Kiev Is Burning

[Stuart Galbraith]

Except, it doesn't. America can only choose to support Ukraine, or not, if it continues fighting. Ukraine could have surrendered in February 2022, and there would have been nothing the US could do about it.

It's a fairly banal criticism you will hopefully pardon my pointing out. There wouldn't be a UK without American weapons supplied in 1940. Does that make our decision to fight on any less of an internal choice? Why does nobody apply this logic to the Soviet Union?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[TrustMe]

Ukraine defaulted on it's international debt over a year ago. It is effectively bankrupt without foreign aid.

[seahawk]

Time for the anti-Ukrainian side to surrender. There is no hope.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, to the camps with them.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Ukraine defaulted on it's international debt over a year ago. It is effectively bankrupt without foreign aid.

We were bankrupt in 1945. It still didn't mean we were denied our own decision making, then, or some 50 years later when we finally paid it off.

[Markus Becker]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We were bankrupt in 1945. It still didn't mean we were denied our own decision making, then, or some 50 years later when we finally paid it off.

Different situation. Your reserves of hard currency might have been gone but your industry and infrastructure were intact, so once the war ended the situation normalized. 

Ukraine is still in the war and their economy is hit way worse than yours was. They have no way of paying as long as the grain blockade isn't lifted. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sure, if you overlook the bomb damaged factories that dated from the industrial revolution, and the canals and steam locomotives that hauled all our resources. We were even having to export our best coal to the US to pay off our debt.

Looked at another way, west Germany that was hit a lot harder, re-emerged in 10 years with an independent foreign policy that often caught the US out over the next 30 years.

In short the narrative that because the Ukrainians are dependent  upon the US, must also be subservient doesn't make sense. Its certainly not borne out by history.

[txtree99]

 

[mkenny]

5 hours ago, ex2cav said:

 

To look after the war, it seems a new east vs west has arisen. If not an arms race, then at least larger armies and increased suspicion.

The positive side is all those predicting a swift Russian collapse have had to abandon their dreams.  It seems NATO is fairly successful when hunting down small groups of ill-equipped  camel-herders, farmers and wedding parties but found wanting when the enemy has a comparable military. 

 

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, mkenny said:

The positive side is all those predicting a swift Russian collapse have had to abandon their dreams.  It seems NATO is fairly successful when hunting down small groups of ill-equipped  camel-herders, farmers and wedding parties but found wanting when the enemy has a comparable military. 

 

NATO isn’t in the fight. It’s equipment from a generation ago is.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Strannik said:

True that SVO it is not and the miscalculations (as to what it takes to achieve the goals) were tremendous, but the end result still likely be catastrophic or Pyrrhic at least. 

We will see for whom and to what extent it would apply in the end.

Stuart posted the idea last week that China was wrong to be in Korea past a level of casualties of about 1 in every 500 people in the Chinese population.  Discarding all the 'yabuts', applying that yardstick to Ukraine, it means the Ukrainian casualty 'budget' was about 80,000 while the Russian 'budget' is about 290,000 casualties.  Exceed your budget, then increasingly your war is pyrrhic.  Badly exceed it, it becomes catastrophic.

At this time I think Russian casualites, (dead and seriously wounded) might be something around 80,000.  Ukraine's might be  more about 400,000.  So Russia has expended maybe 25% of its 'budget' while Ukraine is at about 500% more than its budget.  So by Stuart's measure, Ukraine's war is already in 'catastrophic' territory while Russia's is well within tolerances to emerge stronger than they were going in.

 

 

[Strannik]

12 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO isn’t in the fight. It’s equipment from a generation ago is.

Provides:

- almost all intelligence

- almost all weapons

- training

- chooses targets

but "not in the fight"

[txtree99]

No proof on your numbers at all, just your speculation 

 

[Josh]

12 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Provides:

- almost all intelligence

- almost all weapons

- training

- chooses targets

but "not in the fight"

Yes, much like the Soviets in Korea or Vietnam (although there were in fact fighter pilots and some SAM operators in those cases). But my point was less about culpability and more about the fact that the war is not at all representative of what a conventional Russia-NATO war would look like.

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure, if you overlook the bomb damaged factories that dated from the industrial revolution, and the canals and steam locomotives that hauled all our resources. We were even having to export our best coal to the US to pay off our debt.

Looked at another way, west Germany that was hit a lot harder, re-emerged in 10 years with an independent foreign policy that often caught the US out over the next 30 years.

At least you had something to export and could export.

You guys were doing the (socialist) planning and rationing thing for quite some time after the war. We did the opposite despite strong opposition and it paid off quickly. 

[mkenny]

57 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO isn’t in the fight. 

Of course its not. Heaven that it could even be mentioned..........................

[mkenny]

32 minutes ago, Josh said:

...................... the war is not at all representative of what a conventional Russia-NATO war would look like.

That is the current 'revised' position.  At the start it was confidently predicted that the NATO trained and equipped client Army would sweep the Russians from the battlefield with its  unstoppable superior  mindset, elan and equipment. Am I the only one who can remember the spring  'Ssshhhhhh.....' videos where all the 'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'   were showcased one-after the other to strike terror into the hearts of the transfixed Russians soldiers who, we were told, were absolutely terrified of the coming storm. Raw untrained shovel-wielding conscripts  who would immediately bolt and run at the first sight of the returning panzers.  It really is hard to understand how wrong NATO 'intelligence' got it and how they completely underestimated the power of the Russian Army.

The current   'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'  is the 'F16' and the clamour for its introduction will contrast mightily with the silence when it too finds out  that Russia in nowhere near out of missiles....................

[urbanoid]

You invented a scenario and now you're arguing with it. Have fun.

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Yes, much like the Soviets in Korea or Vietnam (although there were in fact fighter pilots and some SAM operators in those cases). But my point was less about culpability and more about the fact that the war is not at all representative of what a conventional Russia-NATO war would look like.

There will be no NATO-Russia conventional war.   But who knows, the current situation might get reversed at some point.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

Actually in the beginning the predominant thought was that Ukraine would fall inside a few weeks.

[TrustMe]

Appoogies of it has already been seen.

 

[Colin]

6 hours ago, mkenny said:

That is the current 'revised' position.  At the start it was confidently predicted that the NATO trained and equipped client Army would sweep the Russians from the battlefield with its  unstoppable superior  mindset, elan and equipment. Am I the only one who can remember the spring  'Ssshhhhhh.....' videos where all the 'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'   were showcased one-after the other to strike terror into the hearts of the transfixed Russians soldiers who, we were told, were absolutely terrified of the coming storm. Raw untrained shovel-wielding conscripts  who would immediately bolt and run at the first sight of the returning panzers.  It really is hard to understand how wrong NATO 'intelligence' got it and how they completely underestimated the power of the Russian Army.

The current   'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'  is the 'F16' and the clamour for its introduction will contrast mightily with the silence when it too finds out  that Russia in nowhere near out of missiles....................

The manoeuvre warfare of the early days of the invasion would have suited Western doctrine perfectly. I guess is that NATO would struggle and suffer some initial reverses just as the Ukrainians have on the current prepared Russian defence lines. For the most part NATO gave up most of its assault breaching equipment and it would show. The only difference is that NATO could bring more airpower to the fight, eventually driving off Russian AD assets.   

[mkenny]

7 minutes ago, Colin said:

 The only difference is that NATO could bring more airpower to the fight, eventually driving off Russian AD assets.   

The same way all the previous 'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'    did? 

[R011]

28 minutes ago, Colin said:

The manoeuvre warfare of the early days of the invasion would have suited Western doctrine perfectly. I guess is that NATO would struggle and suffer some initial reverses just as the Ukrainians have on the current prepared Russian defence lines. For the most part NATO gave up most of its assault breaching equipment and it would show. The only difference is that NATO could bring more airpower to the fight, eventually driving off Russian AD assets.   

I'm sure with the plethora of contenton the internet, there must have been some making the claims kenny says they were making.  All te mainstream coverage was predicting a quick Russian victory until it became clear this was going to be a much longer war than the three day sppecial operation Putin was claiming.