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

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Give it up. This is childish nonsense 

Asking a very simple question to someone who seems to think it’s ok for Ukraine to lose. 
 

What happens if Ukraine loses? What’s your ideal outcome here?

[L Ron Burgundy]

11 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

Another thing I find particularly absurd is that Putin's goal is to re-capture the former Soviet block States.   They've demonstrated the ability to re-take nothing.  Its pure fantasy. Surely, he must know that along with every military analyst at the Pentagon knows it.  

 

 

You say this but this was much more of an unknown prior to Russia attacking Ukraine (yes we knew they were inept and corrupt but we're seeing a military circus).  Many thought Russia was going to steamroll them.  Putin certainly thought so.  

 

 Also, do you think former Soviet states don't take Russia seriously?  I hope not because that would be absurd.   Despite Russia looking like a joke they all fear war will spread.  Russia is big.  They will keep spending lives as if they mean nothing.   Other countries actually care about their people.  Take the US out of the equation it's possible Ukraine has already fallen and Russia is eyeing the Baltics. 

 

[John from Riverside]

On 7/7/2023 at 8:25 AM, Jauronimo said:

Foreign policy experts in the US have known and warned that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line for Russia for 20 plus years, from what I have read.  This war was entirely predictable and yet here we are.  I am sympathetic to the rights of a free nation to self determine their trade, military, and economic alliances but that is not how geo politics works.  I guess there is always cold war style tit for tat and familiar narratives like take down the despot that we can use to support our own involvement in Ukraine but when has that ever worked out favorably?  Aiding in toppling Putin's regime would be a feel good story for 5 minutes but there is no guarantee the successor regime is any better.  In all likelihood the power vacuum and opportunism likely creates a less stable, more dangerous situation across the old soviet bloc and middle east.

 

From a perspective of Western involvement what does victory look like and is it worth the cost?  

 

 

I believe in supporting Ukraine’s defense against invading n ation, but I don’t know that I want to see them join NATO
 

Their politics is iffy as it is

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

We won’t be sending troops. The Left has found their perfect war. No risk. Just put it on the credit card. Oh and put a Ukrainian flag on your Twitter feed.

Done! 

Would you rather that we were sending in troops?

[sherpa]

7 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I don't trust President Biden to not send troops. We'll see but I am skeptical at the claims of "no boots on the ground".

 

 

 

The only path to US direct military involvement is if Russia does something that triggers a NATO response, and our participation would be part of a NATO action.

[Tiberius]

8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

We won’t be sending troops. The Left has found their perfect war. No risk. Just put it on the credit card. Oh and put a Ukrainian flag on your Twitter feed.

Done! 

The appeasement mouse is about, I see 

8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Asking a very simple question to someone who seems to think it’s ok for Ukraine to lose. 
 

What happens if Ukraine loses? What’s your ideal outcome here?

He's just a gadfly 

[Doc]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

What do you think happens if Russia wins the war? If they take out the Ukrainian government and install their own puppet government?

Then it becomes part of Russia like it used to be.  What do you think will happen?

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

You say this but this was much more of an unknown prior to Russia attacking Ukraine (yes we knew they were inept and corrupt but we're seeing a military circus).  Many thought Russia was going to steamroll them.  Putin certainly thought so.  

 

 Also, do you think former Soviet states don't take Russia seriously?  I hope not because that would be absurd.   Despite Russia looking like a joke they all fear war will spread.  Russia is big.  They will keep spending lives as if they mean nothing.   Other countries actually care about their people.  Take the US out of the equation it's possible Ukraine has already fallen and Russia is eyeing the Baltics. 

 

Our friend @sherpa was pretty confident Russia's conventional force capability was inferior and they've performed more or less as expected.  I have to believe the military and Russia analysts at the Pentagon, State dept, and Intelligence drew similar conclusions.  But as is typical the publicly provided assessment strays from the confidential one.  

[ChiGoose]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

Then it becomes part of Russia like it used to be.  What do you think will happen?

Well for one, I think that be bad since they very much don’t want to be part of Russia. Maybe the US should go back to being part of the UK like we used to be.

 

Do you think Russia stops with Ukraine if they win?

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Asking a very simple question to someone who seems to think it’s ok for Ukraine to lose. 
 

What happens if Ukraine loses? What’s your ideal outcome here?

Goose…with all due respect it’s a dum question and you know it. War is supposed to be ugly and painful for everyone involved in it. That’s why the participants are generally quick to end it. Both the winner and loser. The biggest problem with this war is that it’s being funded by uninvolved spectators! I hope that helps a little.

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose…with all due respect it’s a dum question and you know it. War is supposed to be ugly and painful for everyone involved in it. That’s why the participants are generally quick to end it. Both the winner and loser. The biggest problem with this war is that it’s being funded by uninvolved spectators! I hope that helps a little.

I do not believe that asking what the impacts of the outcome of the war is a dumb question. It honestly seems incredibly dumb to not consider it. 
 

The biggest problem with this war is that a revanchist authoritarian state is trying to determine the fate of its neighbor by force against the will of the people. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I do not believe that asking what the impacts of the outcome of the war is a dumb question. It honestly seems incredibly dumb to not consider it. 
 

The biggest problem with this war is that a revanchist authoritarian state is trying to determine the fate of its neighbor by force against the will of the people. 

Oh brother. Keep supplying weapons at no risk to yourself. Let’s just hope the US never gets into a war where some other countries just keep providing us with arms while our sons and daughters pay the price. This conflict needs to end! And it won’t end if the world keeps going about it this way. 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Oh brother. Keep supplying weapons at no risk to yourself. Let’s just hope the US never gets into a war where some other countries just keep providing us with arms while our sons and daughters pay the price. This conflict needs to end! And it won’t end if the world keeps going about it this way. 

Got it. So just go full on Neville Chamberlain and let a power hungry country eat up its neighbors while pretending everything will work out juuuuust fine. 

[Tiberius]

 

[T&C]

Sabres get a mention.

 

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2023/07/09/nhl-great-ha-ek-demands-russians-openly-condemn-war-against-ukraine-or-be-banned-from-paris-olympics

[SoCal Deek]

29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Got it. So just go full on Neville Chamberlain and let a power hungry country eat up its neighbors while pretending everything will work out juuuuust fine. 

Actually I’d go the other way. 

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Actually I’d go the other way. 

Which is what?

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66113460

 

Misinformation, disinformation, whatever you want to call it, it's happening. And a lot of people eat it up without taking even a few minutes to see if it all adds up.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Well for one, I think that be bad since they very much don’t want to be part of Russia. Maybe the US should go back to being part of the UK like we used to be.

 

Do you think Russia stops with Ukraine if they win?

 

Who do you think they're going after next?  Ukraine's giving them all they can handle.

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Who do you think they're going after next?  Ukraine's giving them all they can handle.

Ukraine is giving them all they can handle because the West is supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs. 
 

If we stop supplying them like so many here want, that ends any chance of a Ukrainian offensive. The war either devolves into a many year grind or Russia’s numbers eventually prevail as Ukraine runs out of weapons. 
 

As to who’s next, look to any former Soviet Bloc countries that Putin might want to bring back into the fold. Russia already occupies parts of Georgia and Moldova. If they capture Ukraine, that puts them on the border with Transnistria. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

Ukraine is giving them all they can handle because the West is supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs. 
 

If we stop supplying them like so many here want, that ends any chance of a Ukrainian offensive. The war either devolves into a many year grind or Russia’s numbers eventually prevail as Ukraine runs out of weapons. 
 

As to who’s next, look to any former Soviet Bloc countries that Putin might want to bring back into the fold. Russia already occupies parts of Georgia and Moldova. If they capture Ukraine, that puts them on the border with Transnistria. 

 

They don't have the manpower or firepower to start another war. 

[Tiberius]

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Which is what?

Goose

You get involved in wars to end them FAST, or don’t get into them at all.

[L Ron Burgundy]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66113460

 

Misinformation, disinformation, whatever you want to call it, it's happening. And a lot of people eat it up without taking even a few minutes to see if it all adds up.

It's gonna get so much worse as geeked up qanoners learn to use ai.  

[SoCal Deek]

37 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

It's gonna get so much worse as geeked up qanoners learn to use ai.  

Ron

Just wait until those 51 former Intelligence Officials get ahold of it. 😉

[reddogblitz]

8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

The war either devolves into a many year grind or Russia’s numbers eventually prevail as Ukraine runs out of weapons. 

 

I would argue we're already there.  Ukraine just recognized 500 days of war.  That's a year and a half.  The much anticipated Ukrainian spring offense with all the fancy new armaments we sent them was supposed to bring Russia to the bargaining table.   It's now mid summer and Russia is still a no show.

 

Ukraine is running out of ammunition as I type.

 

It's now in an old school World War I style trench war of attrition with no end in sight.

 

When Ukraine starts running out of soldiers, then what?  Whatever it takes as President Biden says?

Edited July 9, 2023 by reddogblitz

[Tiberius]

 

12 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I would argue we're already there.  Ukraine just recognized 500 days of war.  That's a year and a half.  The much anticipated Ukrainian spring offense with all the fancy new armaments we sent them was supposed to bring Russia to the bargaining table.   It's now mid summer and Russia is still a no show.

 

Ukraine is running out of ammunition as I type.

 

It's now in an old school World War I style trench war of attrition with no end in sight.

 

When Ukraine starts running out of soldiers, then what?  Whatever it takes as President Biden says?

How is Ukraine running out of soldiers? You guys just keep making crap up 

 

Putin appreciates your appeasement

[Tiberius]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

37 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

How is Ukraine running out of soldiers? You guys just keep making crap up 

 

Putin appreciates your appeasement

That's not what @reddogblitzsaid.  The premise was a war of attrition would favor the side with the larger force.  That seems logical and mathematically sound.  Its a reasonable question to ask under circumstances when somebody pledges unlimited support.  So if it comes to the point where they don't have enough soldiers to either win the war or fight to a stalemate what's the action coming out of the administration's "whatever it takes" pledge to fix that problem?  Outside of surrender it would be get some troops from someplace else,  So where is this someplace else?  How is asking that question appeasement?  Does "whatever it takes" include US forces in direct combat operations?  Yes or no?   And if the answer is "no" are you prepared to allow Ukraine to lose?

Edited July 10, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[aristocrat]

nice. Sending over munitions banned in much of the world cause they tend to kill civilians. 
 

hand up if you’re down with war crimes!

[Coffeesforclosers]

39 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

nice. Sending over munitions banned in much of the world cause they tend to kill civilians. 
 

hand up if you’re down with war crimes!

 

Man, this talking point is very, very important for some reason.

 

Nevermind it's already been discussed in this thread not two pages back. 

[aristocrat]

9 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

Man, this talking point is very, very important for some reason.

 

Nevermind it's already been discussed in this thread not two pages back. 

 

sue me

[B-Man]

50 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

Man, this talking point is very, very important for some reason.

 

Nevermind it's already been discussed in this thread not two pages back. 

 

 

It continues to be in the news.

 

 

UK and Spain Call on Biden to Not Send Cluster Bombs to Ukraine

by Kurt Zindulka

 

The United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain have called upon U.S. President Joe Biden to not send cluster bombs to Ukraine amid concerns over the danger they pose to civilian populations. As Ukraine marked over 500 days since the invasion by Russian forces, significant challenges have been levied against the war strategy of the Biden administration from its NATO allies in Europe, with both the British and Spanish governments urging Washington to back down from its pledge to send cluster bombs into the conflict. Both the UK and Spain are signatories of the International Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits the use, manufacturing, stockpiling or transfer of the weapon type

 

Speaking to reporters on Saturday, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said per the BBC that the UK is a “signatory to a convention which prohibits the production or use of cluster munitions and discourages their use.”

“We will continue to do our part to support Ukraine against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, but we’ve done that by providing heavy battle tanks and most recently long-range weapons, and hopefully all countries can continue to support Ukraine,” he added.

 

Meanwhile, Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles said that the decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine was a unilateral decision taken by the Biden administration and not one agreed to by NATO, of which Spain is a member.

“Spain, based on the firm commitment it has with Ukraine, also has a firm commitment that certain weapons and bombs cannot be delivered under any circumstances,” she said according to Reuters reporters in Madrid.

“No to cluster bombs and yes to the legitimate defence of Ukraine, which we understand should not be carried out with cluster bombs,” Robles added.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-and-uk-warn-against-sending-cluster-bombs-to-ukraine-russia-war/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66142554

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spain-says-cluster-bombs-should-not-be-sent-ukraine-2023-07-08/

 

 

 

 

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, aristocrat said:

nice. Sending over munitions banned in much of the world cause they tend to kill civilians. 
 

hand up if you’re down with war crimes!

 

The use of US sourced cluster munitions by military folks skilled in their use, and with strict ROE and follow up, is not a war crime.

Nor do they have high dud rates. The Russian's do.

No surprise there.

 

So while my hand is "not up" for war crimes, it is certainly up for deployment of these with the restrictions put in place by the US to a country that is willing to abide and use them on their own dirt.

 

I have no problem with using something that is absolutely necessary to move this catastrophic war to an end.

Edited July 10, 2023 by sherpa

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

How is Ukraine running out of soldiers? You guys just keep making crap up 

 

Putin appreciates your appeasement

 

Putin appreciates your lack of reading comprehension.

 

Key word, when.  Which if this keeps up as is they will eventually.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 hours ago, aristocrat said:

nice. Sending over munitions banned in much of the world cause they tend to kill civilians. 
 

hand up if you’re down with war crimes!

The thing about war crimes is with few exceptions they're generally committed by the losers.  After WW2 there were the Nuremberg trials of former Nazi officials and SS officers for assorted atrocities, murder, and crimes against humanity.  Completely appropriate. 

 

But, for example, no WW2 British or American civilian or military leaders were charged with the firebombing of Dresden, a target with no military value, in February 1945 which targeted a civilian population with casualty estimates as high as 250K deaths.  The RAF sent 800 bombers on the night of 2/13/1945 followed up by a US air corps 210 bomber daytime raid on 2/15/1945. 

 

History demonstrates you win the war, you write the story, you skate off free and clear.    

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The thing about war crimes is with few exceptions they're generally committed by the losers.  After WW2 there were the Nuremberg trials of former Nazi officials and SS officers for assorted atrocities, murder, and crimes against humanity.  Completely appropriate. 

 

But, for example, no WW2 British or American civilian or military leaders were charged with the firebombing of Dresden, a target with no military value, in February 1945 which targeted a civilian population with casualty estimates as high as 250K deaths.  The RAF sent 800 bombers on the night of 2/13/1945 followed up by a US air corps 210 bomber daytime raid on 2/15/1945. 

 

History demonstrates you win the war, you write the story, you skate off free and clear.    

We’re not in a war. We’re just paying for one. 

[sherpa]

17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The thing about war crimes is with few exceptions they're generally committed by the losers.  After WW2 there were the Nuremberg trials of former Nazi officials and SS officers for assorted atrocities, murder, and crimes against humanity.  Completely appropriate. 

 

But, for example, no WW2 British or American civilian or military leaders were charged with the firebombing of Dresden, a target with no military value, in February 1945 which targeted a civilian population with casualty estimates as high as 250K deaths.  The RAF sent 800 bombers on the night of 2/13/1945 followed up by a US air corps 210 bomber daytime raid on 2/15/1945. 

 

History demonstrates you win the war, you write the story, you skate off free and clear.    

 

This is absolutely true and the reason I went after Tibs when he first linked the use of cluster bombs with war crimes allegations.

Whoever wins does the prosecuting, and people judging have no real idea of the context of their use.

 

We have an all volunteer military, and we have cluster bombs.

Subjecting our aviators to possible war crimes for such deployment would be an unforgiveable mistake, unless they intentionally the  used them beyond the bounds of rules of engagement.

 

If you are assigned a strike, target is given to you. You may influence the weapons load, but you certainly don't dig into the intel that was used to determine the target. 

The strike leader would determine tactics, ie strike assets used, weapons, timing and attack headings, but would not be in a position to judge the target selection.

 

So, what you would potentially get is someone being charged with a war crime on a target determined by others.

Not a great situation, and not something we want to do.

[ChiGoose]

7 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

The use of US sourced cluster munitions by military folks skilled in their use, and with strict ROE and follow up, is not a war crime.

Nor do they have high dud rates. The Russian's do.

No surprise there.

 

So while my hand is "not up" for war crimes, it is certainly up for deployment of these with the restrictions put in place by the US to a country that is willing to abide and use them on their own dirt.

 

I have no problem with using something that is absolutely necessary to move this catastrophic war to an end.

I was on the fence about the cluster bombs until it was pointed out that Russia has been using them in the war, including in civilian areas. 
 

Therefore, even if Ukraine doesn’t use them, they will still have a problem with UXO after the war. It’s not like Ukraine will be introducing cluster munitions into the war zone, they are already there. 
 

So as long Ukraine’s use of them is reasonably restricted to avoid civilian casualties (and it’d be their civilians so I imagine they also want to avoid civilian harm), I think it’s probably the right call. 

[ChiGoose]

Some good news:

 

Ukraine making progress in push to retake Bakhmut from Russian forces

 

Kyiv’s offensive push for the city began in mid-June, according to the Ukrainian General Staff. The British Ministry of Defence assesses that Kyiv has made “steady gains” to the north and south of Bakhmut. In the south, Ukrainian troops have seized positions on the high ground to the immediate west of the village of Klishchiivka, putting the Russian troops in the settlement in the unenviable position of taking fire from elevated positions. In the north, Ukrainian forces made “tactically significant gains,” according to the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, as they pushed the Russian forces back toward the village of Yahidne.

 

On Monday, Syrskyi announced that Kyiv had put all of Bakhmut under “fire control,” meaning Ukrainian forces are now within striking range of all Russian targets.

 

Both Russian, Ukrainian and Western sources point to the deteriorating morale situation among Russian forces in the area, which has led to several instances of localized mutinies as groups of Russian soldiers refuse to fight. Videos of multiple groups of insubordinates have circulated on Russian Telegram, usually with the Russians complaining about heavy losses, inadequate artillery support and meager pay — all criticisms, it bears noting, that Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin leveled against Moscow in the lead-up to his mutiny last month. “We asked our commanders to bring us food and water,” one group of Russian conscripts from Altai Krai in Siberia complained. “They responded to us with swear words.”

[Tommy Callahan]

Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster munitions since 2014.  

 

Cluster Munition Use in Russia-Ukraine War | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)

Mostly the same kinds as well. 

 

(Kyiv, July 6, 2023) – Ukrainian forces have used cluster munitions that caused numerous deaths and serious injuries to civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. Russian forces have extensively used cluster munitions in Ukraine, killing many civilians and causing other serious civilian harm.

New Human Rights Watch research found that Ukrainian cluster munition rocket attacks on Russian-controlled areas in and around the city of Izium in eastern Ukraine during 2022 caused many casualties among Ukrainian civilians. Both countries should stop using these inherently indiscriminate weapons, and no country should supply cluster munitions because of their foreseeable danger to civilians.