5 ms·

This is a video you should watch: "Escalation management and Biden’s strategy for Ukraine" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ402BMSs8 https://www.youtube.com

This is a video you should watch: "Escalation management and Biden’s strategy for Ukraine" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ402BMSs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ402BMSs8 See it as Ukraine being drip-fed western weapons in just enough quantities to completely tie up Russia.

roenxi 2y ago
That is saying the same thing from the US's perspective. They've worked out what they are capable of doing and they're working to it. The US military leadership doesn't believe they can go beyond that. If they thought they could do anything more they would. Also the gentleman's dismissal of red line escalation seems unsound. From a game theory perspective the argument is full of holes.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  You truly did not watch the video? The point is that the EU and especially the US could do way more, but they are not doing it due to escalation management. They are perfectly happy to keep Russia occupied bleeding themselves dry. The last thing the west wants is a cornered Russia lashing out with nuclear weapons or suddenly collapsing. It is a very calculated slow collapse for Russia.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Well, sure. If the US wants to start uncontrolled escalation against a nuclear power there is a lot they can do. But if we take as a fairly obvious truth that they can't do that, we discover that they're at the limit of what they can do. Their command doesn't think they can handle a war with Russia. And they don't have the ability to stabilise the front lines in Ukraine.
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      Nah, just like Russia slowly boiled its citizens into the current state, we can slowly boil Russia into a complete breakdown. Recent permission to use western weapons on Russian soil is an example.
    - tim333 2y ago
      I don't know if you remember the 2003 invasion of Iraq? That was maybe the last time the US military made much of an effort and it was a scary thing to be on the wrong side of. A bit of video here https://youtu.be/m8KimNtB9HI https://youtu.be/m8KimNtB9HI Iraq with approx 1.3 million troops and a lot of Russian equipment collapsed in a month or so. The problems there were not that the US side had much problem destroying Iraq so much as they had a tough job rebuilding after. There are probably similar concerns here.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        The comparison is certainly relevant, but I disagree with the lessons you want to draw. What we saw in Iraq was just how willing the Americans are to escalate into a major war with no provocation or, indeed, prospect of gain. It is quite significant that they don't feel they are able to pull the same sort of mindless violence against Russia - we've put bounds on what the US military is capable of. It can handle a small naiton like Iraq, it can't manage Russia and given that they seem to be balking at an Iran invasion they are probably anchored somewhere around there before their ability to directly confront a nation runs out. Also notice that the US was in a much more dominant international position 20 years ago. They had a level of moral and economic leadership that they ceded through the early part of the 21st century - the moral part mainly because of the thuggery in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had a replay we might discover that they can't even handle Iraq any more, I doubt the Russia & the Asians would take it on the chin quite so willingly.
        cycrutchfield 2y ago
        US soldiers handled the Russians quite easily in Syria, remember Khasham?
        tim333 2y ago
        There's a difference between not wanting to do a war because it would be very expensive in terms of lives and money and not being capable. The US doesn't want those wars but does have the tech. Russia is of course worry because of nukes and no one really wants NYC and Moscow flattened.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
> See it as Ukraine being drip-fed western weapons in just enough quantities to completely tie up Russia. Been saying this for years now. A quick win, or a quick loss, means Russia has time to recoup losses and rearm for the next engagement, likely Ukraine round 3, etc. Instead, keep them tied up and burning through the massive Soviet surpluses of hardware, strain the already shaky economy, and accelerate the already-happening demographic collapse. Russian arms trades are already suffering, and several countries have cancelled their orders -- they know they won't get them, or have seen the goods in action and don't want them. And then there is the shot in the arm for NATO funding -- Europe is re-arming -- and has Sweden and Finland in the club as well. The Russians aren't dumb and are willing to take some hardship, and have thus far been able to get around some of the demographic losses by using prisoners and ethnic minorities. Trade with India and China has thus far kept up, and China, too, is getting a shot in the arm via cheap oil and an imputus to innovate drone tech. Looking like Spanish Civil War 2.0 in a lot of ways...

roenxi 2y ago

That is saying the same thing from the US's perspective. They've worked out what they are capable of doing and they're working to it. The US military leadership doesn't believe they can go beyond that. If they thought they could do anything more they would. Also the gentleman's dismissal of red line escalation seems unsound. From a game theory perspective the argument is full of holes.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
You truly did not watch the video? The point is that the EU and especially the US could do way more, but they are not doing it due to escalation management. They are perfectly happy to keep Russia occupied bleeding themselves dry. The last thing the west wants is a cornered Russia lashing out with nuclear weapons or suddenly collapsing. It is a very calculated slow collapse for Russia.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Well, sure. If the US wants to start uncontrolled escalation against a nuclear power there is a lot they can do. But if we take as a fairly obvious truth that they can't do that, we discover that they're at the limit of what they can do. Their command doesn't think they can handle a war with Russia. And they don't have the ability to stabilise the front lines in Ukraine.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    Nah, just like Russia slowly boiled its citizens into the current state, we can slowly boil Russia into a complete breakdown. Recent permission to use western weapons on Russian soil is an example.
  - tim333 2y ago
    I don't know if you remember the 2003 invasion of Iraq? That was maybe the last time the US military made much of an effort and it was a scary thing to be on the wrong side of. A bit of video here https://youtu.be/m8KimNtB9HI https://youtu.be/m8KimNtB9HI Iraq with approx 1.3 million troops and a lot of Russian equipment collapsed in a month or so. The problems there were not that the US side had much problem destroying Iraq so much as they had a tough job rebuilding after. There are probably similar concerns here.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      The comparison is certainly relevant, but I disagree with the lessons you want to draw. What we saw in Iraq was just how willing the Americans are to escalate into a major war with no provocation or, indeed, prospect of gain. It is quite significant that they don't feel they are able to pull the same sort of mindless violence against Russia - we've put bounds on what the US military is capable of. It can handle a small naiton like Iraq, it can't manage Russia and given that they seem to be balking at an Iran invasion they are probably anchored somewhere around there before their ability to directly confront a nation runs out. Also notice that the US was in a much more dominant international position 20 years ago. They had a level of moral and economic leadership that they ceded through the early part of the 21st century - the moral part mainly because of the thuggery in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had a replay we might discover that they can't even handle Iraq any more, I doubt the Russia & the Asians would take it on the chin quite so willingly.
      - cycrutchfield 2y ago
        US soldiers handled the Russians quite easily in Syria, remember Khasham?
      - tim333 2y ago
        There's a difference between not wanting to do a war because it would be very expensive in terms of lives and money and not being capable. The US doesn't want those wars but does have the tech. Russia is of course worry because of nukes and no one really wants NYC and Moscow flattened.

red-iron-pine 2y ago

> See it as Ukraine being drip-fed western weapons in just enough quantities to completely tie up Russia. Been saying this for years now. A quick win, or a quick loss, means Russia has time to recoup losses and rearm for the next engagement, likely Ukraine round 3, etc. Instead, keep them tied up and burning through the massive Soviet surpluses of hardware, strain the already shaky economy, and accelerate the already-happening demographic collapse. Russian arms trades are already suffering, and several countries have cancelled their orders -- they know they won't get them, or have seen the goods in action and don't want them. And then there is the shot in the arm for NATO funding -- Europe is re-arming -- and has Sweden and Finland in the club as well. The Russians aren't dumb and are willing to take some hardship, and have thus far been able to get around some of the demographic losses by using prisoners and ethnic minorities. Trade with India and China has thus far kept up, and China, too, is getting a shot in the arm via cheap oil and an imputus to innovate drone tech. Looking like Spanish Civil War 2.0 in a lot of ways...