Invasion of Ukraine

[GrantDawg]

His "plan"? Biden's only plan was to help Ukraine survive, and that has been a success. Russia would have rolled through Ukraine without the US and Europe's help. The fact there is still a Ukraine three years later is a win, and if there is a Ukraine in 5 years, then it has been an amazing success. Russia expected this war to be over in three days, with complete control of the whole country and an erasing of Ukrainian culture. That Ukraine have survived versus a country many times larger with one of the largest armies in the world, destroyed the Russian Black Sea fleet Without a real navy of their own, and held them up even when North Korea began to help Russia with manpower is a minor miracle.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

There have been multiple deals offered that would have let Ukraine exist. Biden and the West turned them down. Now Ukraine has lost a million people and is in a far worse negotiating position.

[GrantDawg]

It really hasn't, and it really isn't.There was near agreement in Turkey, but it fell apart due to Russian slaughter of civilians in Bucha. After that there hasn't been even serious peace proposal.
As for the war, Russia has only advanced 25 miles in the last year, even with the help of North Korea, and Ukraine still controls a part of the Russian state of Kursk. They are still pretty much in the same position they have been, save the change in the US administration.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

There hasn't been any deal offered by Russia acceptable to Ukraine.

[SirFozzie]

The key difference:

" Z said he could not sign it because it didn’t contain any security guarantees for Ukraine."

Biden's plan had a security guarantee. Trump just wanted his rare earths for nothing.

[GrantDawg]

Any agreement without some kind of security guarantee is just a temporary cease fire. Russia will pause to regroup and then invade again.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There hasn't been any deal offered by Russia acceptable to Ukraine.

That's their perogative. But beggars can't be choosers.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not saying it's his fault, I am saying that his plan failed miserably. Russia is winning, millions have died, and we used hundreds of billions of dollars for nothing.

It's not for nothing. If they trampled over the Ukraine and annexed them in 3 days like the original plan was, do you think they would be happy and satisfied? No, they would have moved onto the next country. Maybe Poland next?

Right now they've lost far more people than the Ukraine, their weapons are depleted, and their economy is tanked. And the Ukraine still exists.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My stance is that Russia is wrong and the aggressor. Literally the same as you. Where we differ on is whether pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into a lost cause is sustainable long term. Especially when Ukraine is running out of people.

So again, what plan do you think is best? You keep avoiding this question and I think I know why.



You can't be serious. Wait till you find out what the CIA has been up to over the past 80 years. We even fought some wars since then.

You can't be serious if you think that the current status quo would have been maintained or even bettered without the efforts of the CIA in places you or I would ever dare set foot.



The amount of money that we've spent is far less than the expense of an all out ground war. One that surely wouldn't have escalated out of control. I can also think of all the soldiers that we haven't lost as a result. You can play out the hand your given, because you literally can't do much of anything else. You walk away, and show your hand to be a coward, or you engage and risk global catastrophe. From your perspective the best choice would have been to do nothing. Your actions or inaction has no consequence in the world, because literally nobody is dumb enough to make those choices. For real man, nobody is that dumb that they just believe that if they did the exact thing that they think that nobody else ever thought of, that the world would be exactly the same, except for all the bad shit they wail and cry about all the time, would be gone, and nothing but easy sailing ahead.



Look, you can argue about how you're choices would be the right choices all day, but you've never seen the actual result of those choices because they are so extreme that you would have been laughed out of the tactics session.



Frankly, Biden was right to allow the war creep, as a response to Putin's war creep. You can believe Putin was right to do it, and that it was Biden's fault, but that's just following the russian propaganda. trump can rattle sabers all he wants, but at the end of the day he is never, ever, going to send in american troops against russia. In fact, he will stop all aid under the guise of some sort of anti-fraud brigade, just as a pretense to let russia do whatever it wants. Putin can't be trusted under any peace deal. He got the nukes from the Ukraine and immediately spend the next 10 year waging a destabilizing war in Ukraine. He's had over a decade to break them down, and this is as far as he's gotten. Sure, they have numbers, and they have man power, and frankly, the rest of Europe should be ready to give more aid too, because this is a full out proxy war, and walking away is effectively giving Poland to Hitler.

[RainMaker]

Putin is simultaneously the next Hitler ready to take over the world while also not worth sending American troops over to stop.


Ukraine is running out of troops and what they have left is not exactly a top tier fighting unit. So what's the plan? Still can't get an answer out of any of you on that one.

[RainMaker]

Also the CIA answer is so bizarre that I don't even know what to say. You argue that America is a beacon for freedom and democracy in the world and then say it was good that the CIA overthrew all those democracies and installed dictators. That's some next level mental gymnastics.

[Edward64]

Just my 2 cents on how I see reality ... not a shoulda, woulda, coulda.

I was taught about BATNA in pitching, negotiating sales deals. We internally strategize what is our and their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and this helps determine relative position & strengths. Still always strive for a somewhat win-win situation, but there's always going to be one side that has an edge. Right now, Ukraine is on the weaker side of BATNA and everyone knows it.

(EU below is all the western NATO countries exUS)


Baseline assumptions & truths

1. Ukraine cannot survive with only EU allies and without US support.
2. Russia can last longer than Ukraine + EU allies. Militarily, politically & Civ's war weariness. This is even more so with NK, China & Iran backing Russia
3. Ukraine's draft age is 25+. That tells me much about Ukraine's lack of willingness (or inability) to go all out
4. US has supported Ukraine for 3 years and $175B+. Ukraine would certainly have fallen in the first year without US support. EU countries just weren't willing or ramped up enough then. IMO our $175B+ was well worth it for various reasons but now, US war weariness is real
5. European NATO countries complain but IMO they should be taking lead now. There's articles and statements alluding to EU willingness to do this now. But I think we know the reality that they can't or won't, at least not for any length of time. IMO this will allow US to focus on the real threat, China. If there was a China-Taiwan shooting war, does anyone believe EU or NATO countries will come help in any significant way?
6. So, the reality Zelenskyy faces is that #1 is true and Trump will stop or greatly reduce support

Hypothesis

1. Therefore, it is in Ukraine's best interest to cut a deal, essentially trading "land for peace"
2. EU may be pissed off, but they're secretly glad that someone is trying to get a deal done. They know it'll take too long (if ever) if EU + Zelenskyy tried to cut a deal with Russia. So, they'll say they were forced to and can always blame it on Trump
3. Zelenskyy may be pissed off, but he's secretly glad that someone is trying to get a deal done. He knows he can always say he was forced to and blame it on Trump
4. So, Ukraine is/should be willing to cut a deal where they lose some land BUT have security guarantees. NATO membership is not necessary, have EU countries invite Ukraine into some sort of alliance/treaty
5. IMO Trump know this. Zelenskyy knows this. EU know this. Putin knows this.

Best guess on outcome

1. A "land for peace" deal will be cut within next 12-18 months. It may take some iterations and drama, but a deal will be done. Zelenskyy and EU won't be happy, but they'll be secretly relieved that it's resolved and there is some level of security guarantee for Ukraine
2. NATO countries will get real serious about defense now. Many are still lagging behind their 2% of GDP. They'll have 4-5+ years before Putin/Russia tries anything else (or if at all, Putin is pretty old)
3. Putin will get to keep some, not all of the new 2022+ territory
4. Trump will get access to much of the $500B of Ukraine's rare earth metals
5. And best of all, bittersweet as it may be, Ukraine and her peoples can start to rebuild with western and US investments

Wildcard, blue-sky type prediction

• I can see Trump putting out feelers for Ukraine to be 51st state. My updated preference list is now Ukraine > Greenland > Panama > Canada

[bob]

I saw this online and more or less agree with it:

“That's the part people struggle with. Russia has to agree to a deal if one is to be made, and they're not going to cede territory. Any talk of Ukraine joining NATO is also going to make Putin balk.

Short of ratcheting the war up and having a NATO coalition (read: U.S. military) go in and forcefully drive Russia out, the only other ends are Ukraine's defeat, which nobody wants, or a brokered peace deal that necessitates Ukrainian concessions.

There is no good way out. Nobody has the stomach for another massive war to eliminate Russia, so the remaining reality is unpleasant. That's not support for Russia, that's just the situation.”

[JPhillips]

I agree with this, but I'd add that Ukraine also has to agree to any deal. There's no deal to be had with the US negotiating with Russia and then demanding Ukraine go along.

[whomario]

US diplomacy, folks

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Putin is simultaneously the next Hitler ready to take over the world while also not worth sending American troops over to stop.


Ukraine is running out of troops and what they have left is not exactly a top tier fighting unit. So what's the plan? Still can't get an answer out of any of you on that one.

So what's your idea? Appeasment?

[Edward64]

Seems promising but let's see what comes out of the meeting.

I don't think this is a meeting to discuss how EU can lead a peace deal (vs what US is doing now) but more for what happens after a peace deal (e.g. security guarantee for Ukraine, presumably without US troops).

There was another article about how EU wanted to create an EU Army which I think will make NATO a redundant relic and reduce US commitment to western Europe. IMO there was a time and place but now, the US should support allies but not lead in European conflicts.

Europe emergency summit: European leaders to begin Paris meeting as Trump forges ahead with Ukraine peace talks | CNN

European leaders are gathering in France for an emergency summit on Ukraine after the Trump administration announced it was opening talks with Russia on ending the war without a European presence.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Starmer said he was “ready and willing” to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to enforce a peace deal if necessary.

[JPhillips]

What's the point of the US at a meeting with the Russians brokered by the Saudis if the Ukrainians aren't there?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's the point of the US at a meeting with the Russians brokered by the Saudis if the Ukrainians aren't there?

I mean, the obvious answer here, is that between the Russians and the current administration they are irrelevant to the final decision.

[JPhillips]

But they aren't . Even if the US cuts off funding that doesn't mean the Ukrainians stop fighting. There isn't any deal worth having without the agreement of the parties doing the fighting.

[dubb93]

I really think Trump just wants a seat at the table with Putin. He has always been enamored with what Putin has been able to accomplish in Russia and it's hard for people like us who aren't obsessed with power to really understand the relationship between those two.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's the point of the US at a meeting with the Russians brokered by the Saudis if the Ukrainians aren't there?

Literally copying Chamberlain talking to Hitler about the Sudetenland without Czechoslovakia. Don't think the Ukrainians are interested in standing down like the Czechs did.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Literally copying Chamberlain talking to Hitler about the Sudetenland without Czechoslovakia. Don't think the Ukrainians are interested in standing down like the Czechs did.

I was thinking more like the Yalta Conference, aka "Rendezvous with Sophia"

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But they aren't . Even if the US cuts off funding that doesn't mean the Ukrainians stop fighting. There isn't any deal worth having without the agreement of the parties doing the fighting.

I don't want anything to do with a Trump/Putin deal, but if Trump threatens to pull all funding and aid to Ukraine if they don't agree to a deal along the current lines (and even probably giving Russia back it's slice of territory Ukraine occupies) they should/will capitulate. They can run a guerrila war against Russia if they want, they simply don't have the stockpiles or production capacity necessary to keep this artillery driven stalemate in place if Trump is willing to completely sell them down the river.

[JPhillips]

I don't know. Turkey is backing them and I expect Europe will step up if even just temporarily.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's the point of the US at a meeting with the Russians brokered by the Saudis if the Ukrainians aren't there?

Trump defended not including Ukraine by saying they should have never started the war.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump defended not including Ukraine by saying they should have never started the war.

Has Putin bribed Musk to keep Trump stuck in a weird alternate reality?

[Edward64]

This was pre-Elon

First term rumors were a pee tape or some other compromising recording. But I think he just has an affinity to ‘strongman’ leaders

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This was pre-Elon

First term rumors were a pee tape or some other compromising recording. But I think he just has an affinity to ‘strongman’ leaders

He's like a jock sniffer for autocrats. He's desperate for attention and validation from them. He probably thinks he and Putin are friends.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This was pre-Elon

First term rumors were a pee tape or some other compromising recording. But I think he just has an affinity to ‘strongman’ leaders

Sure, sure. Musk bought Twitter 2 months after the Russian invasion. But Twitter already existed, something must have kept Trump as moronic as we know he is, like so many people that are addicted to their social media and have been sucked into believing fake news is the only truth.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Sure, sure. Musk bought Twitter 2 months after the Russian invasion. But Twitter already existed, something must have kept Trump as moronic as we know he is, like so many people that are addicted to their social media and have been sucked into believing fake news is the only truth.

19 more months of this and, hopefully, the Dems can get their act together, come out with a platform that appeals to the majority, and win the House or Senate.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Edward64

19 more months of this and, hopefully, the Dems can get their act together, come out with a platform that appeals to the majority, and win the House or Senate.

The brand is dead. They will need a miracle.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll be very surprised if it doesn't happen. Even popular presidents, and I don't see Trump being that by that point, tend to lose ground in midterms.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll be very surprised if it doesn't happen. Even popular presidents, and I don't see Trump being that by that point, tend to lose ground in midterms.

You’re assuming by then the voting public isn’t just white men who have to cast their ballot through Twitter.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by dubb93

The brand is dead. They will need a miracle.

"That" brand is dead & buried, pretty sure the voters have spoken.

Dems need to pivot under new leadership and more moderate (or extreme?) platform. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

But I wouldn't put it beyond Trump to overplay a hand and really, really piss off the independents or more moderately inclined GOP voters. I mean, there's 19 months left and see what he's done already.

No, it won't be illegal immigration, Ukraine, Israel-Hamas, gender identity, Medicaid etc. stuff. It has to be something like (1) Social Security (2) Medicare (3) his tariffs/policies causing a big & sustained economic/market downturn (4) unsuccessful or very painful war e.g. with China-Taiwan or (5) a lot of pissed off and unemployed (fired) voters.

I don't think he'll make the mistake with (1) or (2) or (4) but can see (3) and maybe (5).


With that said, although Ukraine may hold out with (+ EU - US) for the next 2 years, I can more easily see Russia making significant gains. If I was Zelenskyy, I'd swallow my pride and cut the best deal possible which includes a must have of EU security guarantee.

[JPhillips]

2026 is super simple. If people like Trump the GOP will do well, but if they don't like Trump Dems will roll.

I'm all about Dems needing a brand, but that isn't much of an issue until 2028. The next election is a referendum on Trumpism.

[Flasch186]

FWIW I don’t think we have an election in 2028


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You’re assuming by then the voting public isn’t just white men who have to cast their ballot through Twitter.

I'm very comfortable with that assumption.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

2026 is super simple. If people like Trump the GOP will do well, but if they don't like Trump Dems will roll.

I'm all about Dems needing a brand, but that isn't much of an issue until 2028. The next election is a referendum on Trumpism.

That's been the Dems position for almost a decade now. They have to stand for something at some point.

[JPhillips]

They haven't had a brand since 2008. It's a big problem, but not for 2026. Midterms are referendums on the president and just not being Trump will be their best quality.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's been the Dems position for almost a decade now. They have to stand for something at some point.

They need a name change. In the same way MAGA turned lib into an insult they managed to turn Dem into one too. They won’t win an election (midterm or no) so long as the name of the party is toxic.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Literally copying Chamberlain talking to Hitler about the Sudetenland without Czechoslovakia. Don't think the Ukrainians are interested in standing down like the Czechs did.

Who do you want to stop Putin? Ukraine is running out of soldiers. I get you feel Putin is a threat similar to Hitler so who do you want to fight him?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm very comfortable with that assumption.

I think "only white men voting through Twitter" is an exaggeration, but I do think there's a good chance an elected Dem majority in House and Senate don't actually make it to the places they were elected to.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think "only white men voting through Twitter" is an exaggeration, but I do think there's a good chance an elected Dem majority in House and Senate don't actually make it to the places they were elected to.

I better stock up on 5.56 ammo and ask the wife if I can buy another AR.

[Atocep]

Trump has reportedly given the EU 3 weeks to sign off on Ukraine's surrender. Really strange since Ukraine hasn't been involved and hasn't been informed of their pending surrender.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Edward64

With that said, although Ukraine may hold out with (+ EU - US) for the next 2 years, I can more easily see Russia making significant gains. If I was Zelenskyy, I'd swallow my pride and cut the best deal possible which includes a must have of EU security guarantee.

Which pride to swallow? Everybody that has a broader view on the world than just their Twitter feed knows which country invaded which country. How does Trump not understand the implications of telling his buddy Putin that he agrees that the USA, thus NATO, supported the invasion of Russia?

Your inclusion of the EU here makes no sense. The EU is no real party in this, as much as the people in charge even try to pretend to be. The EU is no sovereign country nor is it a NATO member. It's a cooperation of a bunch of neighboring countries, of which most are also part of NATO, that have agreed to do no silly things without consulting the rest of the bunch.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Which pride to swallow? Everybody that has a broader view on the world than just their Twitter feed knows which country invaded which country. How does Trump not understand the implications of telling his buddy Putin that he agrees that the USA, thus NATO, supported the invasion of Russia?

It really doesn't matter why Trump doesn't understand the implications as you/we see it. It is what it is. It's the Trump reality show now and we/Zelenskyy have to deal with it for the next 2 years at least and probably 4.

So yeah, Zelenskyy needs to assess the greater good. What's best for his country in the long term. If he really thinks Ukraine + NATOexUS can pull it off, go for it. But IMO I do not believe this is reality, he should cut his losses.

Your inclusion of the EU here makes no sense. The EU is no real party in this, as much as the people in charge even try to pretend to be. The EU is no sovereign country nor is it a NATO member. It's a cooperation of a bunch of neighboring countries, of which most are also part of NATO, that have agreed to do no silly things without consulting the rest of the bunch.

In my post #1762 above, I stated my position on what I think Ukraine should do and why, I prefaced it with below. Easier to just say EU vs "western NATO countries exUS" every time. But your point is taken, I'll just do "NATOexUS" going forward and say EU when I really mean EU.

(EU below is all the western NATO countries exUS)

[Edward64]

Don't know what's in the "new" proposal yet, but article hints that it'll be acceptable. So good news

Just a moment...

The Trump administration has given Ukraine an "improved" draft for a minerals agreement between the countries after President Volodymyr Zelensky infuriated President Trump by rejecting his initial offer, a Ukrainian official, a U.S. official and three sources with knowledge tell Axios.

Sources on both sides now say a deal is looking more likely.

A source with knowledge said several of Zelensky's aides have encouraged him to sign the updated proposal to avoid a further clash with Trump and allow the U.S. president to justify U.S. support for Ukraine.

"There was significant improvement in the recent draft and it is in conformity with Ukrainian law," the source said.

IMO the key is security guarantees. Make sure it's ironclad because I can see Trump getting the rare earth deal; and also trying to help Putin, screw Ukraine. And oh yeah, maybe say the deal is effective after a ceasefire has been negotiated (and buffer zone established)

The latest: Zelensky met on Thursday in Kyiv with U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg and discussed the minerals agreement, the battlefield situation, the return of prisoners of war and security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a future peace agreement.

After the meeting, Zelensky issued a statement thanking the U.S. for its assistance and bipartisan support.

[miami_fan]

Are the mods going to edit this thread to fit the narrative that Russia did not start the war with Ukraine?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Are the mods going to edit this thread to fit the narrative that Russia did not start the war with Ukraine?

We need like a million Winstons.