Ukraine mega thread

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Overall I hear what you are saying. I hope that the Western world is following these thoughts. I don't think so though. I think we are falling in the same mindset that Neville Chamberlain brought to WW2. Most of the scenarios that we have witnessed up to today follow many parallels of events leading up to WW1 and WW2.

I don't think so. I think they're all over it. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley today to CNN:

Top US Gen. Mark Milley told CNN Tuesday that he believes "what's at stake" in this war "is much greater than Ukraine."

"What's at stake is the security, for the security of Europe since the end of World War II. And indeed, you can easily make the case that what's at stake is the global international security order that was put in place in 1945," Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN's Jim Sciutto. "That international order has lasted 78 years. It's prevented great war. And underlining that entire concept is the idea that large nations will not conduct military aggression against smaller nations, and that is exactly what's happened here, by Russia against a smaller nation."
Milley continued by saying that if Russia gets away with its aggression in Ukraine "cost-free," then "so goes the so-called international order."

"If that happens, then we're heading into an era of seriously increased instability," Milley added.

"So right now ... now is the time and right now is the opportunity here to stop aggression and to restore peace and security to the European continent."

[Schneed10]

CRed I think the US has a red line in mind. They're not going to say what it is. But if and once it looks like Russia has gained the upper hand in Ukraine, the US will be prepared to enter the fray. They can't say that, they can't even hint at it. But I think they're preparing for it, and behind closed doors preparing their allies for it, working to come to a consensus on what that red line is.

Until that red line is crossed, they'll continue supplying Ukraine.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

CRed I think the US has a red line in mind. They're not going to say what it is. But if and once it looks like Russia has gained the upper hand in Ukraine, the US will be prepared to enter the fray. They can't say that, they can't even hint at it. But I think they're preparing for it, and behind closed doors preparing their allies for it, working to come to a consensus on what that red line is.

Until that red line is crossed, they'll continue supplying Ukraine.

I think that's a lot of faith in Western Europe and DC. I generally think a red line should be invading a sovereign country without an obvious compelling case. I hesitate writing this because the US has pushed those boundaries - particularly in the middle east. BUT I think that is the standard that should be applied in all cases.

All in all, I hope that the UN/NATO political wings have the will to enforce whatever redline they have agreed on.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think that's a lot of faith in Western Europe and DC. I generally think a red line should be invading a sovereign country without an obvious compelling case. I hesitate writing this because the US has pushed those boundaries - particularly in the middle east. BUT I think that is the standard that should be applied in all cases.

All in all, I hope that the UN/NATO political wings have the will to enforce whatever redline they have agreed on.

I think your view is just a little on the utopian side, perhaps even naive, that's all. I think the US and NATO is morally outraged enough to want to take action, but they're confronted by the reality that they'll have to give tens of thousands of lives to do so. So they're making a pragmatic choice to let Ukraine continue to make the sacrifices, until there's no other choice.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think your view is just a little on the utopian side, perhaps even naive, that's all. I think the US and NATO is morally outraged enough to want to take action, but they're confronted by the reality that they'll have to give tens of thousands of lives to do so. So they're making a pragmatic choice to let Ukraine continue to make the sacrifices, until there's no other choice.

I agree with this and IMO it would be "millions" of lives.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I agree with this and IMO it would be "millions" of lives.

Meh. The nuclear threat be like

[CRedskinsRule]

Since I came on venting about Mariupol, I want to say Kudos to the UN and Red Cross for getting all the women and children out of the steel plant. From what Zelensky said, it sounds like there are also ongoing talks about the remaining Ukranian military in the plant.

[Chico23231]

Ukraine is slow and steady losing group on the eastern front and doesn’t have the ability to retake land…

While Russia performance hasn’t been great, they aren’t exactly losing.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Ukraine is slow and steady losing group on the eastern front and doesn’t have the ability to retake land…

While Russia performance hasn’t been great, they aren’t exactly losing.

Russia has lost ground at the north and south of the contested area in order to put massive amount of fire power in small areas. If Ukraine was allowed to attack the attackers supply in Russia, like they should be allowed, then Russia would not be able to sustain the logistical support in the Donbas region. Once Ukraine is actually using Western arms and able to do more than tread water and delay, they will have the ability to go on the offensive in more locations.

Right now Russia's main advantage is that their supply routes are basically on Russian territory.

Neither side is winning right now, both are suffering heavy casualties and Ukraine's land is being systematically destroyed by an ongoing Russian terror campaign.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Russia has lost ground at the north and south of the contested area in order to put massive amount of fire power in small areas. If Ukraine was allowed to attack the attackers supply in Russia, like they should be allowed, then Russia would not be able to sustain the logistical support in the Donbas region. Once Ukraine is actually using Western arms and able to do more than tread water and delay, they will have the ability to go on the offensive in more locations.

Right now Russia's main advantage is that their supply routes are basically on Russian territory.

Neither side is winning right now, both are suffering heavy casualties and Ukraine's land is being systematically destroyed by an ongoing Russian terror campaign.

It’s gonna be a grind. I know Russia pulled out of a bunch of positions north.

my question too is…are we ok with being the main financier of an unwinnable war?

Politically, Biden negotiated truce to end the war would be huge for him. At this point, if Ukraine cannot reclaim land on an east advance…which they haven’t been able to do…Why destroy the country and kill the innocent?

I would tell the Ukraines, you have to meet some threshold goals and give them a reasonable timeline.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It’s gonna be a grind. I know Russia pulled out of a bunch of positions north.

my question too is…are we ok with being the main financier of an unwinnable war?

Politically, Biden negotiated truce to end the war would be huge for him. At this point, if Ukraine cannot reclaim land on an east advance…which they haven’t been able to do…Why destroy the country and kill the innocent?

I would tell the Ukraines, you have to meet some threshold goals and give them a reasonable timeline.

I think it is in US interests to make sure Russia doesn't win so yes I'd continue to arm the Ukrainians for as long as it takes - that might (and probably will be) years. China is almost certainly looking at this.

BTW technically Russia's invasion is a violation of the UN charter. It is illegal for countries to wage wars of conquest (ie to seize territory to add to their own state) - which is why everyone and their mother went to war with Iraq in 1990-91 and supposedly the international community has an obligation (but not a requirement) to intervene.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by nonniey

I think it is in US interests to make sure Russia doesn't win so yes I'd continue to arm the Ukrainians for as long as it takes - that might (and probably will be) years. China is almost certainly looking at this.

BTW technically Russia's invasion is a violation of the UN charter. It is illegal for countries to wage wars of conquest (ie to seize territory to add to their own state) - which is why everyone and their mother went to war with Iraq in 1990-91 and supposedly the international community has an obligation (but not a requirement) to intervene.

This! This is not a Russia / NATO issue, it is a UN and international rule of law issue. The UN should have a role in forcing Russia to accept the international norm, unfortunately it is looking more like the league of nations then a foundation for a world that abides by international law.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It’s gonna be a grind. I know Russia pulled out of a bunch of positions north.

my question too is…are we ok with being the main financier of an unwinnable war?

Politically, Biden negotiated truce to end the war would be huge for him. At this point, if Ukraine cannot reclaim land on an east advance…which they haven’t been able to do…Why destroy the country and kill the innocent?

I would tell the Ukraines, you have to meet some threshold goals and give them a reasonable timeline.

How can you tell another country to accept the mass murder of their innocents, destruction of their infrastructure, and unprovoked aggression on their sovereign territory???? Would you be ok with surrendering Texas if Mexico was launching 200 missiles a day, killing Americans every day, advancing on our territory through blood and destruction?

Ukraine won't accept that, and they have shown they will fight with everything they have. What we do is irrelevant to their will to reclaim their territory. We can only aid or delay their fight. Personally, as I have said, I would give them the weapons they ask for and more, without restriction and allow them to take their land back. For the record, Russia is the one destroying that country and killing innocents, and it is also doing that regardless of what the rest of the world does.

It is a fallacy to say it is an unwinnable war. It is only unwinnable if you put unreasonable constraints on the Ukrainians. Allow them to attack the supply routes, the command centers, and force the Russians to fall back into their own country.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Ukraine is slow and steady losing group on the eastern front and doesn’t have the ability to retake land…

While Russia performance hasn’t been great, they aren’t exactly losing.

Ukraine killing Russian troops

Russia killing innocent women and children



chico tell me again who is winning.

[Chico23231]

Good points..it’s a terrible situation. I think the one thing that’s been extremely disappointing is the Ukraines has been planning for this for years and have defensive lines on the east that have blunted the offensive from the Russians after they re organized, but it hasn’t been enough to to stop them.

Obviously I want the Ukraines to overcome