Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

My impression based on what one comes across in terms of rumeros and such is that Putin trusts Shoigu. Seems the same for Gerasimov. Maybe BS but makes sense Putin needs a circle he trusts more than competence.

You mean that they are yesmen? Or as Prigozhin put it "minions"? Ok fine, but in the whole of Russia Putin can't find some minions, if that's the main ask, that are also at least somewhat competent? It is still quite curious.

[conon394]

You mean that they are yesmen? Or as Prigozhin put it "minions"? Ok fine, but in the whole of Russia Putin can't find some minions, if that's the main ask, that are also at least somewhat competent? It is still quite curious.

Perhaps the question is how really competent is Putin? I mean my take was Surovikin was both seemily a yes man and competent. He executed the pull back to the left bank of the Dnieper well and was a busy bee building fortifications. And with the at the time slow pace of western AA deliveries and F-16s off the table seemed to have a good plan in just sitting the wither out letting Ukraine see if they can launch another offensive than react. I could be reading more into him being pulled for Gerasimov but I don't see him having planed 2 failed axis of winter attack and one grinding sorta maybe squint 'win'.

[reavertm]

if Ukraine wasn't violently drifting towards the US.

I'm sorry, if Ukraine was "violently drifting" towards US (was it EU or US again, I heard conflicting accusations) just before 2014 then you are violently grifting.

Btw, I think Putin wanted Donbas and Lugansk from the very beginning, not just Crimea. He wouldn't have dispatched green men there if he didn't.
He wouldn't have provided armour and artillery if he didn't. Malaysian Airlines airplane would not have been mistakenly shot down by Russian BUK from Kursk AA division if he didn't.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I too am amused by the concept of "violently drifting".

[conon394]

@Alastor

Back the F-15 came across another potential change they bring. The balance the long BVR missile gap Ukraine has right now. Right now Russia can play the same game Iran could back in the Iran -Iraq war since they had F-14s and Phoenix missiles. THe Iranian planes could loiter in their secure AA covered air space and loft long range BVR missiles safely and disrupt the enemies attempts at sortees. BVR at extended range is low percentage but to the extent it makes the burn fuel and dodge away its often a mission kill if not a real one. F16 with the longest range NATO missiles would really cut down on that although not eliminate it since NATO countries are only recently getting around to replacing the capability of the Phoenix in range.

edit - if one were really cynical one might also say any of the new slate of really long range BVR missiles the US is developing would be a good shock if just one or two were used off an F-16... but that seems high risk.

[Kyriakos]

I too am amused by the concept of "violently drifting".

Perhaps "nervously drifting"?

[Alastor]

Perhaps "nervously drifting"?

No, Ukraine was drifting towards the US (not the EU, as Nuland very succinctly put it " the EU", the EU was, as usual, nothing but a stooge) and there was a fair bit of violence. So I'll stick with my term, no matter how amusing some people may find violence to be.

[Kyriakos]

At any rate, I think we generally have an interesting thread here, despite many differences (what threads are about).
Over at some other forum, some super-cretinous mod keeps erasing half the posts on a daily basis

[PointOfViewGun]

No, Ukraine was drifting towards the US (not the EU, as Nuland very succinctly put it " the EU", the EU was, as usual, nothing but a stooge) and there was a fair bit of violence. So I'll stick with my term, no matter how amusing some people may find violence to be.

Not really USA but firmly EU. It's what started all of this as the Russian puppet of a president at the time suddenly decided to ignore the agreement with EU and go the way Russia wanted. That decision led to protests and the parliament's sacking of the president which got Russia to act up and try to take over everything. No USA there.

[conon394]

Interesting rumors and seem to be say Italy is quietly transferring B1 Centauros to Ukraine

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/italy...193700347.html

Could be BS or not. But it strikes me by around now Ukraine probably has a preponderance of pledged stuff in place. But I think that new stuff is still in the pipeline is good for being able to risk losing equipment. Same with this story on Geppords

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ne-from-jordan

Won't change anything this year but it means more are coming so affects planning you can be more aggressive if you think replacements are coming. Hopefully as US tax payer the US army has finally said umm oh yes air defense that's good thing and our only solution is not wait for it the wonder laser we will be deploying any day now. Maybe the gauss gun or the rail gun first, no the laser. Ok the microwave gun ... Ok damn it we will deploy a proven platform with you know working guns and small missiles and it own rader (and FLIR and electro optical sighting) so when its wu fu networked uber connectivity system is jammed into oblivion it can still work.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.newsweek.com/tanks-russi...border-1803756

Russian fighters serving under the Ukrainian Armed Forces have crossed into the town of Shebekino in Russia's Belgorod region, bringing "heavy equipment" with them, Ilya Ponomarev, an exiled Russian politician—who says he is the political representative for the group of fighters—told Newsweek.

Ponomarev's remarks came on the heels of a statement from Belgorod Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov, who said shelling in the border town of Shebekino overnight injured at least eight people. Gladkov denied "any enemies are on the territory of the Belgorod region" even as reports emerged that tanks operated by "saboteurs" were shelling the town's checkpoint.

The Freedom of Russia Legion—formed weeks after Russia's invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, and made up of defectors from the Russian armed forces and Russian and Belarusian volunteers—and the Russian Volunteer Corps published videos on their social media channels claiming to be near or in Shebekino on Thursday morning.

The part in bold reminds me of the time one of Saddam's lackeys stated emphatically there were no American tanks in Baghdad even as tanks could be seen driving by behind him.

[Papay]

Not really USA but firmly EU. It's what started all of this as the Russian puppet of a president at the time suddenly decided to ignore the agreement with EU and go the way Russia wanted. That decision led to protests and the parliament's sacking of the president which got Russia to act up and try to take over everything. No USA there.

You mean the legally elected president that was overthrown violently?

[reavertm]

You mean the legally elected president that was overthrown violently?

Yep, the same. He then betrayed own constituents by ignoring parliamentary majority decision to have closer ties to EU.

[Alastor]

Sad day for Putin today as his "mother" reportedly died: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituari...russia-mother/
For one of the world's most famous men and leader of an important country, it is interesting just how much doubt and uncertainty there is about Putin's life.

Then again... we didn't even know if Obama was born in the US or not...

[PointOfViewGun]

You mean the legally elected president that was overthrown violently?

The parliament annulled his presidency, not the mob.

[Ludicus]

That's like saying that to beat cancer you need to stop chemotherapy.

I would say that Russian "chemotherapy" has dangerous side effects.The risks of escalation are rising fast. Even the Rand Corporation understands that avoiding a long war is a priority for the US.
Avoiding a Long War - RAND Corporation

Our analysis suggests that this debate is too narrowly focused on one dimension of the war's trajectory. Territorial control, although immensely important to Ukraine, is not the most important dimension of the war's future for the United States. We conclude that, in addition to averting possible escalation to a Russia-NATO war or Russian nuclear use, avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.

But,
It will be interesting to see how there can be peace when the ICC (which was threatened and sanctioned by the US government in 2019) has an arrest warrant against the Russian president.

----
How weapons firms influence the Ukraine debate

‘Experts’ from defense industry funded think tanks are flooding the media, pushing for more arms without disclosing their benefactors.
“To be brutal about it, we need to see masses of Russians fleeing, deserting, shooting their officers, taken captive, or dead. The Russian defeat must be an unmistakably big, bloody shambles. …To that end, with the utmost urgency, the West should give everything that Ukraine could possibly use,” argues Eliot Cohen in The Atlantic.

What neither Cohen, who also famously pushed for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, nor The Atlantic acknowledge in the article is that most of the weapons Cohen mentions in the article — including long-range missiles, F-16s, and even F-35s — are made by funders of Cohen’s employer, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)…

(…) In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief (…)

More, Defense Contractor Funded Think Tanks Dominate Ukraine

First, of the 27 think tanks whose donors could be identified, 21 received funding from the defense sector (77 percent)...

Second, in articles related to U.S. military involvement in Ukraine media outlets have cited think tanks with financial backing from the defense industry 85 percent of the time,

Third… nearly a third of the top U.S. foreign policy think tanks still do not provide the public with information about their funders.
Fourth, media outlets rarely identify conflicts of interest posed by experts they cite from defense industry funded think tanks in cases where they offer their opinions on policies that would benefit the defense industry.

In fact, it is still the American press that tells some truths.

--
Edit.
Jürgen Habermas (one of the most influential philosophers in the world) is not entirely stupid, my dear friends. He wrote, in 2022, War and Indignation. The West's Red Line Dilemma
A year later, he says, (read the interview)
Prominent German philosopher Jürgen Habermas urges West to initiate peace talks with Russia.

The West must “take its own initiatives” for peace talks with Russia independently of the Ukrainian government, urged German philosopher Jürgen Habermas in an article for a German newspaper.
The German thinker argued that Western countries supporting the Russian offensive with arms supplies could easily find themselves “sleepwalking on the edge of a precipice,” …There may come a point where they therefore must either abandon Ukraine or join the war themselves…

---
What can I add? Nothing that I haven't said before. If Ukraine has the right not to be neutral, I ask why Kennedy denied Cuba that same right, at risk of nuclear war. NATO Chief Stoltenberg says Ukraine has the right to choose its own path. Opinion | The Editorial Board interviews NATO Secretary Washington Post.

Hockstader: What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO look like?

Stoltenberg: First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path, that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide.

Has Cuba the right to choose its own path? in the highly unlikely event that Ukraine joins NATO, could Cuba choose to be part of a military alliance with Russia, with all that implies? The answer is no.

[conon394]

I ask why Kennedy denied Cuba that same right, at risk of nuclear war.

What are you talking about. Cuba under Castro was never neutral. You are familiar with this little event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War

That's a crap ton of Cuban troops hanging about being neutral.

The question JFK forced was not Cuban neutrality but Russian nuclear missiles on the island. Notice the US agreed to remove missiles from Turkey and put none in Poland or Romania for example.

Has Cuba the right to choose its own path? in the highly unlikely event that Ukraine joins NATO, could Cuba choose to be part of a military alliance with Russia, with all that implies? The answer is no.

There is no basis for that conclusion. It was an ally of the USSR.

Jürgen Habermas (one of the most influential philosophers in the world) is not entirely stupid

I guess I'll take your word on the last bit but apparently the man seems a shaky grasp of history

"Neither side is forced to accept adefeat or leave the battlefield as a “loser.”

Seems to be forgetting

[PointOfViewGun]

What can I add? Nothing that I haven't said before. If Ukraine has the right not to be neutral, I ask why Kennedy denied Cuba that same right, at risk of nuclear war. NATO Chief Stoltenberg says Ukraine has the right to choose its own path. Opinion | The Editorial Board interviews NATO Secretary Washington Post.
Has Cuba the right to choose its own path? in the highly unlikely event that Ukraine joins NATO, could Cuba choose to be part of a military alliance with Russia, with all that implies? The answer is no.

Cuba was already an ally of USSR at the time. The conflict arose from USSR's efforts to install nukes in Cuba. NATO never tried to install nukes in Ukraine. To the contrary, Ukraine decided to denuclearize just to appease Russia.

[Kyriakos]

What are you talking about. Cuba under Castro was never neutral. You are familiar with this little event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War

That's a crap ton of Cuban troops hanging about being neutral.

The question JFK forced was not Cuban neutrality but Russian nuclear missiles on the island. Notice the US agreed to remove missiles from Turkey and put none in Poland or Romania for example.



There is no basis for that conclusion. It was an ally of the USSR.



I guess I'll take your word on the last bit but apparently the man seems a shaky grasp of history

"Neither side is forced to accept adefeat or leave the battlefield as a “loser.”

Seems to be forgetting

Chile was non-aligned, voted in a socialist (Allende) then had a pro-US dictator installed, with US money to back him.
No use pretending those major powers care about popular will when it is against their interests.

[Ludicus]

What are you talking about. Cuba under Castro was never neutral.

Kennedy decided to place a naval blockade around Cuba to demand the removal of the Russian nuclear missiles already there. I ask again:can Cuba choose to be part of a military alliance with Russia, with all that implies?
And, btw, why does the US continue to reject (every single year) UN moves to end the embargo?

That's a crap ton of Cuban troops hanging about being neutral.

Once upon a time, my dear Conon, the average American could read how Chevron was hiring the Cuban military in Angola to protect American workers from American-backed rebels. Oil and diamonds always work miracles.
Edit, for clarification, CUBANS GUARD U.S. OILMEN IN ANGOLA
----
Let's talk a little more about "just peace". supporting Ukraine and promoting a just peace - EEAS

“In order to achieve a just peace, Ukraine must first win the war”; Borrel declares.
---
Achieving a just peace for the conflict in Ukraine has recently emerged in the lexicon of some spin doctors. These beings did not turn from hawks into doves overnight. For them, a just peace is peace on Kiev's terms, i.e., Kiev's victory across the board, in particular, Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and the complete and total withdrawal of Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory.

A just peace for Kiev will certainly not be a just peace for Moscow; just as a just peace for Israel will not be a just peace for Damascus, when we talk about Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights; or a just peace for Ankara will not be a just peace for Athens, when it comes to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. And so on.

Let me tell you, it's an exercise in political immaturity to link the idea of a "just peace" to respect for international law, forgetting the existential and geopolitical problems at stake, or to moral judgements.
As I mentioned earlier in my previous post, the same happens when international criminal justice is politicized. It hinders rather than facilitates the path to peace. It is therefore not surprising that hawks dressed as doves applaud the ICC's decisions when they are conveniently directed at others, which seems to be its mission.
Believe me, the outcome of the conflict will not be determined by international law, morality or feelings of justice or injustice. If there is no decisive military victory by one of the parties, the peace solution to be found must take into account the interests of the litigants, including compromises and concessions.

Only a view divorced from reality can believe that Ukraine is capable of inflicting a decisive military defeat on Russia and achieving all its strategic objectives, namely regaining Crimea and being admitted to NATO. The peace achieved will result mainly, or entirely, from the power relations that prevail. between the states involved, with the US at the head. As in other parts of the planet, the peace achieved will be the possible peace and not the fictional just peace.

--

Chile was non-aligned, voted in a socialist (Allende) then had a pro-US dictator installed, with US money to back him.
No use pretending those major powers care about popular will when it is against their interests.

That's what I have been saying...Well, some would argue that the direct significance Allende's Chile had for Latin America was to reinvigorate a battle for control of the continent between those who sought socialist revolution and those who wanted to destroy it.