14 ms·

We need to level-set the reality here. The lines on the map in the Ukraine war do not change in Ukraine's favor unless one or both of the following happen: 1)

We need to level-set the reality here. The lines on the map in the Ukraine war do not change in Ukraine's favor unless one or both of the following happen: 1) The United States gets directly involved, and/or 2) strategic weapons are used. The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up. I think everyone realizes this, and I think the recent election results in multiple countries there make this point. You are complaining, I think, about the style here. An argument in the Oval Office. Well, the United States is the main reason that Russia, after its disastrous and frankly juvenile attempt at an invasion, hasn't been able to gain additional territory after the war went into the defensive. Let me repeat that: The United States is the reason this war is still on-going. And as a result of this fact, The United States is the one that gets to dictate terms.

whatshisface 2y ago
OK, if we can dictate terms, let's tell both sides to be at peace... and while we're at it, Russia should join NATO, and let's get a side of Freedom Fries. ;-)
- remarkEon 2y ago
  I understand that you are joking, but part of the problem with how people talk about this issue is that they are either not serious (you) or are imagining that this conflict is similar to things they have seen in a Marvel comic book movie (most of the rest of this thread).
  - balamatom 2y ago
    I feel like that's how most people talk about most issues these days. I blame the comic book movies. Alongside a host of other innocuous looking factors that add up to the total disempowerment of the individual. The hell can any of us do, other than...?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- imcritic 2y ago
  U.S. should have responded to the letter that Russian president sent to U.S. president in 1991 suggesting that Russia should join NATO in the future. U.S. ignored that suggestion. And when almost 9 years later Putin pitched the same idea again - he was left ignored, again. EU and U.S. reap what they sawed.
  - Paradigma11 2y ago
    The only difference would be that then NATO member Russia would be annexing other NATO members, which would be even more awkward.
    - mathfailure 2y ago
      You make no sense: why would Russia do it then? It does now for the very clear reasons: 1. NATO, while being openly hostile towards Russia (you may read the current NATO's doctrine where Russia is named as the #1 probable enemy of NATO), attempted to expand to Ukraine, which is just not acceptable (to Russia) at all. 2. Russian nationals (and Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals) got oppressed in Ukraine, but that happened mostly as a result of the division of country into two parts where one was pro-Russian and the other was pro-West (EU, NATO). I don't think the 2nd reason would even occur, since if Russia was in NATO - it would rather even seek Ukraine then joining it too. There would be no 'maidans' (coups) in Ukraine, there would be no division of the country and thus the oppression of Russian nationals (and Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals) just wouldn't have taken place then. I think the conflicts concerning Russia then would rather shift towards Middle East (like Turkey having some beef with Russia over who supports whom in Iran, Palestine, Israel and so on) and maybe towards China/India.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > NATO, while being hostile towards Russia attempted to expand to Ukraine, which is just not acceptable at all. That literally didn't happen. Ukraine and Georgia sought NATI membership, and in the 2008 NATO summit were (largely at Russia’s urging) rebuffed from being given Membership Action Plans; Russia immediately invaded Georgia, and Ukraine abandoned pursuit of NATO membership. Then, in 2014, the Ukrainian people threw out the pro-Russian leadership that had come to power in the interim. Russia invaded large swathes of the country and, after that, Ukraine’s government again started seeking NATO membership. There were no approaches by either side being made before the invasion. Pro-Russian propagandists like to pretend the 2022 escalation was the initial Russian invasion, ignoring most of the time the war has been being fought, so that they can blame the war starting on Ukraine’s response to the invasion by which Russia actually started the war.
hiddencost 2y ago
You're asserting things you don't know.
- remarkEon 2y ago
  The war has been in the defensive for well over a year. Yes, I do know this. Former 11A, btw.
  - MadnessASAP 2y ago
    > Former 11A, btw You say that like it's a relevant qualification. I would also like to mention that quoting past military service in a discussion on geopolitics is boot as fuck. So is referring to your trade by it's ID number and not just it's name. So, y'know, okay boot.
    - 15155 2y ago
      When did language devolve to "boot" being an adjective? What does that even mean?
      - remarkEon 2y ago
        It’s actually a noun, in this case, being used as a pejorative to imply “infantrymen are stupid”.
        MadnessASAP 2y ago
        That would be incorrect. It refers to the embarassing shit people in the military do, typically right out of basic (boot camp). Everyone is a little bit boot in the beginning, you just learn to cut it out. And no, the infantry aren't stupid. Thinking that qualifying as an Infantry Officer means your qualified to run the entire war is stupid.
        remarkEon 2y ago
pjc50 2y ago
Yes, the US gets to try to force a Ukrainian surrender, we're all complaining that's a grossly immoral use of power. I don't think the Ukrainians are going to go along with it yet.
- remarkEon 2y ago
  The Ukrainian terms are "all of the land back plus Crimea". Do you understand that this does not happen without the following: massive American mobilization, 2/75 or the whole of the Ranger Battalions jumping, all US Armor units deploying to Eastern Europe, all of 4th, 5th, 6th, and honestly 7th fleet re-deploying to the Med for support operations. A massive amount of U.S. casualties. Is this doable? No doubt. I am out of the Army, but a lot of my boys are still in, and they would love to do a peer fight instead of whatever it was we did in Afghanistan. But I will be the adult here and point out that this is stupid.
  - timcobb 2y ago
    This isn’t true.
  - ArnoVW 2y ago
    I know that it feels like the military situation is like that. In reality Russia is much weaker than people think. Three years of war will do that to a country. All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. And the military intelligence as a force multiplier. Thats exactly what we have been providing. And it was working. Russian inflation is a 20%+. They are running out of soviet era equipment. They are running out of easily conscriptable men. All of this is documented using open sources. All that was needed was time. Time for Russia to implode. But democracy is a fickle thing, and Putin was counting on this. America will have to live with this period of infamy for a long time. And the world will suffer the consequences.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke? Edit: Since people seem confused - I mean on Ukraine. Not on the US.
andsoitis 2y ago
> The United States is the reason this war is still on-going. In what way? Because it is providing assistance to Ukraine to defend itself against an aggressor?
- gambiting 2y ago
  Because if it provided the resources that were requested from the start Russian offensive would have been pushed out of the country 2 years ago. America(and most European countries too, to be fair) sat on their hands for ages before approving actual military aid. Famous thing about Germany sending helmets while other countries were sending tanks etc. But also because if JD Vance wasn't such insufferable prick without an ounce of tact there's a good chance the agreement yesterday would have been signed. That is not Ukrainian fault, it's 100% the fault of current American administration.
  - blockmarker 2y ago
    Letting your interests always go last, and letting people who depend on you and have worked against you(remember Zelenski campaigned against Trump), demand things and reproach you in public, is not tact. The one who lacked tact was Zelenski, not Vance. As Trump said, "You're in no position to dictate what we're gonna feel." As for aid, the arrogance in assuming the aid was mandatory and failing to give what you want the way you want is wrong and evil, does not endear people to aid you. And besides, any delays in aid had a much lesser effect than the EU countries buying russian gas at exorbitant prices. The sanctions imposed were immediately sabotaged by buying russian gas.
    - gambiting 2y ago
      >>The one who lacked tact was Zelenski, not Vance Hard disagree. The way he treated Zelenskyy who was their guest is unacceptable and completely tactless. He acted as if he was scolding Zelenskyy. The entire comment from Trump "look he dressed up!" was juvenile, showing zero respect. But then he called him a dictator not long ago so I don't know what I expected. >>The sanctions imposed were immediately sabotaged by buying russian gas. Because it wasn't possible for EU to stop buying it on a dime, not without letting its citizens freeze and go without electricity. You can argue that well, they should have gone cold if they care about it so much - I'd argue that the EU countries have stopped buying Russian gas and resources as soon as they possibly could. >As for aid, the arrogance in assuming the aid was mandatory That's not what I said - I said if the aid was provided when it was requested the war would have ended already.
gambiting 2y ago
>>The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up. I think you might be very surprised about that, countries on the eastern end of the EU look ready to make that trade without hesitation, as they were invaded by Russia in the past themselves and can understand the risks. Poland is already at 5% GDP spending on defence, and by all indications that number will only grow. That's war-like levels of spending.
- ovi256 2y ago
  > countries on the eastern end of the EU look ready to make that trade without hesitation I don't think so, there already are populist opposition parties in most of these countries that want 1. their country to be more pro-RU 2. to keep the welfare state for their populist supporters going
  - gambiting 2y ago
    As someone who is from one of those countries - I don't see that at all. In fact I'd say that the national mood is such that if we were attacked the nation would overwhelmingly support going to war with Russia with or without NATO support.
    - remarkEon 2y ago
      >with or without NATO support. That's the rub, isn't it. The bluster about willingness to face Moscow in a war is all because of Article V and the assumption that the Americans will come and participate in a nuclear exchange.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
youngtaff 2y ago
You know Europe has funded about 2/3rds of the war costs?

whatshisface 2y ago

OK, if we can dictate terms, let's tell both sides to be at peace... and while we're at it, Russia should join NATO, and let's get a side of Freedom Fries. ;-)

remarkEon 2y ago
I understand that you are joking, but part of the problem with how people talk about this issue is that they are either not serious (you) or are imagining that this conflict is similar to things they have seen in a Marvel comic book movie (most of the rest of this thread).
- balamatom 2y ago
  I feel like that's how most people talk about most issues these days. I blame the comic book movies. Alongside a host of other innocuous looking factors that add up to the total disempowerment of the individual. The hell can any of us do, other than...?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
imcritic 2y ago
U.S. should have responded to the letter that Russian president sent to U.S. president in 1991 suggesting that Russia should join NATO in the future. U.S. ignored that suggestion. And when almost 9 years later Putin pitched the same idea again - he was left ignored, again. EU and U.S. reap what they sawed.
- Paradigma11 2y ago
  The only difference would be that then NATO member Russia would be annexing other NATO members, which would be even more awkward.
  - mathfailure 2y ago
    You make no sense: why would Russia do it then? It does now for the very clear reasons: 1. NATO, while being openly hostile towards Russia (you may read the current NATO's doctrine where Russia is named as the #1 probable enemy of NATO), attempted to expand to Ukraine, which is just not acceptable (to Russia) at all. 2. Russian nationals (and Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals) got oppressed in Ukraine, but that happened mostly as a result of the division of country into two parts where one was pro-Russian and the other was pro-West (EU, NATO). I don't think the 2nd reason would even occur, since if Russia was in NATO - it would rather even seek Ukraine then joining it too. There would be no 'maidans' (coups) in Ukraine, there would be no division of the country and thus the oppression of Russian nationals (and Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals) just wouldn't have taken place then. I think the conflicts concerning Russia then would rather shift towards Middle East (like Turkey having some beef with Russia over who supports whom in Iran, Palestine, Israel and so on) and maybe towards China/India.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > NATO, while being hostile towards Russia attempted to expand to Ukraine, which is just not acceptable at all. That literally didn't happen. Ukraine and Georgia sought NATI membership, and in the 2008 NATO summit were (largely at Russia’s urging) rebuffed from being given Membership Action Plans; Russia immediately invaded Georgia, and Ukraine abandoned pursuit of NATO membership. Then, in 2014, the Ukrainian people threw out the pro-Russian leadership that had come to power in the interim. Russia invaded large swathes of the country and, after that, Ukraine’s government again started seeking NATO membership. There were no approaches by either side being made before the invasion. Pro-Russian propagandists like to pretend the 2022 escalation was the initial Russian invasion, ignoring most of the time the war has been being fought, so that they can blame the war starting on Ukraine’s response to the invasion by which Russia actually started the war.

hiddencost 2y ago

You're asserting things you don't know.

remarkEon 2y ago
The war has been in the defensive for well over a year. Yes, I do know this. Former 11A, btw.
- MadnessASAP 2y ago
  > Former 11A, btw You say that like it's a relevant qualification. I would also like to mention that quoting past military service in a discussion on geopolitics is boot as fuck. So is referring to your trade by it's ID number and not just it's name. So, y'know, okay boot.
  - 15155 2y ago
    When did language devolve to "boot" being an adjective? What does that even mean?
    - remarkEon 2y ago
      It’s actually a noun, in this case, being used as a pejorative to imply “infantrymen are stupid”.
      - MadnessASAP 2y ago
        That would be incorrect. It refers to the embarassing shit people in the military do, typically right out of basic (boot camp). Everyone is a little bit boot in the beginning, you just learn to cut it out. And no, the infantry aren't stupid. Thinking that qualifying as an Infantry Officer means your qualified to run the entire war is stupid.
        remarkEon 2y ago

pjc50 2y ago

Yes, the US gets to try to force a Ukrainian surrender, we're all complaining that's a grossly immoral use of power. I don't think the Ukrainians are going to go along with it yet.

remarkEon 2y ago
The Ukrainian terms are "all of the land back plus Crimea". Do you understand that this does not happen without the following: massive American mobilization, 2/75 or the whole of the Ranger Battalions jumping, all US Armor units deploying to Eastern Europe, all of 4th, 5th, 6th, and honestly 7th fleet re-deploying to the Med for support operations. A massive amount of U.S. casualties. Is this doable? No doubt. I am out of the Army, but a lot of my boys are still in, and they would love to do a peer fight instead of whatever it was we did in Afghanistan. But I will be the adult here and point out that this is stupid.
- timcobb 2y ago
  This isn’t true.
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  I know that it feels like the military situation is like that. In reality Russia is much weaker than people think. Three years of war will do that to a country. All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. And the military intelligence as a force multiplier. Thats exactly what we have been providing. And it was working. Russian inflation is a 20%+. They are running out of soviet era equipment. They are running out of easily conscriptable men. All of this is documented using open sources. All that was needed was time. Time for Russia to implode. But democracy is a fickle thing, and Putin was counting on this. America will have to live with this period of infamy for a long time. And the world will suffer the consequences.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke? Edit: Since people seem confused - I mean on Ukraine. Not on the US.

andsoitis 2y ago

> The United States is the reason this war is still on-going. In what way? Because it is providing assistance to Ukraine to defend itself against an aggressor?

gambiting 2y ago
Because if it provided the resources that were requested from the start Russian offensive would have been pushed out of the country 2 years ago. America(and most European countries too, to be fair) sat on their hands for ages before approving actual military aid. Famous thing about Germany sending helmets while other countries were sending tanks etc. But also because if JD Vance wasn't such insufferable prick without an ounce of tact there's a good chance the agreement yesterday would have been signed. That is not Ukrainian fault, it's 100% the fault of current American administration.
- blockmarker 2y ago
  Letting your interests always go last, and letting people who depend on you and have worked against you(remember Zelenski campaigned against Trump), demand things and reproach you in public, is not tact. The one who lacked tact was Zelenski, not Vance. As Trump said, "You're in no position to dictate what we're gonna feel." As for aid, the arrogance in assuming the aid was mandatory and failing to give what you want the way you want is wrong and evil, does not endear people to aid you. And besides, any delays in aid had a much lesser effect than the EU countries buying russian gas at exorbitant prices. The sanctions imposed were immediately sabotaged by buying russian gas.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    >>The one who lacked tact was Zelenski, not Vance Hard disagree. The way he treated Zelenskyy who was their guest is unacceptable and completely tactless. He acted as if he was scolding Zelenskyy. The entire comment from Trump "look he dressed up!" was juvenile, showing zero respect. But then he called him a dictator not long ago so I don't know what I expected. >>The sanctions imposed were immediately sabotaged by buying russian gas. Because it wasn't possible for EU to stop buying it on a dime, not without letting its citizens freeze and go without electricity. You can argue that well, they should have gone cold if they care about it so much - I'd argue that the EU countries have stopped buying Russian gas and resources as soon as they possibly could. >As for aid, the arrogance in assuming the aid was mandatory That's not what I said - I said if the aid was provided when it was requested the war would have ended already.

gambiting 2y ago

>>The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up. I think you might be very surprised about that, countries on the eastern end of the EU look ready to make that trade without hesitation, as they were invaded by Russia in the past themselves and can understand the risks. Poland is already at 5% GDP spending on defence, and by all indications that number will only grow. That's war-like levels of spending.

ovi256 2y ago
> countries on the eastern end of the EU look ready to make that trade without hesitation I don't think so, there already are populist opposition parties in most of these countries that want 1. their country to be more pro-RU 2. to keep the welfare state for their populist supporters going
- gambiting 2y ago
  As someone who is from one of those countries - I don't see that at all. In fact I'd say that the national mood is such that if we were attacked the nation would overwhelmingly support going to war with Russia with or without NATO support.
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    >with or without NATO support. That's the rub, isn't it. The bluster about willingness to face Moscow in a war is all because of Article V and the assumption that the Americans will come and participate in a nuclear exchange.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

youngtaff 2y ago

You know Europe has funded about 2/3rds of the war costs?