Sam Lowry said:

---

Lincoln found some good generals eventually. That and the lack of foreign aid is what sealed the Confederacy's fate in relatively short order. Ukraine is in a somewhat better position, but I think that will only change the timeline and not the result.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"replace the native populations with German settlers."

So it was OK for Hitler to claim Austria and Czechoslovakia, because there were Germans in those places and we wanted to avoid a big war, it was only wrong when he went into Poland?

---

Austria is already populated with Germans...has been since the Bronze age.

The Sudetenland was also populated with German people. Had been for hundreds of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland

Its why the British and French did not feel fighting a war over those areas was the right thing to do.

It was what the whole Munich agreement was about. The Western powers allowed Germany to merge with Austria and incorporate the Sudenteland. With promises that these would be the last territorial demands Hitler would make in Europe.

They specifically told him that any invasion of Poland (non-ethnic German area) would mean war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

When Hitler later violated that agreement Britain and France could and did go to war. Doing so with the knowledge that they had tried to reach a peace deal and been very reasonable.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"replace the native populations with German settlers."

So it was OK for Hitler to claim Austria and Czechoslovakia, because there were Germans in those places and we wanted to avoid a big war, it was only wrong when he went into Poland?

---

Austria is already populated with Germans...has been since the Bronze age.

The Sudetenland was also populated with German people. Had been for hundreds of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland

Its why the British and French did not feel fighting a war over those areas was the right thing to do.

It was what the whole Munich agreement was about. The Western powers allowed Germany to merge with Austria and incorporate the Sudenteland. With promises that these would be the last territorial demands Hitler would make in Europe.

They specifically told him that any invasion of Poland (non-ethnic German area) would mean war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

When Hitler later violated that agreement Britain and France could and did go to war. Doing so with the knowledge that they had tried to reach a peace deal and been very reasonable.

---

Most historians I have read, contend that the Munich Agreement was a serious mistake by Britain and France.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

When Ukraine falls its going to happen in a matter of weeks . They would be wise to make a peace deal now.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

When Ukraine falls its going to happen in a matter of weeks . They would be wise to make a peace deal now.

---

As a politician once advised, lay back and enjoy it, hmmm?

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

When Ukraine falls its going to happen in a matter of weeks . They would be wise to make a peace deal now.

---

As a politician once advised, lay back and enjoy it, hmmm?

---

Either deal from a reasonable position of strength now or be looking at unconditional surrender ( or something close to it )
later .

The western media has been relatively quiet about Ukraine for months now .

There is a reason for it .

---

Reports of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers training in Europe is what I assessed. That’s 1.5 US divisions worth of ground combat power. The training they’ve received on combined arms operations will contribute to significant regaining of territory against poorly trained Russians. https://t.co/H07AuFSlbv

— MarkHertling (@MarkHertling) April 21, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

sombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

When Ukraine falls its going to happen in a matter of weeks . They would be wise to make a peace deal now.

---

As a politician once advised, lay back and enjoy it, hmmm?

---

Either deal from a reasonable position of strength now or be looking at unconditional surrender ( or something close to it )
later .

The western media has been relatively quiet about Ukraine for months now .

There is a reason for it .

---

Standing strong.

Reports of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers training in Europe is what I assessed. That’s 1.5 US divisions worth of ground combat power. The training they’ve received on combined arms operations will contribute to significant regaining of territory against poorly trained Russians. https://t.co/H07AuFSlbv

— MarkHertling (@MarkHertling) April 21, 2023

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"replace the native populations with German settlers."

So it was OK for Hitler to claim Austria and Czechoslovakia, because there were Germans in those places and we wanted to avoid a big war, it was only wrong when he went into Poland?

---

Austria is already populated with Germans...has been since the Bronze age.

The Sudetenland was also populated with German people. Had been for hundreds of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland

Its why the British and French did not feel fighting a war over those areas was the right thing to do.

It was what the whole Munich agreement was about. The Western powers allowed Germany to merge with Austria and incorporate the Sudenteland. With promises that these would be the last territorial demands Hitler would make in Europe.

They specifically told him that any invasion of Poland (non-ethnic German area) would mean war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

When Hitler later violated that agreement Britain and France could and did go to war. Doing so with the knowledge that they had tried to reach a peace deal and been very reasonable.

---

Most historians I have read, contend that the Munich Agreement was a serious mistake by Britain and France.

---

Then they are gravely mistaken.

Not only would it have been basically immoral to fight a massive European war to prevent one group of germans from uniting with another group of germans.

But more importantly France and Britain were not ready to fight a war in 1937-1938.

[the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938. If war had broken out over the Czechoslovak crisis, Britain would only have been able to send two divisions to the continentand ill-equipped divisions, at that...The British army, as it existed in September 1938, was simply not intended for continental warfare. Nor was the rearmament of the Navy or the Royal Air Force complete. British naval rearmament had just recommenced in 1936 as part of a five-year program. And although Hitler's Luftwaffe had repeatedly doubled in size in the late 1930s, it wasn't until April 1938 that the British government decided that its air force could purchase as many aircraft as could be produced.

All of this factored into what Chamberlain was hearing from his top military advisers. In March 1938 the British military chiefs of staff produced a report that concluded that Britain could not possibly stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia. In general, British generals believed the military and the nation were not ready for war.

On Sept. 20, 1938, then-Col. Hastings Ismay, secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defense, sent a note to Thomas Inskip, the minister for the coordination of defense, and Sir Horace Wilson, a civil servant. Time was on Britain's side, Ismay argued, writing that delaying the outbreak of war would give the Royal Air Force time to acquire airplanes that could counter the Luftwaffe, which he considered the only chance for defeating Hitler. British strategists, including Ismay, believed their country could win a long war (so long as they had time to prepare for it).]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/09/neville-chamberlain-was-right-to-cede-czechoslovakia-to-adolf-hitler-seventy-five-years-ago-the-british-prime-signed-the-munich-pact.html#:~:text=Most%20historians%20agree%20that%20the,%2Dequipped%20divisions%2C%20at%20that.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

Chasiv Yar is of no importance to anything other than Bakhmut, which itself is of no importance to anything other than Bakhmut. Indeed, the strategic insignificance of Bakhmut is what makes the Russian effort there so amazing. It literally has no value to anyone other than Putin, who needs it just so he can have a victory for domestic political purposes.

If it takes Russia a general mobilization of 300k troops and 3 months of fighting to take the first town in front of them, then the best thing Ukraine should hope for is for Russia to remain on the offensive, because Russia is terrible at it.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

As much right to desire it? Well sure I guess.

As much right to it? Come on that is not true.

Moscow and Kyiv have been connected (as allies or in actual political union of various sorts) for 400 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#:~:text=The%20Khmelnytsky%20Uprising%2C%20also%20known,the%20creation%20of%20a%20Cossack

And Moscow looks at Kyiv as the foundation of their sense of Slavic-Orthodox nationhood, culture, and civilization. Specifically the conversion of the eastern Slavs to Christianity under Vladimir the Great of Kyiv.

Vladimir was Grand Prince of Kyiv (Ukraine) and Prince of Novgorod (Russia). The Kievan Rus' State spanned much of what is modern Ukraine and modern Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%CA%B9

To say that we Americans have as much interest in Kyiv as the Russians do... would be like saying that the Russians have as much interest in Jamestown (Virginia) or Boston (Massachusetts) as we Americans do.

---

Helping Ukraine destroy the Russian Army, which it is doing, is the best thing that's happened to NATO since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Might even cause the collapse of the Putin regime and a return of democratic process in Russia. That would be a win for us, wouldn't it? To change the course of history in Russia toward liberal democracy rather than facilitate continued autocratic kleptocracy? And to do it without spilling a drop of American blood? When the Ukrainians are steely eyed about doing the job, because it's even more important to them than to us?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

you need better sources. You're description of what's happening is in most respects the opposite of reality. Russia is on the attack in Bakhmut. Ukraine is on the defense. It is Russia frantically throwing untrained bodies piecemeal into the grinder, and it is Ukraine is turning the handle. . Russia is suffering casualties at somewhere between 3-7x the rate of Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine holdilng action on the Russian front stymied the big Russian offensive at the first village it came to, allowing Ukraine to build and prepare for its spring counter-offensive. That is the reason for holding on so tenaciously to Bakhmut.....to bleed out the Russians, who indeed are transferring troops from other sectors into the battle to try to take the town for purely political reasons - to allow Putin to have a victory for the Russian people. Unfortunately for the Russians, that weakens their line elsewhere. Same mistake they made last fall, when they transferred troops from the east to shore up the Kherson front, where they were convinced the main attack would fall....only it didn't. It happened in the East.

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

Obviously Ukraine is on the defense. They just don't have much left to defend. And they need reinforcements, which can only come between the lengthening prongs of the Russian advance west of the city. The ultimate goal isn't a political win but the capture of Chasiv Yar, which will affect Ukrainian supplies all down the line.

---

Chasiv Yar is of no importance to anything other than Bakhmut, which itself is of no importance to anything other than Bakhmut. Indeed, the strategic insignificance of Bakhmut is what makes the Russian effort there so amazing. It literally has no value to anyone other than Putin, who needs it just so he can have a victory for domestic political purposes.

If it takes Russia a general mobilization of 300k troops and 3 months of fighting to take the first town in front of them, then the best thing Ukraine should hope for is for Russia to remain on the offensive, because Russia is terrible at it.

---

Wrong for several reasons. The first town in front of the Russians was Soledar, which they captured in January. Chasiv Yar, in addition to its importance as a supply and logistics hub for the region, is situated on high ground and will be a crucial point of defense during any Ukrainian counter-offensive. It's also within artillery range of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, both of which Russia must take in order to secure the newly annexed territory.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

As much right to desire it? Well sure I guess.

As much right to it? Come on that is not true.

Moscow and Kyiv have been connected (as allies or in actual political union of various sorts) for 400 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#:~:text=The%20Khmelnytsky%20Uprising%2C%20also%20known,the%20creation%20of%20a%20Cossack

And Moscow looks at Kyiv as the foundation of their sense of Slavic-Orthodox nationhood, culture, and civilization. Specifically the conversion of the eastern Slavs to Christianity under Vladimir the Great of Kyiv.

Vladimir was Grand Prince of Kyiv (Ukraine) and Prince of Novgorod (Russia). The Kievan Rus' State spanned much of what is modern Ukraine and modern Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%CA%B9

To say that we Americans have as much interest in Kyiv as the Russians do... would be like saying that the Russians have as much interest in Jamestown (Virginia) or Boston (Massachusetts) as we Americans do.

---

Helping Ukraine destroy the Russian Army, which it is doing, is the best thing that's happened to NATO since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Might even cause the collapse of the Putin regime and a return of democratic process in Russia. That would be a win for us, wouldn't it? To change the course of history in Russia toward liberal democracy rather than facilitate continued autocratic kleptocracy? And to do it without spilling a drop of American blood? When the Ukrainians are steely eyed about doing the job, because it's even more important to them than to us?

---

As always, regime change is the unspoken motive. It's the original sin which has corrupted our foreign policy since the Cold War. In our ideological zeal we have quickly replaced the Soviet Union as the world's biggest exporter of revolution.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

So?

The Confederate command and general staff ran rings around their Union counterparts.

Average Confederate fighting men also just plain out fought Union conscripts on a man to man basis throughout the war.

In the end it did not matter. The superior economic power of the Union, the superior fleets, the greater amount of factories and rail-lines, the greater man power eventually lead to a total Confederate defeat.

Every year the war went on the South had less of a chance at a negotiated victory.

Ukraine is in the same boat. They can out fight the Russians to a stand still. They can even whip their armies for a while. But eventually the overwhelming difference in manpower is going to end up being decisive.

Ukraine needs what the South needed.....intervention by foreign ground troops.

Is the USA-EU going to do that?

---

false dilemma.

Ukraine does not need intervention by foreign ground troops. Ukraine is not the CSA in your analogy. Ukraine is the Union. Ukraine has the Union's advantage in supply, and the CSA's advantage in leadership on the battlefield.

You are really, really misreading this.

USA-EU is going to keep Ukraine supplied with better arms & equipment and funding than Russia enjoys.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

So?

The Confederate command and general staff ran rings around their Union counterparts.

Average Confederate fighting men also just plain out fought Union conscripts on a man to man basis throughout the war.

In the end it did not matter. The superior economic power of the Union, the superior fleets, the greater amount of factories and rail-lines, the greater man power eventually lead to a total Confederate defeat.

Every year the war went on the South had less of a chance at a negotiated victory.

Ukraine is in the same boat. They can out fight the Russians to a stand still. They can even whip their armies for a while. But eventually the overwhelming difference in manpower is going to end up being decisive.

Ukraine needs what the South needed.....intervention by foreign ground troops.

Is the USA-EU going to do that?

---

false dilemma.

Ukraine does not need intervention by foreign ground troops. Ukraine is not the CSA in your analogy. Ukraine is the Union. Ukraine has the Union's advantage in supply, and the CSA's advantage in leadership on the battlefield.

You are really, really misreading this.

USA-EU is going to keep Ukraine supplied with better arms & equipment and funding than Russia enjoys.

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .

Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .

---

I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.

The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.

And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.

This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.

p.s.

I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

---

What it means is war decision making is directed by profit motive first before anything else.

---

Demonstrable nonsense that presumes there is no such thing as national interest.

National interest drives war making decisions. Yes, profits are made on military policy during and between wars. But that is a necessity, is it not? How can we build, maintain, and use armies & navies if no one makes a profit? Disarm and sing cumbaya to keep the invaders away? Who has ever built a successful model of social contract on that?

Profits are made building federal highways.
Profits are made selling uniforms to park rangers.
Profits are made selling text books to schools.
Profits are made selling homes to government employees.
etc.......

Government spending is about a quarter of GDP. Do profits made on transactions with government mean that all of government is driven solely by profit motive rather than the needs of basic social contract like fire, police, water systems, judiciaries, etc.....?

Massive cause-effect problem with such reasoning.

---

1. National interest most certainly does NOT ALWAYS drive war making decisions.

Indeed we can point to many instances throughout history when the decision to make war was done by small cliques in power, foolish Kings, tyrannical dictators, and directly opposed to the interests of the nation and the people at large.

2. And if all government spending drives positive economic growth...then why not just have the Federal government spend us into a utopia of growth and endless prosperity?

Milton Friedman would tell you why this does not work.

3. [FRIEDMAN: Well, carry that logic on and you're saying that having the government take over the whole economy would be a good way of increasing productivity. That's an argument for socialism. We have quasi-socialism now, where the economy is 50 percent socialist. If you take
ROBINSON: Fifty percent socialist? You don't mean the government already owns the means of production?
FRIEDMAN: Yes, of course I do. What does ownership of the means of production mean? It means you're entitled to the proceeds of the income that they generate.
Take a look at federal, state, and local spending. It amounts to 40 percent of the national income. Then add in all the mandates that government imposes on private spending for instance, when the government insists that you have anti-pollution devices on your car that might as well be on the budget. If you add those costs, plus all the regulations and restrictions on enterprises, that accounts for about another 10 percent. So about 50 percent of the output of the country is controlled by the government, which is equivalent to saying that the government owns 50 percent of the means of production.
FRIEDMAN: There's no doubt that the Pentagon funding has led to research, but you don't know what would have been done with that money if the government hadn't been spending it.
To judge the efficacy of government spending, we have to look at a much broader range. How is it that a place like Hong Kong can have nearly the same average income per person as the United States? Surely it's not because of Hong Kong's plethora of resources? No, it's because government spending in Hong Kong has been about 10 or 15 percent of the national income.
ROBINSON: What is it that is less productive about government spending? When money is spent through the political mechanism, why is that inherently inferior?
FRIEDMAN: Because nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. That's a fundamental principle. All government spending is spending somebody else's money. It's Ms. A taking money from Mr. B to give to Mr. C.]

---

again, logical fallacy error.

National interest always drives war decisions. That does not mean leaders always correctly understand national interest, that they properly prioritize what is actually MOST important. Romance often causes these kinds of errors. In this case, Putin's deep-seated feelings about Ukrainian nationality being a contrivance that would crumble at the sight of the first Russian tank was a spectacular miscalculation. As is your continued cause-effect error about the cause of the war. WE did not cause the war. Ukraine did not cause the war. Ukraine was an independent, non-aligned Eurasian nation which posed no threat to Russia. But Putin was tired of fooling with what he deemed an artificial country whose people actually wanted to belong to Russia. So he invaded on what he though would be a pushover operation. Yes, a hostile or Nato-allied Ukraine is an alarming national security situation to Russia, but it circumstances were nowhere near that state, nor were they foreordained to reach that state. Actually, it was highly unlikely that Ukraine would ever get the votes to join Nato. Russia had decades to continue working the problem as they had done the previous two decades. But Putin made an enormously bad strategic calculation and it will cost Russia possibly two centuries of geo-political gains.

If he survives the war, Putin will end it in a worse position than he started. The only question is how bad.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

So?

The Confederate command and general staff ran rings around their Union counterparts.

Average Confederate fighting men also just plain out fought Union conscripts on a man to man basis throughout the war.

In the end it did not matter. The superior economic power of the Union, the superior fleets, the greater amount of factories and rail-lines, the greater man power eventually lead to a total Confederate defeat.

Every year the war went on the South had less of a chance at a negotiated victory.

Ukraine is in the same boat. They can out fight the Russians to a stand still. They can even whip their armies for a while. But eventually the overwhelming difference in manpower is going to end up being decisive.

Ukraine needs what the South needed.....intervention by foreign ground troops.

Is the USA-EU going to do that?

---

false dilemma.

Ukraine does not need intervention by foreign ground troops. Ukraine is not the CSA in your analogy. Ukraine is the Union. Ukraine has the Union's advantage in supply, and the CSA's advantage in leadership on the battlefield.

You are really, really misreading this.

USA-EU is going to keep Ukraine supplied with better arms & equipment and funding than Russia enjoys.

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

you are making some assumptions that Russia might not be able to meet. Have you checked the value trends on the ruble recently?
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/others/russias-ailing-ruble-takes-another-hit-what-happens-now/ar-AA1a8S7U
at five year lows:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Everything you say would be correct if Ukraine was on its own, having to feed, clothe, arm its own troops. Were that the case, the war would already be over. But that is not the case.

Nato has correctly identified that it does have an interest in the outcome of the war. A number of necessaries flow from that. The Ukrainian state must survive. The war must finish with Russia totally exhausted, decades away from full rearmament. If Ukraine is to remain economically viable, it must own sovereignty over Crimea (fate of Russian naval base at Sebastapol negotiable) in order to A) ensure flow of goods to/from it's major industrial ports in the Sea of Azov, and B) ensure revenues from oil/gas reserves across much of the northern Black Sea up thru the Sea of Azov and into the Donbas. Ergo, Nato has opened up cash and materiel flows that Russia cannot match over time.

A truce right now just gives Russia a breather, a chance to raise more troops and send more ammo to the front line. Ukraine must keep the battle going on, forcing Russia to strain ever harder to resupply, to the point its sclerotic supply lines crack. As long as Nato continues to supply Ukraine, Ukraine can outlast Russia, despite Russia having, on paper at least, far greater resources to wage war than Ukraine.

This is a proxy war. The Nato economy dwarfs the Russian economy by a ratio that far exceeds the advantage Russia has over Ukraine. All Ukraine has to supply is sweat equity, while the vastly superior economies of Nato outspend the heavily sanctioned Russian economy. And Ukraine has the population to do that, particularly given that they are inflicting casualties on Russia at a 7-1 rate.

As long as Russia wants to feed its sons into the maw, we should keep it grinding away. They've grabbed the tarbaby of all tarbabies.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

So?

The Confederate command and general staff ran rings around their Union counterparts.

Average Confederate fighting men also just plain out fought Union conscripts on a man to man basis throughout the war.

In the end it did not matter. The superior economic power of the Union, the superior fleets, the greater amount of factories and rail-lines, the greater man power eventually lead to a total Confederate defeat.

Every year the war went on the South had less of a chance at a negotiated victory.

Ukraine is in the same boat. They can out fight the Russians to a stand still. They can even whip their armies for a while. But eventually the overwhelming difference in manpower is going to end up being decisive.

Ukraine needs what the South needed.....intervention by foreign ground troops.

Is the USA-EU going to do that?

---

false dilemma.

Ukraine does not need intervention by foreign ground troops. Ukraine is not the CSA in your analogy. Ukraine is the Union. Ukraine has the Union's advantage in supply, and the CSA's advantage in leadership on the battlefield.

You are really, really misreading this.

USA-EU is going to keep Ukraine supplied with better arms & equipment and funding than Russia enjoys.

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

you are making some assumptions that Russia might not be able to meet. Have you checked the value trends on the ruble recently?
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/others/russias-ailing-ruble-takes-another-hit-what-happens-now/ar-AA1a8S7U
at five year lows:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Everything you say would be correct if Ukraine was on its own, having to feed, clothe, arm its own troops. Were that the case, the war would already be over. But that is not the case.

Nato has correctly identified that it does have an interest in the outcome of the war. A number of necessaries flow from that. The Ukrainian state must survive. The war must finish with Russia totally exhausted, decades away from full rearmament. If Ukraine is to remain economically viable, it must own sovereignty over Crimea (fate of Russian naval base at Sebastapol negotiable) in order to A) ensure flow of goods to/from it's major industrial ports in the Sea of Azov, and B) ensure revenues from oil/gas reserves across much of the northern Black Sea up thru the Sea of Azov and into the Donbas. Ergo, Nato has opened up cash and materiel flows that Russia cannot match over time.

A truce right now just gives Russia a breather, a chance to raise more troops and send more ammo to the front line. Ukraine must keep the battle going on, forcing Russia to strain ever harder to resupply, to the point its sclerotic supply lines crack. As long as Nato continues to supply Ukraine, Ukraine can outlast Russia, despite Russia having, on paper at least, far greater resources to wage war than Ukraine.

This is a proxy war. The Nato economy dwarfs the Russian economy by a ratio that far exceeds the advantage Russia has over Ukraine. All Ukraine has to supply is sweat equity, while the vastly superior economies of Nato outspend the heavily sanctioned Russian economy. And Ukraine has the population to do that, particularly given that they are inflicting casualties on Russia at a 7-1 rate.

As long as Russia wants to feed its sons into the maw, we should keep it grinding away. They've grabbed the tarbaby of all tarbabies.

---

Just the flippant way people in our government and on this site casually acknowledge that we are now in a bloody proxy war with a nuclear armed state.....without any vote by the American people...its just stunning.

A nation that has not attacked us by the way.

But this maw as you say is chewing up Ukrainian sons as much as it is chewing up Russian ones. Yet Ukraine can not keep that kind of causality rate up forever.

And even if funding these proxy wars was not at its base level highly immoral...its also unlikely to get us what we want. Heck what do we even want? Regime change in Moscow? The end of the 1,000 year old Russian State itself? No one can seem to agree with what is a final outcome should be.

Just like Afghanistan and Iraq were are tripping and stumbling into another long bloody conflict that is massively expensive and with no clear cut exit strategy or clear point of "victory".

---

The neocon press cycle:

1) New threat to American Democracy in country X!
2) Anyone who questions this narrative is unpatriotic/traitor.
3) Victory is imminent and guaranteed.
4) Victory will take time but is worth it.
5) If we don’t redouble our efforts, we will lose.
6)…

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) April 24, 2023

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Then they are gravely mistaken."

Or - just perhaps - you are.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .

---

Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?

---

A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.

---

People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.

And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.

But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?

---

I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.

Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.

We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.

we will know a lot more in 60 days.

---

You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.

---

The Ukrainian command & general staff is running rings around their Russian counterparts.

---

So?

The Confederate command and general staff ran rings around their Union counterparts.

Average Confederate fighting men also just plain out fought Union conscripts on a man to man basis throughout the war.

In the end it did not matter. The superior economic power of the Union, the superior fleets, the greater amount of factories and rail-lines, the greater man power eventually lead to a total Confederate defeat.

Every year the war went on the South had less of a chance at a negotiated victory.

Ukraine is in the same boat. They can out fight the Russians to a stand still. They can even whip their armies for a while. But eventually the overwhelming difference in manpower is going to end up being decisive.

Ukraine needs what the South needed.....intervention by foreign ground troops.

Is the USA-EU going to do that?

---

false dilemma.

Ukraine does not need intervention by foreign ground troops. Ukraine is not the CSA in your analogy. Ukraine is the Union. Ukraine has the Union's advantage in supply, and the CSA's advantage in leadership on the battlefield.

You are really, really misreading this.

USA-EU is going to keep Ukraine supplied with better arms & equipment and funding than Russia enjoys.

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. https://t.co/akysDc1Y8f pic.twitter.com/eBvZ9lJcmo

— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) April 24, 2023

trey3216 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Demonstrable nonsense that presumes there is no such thing as national interest.

National interest drives war making decisions. Yes, profits are made on military policy during and between wars. But that is a necessity, is it not? How can we build, maintain, and use armies & navies if no one makes a profit? Disarm and sing cumbaya to keep the invaders away? Who has ever built a successful model of social contract on that?

Profits are made building federal highways.
Profits are made selling uniforms to park rangers.
Profits are made selling text books to schools.
Profits are made selling homes to government employees.
etc.......

Government spending is about a quarter of GDP. Do profits made on transactions with government mean that all of government is driven solely by profit motive rather than the needs of basic social contract like fire, police, water systems, judiciaries, etc.....?

Massive cause-effect problem with such reasoning.

---

1. National interest most certainly does NOT ALWAYS drive war making decisions.

Indeed we can point to many instances throughout history when the decision to make war was done by small cliques in power, foolish Kings, tyrannical dictators, and directly opposed to the interests of the nation and the people at large.

2. And if all government spending drives positive economic growth...then why not just have the Federal government spend us into a utopia of growth and endless prosperity?

Milton Friedman would tell you why this does not work.

3. [FRIEDMAN: Well, carry that logic on and you're saying that having the government take over the whole economy would be a good way of increasing productivity. That's an argument for socialism. We have quasi-socialism now, where the economy is 50 percent socialist. If you take
ROBINSON: Fifty percent socialist? You don't mean the government already owns the means of production?
FRIEDMAN: Yes, of course I do. What does ownership of the means of production mean? It means you're entitled to the proceeds of the income that they generate.
Take a look at federal, state, and local spending. It amounts to 40 percent of the national income. Then add in all the mandates that government imposes on private spending for instance, when the government insists that you have anti-pollution devices on your car that might as well be on the budget. If you add those costs, plus all the regulations and restrictions on enterprises, that accounts for about another 10 percent. So about 50 percent of the output of the country is controlled by the government, which is equivalent to saying that the government owns 50 percent of the means of production.
FRIEDMAN: There's no doubt that the Pentagon funding has led to research, but you don't know what would have been done with that money if the government hadn't been spending it.
To judge the efficacy of government spending, we have to look at a much broader range. How is it that a place like Hong Kong can have nearly the same average income per person as the United States? Surely it's not because of Hong Kong's plethora of resources? No, it's because government spending in Hong Kong has been about 10 or 15 percent of the national income.
ROBINSON: What is it that is less productive about government spending? When money is spent through the political mechanism, why is that inherently inferior?
FRIEDMAN: Because nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. That's a fundamental principle. All government spending is spending somebody else's money. It's Ms. A taking money from Mr. B to give to Mr. C.]

---

again, logical fallacy error.

National interest always drives war decisions. That does not mean leaders always correctly understand national interest, that they properly prioritize what is actually MOST important. Romance often causes these kinds of errors. In this case, Putin's deep-seated feelings about Ukrainian nationality being a contrivance that would crumble at the sight of the first Russian tank was a spectacular miscalculation. As is your continued cause-effect error about the cause of the war. WE did not cause the war. Ukraine did not cause the war. Ukraine was an independent, non-aligned Eurasian nation which posed no threat to Russia. But Putin was tired of fooling with what he deemed an artificial country whose people actually wanted to belong to Russia. So he invaded on what he though would be a pushover operation. Yes, a hostile or Nato-allied Ukraine is an alarming national security situation to Russia, but it circumstances were nowhere near that state, nor were they foreordained to reach that state. Actually, it was highly unlikely that Ukraine would ever get the votes to join Nato. Russia had decades to continue working the problem as they had done the previous two decades. But Putin made an enormously bad strategic calculation and it will cost Russia possibly two centuries of geo-political gains.

If he survives the war, Putin will end it in a worse position than he started. The only question is how bad.

---

The threat Ukraine posed to Russia was and is the fact that Ukraine has significant natural resources that could prevent Russia from being the only game in town re: Europe for the supplier of those resources.

THey attacked and annexed the parts of Ukraine that hold the vast majority of those resources solely to prevent Ukraine from being able to a) use them to make money by supplying them to Europe and b) drastically reducing the Russian profiteering on their own supply.

The fact that Russia views Ukraine/Ukrainian as as a non-nation is the 3rd factor, but equally and perhaps even more relevant than the other factors.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

you are making some assumptions that Russia might not be able to meet. Have you checked the value trends on the ruble recently?
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/others/russias-ailing-ruble-takes-another-hit-what-happens-now/ar-AA1a8S7U
at five year lows:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Everything you say would be correct if Ukraine was on its own, having to feed, clothe, arm its own troops. Were that the case, the war would already be over. But that is not the case.

Nato has correctly identified that it does have an interest in the outcome of the war. A number of necessaries flow from that. The Ukrainian state must survive. The war must finish with Russia totally exhausted, decades away from full rearmament. If Ukraine is to remain economically viable, it must own sovereignty over Crimea (fate of Russian naval base at Sebastapol negotiable) in order to A) ensure flow of goods to/from it's major industrial ports in the Sea of Azov, and B) ensure revenues from oil/gas reserves across much of the northern Black Sea up thru the Sea of Azov and into the Donbas. Ergo, Nato has opened up cash and materiel flows that Russia cannot match over time.

A truce right now just gives Russia a breather, a chance to raise more troops and send more ammo to the front line. Ukraine must keep the battle going on, forcing Russia to strain ever harder to resupply, to the point its sclerotic supply lines crack. As long as Nato continues to supply Ukraine, Ukraine can outlast Russia, despite Russia having, on paper at least, far greater resources to wage war than Ukraine.

This is a proxy war. The Nato economy dwarfs the Russian economy by a ratio that far exceeds the advantage Russia has over Ukraine. All Ukraine has to supply is sweat equity, while the vastly superior economies of Nato outspend the heavily sanctioned Russian economy. And Ukraine has the population to do that, particularly given that they are inflicting casualties on Russia at a 7-1 rate.

As long as Russia wants to feed its sons into the maw, we should keep it grinding away. They've grabbed the tarbaby of all tarbabies.

---

Just the flippant way people in our government and on this site casually acknowledge that we are now in a bloody proxy war with a nuclear armed state.....without any vote by the American people...its just stunning.

A nation that has not attacked us by the way.

But this maw as you say is chewing up Ukrainian sons as much as it is chewing up Russian ones. Yet Ukraine can not keep that kind of causality rate up forever.

And even if funding these proxy wars was not at its base level highly immoral...its also unlikely to get us what we want. Heck what do we even want? Regime change in Moscow? The end of the 1,000 year old Russian State itself? No one can seem to agree with what is a final outcome should be.

Just like Afghanistan and Iraq were are tripping and stumbling into another long bloody conflict that is massively expensive and with no clear cut exit strategy or clear point of "victory".

---

Proxy wars are preferable to direct conflict, are they not? They are exactly how great powers engage one another militarily when they cannot come to a peaceful agreement, because they are by wide margin preferable to direct conflict.

"A nation which has not attacked us, by the way" is an old fallacy which presumes war is defined by military conflict. Remember the Cold War? Nations jockey and bluster and negotiate and ally and even poke & prod with third parties all the time. It's how the game is played......to avoid all out conflict.

Ukraine can keep up a 7-1 favorable casualty rate longer than Russia can. Ukrainians are united as one for a war to the death. Same cannot be said for Putin, who is trying to hide the true cost of the war from the Russian people to avoid unrest in the streets.

What we want has been quite clearly stated: Russian withdrawal from sovereign Ukrainian territory. You just don't take it seriously. Regime change has been mentioned as one way to achieve that outcome, and we were wise to do so. It puts pressure on Putin, who has resisted it and pressed on, tying his fate to the outcome of the war. That's fine. He needs to go. We don't want to ever have a Russian head of state who ever again thinks Nato will stand idly by when Russian armies cross European borders.

The analogs you mentioned are not applicable. Holding onto them so tightly badly affects your perception of what is happening. We have not, and will not commit troops to Ukraine. We've been quite consistent on that. Nato has been consistent on that. More to the point, it will not be necessary. Russia is not going to win the war. Ukraine can outlast them (thanks to Nato support).

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

you are making some assumptions that Russia might not be able to meet. Have you checked the value trends on the ruble recently?
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/others/russias-ailing-ruble-takes-another-hit-what-happens-now/ar-AA1a8S7U
at five year lows:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Everything you say would be correct if Ukraine was on its own, having to feed, clothe, arm its own troops. Were that the case, the war would already be over. But that is not the case.

Nato has correctly identified that it does have an interest in the outcome of the war. A number of necessaries flow from that. The Ukrainian state must survive. The war must finish with Russia totally exhausted, decades away from full rearmament. If Ukraine is to remain economically viable, it must own sovereignty over Crimea (fate of Russian naval base at Sebastapol negotiable) in order to A) ensure flow of goods to/from it's major industrial ports in the Sea of Azov, and B) ensure revenues from oil/gas reserves across much of the northern Black Sea up thru the Sea of Azov and into the Donbas. Ergo, Nato has opened up cash and materiel flows that Russia cannot match over time.

A truce right now just gives Russia a breather, a chance to raise more troops and send more ammo to the front line. Ukraine must keep the battle going on, forcing Russia to strain ever harder to resupply, to the point its sclerotic supply lines crack. As long as Nato continues to supply Ukraine, Ukraine can outlast Russia, despite Russia having, on paper at least, far greater resources to wage war than Ukraine.

This is a proxy war. The Nato economy dwarfs the Russian economy by a ratio that far exceeds the advantage Russia has over Ukraine. All Ukraine has to supply is sweat equity, while the vastly superior economies of Nato outspend the heavily sanctioned Russian economy. And Ukraine has the population to do that, particularly given that they are inflicting casualties on Russia at a 7-1 rate.

As long as Russia wants to feed its sons into the maw, we should keep it grinding away. They've grabbed the tarbaby of all tarbabies.

---

Just the flippant way people in our government and on this site casually acknowledge that we are now in a bloody proxy war with a nuclear armed state.....without any vote by the American people...its just stunning.

A nation that has not attacked us by the way.

But this maw as you say is chewing up Ukrainian sons as much as it is chewing up Russian ones. Yet Ukraine can not keep that kind of causality rate up forever.

And even if funding these proxy wars was not at its base level highly immoral...its also unlikely to get us what we want. Heck what do we even want? Regime change in Moscow? The end of the 1,000 year old Russian State itself? No one can seem to agree with what is a final outcome should be.

Just like Afghanistan and Iraq were are tripping and stumbling into another long bloody conflict that is massively expensive and with no clear cut exit strategy or clear point of "victory".

---

Proxy wars are preferable to direct conflict, are they not? They are exactly how great powers engage one another militarily when they cannot come to a peaceful agreement, because they are by wide margin preferable to direct conflict.

"A nation which has not attacked us, by the way" is an old fallacy which presumes war is defined by military conflict. Remember the Cold War? Nations jockey and bluster and negotiate and ally and even poke & prod with third parties all the time. It's how the game is played......to avoid all out conflict.

Ukraine can keep up a 7-1 favorable casualty rate longer than Russia can. Ukrainians are united as one for a war to the death. Same cannot be said for Putin, who is trying to hide the true cost of the war from the Russian people to avoid unrest in the streets.

What we want has been quite clearly stated: Russian withdrawal from sovereign Ukrainian territory. You just don't take it seriously. Regime change has been mentioned as one way to achieve that outcome, and we were wise to do so. It puts pressure on Putin, who has resisted it and pressed on, tying his fate to the outcome of the war. That's fine. He needs to go. We don't want to ever have a Russian head of state who ever again thinks Nato will stand idly by when Russian armies cross European borders.

The analogs you mentioned are not applicable. Holding onto them so tightly badly affects your perception of what is happening. We have not, and will not commit troops to Ukraine. We've been quite consistent on that. Nato has been consistent on that. More to the point, it will not be necessary. Russia is not going to win the war. Ukraine can outlast them (thanks to Nato support).

---

No reliable source has Ukraine with a 7 to 1 favorable rate. The most favorable estimate I've seen from Western officials is 5 to 1, and that only applies to Bakhmut. Overall it's likely between 2-3 to 1.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

you are making some assumptions that Russia might not be able to meet. Have you checked the value trends on the ruble recently?
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/others/russias-ailing-ruble-takes-another-hit-what-happens-now/ar-AA1a8S7U
at five year lows:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Everything you say would be correct if Ukraine was on its own, having to feed, clothe, arm its own troops. Were that the case, the war would already be over. But that is not the case.

Nato has correctly identified that it does have an interest in the outcome of the war. A number of necessaries flow from that. The Ukrainian state must survive. The war must finish with Russia totally exhausted, decades away from full rearmament. If Ukraine is to remain economically viable, it must own sovereignty over Crimea (fate of Russian naval base at Sebastapol negotiable) in order to A) ensure flow of goods to/from it's major industrial ports in the Sea of Azov, and B) ensure revenues from oil/gas reserves across much of the northern Black Sea up thru the Sea of Azov and into the Donbas. Ergo, Nato has opened up cash and materiel flows that Russia cannot match over time.

A truce right now just gives Russia a breather, a chance to raise more troops and send more ammo to the front line. Ukraine must keep the battle going on, forcing Russia to strain ever harder to resupply, to the point its sclerotic supply lines crack. As long as Nato continues to supply Ukraine, Ukraine can outlast Russia, despite Russia having, on paper at least, far greater resources to wage war than Ukraine.

This is a proxy war. The Nato economy dwarfs the Russian economy by a ratio that far exceeds the advantage Russia has over Ukraine. All Ukraine has to supply is sweat equity, while the vastly superior economies of Nato outspend the heavily sanctioned Russian economy. And Ukraine has the population to do that, particularly given that they are inflicting casualties on Russia at a 7-1 rate.

As long as Russia wants to feed its sons into the maw, we should keep it grinding away. They've grabbed the tarbaby of all tarbabies.

---

Just the flippant way people in our government and on this site casually acknowledge that we are now in a bloody proxy war with a nuclear armed state.....without any vote by the American people...its just stunning.

A nation that has not attacked us by the way.

But this maw as you say is chewing up Ukrainian sons as much as it is chewing up Russian ones. Yet Ukraine can not keep that kind of causality rate up forever.

And even if funding these proxy wars was not at its base level highly immoral...its also unlikely to get us what we want. Heck what do we even want? Regime change in Moscow? The end of the 1,000 year old Russian State itself? No one can seem to agree with what is a final outcome should be.

Just like Afghanistan and Iraq were are tripping and stumbling into another long bloody conflict that is massively expensive and with no clear cut exit strategy or clear point of "victory".

---

Proxy wars are preferable to direct conflict, are they not? They are exactly how great powers engage one another militarily when they cannot come to a peaceful agreement, because they are by wide margin preferable to direct conflict.

"A nation which has not attacked us, by the way" is an old fallacy which presumes war is defined by military conflict. Remember the Cold War? Nations jockey and bluster and negotiate and ally and even poke & prod with third parties all the time. It's how the game is played......to avoid all out conflict.

Ukraine can keep up a 7-1 favorable casualty rate longer than Russia can. Ukrainians are united as one for a war to the death. Same cannot be said for Putin, who is trying to hide the true cost of the war from the Russian people to avoid unrest in the streets.

What we want has been quite clearly stated: Russian withdrawal from sovereign Ukrainian territory. You just don't take it seriously. Regime change has been mentioned as one way to achieve that outcome, and we were wise to do so. It puts pressure on Putin, who has resisted it and pressed on, tying his fate to the outcome of the war. That's fine. He needs to go. We don't want to ever have a Russian head of state who ever again thinks Nato will stand idly by when Russian armies cross European borders.

The analogs you mentioned are not applicable. Holding onto them so tightly badly affects your perception of what is happening. We have not, and will not commit troops to Ukraine. We've been quite consistent on that. Nato has been consistent on that. More to the point, it will not be necessary. Russia is not going to win the war. Ukraine can outlast them (thanks to Nato support).

---