Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[conon394]

Meanwhile the 155 th russian Marine Brigade has been wiped out at Vuhledar.

Its the third time in this war, that this brigade must have been restaffed.

Putin's marine brigade of 5,000 men is all but destroyed in brutal battle | Daily Mail Online

Destroyed tanks of the brigade at Vuhledar:

���� Ukraine Weapons Tracker auf Twitter: „#Ukraine: At least 31 vehicles lost - the aftermath of the Russian attack on Vuhledar, #Donetsk Oblast. 13 Russian tanks (mostly T-72B3), 12 BMP-1/BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, 2 MT-LB, an IMR combat engineering vehicle and others were destroyed or damaged and abandoned. ⏬ https://t.co/FdZmLtn4ay“ / Twitter

David Axe over at Forbes as a more detailed account.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=25dad7ba55e3

Interestingly it seems two things are really heaping Ukraine pull this off. First the some what unheralded Remote Anti-Armor Mine system (155mm shell that breaks out to several mines) from the US. Thus essentially as the Russians line up to pass through a cleared section of a known field a new can essentially be dropped in real time all around them. What should be happening on counter battery fire or air support but the Russians just don't seem to have that going on. Also the Russian seem light on engineering vehicles and troops.

----------------

This is a war that could have been diplomatically avoided if the European countries, which share a historical neighborhood with Russia, had had the maturity and courage to counter the U.S. obstinacy, never abandoned since the Budapest Summit in 2008 to integrate Ukraine into NATO, despite Russian reservations and successive warnings that this was an unacceptable security mistake.

Amusing do you have more jokes- tell Moldova and Georgia that one pretty sure it fall flat.

After the war began, the wisest course would have been to diplomatically halt hostilities, leaving the territorial issue for future European security negotiations.

What??? You have a magic wand to make Putin halt his invasion?

Let’s keep in mind that there are examples of imperfect peace: remember that there is still no peace treaty between the two Koreas; the Golan Heights separate Israel and Syria, two countries technically still in a state of war.

Those are your best examples. A notice the Golan Hight's ani't Syrian anymore. And the imperfect peace in Korea condemns millions of people in the North to live under the kim's and enjoy a rather brutal hermit state.

Instead of intensifying diplomatic measures, we give the Ukrainian government and its people the idea that in the long run they will win the war, without talks, negotiations, compromises and the formulation of guarantees that Russia's security will not be threatened by the installation of certain weapons in countries close to its territory. For peace to be achieved, the crisis must be well managed, which requires talks and diplomatic action. If the two opponents can present proposals in which there is no humiliation, peace can be achieved, otherwise the crisis could degenerate into war.

You are sorta living in a fantasy world.

Unfortunately, in our/western political circles it seems to be underestimated that every time the military pyre raises the level of hostilities by one degree, it increases not only the number of casualties but also the unthinkable but very real risk of slipping into the twilight zone of full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Back to nuclear war as the reason for capitulation to Putin - I thought your line was fear of Russian attack on US satellites?

Paul Ingram is Paul Ingram is seniorresearch associate at Cambridge University’s Centre for the Studyof Existential Risk. He says, “We have to consider how Russia isperceiving the war and to what extent it would view defeat as anexistential threat. In order to prevent the worst outcomes, we needto draw the Russians into negotiation and be prepared to compromise.”

Putin's annexations make it quite clear his goals are rump puppet Ukraine there really is no basis negotiating anything.

Public awareness of 'nuclearwinter' is too low given current risks

Did they cover the bit where the nuclear winter is mostly a fantasy?

[Peresvet]

Europe can't stop trade w Russia; they are dependent on Russia.
And although you are not quite there yet, you are atleast starting to figure this out...
I am looking forward to reading the posting of the pro Ukranian folx (most of you here), when you finally come to the realisation Ukraine has lost this war 藍

I am a pro-Russian person, because the Putin regime and the degradation of Russia, the return to war and stalinism, which you support, entails the destruction and death of Russia as a country, the death of hundreds of thousands of people, the economic crisis and the flight of millions of people from the country.

[Coughdrop addict]

I am a pro-Russian person, because the Putin regime and the degradation of Russia, the return to war and stalinism, which you support, entails the destruction and death of Russia as a country, the death of hundreds of thousands of people, the economic crisis and the flight of millions of people from the country.

And the reason for it all, I suspect, is that deep down Putin is a very insecure man. Despite all his money and power, he is well aware he is not smart, eloquent, honorable, or sophisticated. To prevent himself from feeling this way he, like any abuser, must degrade and dominate others. Also like any abuser Putin is entirely dependent on his victims for his power; criticism or dissent throws him into a rage that results in violence and threats as he feels he's losing his power and being exposed as the cowardly bully he really is. I would not be surprised to learn he crumbles into a sobbing heap like something out of Downfall whenever he's alone.

Putin is no leader, he's an unintelligent thug who will inevitably be killed by those closest to him the moment he lets his guard down.

[Kyriakos]

I am starting to believe that covid really diminished (attack on brain cells) human intelligence.
I don't like this hybrid of "this is the great war to end all wars" and a briefing from Command and Conquer Red Alert.
The entire system was set in a way to prevent world war, by giving major powers (well, Britain doesn't count, it's a token) the right to veto stuff they felt went too much against them. But you don't need any UN if you are in the last part of the interwar period.

[Kyriakos]

Sleepwalking into world war, nuclear or not, is so stupid that only this species could do it. Taking out the nuclear part, it's similar to ww1 where so many sides were super-enthusiastic (but below the surface, the motives were entirely different).

[Stario]

Sleepwalking into world war, nuclear or not, is so stupid that only this species could do it. Taking out the nuclear part, it's similar to ww1 where so many sides were super-enthusiastic (but below the surface, the motives were entirely different).

I can't disagree w this.

[Ludicus]

You are sorta living in a fantasy world.

A huge and dangerous fantasy is to believe that Russia will be defeated in a conventional war with Ukraine, and to believe that a negotiated peace cannot be achieved. Obviously with territorial tendencies on the Ukrainian side. There are no irrational actors in this war. The war will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people, enrich the arms manufacturers, and increase the risk of nuclear war.

---
I missed this.

..Old people get old and lose connection to reality, [IMG]file:///C:/Users/UTILIZ~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] happens.

Look. The fact that he is 85 does not mean anything. By reading what he writes, it is clear to me that he does not suffer from any kind of dementia.
Btw, Conspiracy theories start to take hold at age 14
What really matters: Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time? - PLOS

Remember that former Polish minister and member of the European Parliament Radoslaw Sikorski thanked the US for the Nord Stream 2 explosions and tweeted "Thank you USA".
--
When you/we don't like what someone publishes, the first thing you/we do is try to discredit them. It rarely fails, no one is perfect. I will give you a recent example. Forensic study finds Chilean poet Pablo Neruda was poisoned

.

..Though described by his friend Gabriel García Márquez as “the greatest poet of the 20th century in any language”, Neruda’s reputation has been damaged in recent years by details of his personal life. Not only was the writer a self-confessed rapist, he was also a man who abandoned his first wife and their daughter, Malva Marina, who was born with a neurological disorder and died at the age of nine.

Speaking at the time, the author and women’s rights campaigner Isabel Allende told the Guardian that Neruda’s criminal and callous behaviour did not devalue his work.
“I am disgusted by some aspects of Neruda’s life and personality,” she said. “However, we cannot dismiss his writing. Very few people – especially powerful or influential men – behave admirably. Unfortunately, Neruda was a flawed person, as we all are in one way or another.”

It is a story that sounds like music to the ears of Pinochet's admirers. Talking about conspiracy theories, my “Ignobil” Prize for conspiracy theories in the last 50 years goes to a young woman …According to Senator Diana Ivanovici Șoșoacă, earthquake in Turkey and Syria was caused by the U.S

--

Russia must become a poor, starving country, with an economy degraded to the level of African countries, so that its population stops supporting dictatorship and war.

Doesn't make sense, sorry...the effect would be the opposite.More than half of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are poor, authoritarian regimes.
And more, if I may: it is not during a war that Russians should call for the defeat of Russia, or a revolution, there is a danger of destroying it completely. Many young people fled this country during the colonial war, to European and North African countries and other countries, waiting for a chance to change the regime. But one can count on the fingers of one hand those who joined the independence movements to fight against their own country. And in the end, it was the army, with the massive support of the entire population of the country, that made a democratic revolution.
In the case of Russia, a HUGE country, change must be gradual, or it ceases to exist.

[conon394]

The equivalent stage of "Kursk" has already been reached...
Remember it took almost 2 years to mop-up Germany from time of its defeat at Kursk (and every intelligent human being knew after the defeat at Kursk the war has been won), yet the war still dragged on till 1945.
Could very well happen here if Zelensky decides to send every child, woman and elderly into the meat-grinder...could drag on for another year or two but it doesn't change the fact Ukraine is defeated it just prolongs the inevitable and the suffering...

Be interesting if you provide some verifiable data to back that assertion. If you are going to compare Russia tot he Allies and Ukraine to the axis noting militarily has transpired equivalent to late 1943. Where sorry to say Kursk was not isolated defeat but also the Axis position in North Africa collapsed and Japan lost any offensive capability. Not only that but more or less the Axis had lost any chance to disrupt allied economic cooperation or force the US take steps that impact its economic output.

Russia has gone all in on just one line of advance and is not exactly gaining miles a day that quite a different picture.

-----------------


@Ludicus

A huge and dangerous fantasy is to believe that Russia will be defeated in a conventional war with Ukraine, and to believe that a negotiated peace cannot be achieved. Obviously with territorial tendencies on the Ukrainian side. There are no irrational actors in this war. The war will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people, enrich the arms manufacturers, and increase the risk of nuclear war.

They can capitulate to Russia anytime they want - they do not seem to want to. No matter how much you tell its better that way. What do think Putin is going to negotiate about. He has also made it clear he thinks he can win - other wise he would not announced his formal annexations.

"Obviously with territorial tendencies on the Ukrainian side"

What?

Look. The fact that he is 85 does not mean anything. By reading what he writes, it is clear to me that he does not suffer from any kind of dementia.

His story is fantasy and that what he as spinning lately be it bin laden or Syria he is a man who should enjoying his grand kids. But since he says something you agree with you uncritically agree. Reading what he writes is a fantastic and non credible story

[Kyriakos]

The longer the war goes on, one should wisely bet on the worse the peace deal for Ukraine being.
This is simply because you can't give more than the sea of billions given currently, along with weapons and (depleting) ammunition.
And if some other crisis breaks out (eg by China, or someone else), support will be rapidly diverted elsewhere.

Of course Ukraine isn't getting a good deal; best would (currently) be signing away de jure Crimea, and also Russia annexing some part of the rest it now controls. But a worse scenario (with the above) is Ukraine losing everything that Russia now controls, and maybe even more.

[conon394]

The longer the war goes on, one should wisely bet on the worse the peace deal for Ukraine being.
This is simply because you can't give more than the sea of billions given currently, along with weapons and (depleting) ammunition.
And if some other crisis breaks out (eg by China, or someone else), support will be rapidly diverted elsewhere.

Of course Ukraine isn't getting a good deal; best would (currently) be signing away de jure Crimea, and also Russia annexing some part of the rest it now controls. But a worse scenario (with the above) is Ukraine losing everything that Russia now controls, and maybe even more.

What makes think Putin sign any such deal? If he was he would not bothered with his mobilization and his annexations. But so just going blithely approve that Putin can annex any bit of the former USSR he decides is his and that will work out well?

So when the reconstituted 14th guards army rolls out of Transnistria and into Moldavia you feel they should just negotiate whatever peace Putin demands?

[Peresvet]

Doesn't make sense, sorry...the effect would be the opposite.More than half of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are poor, authoritarian regimes.
And more, if I may: it is not during a war that Russians should call for the defeat of Russia, or a revolution, there is a danger of destroying it completely. Many young people fled this country during the colonial war, to European and North African countries and other countries, waiting for a chance to change the regime. But one can count on the fingers of one hand those who joined the independence movements to fight against their own country. And in the end, it was the army, with the massive support of the entire population of the country, that made a democratic revolution.
In the case of Russia, a HUGE country, change must be gradual, or it ceases to exist.

If you have studied history, you should know that in Russia there are never gradual changes, there have always been very fast changes in power and revolutions. And the modern war with Ukraine is not a war of Russia, the majority of Russians are in favor of peace. This is a personal war offended by the overthrow of his puppet Yanukovych, dictator Putin, who wants to assert himself at the expense of the deaths of thousands of people. This war is not needed even by his entourage, which is suffering from sanctions. Putin is small, vicious as a rat, short in stature and with a bunch of complexes, he hates people and has no family. He take revenge for the fact that he was offended and beaten in childhood. He has reached the global status of the leader of a large country with nuclear weapons and takes revenge on all mankind for his children's complexes.

According to the November 2022 measurements of three expert organizations - the Levada Center, Russian Field and the FBK sociological service, a significant number of Russians are in favor of starting peace negotiations. However, the results with a similar sample, methodology, and wording of the questions differed significantly.

By the end of November 2022, peace talks were supported by:

44% of surveyed Russians in Russian Field
53% - for the "Levada Center"
58% - according to FBK

[conon394]

The longer the war goes on, one should wisely bet on the worse the peace deal for Ukraine being.
This is simply because you can't give more than the sea of billions given currently, along with weapons and (depleting) ammunition.
And if some other crisis breaks out (eg by China, or someone else), support will be rapidly diverted elsewhere.

Of course Ukraine isn't getting a good deal; best would (currently) be signing away de jure Crimea, and also Russia annexing some part of the rest it now controls. But a worse scenario (with the above) is Ukraine losing everything that Russia now controls, and maybe even more.

What makes you think Putin would sign any such deal? If he was he would not bothered with his mobilization and his annexations. But so just going blithely approve that Putin can annex any bit of the former USSR he decides is his and that will work out well? The simple fact he started a war with maximal intent and so far has shown signs he regrets that.

So next year when the reconstituted 14th guards army rolls in Moldova that be fine they should negotiate what deal Putin dictates?

[Ludicus]

I missed this,

A notice the Golan Hight's ani't Syrian anymore.

What I said, and there is nothing wrong here.
" Let’s keep in mind that there are examples of imperfect peace: remember that there is still no peace treaty between the two Koreas; the Golan Heights separate Israel and Syria, two countries technically still in a state of war"

Israel to Send Aid to Syria Even as Countries Remain at War

although the two countries have remained technically at war for decades.

And the imperfect peace in Korea condemns millions of people in the North to live under the kim's and enjoy a rather brutal hermit state.

In fact, the armistice ended America’s first experiment with the Cold War concept of "limited war".The war cost the lives of millions of Koreans and Chinese, as well as almost 40,000 Americans.But if you are hoping for an unconditional defeat of Russia, I don't think that will happen.

Edit:
Atomic Diplomacy during the Korean War - jstor

In January 1956, Life Magazine published an article that purportedly explained how Eisenhower administration had ended the Korean War. Secretary of State Foster Dulles revealed that he conveyed an “unmistakable warning” to Beijing that the United States would use nuclear weapons against China if rapid progress toward a negotiated settlement was not made. He asserted that it was a “pretty fair inference that this nuclear threat had worked.”
Dulles made this claim in defense of the notion that nuclear weapons were useful, indeed essential, tools of statecraft: When nuclear capability was combined with communication of intent to use it if necessary, deterrence- and even compellence-worked.

Later, Nixon Considered Nuclear Option Against N. Korea
Why? simply because in 1969 North Korean fighter jets shot down an American spy plane. As you can see, it is easy to have your finger on the nuclear trigger, especially when it has been used before to obtain unconditional surrenders.If democracies do it, Russia may also be thinking of doing it, if they think it is necessary.We're living in dangerous times.

[conon394]

I missed this,

What I said, and there is nothing wrong here.
" Let’s keep in mind that there are examples of imperfect peace: remember that there is still no peace treaty between the two Koreas; the Golan Heights separate Israel and Syria, two countries technically still in a state of war"

Israel to Send Aid to Syria Even as Countries Remain at War





In fact, the armistice ended America’s first experiment with the Cold War concept of "limited war". The war cost the lives of millions of Koreans and Chinese, as well as almost 40,000 Americans.But if you are hoping for an unconditional defeat of Russia, I don't think that will happen.

The problem here is your points make no sense. Neither conflict was settled by negotiation just essentially an armistice.

The fighting stopped because both sides had reached a point where one side was satisfied and the other no longer able to sustain the war.

That is not the case now in the war in question - talking is a waste of time.

Israel seized and annexed the Golan heights and can do since the US backed he move and Syria has no way altering that decision. That not negotiation is force majeure. More or less Israel got to dictate and particularly after the 1973 war what it wanted and what the US would green light.

Korea is even a worse example the North Korea made a bid for maximum success and failed than the US did as well and failed with China's intervention which lead to another bid to dive south that failed. Once the US made clear it was both unwilling to use nuclear weapons and also not expand the war into China and it became clear China and North Korea could not win wasthere room for talking .... but it would have been pointless before.

And critically the talks that resulted did not produce a stable result in either case.

In fact, the armistice ended America’s first experiment with the Cold War concept of "limited war".The war cost the lives of millions of Koreans and Chinese, as well as almost 40,000 Americans.But if you are hoping for an unconditional defeat of Russia, I don't think that will happen.

Wow I promised Kyriakos I would use the T world but man you are really working to push it.

No mention of Stalin and Kim Il-sung and their war aggression???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

It was not an US experiment in limited war it was the US being blindsided and absolutely unprepared for an unprovoked attack with the enemy having the maximum aim of putting the whole peninsula under rule of the a Stalinist totalitarian state.

No Chinese would have died had the it not chose to involve itself

No US soldiers would have died had the North backed by the USSR not attacked

No Koreans would have died (well except the poor sods left under the Kim dynasty rule) had the North not invaded.


But maybe you are right the US should just negotiated a surrender when the Pusan perimeter was all that the US held. No doubt you can find a poll that will say all the 51/2 million residents of the ROK would really rather be part of Kim's hermit state today.

Later, Nixon Considered Nuclear Option Against N. Korea
Why? simply because in 1969 North Korean fighter jets shot down an American spy plane. As you can see, it is easy to have your finger on the nuclear trigger, especially when it has been used before to obtain unconditional surrenders.If democracies do it, Russia may also be thinking of doing it, if they think it is necessary.We're living in dangerous times.

We have been living in dangerous times since we set up states and developed agriculture and pastoralism.

and this I not seeing much danger. The US chose to ignore the provocation nuff said.

[Kavhan Isbul]

This is simply because you can't give more than the sea of billions given currently, along with weapons and (depleting) ammunition.

This "sea of billions" is still under 1% of the US and EU GDP, so yes, it can not only continue for a lot longer, but it can also very easily increase without having any real economic impact. You should be significantly more concerned about Russia's economy and its ability to sustain the war, I mean special operation effort.

[Kyriakos]

What makes you think Putin would sign any such deal? If he was he would not bothered with his mobilization and his annexations. But so just going blithely approve that Putin can annex any bit of the former USSR he decides is his and that will work out well? The simple fact he started a war with maximal intent and so far has shown signs he regrets that.

So next year when the reconstituted 14th guards army rolls in Moldova that be fine they should negotiate what deal Putin dictates?

The part in red literally does not follow from anything. Why wouldn't a side mobilize, when the war is ongoing and no negotiations are offered?

[mishkin]

You should be significantly more concerned about Russia's economy and its ability to sustain the war, I mean special operation effort.

At this rate, in a few months putin will be sending children with sticks to the front.

Why wouldn't a side mobilize, when the war is ongoing and no negotiations are offered?

Do you remember that thing about this being just a special operation, not war?

[Kyriakos]

Do you remember that thing about this being just a special operation, not war?

Let's pretend that is of importance, why wouldn't one mobilize during a "special operation"?

[Muizer]

Obviously with territorial tendencies on the Ukrainian side.

You mean concessions? If so, what do you base that assertion on?

There are no irrational actors in this war.

Rational actors base their actions on cost/benefit analyses. Yet, you have continuously based your scenarios of how the war could end on the assumption that really only Ukraine, or rather the US, has a cost/benefit analysis to consider. If Russia is a rational actor, there must be a cost too high to pay for remaining in Ukraine.

The war will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people

What about the Russian people? Why don't you think their losses are a factor?

[Cyclops]

Let's pretend that is of importance, why wouldn't one mobilize during a "special operation"?

Because it is illegal. The English wording of the Russian law states (AFAIK, no Russian poster has been able to clear this up for me) that mobilisation occurs during a time of war. A special operation is by definition not a war.

Putin's failed attempt at a partial mobilisation, and his subsequent ransacking of gaols for conscripts, shows the cracks in the Russian system: ditto the flight of several hundred thousand young men. They are not fatal cracks as yet, armed conflict is hard and all players will show signs of stress, but Russia is showing lots.

The reasons for Putin pretending this isn't a war are his to know, and ours to guess. I imagine delegitimising Ukrainian resistance to invasion is one "they are not a valid state to be negotiat4d with or declared war on, they are a disease to be operated on". I guess to give Russia a paper shield is another "its not a war yet, don't escalate to war, or we will nuke you" "its not a war, NATO can't intervene!" -those have failed so far.

...
Rational actors base their actions on cost/benefit analyses. Yet, you have continuously based your scenarios of how the war could end on the assumption that really only Ukraine, or rather the US, has a cost/benefit analysis to consider. If Russia is a rational actor, there must be a cost too high to pay for remaining in Ukraine.

What about the Russian people? Why don't you think their losses are a factor?

Putin invaded, the great blame must lie with him. He did so in consultation with China, and it appears their needs are being met buy Russia's gradual destruction. Beijing's increased and increasing influence, bordering on control, of Moscow is more evident every day. Parallel operations against the US involving balloons, ops in the Yellow sea etc all point to Russia's gradual devolution into vassalage.

When considering Russia's actions its becoming increasingly clear this is a US China proxy war. Stalin would be so disappointed, Ukraine is Putin's Korea. About the best he can hope is a frozen conflict with massive US presence on his border, but he is not 1950 China and I doubt he can get close to a draw.

If China does get a Korea 2 result in Ukraine that would be massive for them, draining US strength to a sideshow. Thats becoming less and less likely. Huge L looming for Putin, an independent Ukraine will be another Poland pointed at Moscow (and Finland, and Sweden, LLL), devaluing Russia as a threat to Europe and allowing more direct US focus on China in East Asia.