Political Posts

[cubsfan]

26 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

The most important lesson of these internals comms make for anyone looking at the situation and thinking about the future of the conflict - is that irrespective of Putin......the Russian establishment more broadly cares deeply about Ukraine when they think of Russia's security architecture. It is as the US Ambassador to Russia said - the "brightest of red lines" for the Russian establishment.....Putin could die tomorrow and he is very very likely to be replaced by a leader with similar or even greater desire to dominant and control Ukraine/Belarus/Georgia for security reasons.

 

Its a point I made earlier in this thread and one that will become very very important as we lap the two year anniversary of the invasion with support already being questioned in Western capitals........and that is the question of staying power, perseverance & strategic importance.......and I'm more convinced than ever that Russia's perseverance around Ukrainian neutrality vis a vis NATO is effectively infinite given its strategic importance to them.

 

Infinite in the same way that the Taliban's perseverance to retake control of Afghanistan was - in the short run military might matters most..... the US controlled Afghanistan for 20yrs......in the long run perseverance matters most (the Taliban retook control in a matter of days once the US hightailed it out of there)......if we assume Russia and Ukraine's perseverance is equal as both are equally concerned with their security/survival.....then its a question of military might......Ukraine absent exogenous support, over time, is in trouble for this reason and will likely end up compromising on almost all fronts (EU/NATO/Oblasts).....the question now in my mind is the level of Ukrainian compromise required to bring things to a sustainable peace that will allow Ukraine to re-build and when is the optimal time to do that.

I won’t disagree at all. It’s looking more & more like a stalemate war of attrition. I hear lots of talk from Europe, but not too much action. But it’s been a hellavu high price for Russia- and I think they’re done taking European territory.

[Viking]

20 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

I won’t disagree at all. It’s looking more & more like a stalemate war of attrition. I hear lots of talk from Europe, but not too much action. But it’s been a hellavu high price for Russia- and I think they’re done taking European territory.

“hellavu high price for Russia” I agree. Ukraine has been a catastrophe for Russia. Perhaps we learn in 50 years that Putin was a double agent - really working for the West. He single-handedly: 

1.) brought NATO back from the dead

2.) convinced Finland and Sweden to join NATO

3.) convinced every European country on Russia’s border to re-arm itself to the teeth

4.) destroyed Russia’s economy - likely for generations - lowering the standard of living for all its people

5.) convinced hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to flee the country (to avoid getting conscripted).

6.) killed/injured hundreds of thousands of Russian men - with 5.) creating a demographic time bomb that will go off in about 20 years.

7.) accelerated Russia’s decline as an empire.

8.) has made the country prostrate itself to China (from an economic perspective). 

I could go on. Hard to put lipstick on this pig…

Edited November 27, 2023 by Viking

[ValueArb]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

The most important lesson of these internals comms make for anyone looking at the situation and thinking about the future of the conflict - is that irrespective of Putin......the Russian establishment more broadly cares deeply about Ukraine when they think of Russia's security architecture. It is as the US Ambassador to Russia said - the "brightest of red lines" for the Russian establishment.....Putin could die tomorrow and he is very very likely to be replaced by a leader with similar or even greater desire to dominant and control Ukraine/Belarus/Georgia for security reasons.

 

Its a point I made earlier in this thread and one that will become very very important as we lap the two year anniversary of the invasion with support already being questioned in Western capitals........and that is the question of staying power, perseverance & strategic importance.......and I'm more convinced than ever that Russia's perseverance around Ukrainian neutrality vis a vis NATO is effectively infinite given its strategic importance to them.

 

Infinite in the same way that the Taliban's perseverance to retake control of Afghanistan was - in the short run military might matters most..... the US controlled Afghanistan for 20yrs......in the long run perseverance matters most (the Taliban retook control in a matter of days once the US hightailed it out of there)......if we assume Russia and Ukraine's perseverance is equal as both are equally concerned with their security/survival.....then its a question of military might......Ukraine absent exogenous support, over time, is in trouble for this reason and will likely end up compromising on almost all fronts (EU/NATO/Oblasts).....the question now in my mind is the level of Ukrainian compromise required to bring things to a sustainable peace that will allow Ukraine to re-build and when is the optimal time to do that.

it’s funny that Putin okayed Ukraine joining NATO early in his tenure. At the time rebuilding the USSR was way down the list compared to cementing his control over Russia. It’s only after he was more secure in his power that Ukraine became “existential” to Russian “security”, ie rebuilding the Russian empire.

 

There is no way Ukraine could ever negotiate any peace deal with Russia until it’s ejected from their territory. No promise from Putin can ever be trusted, any cease-fire or peace will just be used to restart FSB corruption of Ukrainian politicians and institutions, while rebuilding the Russian military for another final assault.

 

People who think Ukraine is in trouble should read their WW1 history. France took far more casualties in less time from a smaller population but kept at it for five years until the Germans were expelled. I’ve said it since the beginning is a 3-5 year war. We have contributed to lengthening it by being so slow to supply key weapons. Our military storage overflows with retired Abrams, Bradleys and F-16s we will never use that could have been supplied in large volumes well over a year ago. Instead we dribble out handfuls of weapons, just enough to keep Ukraine from being overwhelmed,  ever enough to win.

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

7.) accelerated Russia’s decline as an empire.

8.) has made the country prostrate itself to China (from an economic perspective). 

I could go on. Hard to put lipstick on this pig…

 

All very true - the only problem of course - is that this is all micro stuff..Russia is in the big picture inconsquential as economic and military power (excepting nuclear).....what your describing are small victories & glancing blows in a secondary theatre of war in Eastern Europe with a country of little consequence with minimal threat to the long term security of the United States....the macro or big picture game of chess the only one that matters is the competition/containment game between the United States and China. Everything else is literally a sideshow excpet where it feeds into this competition. 

 

The problem is what I consider to be a US foreign policy gaff in the Ukraine-Russia theatre which has resulted in something that is not strategically optimal position for the United States....which is to have Russia & China as closely aligned as they now find themselves economically & militarily post the Ukrainian invasion. In effect the war in Ukraine has driven the Russian's into the arms of the Chinese when the opposite should have been our goal. Attempting to create a democratic utopia in a corrupt country like Ukraine is like playing video games when you should be studying for your finals.

 

Grandmaster level chess for the United States five years ago would have been to figure out how to drive a wedge through Russia-China relations.....or at least ensure a level of economic interdependance between Russia & the West....the fact that Russia with the world largest nuclear arsenal is now a concubine or client state of China with the world's third largest nuclear arsenal is a terrible outcome for the worlds second largest nuclear power the United States. 

 

It should also not be lost on those keeping score in this new emergent Cold War 3- that one of China's great strategic weaknesses is its lack of domestic energy resources. Well unfortunately it seems that we've handed them the resource rich nation of Russia as a client state. It is now their gas and oil station to play with.

 

Strategically isolating China, taking potential allies and making them our allies or at the least neutral parties is the real game here. Ukraine in or out of NATO was, if everybody is being honest, inconsequential to long run US security & even European security (there's a reason Merkel & Holland so roundly rejected Ukraine accession post-Bucharest...it wasnt additive)- in this light it was a somewhat pointless exercise in the liberal democratic nation building disease that affects many in the beltway......the cost for this disease is usually trillions of dollars and US casualties (Afghanistan/Iraq etc)....the real cost here isn't trillions of dollars....its much worse IMO......we've created a rock solid alliance between China & Russia which seems almost immutable now and please dont pretend this was inevitable the evidence is clear Russia post the USSR's collapse spent the last decades desperately trying to have its own strategic autonomy away from China by diversifying its energy exports to you guessed it Europe....its is not an optimal outcome either for Russia to be so dependent on China but this is where we and they are.

 

Its neither a victory for them but dont mistake it for a victory for 'us'. It isnt.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

it’s funny that Putin okayed Ukraine joining NATO early in his tenure. At the time rebuilding the USSR was way down the list compared to cementing his control over Russia. It’s only after he was more secure in his power that Ukraine became “existential” to Russian “security”, ie rebuilding the Russian empire.

 

There is no way Ukraine could ever negotiate any peace deal with Russia until it’s ejected from their territory. No promise from Putin can ever be trusted, any cease-fire or peace will just be used to restart FSB corruption of Ukrainian politicians and institutions, while rebuilding the Russian military for another final assault.

 

People who think Ukraine is in trouble should read their WW1 history. France took far more casualties in less time from a smaller population but kept at it for five years until the Germans were expelled. I’ve said it since the beginning is a 3-5 year war. We have contributed to lengthening it by being so slow to supply key weapons. Our military storage overflows with retired Abrams, Bradleys and F-16s we will never use that could have been supplied in large volumes well over a year ago. Instead we dribble out handfuls of weapons, just enough to keep Ukraine from being overwhelmed,  ever enough to win.

A lot of this depends on how you define “territory “. If it means Ukraine reclaiming Crimea & Donbas - odds are slim Ukraine can ever pull that off . They just don’t have the manpower. When it comes to ejecting Russia from their own territory- how often has that happened? Those areas are effectively Russia now.

 

The spring and summer offensive look like failures to me. Just being honest here. This looks like Stalingrad - and Russia can absorb way more punishment than Ukraine can, unfortunately. In a war of attrition, Russia has the advantage- I hate to say it. 
 

I don’t see that Europe wants to be involved - so if Ukraine can push Russia to the pre-2020 borders - that may be the victory Ukraine gets.

[John Hjorth]

15 hours ago, cubsfan said:

... I don’t see that Europe wants to be involved - so if Ukraine can push Russia to the pre-2020 borders - that may be the victory Ukraine gets.

 

Personally, I think you got this just exactly plain wrong, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

I think it must be clear for every European citizen by now that if you reach out for a hand shake with this person, you can't rely on what you agree with him about.

 

It's about the interactions between concepts of naivity, to believe in the best of every person, trustworthiness and its opposite, the concepts af consistency, reliability  and integrity, thereby also the concept of "Your word", "Your promise" or "Your pledge".

 

The man does not qualify in any of these aspects or dimensions.

 

So : No deals. -Period.

Edited November 28, 2023 by John Hjorth

[ValueArb]

15 hours ago, cubsfan said:

A lot of this depends on how you define “territory “. If it means Ukraine reclaiming Crimea & Donbas - odds are slim Ukraine can ever pull that off . They just don’t have the manpower. When it comes to ejecting Russia from their own territory- how often has that happened? Those areas are effectively Russia now.

 

The spring and summer offensive look like failures to me. Just being honest here. This looks like Stalingrad - and Russia can absorb way more punishment than Ukraine can, unfortunately. In a war of attrition, Russia has the advantage- I hate to say it. 
 

I don’t see that Europe wants to be involved - so if Ukraine can push Russia to the pre-2020 borders - that may be the victory Ukraine gets.

 

By end of 1916 the French had taken nearly 4 million casualties with around 900,000 dead from a total population of only 39M. The germans had tried to turn it into a war of attrition by attacking Verdun which they knew the French would never surrender, hoping to "bleed the french white".  The allies counterattack at the Somme failed miserably. The Russian front had collapsed in 2015, Brusilov's brilliant surprise offensive in 2016 bogged down, and the Romanian entry on the Allied side was quickly crushed, doing little to rebuild hopes that Germany would have to divert more troops to the east.

 

We keep seeing things through the mirror of the recent past. A country unified in a fight for its very freedom is a powerful thing, and the citizenry is willing to tolerate a huge amount of sacrifice for a long period. I don't see Ukrainians ready to compromise for at least a couple more years.

 

Europe doesn't want Russia on Poland's border, or to have access to all of Ukraines resources. It just spells bigger problems in the future. I have confidence that the EU and Great Britain won't flag in their support of the Ukraine. And I have hopes that we will finally get off the pot and start providing full support from our massive supply of retired armor and air assets from storage as the administration stops trying to walk a tight rope between helping and not enraging Putin,  realizing that the status quo is just grinding down the Ukrainians and leading to a longer and more disastrous war.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Personally, I think you got this just exactly plain wrong, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

I think it must be clear for every European citizen by now that if you reach out for a hand shake with this person, you can't rely on what you agree with him about.

 

It's about the interactions between concepts of naivity, to believe in the best of every person, trustworthiness and its opposite, the concepts af consistency, reliability  and integrity, thereby also the concept of "Your word", "Your promise" or "Your pledge".

 

The man does not qualify in any of these aspects or dimensions.

 

So : No deals. -Period.

John - regardless of words on paper - I just think you’re looking at a stalemate, whereby ejecting Russia from The Donbas & Crimea is close to impossible. I wish it were not so, but what happens when Ukraine depletes their manpower and the Europeans need to step in??  I don’t think it will happen.

 

We will see.

[cubsfan]

21 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

By end of 1916 the French had taken nearly 4 million casualties with around 900,000 dead from a total population of only 39M. The germans had tried to turn it into a war of attrition by attacking Verdun which they knew the French would never surrender, hoping to "bleed the french white".  The allies counterattack at the Somme failed miserably. The Russian front had collapsed in 2015, Brusilov's brilliant surprise offensive in 2016 bogged down, and the Romanian entry on the Allied side was quickly crushed, doing little to rebuild hopes that Germany would have to divert more troops to the east.

 

We keep seeing things through the mirror of the recent past. A country unified in a fight for its very freedom is a powerful thing, and the citizenry is willing to tolerate a huge amount of sacrifice for a long period. I don't see Ukrainians ready to compromise for at least a couple more years.

 

Europe doesn't want Russia on Poland's border, or to have access to all of Ukraines resources. It just spells bigger problems in the future. I have confidence that the EU and Great Britain won't flag in their support of the Ukraine. And I have hopes that we will finally get off the pot and start providing full support from our massive supply of retired armor and air assets from storage as the administration stops trying to walk a tight rope between helping and not enraging Putin,  realizing that the status quo is just grinding down the Ukrainians and leading to a longer and more disastrous war.

So are you saying that the Ukrainians are capable of removing Russia from The Donbas and Crimea??? You think they will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders??

Edited November 28, 2023 by cubsfan

[John Hjorth]

16 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

... I have confidence that the EU and Great Britain won't flag in their support of the Ukraine. 

 

What do mean with this, @ValueArb ? I'm not sure I understand it [, correctly] ?

[John Hjorth]

On 11/25/2023 at 2:03 AM, Xerxes said:

 

 

@Xerxes, Hugh?!

[shhughes1116]

12 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

So are you saying that the Ukrainians are capable of removing Russia from The Donbas and Crimea??? You think they will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders??

 

I think the answer to this question lies in the next election.  if Nicki Haley wins, then Ukraine wins by force or by Putin suing for peace.  if Biden wins, then I think Ukraine gets a slow drip of weapons to keep the status quo.  And if Trump wins, the range of possibilities is endless.     

 

The Biden Administration has slow-walked numerous armaments that would enable Ukraine to easily eject Russia beyond the pre-2014 borders.  Examples include over 1,000 ATACMS (past their expiration date, "unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions, and costing the taxpayer to decommission when instead it would be free to ram it down Russian's throats), 100 of thousands of DPCIM 155s remaining in US inventories domestically and abroad ("unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions), 1000's of Bradley's and HMMVS that are being scrapped, 1000's of Abrams that are sitting around to either be scrapped or sent back to the plant for the next version of the Abrams tank, 100's of M1A1 Abrams that were recently given up by the USMC, and there is plenty more.  We have over 200 Assault Breachers - based on the M1 chassis - literally the best mine-clearing engineering vehicle in the world - and we didn't give them any before they attacked the Surovkin line in the South.  The whole reason these exist is for a ground war with a near-pear adversary.  All of this equipment withheld or slow-walked because some spineless Administration members are worried about escalation, or because they make the false claim that this stuff is needed in case of war with China (it is not needed for a war with China). 

 

And I am tired of hearing the BS about how the US can't release high-tech gear, or that we can't possibly weaken active duty units.  We have a precedent - Nixon - of stripping active duty combat aircraft from front-line units and handing them over to Israel, along with other arms and munitions. 

 

If the US wanted Ukraine to win, all of this stuff would be in Ukraine now and Ukraine would be stomping all over Russia.  The war would probably be over by now.          

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

 

I think the answer to this question lies in the next election.  if Nicki Haley wins, then Ukraine wins by force or by Putin suing for peace.  if Biden wins, then I think Ukraine gets a slow drip of weapons to keep the status quo.  And if Trump wins, the range of possibilities is endless.     

 

The Biden Administration has slow-walked numerous armaments that would enable Ukraine to easily eject Russia beyond the pre-2014 borders.  Examples include over 1,000 ATACMS (past their expiration date, "unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions, and costing the taxpayer to decommission when instead it would be free to ram it down Russian's throats), 100 of thousands of DPCIM 155s remaining in US inventories domestically and abroad ("unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions), 1000's of Bradley's and HMMVS that are being scrapped, 1000's of Abrams that are sitting around to either be scrapped or sent back to the plant for the next version of the Abrams tank, 100's of M1A1 Abrams that were recently given up by the USMC, and there is plenty more.  We have over 200 Assault Breachers - based on the M1 chassis - literally the best mine-clearing engineering vehicle in the world - and we didn't give them any before they attacked the Surovkin line in the South.  The whole reason these exist is for a ground war with a near-pear adversary.  All of this equipment withheld or slow-walked because some spineless Administration members are worried about escalation, or because they make the false claim that this stuff is needed in case of war with China (it is not needed for a war with China). 

 

And I am tired of hearing the BS about how the US can't release high-tech gear, or that we can't possibly weaken active duty units.  We have a precedent - Nixon - of stripping active duty combat aircraft from front-line units and handing them over to Israel, along with other arms and munitions. 

 

If the US wanted Ukraine to win, all of this stuff would be in Ukraine now and Ukraine would be stomping all over Russia.  The war would probably be over by now.          

I think you make a tremendous amount of sense. As an American, I’d like to see a massive commitment from Europe in parallel. But I have my doubts that military aid without significant outside manpower will do the trick.

 

And of course, the American politics of this is crucial: you can’t easily get any of this without shutting down the southern border. Many Americans have realized that protecting Ukraine’s border is insane when we won’t or our own. That’s the present reality.

[ValueArb]

10 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

So are you saying that the Ukrainians are capable of removing Russia from The Donbas and Crimea??? You think they will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders??

 

Yes, with enough support from the US, EU and Great Britain. They need more long range weapons, more modern fighter bombers and SEAD, and more modern armor. If they can better suppress Russian SAM coverage of the front lines they can actually implement a combined arms approach to a break-through, using air delivered precision bombs to clear the way for armor penetration.

 

The aborted offensive did get roughly 50 miles from Mariupol, once they reach within 25 miles Crimea becomes undefendable. Without rail lines for resupply their front line troops in southern Ukraine are trapped and soon starved of ammunition. As soon as the Kerch bridge gets taken out again Russian forces likely panic trying to get out via the only remaining escape hatch, the ferry system. Ukraine forces likely sweep through pretty quickly at that point. 

 

Once Crimea is retaken it frees up a lot of Ukrainian troops to reinforce the Donbas front lines. That's a tougher nut given the long border and fewer clear points like Crimea that allow for envelopment of Russian positions. At this point the war might just devolve in a decade long slog where Ukraine has recovered most of its territory and just can't eject Russia from the last few miles. But they can entrench heavily so that it will no longer require a massive national effort to defend and just go back to the cross border shelling that the Donbas endured for the first eight years. Eventually Putin is gone and a new Russian government might want to end the bleeding and being international pariahs. 

 

The main point is this is and always has been destined to be a long war ever since Russia failed to take Kyiv. There is no reason to become excessively pessimistic just because one offensive failed, or that we are two years in without victory. Russians at the front are fighting because they have guns in their backs, Ukrainians are fighting to defend their families and homeland. Ukrainians aren't going to quit, they will find every way possible to win this war even if takes another decade, while Russian troops will be working on every possible way to get back home. 

[ValueArb]

28 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

What do mean with this, @ValueArb ? I'm not sure I understand it [, correctly] ?

 

Just that I expect Europe to continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons and support they need to keep fighting?

[John Hjorth]

10 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

.... If the US wanted Ukraine to win, all of this stuff would be in Ukraine now and Ukraine would be stomping all over Russia.  The war would probably be over by now.          

 

I'm sorry to say, the Western World does not actually work like that.

[ValueArb]

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

I think you make a tremendous amount of sense. As an American, I’d like to see a massive commitment from Europe in parallel. But I have my doubts that military aid without significant outside manpower will do the trick.

 

And of course, the American politics of this is crucial: you can’t easily get any of this without shutting down the southern border. Many Americans have realized that protecting Ukraine’s border is insane when we won’t or our own. That’s the present reality.

 

Securing the southern border could be done with a stroke of a pen. Simply start giving work visas so we can vet those workers and ensure they return home after done with their job.

 

People forget we never had a problem with border security until we tried to secure the border. In the 70s it was almost all "circular migration". Migrant workers came up to make more money working US farms during the harvest season, then took their money back home to their villages and families every winter to raise their standard of living. Then we made it a lot harder to cross the border, so they moved into the US with their families permanently. 

 

The war on drugs is also a big contributor, but that's a whole nother problem.

[changegonnacome]

16 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

If the US wanted Ukraine to win, all of this stuff would be in Ukraine now and Ukraine would be stomping all over Russia.  The war would probably be over by now.       

 

As I've said before - the reason we cant bring ourselves to give Ukraine the means to truly 'win' when you rightly point out we could in the morning......is that policy makers in Europe & the United States, if they are being honest, cant quite bring themselves to open up the pandora's box of downside risks for themselves that would occur if Russia actually truly loses here......think through what it would mean for Russia to be crushingly defeated........this is compounded by the reality that Ukraine has little strategic value to either the US or Europe. Russia is not a real threat to EU/US/NATO countries....they are struggling to hold on to what 20% of Ukraine...edge out regions from their own borders to boot......these folks who talk about Warsaw being next have Hitler delusions and no clue of Russia's true offensive military capability.....cliff notes....they are extremely limited as we are seeing in Ukraine. They would not last five days inside the border of NATO if that came to pass.

 

Also take a step back and realize that (1) this is war right on the border of the worlds largest nuclear power and so is it a good outcome to corner a nuclear rat on its border and (2) giving the means to Ukraine to push Russia back to its 2014 borders....is also the means by which the Russian borders itself can be breached by Ukraine. You might think we could tell them (Ukraine) to stand down when we want but revenge & blood lust is a terrible sickness and the risk that Ukrainian soldiers would rush into Russian villages and commit war crimes of revenge is not to be discounted.

 

Spinning the chaos wheel for a country of limited strategic value to the US and Europe - is a poor use of a spin of that wheel. The risk/reward is skewed towards chaos.

 

My guess is the West wants a settlement that has enough juice for both Zelensky AND Putin...lets call it a 75% win for Ukraine & a 25% win for Russia........the early 2022 border with an Oblast or two extra for the Russia column (likely in some kind of self-administrative zone structure so it isnt fully Russian) + non-NATO membership assurances is where this ends up.......if indeed it ever ends up with a piece of paper at all. Let's see.

[Pelagic]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

So are you saying that the Ukrainians are capable of removing Russia from The Donbas and Crimea??? You think they will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders??

 

There are other paths to victory that don't involve taking thousands of casualties assaulting fortified Russian positions in the Donbas and Southern Ukraine.

 

Ukraine has been fairly successful targeting Russian naval assets on the Black Sea and has pushed the Russian Navy back from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk, along with sinking numerous vessels. Targeting Russian shipping on the Black Sea with the various drone boats Ukraine has developed over the past couple years would cut off roughly 20% of Russia's oil exports as well as other exports like grain. The Russian Navy has had limited success stopping attacks on their own ships and simply doesn't have a large enough fleet on the Black Sea to protect shipping.

 

A trade of resumed access to the Black Sea for Russian commercial vessels in exchange for captured territories is one possible route. I suspect however that the Biden admin and various European allies have heavily discouraged Ukraine from targeting Russian shipping on the Black Sea due to the impact it would have on global markets. The sole attack on a commercial vessel was an empty tanker that carried jet fuel for the Russian bases in Crimea.

[cubsfan]

30 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

As I've said before - the reason we cant bring ourselves to give Ukraine the means to truly 'win' when you rightly point out we could in the morning......is that policy makers in Europe & the United States, if they are being honest, cant quite bring themselves to open up the pandora's box of downside risks for themselves that would occur if Russia actually truly loses here......think through what it would mean for Russia to be crushingly defeated........this is compounded by the reality that Ukraine has little strategic value to either the US or Europe. Russia is not a real threat to EU/US/NATO countries....they are struggling to hold on to what 20% of Ukraine...edge out regions from their own borders to boot......these folks who talk about Warsaw being next have Hitler delusions and no clue of Russia's true offensive military capability.....cliff notes....they are extremely limited as we are seeing in Ukraine. They would not last five days inside the border of NATO if that came to pass.

 

Also take a step back and realize that (1) this is war right on the border of the worlds largest nuclear power and so is it a good outcome to corner a nuclear rat on its border and (2) giving the means to Ukraine to push Russia back to its 2014 borders....is also the means by which the Russian borders itself can be breached by Ukraine. You might think we could tell them (Ukraine) to stand down when we want but revenge & blood lust is a terrible sickness and the risk that Ukrainian soldiers would rush into Russian villages and commit war crimes of revenge is not to be discounted.

 

Spinning the chaos wheel for a country of limited strategic value to the US and Europe - is a poor use of a spin of that wheel. The risk/reward is skewed towards chaos.

 

My guess is the West wants a settlement that has enough juice for both Zelensky AND Putin...lets call it a 75% win for Ukraine & a 25% win for Russia........the early 2022 border with an Oblast or two extra for the Russia column (likely in some kind of self-administrative zone structure so it isnt fully Russian) + non-NATO membership assurances is where this ends up.......if indeed it ever ends up with a piece of paper at all. Let's see.

I think this closer to reality. The capabilities is there to remove Russia, but I doubt the political will on the part of the West. And someone made an excellent point about who wins the US election.

 

If the West starts bombing the Russian homeland and sinking the Black Sea fleet to cripple Russia, that will be a huge step and we may see a different side of Putin, like nukes.

 

Good discussions gentlemen.

[Xerxes]

There are a lot of heroic assumptions here about the ease of policy change from the current (1) “not letting Ukraine lose” … to … (2) “make Ukraine win”

 

The former would be easier to fit in a sandbox, capping liabilities on every side, knowing what you get. While the latter may have both uncapped potential and as well as uncapped unintended negative consequence. That said, both policies are great for the military industrial complex.

In terms of geopolitical outcome, would you rather sell calls/puts for a steady drip or buy large chunks of out of money call options.

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Xerxes

[Castanza]

Harry Truman as a Senator in 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. ” 

 

This sentiment remains

[ValueArb]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:42 PM, Xerxes said:

There are a lot of heroic assumptions here about the ease of policy change from the current (1) “not letting Ukraine lose” … to … (2) “make Ukraine win”

 

The former would be easier to fit in a sandbox, capping liabilities on every side, knowing what you get. While the latter may have both uncapped potential and as well as uncapped unintended negative consequence. That said, both policies are great for the military industrial complex.

In terms of geopolitical outcome, would you rather sell calls/puts for a steady drip or buy large chunks of out of money call options.

 

 

 

 

(1) is a tacit admission we are going to let Ukraine bleed for years in order to bleed Russia for years. That's an realpolitik type choice that I find as awful and short sighted as most realpolitik decisions. The risk is if Ukraine collapses now you have Russia on the border with Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. As they rebuild their military in part by using Ukrainian resources and draftees, the FSB will be in all of the border countries working to foment corruption and elect Putin approved puppets. Eventually there will be a mess large enough that people will look back and say, yea, we probably should have stopped Russia in the Ukraine.

 

(2) is the only morally acceptable choice in my mind. It has virtually uncapped positive benefits as a beaten Russia loses influence not only in Ukraine but in Georgia and other border republics who see it can be defeated and that western support can be trusted. 

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-01/xi-takes-flurry-of-small-steps-to-open-china-after-biden-thaw?srnd=premium-europe

[John Hjorth]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:41 PM, cubsfan said:

John - regardless of words on paper - I just think you’re looking at a stalemate, whereby ejecting Russia from The Donbas & Crimea is close to impossible. I wish it were not so, but what happens when Ukraine depletes their manpower and the Europeans need to step in??  I don’t think it will happen.

 

We will see.

 

Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

Please remember that none of the F-16 fighters yet donated to Ukraine are not yet in operation for the purpose they were donated to. Things take time [to set up the infrastructure to keep the planes operational going forward], but the setup will get to there, in the beginning of 2024].