6 ms·

>a major blunder On the contrary this war is Putin's multiyear bet on Russia's useful idiots in the West. US Republicans overwhelmingly supported US military

by 0xDEF 4y ago

>a major blunder On the contrary this war is Putin's multiyear bet on Russia's useful idiots in the West. US Republicans overwhelmingly supported US military aid to Ukraine in the beginning of the war. However Tucker Carlson and other populists spend the next 12 months lowering that support to less than 40%. The only reason Russia started this war is because they believed their useful idiots in the West will save them. They are yet to be proved wrong.

phillipcarter 4y ago
> They are yet to be proved wrong. I'm confused. Hasn't the US and EU given incredible military aide to Ukraine?
- veidr 4y ago
  More "some" than "incredible". But the result is yet to be seen.
- 0xDEF 4y ago
  Realistically this war will continue for two more years. Russia's useful idiots are hard at work lowering Western popular support for Ukraine. Will the West still be giving military aid to Ukraine in 2025?
  - tjpnz 4y ago
    The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine.
    - caskstrength 4y ago
      > The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine. Won't accept in the sense they will continue with some sanctions indefinitely (significantly watered down by multiple parties) or in the sense that they will significantly and rapidly expand their production of ammunition and armored vehicles in order to fully sustain the Ukrainian military? Because if Biden loses they will need to have the production running in less than two years and I'm not sure they are _really_ prepared to invest the necessary resources.
- ajuc 4y ago
  Enough to defend. Not enough to win decisively. Timing matters. If EU and USA provided the help that they did but in the first 6 months - Ukraine would have already won. But the help is drip-fed to Ukraine, supposedly to "not escalate". The result is that the war that could be already over is dragging on, and eventually people will stop helping for one reason or another. If we want a quick win for Ukraine we should send weapons much quicker and without silly distinctions like (offensive vs defensive weapons in 2022 or like long vs short range missiles now). It's like instead of curing people with antibiotics in 2 weeks you split the pills into 1/64th parts and cured them for 1 year. You're not really curing them - you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at that point.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Not enough to win decisively. It's often claimed that US policy is to take advantage of the war to grind down Russian military capability, and that the USA will fight to the last Ukrainian. I must say, I find the reluctance to supply missiles that could be used to hit targets inside Russia seems to support that view. I mean, it's not as if Russia is hitting targets inside Ukraine, is it? /s It's completely normal in war to attempt to disrupt enemy operations by targeting logistics behind enemy lines; which in this case is the border between Ukraine and Russia. Western vetoes on that activity, supposedly with the aim of "not escalating", look very cynical.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable. That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties. The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago. It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine. I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol. However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.
ajuc 4y ago
We know for a fact that Putin thought it will take less than a month. There were russian propaganda articles posted russian state media accidently that celebrated the "succesfull take-over of whole Ukraine" stating that it only lasted few days. So yes - it was a blunder. And yes - they are counting on useful idiots in the west now, but that wasn't the plan, it's russians trying to save whatever they can after that initial blunder. You can know that by looking at how long it took for russian propaganda targeting the west to catch up after the start of the invasion in 2022. Usually they prepare the western audiences. This time they didn't bothered because it was supposed to be a quick thing and it was secret even for many russians in the government. Also - useful idiots are in many countries, not just in USA. EU is hugely important in this war, especially Germany, and they were ruled by useful russian idiots for last 30 years. I'm not sure they stopped being them even now. > The only reason Russia started this war is because they believed their useful idiots in the West will save them This is just wrong.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Putin was planning on the useful idiot in the oval office up unto the point he got replaced. Had Trump remained in office Ukraine would be a vassal state now.
koonsolo 4y ago
> On the contrary this war is Putin's multiyear bet on Russia's useful idiots in the West. It's not even that complicated. His bet was that the West would respond the same as we did with Georgia, Chechenya, and the Donbas/Crimean invasion of 2014. It was 'safe' to assume that the West would react the same with a complete invasion of Ukraine. Seems like not. If Putin was smart, he would have gracefully pulled out of this. But seems like he much rather want to turn his country into a new North Korea.

by 0xDEF 4y ago

phillipcarter 4y ago

> They are yet to be proved wrong. I'm confused. Hasn't the US and EU given incredible military aide to Ukraine?

veidr 4y ago
More "some" than "incredible". But the result is yet to be seen.
0xDEF 4y ago
Realistically this war will continue for two more years. Russia's useful idiots are hard at work lowering Western popular support for Ukraine. Will the West still be giving military aid to Ukraine in 2025?
- tjpnz 4y ago
  The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine.
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    > The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine. Won't accept in the sense they will continue with some sanctions indefinitely (significantly watered down by multiple parties) or in the sense that they will significantly and rapidly expand their production of ammunition and armored vehicles in order to fully sustain the Ukrainian military? Because if Biden loses they will need to have the production running in less than two years and I'm not sure they are _really_ prepared to invest the necessary resources.
ajuc 4y ago
Enough to defend. Not enough to win decisively. Timing matters. If EU and USA provided the help that they did but in the first 6 months - Ukraine would have already won. But the help is drip-fed to Ukraine, supposedly to "not escalate". The result is that the war that could be already over is dragging on, and eventually people will stop helping for one reason or another. If we want a quick win for Ukraine we should send weapons much quicker and without silly distinctions like (offensive vs defensive weapons in 2022 or like long vs short range missiles now). It's like instead of curing people with antibiotics in 2 weeks you split the pills into 1/64th parts and cured them for 1 year. You're not really curing them - you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at that point.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Not enough to win decisively. It's often claimed that US policy is to take advantage of the war to grind down Russian military capability, and that the USA will fight to the last Ukrainian. I must say, I find the reluctance to supply missiles that could be used to hit targets inside Russia seems to support that view. I mean, it's not as if Russia is hitting targets inside Ukraine, is it? /s It's completely normal in war to attempt to disrupt enemy operations by targeting logistics behind enemy lines; which in this case is the border between Ukraine and Russia. Western vetoes on that activity, supposedly with the aim of "not escalating", look very cynical.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable. That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties. The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago. It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine. I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol. However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.

ajuc 4y ago

We know for a fact that Putin thought it will take less than a month. There were russian propaganda articles posted russian state media accidently that celebrated the "succesfull take-over of whole Ukraine" stating that it only lasted few days. So yes - it was a blunder. And yes - they are counting on useful idiots in the west now, but that wasn't the plan, it's russians trying to save whatever they can after that initial blunder. You can know that by looking at how long it took for russian propaganda targeting the west to catch up after the start of the invasion in 2022. Usually they prepare the western audiences. This time they didn't bothered because it was supposed to be a quick thing and it was secret even for many russians in the government. Also - useful idiots are in many countries, not just in USA. EU is hugely important in this war, especially Germany, and they were ruled by useful russian idiots for last 30 years. I'm not sure they stopped being them even now. > The only reason Russia started this war is because they believed their useful idiots in the West will save them This is just wrong.

pixl97 4y ago
Putin was planning on the useful idiot in the oval office up unto the point he got replaced. Had Trump remained in office Ukraine would be a vassal state now.

koonsolo 4y ago

> On the contrary this war is Putin's multiyear bet on Russia's useful idiots in the West. It's not even that complicated. His bet was that the West would respond the same as we did with Georgia, Chechenya, and the Donbas/Crimean invasion of 2014. It was 'safe' to assume that the West would react the same with a complete invasion of Ukraine. Seems like not. If Putin was smart, he would have gracefully pulled out of this. But seems like he much rather want to turn his country into a new North Korea.