6 ms·

I don't know if you are characterizing this correctly. I've spent a good amount of time in uniform focused on Russian tactics & Russian Order of Battle, and ho

I don't know if you are characterizing this correctly. I've spent a good amount of time in uniform focused on Russian tactics & Russian Order of Battle, and how to counter it, so I'll chime in some. > It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it. If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper. US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. For the Russians, this is an existential crisis. > All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing. The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian. They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine. If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi > If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides. Because this is an existential crisis to the Russians, they will continue ramping up their warmachine to support this war. The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back. Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
derstander 3y ago
> US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. I have certainly seen assertions by US policymakers that Russia (and the world) would be better off without Putin, but this wording makes it sound like there is a non-fringe group calling for the assassination of Putin. Do you have a source for this? I would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  Happy to accomodate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/joe-biden-calls-for-regime-change-in-moscow-as-he-likens-invasion-to-ww2-horrors?sref=x3IhFPk1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/joe-biden... https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-calling-regime-change-russia-this-time-it-isnt-gaffe-1694867 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-calling-regime-change-rus... > would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia. Not counting our fomenting via NGOs... Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick (Cheney) wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.” https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/01/dick-cheney-us-goal-break-up-russia/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/01/dick-cheney-us-go...
  - agloe_dreams 3y ago
    Furthermore, this line goes back to WWII. Operation Unthinkable, etc. The Allies debated just keeping the tanks moving further east after Germany.
  - bkor 3y ago
    You initially said: >US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. > > For the Russians, this is an existential crisis. Russia decided to invade Ukraine, you seem to imply that was partly due them needing Ukraine as buffer. That bit was a Russian talking point, until Putin said it was an excuse. When asked for some evidence you give articles where Biden states that the war is a reason for a regime change in Russia. So Russia invaded and started a war in Ukraine. Then US said the war is a reason for a regime change. But Russia started the war for a reason that the US gave as a consequence of Russia attacking Ukraine. This is illogical.
0xDEF 3y ago
Every statement in your comment is a lie taken out from Russia Today's twitter feed. Not even worth debunking.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine. Wow, if only Russia had a way to stop the wests devious plan of forcing them to fight in Ukraine and decimate their military. I guess they could leave right?. > If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. Dr Mearsheimer has gotten nearly everything about this war incorrect, no one should be listening to him. > But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi Damn those Banderistas and there control of the Russian government, if only Putin had the power to not do what the west and the Banderists wanted he would of been able to stay out of this mess and to invaded Ukraine, but those mind control geniuses forced him to do it. > The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back. The Russian army is already resorting to using T62's and are mad maxing vehicles, I don't think they are designed for this, unless 'this' is being slaughtered by western weaponry. > Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die. Conversely, each time we give Ukrainians weapons, we stop another Bucha massacre, we stop more women, children and men being tortured and raped, we stop more teenagers being summarily executed. Why do you think letting the Russian army that has already ground cities to dust, implemented there 'filtration' (read torture) camps and committed war crime after war crime, do more of that is going to help?. If you wanna really complain about weapons deliveries to Ukraine complain to Russia, they still are likely the biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, and if they aren't they are a close second.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway2203 3y ago
Curious if you really think there are people in the US Gov and military so callous as to be wasting Ukranian lives. I'm very removed from those circles, but it's so hard for me to imagine that there really are people like that and they really call the shots in our country / military.
dale_glass 3y ago
> If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper. I don't buy this. First, tech changed a lot since the old days. ICBMs can strike anywhere on the globe. Physical proximity to Moscow isn't really necessary. Second, Finland joined and is within HIMARS range of St Petersburg. That plus Sweden blocks the Baltic Sea. That somehow doesn't seem to have caused a crisis. Third, there's Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. There's really no lack of existing options. > The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian. That is silly. You have to consider that Russia's willingness to sacrifice its own people can't be infinite either. > If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. I see no reason why such an agreement would be advantageous to anyone. > Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die. Easy answer. Give them enough stuff to push Russia back to the border.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  > ICBMs can strike anywhere on the globe. Physical proximity to Moscow isn't really necessary. I am talking about getting inside an early warning window and preventing a Russian response. > Second, Finland joined and is within HIMARS range of St Petersburg HIMARS are not strategic nuclear weapons > That is silly. You have to consider that Russia's willingness to sacrifice its own people can't be infinite either. Russian has between a 7 to 1, and a 10 to 1 advantage in artillery, and this advantage is growing. > I see no reason why such an agreement would be advantageous to anyone. If Ukraine had agreed to be neutral (non-NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided. I'm sad so many people had to die. This would have been greatly advantageous for some of those dead people not to have died in vain because we want Russia to have a quagmire. > Easy answer. Give them enough stuff to push Russia back to the border. Won't happen. The Russians are likely going for all the ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
sampo 3y ago
> If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow While superficially true, your point is moot: Eastern Ukraine is equally close to Moscow as Latvia, and Latvia has been in NATO since 2004.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  It is much harder to launch an invasion from that point, than it is from the wide open borders of Ukraine.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    Don't move the goalposts. You made claims about US wanting Eastern Ukraine for short missile distance, yet have apparently never looked at a map and realized that Latvia is closer to Moscow.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

derstander 3y ago

> US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. I have certainly seen assertions by US policymakers that Russia (and the world) would be better off without Putin, but this wording makes it sound like there is a non-fringe group calling for the assassination of Putin. Do you have a source for this? I would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago
Happy to accomodate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/joe-biden-calls-for-regime-change-in-moscow-as-he-likens-invasion-to-ww2-horrors?sref=x3IhFPk1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/joe-biden... https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-calling-regime-change-russia-this-time-it-isnt-gaffe-1694867 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-calling-regime-change-rus... > would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia. Not counting our fomenting via NGOs... Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick (Cheney) wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.” https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/01/dick-cheney-us-goal-break-up-russia/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/01/dick-cheney-us-go...
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  Furthermore, this line goes back to WWII. Operation Unthinkable, etc. The Allies debated just keeping the tanks moving further east after Germany.
- bkor 3y ago
  You initially said: >US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. > > For the Russians, this is an existential crisis. Russia decided to invade Ukraine, you seem to imply that was partly due them needing Ukraine as buffer. That bit was a Russian talking point, until Putin said it was an excuse. When asked for some evidence you give articles where Biden states that the war is a reason for a regime change in Russia. So Russia invaded and started a war in Ukraine. Then US said the war is a reason for a regime change. But Russia started the war for a reason that the US gave as a consequence of Russia attacking Ukraine. This is illogical.

0xDEF 3y ago

Every statement in your comment is a lie taken out from Russia Today's twitter feed. Not even worth debunking.

_kbh_ 3y ago

> They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine. Wow, if only Russia had a way to stop the wests devious plan of forcing them to fight in Ukraine and decimate their military. I guess they could leave right?. > If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. Dr Mearsheimer has gotten nearly everything about this war incorrect, no one should be listening to him. > But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi Damn those Banderistas and there control of the Russian government, if only Putin had the power to not do what the west and the Banderists wanted he would of been able to stay out of this mess and to invaded Ukraine, but those mind control geniuses forced him to do it. > The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back. The Russian army is already resorting to using T62's and are mad maxing vehicles, I don't think they are designed for this, unless 'this' is being slaughtered by western weaponry. > Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die. Conversely, each time we give Ukrainians weapons, we stop another Bucha massacre, we stop more women, children and men being tortured and raped, we stop more teenagers being summarily executed. Why do you think letting the Russian army that has already ground cities to dust, implemented there 'filtration' (read torture) camps and committed war crime after war crime, do more of that is going to help?. If you wanna really complain about weapons deliveries to Ukraine complain to Russia, they still are likely the biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, and if they aren't they are a close second.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throwaway2203 3y ago

Curious if you really think there are people in the US Gov and military so callous as to be wasting Ukranian lives. I'm very removed from those circles, but it's so hard for me to imagine that there really are people like that and they really call the shots in our country / military.

dale_glass 3y ago

> If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper. I don't buy this. First, tech changed a lot since the old days. ICBMs can strike anywhere on the globe. Physical proximity to Moscow isn't really necessary. Second, Finland joined and is within HIMARS range of St Petersburg. That plus Sweden blocks the Baltic Sea. That somehow doesn't seem to have caused a crisis. Third, there's Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. There's really no lack of existing options. > The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian. That is silly. You have to consider that Russia's willingness to sacrifice its own people can't be infinite either. > If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. I see no reason why such an agreement would be advantageous to anyone. > Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die. Easy answer. Give them enough stuff to push Russia back to the border.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago
> ICBMs can strike anywhere on the globe. Physical proximity to Moscow isn't really necessary. I am talking about getting inside an early warning window and preventing a Russian response. > Second, Finland joined and is within HIMARS range of St Petersburg HIMARS are not strategic nuclear weapons > That is silly. You have to consider that Russia's willingness to sacrifice its own people can't be infinite either. Russian has between a 7 to 1, and a 10 to 1 advantage in artillery, and this advantage is growing. > I see no reason why such an agreement would be advantageous to anyone. If Ukraine had agreed to be neutral (non-NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided. I'm sad so many people had to die. This would have been greatly advantageous for some of those dead people not to have died in vain because we want Russia to have a quagmire. > Easy answer. Give them enough stuff to push Russia back to the border. Won't happen. The Russians are likely going for all the ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine.
- _kbh_ 3y ago

sampo 3y ago

> If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow While superficially true, your point is moot: Eastern Ukraine is equally close to Moscow as Latvia, and Latvia has been in NATO since 2004.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago
It is much harder to launch an invasion from that point, than it is from the wide open borders of Ukraine.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Don't move the goalposts. You made claims about US wanting Eastern Ukraine for short missile distance, yet have apparently never looked at a map and realized that Latvia is closer to Moscow.