Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Jmsuttr]

So true, they should be forced to negotiate and compromise. Instead of sending weapons, we should say enough is enough. Find a solution and end this crazy war.

Russia is the aggressor and, in case you haven't noticed, there's no country that's currently able to force Russia to do anything. And any attempt at the direct application of force runs the risk of provoking the use of nukes.

So what does that leave as a realistic option? Going through the United Nations is worthless, as Russia (aided by China) is able to veto any attempt to problem solve by that toothless organization.

What else? Well, maybe the application of sanctions and other pressures by Europe, the US, and other nations. That's not force, per se, but rather an attempt to convince Russia that the present and future costs they'll incur will outweigh any benefits.

That's the only realistic path I can see, and that's what's currently being tried (as Ukraine defends itself in a struggle for survival). If you have a better solution, with a realistic chance of making a difference, please feel free to share.

BTW, if anyone thinks that peace is to be gained by forcing Ukraine only, while letting Russia do whatever it wants, I would refer them to VinDici's earlier post. Asking Ukraine to commit national suicide is a non-starter.

[Jmsuttr]

The first thing we need at when a war happens is who is benefitting! And did anyone do anything to stop it?

The US is not doing anything to stop the war for sure, who's industry is booming with this war!! Or special operation!!

What did we see?

Europe was not investing in military or weapons!!

Now, US has got multimillions $$ contacts for military equipment's from European countries.

Gas contacts for US companies, to mention few!.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to look at the situation, including views from 10,000 feet that focus on which players (countries and companies) might benefit from, or be taking advantage of, the conflict.

But it's hard for me to concern myself with such issues while Ukrainians are being killed, captured, tortured, and their cities reduced to uninhabitable rubble.

When confronted with that in-your-face reality, there are only a very few questions at the top level of priority:

Q: Who bears primary responsibility for the conflict?

A: Russia.

Q: Who is the only party with the ability to unilaterally bring an end to the conflict?

A: Russia.

Q: How can the conflict be stopped?

A: By Russia deciding to stop, either by their own independent decision, or as a response to external and (or) internal pressures.

While other questions and issues may be valid and worth exploring, they must necessarily take a back seat to the primary issues listed above. I'm certainly open to debating which countries might secretly, or not so secretly, be hoping for Ukraine to fail (Serbia, Hungary, Germany, etc.), or which countries are giving Ukraine their full support (Poland, Baltics, etc.), or which countries (USA, France, Italy, etc.) might be slow-walking assistance because they see upsides to a protracted conflict.

I have no illusions about the fact that there are plenty of bad actors who could, and should, be named and shamed. But Job #1 is ending the war, full stop. And that will only happen if Russia has a change of mind (unlikely), or if a combination of battlefield defeats, attrition, and pressures from within and without, cause them to have that change of mind.

[WyattEarp]

Even now, US is not talking about negotiations to end the war, instead of how to prolong the war!!

Lefts fight till the end of who??

Why will they stop a war, as they know the business opportunity is their hands!!

There is no good in the world anymore, we can only choose the better evil!

I understand your points. I generally agree with the recent posts that you don't want to prolong this war unnecessarily. There's a tendency for us armchair generals to look at a conventional war and think we can master a victory. Beyond the carnage and destruction, it ignores all the political chaos that ensues.

It's a bit audacious to presume the Ukraine itself will emerge a healthy, functioning democracy. I'm still not sure what would happen if Putin was deposed. There are no guarantees in what follows.

However, I do not agree the United States' role is that of peace negotiator. That is probably best left to Turkey or some other nation that doesn't represent a threat to either side. Perhaps China or even India has missed their opportunity to gain respect on the world stage.

[DramaFree11]

The first thing we need at when a war happens is who is benefitting! And did anyone do anything to stop it?

The US is not doing anything to stop the war for sure, who's industry is booming with this war!! Or special operation!!

What did we see??

Europe was not investing in military or weapons!!

Now, US has got multimillions $$ contacts for military equipment's from European countries.

Gas contacts for US companies, to mention few!

Who has lost?? The people of Ukraine.

Even the US knew there is a war coming, they asked their citizens to leave Ukraine, but didn't do anything to stop it!

Even now, US is not talking about negotiations to end the war, instead of how to prolong the war!!

Lefts fight till the end of who?

So true, they should be forced to negotiate and compromise. Instead of sending weapons, we should say enough is enough. Find a solution and end this crazy war.

[Mike963]

The first thing we need at when a war happens is who is benefitting! And did anyone do anything to stop it?

The US is not doing anything to stop the war for sure, who's industry is booming with this war!! Or special operation!!

What did we see??

Europe was not investing in military or weapons!!

Now, US has got multimillions $$ contacts for military equipment's from European countries.

Gas contacts for US companies, to mention few!

Who has lost?? The people of Ukraine.

Even the US knew there is a war coming, they asked their citizens to leave Ukraine, but didn't do anything to stop it!

Even now, US is not talking about negotiations to end the war, instead of how to prolong the war!!

Lefts fight till the end of who??

Why will they stop a war, as they know the business opportunity is their hands!!

There is no good in the world anymore, we can only choose the better evil!

If your neighbor, with whom you've had strained relations for years, breaks down your fence, comes into your house, and starts shooting, who bears primary responsibility for that situation?

If, in response to being attacked, you barricade yourself in a room, get your own gun, and return fire to defend yourself, is that somehow blameworthy? Also, in the event people are killed in the cross-fire, is there any sense in pointing the finger at both, or should it be pointed squarely in the face of the instigator?

I've never been one to defend Ukraine against allegations that they've stirred up shit against Russia in past years. And, considering the fact that they've been fighting each other (directly and via proxies) since 2014, it doesn't surprise me that there's bad blood and lots of antagonism..

[Paulie97]

Nobody is winning, this is total mess. The longer this craziness continues, the world economy will tank, this is almost worst scenario, minus a Nuclear War.

You've been singing this same simplistic song over and over since the war begin but it's likely to last another year or longer. Russia is too invested to back down. Ukraine wants them off their land and are willing to fight. The West will continue to arm them. There's wide bi-partisan support for the same in Congress, with only 11 Republican senators voting against the latest aid package. So keep whining but it's not going to change anything.

[VinDici]

If Russia stops fighting there will be no war, if Ukraine stops fighting there will be no Ukraine.

[Jmsuttr]

Nobody is winning, this is total mess. The longer this craziness continues, the world economy will tank, this is almost worst scenario, minus a Nuclear War.

If your neighbor, with whom you've had strained relations for years, breaks down your fence, comes into your house, and starts shooting, who bears primary responsibility for that situation?

If, in response to being attacked, you barricade yourself in a room, get your own gun, and return fire to defend yourself, is that somehow blameworthy? Also, in the event people are killed in the cross-fire, is there any sense in pointing the finger at both, or should it be pointed squarely in the face of the instigator?

I've never been one to defend Ukraine against allegations that they've stirred up shit against Russia in past years. And, considering the fact that they've been fighting each other (directly and via proxies) since 2014, it doesn't surprise me that there's bad blood and lots of antagonism.

But Russia is the bigger and stronger country, and they made a conscious decision to invade, thinking they could swallow Ukraine and bully the West into inaction by virtue of nuclear threats. They were wrong.

Now the bully's nose has been bloodied. They can turn around and go home or double-down on their aggression. It's entirely up to Russia, no one else.

[DramaFree11]

It's possible to look at a chessboard and, from the positions of the pieces and how much material each side has lost, extrapolate various endgame scenarios. Making an observation that most, or even all, of those scenarios aren't favorable to one side is not the same as making a prediction.

Let me again state my position, as clearly as I can:

Scenario 1:

If Russia leaves Ukraine, either to the Feb 24th boundaries or further, that will be seen as a clear defeat by just about everyone, whether inside Russia or not.

Scenario 2:.

Nobody is winning, this is total mess. The longer this craziness continues, the world economy will tank, this is almost worst scenario, minus a Nuclear War.

[Jmsuttr]

This first piece is a detailed look at Russia's military performance:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...8.2022.2078044

One good feature of this analysis is that it discusses the implications of the current conflict for the future military balance of power in Europe. And it also raises the question of whether Western analysts, having overestimated Russia's capabilities, might be making similar errors with respect to their assessment of NATO and other Western forces.

And this one examines a weapons system that Ukraine may get in the near future, and why it may be a game-changer:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...006301184.html

Whether or not Ukraine will receive the weapons systems described is yet to be seen. But the author argues that at least one of the MLRS systems will be delivered. There's also a companion piece with a lot of background technical info about various MLRS systems. It's best suited for military geeks but, if you want to take a look, here's the link:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...975910912.html

[Jmsuttr]

Well, first, there is the contradiction. No one knows what is going to happen but there is no way Russia "wins". IMO even if Putin negotiates peace, he is going to declare victory.

It's possible to look at a chessboard and, from the positions of the pieces and how much material each side has lost, extrapolate various endgame scenarios. Making an observation that most, or even all, of those scenarios aren't favorable to one side is not the same as making a prediction.

Let me again state my position, as clearly as I can:

Scenario 1:

If Russia leaves Ukraine, either to the Feb 24th boundaries or further, that will be seen as a clear defeat by just about everyone, whether inside Russia or not.

Scenario 2:

If Russia conquers all, or part of Ukraine, then they'll need to occupy it. However, post-2022 occupation is likely to be different, and much more difficult, than it was in 2014. The regions that Putin believed were pro-Russian have resisted strongly and it's highly likely that an occupational force would need to deal with insurgencies and local hostility. Ukraine would continue to be viewed as a victim by many and sanctions would continue to be imposed by many. Compared to pre-invasion Russia, the post-invasion situation would be more isolated and with numerous countries minimizing or eliminating the ties and relationships they once had.

I have no doubt that Putin would call #2 a victory, and might even be able to sell that to the Russian people. But calling it a "win" doesn't make it so, and an objective definition of victory generally means that you've gained more than you've lost. Putin's scorched-earth tactics have essentially leveled entire cities, like Mariupol. If he ends up holding territory that he's ruined, populated by people who will have a blood-feud mentality for generations, and has simultaneously turned most of the world against him, it's hard to see how that can objectively be characterized as a win. But I'm not disputing the fact that Putin will declare victory, no matter what.

What real victory would have looked like can be discerned from what we've learned about the Russian mindset, and objectives, at the beginning of the war. From everything I've seen and read, Russia believed there was a significant proportion of the Ukrainian people who would welcome them as liberators and would have no problem if a pro-Russia government was installed. Had Putin's army marched into Kyiv, removed Zelensky, installed new leadership, controlled the media, and had that new reality been readily accepted by significant numbers of Ukrainians, that would absolutely have been worthy of being declared a true win. But that didn't happen.

To sum up, since the true and unequivocal victory didn't happen, every remaining scenario is some version of failure. And success vs failure can be judged by objective measures, irrespective of what one side or the other says. Monty Python's Black Knight can claim that he's only suffered a scratch, but the reality is evident.

Again, if you see any realistic endgame scenario which lends itself to being objectively classified as a true Russian win, I'm all ears.

[Jmsuttr]

I am only looking in here to laugh at you. Now that the rest of the Stupid Shit in Medellin is here, I will look in less.

Wikipedia is a quick fire reference, used by me to show you know nothing about Iran.

Looking at your Medellin buddies thinking Russia is imploding, LOL.

Zelensky has lost the war but won the billions. Fancy going to Cannes and seeing that creep on the screen. Stanford Uni. Zelensky, what a shit show.

Did you enjoy beating up those old ladies by the Damascus Gate?

Hopefully, there will be an all round day of reckoning.

If Russia has won, why are they still fighting?

Once again, declaring that it's nighttime, when everyone else can clearly see that the sun is shining, just reveals to everyone what a delusional nutjob you are.

Delusion #2 is your obsession with the Medellin threads, and somehow believing that I frequent that forum. Never have, and never will. But that's ok, it's understandable if you can't think straight while engaged in a Dickipedia suck-session.

BTW, please keep us posted if there's anything of interest in the Medellin forums. From everything I can tell, you're the only one, in this forum, who spends time in that one. I guess that must be because of your obsession with transsexuals. Whatever floats your boat. Unless, of course, your boat is the Moskva!

Oh, wait. The Moskva didn't sink, because Russia is winning, right? It must have done a super-secret transformation into a submarine.

P.S. Please message the Kremlin ASAP and let them know they're misspelling the name of their own country. When writing in English, they've been mistakenly using the spelling "Russia" and that's clearly wrong! And we know this because the self-appointed "expert" called Pedro Morales has demonstrated that "Rusisa" is the TRUE spelling. Thanks so much for clearing that up! Oh, and while you're at it, make sure you also tell Dickipedia when you visit them tonight.

[PedroMorales]

Maybe Wikipedia can help you improve your repertoire of insults? Because they are lame beyond belief.
See how that works? Any questions?

I am only looking in here to laugh at you. Now that the rest of the Stupid Shit in Medellin is here, I will look in less.

Wikipedia is a quick fire reference, used by me to show you know nothing about Iran.

Looking at your Medellin buddies thinking Russia is imploding, LOL.

Zelensky has lost the war but won the billions. Fancy going to Cannes and seeing that creep on the screen. Stanford Uni. Zelensky, what a shit show.

Did you enjoy beating up those old ladies by the Damascus Gate?

Hopefully, there will be an all round day of reckoning.

[Elvis 2008]

First of all, the map I posted that purports to be from Chinese media was intended as a dig at Pedro M, and anyone who thinks China gives a shit about Russia. It's purely reflective of someone's idea of what a disintegrated Russia might look like, and I took it as a tongue-in-cheek exercise, nothing more.

Second, you seem to take issue with my statement that:

"But only delusional fools think they can predict the future. I'm satisfied with accurately observing present realities and proposing reasonable extrapolations from that body of evidence.

And there is no reality-based scenario or extrapolation in which Russia wins. Meanwhile, Ukraine is being continually replenished and refreshed by the US, NATO, and a coalition of freedom-loving nations".

With which part do you have a problem? With my refusal to engage in predicting the future (and my criticism of those who do so engage)?

Or is it my statement that there is no reality-based scenario in which Russia wins?

Please specify, as I'm happy to defend both of those positions.

Well, first, there is the contradiction. No one knows what is going to happen but there is no way Russia "wins". IMO even if Putin negotiates peace, he is going to declare victory.

As for a reality based scenario, Russia has nukes. Ukraine does not so unless Ukraine has nukes, they are outgunned. The question then is not if Russia can win but how badly it wants to.

As of now, this appears to be more of a land grab / theft versus Ukraine being a true threat to Russia. If Ukraine victory is not defined as retaking their homeland but attacking Russia with a goal of regime change, I think the use of nukes goes from unlikely to possible / probable.

What bugs me is the illogical Democratic view. On one hand, they look at Putin as a crazed mad man who is worse than Hitler and has to be removed from power. OTOH, they think he is rational enough to not use nukes. Worse yet is one hysterical warmonger's case where there is the belief that a nuclear war is winnable:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-us-...ng-11651067733.

Despite all the tough talk, if Russia uses nukes, there likely will be condemnation from the world community, but I doubt any other nation would respond in kind.

And that touches on your question about what constitutes a win. I would submit that only Russia and Ukraine can answer that. And also that any peace agreement can only happen when their two views get close enough to be within negotiating distance, which is nowhere close to happening.

I do not agree. Russia can declare victory with its land expansion. Ukraine can declare victory with saying it protected its homeland from a country with a superior military. The problem is the USA and Biden who let slip that Putin cannot stay in power. Look at the rabid Dems who post here. Is this really a war between Ukraine and Russia or a proxy war between the USA and Russia? The Dems have been fucking around with Russia and Ukraine since 2014. Victory for the Dems is not that the death and destruction stop in Ukraine. No, it is bragging they got Putin out of power so they have something to run on in the midterm elections.

As for your comments about the Buffalo shooter and shale oil and Trump, it's my sense that you're venting more than making a specific, coherent argument.

Do you have a solution or prescription that you can articulate? Venting is understandable, as there are so many frustrating elements in the current situation, but what exactly do you think Russia and Ukraine should do?

Before you get to the solution, what exactly is the problem? Russia is going to take over Europe? That is a fear not a problem. How the fuck does Russia do that when both the USA and Europe have nukes?

IMO the problem is that the Dems still feel that Trump won in 2016 because of Putin, and the Dems want payback and the glory of taking him out. And the Dems think what is good for them is good for America. What does Putin being in power mean to the average American's life? Very little. And if he is taken out, what guarantee is there that Putin's replacement will be less evil? None.

The notion of sticking it to the Russians and killing their soldiers may sound satisfying, but you cannot tell me that glorifying killing has nothing to do with school shootings, so that makes me feel less secure. And giving javelin and stinger missiles to Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country, without proper accountability hardly makes me feel secure either. Stinger missiles cannot just take out airplanes but skyscrapers, and it is just takes one to get into the wrong hands.

The notion that Putin is a threat to Democracy and Russiagate was not is insulting. I do not think this is a war between Russia and Ukraine but between Putin and the Democrats. If the Democrats want to convince me and other Republicans Putin is truly evil and they are not crying wolf, they have to admit that Russiagate was a fraud and agree to investigate and prosecute those responsible. Until then, I think a lot of Republicans will have a hard time believing Putin being a threat is real; it is just the Dems being hysterical again and trying to justify Russiagate.

Assuming they can make that case, what can the USA do to limit Putin's power? You are not going to beat a nuclear power in a war. That is just stupid. The cold war was won economically, and the thing that would limit Putin's power the most is cheap oil and natural gas. The Democrats have to make a choice once again: which is a bigger threat to the USA, Dems? Putin or climate change? You do not get it both ways. Instead of arming Ukraine, to me, investment in oil and gas makes far more sense.

If you are going to use the military or give a nation arms, there has to be a mission and a achievable one at that. So what is the goal with arming Ukraine? Limiting Russia's land grab? So what? We have a repeat of the moronic domino theory that if Russia takes parts of Ukraine, the rest of Europe is next? Please.

I am not in favor of a military solution, but when has the USA military really been successful? The only war I would say the USA was in that was an unqualified success since WW2 was Grenada. It was easily winnable, and the mission was clear.

If you want to use military might and hurt Putin in the name of Democracy, and I am not in favor of this, an invasion of Venezuela makes the most sense. That nation has been hampered by a corrupt dictator and the people have suffered because of it, and it sits on the largest oil reserves in the world. You can use drug trafficking or the Russian presence there as an excuse for an invasion. Developing those reserves would lower the price of crude and hurt Putin, help the Venezuelan people in having a higher standard of living, and help much of the world with cheaper energy prices. Unlike in Ukraine, military action there has an achievable goal with a high likelihood of success but again, I am not favor of this.

It is just that I can see the upside for the USA and the world invading Venezuela. What is the goal of that $40 billion spent in Ukraine? Perpetual war? The Dems say they are spending that money to ensure victory. How the fuck is Ukraine going to beat a nuclear power without nukes?

[WyattEarp]

P.S. As to Russia becoming more dangerous with a collapse of the government, that also doesn't make a lot of sense. At such a time they would likely be more concerned with domestic affairs, as they were after the fall of the USSR.

That's the thing about uncertainty. It's uncertain.

When I wrote "a complete collapse of the Russian government." I was not thinking in terms of the Gorbachev to Yeltsin hand-off with Russia orderly breaking into more homogenous countries. I was thinking of a violent struggle for the leadership of a weakened, unstable nuclear state. I'm not really thinking the conventional Russian military is a threat to the West.

Since I don't have a crystal ball, I considered the possibility of a "subtle transition of power to less militaristic leadership."

Nothing personal, but can you really say with certainty you know how things would go down if the Russian government completely collapses? We don't even have the foggiest idea who might emerge as the leader. What if it's a crazy, Russian nationalist from the military no less?

As Xpartan brought up, the fall of empires have been a good think for humanity but they have also led to instability and violence in the transitory period. So be prepared for the worst.