What is the End Game in Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Russia started it, Russia can end it at any moment.
Yet comrade thinks the onus is on Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Nuclear war.
And Russia wins because we have more to live for and are therefore weaker and less willing to die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nuclear war.
And Russia wins because we have more to live for and are therefore weaker and less willing to die.

Not according to what Trump said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nuclear war.
And Russia wins because we have more to live for and are therefore weaker and less willing to die.

Well I do think there is a nuclear end game.
That would be denuclearization of Russia.
They were allowed their arsenal post Cold War.
They have abused that privilege.
Once Russia has been ground down, we can start that discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nuclear war.
And Russia wins because we have more to live for and are therefore weaker and less willing to die.

Well I do think there is a nuclear end game.
That would be denuclearization of Russia.
They were allowed their arsenal post Cold War.
They have abused that privilege.
Once Russia has been ground down, we can start that discussion.

It is not going to happen. We couldn't even get the tiny North Korea to play.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

Would you believe that a bunch of ragtag villagers could push the great Soviet military out of Afghanistan (and that the same group could later do the same to the US)? Wars don't play out in reality the way they do on TV. Six months is not a long time.

Aren't you oversimplifying things? These weren't a bunch of ragtag villagers. They were armed and trained by the CIA, weren't they.

And, most significantly, while they pushed Soviets out of AFghanistan, Afghanistan is NOT better off today than it was then. Remember that when you follow Hillary Clinton into the unpleasant talk of the "next Afghanistan". No country wants to be the next Afghanistan for your viewing pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

For not being a Russian troll you seem to be repeating the Russia disinformation You do not seem to understand military operations, how the DOD budget works and what is happening in the Ukraine other then what is put out by Russian propaganda.

Ukraine does not lack man power but the Russians do. Russia is huge country and its military not deployed in the Ukraine have been stripped to the bone- equipment and man power. Those units are at 40-50% combat efficiency. Ukraine is now in the process of systematically destroying supply routs and depots in sectors that they will retake before the fall. They have been so successful that Russia can only mount company size actions. The Black Sea fleet(the pride of the Russia navy) hides on the other side of the Black Sea. The Russians Airforce can only operate in Russian territory unable to support it land forces. Ukraine has developed and deployed long range drones and missiles. There have been many attacks against Russian in Georgia and Chechnya. Russia does not have the capability to sustain this level of active and is facing increase “terrorist” threats at home.

Your post contains way more propaganda than the one you're responding to.

Let's acknowledge from the very beginning that Ukraine has its own propaganda operation, and it's very well funded and staffed. They've forced CBS to withdraw a documentary with one critical remark about how little military aid actually reaches its destination. And remember that no one has questioned the accuracy of this statement, it was withdrawn under the pretext of "this is not good for Ukraine", which has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with propaganda.

The fairy tales the West has been telling about the Russian army are quite transparent to anyone with eyes and ears. On one hand, the Russian army is poorly supplied, poorly ran, has morale issues and is working with paper guns. On the other hand, 20% of Ukraine is occupied and we urgently need bazilions of dollars to fight it. And no one asks the obvious question, well which is it? Of course not, because Raytheon and Northrop Grumman would very much like to continue the booming business and they need you to believe their wares are indispensable.

There have not been "many" attacks against "Russian" in Georgia and Chechnya, whatever it is that you mean by that?

The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has not been able to get ANY Of its territory back, himars or no himars.

When all is said and done, they will regret walking away from Istanbul talks because these were the best terms they were going to get.

Of course, it doesn't help that the West is getting annoyed by Zelensky, who keeps spouting new reasons why he "would not negotiate" every single day. Hold a referendum, and I will refuse to negotiate! Try my POWs, and I will refuse to negotiate! Make my latte with soy milk, and I will refuse to negotiate! I mean come on man, it's not like you're negotiating now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

For not being a Russian troll you seem to be repeating the Russia disinformation You do not seem to understand military operations, how the DOD budget works and what is happening in the Ukraine other then what is put out by Russian propaganda.

Ukraine does not lack man power but the Russians do. Russia is huge country and its military not deployed in the Ukraine have been stripped to the bone- equipment and man power. Those units are at 40-50% combat efficiency. Ukraine is now in the process of systematically destroying supply routs and depots in sectors that they will retake before the fall. They have been so successful that Russia can only mount company size actions. The Black Sea fleet(the pride of the Russia navy) hides on the other side of the Black Sea. The Russians Airforce can only operate in Russian territory unable to support it land forces. Ukraine has developed and deployed long range drones and missiles. There have been many attacks against Russian in Georgia and Chechnya. Russia does not have the capability to sustain this level of active and is facing increase “terrorist” threats at home.

Your post contains way more propaganda than the one you're responding to.

Let's acknowledge from the very beginning that Ukraine has its own propaganda operation, and it's very well funded and staffed. They've forced CBS to withdraw a documentary with one critical remark about how little military aid actually reaches its destination. And remember that no one has questioned the accuracy of this statement, it was withdrawn under the pretext of "this is not good for Ukraine", which has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with propaganda.

The fairy tales the West has been telling about the Russian army are quite transparent to anyone with eyes and ears. On one hand, the Russian army is poorly supplied, poorly ran, has morale issues and is working with paper guns. On the other hand, 20% of Ukraine is occupied and we urgently need bazilions of dollars to fight it. And no one asks the obvious question, well which is it? Of course not, because Raytheon and Northrop Grumman would very much like to continue the booming business and they need you to believe their wares are indispensable.

There have not been "many" attacks against "Russian" in Georgia and Chechnya, whatever it is that you mean by that?

The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has not been able to get ANY Of its territory back, himars or no himars.

When all is said and done, they will regret walking away from Istanbul talks because these were the best terms they were going to get.

Of course, it doesn't help that the West is getting annoyed by Zelensky, who keeps spouting new reasons why he "would not negotiate" every single day. Hold a referendum, and I will refuse to negotiate! Try my POWs, and I will refuse to negotiate! Make my latte with soy milk, and I will refuse to negotiate! I mean come on man, it's not like you're negotiating now.

Dp- ah yes… another fresh take from the Istanbul talks poster. 💩

[Anonymous]

Russia is just being nice.

They can go whatever they want. Sanctions have just increased the Ruble value and now Europe is whining about getting gas cut off this winter.

The West is too soft and Russia has less to lose by a mile.

[Anonymous]

OP, I don't know what the prognosis on the war is. I agree that it's too early to tell. What I do know is that Putin will not be satisfied with Ukraine. He will not stop until Russian soldiers have marched to Brandenberg Gate. So as Americans, we should be thanking the Ukrainian Territorial Defenses on a daily basis for keep us out of a much bigger conflict...Poland will not be far behind if Ukraine falls.

[Anonymous]

Putin needs to be out of power for this to end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I don't know what the prognosis on the war is. I agree that it's too early to tell. What I do know is that Putin will not be satisfied with Ukraine. He will not stop until Russian soldiers have marched to Brandenberg Gate. So as Americans, we should be thanking the Ukrainian Territorial Defenses on a daily basis for keep us out of a much bigger conflict...Poland will not be far behind if Ukraine falls.

That's nonsense and no you don't KNOW that, this is the line that Ukraine's PR advisors have successfully sold to the West that Ukraine is fighting "on behalf of Europe", and that if Ukraine falls, then "real" Europe will be next. Putin has shown no appetite whatsoever for invading other countries, and he has warned, multiple times and across multiple presidencies, what his red lines were. This war was entirely preventable but NATO decided they will not say they will not do what they know they won't do. Putin has said many many times that NATO should stay out of Georgia and Ukraine. Georgia flirted with NATO and got smacked. Ukraine flirted with NATO and look what happened. NATO has sacrificed so many Ukrainians because it refused to say the truth: that Ukraine has no chance at membership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should preface this by saying that I'm not a pro-Russian troll. The invasion of Ukraine is both unprovoked and has led to an unending stream of Russian atrocities. I would love to see Russia pushed out of both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

But I'm getting confused about Ukraine's prognosis and our own objectives. Ukraine has failed to reclaim any significant territory since Kharkiv in the Spring. They lack the manpower to conduct the urban warfare required to push Russia from its defensive positions. From everything I've read the HIMARS long-range missiles donated by the US, while allowing spectacular strikes behind Russian lines, are not likely to substantially affect Russia's long-term defensive capabilities. So we have a long-term (maybe permanent) stalemate. Except it's only a stalemate because of constant infusions of weapons from NATO countries.

So are you supportive of a permanent lien on the US military budget to keep the war as a stalemate? Is that even a moral choice, given the civilian destruction that will result? Should we be pressing instead for some negotiated swap of territory for peace? Or is it better to keep on present course, checkmating Russia by proxy even at a cost to Ukraine's civilian population and military?

For not being a Russian troll you seem to be repeating the Russia disinformation You do not seem to understand military operations, how the DOD budget works and what is happening in the Ukraine other then what is put out by Russian propaganda.

Ukraine does not lack man power but the Russians do. Russia is huge country and its military not deployed in the Ukraine have been stripped to the bone- equipment and man power. Those units are at 40-50% combat efficiency. Ukraine is now in the process of systematically destroying supply routs and depots in sectors that they will retake before the fall. They have been so successful that Russia can only mount company size actions. The Black Sea fleet(the pride of the Russia navy) hides on the other side of the Black Sea. The Russians Airforce can only operate in Russian territory unable to support it land forces. Ukraine has developed and deployed long range drones and missiles. There have been many attacks against Russian in Georgia and Chechnya. Russia does not have the capability to sustain this level of active and is facing increase “terrorist” threats at home.

Your post contains way more propaganda than the one you're responding to.

Let's acknowledge from the very beginning that Ukraine has its own propaganda operation, and it's very well funded and staffed. They've forced CBS to withdraw a documentary with one critical remark about how little military aid actually reaches its destination. And remember that no one has questioned the accuracy of this statement, it was withdrawn under the pretext of "this is not good for Ukraine", which has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with propaganda.

The fairy tales the West has been telling about the Russian army are quite transparent to anyone with eyes and ears. On one hand, the Russian army is poorly supplied, poorly ran, has morale issues and is working with paper guns. On the other hand, 20% of Ukraine is occupied and we urgently need bazilions of dollars to fight it. And no one asks the obvious question, well which is it? Of course not, because Raytheon and Northrop Grumman would very much like to continue the booming business and they need you to believe their wares are indispensable.

There have not been "many" attacks against "Russian" in Georgia and Chechnya, whatever it is that you mean by that?

The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has not been able to get ANY Of its territory back, himars or no himars.

When all is said and done, they will regret walking away from Istanbul talks because these were the best terms they were going to get.

Of course, it doesn't help that the West is getting annoyed by Zelensky, who keeps spouting new reasons why he "would not negotiate" every single day. Hold a referendum, and I will refuse to negotiate! Try my POWs, and I will refuse to negotiate! Make my latte with soy milk, and I will refuse to negotiate! I mean come on man, it's not like you're negotiating now.

Dp- ah yes… another fresh take from the Istanbul talks poster. 💩

Find one untrue thing I said, then talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia needs to surrender and retreat. They have treated their own military very badly during this war. It would be a shame if that were continue in perpetuity.

“They need to” but they won’t. Russia isn’t running out of petroleum-income, troops, or artillery. How do you make them withdraw?

The short answer is to cripple Russia’s military industrial complex by denying access to technology. You can’t build spy satellites, ships, airplanes, tanks, middles or artillery systems without semiconductors. That applies to manufacturing machinery as well as weapons systems themselves. The same ripple effect debilitates almost every sector of industry, not to mention something like the ISS and Russian space program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I don't know what the prognosis on the war is. I agree that it's too early to tell. What I do know is that Putin will not be satisfied with Ukraine. He will not stop until Russian soldiers have marched to Brandenberg Gate. So as Americans, we should be thanking the Ukrainian Territorial Defenses on a daily basis for keep us out of a much bigger conflict...Poland will not be far behind if Ukraine falls.

That's nonsense and no you don't KNOW that, this is the line that Ukraine's PR advisors have successfully sold to the West that Ukraine is fighting "on behalf of Europe", and that if Ukraine falls, then "real" Europe will be next. Putin has shown no appetite whatsoever for invading other countries, and he has warned, multiple times and across multiple presidencies, what his red lines were. This war was entirely preventable but NATO decided they will not say they will not do what they know they won't do. Putin has said many many times that NATO should stay out of Georgia and Ukraine. Georgia flirted with NATO and got smacked. Ukraine flirted with NATO and look what happened. NATO has sacrificed so many Ukrainians because it refused to say the truth: that Ukraine has no chance at membership.

Putin has show no appetite for invading other countries? Georgia will disagree. As will Chechnya. Not to
Mention co-opting Belarus and meddling in elections in France and Montenegro, among other places. Oh, and Syria. And shall we include shooting down an commercial airliner?