What is the End Game in Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this from a US geopolitical perspective the answer is obvious that the US should keep supplying Ukraine. The benefits are big and costs are small. As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should keep supplying and slowly weakening Russia. It’s as simple as that. Russia can end the war by ending their invasion and leaving at any time.

This is only true if Ukrainian casualties are worth zero in your eyes, which may very well be.

It’s their choice to fight. What’s the alternative, be a Russian puppet state? We don’t need to make their decisions, just keep supplying if they want to continue. The benefits for the US are significant. Russia is making the choice as the aggressor to fight and have casualties, ukraine is also making the choice (although less so since they were invaded). For the US the choice is easy to continue supplying as long as the Ukrainian population supports continuing.

If it is their choice to fight, why is Boris Johnson flying to Kiev telling Zelensky not to negotiate?

[Anonymous]

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?

unfortunately at this point all Ukrainians hate the Russians with the kind of passion that will take generations to die away. This war will probably smolder for 100 years. You cannot awake such passions and expect peace again in your lifetime.

[Anonymous]

My theory is that the end game is to weaken both Russia and Ukraine and maybe Europe as well, and it is seen as worth spending the money on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that the end game is to weaken both Russia and Ukraine and maybe Europe as well, and it is seen as worth spending the money on.

Yes.

Keep the Russians out

Germans down

Americans in

This is an extension of the raison d’etre of nato

As euro keeps sinking, america will be able to buy tons of European assets at a discount

Europe is going to be a American vassalage over the next two decades

[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?

unfortunately at this point all Ukrainians hate the Russians with the kind of passion that will take generations to die away. This war will probably smolder for 100 years. You cannot awake such passions and expect peace again in your lifetime.

You say this yet a similar emotion rose in Chechnya after the war, and remember Chechnya suffered more than Ukraine did as of now. You would have thought the hatred would smolder but it did not. Chechens may dislike both regimes but they have no particular problem with ethnic Russians. So, I think that under the right circumstances, the hatred would be contained to those who inherited it through their DNA and that involves mostly Western and Poland-oriented Ukrainians, who are a minority.

The fact of the matter is that both countries are neighbors and share a border. This will not change. They will have to find some way to coexist and they will.

[Anonymous]

To end this war, we need a twenty billion package.

Ten billion for Ukrainian oligarchs, and ten billion for the k street mafia.

Only then can we have peace. If they have to skim this money 10% at a time, it will be more costly and time consuming.

[Anonymous]

Don't you think this is a question for Russia? After all, they started this war.

[Anonymous]

The end game is clearly keep paying them and ignore that the Zelensky’s had time to be on Vogue’s cover while the people suffer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end game is clearly keep paying them and ignore that the Zelensky’s had time to be on Vogue’s cover while the people suffer

Lol how can you saying anything when you supported trump. This is like Charles Manson complaining about the moon is not made of blue cheese because he like cheddar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this from a US geopolitical perspective the answer is obvious that the US should keep supplying Ukraine. The benefits are big and costs are small. As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should keep supplying and slowly weakening Russia. It’s as simple as that. Russia can end the war by ending their invasion and leaving at any time.

This is only true if Ukrainian casualties are worth zero in your eyes, which may very well be.

It’s their choice to fight. What’s the alternative, be a Russian puppet state? We don’t need to make their decisions, just keep supplying if they want to continue. The benefits for the US are significant. Russia is making the choice as the aggressor to fight and have casualties, ukraine is also making the choice (although less so since they were invaded). For the US the choice is easy to continue supplying as long as the Ukrainian population supports continuing.

If it is their choice to fight, why is Boris Johnson flying to Kiev telling Zelensky not to negotiate?

Boris Johnson is a vainglorious fool.

[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?

unfortunately at this point all Ukrainians hate the Russians with the kind of passion that will take generations to die away. This war will probably smolder for 100 years. You cannot awake such passions and expect peace again in your lifetime.

You say this yet a similar emotion rose in Chechnya after the war, and remember Chechnya suffered more than Ukraine did as of now. You would have thought the hatred would smolder but it did not. Chechens may dislike both regimes but they have no particular problem with ethnic Russians. So, I think that under the right circumstances, the hatred would be contained to those who inherited it through their DNA and that involves mostly Western and Poland-oriented Ukrainians, who are a minority.

The fact of the matter is that both countries are neighbors and share a border. This will not change. They will have to find some way to coexist and they will.

Putin can withdraw to the pre-2014 border and the countries can again coexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

WTH. People hate Russia because they've got nukes and they threaten to use them.
And they bomb the daylight out of other countries (Syria, anyone?) Nice white washing.

If you're American, you have no grounds to blame other countries for bombing the daylight out of anything, since America does this with abandon.

Russia still beats us at that by a mile. One doesn't have to think of the US as without fault to realize that Russia is top of the class in that regard.

LOL no it doesn't.

Count American and American-led military invasions in the last 20 years. Now count Russia-led ones. Compare two numbers.

Count the casualties in #1. Now count the casualties in #2. Compare two numbers.

Now, count the number of American military bases around the world. Now, count the Russian ones. Compare two numbers.

Why don’t you provide the data? Can’t do math?

Crimea, Donbass, Transnistria, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nagorno Karabash, Chad, Mali, Central African Republic, Syria.

This year alone theyve threatened to invade the UK, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria as well.

But why limit it to 20 years. How many years out of the past 200 has Moscovy been peaceful towards their neighbors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

WTH. People hate Russia because they've got nukes and they threaten to use them.
And they bomb the daylight out of other countries (Syria, anyone?) Nice white washing.

If you're American, you have no grounds to blame other countries for bombing the daylight out of anything, since America does this with abandon.

Russia still beats us at that by a mile. One doesn't have to think of the US as without fault to realize that Russia is top of the class in that regard.

LOL no it doesn't.

Count American and American-led military invasions in the last 20 years. Now count Russia-led ones. Compare two numbers.

Count the casualties in #1. Now count the casualties in #2. Compare two numbers.

Now, count the number of American military bases around the world. Now, count the Russian ones. Compare two numbers.

Why don’t you provide the data? Can’t do math?

Crimea, Donbass, Transnistria, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nagorno Karabash, Chad, Mali, Central African Republic, Syria.

This year alone theyve threatened to invade the UK, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria as well.

But why limit it to 20 years. How many years out of the past 200 has Moscovy been peaceful towards their neighbors?

If we’re going back years then England takes the cake.

Colonizer devils that terrorized worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

WTH. People hate Russia because they've got nukes and they threaten to use them.
And they bomb the daylight out of other countries (Syria, anyone?) Nice white washing.

If you're American, you have no grounds to blame other countries for bombing the daylight out of anything, since America does this with abandon.

Russia still beats us at that by a mile. One doesn't have to think of the US as without fault to realize that Russia is top of the class in that regard.

LOL no it doesn't.

Count American and American-led military invasions in the last 20 years. Now count Russia-led ones. Compare two numbers.

Count the casualties in #1. Now count the casualties in #2. Compare two numbers.

Now, count the number of American military bases around the world. Now, count the Russian ones. Compare two numbers.

Why don’t you provide the data? Can’t do math?

Crimea, Donbass, Transnistria, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nagorno Karabash, Chad, Mali, Central African Republic, Syria.

This year alone theyve threatened to invade the UK, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria as well.

But why limit it to 20 years. How many years out of the past 200 has Moscovy been peaceful towards their neighbors?

If we’re going back years then England takes the cake.

Colonizer devils that terrorized worldwide.

Maybe but they've at least learned from their past and reformed. Muscovy and its successor states, the USSR and Russia, just double down on the oppression and aggression each time they change.

The list of countries that have started a war of territorial expansion since WW2 is very small. China with Tibet, Iraq with Kuwait, Indonesia with East Timor, and Russia with Ukraine on multiple occassions as well as Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

WTH. People hate Russia because they've got nukes and they threaten to use them.
And they bomb the daylight out of other countries (Syria, anyone?) Nice white washing.

If you're American, you have no grounds to blame other countries for bombing the daylight out of anything, since America does this with abandon.

Russia still beats us at that by a mile. One doesn't have to think of the US as without fault to realize that Russia is top of the class in that regard.

LOL no it doesn't.

Count American and American-led military invasions in the last 20 years. Now count Russia-led ones. Compare two numbers.

Count the casualties in #1. Now count the casualties in #2. Compare two numbers.

Now, count the number of American military bases around the world. Now, count the Russian ones. Compare two numbers.

Why don’t you provide the data? Can’t do math?

Crimea, Donbass, Transnistria, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nagorno Karabash, Chad, Mali, Central African Republic, Syria.

This year alone theyve threatened to invade the UK, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria as well.

But why limit it to 20 years. How many years out of the past 200 has Moscovy been peaceful towards their neighbors?

A person who can't spell Artzakh should not be opining on geopolitics.

Or someone who has selective amnesia about Iraq, Lybia, the Balkans or the entire South American continent.

Tell me, do you pronounce Iraq as Eye-Rack?