US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

I am beginning to think the Nato/EU/US reaction particularly with banking, along with the Japanese action with gas, will out the Russian on notice as to the global reaction, and they will stand down, for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is about to make an “incursion” to Ukraine, mark my words.
Probably within 2 days.

Why do you think that? My current thinking is that nothing will happen. That the Russian troops will go home but the supplies stay in place and they declare some sort of Olympic truce.

It will have to wait until the amphibious fleet has entered the Black Sea. After that, could be any time. Wait for pics of the Russian fleet clearing the Bosporus. I say 3-4 days after that, it’ll start.

[Anonymous]

BlueFredneck wrote:Would Putin settle for a relationship with Ukraine similar to that which the USSR had with Finland during the Cold War?

Putin, I would hope, has no stomach for occupying Ukraine from Kiev on west, outside of some small area in SE Ukraine where pro-Russia sentiment runs strongest. Quite frankly, once he gets past Kiev, it will be a fight for national survival for the Ukrainians, and even east of Kiev, there's enough anti-Russian sentiment to make any wide-ranging occupation damned near impossible.

Would Lviv (heartland of the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine) be willing to accept a partition where the eastern part joins Russia/becomes like Kazakhstan and the western part goes down the NATO road that Albania and North Macedonia have chosen?

Likewise, I hope Biden doesn't want Ukraine as it is currently constituted to join NATO. Ukraine's per capita GDP is 70% that of Albania (the next-poorest NATO member) and under half that of Turkey. Its corruption is near-endemic, and domestic opinion is really and truly split.

Albania has historically been more supportive of the US than the US (a class in which I'd put Poland and the Baltic Republics, and in Asia Vietnam and the Philippines.) Ukraine on the other hand is split between a western half that's in the more supportive of the US than the US, and an eastern half that wants to be like Kazakhstan or part of Russia itself.

In the 2004 election, Yanukovich got over 85% of the vote in the currently occupied zones, and Yushchenko got a similar percentage in far western Ukraine. I have my doubts that sentiments have really changed.

A lot of left-establishment and right-establishment Westerners express shock that people around the world would prefer alternative leadership models. A lot of left-populist and right-populist Westerners express shock that other people around the world would prefer Western-style liberal democracy.

Except that's what the status quo was. Clearly that's the only feasible scenario. Ukraine can only exist as a buffer state. The problem, I think, is that Russia doesn't respect them at all. Until Ukraine has its version of the Winter War this is going to be a bloody mess.

As for East versus West Ukraine. My assumption has been that if Russia crosses the Dneiper then it's WW3. If it formally annexes Donbas then maybe nothing happens. The whole question is what will the response be if we're talking more than Donbas but less than Kyiv?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is about to make an “incursion” to Ukraine, mark my words.
Probably within 2 days.

Why do you think that? My current thinking is that nothing will happen. That the Russian troops will go home but the supplies stay in place and they declare some sort of Olympic truce.

It will have to wait until the amphibious fleet has entered the Black Sea. After that, could be any time. Wait for pics of the Russian fleet clearing the Bosporus. I say 3-4 days after that, it’ll start.

But that's where the timeline gets tricky. The Olympics start Feb 4th and meetings are scheduled with France and Germany this week. That leaves a small window to act. China will be super pissed if Russia's Ukraine nonsense overshadows Beijing.

[Anonymous]

Airlift and give green cards to all Ukrainian women under 40 with 5k IG followers.

[Anonymous]

Have any of you actually been to Russia?

It’s a really pretty country and St. Petersburg is nicer than any American city.

Russian upper middle class have good taste - into chess, classical music, well read, multi lingual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you actually been to Russia?

It’s a really pretty country and St. Petersburg is nicer than any American city.

Russian upper middle class have good taste - into chess, classical music, well read, multi lingual.

\

LMAO.

That's why they all run to London and New York.

GTFO with your Russian propaganda BX.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you actually been to Russia?

It’s a really pretty country and St. Petersburg is nicer than any American city.

Russian upper middle class have good taste - into chess, classical music, well read, multi lingual.

\

LMAO.

That's why they all run to London and New York.

GTFO with your Russian propaganda BX.

That’s Russian super rich — who have more in common with the west in their degeneracy.

Working umc in Russia doesn’t have the money to park it in London or New York.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you actually been to Russia?

It’s a really pretty country and St. Petersburg is nicer than any American city.

Russian upper middle class have good taste - into chess, classical music, well read, multi lingual.

\

LMAO.

That's why they all run to London and New York.

GTFO with your Russian propaganda BX.

That’s Russian super rich — who have more in common with the west in their degeneracy.

Working umc in Russia doesn’t have the money to park it in London or New York.

My point is, if St. Petersburg was so nice, they would stay there, not in the less nice (according to you) American cities.

Also, UMC people in cities like NY or DC also like chess, classical music and are multilingual. Russians are not special there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BlueFredneck wrote:Would Putin settle for a relationship with Ukraine similar to that which the USSR had with Finland during the Cold War?

Putin, I would hope, has no stomach for occupying Ukraine from Kiev on west, outside of some small area in SE Ukraine where pro-Russia sentiment runs strongest. Quite frankly, once he gets past Kiev, it will be a fight for national survival for the Ukrainians, and even east of Kiev, there's enough anti-Russian sentiment to make any wide-ranging occupation damned near impossible.

Would Lviv (heartland of the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine) be willing to accept a partition where the eastern part joins Russia/becomes like Kazakhstan and the western part goes down the NATO road that Albania and North Macedonia have chosen?

Likewise, I hope Biden doesn't want Ukraine as it is currently constituted to join NATO. Ukraine's per capita GDP is 70% that of Albania (the next-poorest NATO member) and under half that of Turkey. Its corruption is near-endemic, and domestic opinion is really and truly split.

Albania has historically been more supportive of the US than the US (a class in which I'd put Poland and the Baltic Republics, and in Asia Vietnam and the Philippines.) Ukraine on the other hand is split between a western half that's in the more supportive of the US than the US, and an eastern half that wants to be like Kazakhstan or part of Russia itself.

In the 2004 election, Yanukovich got over 85% of the vote in the currently occupied zones, and Yushchenko got a similar percentage in far western Ukraine. I have my doubts that sentiments have really changed.

A lot of left-establishment and right-establishment Westerners express shock that people around the world would prefer alternative leadership models. A lot of left-populist and right-populist Westerners express shock that other people around the world would prefer Western-style liberal democracy.

Except that's what the status quo was. Clearly that's the only feasible scenario. Ukraine can only exist as a buffer state. The problem, I think, is that Russia doesn't respect them at all. Until Ukraine has its version of the Winter War this is going to be a bloody mess.

As for East versus West Ukraine. My assumption has been that if Russia crosses the Dneiper then it's WW3. If it formally annexes Donbas then maybe nothing happens. The whole question is what will the response be if we're talking more than Donbas but less than Kyiv?

WW III with what? The tyranny of distance precludes a build-up of ground forces needed to fight a war against a need peer, to push someone off a massive piece of ground. A build-up of ground forces would just confirm Putin’s worry of western expansion. The air environment is entirely not permissive. The sea component’s picture is better but ships cannot occupy and defend land. I suppose you could use the Marines to kick the door in as is their mission, but then what? The marines have just turned in all their tanks and most of their artillery and without the Army’s follow on armored fist they’re toast. I guess we could fight WW III with nuclear weapons but for the sake of the Ukrainians? Nah. War is not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BlueFredneck wrote:Would Putin settle for a relationship with Ukraine similar to that which the USSR had with Finland during the Cold War?

Putin, I would hope, has no stomach for occupying Ukraine from Kiev on west, outside of some small area in SE Ukraine where pro-Russia sentiment runs strongest. Quite frankly, once he gets past Kiev, it will be a fight for national survival for the Ukrainians, and even east of Kiev, there's enough anti-Russian sentiment to make any wide-ranging occupation damned near impossible.

Would Lviv (heartland of the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine) be willing to accept a partition where the eastern part joins Russia/becomes like Kazakhstan and the western part goes down the NATO road that Albania and North Macedonia have chosen?

Likewise, I hope Biden doesn't want Ukraine as it is currently constituted to join NATO. Ukraine's per capita GDP is 70% that of Albania (the next-poorest NATO member) and under half that of Turkey. Its corruption is near-endemic, and domestic opinion is really and truly split.

Albania has historically been more supportive of the US than the US (a class in which I'd put Poland and the Baltic Republics, and in Asia Vietnam and the Philippines.) Ukraine on the other hand is split between a western half that's in the more supportive of the US than the US, and an eastern half that wants to be like Kazakhstan or part of Russia itself.

In the 2004 election, Yanukovich got over 85% of the vote in the currently occupied zones, and Yushchenko got a similar percentage in far western Ukraine. I have my doubts that sentiments have really changed.

A lot of left-establishment and right-establishment Westerners express shock that people around the world would prefer alternative leadership models. A lot of left-populist and right-populist Westerners express shock that other people around the world would prefer Western-style liberal democracy.

Except that's what the status quo was. Clearly that's the only feasible scenario. Ukraine can only exist as a buffer state. The problem, I think, is that Russia doesn't respect them at all. Until Ukraine has its version of the Winter War this is going to be a bloody mess.

As for East versus West Ukraine. My assumption has been that if Russia crosses the Dneiper then it's WW3. If it formally annexes Donbas then maybe nothing happens. The whole question is what will the response be if we're talking more than Donbas but less than Kyiv?

WW III with what? The tyranny of distance precludes a build-up of ground forces needed to fight a war against a need peer, to push someone off a massive piece of ground. A build-up of ground forces would just confirm Putin’s worry of western expansion. The air environment is entirely not permissive. The sea component’s picture is better but ships cannot occupy and defend land. I suppose you could use the Marines to kick the door in as is their mission, but then what? The marines have just turned in all their tanks and most of their artillery and without the Army’s follow on armored fist they’re toast. I guess we could fight WW III with nuclear weapons but for the sake of the Ukrainians? Nah. War is not worth it.

The chances of Ukraine crossing over into NATO if Russia crosses the Dneiper are very high. If NATO gets attacked then WW3 happens. It wouldn't be a war of choice. It wouldn't be good for anyone but it is what would likely happen. That scenario is not in our control. It's up to Russia.

[Anonymous]

Putin seems kinda desperate. Why the rush?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BlueFredneck wrote:Would Putin settle for a relationship with Ukraine similar to that which the USSR had with Finland during the Cold War?

Putin, I would hope, has no stomach for occupying Ukraine from Kiev on west, outside of some small area in SE Ukraine where pro-Russia sentiment runs strongest. Quite frankly, once he gets past Kiev, it will be a fight for national survival for the Ukrainians, and even east of Kiev, there's enough anti-Russian sentiment to make any wide-ranging occupation damned near impossible.

Would Lviv (heartland of the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine) be willing to accept a partition where the eastern part joins Russia/becomes like Kazakhstan and the western part goes down the NATO road that Albania and North Macedonia have chosen?

Likewise, I hope Biden doesn't want Ukraine as it is currently constituted to join NATO. Ukraine's per capita GDP is 70% that of Albania (the next-poorest NATO member) and under half that of Turkey. Its corruption is near-endemic, and domestic opinion is really and truly split.

Albania has historically been more supportive of the US than the US (a class in which I'd put Poland and the Baltic Republics, and in Asia Vietnam and the Philippines.) Ukraine on the other hand is split between a western half that's in the more supportive of the US than the US, and an eastern half that wants to be like Kazakhstan or part of Russia itself.

In the 2004 election, Yanukovich got over 85% of the vote in the currently occupied zones, and Yushchenko got a similar percentage in far western Ukraine. I have my doubts that sentiments have really changed.

A lot of left-establishment and right-establishment Westerners express shock that people around the world would prefer alternative leadership models. A lot of left-populist and right-populist Westerners express shock that other people around the world would prefer Western-style liberal democracy.

Except that's what the status quo was. Clearly that's the only feasible scenario. Ukraine can only exist as a buffer state. The problem, I think, is that Russia doesn't respect them at all. Until Ukraine has its version of the Winter War this is going to be a bloody mess.

As for East versus West Ukraine. My assumption has been that if Russia crosses the Dneiper then it's WW3. If it formally annexes Donbas then maybe nothing happens. The whole question is what will the response be if we're talking more than Donbas but less than Kyiv?

WW III with what? The tyranny of distance precludes a build-up of ground forces needed to fight a war against a need peer, to push someone off a massive piece of ground. A build-up of ground forces would just confirm Putin’s worry of western expansion. The air environment is entirely not permissive. The sea component’s picture is better but ships cannot occupy and defend land. I suppose you could use the Marines to kick the door in as is their mission, but then what? The marines have just turned in all their tanks and most of their artillery and without the Army’s follow on armored fist they’re toast. I guess we could fight WW III with nuclear weapons but for the sake of the Ukrainians? Nah. War is not worth it.

The chances of Ukraine crossing over into NATO if Russia crosses the Dneiper are very high. If NATO gets attacked then WW3 happens. It wouldn't be a war of choice. It wouldn't be good for anyone but it is what would likely happen. That scenario is not in our control. It's up to Russia.

DP. I get what you are saying but didn’t anyone learn anything from WW1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putin seems kinda desperate. Why the rush?

Well, this will draw the trolls, but it's this:

Trump hated NATO. Trump was willing to abandon Ukraine if they would not dig up dirt on his political opponent (the subject of his first impeachment). And while I don't necessarily think Trump was all in with Russia, lots of Trump surrogates/water carriers are - Bannon, Tucker Carlson, etc.

Now, despite the fact that the US President is an old, old man, he's 100 million percent in on NATO. The UK is kind of hating Brexit and is about to oust their PM because holiday parties. The Belarus population rose up and challenged a rigged election earlier this year. The uprising was brutally suppressed, in the end with help from Russian forces. Putin arrested his major political opponent by diverting a flight and forcing it to land in friendly territory. Dude is not winning.

Putin KNOWS, knows in his bones that this is a losing fight over the long term. He's trying to stall that.

I think he does take some territory, suffers some casualties, and goes home. He has propaganda running 24/7. Best case scenario for the West is that he is too ambitious and takes A LOT of casualties and has to go lick his wounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BlueFredneck wrote:Would Putin settle for a relationship with Ukraine similar to that which the USSR had with Finland during the Cold War?

Putin, I would hope, has no stomach for occupying Ukraine from Kiev on west, outside of some small area in SE Ukraine where pro-Russia sentiment runs strongest. Quite frankly, once he gets past Kiev, it will be a fight for national survival for the Ukrainians, and even east of Kiev, there's enough anti-Russian sentiment to make any wide-ranging occupation damned near impossible.

Would Lviv (heartland of the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine) be willing to accept a partition where the eastern part joins Russia/becomes like Kazakhstan and the western part goes down the NATO road that Albania and North Macedonia have chosen?

Likewise, I hope Biden doesn't want Ukraine as it is currently constituted to join NATO. Ukraine's per capita GDP is 70% that of Albania (the next-poorest NATO member) and under half that of Turkey. Its corruption is near-endemic, and domestic opinion is really and truly split.

Albania has historically been more supportive of the US than the US (a class in which I'd put Poland and the Baltic Republics, and in Asia Vietnam and the Philippines.) Ukraine on the other hand is split between a western half that's in the more supportive of the US than the US, and an eastern half that wants to be like Kazakhstan or part of Russia itself.

In the 2004 election, Yanukovich got over 85% of the vote in the currently occupied zones, and Yushchenko got a similar percentage in far western Ukraine. I have my doubts that sentiments have really changed.

A lot of left-establishment and right-establishment Westerners express shock that people around the world would prefer alternative leadership models. A lot of left-populist and right-populist Westerners express shock that other people around the world would prefer Western-style liberal democracy.

Except that's what the status quo was. Clearly that's the only feasible scenario. Ukraine can only exist as a buffer state. The problem, I think, is that Russia doesn't respect them at all. Until Ukraine has its version of the Winter War this is going to be a bloody mess.

As for East versus West Ukraine. My assumption has been that if Russia crosses the Dneiper then it's WW3. If it formally annexes Donbas then maybe nothing happens. The whole question is what will the response be if we're talking more than Donbas but less than Kyiv?

WW III with what? The tyranny of distance precludes a build-up of ground forces needed to fight a war against a need peer, to push someone off a massive piece of ground. A build-up of ground forces would just confirm Putin’s worry of western expansion. The air environment is entirely not permissive. The sea component’s picture is better but ships cannot occupy and defend land. I suppose you could use the Marines to kick the door in as is their mission, but then what? The marines have just turned in all their tanks and most of their artillery and without the Army’s follow on armored fist they’re toast. I guess we could fight WW III with nuclear weapons but for the sake of the Ukrainians? Nah. War is not worth it.

The chances of Ukraine crossing over into NATO if Russia crosses the Dneiper are very high. If NATO gets attacked then WW3 happens. It wouldn't be a war of choice. It wouldn't be good for anyone but it is what would likely happen. That scenario is not in our control. It's up to Russia.

DP. I get what you are saying but didn’t anyone learn anything from WW1?

Nope. Those people are all dead. Generational cycles or Kondratiev waves, take your pick. All the flashpoint areas of this conflagration have been bathed in blood for every generation except the ones currently in charge. Boomers in Russia. Gen X in Ukraine. The millennials in cyberspace.