Kiev Is Burning

[Sardaukar]

@glenn239 "LilPanda" and @Strannik (Russian in India) who claim they are for what they are and who.

This should clarify things a bit. Lying where you are is classic. 

 

 

[Sardaukar]

At least I can say my opinions are my own.

[RETAC21]

56 minutes ago, seahawk said:

There is no other conclusion, when you consider that the return of armed conquest to Europe and the open attack on a democratic country is not enough to create a strong unified position between countries and over party-lines. 

1870, 1914 and 1938 are calling and want this line back.

This isn't new in any way, what was new was the US assuming the role of World Policeman (which it didn't actually, but the image was seared on USians post-Gulf War 2).

The time of Napoleon pretty much illustrates how nations work but it can be extrapolated to any period in history.

[seahawk]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which in the 1930's, during the cold war, and now, amounts to exactly the same thing. Though ill grant you, they generally are so fucking clueless, they dont see it that way.

Im far from certain there are any definite results of Ukraine as yet. All we have now is a multi tier level of possiblities, reminicent of what Paul Atreides conjures up in Dune. Though we are rapidly running out of all the best conclusions, largely as a result of apathy, cluelessness and self interest.

The result on the Ukraine has been cast, as we still put domestic issues and the desire to not anger Russia before the needs of the Ukrainians to free their country.

5 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

1870, 1914 and 1938 are calling and want this line back.

This isn't new in any way, what was new was the US assuming the role of World Policeman (which it didn't actually, but the image was seared on USians post-Gulf War 2).

The time of Napoleon pretty much illustrates how nations work but it can be extrapolated to any period in history.

I did not intent to say, that it is something new. "Peace in our time" is not much different to "we need to tackle immigration first" or "Ukraine does not matter when global warming hits us". If anybody believes that the current response by the West is going to make Putin fold, it is glenusional. In fact all recent events will sound like signs of victory for Putin.

[RETAC21]

6 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The result on the Ukraine has been cast, as we still put domestic issues and the desire to not anger Russia before the needs of the Ukrainians to free their country.

I did not intent to say, that it is something new. "Peace in our time" is not much different to "we need to tackle immigration first" or "Ukraine does not matter when global warming hits us". If anybody believes that the current response by the West is going to make Putin fold, it is glenusional. In fact all recent events will sound like signs of victory for Putin.

I am not that defeatist yet, this is a war that both sides could lose, only Glenn thinks everything is black or white.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It could go either way. But Ive personally given up on the hope of this war stopping Russia in its tracks, we borked that this year. We are however, considerably further away from Russian Tanks in Kyiv, which is, it would seem, Glenns particular fantasy if Im reading him right.

I think next year we will see a ceasefire, and another  9 year war of attrition before the next one, if not sooner. And still we will dither about whether to bring Ukraine into NATO or the EU, because we are fatuous, self satisfied arseholes.

 

[seahawk]

6 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

I am not that defeatist yet, this is a war that both sides could lose, only Glenn thinks everything is black or white.

If Putin does not win, it will be down to the will and resolve of the Ukrainians. I have little hope for the West to get their act together, in fact I am expecting that things get worse, as elections loom.

[RETAC21]

15 minutes ago, seahawk said:

If Putin does not win, it will be down to the will and resolve of the Ukrainians. I have little hope for the West to get their act together, in fact I am expecting that things get worse, as elections loom.

Putin cannot win already, Russia is unable to mobilize enough resources to win the war without destabilizing the regime (a kind of Russo-Japanese war).

Ukraine needs to regain the territory lost up to the pre-war border to at least have a defensible line in the future, so the current frontline is also unacceptable. Breaking the stalemate can be done through a technological breakthrough (killer robots...) or building up an up to scratch army, neither is easy, but neither is impossible for Ukraine.

Iran and Iraq duked it out for 8 years before one of them got their shite together.

[Stuart Galbraith]

But Putin doesnt need to win, at least according to our terms of reference. He writes his own. If he can demonstrate he moved Russia's borders, and did it for acceptable cost (and the dregs of their society are not going to be missed in their country, anymore than they would in ours), then he has not lost. If Putin can portray at the least a draw, pending a rematch as he chooses, its a victory for him because he remains in power.

The best Zelensky can do is get a ceasefire, arms up with as much weaponry as he can get, both over and under the counter, and build up a military industrial complex so he doesnt have to depend on dithery American regimes. If he does that, sooner or later Putin is going to come back, and he is going to get clobbered. Its a lot easier for Ukraine to leverage its contacts to get weaponry in 'peace' than it will be for Putin, which struggled to improve on its soviet era equipment over the 22 years he has been in power. Its going to be even worse now.

That is going to leave Zelensky open to attack from his own people. At this point, whilst the Americans try to decide what way is up, I dont think there is any alternative right now. Unless he can leverage their command of the sea, and lacking anythng bigger than  minesweepers, the chance of that is going to be small.

 

[Roman Alymov]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

The Minsk agreement was something forced on Ukraine by Russia invading in the first place.

What is the sake of "invading" only to push the regions back into Ukraine? About what was "forced" on whom:

"According to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Minsk agreement served to buy time to rearm Ukraine. “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.” ( https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/22/ffci-d22.html )

"“The time granted to Ukraine by the Minsk agreements allowed it to strengthen its military power,” he said in an interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" ( https://www.easternherald.com/2023/03/26/hollande-said-the-minsk-agreements-allowed-kiev-to-strengthen-its-military-power/ )

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Russia not only heavily supported the rebels, it also physically invaded when they were on the cusp of losing. Had Russia stayed inside its own borders, there would have been no war outside Ukraine's borders or need for Minsk.

Just stop and think about what you have wrote. "Rebels" (who are de-facto Russians who happened to live on wrong side of administrative border when their country was divided by Communist Party elites along artificial administrative borders, and wanted basic rights in what became Ukraine - but were clamped down by post-Maidan Kiev Gov with regular Army) were only "supported" by Russia  - while in fact Russian leadership was obligated to step in to support them with armed force. This "heavy support" was too little to late (as it is common practice of "collective Putin")  and was mostly demoinstration to calm down public anger in Russia. No surprise in it, as this "rebels" for obvious reasons were not happy about comprador pro-Western elite of Russia, so it was logical for Russian leadership to strangle support for this people who are their political opponents to say mildly. This choking off almost succeeded - bringing "rebels" (who are Russians who wanted to become part of Russia again)  "on the cusp of losing" (meaning: thousands of Russians were killed, Russian cities reoccupied by Kiev forces). Quite logicaly public anger inside Russia was growing, and at certain point comprador Gov of Russia decided that something have to be done to calm down this moods - so they have finally stepped in with token force to prevent final collapse of resistance. But since ultimate goal of Russian Gov was to return to their colonial administration status for West - they have agreed to Minsk plan that was, in short "push the regions back to Ukraine - but slowly and in a way Russian public would not notice". But even this slow return was not enough for West - as they were in need of military defeat of Russia to remove pro-Western Gov of Russia (to replace it with Gov directly subordinated to West). And Western leaders were allready planning this big war when signing Minsk. No majic, everything is simple.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Roman Alymov

[seahawk]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Putin cannot win already, Russia is unable to mobilize enough resources to win the war without destabilizing the regime (a kind of Russo-Japanese war).

Ukraine needs to regain the territory lost up to the pre-war border to at least have a defensible line in the future, so the current frontline is also unacceptable. Breaking the stalemate can be done through a technological breakthrough (killer robots...) or building up an up to scratch army, neither is easy, but neither is impossible for Ukraine.

Iran and Iraq duked it out for 8 years before one of them got their shite together.

Iran and Irak are oil rich and dictatorships. So they had a nice inflow of money and a regime that was willing to continue the war and enforce measures to do so.

The Ukraine does depend on Western aid to keep the state running. If this aid ends, they can not pay the soldiers, the train drivers or the people fixing the electric grid much less can they buy weapons or ammunition. How long do you think they will last?

There is one certain way for the war to end favourably for the Ukraine and that is to commit to sending them weapons for a long time and in meaningful numbers. I bet this war ends within 2 weeks, after the US decides to sent 50 M1, 50 M2/3, 10 F-16 and 2 SAM systems every month for 24 months and that bill passes both houses.

[Sardaukar]

I am still waiting @Roman Alymov to volunteer for combat.

But it is what it is. Minorities and convicts. 

I have seen the elephant, can you, Roman?

[Roman Alymov]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But Putin doesnt need to win, at least according to our terms of reference. He writes his own. If he can demonstrate he moved Russia's borders, and did it for acceptable cost (and the dregs of their society are not going to be missed in their country, anymore than they would in ours), then he has not lost. If Putin can portray at the least a draw, pending a rematch as he chooses, its a victory for him because he remains in power.

Again, seems like you have Putin of your own, while here in Russia we have another one - weak pro-Western politician (de-facto chairman of "collective Putin", the system of comprador business-political elite that governed Russia for 30 years). Whom he could "demonstrate he moved Russia's borders"? To Russian population? Population will not accept this as achievement if another Russian cities, with millions of Russians, will still be left out. Western leaders and public? They will believe own propaganda (aka MSM), no actual borfrt moves could change that. 

    With any outcome, "collective Putin" have allready lost: they are no more enjoying comfortable status of West-approved administration of Russia, and population hates them. Putin personally will likely stay in his chairman status for some time, just will change the rethoric (he allready did to some extent).

[RETAC21]

12 minutes ago, seahawk said:

1) Iran and Irak are oil rich and dictatorships. So they had a nice inflow of money and a regime that was willing to continue the war and enforce measures to do so.

2) The Ukraine does depend on Western aid to keep the state running. If this aid ends, they can not pay the soldiers, the train drivers or the people fixing the electric grid much less can they buy weapons or ammunition. How long do you think they will last?

1) That's a myth, both countries were broke after the first few months and the price of oil tanked after 1980 further destroying their finances, which led directly to the invasion of Kuwait when the Kuwaitis refused to waiver Iraq's debts. Iraq in particular was dependent on foreign finances to keep going, with the Iranians selling whatever to whomever, plus their self-suficiency Jihad on the basis of the mountains of spares left by the Shah to fight on.

Ukraine is in a much better position, but certainly is dependent on its creditor's goodwill, though they can easily pull a self-suficiency drive if needed, as they have the industrial base and know-how.

2) Many countries theoretically will fail if they don't pay their debts, from Sri Lanka to Argentina. This usually doesn't happen because there's always something of value against which a credit can be obtained, and you need a sovereign government to repay, so handling Ukraine to Russia won't work.

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

I am still waiting @Roman Alymov to volunteer for combat.

With all my respect to your valuable input,  what made you think i should care what you are waiting for? Please let me advise you to focus on your MSM, they will provide you with steady inflow of victory news and tales of "minorities and convicts". No need for troubling reading of opinions that are not in line with this idilic picture.....

[seahawk]

58 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

1) That's a myth, both countries were broke after the first few months and the price of oil tanked after 1980 further destroying their finances, which led directly to the invasion of Kuwait when the Kuwaitis refused to waiver Iraq's debts. Iraq in particular was dependent on foreign finances to keep going, with the Iranians selling whatever to whomever, plus their self-suficiency Jihad on the basis of the mountains of spares left by the Shah to fight on.

Ukraine is in a much better position, but certainly is dependent on its creditor's goodwill, though they can easily pull a self-suficiency drive if needed, as they have the industrial base and know-how.

2) Many countries theoretically will fail if they don't pay their debts, from Sri Lanka to Argentina. This usually doesn't happen because there's always something of value against which a credit can be obtained, and you need a sovereign government to repay, so handling Ukraine to Russia won't work.

But Ukraine has an internal problem. The citizens can flee to the EU and compared to Iran and Iraq (which had oil as a valuable resource) the Ukraine does not have something similar. So getting and paying back credits will be much harder.

Sure there is always a chance, but I think if the situation for the population gets worse, the government will be either facing a huge outflow of citizens or will be forced to accept a deal with Russia. Which will not be favourable for the Ukraine. All this could be remedied by the West, by giving long term and stable guarantees and financing and not renewing every 3 months. Because for Putin this is always a chance that the West will no longer give the guarantees.

And one would be stupid to think Putin is stupid. He knows quite well that given political will, it would cost practically nothing to give the Ukraine long term weapon deliveries. In the end all money spent on refurbishing and training mostly goes back into the economy of the donor or at least into the economy of the EU or the USA. So the real costs are miniscule.

Edited December 14, 2023 by seahawk

[RETAC21]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

But Ukraine has an internal problem. The citizens can flee to the EU and compared to Iran and Iraq (which had oil as a valuable resource) the Ukraine does not have something similar. So getting and paying back credits will be much harder.

Sure there is always a chance, but I think if the situation for the population gets worse, the government will be either facing a huge outflow of citizens or will be forced to accept a deal with Russia. Which will not be favourable for the Ukraine. All this could be remedied by the West, by giving long term and stable guarantees and financing and not renewing every 3 months. Because for Putin this is always a chance that the West will no longer give the guarantees.

And one would be stupid to think Putin is stupid. He knows quite well that given political will, it would cost practically nothing to give the Ukraine long term weapon deliveries. In the end all money spent on refurbishing and training mostly goes back into the economy of the donor or at least into the economy of the EU or the USA. So the real costs are miniscule.

I agree that this is a pretty cheap war and the West definitely needs to take the long view to eventually defeat Russia, where I differ is in the Ukrainians fleeing in droves, we are past that stage, and they keep on fighting, so there's really no drivers that can make them collapse short of a battlefield disaster.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, funnily enough that is precisely what happens in a war. Stuff gets busted, people get killed.

Yes, so from 2013 onwards I thought it was pretty urgently important that Ukraine avoids one.  You thought the opposite, you wanted Ukraine in that war rather than make any compromises to avoid it.  Now Ukraine is being destroyed because they did what you wanted them to do.  You'd think you'd learn from that, but you never do.

[RETAC21]

Priceless:

https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1735255472049938620?s=20

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, RETAC21 said:

I agree that this is a pretty cheap war and the West definitely needs to take the long view to eventually defeat Russia, where I differ is in the Ukrainians fleeing in droves, we are past that stage, and they keep on fighting, so there's really no drivers that can make them collapse short of a battlefield disaster.

Actually it is very expencive war for West. Western politicians, in their arrogance, have turned Russia from de-facto colony of West, controlled by loyal comprador administration that was providing natural resources de-facto for free (as money for them were returned to West), into powerful enemy of West and ally of world's No.1 industrial power - China. More over, every day West is busy fighting Russia (without obvious success by the way) - is the day China is becoming stonger.

     More over, West is self-killing own reputation of formidabe military force: Imagine some Gov official somewhere in "global south" reading Western reports about "Minorities and convicts"(c) Sardaucar and combining it with obvious laco of success of NATO-trained, commanded and equiped forces - and coming to logical conclusion : "Each of our brave soldiers is more capable that 10 convicts, so our Army will definitely handle any Western threats"

     Even Arestovich (former advisor to Zelensky and head of mil part of Ukr delegation in Istambul talks - hardly could be accused of being pro-Russian) is now saying Russian Army could defeat NATO in days.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

The local surrender monkey blaming the victim, quelle surprise...

Zelensky is a big boy with daddy pants that made some big boy decisions that's got hundreds of thousands of good Ukrainian kids killed and his country destroyed in an avoidable war.   Even worse, all along he's had the opportunity to make it stop just by agreeing to be a neutral country.  There can be no sympathy for him. 

[RETAC21]

Just now, Roman Alymov said:

Actually it is very expencive war for West. Western politicians, in their arrogance, have turned Russia from de-facto colony of West, controlled by loyal comprador administration that was providing natural resources de-facto for free (as money for them were returned to West), into powerful enemy of West and ally of world's No.1 industrial power - China. More over, every day West is busy fighting Russia (without obvious success by the way) - is the day China is becoming stonger.

     More over, West is self-killing own reputation of formidabe military force: Imagine some Gov official somewhere in "global south" reading Western reports about "Minorities and convicts"(c) Sardaucar and combining it with obvious laco of success of NATO-trained, commanded and equiped forces - and coming to logical conclusion : "Each of our brave soldiers is more capable that 10 convicts, so our Army will definitely handle any Western threats"

     Even Arestovich (former advisor to Zelensky and head of mil part of Ukr delegation in Istambul talks - hardly could be accused of being pro-Russian) is now saying Russian Army could defeat NATO in days.

No, it's really ultra-cheap. You see, that "cheap" energy put Germany in Putin's pocket, which is why there was so much hesitance about supporting Ukraine initially, but the "Appeasement of the West party" couldn't pull back after messing the initial invasion and it forced Germany to switch away from Russian energy, at which point, and after a short period of adjustment, it's business as usual again, except, no Russian influence (which extends to cybersecurity, weapons trade and other areas).

As for the "alliance" with China, well, as Sardaukar sez, it's like the Russians are now Chinese serfs because China will do fine without Russia but Russia cannot go on without Chinese markets and industry. Total success!

The West military reputation seems to remain intact, as other than some Iranian tools, no one has been tempted to do something stupid. Other than Russia, that is.

[RETAC21]

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Zelensky is a big boy with daddy pants that made some big boy decisions that's got hundreds of thousands of good Ukrainian kids killed and his country destroyed in an avoidable war.   Even worse, all along he's had the opportunity to make it stop just by agreeing to be a neutral country.  There can be no sympathy for him. 

Not from you, who would have surrendered to anyone, of course. That's the gist of being a coward, it's always the fault of the victim, never the aggressor.

[Stefan Kotsch]

3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Zelensky ... made some big boy decisions that's got hundreds of thousands of good Ukrainian kids killed and his country destroyed in an avoidable war.

Do you think Stalin was also very guilty? Because he didn't surrender in 1941/1942?

If you apply your argument to reality. Seriously, you are never Canadian.

[Roman Alymov]

Just now, glenn239 said:

Zelensky is a big boy with daddy pants that made some big boy decisions that's got hundreds of thousands of good Ukrainian kids killed and his country destroyed in an avoidable war.   Even worse, all along he's had the opportunity to make it stop just by agreeing to be a neutral country.  There can be no sympathy for him. 

Let me defend Zelensky here: with all negative aspects of his personality, he can't be accused of taking wrong decisions, since he is not decision maker. Even Putin with his "two step forward-one step backward" and lack of any proper timely decision making is tough leader when compared to Zelensky.

     War and peace decisions were taken not by Zelensky, and he was not in position to decide to "agreeing to be a neutral country". Interesting to note he promised to "sent Western partnhers to ass" in his TV series that made him President - but newer delivered in real life