Author Topic: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread  (Read 39762 times)

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 2680
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #180 on: March 12, 2024, 09:12:39 pm »
If I could wave my magic wand and have Russia leave Ukraine alone I would be happy toÖ.

Russia always viewed Ukraine as a satellite state different from say Poland. After the fall of the Soviet Union typically the Ukrainian government would be pro-Russia and respond to Russian interests. As things changed and Ukraine became closer to the West and its people began to elect politicians unwilling to toe the line Russia got angry.

Is it fair that Russia wonít recognize Ukraineís right to full self determination? No of course not. But international relations arenít about fairness, sadly.

I donít believe the West can pry Ukraine from Russiaís orbit without triggering an existential crisis for itself and surely this is not in its national interest. Meanwhile Russia sees maintaining some sort of recognition of Ukraineís special relationship with Russia as non-negotiable. If you had been invaded as many times as Russia has been by the West you might too. The West needs to create the context for a compromise solution that gives both sides a face saving way out. The idea that Russia can be defeated may seem rational to us but to them itís an existential issue. I donít think it should be to us.


sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21579
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #181 on: March 13, 2024, 02:28:35 am »
hutch - thank you.  i very much appreciate having someone with a different viewpoint with whom i can discuss.

But none of it means Argentina will ever give up its claim.

nor should it.

I really donít see the comparison. Argentina had advantages Ukraine does not. Russia has to be the second or third most powerful military in the world, right?
 
agreed it's not a 100% apples-to-apples comparison, however there is a central similarity IMO: it's still david vs. goliath. (despite the fact that ruzzia used to be considered the second military power in the world, but that assessment is highly debated these days).  it's still a rightful historical claim by the little guy, vs. imposition of will by the stronger side.

Also, Argentina was fighting on its own whereas Ukraine without US help is toast.

 
ukraine was fighting on its own for the first 6 months.  a few javelins & nlaws were provided at the outset, but UA repelled RU's march on Kyiv essentially on its own.  initially no one wanted to back what was seen as the inevitably defeated side.  only after 6 months of successfully pushing back the ruzzians did the west start to think "maybe UA can win, maybe we should support them" - so 4 HIMARS were sent.  it wasn't until early 2023 - a year after the full-scale invasion - did western arms start arriving in significant quantities which enabled the 2023 summer offensive last year (which unfortunately didn't yield the desired results).  the previous two massively successful counter-offensives (kharkiv and kherson) were powered by UA's existing weapon stocks.

so currently, you're essentially correct: without foreign assistance, UA can't continue because war = equipment losses, and UA doesn't currently have the capacity to replenish all its lost equipment.  but in the first 6-12 months, UA was largely on its own.  and it succeeded in defending its capital against a 30-mile column of invading ruzzians.

Just cause a cause is right doesnít mean we have to aid it.

hot take.

Obviously many think itís in our strategic national interest to forever support Ukraine. I do not. I am not sure itís even in the Ukraineís interest.
 
that last bit has me curious as to what you mean... my interpretation of your words, and please correct me if wrong, is that Ukraine's people would be better served - i.e. more of them will survive - if Ukraine capitulates and negotiated for whatever deal it can get.  as i stated previously, that is a false interpretation IMO.  capitulation will mean enslavement for anyone caught behind the RU side of the line, if not death.  the russians have no post-war plans for Ukrainians.  they will be tortured and exterminated and ethnic russians will be imported by the millions.  this war is an existential crisis for Ukraine: it's fight or die.  in that light, support will always be desirable for Ukraine, because resistance is the only option so external support = greater chances of successful resistance. 

the ruzzians are absolute monsters when they take over.  they're angry that anyone dared resist them, so they must be punished.  the choice for UA is either some soldiers die on the battlefield, or many civilians die in torture basements.  to anyone who thinks i'm being melodramatic, let me know if you want me to send you link to verifiable accounts and documentation of russian torture and murder of civilians (hint: you really don't want to).
<sig>

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21579
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #182 on: March 13, 2024, 02:57:43 am »
Russia always viewed Ukraine as a satellite state different from say Poland.

to which i say: so the fuck what?  ruzzia can have whatever delusions it wants, doesn't mean that anyone else needs to change their course of action because of them.

it like saying to a woman after a breakup with an abusive man, "sure, you've moved on - but he hasn't.  so you need to forget you plans for a future without him, and take his feelings into consideration instead."  anyone care to defend this POV?  might makes right, anyone?

After the fall of the Soviet Union typically the Ukrainian government would be pro-Russia and respond to Russian interests. As things changed and Ukraine became closer to the West and its people began to elect politicians unwilling to toe the line Russia got angry.

post-independence Ukraine did NOT typically elect pro-ruzzian leaders, at least not consistently.  they would oscillate back and forth: they;d elect a pro-russian leader, and then realize that ruzzia held no goodwill or long-term plans to UA.  so they would then elect pro-west leaders, and inevitably learn that the west doesn't hold much regard for UA so wouldn't do much for them... at which point pro-ruzzia seemed like a sucky but better alternative.  Ukrainians are not inherently pro-russian, it was a choice of convenience when the west didn't offer the promise of a better alternative.

As things changed and Ukraine became closer to the West and its people began to elect politicians unwilling to toe the line Russia got angry.

that's what's know as a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.  as such, it's not on "me" (in this context, Ukraine) to fix.

Is it fair that Russia wonít recognize Ukraineís right to full self determination? No of course not. But international relations arenít about fairness, sadly.

yeah, realpolitik sucks for folks on the ground.  that doesn't mean we can't aspire to higher values.

I donít believe the West can pry Ukraine from Russiaís orbit without triggering an existential crisis for itself and surely this is not in its national interest. Meanwhile Russia sees maintaining some sort of recognition of Ukraineís special relationship with Russia as non-negotiable.

again, that's ruzzia's problem. millions of civilians shouldn't have to suffer and dies\, and a nation and culture shouldn't have to face annihilation, because another country has delusions of grandeur.

If you had been invaded as many times as Russia has been by the West you might too.

they had the french with napoleon, and then the germans/hitler... not sure how many other "western invasions" RU has been subjected too.  not enough to justify over-reaction, IMO.  this line comes across as apologetic. 


and it's not like they haven't invaded most of their neighbors - but ruzzians are special, right?  they get to invade, but have special status to never be invaded themselves, right?

The West needs to create the context for a compromise solution that gives both sides a face saving way out.

Ukrainians are happy to do whatever it takes to get the ruzzians to leave UA - but harbor no illusions: any negotiated compromise that includes the loss of any land, AKA any citizens, will be unacceptable to Ukrainians.

The West needs to create the context for a The idea that Russia can be defeated may seem rational to us but to them itís an existential issue. I donít think it should be to us.

i'm not ready to sacrifice the lives of millions of people so the residents of a former superpower can maintain their falsely inflated egos.  losing empire isn't easy, but RU needs to face reality: they aren't what they used to be, and should adjust their expectations accordingly. 
<sig>

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 2680
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #183 on: March 13, 2024, 08:16:35 am »
Ok I am going to qualify what I saidÖ

Ukraine canít win a conventional war but it could make Russian occupation so painful to Russia via asymmetrical warfare that they destabilize Putin and weaken Russian resolve. This should be the Ukraineís focus. In other words do what Chechnya did but way amped up.

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21579
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #184 on: March 13, 2024, 02:03:53 pm »
Ukraine canít win a conventional war but it could make Russian occupation so painful to Russia via asymmetrical warfare that they destabilize Putin and weaken Russian resolve.

agreed, the goal is to make it unbearable for russia.  in addition to grinding down the russian army via attritional warfare, i think it will take both asymmetrical warfare (ex: taking out their energy and military-industrial sectors with long-range drones) and some conventional land conquests.  specifically, if Crimea is threatened - doesn't need to be completely taken over, but if Ukraine can advance towards sevastopol and hold the gains - it will damage a central narrative that underpins putin's claim to authority.  he's puffed up his chest about reclaiming Crimea, his position will be untenable if he is seen as losing control or control being realistically threatened.

a huge wildcard is what happens if putin dies.  all the heirs-apparent are stating they would continue the war, but they have to say that if they want to remain in the running.  TBD what they actually do the day after the funeral.  putin can't back down, but his successor might have that option.  i think the chances of this happening are low, but not zero.
<sig>

Space Freely

  • Member
  • Posts: 10179
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #185 on: March 13, 2024, 02:21:52 pm »
Call me a pessimist, but I'm beginning to feel like Trump and Putin are both going to live to be 90+. It's like Billy Joel said.

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 2680
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #186 on: March 13, 2024, 02:34:47 pm »
Trump and Putinís fathers lived to at least 90 I thinkÖ

Remember all that propaganda about Putin being really ill and about to die?

Odds are they will both be around a good while. Putin is like 72!

Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #187 on: March 13, 2024, 03:36:29 pm »
Trump and Putinís fathers lived to at least 90 I thinkÖ

Remember all that propaganda about Putin being really ill and about to die?

Odds are they will both be around a good while. Putin is like 72!
Trump doesn't seem healthy though.
Putin is strong like ox, still doing shirtless photo ops
Could you imagine a shirtless shot of donald, puke
slack

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 2680
Re: The "Do we need a Russia/Ukraine/WWIII thread" thread
« Reply #188 on: March 13, 2024, 03:47:05 pm »
In a speedo?