Ukraine Today
- Thread starter SwadianJedi
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
In most cases of foreign policy, most big changes are directed from bipartisan congressional moves rather than Presidents. Presidents in these cases are often just a scarecrow people can throw their tomatoes at rather than the people actually forcing the issues.
Trump and Biden both mostly did just follow through with what was already in place. You'd get like these weird personal or executive attempts at diplomacy like the plans for discussing lifting the Magnitsky act disguised as adoption issues. And Biden trying to throw Germany a pipeline/bone in order to repair relationships, which Russia also benefits from. Or all those times Trump publicly disproved of the sanctions against Russia he was signing into law. In the game of politics, politicians will sometimes really dumb or counter-intuitive things to retain power or achieve their goals. Real life, and real-life power structures do not care about ideology. You may have experienced this as well if you have ever been in a managerial position. All in all though, I think calling heads of state tough or pushovers is something you get from someone who listens to talking heads to much, and proclamations of like these are generally not helpful and aren't really informative.
Biden in this pas week, has signed over hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to Ukraine. This was not done through congress and comes purely from the executive branch's own funding. He has also initiated legislation to provide 6.4 billion dollars of aid to Ukraine. I don't know if this counts in your definition of a tough guy but that sounds pretty anti-Russian aggression to me. Is that tough? I don't know. Is my accountant and is my insurance broker tough? Are those even good things to have in a civil servant?
Last edited:
Trump generally had a passive foreign policy in terms of conflicts and wars, vowing to withdraw troops.
The Afghan exit was already planned during Trump's reign. I doubt he would have done anything differently.
Kuleba, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Afghan exit was already planned during Trump's reign. I doubt he would have done anything differently.
Kuleba, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Did you hear that on msnbc or did Woopie Goldberg told you?
Thank you very much. Conversely, I believe that it rather is you who is a gullible moron, dear colleague. Not me.
Maybe there's a conspiracy. Maybe republicans have a pact with Putin that he does not start his most heinous **** while a Republican president is in office. I don't know. Maybe Democrats are jinxed.
Or maybe there was an important difference between Chamberlain and Churchill. Even if it was based on the changing popular sentiment. It is not a simple equation but heads of state do play an important role, let's not pretend they're some sort of muppets with Congress' finger up their asses..
We will never find out. But it was absolutely terrible. And it's on Biden.
But why are you assholes turning this thread into a Trump thread? Shut up and get back on topic.
Your Mum told me
What is all that noise with the Trump that angers you so much? Wasn't you who brought his name to the discussion after all?
Now Denmark also prepares to send 2,700 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.
Sweden is sending 5000 anti-tank rockets, 5000 helmets and shields (? body armour of some sort) and 135,000 rations.
Von der Leyen states that the EU now intends to deliver weaponry to Ukraine.
If the West manages to create a bridge with steady supply of weapons and gear to Ukraine they can hold out for a very long time.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/P63OJDRQTRJ4ZGCK6ZK4XICI2Q.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Sweden is sending 5000 anti-tank rockets, 5000 helmets and shields (? body armour of some sort) and 135,000 rations.
Von der Leyen states that the EU now intends to deliver weaponry to Ukraine.
If the West manages to create a bridge with steady supply of weapons and gear to Ukraine they can hold out for a very long time.
Biden administration to push congress for $6.4 billion in aid to Ukraine - Schumer
The Biden Administration will ask Congress for $6.4 billion dollars in economic and military aid to help Ukraine as it fights the Russian invasion, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Sunday.
www.reuters.com
Last edited:
Borrell stated that EU Member States will also supply jet fighters. Is that even remotely possible to do it in any meaningful timeframe? I mean, loading weapons or even tanks onto a train and sending it to Ukraine is one thing but actually finding a russian-built jets that Ukrainian pilots don't have to be requalified to together with transferring all of its logistic support and weaponry?
your neighbours are digging out their old mig 29s and su 22s, they're apparently basically already ready to fly.
At this point it is obvious that Ukraine will not fold any time soon unless Russia resorts to carpet bombings of the cities. So all the help will have ample time to arrive and be useful.
EU sending jets is actually huge. Pretty much unprecedented.
I will also make a bold guess that some of the recently announced help is already in Ukraine. There is no way our army could hold so well unless it already had superior equipment and some training with it.
EU sending jets is actually huge. Pretty much unprecedented.
I will also make a bold guess that some of the recently announced help is already in Ukraine. There is no way our army could hold so well unless it already had superior equipment and some training with it.
Is this true? I badly want it to be true, but is it?
We are about to start the fifth day. Is conventional war really supposed to be this quick? It took America and half the world about a month to conquer Iraq, a country with a smaller total area, majority of which is just dunes anyway so there's nothing to attack, defend or occupy anyway.
A month is a long time. We have enough time to receive many waves of foreign aid. That's all I'm saying.
Don't compare Ukraine to Iraq. Iraq was not supplied with modern equipment by the NATO countries. It was fighting against NATO while being critically underequipped and undertrained. They've lost, what, several thousand combatants during the siege of Baghdad while the US military lost a few dozen or so. That's a completely different level of power imbalance.
And don't forget that Iraq suffered tens of thousand civilian deaths. Putin can not afford that if he wants the ruse of the "peacekeeping operation" to stay. Thus he has to refrain from aerial bombings of cities, ruthless urban warfare and all that **** they had in Iraq. So it at wost slows him down A LOT or at best even makes larger cities impregnable for his troops.
In my humble opinion, win conditions for both sides are similar and also highly unconventional. They boil down to a regime change as a result of intense external and internal pressure. But more likely this pressure will result in a peace deal where neither side wins.
Of course, if they strike Kyiv with aerial bombs or GRADs tomorrow and send in 200 tanks into the city you can call me a smug dumbass.
Last edited:
All the Russian casualties so far look on the scale that are factored in any plans for an invasion and Ukrainian victories are delaying actions. But there's no cavalry coming to the rescue and you can't throw dollars at Russian soldiers. That loss of hope is what makes soldiers surrender, and once they begin surrendering it's a chain reaction.
All the heroics and resistance are fine for history books and nation-building, and the Ukrainians should give a good account of themselves until it becomes just throwing lives away and they are forced to surrender.
What is important for the EU countries now is to prepare well for Ukraine refugees (which are far more welcome than the usual kind
I'm sorry this is happening, but that's how it is. And I still don't want to bone teens.
Clausewitz is right in this case. War is an extension of politics (or almost always anyway). Russia entered this war with political objectives, expectations, and tolerances. Putin and his inner circle are not irrational people, they may have miscalculated, and evidence of this is stacking up then again its only been a few days, but he too has some semblance of a plan for Ukraine. Sometimes people don't set down a list of events that when met means the whole effort should be reversed, or at least heavily reevaluated, but they exist anyway whether set in stone or not.
We cannot know what exactly is going on in the Russian administration's decision making circle, but there is still a chance that Russia did not enter this war expecting the level of resistance they experienced. They may have expected a post-US-withdrawal Afghanistan, or even may a post-US-Withdrawal Vietnam civil war North Vietnam spring offensive (there was resistance, but the gains were very promising).
Above all, when tires hit the road politicians will almost always invariably choose the continuation of their own careers and power over anything else. We can extrapolate from previous wars and their outcomes and see this in action.
The US civil war, or any civil war for that matter, no expenses will be spared to win these especially for the government side. Losing a civil war, at best means losing not jut your job, but every job in your party if the victors are feeling merciful. Winning means incumbent politicians keeping their jobs.
The US war in Vietnam. Why didn't the US win that war? Take a look from the angle of the political outcomes for both winning and losing the Vietnam war and their costs. If the US lost the Vietnam war, evidently nothing will happen. Nixon was the one who pulled out of the war and prior to Watergate he had strong chances of winning, the loss of Vietnam barely impacted him and his career or his party.
On the other hand, if the US had won the Vietnam war and North Vietnam surrendered what would have happened? The cost would be immense, and the political capital to make that happen would have been enormous. Would it have led to increased chances of US politicians keeping their jobs? I would argue no, or at least, there were far, far more expedient and efficient uses of capital in their own political arena at home to accrue good will from their constituents. Again there would be very little to no political gain for winning the Vietnam war for the US politicians, or at least, there were easier ways for politicians to keep their jobs than throwing their reputation and resources on the line for a nebulous, high-cost reward.
The US war against Japan. If FDR had a negotiated peace with Japan without so much as fighting and bringing the US war machine against the Imperial armed forces, he and his party would have been out of the job. The people who hold sway to their jobs, the voters, would have elected someone else to helm the war.
Take a look at Afghanistan, there is absolutely no political reward to winning the war in Afghanistan, especially considering the cost, and political and possibly reputation cost, of doing so on top of the 11 trillion dollars already spent meandering in that area. No one's political careers are going to be saved or boosted from leading or joining a coalition to win the war in Afghanistan. Likewise, take a look at the other outcome of just leaving the place. So far, just like Vietnam, Biden hasn't taken much of a hit to his popularity from it, nor any boost either way. But it frees up a very large pool of resources to do other more politically rewarding things. Such as aid to Ukraine which is fairly popular within a lot of countries right now.
Compare all of this to Republican Rome. Politicians that go on campaign to invade or attack other political polities are treated to a massive welcome back party when they return victorious full of money and political rewards. Their wars are notoriously brutal as the politicians leading them have staked their entire career on it. Their resolve to win wars are often higher than the defending polities are in resisting and remaining independent.
I know this is very US centric but
A) The US fights a lot of wars.
B) US politics, as much as the people who live there don't agree, are fairly transparent. It's political landscape, mechanisms, and the politicians themselves are fairly transparent compared to the opaque nature of politics in China, or even Russia.
The US war in Vietnam. Why didn't the US win that war? Take a look from the angle of the political outcomes for both winning and losing the Vietnam war and their costs. If the US lost the Vietnam war, evidently nothing will happen. Nixon was the one who pulled out of the war and prior to Watergate he had strong chances of winning, the loss of Vietnam barely impacted him and his career or his party.
On the other hand, if the US had won the Vietnam war and North Vietnam surrendered what would have happened? The cost would be immense, and the political capital to make that happen would have been enormous. Would it have led to increased chances of US politicians keeping their jobs? I would argue no, or at least, there were far, far more expedient and efficient uses of capital in their own political arena at home to accrue good will from their constituents. Again there would be very little to no political gain for winning the Vietnam war for the US politicians, or at least, there were easier ways for politicians to keep their jobs than throwing their reputation and resources on the line for a nebulous, high-cost reward.
The US war against Japan. If FDR had a negotiated peace with Japan without so much as fighting and bringing the US war machine against the Imperial armed forces, he and his party would have been out of the job. The people who hold sway to their jobs, the voters, would have elected someone else to helm the war.
Take a look at Afghanistan, there is absolutely no political reward to winning the war in Afghanistan, especially considering the cost, and political and possibly reputation cost, of doing so on top of the 11 trillion dollars already spent meandering in that area. No one's political careers are going to be saved or boosted from leading or joining a coalition to win the war in Afghanistan. Likewise, take a look at the other outcome of just leaving the place. So far, just like Vietnam, Biden hasn't taken much of a hit to his popularity from it, nor any boost either way. But it frees up a very large pool of resources to do other more politically rewarding things. Such as aid to Ukraine which is fairly popular within a lot of countries right now.
Compare all of this to Republican Rome. Politicians that go on campaign to invade or attack other political polities are treated to a massive welcome back party when they return victorious full of money and political rewards. Their wars are notoriously brutal as the politicians leading them have staked their entire career on it. Their resolve to win wars are often higher than the defending polities are in resisting and remaining independent.
I know this is very US centric but
A) The US fights a lot of wars.
B) US politics, as much as the people who live there don't agree, are fairly transparent. It's political landscape, mechanisms, and the politicians themselves are fairly transparent compared to the opaque nature of politics in China, or even Russia.
With that in mind there are several developments that I don't think Putin thought would happen.
1. There is a fairly unified front, not just in Europe, but across the globe in objecting to what Russia is doing.
2. They expected some sanctions but perhaps not as severe as they would have thought. Getting kicked off from international money market is going to hurt a lot.
3. Ukraine is resisting hard, and are fairly competent in doing do.
4. A lot of military aid is coming in both in hardware as well as in funds now.
Like the voters who hold sway over the jobs of politicians in the US, Oligarchs and high ranking functionaries in the government holds sway over Putin and his ruling circle. Most of which are impacted by the events above. Ukraine might not be storming Moscow, but holding out and negotiating a peace is not out of the question.
A random person claiming that you have no idea what you're talking about on the internet is not that big of a deal. What I wrote about Trump and how news sources (that didn't know what they talked about) that report him being the same way you described him was pretty mundane, I feel.
To the point though, about the Chamberlain and Churchill thing. There is a thing to be said about being perceived as tough and as weak. Both Chamberlain and Churchill were part of the same party. Chamberlain wasn't a dove, his moves toward Hitler were prudent and retained flexibility and took into account his country's power projection capability. His fall came when public opinion to his decisions and how he portrayed them soured. He was the one who nominated Churchill to take his post when he resigned. Other than that it was more or less a continuation from Chamberlain's government with a slick of new "tough-guy" paint, which again was slated pretty much for domestic consumption rather than having any real impact on foreign policy that wasn't already in motion.
To be more specific, I took issue with your claim that being "Unhinged and Unpredictable" are good traits for a heavily diplomatic role. It makes good reality TV. It makes news entertaining. And the screaming and shouting from the unhinged person penetrates the sand that a portion of the population have around their heads. But in no sense is real, lasting work done when these two traits are at the forefront of a diplomat and negotiator.
To be fair, Russia did attack US troops during the Trump Presidency. It took place in Syria. The Russian soldiers were ostensibly mercenaries under the Wagner Group. But then again the Wagner group likely doesn't even exist, and is just a proxy arm of the Kremlin since all they do is stuff that the Kremlin benefits from and they've never been hired by anyone but those with Russian state interests. Trump also surprise withdrew
I think you are more right about the Democrats being Jinxed than about Trump being tough and deterring aggression. The reason for the Russian invasion now is due to what the previous Ukrainian President did in the last days of his term. Poroshenko signed a commitment to join NATO and the EU in early 2019 directly into the Ukrainian constitution. This was followed by combined NATO and Ukrainian drills in the Black Sea about a year later. Poroshenko would ask for aid from NATO countries
The Afghan exit part, yeah pretty terrible. Can't believe that Biden didn't at least fire the brass in charge. Then again after so many pallets of eggs, you gotta go into the kitchen and check if they're actually making you that omelette. But I think the reason Biden is not impacted that much is due to the same reason the US never really won the war in Afghanistan either. There is no political reward or punishment to winning and losing the Afghan war respectively. Politicians, who have to answer to their constituents, just aren't all that motivated to win wars that the public doesn't care about or benefit from winning or lose from losing.
it does seem like they're holding back in terms of bombardment. i don't think they could afford domestically doing to eg kyiv or kharkiv what they did to grozny, or in syria, for a variety of reasons. i do hope i don't turn out wrong on that, i wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I realize that it does sound pretty outrageous in this day and age. But the issue I have with the pragmatic western diplomats is that they seem to believe that people from other cultures have more or less the same values as they do. That "Russians love their children too" and all that crap. The economic and diplomatic pressure they apply will not hit the target. In a scenario where Putin rules an economically prospering country or three piss-poor countries filled with nukes, Putin will always pick the latter because that is exactly his goal. He has no domestic goals other than maintaining stability by force and squeezing out the resources to fuel his geopolitical ambitions. He stops only where he is stopped by another bully brandishing a gun.
Didn't they croak like 200 Wagner boys then with an air strike and Putin did not say a word afterward?
We've been having those drills for ages even before the revolution. There was no popular support for joining NATO before 2014 though so that's why it was never brought up in earnest before Poroshenko. Zelenskiy pushed for NATO membership too back in 2021.
Fair point.
Yes. You can't tell your constituents that you're liberating a brotherly nation from a bunch of nazis and drug addicts and then just bomb the "Mother of Russian cities" as they call Kyiv into oblivion. Or can you. ?
Last edited:
What’s crucial is to alienate Putin from the Russian people as a whole as much as possible, and not to alienate Russians themselves from the wider world (I think this has been the general strategy so far).
Thousands are being arrested in protests against the war in many Russian cities, but it is of course not enough to topple Putin.
My girlfriend is Russian (and Ukrainian) but she hasn’t lived in Russia in like 7 years. Her friends and family over there seem to be confused but pretty numb to the whole situation, I wonder if state propaganda is keeping them quiet or if the ruble collapsing might end up finally opening everyone’s eyes up.
Thousands are being arrested in protests against the war in many Russian cities, but it is of course not enough to topple Putin.
My girlfriend is Russian (and Ukrainian) but she hasn’t lived in Russia in like 7 years. Her friends and family over there seem to be confused but pretty numb to the whole situation, I wonder if state propaganda is keeping them quiet or if the ruble collapsing might end up finally opening everyone’s eyes up.
And that would be a glorious start to Little Green Men 2: Electric Boogaloo
But yea, it seems former Warsaw Pact countries are going to dispose of their museum aircraft collection; Ukraine was already supposedly receiving MiG-29 AA missiles from Poland before.
Similar threads
