Ukraine war mega thread

[sabang]

Who is this war helping?

Not those in central and western Ukraine, who want to 'go West' and hopefully become part of the EU one day. Like most people, they prefer to live in peace with basic facilities such as water, power and shelter, some economic prospects, money in pocket and aspiration for a better tomorrow.

Not those in novorussiya, specifically those parts that are overwhelmingly Russian and pro Russian. They too want to live in peace- but the break with Ukraine is now irrevocable. They want to be part of Russia, speak Russian and be Russian without suffering bigotry and violence from a hostile Ukrainian government.

Not those in Europe, who are suffering economically with inflation, stagnation and a spike in the price of energy- and dealing with a massive influx of Ukrainian refugees.

Not those in the global south (in particular) whose basic, staple food supplies are threatened by supply chain issues, and rising prices.

Not even us, the fat cushy ones- who are complaining about inflation, what it costs to fill our tank, and our power bills. Yes, even in Australia.

Not the average Russian either. OK, our sanctions did not prove to be a 'nuclear option', but they still have to deal with some supply chain shortages, inflation, and it is much more difficult for them to travel, and spend money overseas- indeed impossible to some places.


So exactly who is the war helping? Arms manufacturers. Neo-Nazis. Energy companies. Anyone else?

[Takeovers]

Not those in novorussiya, specifically those parts that are overwhelmingly Russian and pro Russian. They too want to live in peace- but the break with Ukraine is now irrevocable. They want to be part of Russia, speak Russian and be Russian without suffering bigotry and violence from a hostile Ukrainian government.

Source?

That absurd referendum is convincing proof of the opposite. 95+% has never been achieved in free and fair votes.

[sabang]

My suggestion would be to hold an independently monitored (UN?) Referendum in Zapo & Kherson- or maybe Kherson east of the river. No real point in Crimea/ Luhansk/ Donetsk.

[Takeovers]

My suggestion would be to hold an independently monitored (UN?) Referendum in Zapo & Kherson- or maybe Kherson east of the river. No real point in Crimea/ Luhansk/ Donetsk.

The time for that is past. After the Russians have driven out and killed so many, the situation is not suitable for a referendum any more. Unless you want to reward Russia for its atrocities. Something like a UN sponsored referendum might have been possible pre 2014. I very much doubt that Russia would have won that even in Crimea, if you exclude the staff of the Russian naval base there.

[sabang]

If that is the average head in the sand viewpoint in the west, then there is gonna be a whole lot more death, destruction and economic pain before you reluctantly accept the facts on the ground. It took 20 years in Afghanistan, about the same in Vietnam- and how long it will take here is anyone's guess.

[panama hat]

If that is the average head in the sand viewpoint in the west, then there is gonna be a whole lot more death, destruction and economic pain

Death, destruction and pain is coming from Russia . . . whose people are relatively unscatehd, similar to Americans who have not felt the pain of having their cities bombed, their civilians slaughtered in war.

Russia, sabang.

It took 20 years in Afghanistan, about the same in Vietnam- and how long it will take here is anyone's guess.

Russia can't last a tenth that long

[sabang]

I doubt it will last 20 years, seeing as it is happening right in central Europe and is a proxy way between nuclear powers. But it mat well drag on for quite a while yet, I'm in no position to say. I don't think anyone is, until wiser heads start talking. But lets drop any pretense that we in the west are white knights helping poor Ukrainians.

[bsnub]

Putin's popularity rating hovers at a bit below 80%.

You are an idiot who is simply pushing your narrative. It has been pointed out to you countless times with evidence that the polls are nothing more than BS but time and time again you push these falsehoods. You have no desire to see the truth as it blows up your shit false narrative.

[bsnub]

Not those in novorussiya, specifically those parts that are overwhelmingly Russian and pro Russian. They too want to live in peace- but the break with Ukraine is now irrevocable. They want to be part of Russia, speak Russian and be Russian without suffering bigotry and violence from a hostile Ukrainian government.

This coming from a clown who does not know any Ukrainians.

[bsnub]

But lets drop any pretense that we in the west are white knights helping poor Ukrainians.

That is exactly what we are doing. You as usual are just regurgitating Russian propaganda.

[Iceman123]

^
Is the sage of Seattle ready to predict just when Russia will collapse?

As you do not believe the popularity rating on Putin can you please give us the real number?

[Iceman123]

That is exactly what we are doing. You as usual are just regurgitating Russian propaganda.

We? Is this war what you and your fellow shelfstacker talk about at Walmart.

[bsnub]

We? Is this war what you and your fellow shelfstacker talk about at Walmart.

Oh look, it is Icebitch. Sabangs angry ankle biting lapdog.

[sabang]

No snubski, 'We' are using Ukraine and Ukrainians as cannon fodder in a proxy war attempting/ hoping to weaken Russia. US State Dept has even admitted that (albeit not the cannon fodder bit).

[bsnub]

No snubski, 'We' are using Ukraine and Ukrainians as cannon fodder in a proxy war attempting/ hoping to weaken Russia.

That is propaganda nonsense. Both of you are utterly clueless buffoons who do not know any actual Ukrainians, while I do. I interact with them on a near daily basis. You are pushing a bogus, fake narrative, and you have been for months. You want Ukraine to be forced to surrender, since you are nothing more than a useful idiot of the Kremlin pushing talking points.

The reality is that Ukraine is winning this war and Putin knows this, which is why he is trying to negotiate.

[sabang]

Or what date the fabled 'Ukrainian Winter offensive' will commence, Russia will be driven out of "Ukraine', and our humiliation will finally have arrived? The suspense is killing me.

[bsnub]

KHERSON AXIS / 1900 UTC 27 DEC/ UKR SOF / Partisans identified a RU barracks/HQ area in the occupied city of Novobilozerka. A precision strike by UKR artillery is reported to have killed 100 RU personnel, including 15 employees of the Russian FSB.

[bsnub]

KREMENNA AXIS/ 2200 UTC 26 DEC/ West of the P-66 HWY a RU assault on the village of Nevske was repelled by UKR on 25-26 DEC. This follows an aborted RU assault on Makiivka earlier. RU forces conducted fire missions on UKR positions in Dibrova.

[sabang]

Ukraine war: US wants to see a weakened Russia



At a news conference in Poland after the visit, Mr Austin told reporters the US wants to see "Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine".


The Pentagon chief added that US officials still believed Ukraine could win the conflict with "the right equipment" and the "right support".


BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale observed that Mr Austin's comments calling for a weakened Russia were unusually strong for a US defence secretary. It is one thing to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression, it is quite another to speak of weakening Russia's capabilities, he said.


Mr Putin's accusations of the West attempting to "destroy Russia", made during a speech on Monday, appeared to be in response to Mr Austin's comments.

Ukraine war: US wants to see a weakened Russia - BBC News



U.S. Says It Wants Russian Military ‘Weakened’

By Associated Press•April 25, 2022



Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke to reporters Monday after a trip to Ukraine. Mr. Austin said the United States hopes to see Russia’s military capabilities reduced so that “it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”



U.S. Says It Wants Russian Military ‘Weakened’ - The New York Times





[

[sabang]

U.S. promises (not always kept) of protection end up sidelining more prudent, diplomatic paths and protracting war.

DECEMBER 28, 2022
Written by
Benjamin H. Friedman and Natalie Armbruster



At a recent virtual summit, NATO leaders reaffirmed their intent to admit Ukraine to the alliance.

In doing so, they indicated an odd preference to directly defend Ukraine at some point, just not now while it’s under attack. As the dominant power in the NATO alliance, this puts the United States in the familiar, but dangerous, position of vaguely and half-heartedly offering to defend a non-ally.

These states, which we call “quasi-allies,” in our recent report, are not true allies, in that the United States has no treaty commitment to defend them. But they hover in a kind of geopolitical purgatory, encouraged by Washington to believe that they might be under the U.S. defensive penumbra. Quasi-ally status creates danger, not only for the United States, but also for those states it feints at protecting. Washington should stop creating quasi-allies, with word and deed, and either commit to defending states or, as should be the case most of the time, be clear that we won’t.

Quasi-allyship is a murky status, created by official rhetoric, such as overzealous Congressmen or speechifying presidents talking falsely — calling states “allies,” speaking of “enduring bonds,” and “ironclad” commitments. Heavy arms sales and talk of formal commitments exacerbate the trouble. Quasi-ally status generally applies to states — Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Ukraine, Georgia, and Taiwan, and probably Israel, which is arguably so close to an actual ally that it is one — but can also describe relations with sub-state entities like the Mujahideen fighting the Soviet-backed government in 1980s Afghanistan or the Kurds in Syria today.

Quasi-allies create danger for the U.S. due to potential entanglement in wars or controversies where U.S. interests are scant. Alliances intentionally entangle nations in each other’s defense. However, while treaty alliances are at least intended to serve U.S. security interests, the U.S. interest in defending quasi-allies is generally dubious, which is typically a reason why the U.S. has no treaty obligation to these states.

Entanglement with quasi-allies occurs by two mechanisms. First, rhetoric from U.S. leaders about quasi-allies can create the idea amongst the U.S. public that the country has a collective obligation to that state or group, as arguably occurred recently with Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Kurds. This can put political pressure on U.S. leaders to get involved and run needless risk if the quasi-ally is threatened or attacked.

The second source of entanglement with quasi-allies concerns credibility among U.S. leaders. They often fear that once the United States has made even a murky commitment to defend someone, not defending them willundermine U.S. credibility to actual allies. Even though history suggests this belief is wrong, it persists and threatens to make half-hearted promises that help quasi-allies into real military problems.

U.S.-Gulf relations are one example of such an entanglement. The U.S. relationship with Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, has contributed to the sprawling and costly basing infrastructure in the region, resistance to negotiations with Tehran, and heightened risk of war with Iran. Entanglement with despotic quasi-allies like Saudi Arabia can be costly and harmful to the United States even if it doesn’t lead to war, due to reputational damage by association with aggression and human rights abuses, as with the bombing of civilians in Yemen.

Quasi-allyship is arguably even more dangerous for the quasi-ally than the United States. That is because of moral hazard. Moral hazard in international politics occurs when a state runs excessive risk because it expects another state will bear the cost. In other words, states with vague commitments from the United States take dangerous chances in the expectation that they will avoid the consequences due to U.S. protection.

Moral hazard leads states to misconstrue the real balance of power. That can lead to insufficient self-defense. For example, should Taiwan turn out to be wrong that the United States will assist them if China invades, they will have badly mismanaged self-defense investments. Moral hazard more commonly leads to undue risk-taking. Georgia in 2008 and Saudi Arabia during the Trump administration are arguably both examples of states that took excessive risks in relations with neighbors expecting some greater degree of U.S. support and suffered attacks as a result.

Of course, these are all examples where U.S. military help — beyond the indirectkind — never arrived when an attack came. So why, you might ask, would the next quasi-ally under duress be deluded into thinking the U.S. cavalry would arrive? For one, they might think that the mere threat of U.S. intervention in adversaries’ minds will be enough to protect them. Further, leaders under pressure, and buoyed by nationalistic politics, may tend toward dangerously wishful thinking.

Ukraine is a tragic example. The United States has continually and deliberately encouraged Kyiv’s hopes that they will get U.S. protection, causing Ukraine to take a harder line in relations with Russia than it otherwise would have. In 1994, with the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the United States seemed to commit to protect Ukraine, though the text actually commits signatories only to not violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and complain at the United Nations if someone else does. In 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, the United States pushed NATO to say Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join, though neither got Membership Action plans, the standard first step toward membership. Instead, Ukraine got increased U.S. military support, especially after Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and a NATO “Enhanced Opportunities Partner” designation in 2020.

As Russia began its buildup along Ukraine’s border in 2021, the Biden Administration repeatedly emphasized its “unwavering” and “ironclad”support, held a seriesofexercises with Ukraine, and in November signed a vague Charter of Strategic Partnership with Ukraine. NATO leaders, meanwhile, insisted Ukraine’s door to membership remained open.

It is difficult to assess the counterfactual where the United States did not make all this effort to imply its support for Ukraine. Maybe Russia would have invaded anyway. But it seems likely that Ukraine might have made more concessions to Russian demands, most importantly committing to neutrality and fully implementing the Minsk II accords. After being attacked in 2014, Ukrainian politics naturally became more nationalistic and resistant to compromise, and U.S. support gave its leaders false hope of salvation and reason to avoid the politically painful steps that would have been required. Thus, Ukraine’s status as a U.S. quasi-ally was not perhaps a direct cause of Russia’s invasion. But it was arguably a reason that Ukraine did not do enough to avoid it.

The partial U.S. embrace of quasi-allies has proven quite dangerous. It encourages confusion and excessive risk-taking in the United States, though U.S. geography and power let us opt out of danger at the last minute, as generally occurs. This leaves quasi-allies like Ukraine in the lurch, encouraged to hope for protection that never arrives and thus overly cavalier as dangers mount. Sometimes it is vital to be clear who you won’t help.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...-moral-hazard/

[Iceman123]

Both of you are utterly clueless buffoons who do not know any actual Ukrainians, while I do. I interact with them on a near daily basis.

The reality is that Ukraine is winning this war and Putin knows this, which is why he is trying to negotiate.

Let’s just play along for a minute and “believe” your supposed contact with Ukrainians.
Would it really be surprising that they somehow backed the Ukrainian narrative.

Unfortunately this would hold no water unless it was balanced with a viewpoint from the Russian side.

You seem to fail to understand that rational conclusions can only be reached by examining both/all points of view.

Whilst you seem to have a very myopic view and see it only in black and white, can I ask what you have done to support Ukraine, donations, offer of accommodation etc?

Yep, no need to answer, you are full of hot air and cheap piss.

[sabang]

He is a flag waving NAFO soldier!!

[bsnub]

As you do not believe the popularity rating on Putin can you please give us the real number?

There is no real number. Those polling outlets are all Russian state controlled.

Or what date the fabled 'Ukrainian Winter offensive' will commence, Russia will be driven out of "Ukraine', and our humiliation will finally have arrived? The suspense is killing me.

Russia waited until February 24th to launch an invasion that you claimed for months would never happen. As has been pointed out to you already, the ground is not yet frozen solid.

[bsnub]

Would it really be surprising that they somehow backed the Ukrainian narrative.

What narrative is that? Surely it could only be that a peaceful nation was attacked in 2014 and again in 2022. Its civilians have been subjected to genocide ever since. There is no "Ukrainian narrative" you clown. That is Russian propaganda and you are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

You seem to fail to understand that rational conclusions can only be reached by examining both/all points of view.

Most of us who are not foolish enough to swallow Russian propaganda have done so. Unless you are a moron, it is pretty cut and dry for most.

[sabang]

a peaceful nation

Maidan

was attacked in 2014

Donbas?

genocide ever since

You are a barrel of laughs snubski.