*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

Guessing that could get to a lot of places in the hills The jets and the shells I'll give you, those folks have suffered enough, no need to strafe and lob artillery shells at them.

I thought you were a veteran? You really think an M113 is useful in hilly, wooded and muddy areas?

Let's be clear, as if it wasn't readily apparent, I am an idiot. Never served much to the joy of all armed services I'm sure.

It's a tracked vehicle, yea they coulda used it. Probably didn't need the Bushmaster on top of it.

I dunno... how many rounds does it take to clear some trees?

(I think that is an M2 Browning- Bushmaster is significantly bigger)

If you've ever been in the mountains of Appalachia, there isn't one of them that live there that wouldn't love the opportunity to find out.

I am sure that is 100% accurate

 

[tommyGunZ]

Anyone who's been around these boards since old Yellar knows I'm anti-war. I argued vehemently pre-invasion that Iraq was a mistake, while several of the anti-Ukraine folks in this thread cheered GWBush and **** Cheney on to what is undoubtedly our biggest post Vietnam mistake from a foreign policy standpoint. The case for war in Iraq was not persuasive.

The case for supplying Ukraine aid is persuasive in my view. Zero American blood, only $. And as others have pointed out, that spending has largely been to American manufacturers.

US spending on the war in Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end. As Sen. Mitch McConnell has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of funds Congress has approved for Ukraine have gone directly to American manufacturers, totaling some $70 billion across 38 states. As obsolete US weapons are shipped to Ukraine, they’re replaced by modern systems made in the USA. Our allies are buying American, too.

Paradoxically, the Ukraine supplemental is an upfront investment that will actually reduce the costs of supporting Ukraine over time. That’s because Ukraine’s success on the battlefield today places a smaller economic burden on the West tomorrow. As they’ve donated their weapons to Ukraine, Europeans have placed big orders with US suppliers to refill their arsenals or upgrade their capabilities — to the tune of $90 billion to date.

Not only is supporting Ukraine the right thing to do morally and geopolitically, I believe when you add the economic value of a crippled Russia, discount for the the economic benefits of our weapons manufacturers, and consider the added value in upgrading our defense systems, it's no brainer.

"Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end."

We just came out of two 20+ year conflicts largely supported just by us (US). I don't believe the above for a second. I get all the rest, we're killing people with old weapons so we get to replace them with newer, better weapons to all of our NATO allies who when they join, get the grocery bill for all of the like-kind weaponry they sign up for when they join NATO which is supplied by...the US defense industrial base (not solely I know but a big chunk).

So at some point this war will end, either as a peace agreement between the parties, or Russia finally steam rolling Ukraine or Ukraine pushing Russia back to the point that Russia finally just quits. What then? We need another war to keep the industrial complex humming. And then another and another. It never stops and we just keep feeding Audrey.

I'm not in favor of endless wars. If the case for US involvement isn't persuasive, I'll oppose it.

But I won't oppose just support for a conflict because previous mistakes were made, or the potential that a mistake will be made in the future.

 

[beer 30]

Anyone who's been around these boards since old Yellar knows I'm anti-war. I argued vehemently pre-invasion that Iraq was a mistake, while several of the anti-Ukraine folks in this thread cheered GWBush and **** Cheney on to what is undoubtedly our biggest post Vietnam mistake from a foreign policy standpoint. The case for war in Iraq was not persuasive.

The case for supplying Ukraine aid is persuasive in my view. Zero American blood, only $. And as others have pointed out, that spending has largely been to American manufacturers.

US spending on the war in Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end. As Sen. Mitch McConnell has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of funds Congress has approved for Ukraine have gone directly to American manufacturers, totaling some $70 billion across 38 states. As obsolete US weapons are shipped to Ukraine, they’re replaced by modern systems made in the USA. Our allies are buying American, too.

Paradoxically, the Ukraine supplemental is an upfront investment that will actually reduce the costs of supporting Ukraine over time. That’s because Ukraine’s success on the battlefield today places a smaller economic burden on the West tomorrow. As they’ve donated their weapons to Ukraine, Europeans have placed big orders with US suppliers to refill their arsenals or upgrade their capabilities — to the tune of $90 billion to date.

Not only is supporting Ukraine the right thing to do morally and geopolitically, I believe when you add the economic value of a crippled Russia, discount for the the economic benefits of our weapons manufacturers, and consider the added value in upgrading our defense systems, it's no brainer.

"Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end."

We just came out of two 20+ year conflicts largely supported just by us (US). I don't believe the above for a second. I get all the rest, we're killing people with old weapons so we get to replace them with newer, better weapons to all of our NATO allies who when they join, get the grocery bill for all of the like-kind weaponry they sign up for when they join NATO which is supplied by...the US defense industrial base (not solely I know but a big chunk).

So at some point this war will end, either as a peace agreement between the parties, or Russia finally steam rolling Ukraine or Ukraine pushing Russia back to the point that Russia finally just quits. What then? We need another war to keep the industrial complex humming. And then another and another. It never stops and we just keep feeding Audrey.

I'm not in favor of endless wars. If the case for US involvement isn't persuasive, I'll oppose it.

But I won't oppose just support for a conflict because previous mistakes were made, or the potential that a mistake will be made in the future.

Fair enough, thanks.

Appreciate the back & forth today crew. I'll let it die on the vine and we can get back to our regularly scheduled updates from the guys working in this thread.

 

[Redwes25]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

Our country has forgotten the lessons of two world wars that tyrannical governments that threaten their neighbors have to be resisted.

Did we go over board at times in last 80 years (Vietnam, Iraq and a few others) definitely but supplying arms to a democracy to defend itself is not one of those times.

Ukraine is going to be forced into a peace that it is unhappy with at some point. We should help them, yes, but we should be even more focused on restoring our capabilities and filling the power vacuum we've created over the last 15 years. That is the root cause of the uptick in global instability in the first place.

If Ukraine wants to settle that is fine with me. I just don't want them to be forced into a peace and want to continue supplying them arms until they make that decision. It is there people fighting and dying there to defend their homeland. If they want to fight then we should support them vs. pulling the rug out from under them.

I also don't disagree with you that we need to work on restoring our military that has been focused on wasteful asymetric warfare in the middle east for way to long. The amount of money wasted in Iraq and Afganistan pales into comparison to aid we have given Ukraine. We also need to learn to be more efficient with our resources vs our current miltary procurement works (especially Navy capital ships, which is a complete disaster).

You mean we don't need 11 carrier fleets that are now obsolete due to advancements in ASWMs?

No more like huge cost overruns like this:

$3,000,000,000 U.S. Navy's DDG(X) Nightmare Could Be Costly

Despite concerns over escalating costs—estimated between $2.4 billion and $3.5 billion per ship—the DDG(X) is considered essential for maintaining a strategic advantage and could play a crucial role if a conflict with China arises.

nationalinterest.org

Complete failures like this:

The U.S. Navy's Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Nightmare Had to End

The Zumwalt-class destroyer, once hailed as a cutting-edge naval vessel, faced numerous setbacks, leading to its program's cancellation. However, the Department of Defense recently allocated additional funds for the modernization of these ships, potentially reviving their capabilities.

nationalinterest.org

And ships that couldn’t even really float like this:

The Inside Story of How the Navy Spent Billions on the “Little Crappy Ship”

Littoral combat ships were supposed to launch the Navy into the future. Instead they broke down across the globe and many of their weapons never worked. Now the Navy is getting rid of them. One is less than five years old.

www.propublica.org

 

[tommyGunZ]

Anyone who's been around these boards since old Yellar knows I'm anti-war. I argued vehemently pre-invasion that Iraq was a mistake, while several of the anti-Ukraine folks in this thread cheered GWBush and **** Cheney on to what is undoubtedly our biggest post Vietnam mistake from a foreign policy standpoint. The case for war in Iraq was not persuasive.

The case for supplying Ukraine aid is persuasive in my view. Zero American blood, only $. And as others have pointed out, that spending has largely been to American manufacturers.

US spending on the war in Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end. As Sen. Mitch McConnell has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of funds Congress has approved for Ukraine have gone directly to American manufacturers, totaling some $70 billion across 38 states. As obsolete US weapons are shipped to Ukraine, they’re replaced by modern systems made in the USA. Our allies are buying American, too.

Paradoxically, the Ukraine supplemental is an upfront investment that will actually reduce the costs of supporting Ukraine over time. That’s because Ukraine’s success on the battlefield today places a smaller economic burden on the West tomorrow. As they’ve donated their weapons to Ukraine, Europeans have placed big orders with US suppliers to refill their arsenals or upgrade their capabilities — to the tune of $90 billion to date.

Not only is supporting Ukraine the right thing to do morally and geopolitically, I believe when you add the economic value of a crippled Russia, discount for the the economic benefits of our weapons manufacturers, and consider the added value in upgrading our defense systems, it's no brainer.

"Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end."

We just came out of two 20+ year conflicts largely supported just by us (US). I don't believe the above for a second. I get all the rest, we're killing people with old weapons so we get to replace them with newer, better weapons to all of our NATO allies who when they join, get the grocery bill for all of the like-kind weaponry they sign up for when they join NATO which is supplied by...the US defense industrial base (not solely I know but a big chunk).

So at some point this war will end, either as a peace agreement between the parties, or Russia finally steam rolling Ukraine or Ukraine pushing Russia back to the point that Russia finally just quits. What then? We need another war to keep the industrial complex humming. And then another and another. It never stops and we just keep feeding Audrey.

I'm not in favor of endless wars. If the case for US involvement isn't persuasive, I'll oppose it.

But I won't oppose just support for a conflict because previous mistakes were made, or the potential that a mistake will be made in the future.

Fair enough, thanks.

Appreciate the back & forth today crew. I'll let it die on the vine and we can get back to our regularly scheduled updates from the guys working in this thread.

 

[Peggy]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

War, as in life, isn't always fair. At some point there is diminishing returns for all parties versus an endless war. If and when an agreement is made it will be from all sides, that's why it's called an agreement.

I'd say the same thing if I were a puppet to said invading country.

Puppet? I've never been to Russia so I assume you mean Trump? I didn't think that was allowed here.

I can assure you my posts are my thoughts alone.

 

[Peggy]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

 

[Dezbelief]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

For now

 

[Peggy]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

For now

You have a crystal ball? How many lives is it worth?

 

[rockaction]

You have a crystal ball? How many lives is it worth?

I say we leave the politicking to other venues and let the military guys do the updates.

 

[Dezbelief]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

For now

You have a crystal ball? How many lives is it worth?

Whatever peace agreement is reached is only a pause for Russia. Russia will not stop until Ukraine is only a memory.

 

[SofaKings]

How effective will those North Koreans be when they discover the internet and porn?

 

[Redwes25]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

 

[Chadstroma]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

The Munich Agreement was supposed to keep people from dying as well. Sometimes peace isn't the way to save lives.

 

[beer 30]

How effective will those North Koreans be when they discover the internet and porn?

Funny you ask, they are getting "distracted"

MSN

 

[Chadstroma]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

Our country has forgotten the lessons of two world wars that tyrannical governments that threaten their neighbors have to be resisted.

Did we go over board at times in last 80 years (Vietnam, Iraq and a few others) definitely but supplying arms to a democracy to defend itself is not one of those times.

Ukraine is going to be forced into a peace that it is unhappy with at some point. We should help them, yes, but we should be even more focused on restoring our capabilities and filling the power vacuum we've created over the last 15 years. That is the root cause of the uptick in global instability in the first place.

If Ukraine wants to settle that is fine with me. I just don't want them to be forced into a peace and want to continue supplying them arms until they make that decision. It is there people fighting and dying there to defend their homeland. If they want to fight then we should support them vs. pulling the rug out from under them.

I also don't disagree with you that we need to work on restoring our military that has been focused on wasteful asymetric warfare in the middle east for way to long. The amount of money wasted in Iraq and Afganistan pales into comparison to aid we have given Ukraine. We also need to learn to be more efficient with our resources vs our current miltary procurement works (especially Navy capital ships, which is a complete disaster).

You mean we don't need 11 carrier fleets that are now obsolete due to advancements in ASWMs?

Obsolete like guns on fighter jets were obsolete and the F-4 were originally made without one.... until they realized that they were not obsolete and by the F-4E, guns were added.

Carriers are not obsolete. The Chinese YJ-12 and YJ-18 are the missiles you refer to. These are actually supposed to be less capable than the Russian Kinzhal missiles which have been successfully intercepted by older Patriot Batteries than what we have. The Aegis has much better radar capabilities than the Patriot does. Not to mention the CIWS, EWS and the layered defense of a CSG. Plus, the development of further capabilities such as laser defense systems (which I believe the Brits have recently successfully tested similar systems). The rumors of the carriers demise are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Chadstroma]

How effective will those North Koreans be when they discover the internet and porn?

Funny you ask, they are getting "distracted"

MSN

Countdown to the N. Koreans switching sides to fight for the right to have porn.... 10.... 9.....

 

[Chadstroma]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

For now

You have a crystal ball? How many lives is it worth?

Whatever peace agreement is reached is only a pause for Russia. Russia will not stop until Ukraine is only a memory.

There is a reason why the Poles are arming themselves to the teeth and the Baltic states are constructing a defensive line along their borders with Russia and Belarus including bunkers, support points and distribution lines (and more). It isn't because they are bored.

 

[thecatch]

Not great.

 

[culdeus]

Feels like this is all but over. Russia moves in to a bunch of just shelled out territory, waits, does it again.

 

[Dickies]

How effective will those North Koreans be when they discover the internet and porn?

Their effectiveness hinges on the front line's supply of lube.

 

[Moonlight]

Feels like this is all but over. Russia moves in to a bunch of just shelled out territory, waits, does it again.

November 5 will be marked as beginning of the end.

 

[Ilov80s]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Was your friend named Edouard Daladier by any chance?

 

[Buckna]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Was your friend named Edouard Daladier by any chance?

I believe it may have been Neville Chamberlain

 

[Peggy]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

 

[Peggy]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Was your friend named Edouard Daladier by any chance?

His name is George. You're screaming Nazi in a forum that doesn't allow politics. Lol.

 

[Buckna]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Was your friend named Edouard Daladier by any chance?

His name is George. You're screaming Nazi in a forum that doesn't allow politics. Lol.

Edouard Daladier was not a Nazi. Fought against them and they put him in prison for much of the war. But he was not the first nor the last politician to make the mistake of thinking appeasement is a viable strategy or to not realize that sometimes "Peace" is just another word for surrender.

 

[Chadstroma]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

 

[Chadstroma]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

 

[thecatch]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

I'm not sure I'm following. Ukraine is going to lose territory permanently as a result of this war at this point whether they like it or not, whether other countries force them to or not. Having failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place, the best we can realistically hope for is to make whatever gains Russia makes so costly that it and China are dissuaded from trying something similar again in the future.

 

[Ilov80s]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

My point is that a peace agreement does not in fact mean people stop dying. This is a thread about international military actions. It didn’t seem out of bounds to reference other famous historical military related events. Are we not allowed to talk about WW2 or say Vietnam on this message board?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

Yeah, I don't see this as having much of anything to do with Taiwan. Russia isn't going to be of any assistance if China wants to invade. Russia just isn't a "world power" in the same way that China is. It's barely even a regional power.

 

[Chadstroma]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

Yeah, I don't see this as having much of anything to do with Taiwan. Russia isn't going to be of any assistance if China wants to invade. Russia just isn't a "world power" in the same way that China is. It's barely even a regional power.

You are right, Taiwan has nothing to do with Russia. China is watching very closely to what the west does and does not do. It already saw that NATO was ready to cede Ukraine with little more than a protest when it was believed that it would fall in a matter of days. After the Ukrainians mounted a defense, then they started to slowly equip and support Ukraine. That support has waned and dithered at different points. The entire time it is evident that NATO will err on the side of letting a nation fall than increase the risk of war with a nuclear capable nation. All of this only encourages China to take Taiwan by force as they have repeatedly said is their right and have been directed to be prepared to do so by 2027.

If Russia succeeds then China learns that if they overwhelm Taiwan fast enough, then they will take the island and the world will be upset but not do much more than protest. If the Taiwanese manage to hold on for a matter of time then NATO and the West will eventually let it fall versus risk war. And unfortunately for Taiwan, it would fall as it would be nearly impossible for anyone to supply Taiwan nearly at all unlike Ukraine. If China learns the wrong lessons from this, we are almost locking ourselves into a direct war with a near peer, nuclear capable nation as Taiwan CAN NOT fall into Chinese hands as it is of extreme strategic value to the US.

As for Russia, Moldova (at least Transnistria if not all of Moldova) could very well be next on the menu. Perhaps the rest of Georgia. It would, short of NATO acceptance, only be a matter of time that Russia would take the rest of Ukraine. After all, all it costs them is Russian lives and Putin doesn't care about that. He cares about rebuilding the Russian Empire. Would it happen tomorrow? No. Russia would need to rebuild it's military but it's incredibly deep natural resources can fuel that over time- we already see the weakness of trying to turn that hose off in a time of war, it will start flowing more and more after 'peace' is made.

World events like this do no happen in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Decisions are made now based on what happened yesterday. Foes and allies believe they know what others will do largely based on what they have done in the past- whether it is accurate or not. Showing weakness, invites aggressiveness. Showing strength, invites peace. These are lessons our nation has failed to learn over and over and over and over.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

Yeah, I don't see this as having much of anything to do with Taiwan. Russia isn't going to be of any assistance if China wants to invade. Russia just isn't a "world power" in the same way that China is. It's barely even a regional power.

You are right, Taiwan has nothing to do with Russia. China is watching very closely to what the west does and does not do. It already saw that NATO was ready to cede Ukraine with little more than a protest when it was believed that it would fall in a matter of days. After the Ukrainians mounted a defense, then they started to slowly equip and support Ukraine. That support has waned and dithered at different points. The entire time it is evident that NATO will err on the side of letting a nation fall than increase the risk of war with a nuclear capable nation. All of this only encourages China to take Taiwan by force as they have repeatedly said is their right and have been directed to be prepared to do so by 2027.

If Russia succeeds then China learns that if they overwhelm Taiwan fast enough, then they will take the island and the world will be upset but not do much more than protest. If the Taiwanese manage to hold on for a matter of time then NATO and the West will eventually let it fall versus risk war. And unfortunately for Taiwan, it would fall as it would be nearly impossible for anyone to supply Taiwan nearly at all unlike Ukraine. If China learns the wrong lessons from this, we are almost locking ourselves into a direct war with a near peer, nuclear capable nation as Taiwan CAN NOT fall into Chinese hands as it is of extreme strategic value to the US.

As for Russia, Moldova (at least Transnistria if not all of Moldova) could very well be next on the menu. Perhaps the rest of Georgia. It would, short of NATO acceptance, only be a matter of time that Russia would take the rest of Ukraine. After all, all it costs them is Russian lives and Putin doesn't care about that. He cares about rebuilding the Russian Empire. Would it happen tomorrow? No. Russia would need to rebuild it's military but it's incredibly deep natural resources can fuel that over time- we already see the weakness of trying to turn that hose off in a time of war, it will start flowing more and more after 'peace' is made.

World events like this do no happen in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Decisions are made now based on what happened yesterday. Foes and allies believe they know what others will do largely based on what they have done in the past- whether it is accurate or not. Showing weakness, invites aggressiveness. Showing strength, invites peace. These are lessons our nation has failed to learn over and over and over and over.

Russia invaded a couple of years ago and failed miserably. Whatever lessons China is going to draw from that, they've already drawn.

I think you're right that it was important to send China a message when Russia stepped out of line. And we did! No need to keep telling them indefinitely. We already told them.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

Well the point here is whether Ukraine may be forced into taking a peace agreement they otherwise wouldn't have because they know they will be losing US support soon.

 

[Chadstroma]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

Yeah, I don't see this as having much of anything to do with Taiwan. Russia isn't going to be of any assistance if China wants to invade. Russia just isn't a "world power" in the same way that China is. It's barely even a regional power.

You are right, Taiwan has nothing to do with Russia. China is watching very closely to what the west does and does not do. It already saw that NATO was ready to cede Ukraine with little more than a protest when it was believed that it would fall in a matter of days. After the Ukrainians mounted a defense, then they started to slowly equip and support Ukraine. That support has waned and dithered at different points. The entire time it is evident that NATO will err on the side of letting a nation fall than increase the risk of war with a nuclear capable nation. All of this only encourages China to take Taiwan by force as they have repeatedly said is their right and have been directed to be prepared to do so by 2027.

If Russia succeeds then China learns that if they overwhelm Taiwan fast enough, then they will take the island and the world will be upset but not do much more than protest. If the Taiwanese manage to hold on for a matter of time then NATO and the West will eventually let it fall versus risk war. And unfortunately for Taiwan, it would fall as it would be nearly impossible for anyone to supply Taiwan nearly at all unlike Ukraine. If China learns the wrong lessons from this, we are almost locking ourselves into a direct war with a near peer, nuclear capable nation as Taiwan CAN NOT fall into Chinese hands as it is of extreme strategic value to the US.

As for Russia, Moldova (at least Transnistria if not all of Moldova) could very well be next on the menu. Perhaps the rest of Georgia. It would, short of NATO acceptance, only be a matter of time that Russia would take the rest of Ukraine. After all, all it costs them is Russian lives and Putin doesn't care about that. He cares about rebuilding the Russian Empire. Would it happen tomorrow? No. Russia would need to rebuild it's military but it's incredibly deep natural resources can fuel that over time- we already see the weakness of trying to turn that hose off in a time of war, it will start flowing more and more after 'peace' is made.

World events like this do no happen in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Decisions are made now based on what happened yesterday. Foes and allies believe they know what others will do largely based on what they have done in the past- whether it is accurate or not. Showing weakness, invites aggressiveness. Showing strength, invites peace. These are lessons our nation has failed to learn over and over and over and over.

Russia invaded a couple of years ago and failed miserably. Whatever lessons China is going to draw from that, they've already drawn.

I think you're right that it was important to send China a message when Russia stepped out of line. And we did! No need to keep telling them indefinitely. We already told them.

Not sure what the point in replying would be.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

Yeah, I don't see this as having much of anything to do with Taiwan. Russia isn't going to be of any assistance if China wants to invade. Russia just isn't a "world power" in the same way that China is. It's barely even a regional power.

You are right, Taiwan has nothing to do with Russia. China is watching very closely to what the west does and does not do. It already saw that NATO was ready to cede Ukraine with little more than a protest when it was believed that it would fall in a matter of days. After the Ukrainians mounted a defense, then they started to slowly equip and support Ukraine. That support has waned and dithered at different points. The entire time it is evident that NATO will err on the side of letting a nation fall than increase the risk of war with a nuclear capable nation. All of this only encourages China to take Taiwan by force as they have repeatedly said is their right and have been directed to be prepared to do so by 2027.

If Russia succeeds then China learns that if they overwhelm Taiwan fast enough, then they will take the island and the world will be upset but not do much more than protest. If the Taiwanese manage to hold on for a matter of time then NATO and the West will eventually let it fall versus risk war. And unfortunately for Taiwan, it would fall as it would be nearly impossible for anyone to supply Taiwan nearly at all unlike Ukraine. If China learns the wrong lessons from this, we are almost locking ourselves into a direct war with a near peer, nuclear capable nation as Taiwan CAN NOT fall into Chinese hands as it is of extreme strategic value to the US.

As for Russia, Moldova (at least Transnistria if not all of Moldova) could very well be next on the menu. Perhaps the rest of Georgia. It would, short of NATO acceptance, only be a matter of time that Russia would take the rest of Ukraine. After all, all it costs them is Russian lives and Putin doesn't care about that. He cares about rebuilding the Russian Empire. Would it happen tomorrow? No. Russia would need to rebuild it's military but it's incredibly deep natural resources can fuel that over time- we already see the weakness of trying to turn that hose off in a time of war, it will start flowing more and more after 'peace' is made.

World events like this do no happen in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Decisions are made now based on what happened yesterday. Foes and allies believe they know what others will do largely based on what they have done in the past- whether it is accurate or not. Showing weakness, invites aggressiveness. Showing strength, invites peace. These are lessons our nation has failed to learn over and over and over and over.

Russia invaded a couple of years ago and failed miserably. Whatever lessons China is going to draw from that, they've already drawn.

I think you're right that it was important to send China a message when Russia stepped out of line. And we did! No need to keep telling them indefinitely. We already told them.

Not sure what the point in replying would be.

It may just be the case that we view the world in very different terms. I think my model of how the world works right now is really, really different from yours, and I have to be open to the possibility that my model might be the one that's busted*. I'll just let it go for now.


* I haven't followed the military situation in Ukraine very closely. I was under the impression that this was mostly a solved problem, and I just poked my head in here because it keeps getting bumped, and I don't understand what I'm reading. It's like something radically changed from the last time I was paying attention, but I have no idea what.

 

[thecatch]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

Think that is really up to the people involved. I don't want any more to die either but if Ukraine wants to defend its homeland from Russian aggression I think we support that with aid. If they want peace that is ok as well but I don't think we dictate peace terms to them.

Like I said. If there is a peace agreement it will be agreed to from both sides. That's why they call it an agreement

Some people here are upset that there might be one where Ukraine gives up territory. You and I are in agreement that it doesn't matter if that's what the Ukraine decides.

I don't think you are on top of the topic. Ukraine has steadfastly refused the idea of giving up land for peace. The ONLY way this happens is basically another Munich Agreement where other world powers decide to give up another countries sovereign rights to avoid further war.... which inevitably leads to more war anyways.

Why does this have to involve other world power at all? Why not just continue shipping arms to Ukraine and let the situation resolve itself otherwise?

I 100% understand why it's good to drain Russia of its military assets, and I 100% understand why it's good to tie up Russia in a relatively unimportant (to us) country. I do not understand at all why I'm supposed to care if this turns into a stalemate that costs Ukraine a little territory. I get that that's not fair in some philosophical sense, but so what?

Some of the analogies being made in this thread are wild. 2024 Russia is not the USSR or Nazi Germany. It's a third-rate military that got bogged trying to invade another C-tier country with a third-rate military. Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

That is HOW it involves other world powers. The power that the world powers have over Ukraine is assistance or not. If they pull the assistance then Ukraine either falls or has to sue for peace which would ultimately involve, among other things, cede territory.

For those that see this is as an issue of Ukraine/Russia then you are not understanding the big picture. You are further not understanding the motives and goals of Putin. You are further not seeing the increasing collusion and assistance of Russia/N. Korea/Iran and China. You are not seeing the connection to this and BRICS. You are failing to see how this impacts the most dangerous question of our time- Taiwan. You are not understanding and/or learning from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which then lead to Crimea, which then lead to a full scale invasion of Ukraine. US and NATO reaction (lack thereof) to Georgia and Crimea invited the invasion of Ukraine and the war we have now. It is failure to see how events are connected and not isolated in world events. It is failure to understand how decisions now have real impact on what happens tomorrow in other ways and other places.

The analogies of the past are trying to help connect those lines that are very well known and better understood in the context of history. WWII is most easily used as it is the most well known of history and widely accepted failures to act when action was needed and the consequences of not doing so to have tremendous and horrible impact later. I could allude to the Treay of Tulsit, Peace of Westphalia, Treaty of Utrecht and the Partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) but most people would

Yeah, I don't see this as having much of anything to do with Taiwan. Russia isn't going to be of any assistance if China wants to invade. Russia just isn't a "world power" in the same way that China is. It's barely even a regional power.

You are right, Taiwan has nothing to do with Russia. China is watching very closely to what the west does and does not do. It already saw that NATO was ready to cede Ukraine with little more than a protest when it was believed that it would fall in a matter of days. After the Ukrainians mounted a defense, then they started to slowly equip and support Ukraine. That support has waned and dithered at different points. The entire time it is evident that NATO will err on the side of letting a nation fall than increase the risk of war with a nuclear capable nation. All of this only encourages China to take Taiwan by force as they have repeatedly said is their right and have been directed to be prepared to do so by 2027.

If Russia succeeds then China learns that if they overwhelm Taiwan fast enough, then they will take the island and the world will be upset but not do much more than protest. If the Taiwanese manage to hold on for a matter of time then NATO and the West will eventually let it fall versus risk war. And unfortunately for Taiwan, it would fall as it would be nearly impossible for anyone to supply Taiwan nearly at all unlike Ukraine. If China learns the wrong lessons from this, we are almost locking ourselves into a direct war with a near peer, nuclear capable nation as Taiwan CAN NOT fall into Chinese hands as it is of extreme strategic value to the US.

As for Russia, Moldova (at least Transnistria if not all of Moldova) could very well be next on the menu. Perhaps the rest of Georgia. It would, short of NATO acceptance, only be a matter of time that Russia would take the rest of Ukraine. After all, all it costs them is Russian lives and Putin doesn't care about that. He cares about rebuilding the Russian Empire. Would it happen tomorrow? No. Russia would need to rebuild it's military but it's incredibly deep natural resources can fuel that over time- we already see the weakness of trying to turn that hose off in a time of war, it will start flowing more and more after 'peace' is made.

World events like this do no happen in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Decisions are made now based on what happened yesterday. Foes and allies believe they know what others will do largely based on what they have done in the past- whether it is accurate or not. Showing weakness, invites aggressiveness. Showing strength, invites peace. These are lessons our nation has failed to learn over and over and over and over.

Russia invaded a couple of years ago and failed miserably. Whatever lessons China is going to draw from that, they've already drawn.

I think you're right that it was important to send China a message when Russia stepped out of line. And we did! No need to keep telling them indefinitely. We already told them.

Well, no. I think it’s of central importance not only that we’ll help resist expansionist powers, but also that we won’t pull the rug out from our allies when we get bored. That requires indefinite communication at least to some level ( just not to the quixotic level of demanding peace with Ukraine’s full territorial integrity intact, in my view).

 

[Orange&Blue]

I don't think anyone really expects NATO to get involved should China invade Taiwan. Last I checked a world map, the Atlantic ocean is on the other side of the map.

There is a reason we've been pumping up Philippines, Australia, Japan, and even Indonesia and Vietnam.

 

[Peggy]

Anyway. I predict there will be a peace agreement sometime next year, a bunch of both Ukraine and Russia families will be happy the killing can stop, a bunch of Americans will be upset about it.

 

[HellToupee]

Not great.

Yikes , 1 fifth AWOL

 

[GenX fan]

Anyway. I predict there will be a peace agreement sometime next year, a bunch of both Ukraine and Russia families will be happy the killing can stop, a bunch of Americans will be upset about it.

I'm sure those Ukrainians living in the occupied territories won't be happy.

They'll have to endure years of abuse.

 

[culdeus]

Anyway. I predict there will be a peace agreement sometime next year, a bunch of both Ukraine and Russia families will be happy the killing can stop, a bunch of Americans will be upset about it.

I'm sure those Ukrainians living in the occupied territories won't be happy.

They'll have to endure years of abuse.

Don't think anyone loves there.

 

[ChicoCat]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

I don't really have faith in Putin being content with the acomplishments he's made in Ukraine. It doesn't jibe with the Restoration of the Russian Empire narrative and an agreement doesn't make him look strong.

I don't know why Russia hasn't steam rolled over Ukraine; I thought they would have by now...but if the Ukrainian people want to keep fighting; even if that means to the last man...so be it.

 

[Orange&Blue]

You know, a good friend reminded me today that reaching a peace agreement (whether it means ceding land to Russia or not, which would not be great) would mean that people stop dying.

I don't really have faith in Putin being content with the acomplishments he's made in Ukraine. It doesn't jibe with the Restoration of the Russian Empire narrative and an agreement doesn't make him look strong.

I don't know why Russia hasn't steam rolled over Ukraine; I thought they would have by now...but if the Ukrainian people want to keep fighting; even if that means to the last man...so be it.

well, if the 1/5th AWOL report is true....

 

[ChicoCat]

Anyway. I predict there will be a peace agreement sometime next year, a bunch of both Ukraine and Russia families will be happy the killing can stop, a bunch of Americans will be upset about it.

I would predict
1) A peace agreement if the U.S. stops funding.
2) One of the contingencies of it would be "free" elections in the occupied territories to see if they want to remain Ukrainian or revert back to Russia.
3) Putin relocates people into this region. To the dismay of Ukrianians; these people vote to revert back to Russia. There's infighting in the region as some people in that region want to remain Ukraine.
4) Putin moves on the remains of Ukraine before the U.S. midterms under the reasoning that insurgents in the newly annexed Russian provinces are being funded by Ukraine.
5) U.S. says its not really any of our business to fund or support Ukraine as the situation is murky and we have our mid-term elections to worry about.
6) Putin gets Ukraine back.
7) Rinse and repeat in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

 

[rockaction]

Russia obviously isn't a threat to NATO. What are we afraid of here?

Russia is very much a threat to NATO. Look at Kaliningrad on a map. Tell me about Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson and tell me he doesn’t have designs on both Poland and Lithuania. That immediately triggers an Article Five response. Unfortunately, Putin is banking on our President-elect’s disdain for NATO and hopes that we won’t invoke Article Five when they invade.

John Bolton has explicitly stated that Trump wants out of NATO. Badly.

Europe likely can’t defend itself from Russia without the United States.

We are looking at an expansionist country in Russia. Putin is a Soviet through and through and still believes in the empire phase of the USSR. He wants all the land back.

 

[rockaction]

Anyway. I predict there will be a peace agreement sometime next year, a bunch of both Ukraine and Russia families will be happy the killing can stop, a bunch of Americans will be upset about it.

I would predict
1) A peace agreement if the U.S. stops funding.
2) One of the contingencies of it would be "free" elections in the occupied territories to see if they want to remain Ukrainian or revert back to Russia.
3) Putin relocates people into this region. To the dismay of Ukrianians; these people vote to revert back to Russia. There's infighting in the region as some people in that region want to remain Ukraine.
4) Putin moves on the remains of Ukraine before the U.S. midterms under the reasoning that insurgents in the newly annexed Russian provinces are being funded by Ukraine.
5) U.S. says its not really any of our business to fund or support Ukraine as the situation is murky and we have our mid-term elections to worry about.
6) Putin gets Ukraine back.
7) Rinse and repeat in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

This would seem to follow the pattern, wouldn’t it?

I know relics on the former right like me are way too involved with stupid conflicts and stupid alliances like NATO, but damn if this doesn’t seem to be the way Russia has approached things in every instance of a group of people deciding it doesn’t want to be a part of Russia anymore. This, as you have posted, is the blueprint for how they deal with it and how they present it internationally.

 

[beer 30]

The entire time it is evident that NATO will err on the side of letting a nation fall than increase the risk of war with a nuclear capable nation.

I'm not sure how that is a bad thing? Nuclear capable nations/organizations shouldn't be going toe-to-toe in a hot war. Somebody is eventually going to get to the big red button and that would typically signal the beginning of the end.