You're the one saying the quiet part out loud, boss. I didn't make you do that!RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Freedom and wealth tend to go together, too. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill for wealth (not even if you say it's for freedom).RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Influence is what it's all about. Security, stability, vital interests, national defense even? Not so much.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
You don't think the two go together? You don't think influence impacts economics? You don't think secure, reliable resources don't come from influence and credibility?
You pull out or go isolationism how much credibility we will have?
So, no matter what we say the reason is to support other Nations, it really is for wealth because you say. Nice! What is the point of discussing anything with you? After all you really know and anything said or evidence given is disregarded. Must be nice Sam to have a monopoly on knowing what things really are. Just have SicEm allow you to edit our comments and take the next step to being a Putin...
Russia mobilizes
261,191 Views |
4259 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
Whiterock approves this message.Redbrickbear said:
Focusing on the important stuff…JOHN KIRBY: "LGBTQ+ rights...are a core part of our foreign policy." pic.twitter.com/hNsVknCc5P
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 21, 2023
In my opinion, what makes them effective is the Combined Arms approach along with the mobility of the Armored Corps. I have not heard that Ukraine has that capability. A Combined Arms Armored Brigade Combat Team is much more than 87 or so tanks and takes more than 2 months of training to utilize against a near peer enemy. Do they have the artillery, infantry and combat air support to make it work?whiterock said:not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.
I have never been to Ukraine, but I understand it is tank country. To really get the bang for the buck, the Armored Corps is designed to be a mobile force. They need to maneuver, close with and destroy, not be made into stationary defensive "big guns"! There is only so much a Brigade can accomplish in that much territory. Even at a 5:1 kill ratio, it will be tough sledding. So, pick wisely...
I am sure they know all this, I just don't see the screaming about ALL the weapons we are supplying. It is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to root out a force that big.
Sam Lowry said:Whiterock approves this message.Redbrickbear said:
Focusing on the important stuff…JOHN KIRBY: "LGBTQ+ rights...are a core part of our foreign policy." pic.twitter.com/hNsVknCc5P
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 21, 2023
If you're going to troll, you really should try putting a hook in the water.
RMF5630 said:In my opinion, what makes them effective is the Combined Arms approach along with the mobility of the Armored Corps. I have not heard that Ukraine has that capability. A Combined Arms Armored Brigade Combat Team is much more than 87 or so tanks and takes more than 2 months of training to utilize against a near peer enemy. Do they have the artillery, infantry and combat air support to make it work?whiterock said:not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.
I have never been to Ukraine, but I understand it is tank country. To really get the bang for the buck, the Armored Corps is designed to be a mobile force. They need to maneuver, close with and destroy, not be made into stationary defensive "big guns"! There is only so much a Brigade can accomplish in that much territory. Even at a 5:1 kill ratio, it will be tough sledding. So, pick wisely...
I am sure they know all this, I just don't see the screaming about ALL the weapons we are supplying. It is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to root out a force that big.
It's all relative. They will not be going up against well-trained, full strength, well supported units.
The Slovak & Polish Migs will be ready in time to support the push. And not much noise about other preps either. I would assume there will be additional arty and other stores laid up.
Sorry, Combined Arms has been pounded into my head...whiterock said:RMF5630 said:In my opinion, what makes them effective is the Combined Arms approach along with the mobility of the Armored Corps. I have not heard that Ukraine has that capability. A Combined Arms Armored Brigade Combat Team is much more than 87 or so tanks and takes more than 2 months of training to utilize against a near peer enemy. Do they have the artillery, infantry and combat air support to make it work?whiterock said:not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.
I have never been to Ukraine, but I understand it is tank country. To really get the bang for the buck, the Armored Corps is designed to be a mobile force. They need to maneuver, close with and destroy, not be made into stationary defensive "big guns"! There is only so much a Brigade can accomplish in that much territory. Even at a 5:1 kill ratio, it will be tough sledding. So, pick wisely...
I am sure they know all this, I just don't see the screaming about ALL the weapons we are supplying. It is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to root out a force that big.
It's all relative. They will not be going up against well-trained, full strength, well supported units.
The Slovak & Polish Migs will be ready in time to support the push. And not much noise about other preps either. I would assume there will be additional arty and other stores laid up.
NATO trained Ukrainian troops have been decimating Russian attacks using combined arms tactics the entire war. Russia has been gutted of any combined arm capabilities that they have, because it takes too long to train people well. meanwhile, Ukraine has had upwards of 40k troops just returning to theater who have been training for 3+ months on US/UK/AUS combined arm tactics. Add the Bradley's into the mix and you have a rapid strike element. It's gonna move quickly when it starts.RMF5630 said:In my opinion, what makes them effective is the Combined Arms approach along with the mobility of the Armored Corps. I have not heard that Ukraine has that capability. A Combined Arms Armored Brigade Combat Team is much more than 87 or so tanks and takes more than 2 months of training to utilize against a near peer enemy. Do they have the artillery, infantry and combat air support to make it work?whiterock said:not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.
I have never been to Ukraine, but I understand it is tank country. To really get the bang for the buck, the Armored Corps is designed to be a mobile force. They need to maneuver, close with and destroy, not be made into stationary defensive "big guns"! There is only so much a Brigade can accomplish in that much territory. Even at a 5:1 kill ratio, it will be tough sledding. So, pick wisely...
I am sure they know all this, I just don't see the screaming about ALL the weapons we are supplying. It is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to root out a force that big.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Thanks! That makes more sense. I have not kept up on details. Are we sending Bradley's, Lynx's or Warrior's to augment the tanks?trey3216 said:NATO trained Ukrainian troops have been decimating Russian attacks using combined arms tactics the entire war. Russia has been gutted of any combined arm capabilities that they have, because it takes too long to train people well. meanwhile, Ukraine has had upwards of 40k troops just returning to theater who have been training for 3+ months on US/UK/AUS combined arm tactics. Add the Bradley's into the mix and you have a rapid strike element. It's gonna move quickly when it starts.RMF5630 said:In my opinion, what makes them effective is the Combined Arms approach along with the mobility of the Armored Corps. I have not heard that Ukraine has that capability. A Combined Arms Armored Brigade Combat Team is much more than 87 or so tanks and takes more than 2 months of training to utilize against a near peer enemy. Do they have the artillery, infantry and combat air support to make it work?whiterock said:not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.
I have never been to Ukraine, but I understand it is tank country. To really get the bang for the buck, the Armored Corps is designed to be a mobile force. They need to maneuver, close with and destroy, not be made into stationary defensive "big guns"! There is only so much a Brigade can accomplish in that much territory. Even at a 5:1 kill ratio, it will be tough sledding. So, pick wisely...
I am sure they know all this, I just don't see the screaming about ALL the weapons we are supplying. It is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to root out a force that big.
There are a bunch of Bradley's about to arrive in theater, as well as French and British vehicles that are very similar. Upwards of 300-400 total that will be partnered with tanks and other APC/IFV's.RMF5630 said:Thanks! That makes more sense. I have not kept up on details. Are we sending Bradley's, Lynx's or Warrior's to augment the tanks?trey3216 said:NATO trained Ukrainian troops have been decimating Russian attacks using combined arms tactics the entire war. Russia has been gutted of any combined arm capabilities that they have, because it takes too long to train people well. meanwhile, Ukraine has had upwards of 40k troops just returning to theater who have been training for 3+ months on US/UK/AUS combined arm tactics. Add the Bradley's into the mix and you have a rapid strike element. It's gonna move quickly when it starts.RMF5630 said:In my opinion, what makes them effective is the Combined Arms approach along with the mobility of the Armored Corps. I have not heard that Ukraine has that capability. A Combined Arms Armored Brigade Combat Team is much more than 87 or so tanks and takes more than 2 months of training to utilize against a near peer enemy. Do they have the artillery, infantry and combat air support to make it work?whiterock said:not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.
I have never been to Ukraine, but I understand it is tank country. To really get the bang for the buck, the Armored Corps is designed to be a mobile force. They need to maneuver, close with and destroy, not be made into stationary defensive "big guns"! There is only so much a Brigade can accomplish in that much territory. Even at a 5:1 kill ratio, it will be tough sledding. So, pick wisely...
I am sure they know all this, I just don't see the screaming about ALL the weapons we are supplying. It is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to root out a force that big.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
https://thespectator.com/topic/winning-the-war-everyone-losing-ukraine-russia/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Writing in The Spectator, Daniel McCarthy has a short, sharp, lucid analysis that begins like this:
Writing in The Spectator, Daniel McCarthy has a short, sharp, lucid analysis that begins like this:
He goes on to ask fundamental "… and then what?" questions about our various engagements around the world, and to bring up how the wars we have fought or supported in recent decades ended up either making no positive difference, for all our blood and treasure (Afghanistan), or made the world worse (Libya). McCarthy concludes:Quote:
Russia is losing the war in Ukraine. So is Ukraine. And so are we.
Imagine the good guys win tomorrow. What exactly will we have won? Ukraine was the poorest country in Europe even before the war. Afterward it will remain as dependent on American dollars as it is now and on American arms. Russia will not have disappeared, after all.
Quote:
America is called upon to be the world's policeman at a time when American policemen aren't allowed to keep order in our own cities. Our parties believe democracy and constitutional government are fraying at home, yet also believe we can mobilize our people and their taxes to bring order to Ukraine, Russia and the South China Sea. Our republic was designed to serve the American people. Our leaders want the American people to serve the world. Americans themselves have only a limited willingness to do so, and when leaders like George W. Bush surpassed that willingness, the result was the election of a mildly antiwar Democrat, Barack Obama, and then a wildly anti-establishment Republican, Donald Trump.
We tried to take responsibility for the Middle East and failed. Now we're trying to take responsibility for Europe, Ukraine and by extension Russia. An America that remains a republic will ultimately have to let Europe police Europe and Asia police Asia.
So putting things in parenthesis puts it on the reading party? Huh. I will start using parenthesis. (Comrade)Sam Lowry said:You're the one saying the quiet part out loud, boss. I didn't make you do that!RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Freedom and wealth tend to go together, too. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill for wealth (not even if you say it's for freedom).RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Influence is what it's all about. Security, stability, vital interests, national defense even? Not so much.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
You don't think the two go together? You don't think influence impacts economics? You don't think secure, reliable resources don't come from influence and credibility?
You pull out or go isolationism how much credibility we will have?
So, no matter what we say the reason is to support other Nations, it really is for wealth because you say. Nice! What is the point of discussing anything with you? After all you really know and anything said or evidence given is disregarded. Must be nice Sam to have a monopoly on knowing what things really are. Just have SicEm allow you to edit our comments and take the next step to being a Putin...
“Goodnight, sweet ghost.” https://t.co/QSt1UO51eJ pic.twitter.com/Kq0fBBWClD
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) March 22, 2023
Not too good!https://t.co/FR3Dej4TSy
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 22, 2023
Doc Holliday said:I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
I don't want the game played forever, so why don't we just wipe Russia of the map?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
Ya'lls objectives sound like the precursor to a one world government where a handful of western supranationals outside the reigns of democrat/representation control the entire planet.
1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO. No one has asked to join the Russian Federation like no one has asked to join the United States of America lately.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance (CSTO) since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate each according to strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
One thing that really pisses me off about this conflict is our extreme lack of arms tracing/control. Guns and heavy arms will flood the international market. Ukraine is already selling them on the black-market.
10-20 years from now they will end up in the hands of terrorists and we'll have another conflict to deal with.
Supporting this proxy war without putting Zelensky and Ukraine under a no tolerance boot is asinine.
10-20 years from now they will end up in the hands of terrorists and we'll have another conflict to deal with.
Supporting this proxy war without putting Zelensky and Ukraine under a no tolerance boot is asinine.
#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
It was not until the second term of President Obama that the USA policy seems to have really gotten aggressive when it came to all things Ukraine.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/washingtons-bizarre-dangerous-ukraine-obsession
President George H Bush even criticized Ukrainian independence from the USSR
[During the Ukrainian independence movement, on August 1, 1991, then-U.S.-President George H. W. Bush made a speech critical of the movement ]
It seems that things accelerated on Ukraine after NATO expanded into the Baltic States.
[The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politicsa school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will pre-emptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin's aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that "the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.Redbrickbear said:If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
Russia is part of any number of alliances, both formal and informal--SCO, BRICS, OPEC+, BSEC, etc. They're not the global pariah that we like to imagine.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
Evaluating the strategy is what I'm trying to do. The fact that Ukraine or anyone else wants to join NATO is not decisive.
How about rolling 2800 tanks across someone's border? Is that decisive?Sam Lowry said:Russia is part of any number of alliances, both formal and informal--SCO, BRICS, OPEC+, BSEC, etc. They're not the global pariah that we like to imagine.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
Evaluating the strategy is what I'm trying to do. The fact that Ukraine or anyone else wants to join NATO is not decisive.
Decisive as to what?RMF5630 said:How about rolling 2800 tanks across someone's border? Is that decisive?Sam Lowry said:Russia is part of any number of alliances, both formal and informal--SCO, BRICS, OPEC+, BSEC, etc. They're not the global pariah that we like to imagine.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
Evaluating the strategy is what I'm trying to do. The fact that Ukraine or anyone else wants to join NATO is not decisive.
Others have, including our president.RMF5630 said:I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
Let's start with intent and finish on verdict of a Nation's upstanding character? Not exactly the act of an upstanding, treaty recognizing nation.Sam Lowry said:Decisive as to what?RMF5630 said:How about rolling 2800 tanks across someone's border? Is that decisive?Sam Lowry said:Russia is part of any number of alliances, both formal and informal--SCO, BRICS, OPEC+, BSEC, etc. They're not the global pariah that we like to imagine.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
Evaluating the strategy is what I'm trying to do. The fact that Ukraine or anyone else wants to join NATO is not decisive.
Lose Ukraine?RMF5630 said:Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.Redbrickbear said:If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
We never had it.
It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.
How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?
Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...Redbrickbear said:Lose Ukraine?RMF5630 said:Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.Redbrickbear said:If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
We never had it.
It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.
How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?
So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)RMF5630 said:Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...Redbrickbear said:Lose Ukraine?RMF5630 said:Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.Redbrickbear said:If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
We never had it.
It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.
How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?
They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.
Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.
But that is a different argument.
Lose Ukraine, means give Russia access to the next domino toward Bosporus. Ukraine comes under Russian control, Little sliver of Romania and Bulgaria is all that is left to control the Black Sea...Redbrickbear said:So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)RMF5630 said:Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...Redbrickbear said:Lose Ukraine?RMF5630 said:Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.Redbrickbear said:If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
We never had it.
It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.
How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?
They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.
Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.
But that is a different argument.
Oh the old Domino theory.RMF5630 said:Lose Ukraine, means give Russia access to the next domino toward Bosporus. Ukraine comes under Russian control, Little sliver of Romania and Bulgaria is all that is left to control the Black Sea...Redbrickbear said:So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)RMF5630 said:Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...Redbrickbear said:Lose Ukraine?RMF5630 said:Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.Redbrickbear said:If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?RMF5630 said:#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?Sam Lowry said:NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.RMF5630 said:THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?whiterock said:No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."Doc Holliday said:Then what should we do in that scenario?whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.
Do we put troops on the ground?
No.
You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine
If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.
It NEVER ends.
#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.
Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.
Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.
The game never ends......
The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.
As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.
There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.
You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?
And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"
3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.
I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:
- Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
- Hormuz
- Horn of Africa
- Panama Canal
- Japan
- Arctic
Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.
We never had it.
It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.
How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?
They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.
Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.
But that is a different argument.
How did that work out for us last time when that wildly inaccurate and speculative "theory" got us involved in the disaster of the Vietnam war?
https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-domino-theory-in-retrospect/
Not to mention Russia (if it even wanted the Bosporus choke point) would have to go through several NATO nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) to gain control. And would be militarily crushed it if tried.