Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

This tweet is 19 hours old and I'm just seeing this

 

[Archie]

One thing that is always lost in war is the truth.  While I hope the Ukrainian forces are successful, it's possible some of the things shared, including the number if Russian casualties is just propaganda. 

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, ewsieg said:

While I hope that Ukraine can continue the defense they have shown, and even add to it with some more offense, allowing them to keep a stalemate on the ground could very well ensure they have no chance of succeeding.

I dont think you understand my point at all. We aren't "allowing" Ukraine to fight... they would be fighting regardless of whether we are providing support, whether moral or in weapons.

So I do not see any upside whatsoever in giving them (and Poland and the Baltics) the middle finger because we feel inconvenienced by this conflict. 

6 hours ago, ewsieg said:

And that's why i'm saying that's why I wonder if maybe we should give Ukraine the tools and help them understand a 'win' in the morale category, might be a lot more death and destruction for Ukraine and its citizens.

What tools do you suggest exactly? 

And just because tools are offered doesn't mean they will be accepted.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

One thing that is always lost in war is the truth.  While I hope the Ukrainian forces are successful, it's possible some of the things shared, including the number if Russian casualties is just propaganda. 

Even on the low end of 7k, NATOs estimate released yesterday paints a pretty grim picture.

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

sure, there is (Putin removed from the scene), it just isn't very likely...

And even this doesn't necessarily mean Putin would be replaced by a pro-Westerner.

[Hongbit]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

One thing that is always lost in war is the truth.  

One thing that is always lost in your posts is the truth.   

[chasfh]

Low hangingest of fruit.

Edited March 24, 2022 by chasfh

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And even this doesn't necessarily mean Putin would be replaced by a pro-Westerner.

He doesn't need to be replaced with a pro-Westerner to he a significant upgrade at this point

[Tigeraholic1]

It's early and I thought you guys were arguing about a pro-Wrestler......

Edited March 24, 2022 by Tigeraholic1

[chasfh]

19 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

He doesn't need to be replaced with a pro-Westerner to he a significant upgrade at this point

I understand the choice isn’t binary, but along the continuum to full upgrade would be feckless, venal Lukashenko type swooping in to plunder what’s left and keep the Russian people in an agitated state of impoverishment, even after giving the world what we want and stopping the war, at least in the short term while they plot another attack in the future. This could be a post-Putin outcome as well.

[Archie]

38 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

One thing that is always lost in your posts is the truth.   

There is a lot false and wrong info posted here.  Not to mention the people who ignore the truth or  are afraid to admit it.  My posts are truthful, even  the ones full of sarcasm.

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I understand the choice isn’t binary, but along the continuum to full upgrade would be feckless, venal Lukashenko type swooping in to plunder what’s left and keep the Russian people in an agitated state of impoverishment, even after giving the world what we want and stopping the war, at least in the short term while they plot another attack in the future. This could be a post-Putin outcome as well.

Oh sure, it could be more short term than anything....

Either way, it's pretty clear that doing business with Putin seems like a non-starter at this point. We'd have to cross that bridge when we get there with whatever would follow him in your the hypothetical case that he were overthrown.

[mtutiger]

12 minutes ago, Archie said:

There is a lot false and wrong info posted here.  Not to mention the people who ignore the truth or  are afraid to admit it.  My posts are truthful, even  the ones full of sarcasm.

Do you believe that recent estimates of Russian KIA from our Department of Defense (around 7k) are "propaganda numbers"?

People who are experts in the field who have been pretty impartial in analyzing the conflict, such as Michael Kofman, seem to put some stock in these estimates. And if they are true, they are still pretty bad for Russia.

Edited March 24, 2022 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

16 minutes ago, Archie said:

There is a lot false and wrong info posted here.  Not to mention the people who ignore the truth or  are afraid to admit it.  My posts are truthful, even  the ones full of sarcasm.

Your posts aren’t truthful, mine are truthful.

[romad1]

 

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

Well well,  Good work boys!

 

I don't know how many anti-ship missiles they have but we're trying to get them more...

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

Russian influencer surprised at the sanctions working.

when the quiet part accidentally gets said out loud.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

... What tools do you suggest exactly? 

Chiming in here...

I want to give them what they've asked for in terms of military hardware. That means all the available Polish and Romanian MIG's that they keep asking for. 50-75 jets I think, between the two countries? And enough anti-ship missiles to watch the Russian Black Sea Naval Forces, all of it, to sink to the bottom...

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I dont think you understand my point at all. We aren't "allowing" Ukraine to fight... they would be fighting regardless of whether we are providing support, whether moral or in weapons.

I do think I understand you, additionally I think we're on the same page in terms of where your thoughts are on this situation and where my prevailing thoughts are on this issue, I just have some conflicting thoughts stirring in the back of my head.

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

So I do not see any upside whatsoever in giving them (and Poland and the Baltics) the middle finger because we feel inconvenienced by this conflict. 

What tools do you suggest exactly? 

And just because tools are offered doesn't mean they will be accepted.

Note I'm not advocating giving anyone the middle finger.  As I mentioned in my 'gut' reaction, I kind of want Biden to hold an oval office speech to inform the world a no fly zone is just the start as he demands the withdrawal of Russian troops.  Go further and announce support of Taiwan, and than tell Xi that his 'take the bell off of the Tiger' saying works both ways and he better get NK in line, otherwise China, Russia, NK, and anyone else that wants to get involved can learn about a newer saying we have here, "F&*# around and find out".

Back to reality though, the tools I'm mentioning if we were to start advocating for a quick cease fire would be more so in terms of information and say over sanctions.  It's possible 300,000 people in Mariupol might be dead in the next week if they don't get food and water.  Are their deaths worth it if continued fighting ensures a democratic Ukraine?  Does continued fighting even ensure a democratic Ukraine? Like you say, that's not a decision for the US to make.  Continued assistance from us, without giving them the understanding of what prolonged war with a super power or options for an off ramp might lead to us having a bigger say in that decision than we realize.

[gehringer_2]

This is fast becoming one of those 'be careful what you wish for' situations. Any sane person had to want Russia to fail to take Ukraine, but who believed in that possibility seriously enough to imagine how dangerous it has become to have Putin facing the increasing likelihood of his own extinction. While the possible mechanisms may remain opaque to us, I have no doubt Putin can not outlive an outright defeat of the Russian military in Ukraine.

After the early Russian set-backs the talk was all of 'off-ramps', but Putin's brutality against the Ukrainian population keeps closing off possibilities day by day. Putin is basically now Bashar Assad, but without hope of any one to play Russia to his Syria

Edited March 24, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Back to reality though, the tools I'm mentioning if we were to start advocating for a quick cease fire would be more so in terms of information and say over sanctions.  It's possible 300,000 people in Mariupol might be dead in the next week if they don't get food and water.  Are their deaths worth it if continued fighting ensures a democratic Ukraine?  Does continued fighting even ensure a democratic Ukraine? Like you say, that's not a decision for the US to make.  Continued assistance from us, without giving them the understanding of what prolonged war with a super power or options for an off ramp might lead to us having a bigger say in that decision than we realize.

This is a big reason we differ.

I would suggest that the Ukrainians, who themselves are engaged in peace talks with Russia as we speak, understand the lay of the land just fine.... probably better than we do given their proximity to the fighting, frankly.

In general, I just think that a lot of this view that we just need to explain things better and the fighting might end comes from the position that we are a major player in this conflict when we really are not. Which makes sense because we all see things through an American lens.... but ultimately how this plays out is going to be contingent on the Russians and the Ukrainians. The uncertainty sucks, but it is what it is.

Edited March 24, 2022 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

This is fast becoming one of those 'be careful what you wish for' situations. Any sane person had to want Russia to fail to take Ukraine, but who believed in that possibility seriously enough to imagine how dangerous it has become to have Putin facing the increasing likelihood of his own extinction. While the possible mechanisms may remain opaque to us, I have no doubt Putin can not outlive an outright defeat of the Russian military in Ukraine.

After the early Russian set-backs the talk was all of 'off-ramps', but Putin's brutality against the Ukrainian population keeps closing off possibilities day by day. Putin is basically now Bashar Assad, but without hope of any one to play Russia to his Syria

Maybe Putin was hoping China would take that Russia role to his Syria role.

My thinking is evolving on all this. Max Boot had said on Maher last Friday that Putin didn't have to invade under Trump because he had that fifth column in the White House doing his bidding to undermine the West, after which Putin could just roll in firing nary a shot (in his estimation, anyway). Sounds like a reasonable assumption.

Now I'm hypothesizing that the specific reason Putin didn't invade with Trump in office is that he was waiting for Trump to pull US out of NATO first. If Putin had gone in while we were still technically in NATO, and European countries started getting involved, we would have been obligated under treaty to work with them on it. With US out, Europe would have been on their own, US would have sat on the sidelines with our President lipping off about the genius of Putin and the stupidity of Europe, and Putin could have used a Trump-divided West to do what he wanted in and with Ukraine.

Additionally, that could have opened the door to China to aid Russia on an overt basis, again with US sitting on the sidelines, and would have created this bi-polar world of Russia/China/the autocrat world versus Europe/the democratic world, with US technically being isolationist (which would have had the practical effect of supporting Russia's move). That's a scary world because Russia and China, together with other despotic dictatorship satellites in support (Turkey, Philippines, Nicaragua, nuclear North Korea, maybe even nuclear India?), might well be at least as strong as the non-US West.

All this might be the #1 reason Russia worked so hard to get Trump elected, and then to get him re-elected: Putin needed US out of NATO so we would stand down while he went into his neighbor states unmolested by US.

As it turns out, though, Biden is president instead. So why did Putin send Russia into Ukraine anyway, even with US still in NATO? This, I think, is Putin's big miscalculation: he believed the MAGA line he himself propagated, that Biden is feeble, even mentally incapacitated, and weak, and that the West is in disarray. Putin thought he could still waltz into Ukraine and do what he wanted, and that Biden and the West would be too weak and chaotic and powerless to stop him.

Putin was wrong. Biden has proved himself the strong and capable leader of the allied coalition to support Ukraine in the fight against Russian invasion. As a result of Putin's fuckup, Russia is getting their clocked cleaned militarily in Ukraine, and the West acted in united fashion to crater Putin's economy out from under him and turn Russia into a legitimate pariah state. Not that he cares about that yet, since he is insulated from a lot of that pain still. But the legs are weakening out from under him, and it can't sustain like this indefinitely. It's gonna break, and then we'll have to be there to help contain the mess.

Edited March 24, 2022 by chasfh

[Archie]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Do you believe that recent estimates of Russian KIA from our Department of Defense (around 7k) are "propaganda numbers"?

People who are experts in the field who have been pretty impartial in analyzing the conflict, such as Michael Kofman, seem to put some stock in these estimates. And if they are true, they are still pretty bad for Russia.

They could be right or they could be wrong. What I know is in yhe past everybody was winning the war until they're not. 

[Archie]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Your posts aren’t truthful, mine are truthful.

No they're not...mine are🤣

[CMRivdogs]