3 ms·

You’re certainly optimistic. A few months ago Ukraine was allegedly about to capture Crimea, now they’re taking loss after loss and their frontline is at risk o

by blub 3y ago

You’re certainly optimistic. A few months ago Ukraine was allegedly about to capture Crimea, now they’re taking loss after loss and their frontline is at risk of collapsing. Nothing really changed, the NATO war planners basically just believed their own propaganda and thought the Russians would run when attacked. NATO is only seemingly strengthened, EU countries have been hit hard by the disruption in energy supplies and despite the heavy rhetoric don’t have money to remilitarize. The only thing that strengthened was the US’s grip of the EU, but even that may be reverted if Trump comes back to power. Nuclear war likely won’t happen on purpose, but by accident. The fact that neither the US nor Russia would want nuclear war is not a surefire way of preventing it, as we know from various near-catastrophes such as Able Archer or the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_al... Putin’s red lines are more of an invention of the press than a well-defined thing. The Russians responded and adapted to each escalation from NATO/Ukraine. Most recently they’ve hit Ukrainian power generation hard. > We've hamstrung Ukraine's ability to fight the way we'd fight. If we wanted the war to end decisively, we could, and without a single NATO boot hitting the ground Just based on public info, they’re getting access to world-best information, satellite data, intercepts, etc and we’re basically planning their actions for them. We’ve scoured the planet for weapons to give them and we’re literally paying their salaries, pensions and keeping their country afloat. Your claim could have been realistic back in 22, but today it’s clear that Ukraine didn’t stand a chance even with all the help it could get. Nobody knew what would happen if we’d send tanks or planes or specific weapons. Being prudent was smart.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> You’re certainly optimistic Right now, no. You can't win wars without ammunition. Europe can't do shit on its own. As the adage goes, we'll always do the right thing--after exhausting all the alternatives. > NATO war planners basically just believed their own propaganda and thought the Russians would run when attacked Across NATO, and especially in America, the tone has been distinctly pessimistic from the start. > Putin’s red lines are more of an invention of the press than a well-defined thing He's been directly quoted [1]. In English, at times [2]. They're for foreign--most directly, American--consumption. > We’ve scoured the planet for weapons to give them We haven't given them range equipment and forbade strikes inside Russia, even clearly military targets of direct pertinence to Ukraine. Look at the effects of their strikes on Russian refinery capacity. This is a carbon copy of British and American strategy against the Nazis, to pull air-defence assets away from the frontline. (Or Ukraine's strikes on Crimea breaking Russia's blockade of its grain shipments.) Had Ukraine had a full complenent of range armament when they started taking out Russia's warships and aircraft near the frontlines, they could have dealt an irrecoverable blow in '22. Instead, we drew things out, letting a few successful strikes show the Russians their weaknesses, letting Putin regroup and redeploy. > Nobody knew what would happen if we’d send tanks or planes or specific weapons. Being prudent was smart. Every military planner worth their salt did. We never equipped Ukraine to win. We still can. But it's been an ongoing political choice to draw the war out. (We did the same before the last world wars. Hence the analogy.) Appreciate the civil discusssion, by the way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini... [2] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-path-to-peace-in-ukraine-runs-directly-through-putins-red-lines/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-path-...
- gregjor 3y ago
  I agree except I suspect the "ongoing political choice" you mention really comes down to ongoing dithering and failure to make a choice, in the USA. Everything from pronouns to COVID to Ukraine get turned into political footballs, used to score points against the other party. The country suffers from lack of leadership, and that's not helped by the historic American isolationism and unwillingness to engage in foreign wars. Now we're heading into an election, one in which Biden can't make any big mistakes, so I don't expect the administration to take any risks. Referring back to my original comment, Americans have more immediate and pressing things to get pissed off about and pressure politicians over, like price inflation, housing costs, medical costs, homelessness, infrastructure, loneliness, etc. I don't think a majority of Americans can find Ukraine on a map, or know one fact about it other than it has some conflict with Russia. Politicians trying to get more money or do anything that increases America's involvement will not have much public support. I just spent some time with a friend who lives in Kiev, and was there when the war started. He's leaving, can't have a normal life under those conditions. He agrees with your assessment: Ukraine needs a lot more political and military support from the US or they will lose.
- blub 3y ago
  For the press, red lines are something to scare people with or something to be made fun of when they’re apparently crossed without an obvious effect. IMO they’re more like if X then Y, where Y could be a very fuzzy thing. One Y was cancelling the grain deal. Another is hitting energy infra (thermal power plants recently). Another could be precision strikes on particular targets, hitting NATO personnel in Ukraine, etc. So there’s this tit for tat happening, not a dramatic “we’ll nuke you alll”, no matter what Medvedev says. —- It’s not entirely correct that strikes within Russia are forbidden. Officially sure, but the intelligence for those strikes in Crimea and Russia must be coming from the NATO AWACS and other assets and are happening with UK and French weapons. Without those two elements Ukraine would be completely blind and unable to do any deep strikes (except drones). Could we have done more? Certainly. But Russia has WMDs, is unpredictable and too big to (let) fail, so there’s this dance happening where in NATO we want to hurt Russia, but not too bad. I still don’t think it’s possible to say what would have happened had NATO intervened more forcefully. The discussions between Macron and Scholz where one wants to send troops and the other fears WW3 indicates to me that there is no clarity within NATO either. There’s also all sorts of backroom negotiation happening between Russia, Ukraine the US and others. The current situation is bad all around. China and Russia deepening their partnership, Ukraine falling apart, Russian army reconstituted, bigger than before the invasion and pissed off with the EU and US. I honestly don’t understand what you think would help Ukraine win at this point. Massive amounts of artillery, combined with planes they’ll learn very fast to fly (unlikely) and deep strike capabilities… would IMO keep them in the game, but not help them win. They’re running out of men and their economy is running on fumes (EU and US money). Thanks likewise for the discussion :)

by blub 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> You’re certainly optimistic Right now, no. You can't win wars without ammunition. Europe can't do shit on its own. As the adage goes, we'll always do the right thing--after exhausting all the alternatives. > NATO war planners basically just believed their own propaganda and thought the Russians would run when attacked Across NATO, and especially in America, the tone has been distinctly pessimistic from the start. > Putin’s red lines are more of an invention of the press than a well-defined thing He's been directly quoted [1]. In English, at times [2]. They're for foreign--most directly, American--consumption. > We’ve scoured the planet for weapons to give them We haven't given them range equipment and forbade strikes inside Russia, even clearly military targets of direct pertinence to Ukraine. Look at the effects of their strikes on Russian refinery capacity. This is a carbon copy of British and American strategy against the Nazis, to pull air-defence assets away from the frontline. (Or Ukraine's strikes on Crimea breaking Russia's blockade of its grain shipments.) Had Ukraine had a full complenent of range armament when they started taking out Russia's warships and aircraft near the frontlines, they could have dealt an irrecoverable blow in '22. Instead, we drew things out, letting a few successful strikes show the Russians their weaknesses, letting Putin regroup and redeploy. > Nobody knew what would happen if we’d send tanks or planes or specific weapons. Being prudent was smart. Every military planner worth their salt did. We never equipped Ukraine to win. We still can. But it's been an ongoing political choice to draw the war out. (We did the same before the last world wars. Hence the analogy.) Appreciate the civil discusssion, by the way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini... [2] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-path-to-peace-in-ukraine-runs-directly-through-putins-red-lines/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-path-...

gregjor 3y ago
I agree except I suspect the "ongoing political choice" you mention really comes down to ongoing dithering and failure to make a choice, in the USA. Everything from pronouns to COVID to Ukraine get turned into political footballs, used to score points against the other party. The country suffers from lack of leadership, and that's not helped by the historic American isolationism and unwillingness to engage in foreign wars. Now we're heading into an election, one in which Biden can't make any big mistakes, so I don't expect the administration to take any risks. Referring back to my original comment, Americans have more immediate and pressing things to get pissed off about and pressure politicians over, like price inflation, housing costs, medical costs, homelessness, infrastructure, loneliness, etc. I don't think a majority of Americans can find Ukraine on a map, or know one fact about it other than it has some conflict with Russia. Politicians trying to get more money or do anything that increases America's involvement will not have much public support. I just spent some time with a friend who lives in Kiev, and was there when the war started. He's leaving, can't have a normal life under those conditions. He agrees with your assessment: Ukraine needs a lot more political and military support from the US or they will lose.
blub 3y ago
For the press, red lines are something to scare people with or something to be made fun of when they’re apparently crossed without an obvious effect. IMO they’re more like if X then Y, where Y could be a very fuzzy thing. One Y was cancelling the grain deal. Another is hitting energy infra (thermal power plants recently). Another could be precision strikes on particular targets, hitting NATO personnel in Ukraine, etc. So there’s this tit for tat happening, not a dramatic “we’ll nuke you alll”, no matter what Medvedev says. —- It’s not entirely correct that strikes within Russia are forbidden. Officially sure, but the intelligence for those strikes in Crimea and Russia must be coming from the NATO AWACS and other assets and are happening with UK and French weapons. Without those two elements Ukraine would be completely blind and unable to do any deep strikes (except drones). Could we have done more? Certainly. But Russia has WMDs, is unpredictable and too big to (let) fail, so there’s this dance happening where in NATO we want to hurt Russia, but not too bad. I still don’t think it’s possible to say what would have happened had NATO intervened more forcefully. The discussions between Macron and Scholz where one wants to send troops and the other fears WW3 indicates to me that there is no clarity within NATO either. There’s also all sorts of backroom negotiation happening between Russia, Ukraine the US and others. The current situation is bad all around. China and Russia deepening their partnership, Ukraine falling apart, Russian army reconstituted, bigger than before the invasion and pissed off with the EU and US. I honestly don’t understand what you think would help Ukraine win at this point. Massive amounts of artillery, combined with planes they’ll learn very fast to fly (unlikely) and deep strike capabilities… would IMO keep them in the game, but not help them win. They’re running out of men and their economy is running on fumes (EU and US money). Thanks likewise for the discussion :)