Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[isaldiri]

EddieSteadyGo said:

my point is really that the "commitment" isn't as firm as some would believe, mainly because I believe it isn't based on principles or values, but rather on a calculation of current self-interest. And that *likely* could change over the course of the next few months imo.

I think one isn't supposed to even countenance any doubt whatsoever that said calculation of self interest by US might change and that they at some point might start to consider it in their interests to force some kind of ceasefire in Ukraine to shove the conflict to a lower intensity one out of sight and out of mind.....

[Pommy]

isaldiri said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

my point is really that the "commitment" isn't as firm as some would believe, mainly because I believe it isn't based on principles or values, but rather on a calculation of current self-interest. And that *likely* could change over the course of the next few months imo.

I think one isn't supposed to even countenance any doubt whatsoever that said calculation of self interest by US might change and that they at some point might start to consider it in their interests to force some kind of ceasefire in Ukraine to shove the conflict to a lower intensity one out of sight and out of mind.....

You're missing the fact that war is very profitable for the US and there's a reason they had near total bipartisan support for a very massive and very quick decision on the extra funding for this.

It is totally in their interests to spend a load of cash, at no risk to any of their armed forces to reduce the power of their greatest enemy. It's almost the perfect scenario for the US.

[BikeBikeBIke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

To be fair, my point is really that the "commitment" isn't as firm as some would believe, mainly because I believe it isn't based on principles or values, but rather on a calculation of current self-interest. And that *likely* could change over the course of the next few months imo. So when we have CNN now reporting that Biden's advisors are discussing exactly that prospect, right now, even during the Nato summit, and leaking that discussion to the press, I don't think what I'm saying is unfounded.

How is it going to change? It is never going to be a good idea for Russia to get hold of Ukraine. That simply won't change.

[BikeBikeBIke]

isaldiri said:

I think one isn't supposed to even countenance any doubt whatsoever that said calculation of self interest by US might change and that they at some point might start to consider it in their interests to force some kind of ceasefire in Ukraine to shove the conflict to a lower intensity one out of sight and out of mind.....

I don't buy that but let's assume it's true - that leaves Europe and Europe still dwarfs Russia.

A brutal fascist state enslaving you one by one is just never a good idea.

[HM-2]

I still can't countenance how the US would, in any relevant timescale, do a complete 180 from biparisan support for massive increases in arms supply to cutting themselves out of the war. It's fanciful to the point of ludicrousness, but such is the mental gymnastics on display here.

[off_again]

twister said:

It shouldn't, as you seem to be doing here, be taken as an indication that the US are becoming less steadfast in their support for Ukraine, merely giving us all a useful reality check and reminding us that, despite what most of us dearly hope to see as the outcome of this war, nothing can or should be taken for granted, and making pre-emptive preparations for things not going our way is simply good planning. Once the Russian army is kicked back across the border, we can tear up all these alternative plans and rejoice with the Ukranians in their victory. Until then, let's just keep those plans safely tucked away in our back pockets, just in case it all goes to st and somehow Pootin manages to conjur up some sort of tactical masterstroke having lulled us all into a false sense of security by giving us the impression that he thinks tactics are those little minty sweets you get in clear plastic boxes...

Support here in the US for the support of Ukraine is dropping slightly, but overall its still extremely strong when compared to other conflicts:

https://www.newsweek.com/us-popular-support-ukrain...

Newsweek is hardly the paragon of impartial news and journalistic integrity, but they arent bad - lots of numbers and "this and that" type stuff. But overall, the public and the senate specifically have overwhelming supported Ukraine and will continue to do so for the short term. With the signing of some of the acts, the president can unilaterally just commit more money and the administration as a whole can redirect what is already committed to what is most relevant. Doesnt mean that its a bottomless pit, but it does mean that they can continue to support Ukraine directly, indirectly and as part of a larger program for some time without public support.

Not a fan of Biden, but the current administration has done a good job of getting support across the parties, getting things signed to allow the people that actually know what to do to actually do it and to keep the politicians out as much as possible. While not transparent, what is clear is that the DoD and others are planning and executing this well so far, and thats a good thing.

[MOTORVATOR]

EddieSteadyGo said:

MOTORVATOR said:

As single CNN article in isolation doesn't give us much of an insight to a change of policy by Biden.

...

To be fair, my point is really that the "commitment" isn't as firm as some would believe, mainly because I believe it isn't based on principles or values, but rather on a calculation of current self-interest. And that *likely* could change over the course of the next few months imo. So when we have CNN now reporting that Biden's advisors are discussing exactly that prospect, right now, even during the Nato summit, and leaking that discussion to the press, I don't think what I'm saying is unfounded.

I get what you’re saying however it conveniently forgets that Biden at the outset wanted this to be a European led response with them doing little more than providing diplomatic and sanction support.

Fact is they are today providing far more than was originally envisaged not less.

[off_again]

HM-2 said:

I still can't countenance how the US would, in any relevant timescale, do a complete 180 from biparisan support for massive increases in arms supply to cutting themselves out of the war. It's fanciful to the point of ludicrousness, but such is the mental gymnastics on display here.

Yup - not going to happen. As divided as US politics is, the one agreement that they do have across the parties is support for Ukraine and stopping Russia - especially when they see the news items with US made arms and weapons kicking their arses....

And dont confuse the lunatic fringe of Boebert, MTG and the other nutbags as anything close to being the position of the Republican party. Just look to see what the Ghoul McConnell did and passed without question. It costs money and there is a concern for the total amount, but as previously mentioned, the US gets to see one of the top two opponents severely degraded, humiliated and dragged through the gutter - for some cash and at no loss of US lives? Hell yeah they will sign up for that! Win-win and a bit of debt. A degraded Russia for a decade (reports already show that Russia is set to return to an economy of 2007!) is all good news for the US and its allies. And it puts increased pressure on China, which is another win.

Strategically, tactically and politically - its a win all around for the US - they are going to back this in secret if they have to.

[BikeBikeBIke]

off_again said:

Yup - not going to happen. As divided as US politics is, the one agreement that they do have across the parties is support for Ukraine and stopping Russia - especially when they see the news items with US made arms and weapons kicking their arses....

And dont confuse the lunatic fringe of Boebert, MTG and the other nutbags as anything close to being the position of the Republican party. Just look to see what the Ghoul McConnell did and passed without question. It costs money and there is a concern for the total amount, but as previously mentioned, the US gets to see one of the top two opponents severely degraded, humiliated and dragged through the gutter - for some cash and at no loss of US lives? Hell yeah they will sign up for that! Win-win and a bit of debt. A degraded Russia for a decade (reports already show that Russia is set to return to an economy of 2007!) is all good news for the US and its allies. And it puts increased pressure on China, which is another win.

Strategically, tactically and politically - its a win all around for the US - they are going to back this in secret if they have to.

When you spell it out like that it makes me suspect Putin is a CIA agent. He's held Russia back for 30 years and now he's handed America a set of strategic wins that they don't even have to work for.

[off_again]

BikeBikeBIke said:

When you spell it out like that it makes me suspect Putin is a CIA agent. He's held Russia back for 30 years and now he's handed America a set of strategic wins that they don't even have to work for.

Ah crap. You have done it now - there goes a new conspiracy theory.....

No doubt to appear on 4chan, 8chan or pretty much anywhere else. But you are correct - he has done more to put Russia back than actually move forward, at least in the last 4-5 years. China has embarked on a global campaign of influence yet Russia has resorted to old tactics of suppression of opponents and neighbor countries. China has continued to grow, develop and enrich pretty much all aspects of the state (though still has MASSIVE issues). Russia on the other has seen its economy grow by 6 fold since the bad old days, but 95% of the population hasnt seen any real significant change or increase in living standards that equates with this. Yes, things have got better, but the super rich took all of the money and the rest got nothing.

Yeah, Putin has done more to destroy that country than any single CIA / NSA spy could have ever done.

I will keep saying it though - imagine what Russia would be like if Putin hadnt created a keptocracy? Imagine if some of those trillions had been shared across more people? Or infrastructure? Or businesses? Or social programs? Or pretty much anything else other than private jets, super yachts and billion dollar homes.... Just think how further forward Russia would be?

And we still have people saying that "Putin isnt that bad, right" - nah, he's a bloody psychopath.....

[Adam.]

isaldiri said:

What makes Ukraine so much more deserving of having money and arms supplied compared to.....well name any of the other places in the world where terrible things are either happening or have been happening for goodness knows how long that we have been quite content to allow happening for ages...?

Because it’s close, unlike Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Ethiopia, umpteen Africa countries where ISIS commit horrible atrocities

[MYOB]

Adam. said:

isaldiri said:

What makes Ukraine so much more deserving of having money and arms supplied compared to.....well name any of the other places in the world where terrible things are either happening or have been happening for goodness knows how long that we have been quite content to allow happening for ages...?

Because it’s close, unlike Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Ethiopia, umpteen Africa countries where ISIS commit horrible atrocities

And because Europe fears another Cold War and do not want a repeat of Russia occupying other territories which will undo the collapse of the Soviet Union. We do not want a repeat of the invasions the Soviets carried out following the end of WW2 and subsequent years.

[Adam.]

BikeBikeBIke said:

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/17786

Apparently there's been a prisoner exchange and some Azov defenders have been returned to Ukraine.

Judging by the thread this has dissatisfied Russians and best of all many of them have come to the realization that denazification is a total lie. (Which surprises me because I thought they all knew.)

Original story could be false but the reaction in the posts is obvs real.

EDIT: Seems to be true: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/breaking...

That’s very good and surprising news.

Russia doesn’t seem to give a st about it’s troops but retuning soldiers will spread the word of their failure, and Ukrainians get to return and fight on

[Adam.]

MYOB said:

And because Europe fears another Cold War and do not want a repeat of Russia occupying other territories which will undo the collapse of the Soviet Union. We do not want a repeat of the invasions the Soviets carried out following the end of WW2 and subsequent years.

Of course and it’s perfectly natural. I thought the answer to the question was fairly obvious. I a sure the question was somewhat rhetorical.

You deal with what is an immediate threat to you.

Unfortunately the reality is that principles are often ignored when abhorrent crimes are committed a long way away.

Edited by Adam. on Thursday 30th June 01:10

[spookly]

isaldiri said:

spookly said:

Fair point. But this one has far greater economic and geopolitical consequences for us (us as in the NATO/Western countries).
Is that morally fair, perhaps not. But I don't think this one can be safely ignored. We've already seen what Putin did after we mostly ignored his annexation of Crimea and his invasion of 2014. And on the back of ignoring chemical weapons use and murders in the UK.
That's the problem with Putin. If nobody stands up to him he isn't magically going to get better, he'll just be emboldened to do worse and see where the line is. About time they were shown that the line exists.

Given the manifest lack of capability of the russians to takeover the whole of Ukraine, the supposed threat of russia to the major powers of nato is hardly so great that the Ukrainians absolutely need to be helped 'to win' (whatever that might mean). It's repeatedly pointed out here how incompetent the russian military is and how they are resorting to using antiquated kit - so exactly what is this overwhelming threat to western security that is so great? Especially given that we are content to let the ukranians do the fighting and dying to defend it rather than actually doing anything ourselves?

Because he follows a pattern. Finish stealing whatever parts of Ukraine he can now, then he can rearm and repeat in a few years time, albeit this time with greater territory and population under his control. He can then use the newly conquered populations as cannon fodder in his next escapade - see DPR/LPR conscripts for reference.
Sanctions, which I can't see being lifted for a long time, especially the military/technology related ones, will reduce the Russians ability to rearm but that is what they'll be planning to do.
If Russia is allowed to use their continued nuclear threats to keep expanding into weaker countries that they can over run then where do they stop?
In my view they are either dealt with now or we have to pick a country/line where we will. Where do you suggest that should be?

[Dog Star]

Just imagine if Corbyn had got in

I think that Putin jumped the gun a bit here - if he’d held off another few years the continued cutbacks and hollowing out of U.K. (and other nato) forces would possibly have left us with no answer.

At least now we will hopefully see proper investment in our armed forces for a few generations. I have never been able to fathom how we could even think that Russia could be trusted, or become so reliant on China. It needs to stop, regardless of cost.

[wiggy001]

“Interesting” interview with Bernie Ecclestone just now on Good Morning Britain where Bernie said:

“I would take a bullet for Putin”
“We all make mistakes”
“The Ukrainian President could have stopped this war easily”

Quite incredible.

[Dog Star]

wiggy001 said:

“Interesting” interview with Bernie Ecclestone just now on Good Morning Britain where Bernie said:

“I would take a bullet for Putin”
“We all make mistakes”
“The Ukrainian President could have stopped this war easily”

Quite incredible.

What the hell ! Has he gone senile? Mind you god knows what sort of backhanders are involved with F1 and Russia.

[HM-2]

Dog Star said:

wiggy001 said:

“Interesting” interview with Bernie Ecclestone just now on Good Morning Britain where Bernie said:

“I would take a bullet for Putin”
“We all make mistakes”
“The Ukrainian President could have stopped this war easily”

Quite incredible.

What the hell ! Has he gone senile? Mind you god knows what sort of backhanders are involved with F1 and Russia.

Not the first time Bernie has white knighted to the defence of his buddy Vlad. He's been bullish in his support for Putin and the invasion.

[Cobnapint]

Dog Star said:

wiggy001 said:

“Interesting” interview with Bernie Ecclestone just now on Good Morning Britain where Bernie said:

“I would take a bullet for Putin”
“We all make mistakes”
“The Ukrainian President could have stopped this war easily”

Quite incredible.

What the hell ! Has he gone senile? Mind you god knows what sort of backhanders are involved with F1 and Russia.

This.
There's no way BE is going to bad mouth VP. He'd be a gonna.