Russia-Ukrainian War

[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. 

[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].

[John Hjorth]

On 11/27/2023 at 10:10 PM, Viking said:

“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…

 

I have go back to quoting this post by @Viking.

 

What a disaster, -it doesen't really matter which side in the war a person is on. The ramifications and dim future consequenses for the Russian people must be evident for everyone. It's simply and just a disaster.

 

Without putting numbers on any suggested additions to @Vikings numbered bullets above, I would add :

 

The Russian Youth, that earlier has been getting used to access to the Western Information Flow [Social Media, News etc. - and education!], now cut off from it, how is that going to play out? Is that part of the Russian population going to accept it, or will it gradually seek greeners grass in the West, - based on Western basic values?

 

Now - in addition - we have this :

 

Reuters [October 27^th 2023] : Putin approves big military spending hikes for Russia's budget.

 

Now if someone [that could be you!] thinks  just a bit carefully about what that's meaning for the Russian population.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Now we're at it : Propaganda, misinformation etc. are the instruments of the past of dinosaurus autocrats clinging to power, by defensive use of all kinds of power abuse.

 

Is this the new black [green?] offensive warfare marketing!? [J/K]:

 

 

1701017050516 - Hamas - Investors Deck - 20231201.pdf

[ValueArb]

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russian-pows-describe-nightmare-of-combat-in-ukraine-4dd492b5?mod=russia_trendingnow_article_pos1

 

 

Quote

Combat at Avdiivka was “an animal nightmare,” said Sergei, a former factory worker from Perm near the Ural Mountains who signed up in October for money. His old job paid 30,000 rubles a month, he said, or about $340. The army offered him 100,000. 

 

Training consisted mostly of menial chores such as picking up branches, he said. Combat preparation consisted of firing two magazines’ worth of ammunition from an assault rifle, he said, and mostly theoretical first-aid lessons. He didn’t expect to be at the front line. He thought he would only be driving trucks in the rear, he said. 

 

Sent straight to Avdiivka, his unit was ordered to attack Ukrainian-held tree lines on the city’s northern flank. But the assault was driven back by Ukrainian armored vehicles. The unit retreated to its starting position, leaving dead men strewn across the muddy fields. Sergei was wounded but was soon sent back to the front line. In late November, he was captured while disoriented, he said. “I felt relieved. I don’t want to see this nightmare anymore.” His family hasn’t seen any of his promised pay yet, he said. The Ukrainians let him and other POWs phone home. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/world/europe/russian-soldier-burial-war.html

 

Quote

Another one of Mr. Kadyrov’s sisters, Natasha, was so beside herself with grief that her siblings gave her a sedative. Ms. Kabaeva said the family had felt it necessary to tell their mother that her son had died fighting Americans.

“She still doesn’t understand what this war is about,” Ms. Kabaeva said, explaining that her mother was raised when Ukraine and Russia were both part of the Soviet Union. “It would be impossible for her to understand that we are fighting against Ukrainians today.”

 

 

Mr. Kadyrov, a soft-spoken farmer known at home by his nickname, Vitya, thought he was too old to be called up to fight. But in October 2022, shortly after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered a mobilization of soldiers, Mr. Kadyrov was drafted at the age of 49. He was killed, along with two other soldiers, a few months later.

“Before, they didn’t take the older ones, now they take everyone anyway,” said the older Ms. Kadyrova, an ethnic Kazakh whose ancestors came to the region from present-day Kazakhstan, whose border is about 100 miles away.

 

 

[Xerxes]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:42 PM, ValueArb said:

 

(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. 

 

While I admire your choice and conviction this is not how the world works. Perhaps it should but it does not. 

[formthirteen]

"Russian borders end nowhere!"?

Few…:

Edited December 3, 2023 by formthirteen

[Xerxes]

 

Putin is in town in UAE discussing the Ukrainian “crisis” 

[Xerxes]

 

[formthirteen]

Europeans are going to find out what weak leaders and "the past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes" means:

 

 

 

 

I hope they will open the history books at some point:

 

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_the_Sudetenland#Annexation_and_flight

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

[changegonnacome]

Poor Europe….with friends (USA) like this who needs enemies.

 

Repeat after me - friends don’t blow up other friends energy pipelines. Except in international relations where you really don’t have any friends only interests that align.

 

https://apple.news/AMjgtEJQTRAC-whtvhq01vw

[John Hjorth]

@formthirteen & @changegonnacome,

 

Thanks.

 

Let me here just express my deepest worries about how this is now supposed to play out going forward. It just demonstrates how nuts politics are from time to time. 

 

Why even engage and getting involved in this war in the first place, if you're not willing to complete and finish what you've already been up to?

 

So many lifes lost [on both sides], in stead of just letting the unmentional man take what he wants in the first place, if this is the outcome? Where is consistency and perseverance?

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Zelensky met with the Nordic countries in Oslo today, and he was on a one-to-one meeting with my PM Mette Frederiksen [dressed totally in black today [<- !!??]]. For Denmark, she commited ~1 USD B in war support, does not change much. Agreed, but still far from enough.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

@formthirteen & @changegonnacome,

 

Thanks.

 

Let me here just express my deepest worries about how this is now supposed to play out going forward. It just demonstrates how nuts politics are from time to time. 

 

Why even engage and getting involved in this war in the first place, if you're not willing to complete and finish what you've already been up to?

 

So many lifes lost [on both sides], in stead of just letting the unmentional man take what he wants in the first place, if this is the outcome? Where is consistency and perseverance?

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Zelensky met with the Nordic countries in Oslo today, and he was on a one-to-one meeting with my PM Mette Frederiksen [dressed totally in black today [<- !!??]]. For Denmark, she commited ~1 USD B in war support, does not change much. Agreed, but still far from enough.

Agree. It’s put up or shut up time. 

[UK]

9 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Why even engage and getting involved in this war in the first place, if you're not willing to complete and finish what you've already been up to?

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/russian-has-lost-almost-90-of-its-prewar-army-u-s-intelligence-says-2e0372ab

 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/

 

So perhaps there are many more other outcomes, but just looking at those two above...and then the answer to your question maybe depends from whose position you are looking at all this situation. 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by UK

[changegonnacome]

17 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Why even engage and getting involved in this war in the first place, if you're not willing to complete and finish what you've already been up to?

 

The problem in Ukraine (or Afghanistan/Iraq).....is a very simple one......they ultimately aren't strategically important to the USA.......therefore resolve and perseverance as compared to the incumbent forces in the region is lacking......you can be a great military power but resolve & perseverance isn't measured in warheads & artillery. The Taliban couldnt compete militatrily with US forces.....but they out competed them in resolve & perseverance and won.

 

Here we are in Ukraine what less than 24 months after the war started with US political leadership withholding funding and talking about the next round of funding being tied to an 'end game', an end game with battle lines drawn with some 20% of Ukraine under Russian occupation......so 22 months in and the 'West' is lagging in resolve & perseverance cause really Ukraine isnt strategically important to us. We rode in like heroes telling Zellensky not to negotiate with Putin when Russia occupied 5% of Ukraine cause we had his back and here we are. 20% of Ukraine gone, talking about an end game.

 

Now take the other side of the coin....Russia.....in 22 months Ukraine's concubine status, its neutrality remains a high priority objective for Russia......the check mate element here though is simple and its the resolve and perseverance elemnt........forget 22 months.....in 22 years......in a 100yrs years.....Ukraine will remain strategically important to Russia.....Russia's resolve and perseverance as regards Ukraine is almost infinite as compared to ours. 

 

We did the Ukrainian people a disservice it seems with our blowhard talk of support and standing ovations for Zelensky in 2022......Zelensky taught he was selling us the war when in fact we were selling him our (false) support cause it felt righteous and good in the moment.

 

What does Buffet say - dont own a stock for 10 seconds that you wouldnt be willing to own for 10yrs.

 

Well my rule of thumb is don't get involved in a war for 10 seconds that you wouldn't be willing to be involved in for 100yrs. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by changegonnacome

[ValueArb]

18 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

Poor Europe….with friends (USA) like this who needs enemies.

 

Repeat after me - friends don’t blow up other friends energy pipelines. Except in international relations where you really don’t have any friends only interests that align.

 

https://apple.news/AMjgtEJQTRAC-whtvhq01vw

 

You realize there is no compelling evidence that anyone blew up those pipelines, don't you?

 

https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/10/nordstream-ii-electric-instapundit.html

Edited December 14, 2023 by ValueArb