Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Raoul said:
This alone would disqualify any peace deal, especially as Ukraine was already in the process of thwarting all other Russian advances in country after initial sentiment was that Russia may take over the all of Ukraine. Once they booted them out of the north, Ukrainians began to believe they could one day reclaim all territory the Russians were squatting on. The rest of the communique is useless given that Ukraine would never give up Crimea or any of its other occupied land.
Click to expand...

Could you spell out the rules of engagement for me? You oscillate between name-calling, slinging mud, warning others not engage with me, and yet curiously quoting my posts that aren’t even aimed at you. Pick a lane please. Just for the record, I’ve kept my discourse with you respectful throughout this thread and for the past two decades on this forum. If you expect me to engage honestly, I'd hope for at least that much in return.

You run this forum, this is your domain, and you set the rules; could you clarify them for me? If not, there seems little point in continuing this charade.
 
Suedesi said:
After 4000 posts in this thread, you're still floundering behind the eight ball. When I first mentioned that a deal was almost clinched, your knee-jerk reaction was to reject it without a second thought and pooh pooh on the sources. Now, with the Foreign Affairs piece hitting the stands, you rushed to trot out some second-tier Polish commentary on the piece as if it’s a scoop. Bravo indeed.



Key points summarized for the TLDR crowd:
  • in the midst of Moscow’s unprecedented aggression, the Russians and the Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU. (NB: @Lemoor neutrality and the EU )
  • A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security.
  • The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha
  • President Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield
  • The communiqué calls for a peaceful resolution of the Crimea dispute within 10-15 years, highlighting a shift as Russia, having annexed Crimea in 2014 and consistently refused to discuss its status, agreed to negotiate, implicitly acknowledging that Crimea's status was on the table
Anyhoo - acqua passata now
Click to expand...

I literally was the first (I think) to post the Foreign Affairs article. Don't be dishonest here.

And there wasn't (and isn't) solid evidence for the claims people were making such as "the West forced Zelensky to fight". Which the FA article authors seem to dismiss.

And the FA article in itself is an interesting read but also highlighted how there were major disagreements on several aspects.

There was also a WSJ piece on the negotiations a while ago that suggested that there weren't binding commitments made so a deal wasn't "close". The FA article has more details than the WSJ article.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
On that note...Hvae never seen this brought up, and was wondering if you knew anything, or had any guesses.

Chess player Alexander Grischuk (Russian, born in Russia) made a very public statement condemning the invasion. He's married to Kateryna Lagno, also a GM, born in Ukraine, but now a Russian citizen. She has made zero statements as far as I can tell.
Is it because somebody with her background (I'm assuming she's from the disputed provinces) would be more sympathetic to the invasion? Or more fear of reprisal? Or it's impossible to know?

e - I looked it up and she was born in Lviv which is western Ukraine, close to Poland and not at all like the east...there goes theory 1!
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard anything about her views on the conflict, she doesn’t seem to be a very public person — unlike Kanchelskis, who regularly gives interviews (although mostly football-related).
 
Suedesi said:
It's not. In fact, it's the opposite - I don't want our resources squandered ($250 billion and counting so far) on a country of a limited strategic importance for the US, when our debt is spiraling, infrastructure is decrepit, healthcare is unaffordable and education subpar.

I couldn't care if it's Russia/Ukraine, or Turkey/Armenia, or Ethiopia/Eritrea - I don't want US to police the world.

And, for the record Putin stated the war so he's the criminal, but we (the collective west that is) could have done more to help prevent it.
Click to expand...

Why is it $250bn? The reports I have read put the US contribution, until Feb at more like $75bn, with $46bn being military aid, half of which has been donated spare US equipment, so not really spending.

You argue it is of limited strategic importance, yet the consequences for the US if Russia won, and Ukraine lost, would be significant - the US would be defeated, US security guarantees to its allies would be exposed as useless, countries would be forced to rearm and go nuclear, and richer, more powerful and more capable states than Russia would think their time has come. There would be global chaos as the vacuum was filled by countries unfriendly to the US.

When you say you don't want the US to "police the world" (ie maintain stability in a way that benefits the US's economic interests, which all empires do), what you are saying, IMO, is you want to benefit from being the richest, most powerful country in the world without paying for it.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Why is it $250bn? The reports I have read put the US contribution, until Feb at more like $75bn, with $46bn being military aid, half of which has been donated spare US equipment, so not really spending.

You argue it is of limited strategic importance, yet the consequences for the US if Russia won, and Ukraine lost, would be significant - the US would be defeated, US security guarantees to its allies would be exposed as useless, countries would be forced to rearm and go nuclear, and richer, more powerful and more capable states than Russia would think their time has come. There would be global chaos as the vacuum was filled by countries unfriendly to the US.

When you say you don't want the US to "police the world" (ie maintain stability in a way that benefits the US's economic interests, which all empires do), what you are saying, IMO, is you want to benefit from being the richest, most powerful country in the world without paying for it.
Click to expand...

The US military financial aid to Ukraine is hardly anything out of its annual defense budget and when you consider what a good job Ukraine has done in decimating Russias military(the nemesis)would logically be money well spent.
 
Last edited:
Gehrman said:
The US military financial aid to Ukraine is hardly anything out of its annual defense budget and when you consider what a good job Ukraine has done in decimating Russias military it would logically be money well spent.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that unlike many other countries (including most European countries providing aid), the "aid" goes directly back into the economy since they produce these things themselves. For the government itself it's still obviously the same amount out, immediately, but for the country it doesn't "cost" that sum.
 
Raoul said:
No its actually in complete lock step with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Putin's desired position America should take on Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Nah. @Suedesi is more 'I want the US to not police the world, so despite that Russia is the bad side in this, Ukraine is too far away and I do not care', MTG is 'Ukraine are nazis, Russia are good'. End result is probably the same though.
 
maniak said:
It's insane how a country that revolves around military adventures doesn't have a nationalized military production. This is nothing but the traditional capitalist transfer of money from the people to big corporations.

That being said, at least in this case of for a good cause.
Click to expand...
Because probably those weapons would be as shit as Russia's are, who have a nationalised military production.

Caf is Caf, but at times need a reminder that governments suck at innovation. And yep, you need good innovation to make top military hardware.
 
Revan said:
Nah. @Suedesi is more 'I want the US to not police the world, so despite that Russia is the bad side in this, Ukraine is too far away and I do not care', MTG is 'Ukraine are nazis, Russia are good'. End result is probably the same though.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much in lock step with Marge Green's recent comments about why the US shouldn't fund Ukraine.

"People want to see a peace deal..." etc... (ie., allow Putin to help himself to as much of Ukraine as he wants in exchange for a ceasefire).



As for her comments about a majority of Americans - recent polling from Gallup this month.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx
 
Raoul said:
That's pretty much in lock step with Marge Green's recent comments about why the US shouldn't fund Ukraine.

"People want to see a peace deal..." etc... (ie., allow Putin to help himself to as much of Ukraine as he wants in exchange for a ceasefire).



As for her comments about a majority of Americans - recent polling from Gallup this month.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx
Click to expand...

Honestly, I haven't heard much of her cause she is batshit insane, so I might be wrong, but thought that her point is similar to Tucker's (who is a Russian shill) that Russia are the good guys on this. suedesi is a bit more, I do not care what happens in the world, want first to fix the US.

Never mind, there is a lot of intersection between these 2 points of view.
 
Revan said:
Honestly, I haven't heard much of her cause she is batshit insane, so I might be wrong, but thought that her point is similar to Tucker's (who is a Russian shill) that Russia are the good guys on this. suedesi is a bit more, I do not care what happens in the world, want first to fix the US.

Never mind, there is a lot of intersection between these 2 points of view.
Click to expand...
'

Which was my original point. Those wanting the US to not support Ukraine are on common ground with Putin and all the Russian propagandists, whose views largely overlap with Tucker, Marge, and the rest of the crazies on US right.
 
VorZakone said:
Does government really suck though? Aren't many inventions in the 20th century done through (partially) government-owned agencies like DARPA?
Click to expand...
Not very recently though. Governments were not that much directly involved with innovations in computers, AI, pharma, modern weapons in the west, electric vehicles etc. There were posts here over the years in the same topic, how much better Russia is at this cause they do not waste money to capitalists but have nationalized military production, and well, it is clear now that Russia weapons are 30 years or so behind the US. Government sectors tend to be corrupted and usually do not pay as well as private sector, which is why private sector bring the innovation.

Now obviously there are some things that you need the government to be involved instead of leaving it entirely to the market, stuff like police, healthcare, education and infrastructure. But in many, like military weapons, I do not see how it would be a good idea to have the government itself producing them.
 
Raoul said:
'

Which was my original point. Those wanting the US to not support Ukraine are on common ground with Putin and all the Russian propagandists, whose views largely overlap with Tucker, Marge, and the rest of the crazies on US right.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that the end result is the same (Russia winning). I just think that motivations are very different, for suedesi is cause he does not want the US to spend money outside of the US despite that he thinks Russia are bad. For Tucker, it is because Russia is a great Christian country who is rejecting the woke culture, those are the good guys.
 
I find it a bit mad how US politicians and media personalities can be so blatantly on the Russian payroll now, considering how being a Soviet sympathiser would have put you on a list just a few decades ago. Feels like it’s only a matter of time until a pro-Russian leadership eventually takes hold.
 
Revan said:
Oh, I agree that the end result is the same (Russia winning). I just think that motivations are very different, for suedesi is cause he does not want the US to spend money outside of the US despite that he thinks Russia are bad. For Tucker, it is because Russia is a great Christian country who is rejecting the woke culture, those are the good guys.
Click to expand...

From what i have heard, those who don't subscribe to orthodox-christianity are not treated well in Russia, so all the evangelicals hard-on for Russia would disappear if they actually moved there.
 
Revan said:
Oh, I agree that the end result is the same (Russia winning). I just think that motivations are very different, for suedesi is cause he does not want the US to spend money outside of the US despite that he thinks Russia are bad. For Tucker, it is because Russia is a great Christian country who is rejecting the woke culture, those are the good guys.
Click to expand...

For Tucker its just pandering to whatever gives Trumpists a hard on.
 
Gehrman said:
For Tucker its just pandering to whatever gives Trumpists a hard on.
Click to expand...
Probably. To some degree, Russia is how the Trumpists want America to become. A right-wing autocracy with no division between religion and politics (even less than in the US), where racism and homophobia are virtues. They'll be dirt poor, but at least no drag queens and cancel culture.
 
Ukraine is still likely to be outgunned by Russian artillery for much of the rest of 2024 despite Congress nearing the passage of a $60 billion military aid bill for Kyiv, officials and analysts told Foreign Policy, as both the United States and Europe ramp up production of NATO-standard rounds and restock their own arsenals.
Click to expand...

 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...



In the past, we were told that the US cannot send ATACMS to Ukraine, because that would be "escalation". The same with tanks, with F-16s, and with other weapons.

For some reason, this is not true anymore, and nobody explained to us why. Why was this "escalation" in 2022, but it is not "escalation" in 2024? Perhaps it was never "escalation"? But then why did our leaders force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?

I do not understand why Biden and Scholz made those decisions in 2022, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they both are morons.
 
frostbite said:
In the past, we were told that the US cannot send ATACMS to Ukraine, because that would be "escalation". The same with tanks, with F-16s, and with other weapons.

For some reason, this is not true anymore, and nobody explained to us why. Why was this "escalation" in 2022, but it is not "escalation" in 2024? Perhaps it was never "escalation"? But then why did our leaders force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?

I do not understand why Biden and Scholz made those decisions in 2022, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they both are morons.
Click to expand...
Scholz ain’t a moron. He’s just corrupt and lacks morals. So that’s probably why.
 
frostbite said:
In the past, we were told that the US cannot send ATACMS to Ukraine, because that would be "escalation". The same with tanks, with F-16s, and with other weapons.

For some reason, this is not true anymore, and nobody explained to us why. Why was this "escalation" in 2022, but it is not "escalation" in 2024? Perhaps it was never "escalation"? But then why did our leaders force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?

I do not understand why Biden and Scholz made those decisions in 2022, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they both are morons.
Click to expand...
A possible (still not great) explanation could be that Ukraine demonstrated the ability to strike deep within Russia using their own designs in the meantime. Which would mean that ATACMS improve the numbers and quality of the weapons they have, but are not a fundamentally new ability for them.
 
frostbite said:
In the past, we were told that the US cannot send ATACMS to Ukraine, because that would be "escalation". The same with tanks, with F-16s, and with other weapons.

For some reason, this is not true anymore, and nobody explained to us why. Why was this "escalation" in 2022, but it is not "escalation" in 2024? Perhaps it was never "escalation"? But then why did our leaders force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?

I do not understand why Biden and Scholz made those decisions in 2022, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they both are morons.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I think the US / West was afraid of what might happen if NATO gave Ukraine the tools to strike logistics hubs & various military targets inside Russia - it might embolden Russia to do the same inside, say, Poland. However, Ukraine is doing it anyway but with drones and there's not much anyone can do about it.

Secondly, I think we aren't as afraid of Russian rhetoric as we were. We all just want this over now and perhaps we are less concerned about what happens to Russia afterwards.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
US should just deplete it's inventories at this point and backfill it.

There is no scenario where US will be dependent on shells in it's fighting and if it reaches that point something has gone horribly wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking these long range weapons will massively lengthen Russian supply lines, so Russia may have more artillery but they won't be able to get it quickly or easily to the front.
 
nickm said:
I'm thinking these long range weapons will massively lengthen Russian supply lines, so Russia may have more artillery but they won't be able to get it quickly or easily to the front.
Click to expand...

Yes, as far as I understand it that is one of the big advantages. Right now Russia can use their overwhelming superiority with impunity. Just pushing their artillery further back, or making them more vulnerable to counter-attack, will make a massive difference. It won't nullify the advantage, but every little bit helps.
 
The reason why there was hesitation with ATACMS is because they're, quite literally, the only Ballistic missiles the US has outside of ICBM's.

Then, unsurprisingly, someone found thousands of them in a warehouse somewhere and the hesitation got withdrawn.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
The reason why there was hesitation with ATACMS is because they're, quite literally, the only Ballistic missiles the US has outside of ICBM's.

Then, unsurprisingly, someone found thousands of them in a warehouse somewhere and the hesitation got withdrawn.
Click to expand...
Lockheed ramping up PrSM production could also have helped convince some hesitant people.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
The reason why there was hesitation with ATACMS is because they're, quite literally, the only Ballistic missiles the US has outside of ICBM's.

Then, unsurprisingly, someone found thousands of them in a warehouse somewhere and the hesitation got withdrawn.
Click to expand...

They also didn't hand them out because of concern the Ukrainians would go buck wild and start firing them towards Moscow. Now that they've proven they don't need them for that, they can actually start using them to hit occupied infrastructure in Crimea and Donbas.
 
As expected the Russian hawks are threatening Nuclear Armageddon following the latest passing of the US military aid for Ukraine.
 
AU.S.-supplied air-to-ground munition transformed into a ground-based strike weapon has been performing very poorly in Ukraine due to jamming and other factors, according to a senior Pentagon official. Though the weapon system in question has not yet been confirmed, there are strong indications that it could be the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB).
Click to expand...


 
Wonder of the coward Scholz will now give the Taurus missiles to Ukraine too.
Then they could finally blow up Putin's beloved Crimea bridge.
 
Honestly, with the latest policy changes towards Ukrainians living abroad, the UKR government is no better than Russia's.
What on earth is this shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.