Ukraine Today

Users who are viewing this thread

Weaver

Count
What about Trump? I thought he was Putin’s sock-puppet.
That's a redneck level of analysis.
That's exactly how they view the world on Russian TV. EU leaders are Zelensky's puppets. Zelensky is Biden's puppet. Biden is the global Jewish dominion's puppet. Everyone basically is a Jewish puppet. Except Trump, who is a Russian puppet. But Russian government is also controlled by Jews, except for Putin who's been fighting the uphill battle against western Nazism and Zionism (which are the same) for decades.
Don't be one of those guys.
It is still best to not prod them when they're at this point. We're not going to be sending those in in order to make sure they don't get any angrier and the hardliners are suddenly moderates.
What happens if longer-range missiles are provided to Ukraine? How do you draw that particular red line, based on what analysis?
Ukraine isn't going to win this war.
That sentence means nothing. Russia isn't going to win this war either. So what? Win conditions are constantly shifting. It's not about winning anymore, it's about establishing peace that can last.
As of right now, the best option for them is to negotiate a peace with Russia that unfortunately gives up some of their sovereign territories.
The best option out of what other options? Why is it the best option? This is another meaningless statement.
Crimea is off the table and so is the Donbas, Russia is likely going to have those.
Why? What makes you think so other than certain political statements which proved to be empty before? Kherson was off the table just a month ago. Nothing is actually off the table.
The second they feel like they are losing too hard it can get a lot worse, and that's one of the problems with nuclear weapons.
It can't get a lot worse. Nothing they can do can save them from "losing too hard" if they start losing too hard. Including a nuclear strike on Ukraine. That would likely make their position worse. Other than the nukes, they have no options to meaningfully escalate. And nuking a town is where they actually strategically lose not win but I can't imagine that ever happening.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
What happens if longer-range missiles are provided to Ukraine? How do you draw that particular red line, based on what analysis?
It is entirely about making sure that Russia isn't aggravated too much. Push too much and they loose too hard and suddenly the nuclear button seems a lot easier to hit. That is why Ukraine isn't going to be getting Crimea, they likely could take it, but Russia always has that nuclear option that they can use. Putin isn't a rational person, it wasn't rational to declare this war. I wouldn't put this past them.

It is going to be the same reason the United States hasn't sent them Planes or Tanks, like said earlier. It risks angering the Russians when things can boil over really quickly.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
Ukraine isn't going to win this war. As of right now, the best option for them is to negotiate a peace with Russia that unfortunately gives up some of their sovereign territories. Crimea is off the table and so is the Donbas, Russia is likely going to have those. The second they feel like they are losing too hard it can get a lot worse, and that's one of the problems with nuclear weapons.

So Ukraine is definitely losing but they should also not make Russia feel they're losing too hard or nuclear bombs will fall?
Either I don't get your analysis, or it's very flawed. It just sounds like you're saying anything that supports Russia.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
So Ukraine is definitely losing but they should also not make Russia feel they're losing too hard or nuclear bombs will fall?
Either I don't get your analysis, or it's very flawed. It just sounds like you're saying anything that supports Russia.
When did I support Russia? Ukraine doing well is good, very good. However its also important to make sure that nuclear war is avoided, so sending Ukraine things like Tanks, Planes, and longer range Missiles is off the table.

This isn't even analysis, this is exactly what's happening.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
Oh, so you're saying Ukraine is losing the war provided they don't get supplies of long rage missiles, planes and more.
And if they did it would lead to nuclear war. Sounds like a catch 22.
But why can't Ukraine win at the moment, with the steady flow of weaponry and 'Western trained' troops etc.? Seems to early too predict.
 
Last edited:

Weaver

Count
I never was inclined to buy that. We've seen red lines being crossed, new arbitrary red lines popping up, nothing of note changed on that front. Note that after Kherson was retaken Russia backed down on nuclear rhetoric, which directly contradicts your assessment. And Kherson is no different from Crimea according to Ru constitution. They change it every few years as they see suitable, will change it again.

The US is playing its own game and it's way more complicated than balancing on the edge of a nuclear war. That's just a scary story for the proles.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
Oh, so you're saying Ukraine is losing the war provided they don't get supplies of long rage missiles, planes and more.
And if they did it would lead to nuclear war. Sounds like a catch 22.
But why can't Ukraine win at the moment, with the steady flow of weaponry and 'Western trained' troops etc.? Seems to early to predict.
Ukraine is doing really well now, with all of their offenses. They very well could push all the way to Crimea if things go well. However, they can't win because Russia has nukes. The second a nation has Nuclear Weapons if they start to lose too hard they can show the big red button and threaten to end it all, and the world has to take them seriously. If the United States thinks that there is a viable threat they will pressure Ukraine to settle.
I never was inclined to buy that. We've seen red lines being crossed, new arbitrary red lines popping up, nothing of note changed on that front. Note that after Kherson was retaken Russia backed down on nuclear rhetoric, which directly contradicts your assessment. And Kherson is no different from Crimea according to Ru constitution. They change it every few years as they see suitable, will change it again.
There's a difference between on paper and in reality. Crimea has been Russian for the past eight years, Kherson hasn't been.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Putin isn't a rational person, it wasn't rational to declare this war. I wouldn't put this past them.
I disagree. The US assessment matched Putin’s. Both believed Russia could take Kyiv in a matter of days and effect regime change in a few weeks. The intelligence communities on both sides called it wrong, Based on the intel available to him, Putin made a rational decision (given his imperial soviet beliefs) to invade. Ukraine proved everyone wrong and made Putin’s decision look irrational in hindsight. Events have compounded that original error, upping the stakes and forcing Putin to adopt increasingly desperate and nasty measures in attempt to paper over the cracks before they bring him down.
That's a redneck level of analysis.
Maybe. However, Russia correctly assessed Trump as someone out for himself who could be bribed by hotels in Moscow etc. and whose ego outsized his brain sufficiently for him to undermine US policy and democracy, if elected president. They backed him and undermined Hillary Clinton. Trump is a political hand grenade thrown by Putin, not because Putin controls Trump, but because Putin correctly trusts him to screw up. The idiot even admired Putin for invading Ukraine. I’m sure Russia would love to contribute to Trump’s campaign funds, if they can find a way through current sanctions.
The second a nation has Nuclear Weapons if they start to lose too hard they can show the big red button and threaten to end it all, and the world has to take them seriously.
Putin is rational and respects power. He’s not deaf to Xi Jinping. It’s the hardliners below him we’ve got to worry about. https://www.politico.eu/article/chi...s-in-ukraine-olaf-scholz-germany-peace-talks/
 
Last edited:

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
That's the irrational part. Him having Imperial Soviet beliefs, wanting to declare this war. It would cut him off from the West.
If it had been a fait accompli, what would the West have done? What did we do in Georgia? What did we do in Crimea?
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
If it had been a fait accompli, what would the West have done? What did we do in Georgia? What did we do in Crimea?
It isn't the hardest to see the difference between those in more pragmatic terms. Ukraine is a far larger nation, one that is a lot closer. Crimea was non-violent, mostly, but this one was a straight up war. And there were months and months of threats from the West that this would be a step too far.
 

Weaver

Count
Ukraine is doing really well now, with all of their offenses. They very well could push all the way to Crimea if things go well. However, they can't win because Russia has nukes. The second a nation has Nuclear Weapons if they start to lose too hard they can show the big red button and threaten to end it all, and the world has to take them seriously. If the United States thinks that there is a viable threat they will pressure Ukraine to settle.
Russian nuclear doctrine, like many others, allows nuke usage if the very existence of the state is threatened. That is why Ukraine is pressed by the international community to stay away from Russia proper.
If, on the other hand, a nuclear country starts using nukes when it can't win a "proxy conflict", that would mean the entire system of post-WW2 global security can be thrown into the trash. Which actually makes the next WW an imminent reality. So I believe that to be a red line for the powers that be (and not just NATO). Russia likely will not want to "prod" them either.
There's a difference between on paper and in reality. Crimea has been Russian for the past eight years, Kherson hasn't been.
I really can't see how 8 years make a decisive difference here.
Maybe. However, Russia correctly assessed Trump as someone out for himself who could be bribed by hotels in Moscow etc. and whose ego outsized his brain sufficiently for him to undermine US policy and democracy, if elected president. They backed him and undermined Hillary Clinton. Trump is a political hand grenade thrown by Putin, not because Putin controls Trump, but because Putin correctly trusts him to screw up. The idiot even admired Putin for invading Ukraine. I’m sure Russia would love to contribute to Trump’s campaign funds, if they can find a way through current sanctions.
Sounds like MSNBC talk.
Russia did not just back Trump if you looked into the independent investigations carefully. They backed both right and left-wing radical groups. Their purpose was to sew chaos. They don't root for US parties or politicians, they want the US to collapse like USSR once did. They cheered Trump at first because he seemed more chaotic. But were also promptly disappointed. Despite all his rhetoric, Trump was, to my memory, the only US president who didn't actually go for a "reset of relations" with Russia btw. Could be a coincidence, but during Trump Russia was kinda tame. All the **** in Ukraine happened during dem tenure both times. So I'm not into that Steele dossier conspiracy theory.
I am, though, into the deep state conspiracy theory. I'm pretty sure that even if Trump somehow wins an election US will remain tough on the Ua issue.
 

Arvenski

Count
M&BWB
sending Ukraine things like Tanks, Planes, and longer range Missiles is off the table.
You've mentioned several times now that the US isn't sending its tanks and planes to Ukraine in order to avoid further provoking Russia. I'll admit I don't know very much about modern armored vehicles, but I'd imagine that, like other 21st century military technology, they've become quite high-tech. That means it's not as simple as sending Ukraine a trainload of Abrams tanks: the US/NATO would also have to train the Ukrainian tank crews to operate them, train the maintenance crews to fix them, and provide all the ammunition, spare parts, special tools, and whatever else is needed to keep them going. I'm sure the US is doing that already with the HIMARS, but, still, it would be an undertaking. It's the same with aircraft: fighter jets today are really, really, high tech, so it would take time to train the Ukrainian pilots to fly them, and then you need that whole support system in place -maintenance, munitions, parts- in order to operate them continually. That's why earlier in the war, some European countries gave Ukraine surplus MiGs, because the Ukrainains were already trained and equipped to operate them, so they could get that equipment into battle faster and not have to worry about not having what they needed to keep them running. At the time it didn't seem like Ukraine could afford to wait. Now that it's clear Ukraine isn't in danger of being overrun in weeks, I don't know why the US or NATO isn't supplying more Western-built vehicles and aircraft. Perhaps they are training Ukrainian crews to operate Western vehicles, and haven't announced it yet. That'd be a nasty surprise for the Russians, wouldn't it, if those machines appeared on the battlefield with little or no warning? Just in the past couple days, though, I have read that NATO officials have spoken of helping Ukraine with the training and equipment to bring their armed forces "up to NATO standards." Hopefully that's more than just idle talk.
 
Last edited:

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
Russian nuclear doctrine, like many others, allows nuke usage if the very existence of the state is threatened. That is why Ukraine is pressed by the international community to stay away from Russia proper.
If, on the other hand, a nuclear country starts using nukes when it can't win a "proxy conflict", that would mean the entire system of post-WW2 global security can be thrown into the trash. Which actually makes the next WW an imminent reality. So I believe that to be a red line for the powers that be (and not just NATO). Russia likely will not want to "prod" them either.

I really can't see how 8 years make a decisive difference here.
Crimea is Russian land. If Russia, namely Putin, fears that Russian land is being threatened that is the state being threatened.
I'll admit I don't know very much about modern armored vehicles, but I'd imagine that, like other 21st century military technology, they've become quite high-tech. That means it's not as simple as sending Ukraine a trainload of Abrams tanks: the US/NATO would also have to train the Ukrainian tank crews to operate them, train the maintenance crews to fix them, and provide all the ammunition, spare parts, special tools, and whatever else is needed to keep them going.
You're right, training would be an issue but its also the technology part that is a worry. Ukraine wouldn't get the F-35, nor would they get our Abrams. That technology is way too important for the United States. That's why people can say that an Abrams has never really been destroyed in combat despite so many pictures of Abrams burning, its because those are export versions. So they aren't going to be getting our best stuff. We also have sent tanks, but there is a reason why I didn't say we have. They are old Czech T-72s that we are upgrading, not the Western MBTs that the Ukrainians want. Those tanks also fit more into the logistics. So you're more right with the tanks.

Planes are almost entirely political. Seeing American planes over Ukraine would be a massive escalation for the war.
 
Maybe. However, Russia correctly assessed Trump as someone out for himself who could be bribed by hotels in Moscow etc. and whose ego outsized his brain sufficiently for him to undermine US policy and democracy, if elected president. They backed him and undermined Hillary Clinton. Trump is a political hand grenade thrown by Putin, not because Putin controls Trump, but because Putin correctly trusts him to screw up. The idiot even admired Putin for invading Ukraine. I’m sure Russia would love to contribute to Trump’s campaign funds, if they can find a way through current sanctions.

Believe it or not, Trump was popular all over the world exactly because he was, at least in some of his rhetoric, pretty anti-interventionist. This terrified the Democrats who had a mostly free hand to wage wars during the Obama era, so they tried to make his anti-interventionism sound like treachery by linking him to Putin. But virtually all of the countries under US sanctions had good things to say about Trump in this regard. It wasn't difficult really, he was the first president in decades to badmouth US foreign policy so soon after it had failed.

Russia did not just back Trump if you looked into the independent investigations carefully. They backed both right and left-wing radical groups. Their purpose was to sew chaos. They don't root for US parties or politicians, they want the US to collapse like USSR once did. They cheered Trump at first because he seemed more chaotic.

^ In addition to what I said, this basically it. Russian bots don't even have to exist, they just tell everyone that they're influencing social media or the elections and let people's imaginations run wild. They had actually tried a more direct approach in the past, but these mostly failed. Back in 2013 or so, there were comments under BBC reports saying how biased the BBC was against leftism, and that RT was better for Real (i.e. left wing) news. That must have basically failed, because a few years later they pivoted to basic ***** right wing nationalism. Then between about 2017 and 2022 most of the pro-RT bots seemed to vanish, and RT just had random anti-establishment western intellectuals like Zizek and Chris Hedges and let them talk to their heart's content, which was genuinely pretty cool, but I highly doubt it had any effect on politics in the west.

That's the irrational part. Him having Imperial Soviet beliefs, wanting to declare this war. It would cut him off from the West.

Putin actually dislikes the Soviet Union, probably a lot more than your average Russian. The only thing he "misses" about it was its geopolitical security in central Asia and eastern Europe, giving it a lot more leverage against the West. If you listen to his talks on the subject, he badmouths Lenin and Stalin a lot for effectively sowing the seeds of the 1989 collapse by being too nice to the different emergent nation-states within the USSR.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
Putin actually dislikes the Soviet Union, probably a lot more than your average Russian. The only thing he "misses" about it was its geopolitical security in central Asia and eastern Europe, giving it a lot more leverage against the West. If you listen to his talks on the subject, he badmouths Lenin and Stalin a lot for effectively sowing the seeds of the 1989 collapse by being too nice to the different emergent nation-states within the USSR.
You're right, Soviet was the wrong word for it. His dreams are about making the Russian Empire again. I should have just lead with Imperial beliefs.
 
I think calling it Imperialism is misleading, and paints Putin like some kind of warlord, which he isn't. He's not invading countries for their resources or to loot them, or even to recreate a past state. He wants geopolitical security against the West. If he could magically turn central asia and eastern europe into an impassible wasteland, he would probably do it. Which is probably why he's not too bothered that Ukraine is gradually turning into a forever war.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
I think calling it Imperialism is misleading, and paints Putin like some kind of warlord, which he isn't. He's not invading countries for their resources or to loot them, or even to recreate a past state. He wants geopolitical security against the West. If he could magically turn central asia and eastern europe into an impassible wasteland, he would probably do it. Which is probably why he's not too bothered that Ukraine is gradually turning into a forever war.
I mean, that still is pretty imperialistic. It is fundamentally extending Russia's power, which is the baseline definition of Imperialism.
 

AoC

Master Knight
You've mentioned several times now that the US isn't sending its tanks and planes to Ukraine in order to avoid further provoking Russia. I'll admit I don't know very much about modern armored vehicles, but I'd imagine that, like other 21st century military technology, they've become quite high-tech. That means it's not as simple as sending Ukraine a trainload of Abrams tanks: the US/NATO would also have to train the Ukrainian tank crews to operate them, train the maintenance crews to fix them, and provide all the ammunition, spare parts, special tools, and whatever else is needed to keep them going. I'm sure the US is doing that already with the HIMARS, but, still, it would be an undertaking. It's the same with aircraft: fighter jets today are really, really, high tech, so it would take time to train the Ukrainian pilots to fly them, and then you need that whole support system in place -maintenance, munitions, parts- in order to operate them continually. That's why earlier in the war, some European countries gave Ukraine surplus MiGs, because the Ukrainains were already trained and equipped to operate them, so they could get that equipment into battle faster and not have to worry about not having what they needed to keep them running. At the time it didn't seem like Ukraine could afford to wait. Now that it's clear Ukraine isn't in danger of being overrun in weeks, I don't know why the US or NATO isn't supplying more Western-built vehicles and aircraft. Perhaps they are training Ukrainian crews to operate Western vehicles, and haven't announced it yet. That'd be a nasty surprise for the Russians, wouldn't it, if those machines appeared on the battlefield with little or no warning? Just in the past couple days, though, I have read that NATO officials have spoken of helping Ukraine with the training and equipment to bring their armed forces "up to NATO standards." Hopefully that's more than just idle talk.
That's pretty simple, they need their new equipment for their armies in case of conflict and they give away mostly storage units. Not only tanks/planes are expensive, but they also have secret sauce that could be reverse-engineered which they don't want to lose to Russia (more to Iran and China who both get samples of nato equipment lost on battlefield).

Training, creating supplies and know-how isn't cheap either.

Didn't you read about new training system in germany by usa recentl, it's exactly what you ask for.
Also, you can't change standards on the fly, creating structures especially in times of war takes time and you can see that they gradually get more nato equipment as soviet-era stuff levels are very low.

You also have to keep in mind that frontline countries (Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia) need to have enough equipment to deter any attack and support US army if they decide to intervene.

Crimea is Russian land. If Russia, namely Putin, fears that Russian land is being threatened that is the state being threatened.
Crimea is peninsula, that was Greek (not modern Greece related!), then Tatar and just for last two centuries Russian/Soviet and last 30 years Ukrainian with Russian army presence and autonomy-heavy movement. It's pretty easy to say that it's contested territory, like Karabakh.
 
Last edited:
What about Trump? I thought he was Putin’s sock-puppet.
I don't think Trump will be a viable candidate after the disappointing mid-terms.

I think calling it Imperialism is misleading, and paints Putin like some kind of warlord, which he isn't. He's not invading countries for their resources or to loot them, or even to recreate a past state. He wants geopolitical security against the West. If he could magically turn central asia and eastern europe into an impassible wasteland, he would probably do it. Which is probably why he's not too bothered that Ukraine is gradually turning into a forever war.
Interesting you'd bring that up.. For however long this war drags out I almost forgot the reason as to why it started in the first place. Was that also the reason he invaded Crimea in 2014? Was UA already more EU focussed back then or did that happen after the fact?
 
Top Bottom