Jump to content

Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

On 9/29/2022 at 12:46 PM, Tiberius said:

You are wrong, there was conflict 

 

You don't know what you are talking about 

I'm listening.  Maybe I overlooked something?  What new military engagements were initiated during the Trump administration?  And to state it perfectly clear, the original statement was "new" engagements Not continuing or expanding or contracting anything that might have started under Bush or Obama or earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm listening.  Maybe I overlooked something?  What new military engagements were initiated during the Trump administration?  And to state it perfectly clear, the original statement was "new" engagements Not continuing or expanding or contracting anything that might have started under Bush or Obama or earlier. 

Trump is a Putin stooge. He is not for the USA, he is for himself. 

 

But you know he did come within a hairsbreath of starting a war with Iran. You know that? And why? 

 

You know why? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ukrainians have taken Lyman. Looks like the Russian garrison in Lyman were mostly veteran DPR/LPR units and soldiers of the Regular Russian army. They held out for about month, so much tougher customers than the Russian forces that were smashed in Kharkiv.

 

Anyway, Ukraine mostly encircled the city, and the garrison tried to break out toward Russian lines. The Ukrainians controlled the only road out though, and literally blasted them to pieces. You can find the pictures and videos on your own if you want, but they are nightmare type stuff. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

It is an interesting question, part of the issue I always see with the whole thing is that it's always like the negotiations are with some unhinged crazy person so you'd better let him have something or god knows what he'll do. But that seems like a terrible idea if one party doesn't have to cede that they've lost/are losing because they're deranged then how do you ever actually stop them?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Warcodered said:

It is an interesting question, part of the issue I always see with the whole thing is that it's always like the negotiations are with some unhinged crazy person so you'd better let him have something or god knows what he'll do. But that seems like a terrible idea if one party doesn't have to cede that they've lost/are losing because they're deranged then how do you ever actually stop them?

 

Great question.

 

The best answer we've got right now is you beat the crazy person so badly they come to their senses. Because you're gambling they arent actually crazy, theyre just pretending to be crazy in order to scare people into concessions.

 

Otherwise, youre just engaging in appeasement. The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money. The problem with appeasement is that eventually, you run out of other people's land. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long, informative read.

 

How the War in Ukraine Might End

New Yorker, by Keith Gessen

 

FTA:

 

“Branislav is very worried,” Goemans told me . Goemans was also worried, though his hypothetical time line was more extended. He believes that the new Russian reinforcements, however ill-trained and ill-equipped, and the onset of an early winter will pause the Ukrainian campaign and save the Russians, for the moment.

 

“People think it’s going to be over quickly, but, unfortunately, war doesn’t work like that,” he said. But he also believes that Ukraine will resume its offensive in the spring, at which point the same dynamic and the same dangers will be back in play.

 

“For a war to end,” Goemans said, “the minimum demands of at least one of the sides must change.” This is the first rule of war termination. And we have not yet reached a point where war aims have changed enough for a peace deal to be possible.

 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2022 at 10:37 AM, B-Man said:

Long, informative read.

 

How the War in Ukraine Might End

New Yorker, by Keith Gessen

 

FTA:

 

“Branislav is very worried,” Goemans told me . Goemans was also worried, though his hypothetical time line was more extended. He believes that the new Russian reinforcements, however ill-trained and ill-equipped, and the onset of an early winter will pause the Ukrainian campaign and save the Russians, for the moment.

 

“People think it’s going to be over quickly, but, unfortunately, war doesn’t work like that,” he said. But he also believes that Ukraine will resume its offensive in the spring, at which point the same dynamic and the same dangers will be back in play.

 

“For a war to end,” Goemans said, “the minimum demands of at least one of the sides must change.” This is the first rule of war termination. And we have not yet reached a point where war aims have changed enough for a peace deal to be possible.

 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

 

.

 

Thanks for posting.  Saw some odd stuff today cross-posted from the Russian Twitterverse. Take or discard as you want, but it speaks towards Russia's ability to negotiate a peace. 

 

Apparently, the so-called "referendums" passed by Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhia don't really take effect until 2026.  So they remain "independent" but Russia-aligned states until 2026, when they are formally annexed into Russia. 

 

Meaning that Russia can cut them loose at any point until then, without legally handing over sovereign Russia territory. 

 

Again, just some twitter stuff, so we'll see. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2021 at 10:42 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Other than Sevastopol in Crimea Russia has no strategic interest in Ukraine other than discouraging NATO from expanding and housing troops in the country.  It's all posturing right now.  On both sides.  NATO is trying to pretend it is still relevant and Russia is bluffing a build-up to assess the West's response strategy in the event something "hot" starts.

 

Can anyone clearly articulate the US security interest here?  Absent any patronizing talk about supporting democracy.  Can you find Ukraine on a map without the country names shown?  

We should have honored the agreement we had with Russia rather than pushing Nato to their doorstep.  Turns out the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are loyal to Russia, go figure.

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CoudyBills said:

We should have honored the agreement we had with Russia rather than pushing Nato to their doorstep.  Turns out the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are loyal to Russia, go figure.

But once Putin went all Hitler on Ukraine it was right for us to help destroy his fascist puke army, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But once Putin went all Hitler on Ukraine it was right for us to help destroy his fascist puke army, right? 

Hitler didn't have 6.400 nuclear weapons pointed at us.  And however we got here, is "winning" worth the risk of facilitating the events that will move this conflict to escalate out of control to the point where all out nuclear war is possible which will result in the end of the world and the deaths of all of us posting here and everyone we care about?  Over who controls Donbas?  In the big picture of things, an insignificant province in an insignificant country.  Anyone that thinks there's a winning strategy in there somewhere is delusional.

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CoudyBills said:

We should have honored the agreement we had with Russia rather than pushing Nato to their doorstep.  Turns out the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are loyal to Russia, go figure.

Some are loyal.  Not all certainly.  If a real referendum were held in the east I'm confident most would not want to secede.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...