5 ms·

Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime

by User23 3y ago

Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime change in Russia?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> intended to bring about regime change in Russia Nobody wants this. Russia reverting to a hermit kingdom monitored by China is the best-case exit scenario.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Regime change is inevitable. It’s just whether it happens before or after Putin dies, and how much chaos occurs then. I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan, and no o e dares try to appear like they could fill his shoes, as is the case of every other dictator. Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan Technically, he (or, at least, the Russian Federation) has, in that the Russian Federation has, on paper, a representative-democratic Constitution which handles succession to the office of the President (the Prime Minister succeeds). In reality, of course, the real lines of power in the RF have little to do with the formal constitutional order of government (heck, Putin hasn’t even been President the whole time he has been in charge), but with application of influence at the time of the decision, so what has been “laid out” (either Constitutionally or, if Putin indicated a preference outside of that in advance for his successor) makes very little difference. What will matter is the actual positions of influence at the time a successor is called for. > Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war. That’s a feature of the best case; but it may also be a feature of the worst case. Bloody internal disorder isn’t the worst thing that has happened as a result with dissatisfaction with the existing government and conditions in a major world power.
scatters 3y ago
Yes. Given the regrettable failure of Wandel durch Handel, Russia would have attacked sooner or later. As it is, expending mostly obsolete European materiel in a trade for Russian materiel at an extremely favorable ratio, in the course of a war fought off NATO soil with a reduced risk of nuclear escalation, is about the best possible scenario.
- User23 3y ago
  Have you got any impartial source for that “extremely favorable ratio” claim?
  - scatters 3y ago
    There are no impartial sources. Oryx estimates a ratio of nearly 3:1, but do you class that as impartial?
    - User23 3y ago
      Based on their website, twitter feed, and CIA adjacency I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Oryx is firmly partial to Ukraine.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Based on their website, twitter feed, and CIA adjacency I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Oryx is firmly partial to Ukraine. Oryx is willing to add any losses to any list as long as they aren't already there. I have seen no sources that indicates Oryx is CIA adjacent?.
        User23 3y ago
        > Oryx is willing to add any losses to any list as long as they aren't already there. Admittedly I only spent about ten minutes looking, but I was unable to find any documentation of any Ukrainian losses at all on their website. > I have seen no sources that indicates Oryx is CIA adjacent?. They're founded by Bellingcat alumni, which in turn is made up of CIA alumni. That's not saying either is a "CIA front" (while the CIA does have fronts, I certainly don't know what they are), but rather that they are definitely part of the extended family of the US "Intelligence Community."
PoignardAzur 3y ago
The "virtually all their material" line is pretty rich. European countries have been sending their military surplus to Ukraine and little more.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime change in Russia? The purpose of Western support for Ukraine isn't to bring about regime change in Russia, its to arrest the long pattern of Russian aggression against its neighbors with (and by turning back) the invasion of Ukraine. It follows on the failure of the accommodationist approach to preventing Russian aggression by going along, in 2008, with Russia’s request not to give Georgia and Ukraine NATO Membership Action Plan onramps, which Russia responded to by immediately invading Georgia, and, having established a friendly puppet regime in Ukraine in the interim, turning around and invading Ukraine the instant the local population displaced that puppet regime. Also, calling the Ukrainian defensive effort “a US-led proxy war” is the dumbest statement in the universe if stated for any purpose other than sigalling fidelity to Kremlin and its not-even-trying-to-credible propaganda.
golergka 3y ago
You've got it backwards. Russia started this war by first conquering a piece of territory by conquest 9 years ago and then continuing now. And it's actually Putin who used this war and conflict with the west to change the regime in Russia from quasi-democracy to dictatorship already: he used it to bolster public support 9 years ago, rode that wave to elections, re-wrote constitution allowing him to stay in power and used the war to completely crush any resemblance of internal opposition.

by User23 3y ago

Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime change in Russia?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> intended to bring about regime change in Russia Nobody wants this. Russia reverting to a hermit kingdom monitored by China is the best-case exit scenario.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Regime change is inevitable. It’s just whether it happens before or after Putin dies, and how much chaos occurs then. I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan, and no o e dares try to appear like they could fill his shoes, as is the case of every other dictator. Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan Technically, he (or, at least, the Russian Federation) has, in that the Russian Federation has, on paper, a representative-democratic Constitution which handles succession to the office of the President (the Prime Minister succeeds). In reality, of course, the real lines of power in the RF have little to do with the formal constitutional order of government (heck, Putin hasn’t even been President the whole time he has been in charge), but with application of influence at the time of the decision, so what has been “laid out” (either Constitutionally or, if Putin indicated a preference outside of that in advance for his successor) makes very little difference. What will matter is the actual positions of influence at the time a successor is called for. > Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war. That’s a feature of the best case; but it may also be a feature of the worst case. Bloody internal disorder isn’t the worst thing that has happened as a result with dissatisfaction with the existing government and conditions in a major world power.

scatters 3y ago

Yes. Given the regrettable failure of Wandel durch Handel, Russia would have attacked sooner or later. As it is, expending mostly obsolete European materiel in a trade for Russian materiel at an extremely favorable ratio, in the course of a war fought off NATO soil with a reduced risk of nuclear escalation, is about the best possible scenario.

User23 3y ago
Have you got any impartial source for that “extremely favorable ratio” claim?
- scatters 3y ago
  There are no impartial sources. Oryx estimates a ratio of nearly 3:1, but do you class that as impartial?
  - User23 3y ago
    Based on their website, twitter feed, and CIA adjacency I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Oryx is firmly partial to Ukraine.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Based on their website, twitter feed, and CIA adjacency I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Oryx is firmly partial to Ukraine. Oryx is willing to add any losses to any list as long as they aren't already there. I have seen no sources that indicates Oryx is CIA adjacent?.
      - User23 3y ago
        > Oryx is willing to add any losses to any list as long as they aren't already there. Admittedly I only spent about ten minutes looking, but I was unable to find any documentation of any Ukrainian losses at all on their website. > I have seen no sources that indicates Oryx is CIA adjacent?. They're founded by Bellingcat alumni, which in turn is made up of CIA alumni. That's not saying either is a "CIA front" (while the CIA does have fronts, I certainly don't know what they are), but rather that they are definitely part of the extended family of the US "Intelligence Community."

PoignardAzur 3y ago

The "virtually all their material" line is pretty rich. European countries have been sending their military surplus to Ukraine and little more.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime change in Russia? The purpose of Western support for Ukraine isn't to bring about regime change in Russia, its to arrest the long pattern of Russian aggression against its neighbors with (and by turning back) the invasion of Ukraine. It follows on the failure of the accommodationist approach to preventing Russian aggression by going along, in 2008, with Russia’s request not to give Georgia and Ukraine NATO Membership Action Plan onramps, which Russia responded to by immediately invading Georgia, and, having established a friendly puppet regime in Ukraine in the interim, turning around and invading Ukraine the instant the local population displaced that puppet regime. Also, calling the Ukrainian defensive effort “a US-led proxy war” is the dumbest statement in the universe if stated for any purpose other than sigalling fidelity to Kremlin and its not-even-trying-to-credible propaganda.

golergka 3y ago

You've got it backwards. Russia started this war by first conquering a piece of territory by conquest 9 years ago and then continuing now. And it's actually Putin who used this war and conflict with the west to change the regime in Russia from quasi-democracy to dictatorship already: he used it to bolster public support 9 years ago, rode that wave to elections, re-wrote constitution allowing him to stay in power and used the war to completely crush any resemblance of internal opposition.