Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

---

Oversimplified, at best. I've posted a pre-Maidan Ukraine poll by USAID showing about equal levels of support for the US and Russia, with the US viewed as slightly more of a threat. It would be one thing if Russia had supported the overthrow of a duly elected government in 2014 and turned Ukraine into a puppet state. The fact that we had to do it instead tells you a lot.

Also, BRICS says hi.

---

I was referring to people, not countries, but regardless, BRICS is your retort? What a motley crew that is! But, more importantly, those countries aren't "controlled" by the others, and it's basically an economic alliance, in which most of those countries do as much business with the U.S. as the others.

Is the poll you reference from the East or are you saying the entire country?

As you know, I think it's comical that folks seriously think we were responsible for Maidan. And Russia, they didn't support an overthrow . . . they just invaded . . . twice.

---

It was a nationwide poll. Ukraine wasn't really being controlled by Russia either; I was just mirroring your language.

If you like comedy, keep an eye on Georgia. We're currently trying to do the same thing there.

---

Is Nuland handing out cookies in Tbilisi now? Seriously, though, you're surprised Georgians don't want to align with Russia?

---

You remain steadfastly unaware of what Western NGOs do, and they want to make very certain it stays that way.

---

He knows what they do…and he knows they are a tool of DC state craft…that is why he likes them

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

1. You act like being in the EU solves all problems.

Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia are still poor and corrupt and lost out of the promised movement of jobs from the richer EU counties that was promised in the 1990s. Big capital just moved the jobs straight to Asia and cut out the Eastern European/Balkans middle man.

2. But even if getting into the EU solved all problems (and it is most certainly better than Russia) it still does not explain why the USA should get involved in a bloody proxy war to make that happen?

Why should the CIA and U.S. taxpayers being paying for this war?


3. I'm sure Mongolia would be better off as a U.S. state…but that is never going to happen. It's always going to be within the Chinese-sphere of orbit

There are facts on the ground that don't change.

Canada is not getting out from under the wing of the American eagle….for good or bad

---

Why are China, Iran, and North Korea doing even more to help Russia?

---

They see US power as a threat to them in their regions as well?

Iran was of course nearly surrounded by US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both have no love for the USA

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman. Freedom is actually the pre-2014 situation with the ability to negotiate the best deal with all comers and not Arkanciding hundreds of thousands of your own citizens due to dictates from foreign capitals.
They are fighting for the right to not be told what to do by Moscow.

I think a lot of people aren't aware just how badly regime media and the deep state manipulate their thinking.

Regime media:

"Kiev, whose shortages of manpower have been compounded by delays to Western arms supplies..." (Reuters)
a shortage of ammo compounds all problems.

Also regime media:

"Ukraine war: Zelensky says 31,000 troops killed since Russia's full-scale invasion" (BBC)

So lets reason through this. 31,000 KIA doesn't constitute a manpower shortage. 310,000 does. Equipment does not make up for manpower. If someone snapped their fingers today and sent 500 F-16s to Kiev, without the pilots to fly them, mechanics to service them, and ground crew to fuel them they are little more than targets. So the Reuters statement conflating equipment and manpower is patently false UNLESS what they are really saying is that delays in general arms, ammunition, and artillery have gotten ten times as many of the UAF KIA as Zelensky is willing to admit. But one of those headlines is a lie.
I don't understand how you not see how wrong you are about the importance of equipment and ammo in warfare. More/better equipment indeed does make up for manpower shortages. Technology to develop more/better equipment is exactly how one offsets manpower shortages, on the factor floor and on the battle field. That's one of the big lessons of the Ukraine war...using drones as force multipliers.....

Lets look at another:

"Ukraine war: Zelenskyy cancels all foreign trips - as Russian troops 'partially pushed back' (Sky News)

Now there's no tactical reason to cancel all foreign trips. The current limited Russian advance in Kharkov to eliminate the UAF's shelling of the civilian populace of Belograd has no effect on Zelensky's ability to leave the country. The Russian military has openly stated that they have no desire to capture or occupy Kharkov, and the relatively small size of the force that they have commited to action there backs this up.
Canceling a trip to stay home to deal with a problem is good leadership.


The real reason Zelensky isn't going anywhere? Well, the president of this bastion of democracy has cancelled Ukrainian elections and his constitutionally provided for term ends next week. After Monday, Zelensky is every bit the dictator of Ukraine as the Kim family is of North Korea, and there's no sugar coating that.
Nothing remarkable about cancelling elections during wartime. Examples abound, to include Britain during WWII.

"But the war!" Really? You're OK with cancelling the US election in November if we go to war?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

---

that's the way a diplomat says "I miscalculated and now have a new position."

---

Maybe...

It also might just be Kissinger saying "I told you this would spark a war with Moscow...but since you did it anyway and the war came...we might as well just finish the job and pull Ukraine into the USA/EU orbit"

He was a realist after all.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

---

that's the way a diplomat says "I miscalculated and now have a new position."

---

Maybe...

It also might just be Kissinger saying "I told you this would spark a war with Moscow...but since you did it anyway and the war came...we might as well just finish the job and pull Ukraine into the USA/EU orbit"

He was a realist after all.

---

but wait....if we can pull Ukraine into the US/EU orbit without US/EU having to get directly engaged in a war, isn't that a good thing? It's what Ukraine wants (to be part of EU). And it certainly benefits US/EU. So why would we not want that if such is possible?
.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

---

that's the way a diplomat says "I miscalculated and now have a new position."

---

Maybe...

It also might just be Kissinger saying "I told you this would spark a war with Moscow...but since you did it anyway and the war came...we might as well just finish the job and pull Ukraine into the USA/EU orbit"

He was a realist after all.

---

but wait....if we can pull Ukraine into the US/EU orbit without US/EU having to get directly engaged in a war, isn't that a good thing? It's what Ukraine wants (to be part of EU). And it certainly benefits US/EU. So why would we not want that if such is possible?
.

---

Because it's not possible…that is the point

Without direct U.S. troop involvement Ukraine is not going to win this war with Russia and they are not going to join NATO (join the Western orbit)

It's a fools errand

Just like trying to engage in long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan was a fools errand that was going to end in failure.

Ukraine will ALWAYS mean more to Moscow than to DC

Iraq will ALWAYS mean more to Tehran than to DC

Mongolia will ALWAYS mean more to Beijing than to DC

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

Quote:

---

The real reason Zelensky isn't going anywhere? Well, the president of this bastion of democracy has cancelled Ukrainian elections and his constitutionally provided for term ends next week. After Monday, Zelensky is every bit the dictator of Ukraine as the Kim family is of North Korea, and there's no sugar coating that.
Nothing remarkable about cancelling elections during wartime. Examples abound, to include Britain during WWII.

"But the war!" Really? You're OK with cancelling the US election in November if we go to war?

you are unhinged, friend....

---

sombear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

I am not a military expert. But there are actually all sorts of analysts out there explaining how Ukraine can win. Some say they will win going on offense in 2025, others say staying on defense and stonewalling Russia.

I think the mostly likely "win" for Ukraine, and I am NOT predicting this, is to stay on the defensive, hope for Russia's economy to tank and public sentiment to turn, and eventually reach agreement that both sides can claim is a win. It would include Russia getting much of the east, but Ukraine maintaining its total sovereignty with a gray zone for international peacekeepers as necessary. Unfortunately, at this time, neither side would go for this.

---

sombear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

I am not a military expert. But there are actually all sorts of analysts out there explaining how Ukraine can win. Some say they will win going on offense in 2025, others say staying on defense and stonewalling Russia.

I think the mostly likely "win" for Ukraine, and I am NOT predicting this, is to stay on the defensive, hope for Russia's economy to tank and public sentiment to turn, and eventually reach agreement that both sides can claim is a win. It would include Russia getting much of the east, but Ukraine maintaining its total sovereignty with a gray zone for international peacekeepers as necessary. Unfortunately, at this time, neither side would go for this.

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

sombear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

I am not a military expert. But there are actually all sorts of analysts out there explaining how Ukraine can win. Some say they will win going on offense in 2025, others say staying on defense and stonewalling Russia.

I think the mostly likely "win" for Ukraine, and I am NOT predicting this, is to stay on the defensive, hope for Russia's economy to tank and public sentiment to turn, and eventually reach agreement that both sides can claim is a win. It would include Russia getting much of the east, but Ukraine maintaining its total sovereignty with a gray zone for international peacekeepers as necessary. Unfortunately, at this time, neither side would go for this.

---

Ya, the problem is that the bleeding Russia dry strategy is what they've been trying for months, and it's not working. It's an Pyrrhic victory. The south tried the same strategy in the American Civil War. It does not work without the direct military intervention of a superpower like the American south was hoping Britain would do and like France did for the colonies. And I think we will all be waiting a month of Sundays for Ukraine to go on the offensive. 2025 will turn into 2026 before you know it.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

Where does the Budapest Memorandum say anything about Ukraine choosing its own alignment?

---

It's right there in bold. You must have skipped the "sovereignty" lecture in Poli Sci class.

---

A frivolous argument, as if recognizing Ukraine's independence caused all its commitments to magically disappear.

---

LOL apparently, recognizing Ukrainian independence apparently did cause Russian commitments to magically disappear, given that Ukraine was a neutral state on the day Russia invaded.....

---

Ridiculous. A neutral state doesn't have NATO membership enshrined in its constitution.

---

Ukraine joined the Nato Partner in Peace program 30 years ago. Why did it take Russia so long to decide it had to invade?

---

If you are living under an oppressive regime and I see you do this I will switch to supporting the regime. https://t.co/QP3pP9GE3s

— DeleteTheNats (@DeleteTheNats) May 17, 2024

247+ years of empirical evidence. 🇺🇸
- growth
- power
- influence
- freedom
- equality
- desirability
- diversity
- geography
- business
- tech
- medicine
- education
- military
- law
- entertainment
- agriculture
- manufacturing
- innovation
- exploration
- charity
- me https://t.co/2qK9RarhAU

— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) May 18, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

Georgia's law is more similar to our own than it is to Russia's. It's something so oppressive that most Americans don't even know it exists. The idea that there are spontaneous mass demonstrations against it is laughable.

What's funny is that this time the NGOs didn't even choose something as plausible as the EU or Big Oil as the victims in their revolutionary struggle. They literally chose themselves. It's like they're making fun of us for not getting it. Whoever pitched the narrative must have thought it was very meta.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

---

that's the way a diplomat says "I miscalculated and now have a new position."

---

Maybe...

It also might just be Kissinger saying "I told you this would spark a war with Moscow...but since you did it anyway and the war came...we might as well just finish the job and pull Ukraine into the USA/EU orbit"

He was a realist after all.

---

but wait....if we can pull Ukraine into the US/EU orbit without US/EU having to get directly engaged in a war, isn't that a good thing? It's what Ukraine wants (to be part of EU). And it certainly benefits US/EU. So why would we not want that if such is possible?
.

---

Because it's not possible…that is the point

Without direct U.S. troop involvement Ukraine is not going to win this war with Russia and they are not going to join NATO (join the Western orbit)

It's a fools errand

Just like trying to engage in long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan was a fools errand that was going to end in failure.

Ukraine will ALWAYS mean more to Moscow than to DC

Iraq will ALWAYS mean more to Tehran than to DC

Mongolia will ALWAYS mean more to Beijing than to DC

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Georgia's law is more similar to our own than it is to Russia's. It's something so oppressive that most Americans don't even know it exists. The idea that there are spontaneous mass demonstrations against it is laughable.

What's funny is that this time the NGOs didn't even choose something as plausible as the EU or Big Oil as the victims in their revolutionary struggle. They literally chose themselves. It's like they're making fun of us for not getting it. Whoever pitched the narrative must have thought it was very meta.

---

Totally disagree. The public may or may not be exaggerating how drastic the law is, but it is understandable either way. They despise Russia with every fiber of their being, and they believe the EU and NATO are the only way the survive.

BTW I didn't know Nuland was so influential with all those Georgian Gen Z-ers . . . . .

---

sombear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

I am not a military expert. But there are actually all sorts of analysts out there explaining how Ukraine can win. Some say they will win going on offense in 2025, others say staying on defense and stonewalling Russia.

I think the mostly likely "win" for Ukraine, and I am NOT predicting this, is to stay on the defensive, hope for Russia's economy to tank and public sentiment to turn, and eventually reach agreement that both sides can claim is a win. It would include Russia getting much of the east, but Ukraine maintaining its total sovereignty with a gray zone for international peacekeepers as necessary. Unfortunately, at this time, neither side would go for this.

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

1. You act like being in the EU solves all problems.

Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia are still poor and corrupt and lost out of the promised movement of jobs from the richer EU counties that was promised in the 1990s. Big capital just moved the jobs straight to Asia and cut out the Eastern European/Balkans middle man.

2. But even if getting into the EU solved all problems (and it is most certainly better than Russia) it still does not explain why the USA should get involved in a bloody proxy war to make that happen?

Why should the CIA and U.S. taxpayers being paying for this war?


3. I'm sure Mongolia would be better off as a U.S. state…but that is never going to happen. It's always going to be within the Chinese-sphere of orbit

There are facts on the ground that don't change.

Canada is not getting out from under the wing of the American eagle….for good or bad

---

Why are China, Iran, and North Korea doing even more to help Russia?

---

They see US power as a threat to them in their regions as well?

Iran was of course nearly surrounded by US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both have no love for the USA

---

They see us as a military threat?

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs.

---

LOL…that would be fanciful even by their standards.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs.

---

LOL…that would be fanciful even by their standards.

---

I trust very few outlets' reporting on this war, but I will say it's embarrassing that Russia cannot seem to stop the attacks on its fleet, air fields, and refineries.

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)

---

UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs.

---

LOL…that would be fanciful even by their standards.

---

I trust very few outlets' reporting on this war, but I will say it's embarrassing that Russia cannot seem to stop the attacks on its fleet, air fields, and refineries.

---

Pin pr$cks by a handful of drones.

For morale if little else.

Meanwhile the weight of unrelenting Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian infrastructure is crushing the country's ability to substain combat operations.

This war will be over in 4-12 months.





And somehow it will be Trump's fault.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Georgia's law is more similar to our own than it is to Russia's. It's something so oppressive that most Americans don't even know it exists. The idea that there are spontaneous mass demonstrations against it is laughable.

What's funny is that this time the NGOs didn't even choose something as plausible as the EU or Big Oil as the victims in their revolutionary struggle. They literally chose themselves. It's like they're making fun of us for not getting it. Whoever pitched the narrative must have thought it was very meta.

---

Totally disagree. The public may or may not be exaggerating how drastic the law is, but it is understandable either way. They despise Russia with every fiber of their being, and they believe the EU and NATO are the only way the survive.

BTW I didn't know Nuland was so influential with all those Georgian Gen Z-ers . . . . .

---

Never mind that they chose the ruling party in reaction against neoliberal policies and excessive hostility to Russia. As difficult as it is for Westerners to understand, they are more about pragmatism than prejudice.

Of course the last thing that will factor in our discussions is the will of the Georgian people as expressed through their political process. We're interested in "democracy" only when it serves our agenda.

---

When he revealed the law they’re protesting my mouth dropped lmao https://t.co/s9WuhQNyRs

— Gladio Langford (@fearthe_void) May 18, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

When he revealed the law they’re protesting my mouth dropped lmao https://t.co/s9WuhQNyRs

— Gladio Langford (@fearthe_void) May 18, 2024

---