ATL Bear said:Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.Doc Holliday said:The bolded can't be simultaneously true.whiterock said:Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.Redbrickbear said:Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.whiterock said:You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?Daveisabovereproach said:whiterock said:Daveisabovereproach said:whiterock said:can you not see the faulty premise there?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)
Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.
Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....
There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.
Google Russia's population.
Google Ukraine's population.
Now Google Russia's GDP.
Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.
Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.
Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.
There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....
It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.
Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.
Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.
I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.
I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).
Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!
Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.
The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?
Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.
(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)
John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.
You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.
Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.
Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.
Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.
MADNESS
All threats have to be kept in rational perspective.
Cuba is no friend of the USA...its not an existential threat for example.
Even China...probably the most realistic peer competitor to the USA is far far from the threat that some make out. Its in an almost unbelievable demographic death spiral. (losing 1 million people from its population every single year) and it has massive internal problems with corruption, graft, and incompetence in its political system.
Even small things like the fact that China still has around 300 million people living on low wages as migrant workers.
[China's almost 300 million migrant workers]
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1015180
Outside of the coastal cities it is so poor it makes the Mississippi Delta look like Luxembourg.
[According to the China Statistical Yearbook, the average monthly salary for rural incomes in China in 2019 was 3,103 RMB, which is about US$465 or less than $6,000 a year]
[Mississippi: The median household income in the South Delta Region of Mississippi in 2021 was $33,646, which is about three-quarters of the state's average and half of the national average. The per capita income is $21,578,]
