4 ms·

There really is no end game. And elsewhere: What is the stop? No one can really say. This seems like a strange thing to say, given this war has a very clear

There really is no end game. And elsewhere: What is the stop? No one can really say. This seems like a strange thing to say, given this war has a very clear and obvious metric (apart from people or materiel). Which has been, since after the 3rd week or so, moving monotonically in Ukraine's favor; sometimes slowly like now, at other times very quickly; but never oscillating or swinging back in Russia's favor. There's also the matter of Putin's own impending demise or convalescence, not too far off -- and the inevitable consequences this will bring. So not only does the war have a clear "stop" -- it has a built-in expiration date. There are still unknowns, and things could go either way. But it's not like there's no very clearly defined "goal", especially for Ukraine. Or no way to measure velocity towards that goal.

remarkEon 3y ago
What is this metric? The line on the map, I assume? What is this "built-in expiration date"? I don't doubt that you seriously believe these numbers exist, but I think you're imagining that they're tied to a specific event you want to see (Putin dropping dead of a heart attack or something). People have been predicting both the Russian and Ukrainian military "collapse" to be "any day now" for almost a year. Indeed, they also predicted that the Russian government itself would collapse not 3 weeks ago. As an aside, one thing I learned from the Afghanistan war is that when your leaders - political and military - are not giving you clear, concise, specific, and measurable objectives in a conflict (e.g. amorphous bullshit like "increase host nation capacity") it's a recipe for nothing getting done for a long time. I see a similar phenomenon here, but the stakes are dramatically higher.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Yup, something to do with that line on the map. The one that never applied to Afghanistan. I definitely concur about non-measurable metrics. But the metrics in Ukraine are very specific and absolutely measurable. Essentially the exact opposite of the situation in that conflict, in this regard. Putin's croaking soon isn't a requirement for this thing to stop. The main point is that not something that's going to happen in the far off future. Which means that most likely this conflict has similar bounds time-wise as well. If by "people" you mean random Youtubers -- yeah, "people" have been predicting all kinds of stuff. But very few of the analysts with actual expertise in these things have been making catastrophic predictions of the sort you're talking about (not even about the mutiny, or whatever it was 3 weeks ago). They've been quite level-headed and consistent in what they've been saying, actually. With that - I think we can find our own "stop", also. We don't have to agree about where this thing is ultimately heading. For my own part, I'll leave deliberations on that topic -- to those who are actually fighting it or living through it.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    You went from declaring that you knew a specific date and quantifiable metric back to a fuzzy interpretation of numerous, dynamic factors for reaching a conclusion about when the war would end. With respect, you don't know. That's the problem here, you are arguing deliberately for a forever war and writing it off as "no trust me this time it's actually a good idea". You aren't even developing that justification from first principles ("democracy good, Russians bad" would at least be consistent if not repetitive and circular) I think that's at a minimum unusual, and at maximum downright crazy because deliberately seeking to maximize a war a) obviously maximizes the human cost and b) in this case edges very close to an actual World War.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      I absolutely did not say I knew a specific date. Only that the goal itself is easily quantifiable. And no, just because one doesn't know the end date (or even a range) doesn't put a conflict in the "forever" category. Do you think the Western powers knew how long it would get that job finished, back around '41-'42? So, no, I don't need to take the "forever war" bait. This is getting boring. You can keep on playing that game if you like. Just not with me.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Not just the line on the map, but number of Russian tanks destroyed. Number of Russian artillery destroyed. Unlike the Taliban who fought with incredibly cheap weapons, Russia has a limited amount of sophisticated artillery, tanks, and missiles. Every tank, missile, airplane, helicopter Russia loses is one that will never threaten a European nation ever again As long as the hard metrics are moving in our favor, it's good. The thing about Afghanistan is that we reached the point of minimal Taliban army in like December 2001 and didn't know what to do after that. Russia's army is much bigger. So we have to spend months or even years corroding their army. After that, it will take decades for Russia to rebuild. It's a very different situation than Afghanistan. It's not like Russia's army is infinite here. It's large but finite. ------ But let's talk about lines on the map. Should Russia keep control of Crimea? Should we let Russians expand their territory at their leisure? How does letting Russia annex territory help European security? Mind you, this is the exact opposite situation than Afghanistan. All we Americans are doing are funding a rebellion inside of Crimea or Donetsk and hoping the territory gets returned eventually. If not, we make the Russians pay for their mistake to discourage future annexation of territory. This is closer to us funding the Taliban in 80s, rather than fighting the Taliban in the 00s. We have plenty of weapons and weapon production. The local population has high morale and is motivated. Our objectives align and unlike the Taliban/Mujhadeen we have better long term assurances that the Ukrainians will be a better ally with us in the long term. Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. You are comparing/contrasting to Afghanistan which cost more than 20x the money and directly risked US lives, that had obviously fewer gains.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    You're misinterpreting my Afghanistan comment. I'm not talking about the tactical situation on the ground, but the kind of human folly that happens with overconfidence at the strategic level when you aren't actually clear about what the national objective is. You are also continuing to sidestep why it's actually in the US' national interest to keep this war going as long as possible. I can see why it would be in, say, Poland's. You make it sound like we're just giving some upstart rebels some M4s and M995 and letting them have at it, but what we're really doing is building them an modern military from scratch, complete with modern air defense and (last gen) fixed wing. >Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. This, right here, is the kind of folly I'm talking about. As the war progresses do you not see how we have to keep walking up the escalation ladder as Russia - correctly! - sees this conflict as one that is more and more a direct one with the United States? There isn't even the pretense of balancing the human cost and escalation risk with what our security objectives even are, because the latter are left nebulous or undefined and the former is written off as just a cost of doing business (perhaps literally). Indeed, that seems to be the tone of our "elites" who wish to bring a country actively in a war into NATO, perhaps with the intention of immediately invoking Article 5 - all without any debate among the citizens of member states who would have to bear that cost. Never thought I'd see it, but "forever wars are good now" is I suppose the natural progression of how Americans (I am one) would deal with losing.

remarkEon 3y ago

What is this metric? The line on the map, I assume? What is this "built-in expiration date"? I don't doubt that you seriously believe these numbers exist, but I think you're imagining that they're tied to a specific event you want to see (Putin dropping dead of a heart attack or something). People have been predicting both the Russian and Ukrainian military "collapse" to be "any day now" for almost a year. Indeed, they also predicted that the Russian government itself would collapse not 3 weeks ago. As an aside, one thing I learned from the Afghanistan war is that when your leaders - political and military - are not giving you clear, concise, specific, and measurable objectives in a conflict (e.g. amorphous bullshit like "increase host nation capacity") it's a recipe for nothing getting done for a long time. I see a similar phenomenon here, but the stakes are dramatically higher.

lisasays 3y ago
Yup, something to do with that line on the map. The one that never applied to Afghanistan. I definitely concur about non-measurable metrics. But the metrics in Ukraine are very specific and absolutely measurable. Essentially the exact opposite of the situation in that conflict, in this regard. Putin's croaking soon isn't a requirement for this thing to stop. The main point is that not something that's going to happen in the far off future. Which means that most likely this conflict has similar bounds time-wise as well. If by "people" you mean random Youtubers -- yeah, "people" have been predicting all kinds of stuff. But very few of the analysts with actual expertise in these things have been making catastrophic predictions of the sort you're talking about (not even about the mutiny, or whatever it was 3 weeks ago). They've been quite level-headed and consistent in what they've been saying, actually. With that - I think we can find our own "stop", also. We don't have to agree about where this thing is ultimately heading. For my own part, I'll leave deliberations on that topic -- to those who are actually fighting it or living through it.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  You went from declaring that you knew a specific date and quantifiable metric back to a fuzzy interpretation of numerous, dynamic factors for reaching a conclusion about when the war would end. With respect, you don't know. That's the problem here, you are arguing deliberately for a forever war and writing it off as "no trust me this time it's actually a good idea". You aren't even developing that justification from first principles ("democracy good, Russians bad" would at least be consistent if not repetitive and circular) I think that's at a minimum unusual, and at maximum downright crazy because deliberately seeking to maximize a war a) obviously maximizes the human cost and b) in this case edges very close to an actual World War.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    I absolutely did not say I knew a specific date. Only that the goal itself is easily quantifiable. And no, just because one doesn't know the end date (or even a range) doesn't put a conflict in the "forever" category. Do you think the Western powers knew how long it would get that job finished, back around '41-'42? So, no, I don't need to take the "forever war" bait. This is getting boring. You can keep on playing that game if you like. Just not with me.
dragontamer 3y ago
Not just the line on the map, but number of Russian tanks destroyed. Number of Russian artillery destroyed. Unlike the Taliban who fought with incredibly cheap weapons, Russia has a limited amount of sophisticated artillery, tanks, and missiles. Every tank, missile, airplane, helicopter Russia loses is one that will never threaten a European nation ever again As long as the hard metrics are moving in our favor, it's good. The thing about Afghanistan is that we reached the point of minimal Taliban army in like December 2001 and didn't know what to do after that. Russia's army is much bigger. So we have to spend months or even years corroding their army. After that, it will take decades for Russia to rebuild. It's a very different situation than Afghanistan. It's not like Russia's army is infinite here. It's large but finite. ------ But let's talk about lines on the map. Should Russia keep control of Crimea? Should we let Russians expand their territory at their leisure? How does letting Russia annex territory help European security? Mind you, this is the exact opposite situation than Afghanistan. All we Americans are doing are funding a rebellion inside of Crimea or Donetsk and hoping the territory gets returned eventually. If not, we make the Russians pay for their mistake to discourage future annexation of territory. This is closer to us funding the Taliban in 80s, rather than fighting the Taliban in the 00s. We have plenty of weapons and weapon production. The local population has high morale and is motivated. Our objectives align and unlike the Taliban/Mujhadeen we have better long term assurances that the Ukrainians will be a better ally with us in the long term. Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. You are comparing/contrasting to Afghanistan which cost more than 20x the money and directly risked US lives, that had obviously fewer gains.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  You're misinterpreting my Afghanistan comment. I'm not talking about the tactical situation on the ground, but the kind of human folly that happens with overconfidence at the strategic level when you aren't actually clear about what the national objective is. You are also continuing to sidestep why it's actually in the US' national interest to keep this war going as long as possible. I can see why it would be in, say, Poland's. You make it sound like we're just giving some upstart rebels some M4s and M995 and letting them have at it, but what we're really doing is building them an modern military from scratch, complete with modern air defense and (last gen) fixed wing. >Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. This, right here, is the kind of folly I'm talking about. As the war progresses do you not see how we have to keep walking up the escalation ladder as Russia - correctly! - sees this conflict as one that is more and more a direct one with the United States? There isn't even the pretense of balancing the human cost and escalation risk with what our security objectives even are, because the latter are left nebulous or undefined and the former is written off as just a cost of doing business (perhaps literally). Indeed, that seems to be the tone of our "elites" who wish to bring a country actively in a war into NATO, perhaps with the intention of immediately invoking Article 5 - all without any debate among the citizens of member states who would have to bear that cost. Never thought I'd see it, but "forever wars are good now" is I suppose the natural progression of how Americans (I am one) would deal with losing.