There is no way Ukraine will remove Russia from its eastern flank as the situation seems stalemated. That would suggest all the loses on both sides will now be in vain. War sucks and autocrats should not be rewarded but isnt there a reality here that the bigger, tougher foe will end up with that land anyway?
Isnt it best now to discourage Putin from attacking some place else next? I think the world should place more troops in NATO countries as a sign to Putin that there is where we draw the line.
There is just too much talk of nuke war coming from the Kremlin, and I think most of it is just bluster, but I can see Vlad using a tactical nuke in Ukraine at some point and then what? Things could really spiral out of control.
I was not in favor of long range missiles we supplied that can strike deep into Russian territory and then there is talk by Macron of putting boots on the ground there. That is insane.
I think the West did a great job in helping Ukraine diminish Russian forces. I just saw a report that Putin has lost 450,000 soldiers and 3,000 tanks. No one would have guessed those numbers at the start of the war as some "experts" claimed it would only last a few weeks.
Russia is war weary and battered. I am sure they are looking for a way out. The Ukrainians are living in fear in their homes as Putin intentionally targets civilians.
I will agree there is a certain downside by entering into negotiations to end the war, as it may give Putin incentive to go further, but I actually think he is practical and doesn't want war with NATO.
Give him the land he will eventually take anyway, let him go home and declare victory over the "Nazis" and let's bring the temperature down in the room as Willy's prediction of WW3 has certainly increased since the start of this war.
IOW, Ukraine isn't the hill to die on. Let's fortify all the countries around it and tell Vlad loudly that that is the line he can not ever cross.
Am I right?
Once they reach the target goal the war will stop. Both sides put a lot of prisoners on the war front.
The conspiracy theory folks think this is a ploy to get into a global nuclear war for population reduction by 90%.
There is no way Ukraine will remove Russia from its eastern flank as the situation seems stalemated. That would suggest all the loses on both sides will now be in vain. War sucks and autocrats should not be rewarded but isnt there a reality here that the bigger, tougher foe will end up with that land anyway?
Isnt it best now to discourage Putin from attacking some place else next? I think the world should place more troops in NATO countries as a sign to Putin that there is where we draw the line.
There is just too much talk of nuke war coming from the Kremlin, and I think most of it is just bluster, but I can see Vlad using a tactical nuke in Ukraine at some point and then what? Things could really spiral out of control.
I was not in favor of long range missiles we supplied that can strike deep into Russian territory and then there is talk by Macron of putting boots on the ground there. That is insane.
I think the West did a great job in helping Ukraine diminish Russian forces. I just saw a report that Putin has lost 450,000 soldiers and 3,000 tanks. No one would have guessed those numbers at the start of the war as some "experts" claimed it would only last a few weeks.
Russia is war weary and battered. I am sure they are looking for a way out. The Ukrainians are living in fear in their homes as Putin intentionally targets civilians.
I will agree there is a certain downside by entering into negotiations to end the war, as it may give Putin incentive to go further, but I actually think he is practical and doesn't want war with NATO.
Give him the land he will eventually take anyway, let him go home and declare victory over the "Nazis" and let's bring the temperature down in the room as Willy's prediction of WW3 has certainly increased since the start of this war.
IOW, Ukraine isn't the hill to die on. Let's fortify all the countries around it and tell Vlad loudly that that is the line he can not ever cross.
Am I right?
I am never for endless war. Who is? There comes a point where it must end and I think that time is now or VERY soon. There is just no more benefit for either side to continue it.
In addition, the US cant fund it forever as we arm the Ukrainians, the Israelis and the Taiwanese. Something has to give. Pragmatism needs to "trump" idealism at times. This is one of those times.
Quite an interesting development.
One big problem is the status of Kherson. Russia has declared the Kherson Oblast (similar to province) as a federal subject of Russia. But the Ukrainians still hold the western areas of the oblast, and most importantly, the capital city, Kherson. So if we negotiate a ceasefire on today’s lines, what do we do when Russia breaks the ceasefire to “reclaim” full control over Kherson. The Russians did this in Georgia and elsewhere. What mechanism in a ceasefire would prevent the Russians from attacking Ukraine again?
But that's just the nature of this board, I suppose. It's hyper partisan and "never color outside the lines" here at times...almost all the time, actually. I don't care where good policy emanates from. If its a good idea, then let's implement it, whether it be from the Left or Right.
Both you and Lost immediately viewed my thread starter through that hyper political lens and I think that is why this country struggles so often.
Pragmatism, and what is in America's best foreign policy interests, should be the goals and not some obsession to make sure we align our views with someone from our side of the aisle...just because he/she is on our side of the aisle.
I know that doesn't play well here, but then again this board is never really about civilly discussing, debating and solving problems...it's all about "my side is great and your side sucks."
Not saying you’re overreacting, but I don’t think noting a policy alignment between a TER Democrat and Trump or JFK Jr rates up as hyper-partisan.
That said, what about the disposition of Kherson? I don’t see the Ukrainians just packing up and handing the city over to the Russians.
I didnt see it that way at all. Everyone will come to the conclusion that the war needs to end, it's just a case of "when." And there are many Progressives who really feel all that money would be better spent on social/welfare programs so Russia/Ukraine isn't quite the stark left/right divide you may think.
As to Kherson, that is a good point and a real bone of contention. Something will have to be negotiated. Neither side will probably love the end result but thats how negotiations work.
Look, there is risk in whatever transpires on the political/negotiated front. I have just came to the belief that the upside of stopping the war very soon outweighs the downside potentiality of Putin going rogue and continuing to slice through Ukraine. It's a gamble, for sure, as Putin is a thug and a tyrant, but I still think both sides want out and it's just a matter of how does Putin and Zelensky save face when all is said and done. That's the hard part.
As usual, Mogal's contribution is bizarre. That said, I agree with some of what ChicKie, Lost and Robert have said. But not all.
First of all, I don't think Ukraine is even close to accepting the loss of the Donbas or even of Crimea. With the missiles the US, Britain and France are now supplying Ukraine stands a good chance of destroying the Kerch Bridge and making Crimea untenable for Russia.
I don't believe Russia has lost 450K soldiers but they've lost tons. And none of the forces they are raising are as well trained and equipped as what Russia has already lost. Russia will make no more gains this year so the only question is does Ukraine have enough strength to go on the offensive again?
The other question is how much pain can Russia/Putin endure without cracking from within? A coup is always possible.
Either way, it's in our best interest to keep supplying Ukraine, which is making sure Russia's ability to wage conventional offensive warfare anywhere else is zero for a long time to come.
As for nukes, I doubt Russia will use any tactical nukes. My real fear is they'll create a Chernobyl at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
Give Putin nothing.
Isn't that the real question? It cant last forever so tell me when you will have had enough. I am not saying you have to say it is now, nor soon, but when? IOW, what would the conditions have to look like for you to push a negotiated end of the war? Tough question, of course.
I just think when war becomes a stalemate, and I think we have reached that plateau, a settlement is then needed. I have been listening to US generals on CNN say that the Ukraine does not have the manpower to take back any significant amount of land. The Russians will just outlast the Ukrainians as they have so many more bodies to throw at the situation.
I wanted to clarify something. When I said the Russians "lost" 450,000 soldiers, I wasn't clear enough. The way I phrased it made it sound like they were KIA and they were not. The estimated numbers are 150,000 KIA and 300,000 wounded.
Now how many of those wounded can rejoin the fight? I have no clue but those loses are massive and we know how unpopular this war must be in Russia. Just the KIA is almost triple of US deaths in Viet Nam.
The only real issue I have with your post is your last sentence. Putin will have to get something or he will take it. He is a massive ego and he will not walk away humiliated. There is no chance of that happening. The Ukraine will be forced to give up land. That is a given. The only question is where and how much. Virtually every war ends with new boundaries drawn somewhere and this one wont be any different.
Thanks for your contribution! Great point about the nuke site as that is a massive worry as well. What a mess.
The stakes for Europe and NATO are too high. Not to mention the message it would send to China. If we abandon Ukraine it means we'll also abandon Taiwan. And that will also damage our relationships with allies in the far east like South Korea and Japan, as well as friends like the Philippines and Viet Nam.
And, no, NOT every war ends with boundaries being redrawn.
I agree it's a mess though.
Our main purpose for not doing so was two fold. 1) use the war to kill as many Russians as possible, not caring that it’s killing Ukrainians as well. And 2) use our financial support for Ukraine to be used as kick backs for the US defense industry, who in term use those kick backs to send to members of Congress.
The main purpose at this point of Washington isn’t governance, but using tax payer dollars to bribe various industry insiders. The defense industry has been getting a crap load of money ever since 9/11. The extra revenue has become a cottage industry supporting all kinds of defense related businesses. This is why it took forever to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And when we finally did we shifted right over to Ukraine. This is why the neocons were furious with Trump for not starting a war with Iran. If the War on Terror didn’t continue then their revenue would dry up.
So the goal is never “what is best for the national security of the United States”, it’s “what is best for the financial well being of defense contractors”. Congress gives 60 billion for “Ukraine”, but really it’s 60 billion for Lockheed Martin and others, and as a thank you these defense companies line the pockets of Congress to help fund their re-election campaigns.
I have no doubt every member of Congress could be prosecuted for bribery, but they rarely are because compromised Congressmen are useful if you want to twist an arm or two to get something abhorrent passed.
The blood is on Biden's hands for hundreds of thousands killed in the war. Victoria Nuland and Joe Biden should be tried for war crimes.
Yep. Some very good work there. Those thugs needed killing.
Fester is a killer.
I support aid to Ukraine, but the fact is that Ukraine is at a serious disadvantage when it comes to available manpower. Both sides are now conscripting men in their 40s amd 50s. Russia has the advantage there.
I think Washington should have opened the full spigot of aid and arms at the outset. The long range, highly advanced ATACMS missiles. The F16s to negate Russian air superiority. As it is Ukrainian pilots won’t be flying US supplied F16s in combat until late 2024 or even 2025. As it is, the question that remains is that maybe it’s too late? That said, the latest tranche of aid from DC and Europe should last the Ukrainians through the summer and into the fall. Best to wait to see how the battle space has shaped before we really try to push the Ukrainians into peace negotiations.once in a while with our resident political hack.