Past vs present, waves and ripples vs tides.
It's remarkable how little the conversation in this subforum has evolved over the past months. People still talking about, or obsessing over, pre-Feb 24th Ukraine and Russia as if either existed anymore. They don't, and they're not coming back.
Nobody who matters cares about past Ukrainian corruption and failings. And nobody who matters cares about what Russia was before. All that matters is now, and Putin tipped the scales against himself when he invaded, for which he's reaping the consequences. As far as peace plans are concerned, Ukraine is calling the shots by virtue of their battlefield successes. If Russia was winning, things might be different, but that's not the case. If the West doesn't have the balls to stand up to Putin, that's not a problem because Ukraine will do it. All the West needs to do is provide support. And the same lack of balls means the West won't cut off support as long as Ukraine keeps up the positive momentum. And the intensity of support by the Baltics, the Nordics, Poland, and others, more than offsets lukewarm sentiment elsewhere in Europe. The present course of things is likely to continue, barring either a game-changing event or an accumulation of tidal factors.
And things like the missile that hit Poland, whether Russian or Ukrainian, are better thought of as ripples or waves, since they're unlikely to have a lasting effect. Tidal forces are things like Ukraine's use of Western weapons to devastate Russian logistics (fuel, ammo, and other supplies). That leveled the playing field and resulted in Russia being unable to support their forces on the west bank of the Dnipro. Another tidal force is the lack of workers in Russia's defense industries caused by a combination of brain-drain emigration and mobilization. One estimate I read put the worker deficit at approx 400,000. Lack of skilled workers means battlefield losses can't be replaced quickly, if at all. And that isn't simply an issue for defense companies. Other industries also suffer from lack of skilled workers and shortages of parts and equipment. That's a slow cancer that probably won't show itself until things like trains and planes start failing.
Looking at the current state of affairs, there's a good probability the war continues to drag on through the winter. Russia's on the defensive and no longer controls the where, when, or tempo of battle. But they do benefit from sheer mass, which means that any degradation will be a lengthy process. Unless, of course, something happens internally that results in more rapid changes. Putin's death, or a coup, are two possible examples.
Whatever happens next, it will be dependent on the present situation, not the past. And anyone who wants to see it coming, even a little bit in advance, should focus on the tidal factors and avoid being distracted by every little ripple or wave.
P.S. It is nice to see that the worst of the Putin butt-boy trolls have fled. I guess even they couldn't keep pretending that failures were somehow victories. How embarrassing for them!
Ten surprising breakthroughs by Ukraine's armed forces
In honor of Ukraine's Armed Forces Day:
[URL]https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3628609-ten-breakthroughs-of-the-ukrainian-armed-forces-that-surprised-the-world.html[/URL]
Yes, Elvis, you're right. It's Biden who made Putin murder the Ukrainians.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2770258]My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap?[/QUOTE]Sigh, how many indeed. I too would like to know the answer to this question.
Same old Elvis: all over the place, completely incapable of focusing on the message, every sentence starts a new topic only to never finish anything, long-winded, illogical, boring blah blah blah at its finest.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are already dead -- men, women and children -- because a mad tyrant decided to grow his empire by starting a full-scale war of choice in Europe. In 21st fucking century.
But no, for Elvis everything is realfuckingpolitik, and America is always a villain.
2 points: 1st, obfuscating the obvious. 2nd, you're either misquoting me or mistaken.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2770258]My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap? Didn't we win in Iraq? Get Qaddafi killed in Libya? You will have to remind me if things got better in those countries because I do not see that they did. The mighty Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan once before and that left us the Taliban and Al Queda. How much good did that war really do the USA in the long run?
If you are a Dem, you will no doubt condemn Fox News and Tucker Carlson for giving Glenn Greenwald a microphone but Greenwald is in his own words a liberal Democrat, and this is what he says about this war.
I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says 'We're going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy. ' The US government doesn't actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world's most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. . If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that 'Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty', but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you'll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does. And that was true even before Russia invaded.
If the US government was honest. They would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for 'vital US interests'. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama's view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary's defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers?
If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can't win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the '70's because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there's no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It's not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizens when Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy 'resistance' person who believes they're the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don't believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.
Yes, anyone who dares asks why we are spending money to buy arms for Ukraine versus caring for our own back home has to be a Putin puppet? The notion that this is a war to prevent democracy is a joke. It is dictator on dictator.
But perhaps the funniest thing I have read about the war was on this site, a bunch of Ukrainians hitting a FKK and spending money like drunken sailors. I guess anyone questioning Ukrainians doing that is a Putin puppet as well.[/QUOTE]Let's take the 2nd point first, since it's the easiest. With respect to the 'curb liberty' quote, I don't believe I've ever made that statement. So I'm guessing you're mistaking me for someone else, or are otherwise confused. If you have a link to the post you're referencing, please be good enough to share.
As to the other point, everything that might have been true about pre-Feb 24th Ukraine, pre-Feb 24th Russia, or the pre-Feb 24th world in general, has very little relevance as those prior realities and relationships have been overtaken by events.
Whatever Rube Goldberg machinations anyone tries to concoct, Putin invaded Ukraine (seizing territory and killing Ukrainian citizens), not the other way around. Russia, objectively speaking, was not under threat. Neither Ukraine, NATO, the US, or countries like Poland and the Baltics posed any kind of threat to even an inch of Russian territory. Nobody held a gun to Putin's head and it's ludicrous to believe he's so simple-minded as to be easily duped or lured. Putin's actions are his own responsibility, no one else's.
Therefore the simple fact, which no amount of obfuscation can alter, is that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is acting in self defense. And, even for those who don't feel Ukraine or Zelensky are the "good guys," the right of self defense is universal. Since Ukraine considers this a matter of survival, they'll continue fighting even without the support of the US and Europe. This isn't a war of choice for them.
The matter of US support, and that of other countries, is a separate thing. Every country gets to decide what they feel is in their own interests. Russia has it's supporters and so does Ukraine. If you don't agree that supporting Ukraine is in America's interests, that's perfectly fine. But thankfully (IMO) that point of view is not prevailing.
Supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, similarly to supporting Taiwan against China's aggressive stance, is more a matter of not wanting our geopolitical adversaries to increase their reach and power. And, while I don't see this as a Republican vs Democrat issue, what I'd say to Tucker and other conservatives is that they should remember the words of their icon, Ronald Reagan, who called the Soviet Union an evil empire. I would assert that today's Russia still has those imperialist urges, and Putin has personally said as much. Ukraine aside, Russia has shown a belligerence that threatens Europe. The fact that Finland and Sweden are turning away from years of neutrality speaks volumes.
Oh, and about the perennial argument that goes: Why are we spending money over there when there are so many needs here? That argument is as old as time and can be applied to anything that one disagrees with. For example, why does the US government give tax deductions to 'well off' individuals when so many children live in poverty and are hungry? That argument could then be used to jack your tax rates to incredibly confiscatory levels. There's no end to the number of variations one can make of that argument, but it's lazy logic.
The argument for or against something needs to be decided on the merits of the issue itself. Every country and individual has competing priorities to deal with. But the fact remains that Ukraine won't stop fighting, even if we pull our support, because that's not an option for them. Withholding support won't end anything, unless you consider a Russian victory and crushing of Ukraine as an acceptable end. If that happened, Eastern Europe would be left in a state of chaos. And, IMO, the likelihood of a full Russia-NATO conflict would exponentially increase. So, while opposing support doesn't necessarily make one a Putin puppet, endorsing support doesn't mean you have to be a Zelensky fan.
But, getting back to my point about the simplicity of the situation, Ukraine is acting in self defense against Russian aggression. All the theories about how we got here don't change the stark realities. Ukraine can't stop as they see this (rightly, IMO) as an existential battle. Countries can choose to support either side, in greater or lesser degree, but that doesn't change the heart of the matter, which centers on Ukraine, not anyone else.