Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[z3n]

I've just explained why. Of course, the dominance the US established toward the end WW2 in terms of diplomacy, technology, economics and military power is what enabled it to defeat the first major iteration of Marxist-Leninism. The war in Korea illustrates, not disproves, this view: America was able, without resorting to nuclear weapons, to project its strength onto the doorstep (thousands of miles from mainland USA) of its rivals, stymieing their geopolitical ambitions. To this day, South Korea remains as one of the West's most valuable and advanced partners due to this success.

China's economy was almost non existential in 1950, and it was still dealing with its civil war. I dont really see it as a win for USA.


Neither does any respectable cold war historian I know of claim USA was preeminent over the USSR.

[Ludicus]

USA wasn't prominent over the USSR- according to the American leadership in the 1980's United States-Western European Relations in 1980: Hearings before the the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

----
Someone must tell Britain about the real cost of war in Ukraine The Guardian

wartime sacrifice requires public consent, which this government has yet to secure explicitly. Does it even have the moral authority to try? The last time Johnson asked the nation to do something painful for the greater good, he was standing at a lectern flanked by worried-looking doctors and telling everyone to stay at home. To put it mildly, given what we now know was happening in Downing Street while the rest of us were in lockdown, it’s hard to imagine another plea for noble sacrifice going down well.

I’m not quite sure that this is understood as "freedom has a price". According to the news, “British households are slapped with an extra 53 million on their energy bills every single day. Meanwhile every single day North Sea oil and gas giants rake in 32 million in unexpected profits”.

---
It’s an unhealthy obsession. The Pentagon gets more money, and Americans pay the price-Washington Post

What is all this new defense spending for? Part will go to building up bases and weaponry in Asia to counter China…The other target is Russia.
But the Chinese are competing most effectively not with military forces but with successful economic mercantilism. They are focused on capturing markets, locking up access to resources, and investing to dominate the emerging industries and technologies of the future. The Pentagon’s new weapons and bases won’t substitute for our failure to invest in cutting-edge R&D, in a modern and efficient infrastructure, and in a trade policy that serves Americans rather than multinational corporations.
The United States maintains more than 700 bases in some 80 countries around the world. The Pentagon has carried out counterterrorism operations in at least 85 countries, nearly half of the world’s nation-states. It’s now gearing up to be able to take on both Russia and China. If the United States is committed to policing the world, the military budget will always by definition be inadequate. The mission, however, is absurd — and ruinous, if we want to rebuild and secure a healthy and prosperous democracy at home
But as the military grows, Americans will become less secure, battered by real threats that more weapons won’t address.

[conon394]

At first Zelensky showed signs of being willing to negotiate, and there were several attempts at direct understanding between Russians and Ukrainians, but always mediated or brokered by "smaller" powers like Turkey or Israel, without the "big boys" getting involved - which was strange.

That's a misrepresentations I certainly don't recall any willingness by Putin to offer anything to negotiate about.

Biden needs Ukraine to make him forget the withdrawal from Afghanistan, to replace Moscow's gas and oil supplies with the Europeans, and to sell them arms, because, unfortunately, all American policy is captive to arms manufacturers: both domestic and foreign policy. Ukraine war: How weapons makers are profiting from the conflict

I don't see any tie to A-stan if Biden was worried about the fall out he would simply have abrogated Trumps agreement. ON latter point I image you say the same thing about lend lease in WW2 the US should have simply pressed the UK and USSR to talk to Germany and come to a deal... those always worked before right.

----

USA wasn't prominent over the USSR- according to the American leadership in the 1980's United States-Western European Relations in 1980: Hearings before the the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

Pretty funny read since the USSR was walking its way to collapse at the time of writing. Somebody had a little too much team B Koolaid.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I didn't know that Rheinmetall is now a US firm... ^^

https://www.thenationalnews.com/worl...launch-drones/

Meanwhile Germany has delivered 7 Panzerhaubitze 2000 to Ukraine.

https://www.dw.com/en/first-heavy-we...ine/a-62211051

Who is interested, what is delivered so far and what will be delivered (in German)

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-...kraine-2054514

[z3n]

We have some new commentary about the infamous Turkish Bayraktar drones and US reaper drones. Bayraktar drones are almost useless now according to the Ukranian pilots.

“They were very useful and important in the very first days, stopping those columns, but now that they’ve built up good air defenses, they’re almost useless,” said Moonfish, the Ukrainian fighter pilot. Ukrainian troops are limiting the use of Bayraktars to rare special operations and attack missions, the pilots said.

[PointOfViewGun]

We have some new commentary about the infamous Turkish Bayraktar drones and US reaper drones. Bayraktar drones are almost useless now according to the Ukranian pilots.

This was to be expected as many are baffled to see how Russians failed to deny the skies to the Ukrainians. However, its important to note that the commentary is not specific to Bayraktar drones in that article as the title of the article suggests: Ukrainian Pilots Push Back on U.S.-Provided Drones. At this stage they need a swarm of drones (similar to how Turkey used them in northern Syria against Assad targets back in 2020) to take out S-300 and S-400 air defense systems that are largely situated in the Donbass region.

[reavertm]

I would say they need lots of cruise missiles now than anything else. To destroy Crimean bridge as it's used to resupply land troops, to drown the rest of non-submerging Black See fleet and to attack high value targets with precision from distance. Command centres, ammo/petrol depots, etc. They cannot win war of attrition artillery shootout with fascists using conventional artillery imho, they might have better morale now but are outgunned.
And given fascist Russia is not officially at war with Ukraine, I see no reason for NATO not to impose no-fly zone over Ukraine, or, provide Ukraine with means to impose it themselves.
Stoltenberg could play dumb the way Putler is playing.

[Alastor]

I wonder when finally the EU will wake up. When will we stop shooting ourselves in the feet? The trade war we launched against Russia has an unacceptable cost. Not only because the EU is reliant on Russian energy exports, but also because we've been pursuing it entirely wrong. Russia should be the one threatening us with cuts, like they recently started doing, that's their card... yet until recently we've been playing their card for them. I will say it again, it's not the money, it's what you can buy with it and we're arrogantly locking ourselves out of buying what we have made a necessity with our short-sightedness. Arrogance and short-sightedness are dangerous traits in geopolitics.
https://www.politico.eu/article/mikh...taging-itself/

“At the moment, energy sanctions are hurting Europe, not Russia," he said, speaking to POLITICO during his first trip to the EU since the war in Ukraine began. "My point of view was and remains the same — what on earth are you doing?"

[z3n]

I wonder when finally the EU will wake up. When will we stop shooting ourselves in the feet? The trade war we launched against Russia has an unacceptable cost. Not only because the EU is reliant on Russian energy exports, but also because we've been pursuing it entirely wrong. Russia should be the one threatening us with cuts, like they recently started doing, that's their card... yet until recently we've been playing their card for them. I will say it again, it's not the money, it's what you can buy with it and we're arrogantly locking ourselves out of buying what we have made a necessity with our short-sightedness. Arrogance and short-sightedness are dangerous traits in geopolitics.
https://www.politico.eu/article/mikh...taging-itself/
[/FONT][/COLOR]

There have been a lot more high level comments about negotiations recently from European leaders, so its not impossible the EU wont wake up. Although the only powers that are winning right now are China and India. The west has collectively decided to shoot themselves in the foot during the lead up to the Cold War 2.0 against China. Russia could have helped contain the China threat but instead we are trying to contain Russia via nato. It's not very bright to fight a two front war but that's what we are insisting on doing.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

There have been a lot more high level comments about negotiations recently from European leaders, so its not impossible the EU wont wake up. Although the only powers that are winning right now are China and India. The west has collectively decided to shoot themselves in the foot during the lead up to the Cold War 2.0 against China. Russia could have helped contain the China threat but instead we are trying to contain Russia via nato. It's not very bright to fight a two front war but that's what we are insisting on doing.

Poor innocent Russia just wants to invade and enslave its neighbouring states, why won't big mean west let it

[Lord Thesaurian]

Poor innocent Russia just wants to invade and enslave its neighbouring states, why won't big mean west let it

The comical part of that narrative is Europe is more united on this issue than it has been in decades, and the invasion seems to have made them even more determined to get Ukraine into the EU orbit. The idea there has been any significant arm twisting by the US or that Europe has a material interest in conceding the initiative to an expansionist authoritarian state on its doorstep is just another transparent Kremlin talking point. If the US were disposed to throwing its weight around Europe wouldn’t be dependent on Russian oil and gas as Washington has warned them against it since before the fall of the USSR through today, across wildly different administrations. Now exactly what was forewarned has come to pass, and Europe finds itself in the position it could have avoided had it got onboard with US policy instead of building out all these pipelines.

[z3n]

Poor innocent Russia just wants to invade and enslave its neighbouring states, why won't big mean west let it

I don't think we have the moral high ground, encroaching into territory a country views as its backyard will provoke a hostile response. We knew this and did that anyway.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't think we have the moral high ground, encroaching into territory a country views as its backyard will provoke a hostile response. We knew this and did that anyway.

The Kremlin views all of eastern europe as its backyard. Where do you draw the line?

[z3n]

The Kremlin views all of eastern europe as its backyard. Where do you draw the line?

Ukraine is the one obvious red line.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ukraine is the one obvious red line.

How do you keep a country out of the western orbit when that country wants to be in it? Putin demanded NATO effectively withdraw from Eastern Europe, so it wouldn’t just be a matter of Ukraine in any case.

[z3n]

How do you keep a country out of the western orbit when that country wants to be in it? Putin demanded NATO effectively withdraw from Eastern Europe, so it wouldn’t just be a matter of Ukraine in any case.

Ukraine effectively demanded the entire US artillery arsenal (I understand why) asking for 1000 howitzers and a plethora of other items. Do they really want that? Yes. But it's a negotiating tactic. We know Russia only cares about Ukraine, everything else is not an absolute red line for it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ukraine effectively demanded the entire US artillery arsenal (I understand why) asking for 1000 howitzers and a plethora of other items. Do they really want that? Yes. But it's a negotiating tactic. We know Russia only cares about Ukraine, everything else is not an absolute red line for it.

EU/US has no ability to negotiate with the Kremlin on Kiev’s behalf, at least not to the extent a sphere of influence could be established. You’d have to find a way to deny Kiev the ability to work with NATO (eliminate the open door policy) and ban them from the EU, as well as sanctioning economic ties with Kiev to discourage investment. So the question is, again, how you expect any reasonable western leader to have facilitated that in exchange for Russia giving nothing in return except maybe possibly not invading Ukraine for a while longer.

[fkizz]

I don't think we have the moral high ground, encroaching into territory a country views as its backyard will provoke a hostile response. We knew this and did that anyway.

What does Russia gain from this?

[z3n]

EU/US has no ability to negotiate with the Kremlin on Kiev’s behalf, at least not to the extent a sphere of influence could be established. You’d have to find a way to deny Kiev the ability to work with NATO (eliminate the open door policy) and ban them from the EU, as well as sanctioning economic ties with Kiev to discourage investment. So the question is, again, how you expect any reasonable western leader to have facilitated that in exchange for Russia giving nothing in return except maybe possibly not invading Ukraine for a while longer.

Exactly, that's my point. There's a multitude of measures (like you mentioned) we could have taken to prevent war, and yet we did not.

@fkizz

What does Russia gain from this?

Probably just as much as NATO gains from it, if not more.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Exactly, that's my point. There's a multitude of measures (like you mentioned) we could have taken to prevent war, and yet we did not.

Cool. So again, how would any western leader or leaders go about facilitating that? Using what mechanisms and what diplomatic framework or treaties? How are you gonna convince NATO to unanimously abolish Article 10 for example?What was Russia willing to offer in return? Anything? How would it be enforceable in the event Russia violates the hypothetical agreement like they violated multiple international agreements invading Ukraine in 2014? Until you answer those questions even hypothetically, your assertion that “‘we’ could have just done xyz” is meaningless. “Just give Moscow whatever they want so they don’t get mad?”