fleeing a conflict zone.  What point were you even trying to make here?  Wow, women and children fleeing a conflict against a power that is known to encourage it's soldiers to rape and pillage?  You don't say.  One of the things that's different with this conflict, amongst others, is that it's only the women and children fleeing en masse, not the men of fighting age.  Are there isolated instances of men fleeing the country? Yes, tens of them.  Compare that to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian male ex-pats who returned to the country to fight.  I remember one of them well.  He was living in a western European country and returned to fight.  He left his wife and children behind.  I also remember the female refugees.  When I got to Ukraine, it was just after the Russians had pulled back from Kyiv, so a lot of the refugees were returning to Ukraine from Europe.  I remember getting off the train at the border, surrounded by Ukrainian women and children.  All displaced because of some fascist and his rabid army of dogs. Even with the language barrier, they were incredibly helpful pointing me in the right direction, practically dragging me to the front of every line I needed to be in.  The men I helped train were incredibly thankful, however no one was more thankful than the women.  They understood more than anyone what was at stake.  I'm reminded of one particular instance of a young boy who was living north of Kyiv.  After the Russians left, his family was rescued.  He was given therapy, but said little.  As part of the therapy process, they give the children crayons and paper to draw.  All he would do is take a black crayon and cover the page in black wax.  You see, he was raped by Russian soldiers.  A young boy.  That's why the women and children flee.  

On to the primary exports.  No, their exports were not cut to the extent that you say.  In 2023, they exported $36B worth of products, compared to $50B in 2019.  In case you weren't good at math, that's a reduction of less than 30%.  But their primary export? Not even close.  Their primary exports are agricultural in nature, with grains occupying the top spot.  The drop in dollar amount of grains exported in 2023 compared to 2019? 9.2%.  So you were only 80.8% off in your assessment. 

In terms of what they are asking for, it's equipment, not fungible assets.  When the DOD gives equipment to Ukraine, they attach a dollar amount to it.  That's because that is the assessed value of the equipment that is getting sent to Ukraine.  It's not how much the equipment is costing us to send to Ukraine.  We are sending them thirty and forty year old equipment, that costs us to maintain, as I have stated.  It's like giving away an old car.  You give someone an old hunk of crap that you had that was valued at $5k, but you didn't give them $5k in cash.  And that old car was costing you money to maintain over time because you had to buy it, even though you didn't want or need it. So instead of spending more than the car was worth to keep the parts working on it and keeping the fluids changed at regular intervals, you added by subtracting.  Now you can take the money you were spending on the old car and buy something better.  And because I know how your brain works, let me just say the following ahead of time: no.  General Dynamics does not accept trade-ins. 

You imply on and off for a decade as if it has evenly split being on and off.  This hasn't been the case.  During the initial illegal annexations of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk, there was significant fighting, with that fighting then largely being a stalemate for the majority of the time prior to 2022. But that's not the most idiotic point you were making in this line and the next...

You say that there have been no major developments in territory taken in the last two years, but then you say that Russia is winning.  Well, which is it?  Is Russia winning, or have there been to major developments in territory taken in the last two years, because there can't be both.  You argue with us, yet you unwittingly argue with yourself.

Has Russia made any major developments in territory taken in the last two years?  No.  They waste thousands of men per sq km of Ukrainian territory taken.  Has Ukraine made any major developments in territory taken the the last two years? Yes.  In case you were mistaken or had forgotten, they took sizable territory in the Kursk region of Russia.  In terms of why there have been no other major offensives by Ukraine, it's because they need the equipment to do so.  You know, the equipment that would be cheaper for us to give to them.  Combined arms maneuver warfare requires having the combined arms to be able to project force and maneuver, and we could easily and cheaply give them the equipment they need to do this.

Then you go on to talk about the 70% of Russian people supporting the war.  Yes, good job.  You cite a propaganda poll taken by people who live in an authoritarian country.  Never mind the fact that the Russian people have a backwards culture that longs for a thumb pushing down on them.  Ever since Peter the Great, they have been rubes who are too simple minded to be able to appreciate, understand, and develop a modern culture.  Any Russian of any value has already fled the country.  When you look at the bulk of the Soviet Union's manufacturing capacity, it was from Ukraine.  Not Russia.  Ukraine.  The bulk of the Soviet aerospace industry was based in Ukraine.  Even going back to WW2.  You know that famous photo of the Soviet soldiers on the Reichstag taking down the German flag and putting up a Soviet flag?  None of those Soviet soldiers were Russian.  Here's another statistic for you: more Russians do not have an indoor toilet than support their war aims.

Then, somehow, you circle back and call this nothing more than a proxy war.  Yet earlier in this post you highlighted ten years of conflict.  Well, is it a proxy war, or isn't it? Because for the majority of the ten years of conflict that you point out, Ukraine received little to no international support, and what support they did receive was token.  So how has the bulk of the conflict been a proxy war?  Never the less, lets just say for the sake of your pedestrian thought that it is a proxy war.  You know what else was a proxy war? The American Revolution.  It was a proxy war between mainland Europe and England.  Should that war have not happened?  You can argue that WW2 prior to US direct involvement was a proxy war.  We were giving Europe, Australia, and China a ton of lethal aid.  Where do you think the Flying Tigers got their planes?  Korea? Another proxy war.  The Russian revolution in the 1910s? Proxy war.  But were they really proxy wars?  According to your pedestrian interpretation of what a proxy war is, yes.  But were they really? No, because a proxy war requires more than just supporting a belligerent of the conflict. The definition requires that the belligerent (aka "proxy") acts on behalf of the country providing aid.  Ukraine isn't defending itself because that act is on behalf of the United States', or any other western state, rather it is defending itself on it's own behalf.  So, if you're going to toss around geopolitical terms, it would behoove you to actually understand the terms you are using.

As stated, there are multiple paths for differing degrees of Ukrainian victory, most of which do not include Ukraine's inclusion into NATO.  They need easily provided equipment.

49 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

A peace agreement is exactly the plan.  They are trying push Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table using both carrots and sticks.  I'm address in the crowd in here that keeps saying Ukraine can "win".

Again, you make a point which shows how little you understand the nature of the conflict itself.  Putin under no circumstances will accept a peace agreement, because he knows such an agreement will lead to his demise.  The Russian economy is in shambles, and what of the Russian economy is producing is directly aimed at their war effort.  The minute the conflict stops, hundreds of thousands of Russians will return home to an economy that is no longer producing anything because it is no longer on a war footing.  Putin knows this, and his greatest fear is ending up like Mussolini or Ghaddafi, which will most assuredly happen to him.  Therefore he can't end the conflict, because no carrot and stick would equal this.  This conflict cannot be concluded diplomatically, only decisively on the battlefield, which you would understand had you read any substantial books on economics or warfare.  But you didn't, so you make these prosaic points that show a lack of lucidity in the thoughts that generated them.

35 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I don't understand your reference to France in 1941.  The US had not yet entered the war and Germany was already occupying Paris.  What's your point? 

All the western nations are in financial support of Ukraine already and none of them are offering to put boots on the ground. 

Democrats have been hoping for Russia's resolve to implode since the war began.  And yet, despite most western business pulling out of Russia, major economic sanctions and trade restrictions, the Russian people still overwhelmingly support Putin and the war.  There is no end in sight.

Russia has a long history of feeding bodies to war efforts over many years, and their internal propaganda machine keeps public opinion right where they want it.  They will grind away at Ukraine for as long as it takes...while the west wastes trillions trying to keep them afloat.  

The only people benefiting from this war are the western military industrial complex.  

I'm not surprised you don't understand his reference, primarily because it's obvious you lack the capacity to.

You make the same moronic points as you did before, only in this post you mention "wasting" trillions and benefiting the MIC.  When you give away something you had already purchased, the producer of that item sees no financial benefit.  You would understand this if you understood economics. 

 

 

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

I don't understand your reference to France in 1941.  The US had not yet entered the war and Germany was already occupying Paris.  What's your point? 

The reason you don't understand it is because you're not smart.

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

If there is a peace treaty tomorrow with Ukraine returning occupied Russian land and the Russians returning a similar sized chunk of occupied Ukrainian land (I.e. Russia keeps a smaller piece) do you consider that a win for Ukraine? Let’s say it includes no NATO for Ukraine for 20 years and maybe a small dmz for a period. 

I call that a meaningful compromise.  But, I don't think Russia will ever agree to Ukraine becoming part of NATO. 

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I call that a meaningful compromise.  But, I don't think Russia will never agree to Ukraine becoming part of NATO. 

And why do you think Russia should have a say in that?

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

And why do you think Russia should have a say in that?

Because the question was about an agreement

49 minutes ago, Bill said:

Ok, lets go line by line.

So many of it's young men? This line alone tells me that you do not even entertain in your mind a superficial understanding of the conflict, let alone enough of an understanding to make the pedestrian points that you do.  The average age of the Ukrainian soldier is in their mid 30s.  Hardly "young men".  You're regurgitating Kremlin online psy-op talking points made by a bot farm.  Ukraine has specifically resisted mobilizing men under the age of 26.  Under 26 can enlist, but they can't be drafted.  Everyone who has read into this conflict for more than five minutes understands this.  Yet, somehow even the most obvious of surface level information escapes you.

In terms of the struggling to fill ranks, the Ukrainian government isn't doing another large mobilization wave until they get more equipment from the west.  Kind of hard to stand up battalions if they have no equipment.  We, and other western countries, have the motorized and mechanized equipment they could use, and it's collecting dust not doing anything.  It would be such a simple fix that would actually be cheaper for us because we would no longer have to maintain the equipment and we could get it off our books.  We have massive amounts of Abrams tanks sitting around the world that we didn't want or need, and only have them because a Congressman in Michigan pulled enough strings to that Congress kept buying tanks the Army didn't want.  I'm talking an Abrams surplus in the magnitude of thousands.  And that's just Abrams.  Not counting the countless amounts of Bradleys, Strikers, MRAPs, etc. All that are continuing to cost us money. Day after day, over and over while we have them.  So it would be a net benefit to the taxpayer to donate them to Ukraine.

Then you talk about women and children fleeing a conflict zone.  What point were you even trying to make here?  Wow, women and children fleeing a conflict against a power that is known to encourage it's soldiers to rape and pillage?  You don't say.  One of the things that's different with this conflict, amongst others, is that it's only the women and children fleeing en masse, not the men of fighting age.  Are there isolated instances of men fleeing the country? Yes, tens of them.  Compare that to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian male ex-pats who returned to the country to fight.  I remember one of them well.  He was living in a western European country and returned to fight.  He left his wife and children behind.  I also remember the female refugees.  When I got to Ukraine, it was just after the Russians had pulled back from Kyiv, so a lot of the refugees were returning to Ukraine from Europe.  I remember getting off the train at the border, surrounded by Ukrainian women and children.  All displaced because of some fascist and his rabid army of dogs. Even with the language barrier, they were incredibly helpful pointing me in the right direction, practically dragging me to the front of every line I needed to be in.  The men I helped train were incredibly thankful, however no one was more thankful than the women.  They understood more than anyone what was at stake.  I'm reminded of one particular instance of a young boy who was living north of Kyiv.  After the Russians left, his family was rescued.  He was given therapy, but said little.  As part of the therapy process, they give the children crayons and paper to draw.  All he would do is take a black crayon and cover the page in black wax.  You see, he was raped by Russian soldiers.  A young boy.  That's why the women and children flee.  

On to the primary exports.  No, their exports were not cut to the extent that you say.  In 2023, they exported $36B worth of products, compared to $50B in 2019.  In case you weren't good at math, that's a reduction of less than 30%.  But their primary export? Not even close.  Their primary exports are agricultural in nature, with grains occupying the top spot.  The drop in dollar amount of grains exported in 2023 compared to 2019? 9.2%.  So you were only 80.8% off in your assessment. 

In terms of what they are asking for, it's equipment, not fungible assets.  When the DOD gives equipment to Ukraine, they attach a dollar amount to it.  That's because that is the assessed value of the equipment that is getting sent to Ukraine.  It's not how much the equipment is costing us to send to Ukraine.  We are sending them thirty and forty year old equipment, that costs us to maintain, as I have stated.  It's like giving away an old car.  You give someone an old hunk of crap that you had that was valued at $5k, but you didn't give them $5k in cash.  And that old car was costing you money to maintain over time because you had to buy it, even though you didn't want or need it. So instead of spending more than the car was worth to keep the parts working on it and keeping the fluids changed at regular intervals, you added by subtracting.  Now you can take the money you were spending on the old car and buy something better.  And because I know how your brain works, let me just say the following ahead of time: no.  General Dynamics does not accept trade-ins. 

You imply on and off for a decade as if it has evenly split being on and off.  This hasn't been the case.  During the initial illegal annexations of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk, there was significant fighting, with that fighting then largely being a stalemate for the majority of the time prior to 2022. But that's not the most idiotic point you were making in this line and the next...

You say that there have been no major developments in territory taken in the last two years, but then you say that Russia is winning.  Well, which is it?  Is Russia winning, or have there been to major developments in territory taken in the last two years, because there can't be both.  You argue with us, yet you unwittingly argue with yourself.

Has Russia made any major developments in territory taken in the last two years?  No.  They waste thousands of men per sq km of Ukrainian territory taken.  Has Ukraine made any major developments in territory taken the the last two years? Yes.  In case you were mistaken or had forgotten, they took sizable territory in the Kursk region of Russia.  In terms of why there have been no other major offensives by Ukraine, it's because they need the equipment to do so.  You know, the equipment that would be cheaper for us to give to them.  Combined arms maneuver warfare requires having the combined arms to be able to project force and maneuver, and we could easily and cheaply give them the equipment they need to do this.

Then you go on to talk about the 70% of Russian people supporting the war.  Yes, good job.  You cite a propaganda poll taken by people who live in an authoritarian country.  Never mind the fact that the Russian people have a backwards culture that longs for a thumb pushing down on them.  Ever since Peter the Great, they have been rubes who are too simple minded to be able to appreciate, understand, and develop a modern culture.  Any Russian of any value has already fled the country.  When you look at the bulk of the Soviet Union's manufacturing capacity, it was from Ukraine.  Not Russia.  Ukraine.  The bulk of the Soviet aerospace industry was based in Ukraine.  Even going back to WW2.  You know that famous photo of the Soviet soldiers on the Reichstag taking down the German flag and putting up a Soviet flag?  None of those Soviet soldiers were Russian.  Here's another statistic for you: more Russians do not have an indoor toilet than support their war aims.

Then, somehow, you circle back and call this nothing more than a proxy war.  Yet earlier in this post you highlighted ten years of conflict.  Well, is it a proxy war, or isn't it? Because for the majority of the ten years of conflict that you point out, Ukraine received little to no international support, and what support they did receive was token.  So how has the bulk of the conflict been a proxy war?  Never the less, lets just say for the sake of your pedestrian thought that it is a proxy war.  You know what else was a proxy war? The American Revolution.  It was a proxy war between mainland Europe and England.  Should that war have not happened?  You can argue that WW2 prior to US direct involvement was a proxy war.  We were giving Europe, Australia, and China a ton of lethal aid.  Where do you think the Flying Tigers got their planes?  Korea? Another proxy war.  The Russian revolution in the 1910s? Proxy war.  But were they really proxy wars?  According to your pedestrian interpretation of what a proxy war is, yes.  But were they really? No, because a proxy war requires more than just supporting a belligerent of the conflict. The definition requires that the belligerent (aka "proxy") acts on behalf of the country providing aid.  Ukraine isn't defending itself because that act is on behalf of the United States', or any other western state, rather it is defending itself on it's own behalf.  So, if you're going to toss around geopolitical terms, it would behoove you to actually understand the terms you are using.

As stated, there are multiple paths for differing degrees of Ukrainian victory, most of which do not include Ukraine's inclusion into NATO.  They need easily provided equipment.

Again, you make a point which shows how little you understand the nature of the conflict itself.  Putin under no circumstances will accept a peace agreement, because he knows such an agreement will lead to his demise.  The Russian economy is in shambles, and what of the Russian economy is producing is directly aimed at their war effort.  The minute the conflict stops, hundreds of thousands of Russians will return home to an economy that is no longer producing anything because it is no longer on a war footing.  Putin knows this, and his greatest fear is ending up like Mussolini or Ghaddafi, which will most assuredly happen to him.  Therefore he can't end the conflict, because no carrot and stick would equal this.  This conflict cannot be concluded diplomatically, only decisively on the battlefield, which you would understand had you read any substantial books on economics or warfare.  But you didn't, so you make these prosaic points that show a lack of lucidity in the thoughts that generated them.

I'm not surprised you don't understand his reference, primarily because it's obvious you lack the capacity to.

You make the same moronic points as you did before, only in this post you mention "wasting" trillions and benefiting the MIC.  When you give away something you had already purchased, the producer of that item sees no financial benefit.  You would understand this if you understood economics. 

 

 

Thank you for the detailed response.  I appreciate that you were personally close to this war and understand details that many of us do not.  I'm curious though, what solution would you propose?  Continue with the Biden plan?  If so, to what end?  Work towards a peace accord? What would be an acceptable outcome in your opinion?  I hear a lot of people in here criticizing one way or another, and trying to tear each other down, but I don't hear a lot of solutions.  In my mind, something needs to change.  

In terms of the refugee situation, I'm only stating that losing significant portions of your population has long term affects on things like birth rates.  We see this now in China, where the one child policy has come back to haunt them decades later.  The circumstances are different, but the long term effect could be similar in Ukraine.  Add to that the men (of whatever age) that have been lost in battle and its going to make rebuilding significantly harder. 

I also don't know that I agree that Putin won't come to the table.  Seems to me that the only way for him to save face at this point would be to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to hold on to the land that he has taken.  If popular opinion in Russia is waning (as you suggest) then it would seem he is running out of time, no?

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

Only because weaklings like yourself lack resolve.

Let's be clear about what you are proposing then, shall we?  I assume that you are suggesting that we stay the course.  But for how long?  What's the desired outcome...the dissolution of the Russian state?  Putin overthrown?

How long do you think that will take?  Does it matter?

5 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Thank you for the detailed response.  I appreciate that you were personally close to this war and understand details that many of us do not.  I'm curious though, what solution would you propose?  Continue with the Biden plan?  If so, to what end?  Work towards a peace accord? What would be an acceptable outcome in your opinion?  I hear a lot of people in here criticizing one way or another, and trying to tear each other down, but I don't hear a lot of solutions.  In my mind, something needs to change.  

In terms of the refugee situation, I'm only stating that losing significant portions of your population has long term affects on things like birth rates.  We see this now in China, where the one child policy has come back to haunt them decades later.  The circumstances are different, but the long term effect could be similar in Ukraine.  Add to that the men (of whatever age) that have been lost in battle and its going to make rebuilding significantly harder. 

I also don't know that I agree that Putin won't come to the table.  Seems to me that the only way for him to save face at this point would be to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to hold on to the land that he has taken.  If popular opinion in Russia is waning (as you suggest) then it would seem he is running out of time, no?

You're writing as if it's a binary between either "keep doing what Biden was doing" or "try to get everyone to agree on peace".  There's the secret third option of people yelling about western boots on the ground and WW3, but that's not an option and it's not going to happen.  There's a multitude of differing options.

The problem with the Biden plan is that the military aid was limited in both what was provided and what was used.  The Biden foreign policy team's heart was in the right place, but the execution was largely incompetent.  Biden didn't give Ukraine the number of arms they needed, when they needed them, and didn't allow them to use them how they should have.  Take for example ATACMS.  They're old and we're decommissioning them anyway, and it costs a lot of money to decommission them.  Ukraine asked for them awhile ago, since they could be launched from MLRS platforms we already gave them, but we dragged our feet because we didn't want to "escalate" past the point of no return.  The problem is that every red line the Russians drew was fake, and they would use the threat of nuclear warfare as a boogey man that they knew they'd never use because they knew what was coming if they did.  So we didn't for the longest time, and when we finally gave it to them, Russia of course did nothing.  But the issue is that we only gave them a handful, and we restricted their targeting so they couldn't hit targets in Russia where they needed to.  Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.  If you really want to cripple Russia's ability to project force, you need to hit their GLOCs and parked air frames, which we didn't allow them to do.  Ukraine can do it on a very limited basis with the drones they are producing, but not to the effect that they could with outdated by our standards weapon systems.  Of course, after awhile we allowed it to a certain extent, but by then Russia knew that and pulled juicy targets back out of range.  The way to change it is for the west to: a) provide long range weapon systems, b) do not put any restrictions on said weapon systems, c) provide more mechanized and motorized equipment, d) provide more artillery tubes and ammo, e) overhaul the training regimen that they're providing Ukrainian troops rotating to NATO partners for training, and f) provide more air frames. There's things that Ukraine needs to either start doing, stop doing, or change how they do things, but they're in the process of fixing their mistakes.

Yes, people are dying.  Doing more of nothing won't make them die less.  In large conflicts, unacceptable amounts of casualties are a certainty.  Europe lost significant numbers in each of the world wars.  It's a thing that happens that won't change.  People think innovation leads to less casualties.  It doesn't.  The longbow didn't make wars smaller.  The firearm didn't make wars smaller.  The machine gun didn't make wars smaller.  Arguably the only thing that made wars smaller was the advent of the atomic bomb, but even then we're reaching the point where it's not a deterrent.  The US as a whole has gotten lucky since we haven't been in a large conflict since WW2.  GWOT, DS, even Vietnam and Korea are small potatoes compared to our involvement in WW2.  People fall into the trap that because we've been fighting in small wars, that we can extend those same principles to large ones.  We can't.  Our next war won't have an air mobile Burger King on the base.  COP Keating is going to be the norm for everyone across the board.

You can think all you want about what you think Putin would or wouldn't do.  You're looking at this as a westerner who does not understand the culture.  I've talked to people that lived next door.  He's not coming to the table, at all, ever.  The only way to stop the war is for Russia to be kicked out of Ukraine and for Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe to be military built up to such a degree that any invasion of any of them would be suicide. 

19 hours ago, The Norseman said:

I call that a meaningful compromise.  But, I don't think Russia will ever agree to Ukraine becoming part of NATO. 

That can will be pushed down the road.  Putin will have won a decade or so and a sliver of eastern Ukraine plus he can hold Crimea.  His country is devastated economically and his military is both exposed and spent.  He takes a solid L on this one.  NATO doesn't need Ukraine on the inside officially.

12 hours ago, Bill said:

You're writing as if it's a binary between either "keep doing what Biden was doing" or "try to get everyone to agree on peace".  There's the secret third option of people yelling about western boots on the ground and WW3, but that's not an option and it's not going to happen.  There's a multitude of differing options.

The problem with the Biden plan is that the military aid was limited in both what was provided and what was used.  The Biden foreign policy team's heart was in the right place, but the execution was largely incompetent.  Biden didn't give Ukraine the number of arms they needed, when they needed them, and didn't allow them to use them how they should have.  Take for example ATACMS.  They're old and we're decommissioning them anyway, and it costs a lot of money to decommission them.  Ukraine asked for them awhile ago, since they could be launched from MLRS platforms we already gave them, but we dragged our feet because we didn't want to "escalate" past the point of no return.  The problem is that every red line the Russians drew was fake, and they would use the threat of nuclear warfare as a boogey man that they knew they'd never use because they knew what was coming if they did.  So we didn't for the longest time, and when we finally gave it to them, Russia of course did nothing.  But the issue is that we only gave them a handful, and we restricted their targeting so they couldn't hit targets in Russia where they needed to.  Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.  If you really want to cripple Russia's ability to project force, you need to hit their GLOCs and parked air frames, which we didn't allow them to do.  Ukraine can do it on a very limited basis with the drones they are producing, but not to the effect that they could with outdated by our standards weapon systems.  Of course, after awhile we allowed it to a certain extent, but by then Russia knew that and pulled juicy targets back out of range.  The way to change it is for the west to: a) provide long range weapon systems, b) do not put any restrictions on said weapon systems, c) provide more mechanized and motorized equipment, d) provide more artillery tubes and ammo, e) overhaul the training regimen that they're providing Ukrainian troops rotating to NATO partners for training, and f) provide more air frames. There's things that Ukraine needs to either start doing, stop doing, or change how they do things, but they're in the process of fixing their mistakes.

Yes, people are dying.  Doing more of nothing won't make them die less.  In large conflicts, unacceptable amounts of casualties are a certainty.  Europe lost significant numbers in each of the world wars.  It's a thing that happens that won't change.  People think innovation leads to less casualties.  It doesn't.  The longbow didn't make wars smaller.  The firearm didn't make wars smaller.  The machine gun didn't make wars smaller.  Arguably the only thing that made wars smaller was the advent of the atomic bomb, but even then we're reaching the point where it's not a deterrent.  The US as a whole has gotten lucky since we haven't been in a large conflict since WW2.  GWOT, DS, even Vietnam and Korea are small potatoes compared to our involvement in WW2.  People fall into the trap that because we've been fighting in small wars, that we can extend those same principles to large ones.  We can't.  Our next war won't have an air mobile Burger King on the base.  COP Keating is going to be the norm for everyone across the board.

You can think all you want about what you think Putin would or wouldn't do.  You're looking at this as a westerner who does not understand the culture.  I've talked to people that lived next door.  He's not coming to the table, at all, ever.  The only way to stop the war is for Russia to be kicked out of Ukraine and for Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe to be military built up to such a degree that any invasion of any of them would be suicide. 

ok, so to summarize.  There is no chance for a peace agreement, because Putin will absolutely not come to the table.  The solution you propose would be to change tactics and weaponry so that Ukraine can manage long range strikes inside Russia, crippling their ability to support further advances in Ukraine.  

I assume then that the plan would be to push them out of the eastern territory that they've taken?  Thus leading to the full liberation of Ukraine?

I only wonder, if Putin is as uncompromising as you say he is.  Why then would he allow defeat in Ukraine?  Also, would the other NATO countries support long range strikes in Russia?

One thing we haven't addressed is the macroeconomic dynamics at play.  As the US increases its natural gas and oil production it gives us the potential to take market share from Russia, especially in the EU.  This, perhaps more than anything else, would further cripple Russia's economy and compromise their ability to make war.  

So when is trump meeting with putin to start negotiating a deal with Ukraine?

 I have a feeling this could be the most consequential game of FAFO ever played and he doesn’t seem ready for it. But I am!

8 hours ago, The Norseman said:

ok, so to summarize.  There is no chance for a peace agreement, because Putin will absolutely not come to the table.  The solution you propose would be to change tactics and weaponry so that Ukraine can manage long range strikes inside Russia, crippling their ability to support further advances in Ukraine.  

I assume then that the plan would be to push them out of the eastern territory that they've taken?  Thus leading to the full liberation of Ukraine?

I only wonder, if Putin is as uncompromising as you say he is.  Why then would he allow defeat in Ukraine?  Also, would the other NATO countries support long range strikes in Russia?

One thing we haven't addressed is the macroeconomic dynamics at play.  As the US increases its natural gas and oil production it gives us the potential to take market share from Russia, especially in the EU.  This, perhaps more than anything else, would further cripple Russia's economy and compromise their ability to make war.  

Yes, the plan is to give the tools to Ukraine necessary so that they can stop playing defense and go on offense. 

Also, and again, Putin does not have the capacity or capability to "allow" something one way or the other.  War allows what it allows, and doesn't what it doesn't.  Everybody involved in war gets an opportunity to make an input, and war is the cumulative effort of each side against each other.  Putin can wish to allow whatever he wants.  It doesn't make it so his wish is carried out.  If Russia is defeated in a decisive manner, then all he can do is sit there and suck on it.

Also, the only major player in NATO who is also against long range strike capabilities for Ukraine is Germany, because they suckle at the teet of Russian fuel.  Plus NATO isn't a unanimous organization.  Other countries can do whatever they want.

One thing I wondered through this whole conflict, couldn’t Putin just decimate Kyiv with massive missile attack.  He has the armament.  Just leveling Kyiv.  Why hasn’t this happened  ?

2 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

One thing I wondered through this whole conflict, couldn’t Putin just decimate Kyiv with massive missile attack.  He has the armament.  Just leveling Kyiv.  Why hasn’t this happened  ?

Putin has reduced his stockpile of missiles significantly. Russia's ability to wage a regional war is significantly below its prewar level - and that was overstated. 

Short of nukes their options are limited. They can't produce missiles fast enough to make them effective. 

They literally cannot decimate Kyiv even if they wanted to. Unless they go nuclear. And that's a line even Putin isn't stupid enough to cross. 

2 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

One thing I wondered through this whole conflict, couldn’t Putin just decimate Kyiv with massive missile attack.  He has the armament.  Just leveling Kyiv.  Why hasn’t this happened  ?

He actually doesn’t have the missiles. Plus hitting targets are more effective if they’re strategic or tactical in nature. In WW2 we leveled cities because we didn’t have the accuracy to hit targets in those cities by doing anything other than carpet bombing. 
 

Speaking from experience, hitting the civilian populace only to hit the civilian populace only serves to piss people off. 
 

It’s like when he keeps hitting the energy grids in winter. All it does is increase sales in candles and battery banks. 

just checking in, did trump resolve this like he said he would? 

did he possibly mean months or years when he said days? i mean we all know he's senile and misspeaks constantly, so it's a definite possibility.

1 hour ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

just checking in, did trump resolve this like he said he would? 

did he possibly mean months or years when he said days? i mean we all know he's senile and misspeaks constantly, so it's a definite possibility.

He said it would take 24 hours.  Perhaps even before he took office.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-wants-ukraine-hold-elections-following-ceasefire-says-trump-envoy-2025-02-01/

How many of the mental midgets who were all for throwing billions of dollars at Ukraine are now willing to admit they were wrong?

 

27 minutes ago, Procus said:

How many of the mental midgets who were all for throwing billions of dollars at Ukraine are now willing to admit they were wrong?

 

I'm guessing they use the same accounting format that the Pentagon does.

15 hours ago, Procus said:

How many of the mental midgets who were all for throwing billions of dollars at Ukraine are now willing to admit they were wrong?

 

they will admit it as soon as you admit you lied about being an attorney.