Ukraine (5 Viewers)

[efil4stnias]

That's seems a massively selective pov with cherry picked hindsight used for confirmation bias. I recall many many more variables and that's only counting the ones we know.

It takes into account all the necessary "logistical" aspects- training, supply lines etc.

We started this endeavor well past the invasion date. Its like a mfg that has been off-line for weeks, you simply dont turn power on and start rolling out 5000 widgets. so many things have to be in place.

But more importantly, perception. Specifically to Putin. He guessed right that the Western response would be ineffective/weak. And it was. Had the perception been that the West isnt playing, he has to go from "Special Military Operation" ( how he sold it domestically ) to "its a War" which has quite different connotations in Russia.

There are absolutely many aspects that arent accounted for, but perception of strength, in a battle, is a long standing tenet of war.

Our consistent delays were a hindrance to achieving a perception of a solid, unified block of countries that werent swayed by sabre rattling.

and i very well may be missing other aspects of "coalescing" support.

But its long been my opinion that our perception globally has been weakened over the last 15 years or so and that our will to do what is needed has eroded.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't see this latest addition to the ongoing debate as being what it seems.

This issue of what the US allows Ukraine to do with the weapons we give them is a false misleading narrative which has been created for the effect it will have on the populations of the countries who are not at war at this time.

It has a clearly defined purpose for which it is performing very well. That purpose is to mobilize us as a people for total war.

it creates a choice every person in the US and all of Europe must wrestle with. do we pitch in and get behind the full war effort, or not?

Which side do we join? The side we join is part and parcel of the issue we're wrestling with in our minds because this created issue forces us to wrestle with it on an individual emotional basis at home around the supper table.



We went through this before WWII. Our coming in on the allies side of the war wasn't cast in iron as to which side we would choose in the end. There were plenty of people in the US who thought the Nazi ideals for an ordered society were nifty. My guess is the distribution of views amoung the populations was then, much as it is now.

This issue is is the galvanizing moment of mobilizations, it's old hat. It's time to choose our side for real. The home folks have to choose. That's our way.

It's not a free choice. They have to choose or the war will not go well for them. They have to learn to HATE the enemy in the way which is " just and proper" as well.

It's not a free choice, get over that idea.

Agreed, 100%.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

lets be clear....if a certain person wins in November, Ukraine is lost to Russia. Pure and simple. There is no "freezing the lines" as they currently stand. Its literally the whole thing. Kyiv will fall.

And once that happens, he will consolidate, rearm, resupply, replenish and move on Moldova. And who knows what country is next because the EU cannot defend Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Moldova. Poland should be wary.

Putin is trying to completely rearrange global power/influence. China is currently playing both sides of the fence and once they feel they see where the "winner" will be, they will fall on that side.

Hate to turn this into a politcal thread I honestly don't see that, although I admits possible. No President wants to see a major ally goes kaput. And like it or not, majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle have supported Ukraine.

Now in the contingency of the outright fall of Kyiv, yeah the narrative would certainly try to get rewritten with some 1984 level retconning. But I don't think is a desirable outcome no matter who is in office, they would do everything reasonable to try to avoid it.

Yes there would be limits, and I do believe Ukraine would be a much lower priority than Asia/Pacific in the case of certain someone getting elected. They are certain voices in foreign policy circles, for example, Eldridge Colby, would argue this - that we can't lose the "big fight" and unfortunately we "can't do both" defend Ukraine and the Asia/Pacific, that Europe should really be picking up the slack, etc. since they aren't doing much about the Asia/Pacific.

 

[efil4stnias]

Hate to turn this into a politcal thread I honestly don't see that, although I admits possible. No President wants to see a major ally goes kaput. And like it or not, majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle have supported Ukraine.

Now in the contingency of the outright fall of Kyiv, yeah the narrative would certainly try to get rewritten with some 1984 level retconning. But I don't think is a desirable outcome no matter who is in office, they would do everything reasonable to try to avoid it.

Yes there would be limits, and I do believe Ukraine would be a much lower priority than Asia/Pacific in the case of certain someone getting elected. They are certain voices in foreign policy circles, for example, Eldridge Colby, would argue this - that we can't lose the "big fight" and unfortunately we "can't do both" defend Ukraine and the Asia/Pacific, that Europe should really be picking up the slack, etc. since they aren't doing much about the Asia/Pacific.

I think the recent EU stance is a direct result of possibility in November 2024.

And to not lose sight of this thread, we could always pick up on the MAP board Ukraine thread.

 

[DaveXA]

Hate to turn this into a politcal thread I honestly don't see that, although I admits possible. No President wants to see a major ally goes kaput. And like it or not, majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle have supported Ukraine.

Now in the contingency of the outright fall of Kyiv, yeah the narrative would certainly try to get rewritten with some 1984 level retconning. But I don't think is a desirable outcome no matter who is in office, they would do everything reasonable to try to avoid it.

Yes there would be limits, and I do believe Ukraine would be a much lower priority than Asia/Pacific in the case of certain someone getting elected. They are certain voices in foreign policy circles, for example, Eldridge Colby, would argue this - that we can't lose the "big fight" and unfortunately we "can't do both" defend Ukraine and the Asia/Pacific, that Europe should really be picking up the slack, etc. since they aren't doing much about the Asia/Pacific.

We absolutely can do both. We did in WWII and we have the ability to do it again today. We would still need the cooperation of Allies to get it done, but it's definitely doable.

If that guy were in office, we'd have bigger issues to deal with on the home front, and I suspect the isolationists would be out in force and we'd just sit back and let the EU and NATO do the heavy lifting. The problem with that strategy is 1, you'll risk losing a lot of old allies and 2, you'll condemn a whole lot of EU citizens to death as Russia and China run over Europe like what happened in WWII. People say it can't happen or whatever, but people had very similar sentiments prior to then. The more things change...well you know the rest.

 

[bclemms]

I don't see this latest addition to the ongoing debate as being what it seems.

This issue of what the US allows Ukraine to do with the weapons we give them is a false misleading narrative which has been created for the effect it will have on the populations of the countries who are not at war at this time.

It has a clearly defined purpose for which it is performing very well. That purpose is to mobilize us as a people for total war.

it creates a choice every person in the US and all of Europe must wrestle with. do we pitch in and get behind the full war effort, or not?

Which side do we join? The side we join is part and parcel of the issue we're wrestling with in our minds because this created issue forces us to wrestle with it on an individual emotional basis at home around the supper table.



We went through this before WWII. Our coming in on the allies side of the war wasn't cast in iron as to which side we would choose in the end. There were plenty of people in the US who thought the Nazi ideals for an ordered society were nifty. My guess is the distribution of views amoung the populations was then, much as it is now.

This issue is is the galvanizing moment of mobilizations, it's old hat. It's time to choose our side for real. The home folks have to choose. That's our way.

It's not a free choice. They have to choose or the war will not go well for them. They have to learn to HATE the enemy in the way which is " just and proper" as well.

It's not a free choice, get over that idea.

I'm not presenting it as a choice or a question of what we should do. Simply my perspective of the last few weeks. I think we should be the bully and go full bore. No restrictions, put troops in Ukraine and lets get this over with.

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[DaveXA]

I have a question, if they're being resurrected, then where are they?

 

[nolastyle]

I'm not presenting it as a choice or a question of what we should do. Simply my perspective of the last few weeks. I think we should be the bully and go full bore. No restrictions, put troops in Ukraine and lets get this over with.

100% support Ukraine, but I agree with your sentiment. We are about as close to a world war as we've been since 1962. The tipping point will eventually be Western boots on the ground, even though they won't be in combat roles. All it will take is a Russian missile strike on the wrong base in Lviv and the tinderbox ignites. France (or all of Nato) retaliate, Russia further escalates, and we have a fully fledged shooting war between NATO and Russia. Both sides have pushed too far to blink now.

If we were as smart as we think we are, we'd go in first, and go in hard. 72 hours to remove all Russian forces from Ukraine's 2014 borders. Military and government targets inside Russian borders are green lights. If not, Putin gets to the FO part of FAFO. He knows he can't win that war. No use continuing to appease the unappeasable.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I'm not presenting it as a choice or a question of what we should do. Simply my perspective of the last few weeks. I think we should be the bully and go full bore. No restrictions, put troops in Ukraine and lets get this over with.

I don't think we need ground troops. Air power alone and Russia is done for. Hell, if we really want to get nasty, we don't even need that. Blockade their ports and Russia is finished economically.

But as a direct party to the conflict, we now have to define war aims. Does Russia go back to its pre-2014 borders? i.e., they have to give Crimea back, and get out of Donbas?

And it should be obvious what everyone in the administration is afraid of. A boxed in Putin, who suspects he couldn't literally survive a total defeat in Ukraine, may very well decide, "fork it" and give the launch order.

The "stairstep" strategy was to keep Ukraine in the fight, hope Russia got the message and would ask (publically) for a ceasefire. Then we could basically throw up our hands and say to Ukraine, "Well we tried and you got to keep most of your country. Let's kick this can down the road and maybe Russia will collapse when Putin buys it, we can lift the sanctions as a condition for getting your land back" But it didn't happen.

 

[bclemms]

I don't think we need ground troops. Air power alone and Russia is done for. Hell, if we really want to get nasty, we don't even need that. Blockade their ports and Russia is finished economically.

But as a direct party to the conflict, we now have to define war aims. Does Russia go back to its pre-2014 borders? i.e., they have to give Crimea back, and get out of Donbas?

And it should be obvious what everyone in the administration is afraid of. A boxed in Putin, who suspects he couldn't literally survive a total defeat in Ukraine, may very well decide, "fork it" and give the launch order.

The "stairstep" strategy was to keep Ukraine in the fight, hope Russia got the message and would ask (publically) for a ceasefire. Then we could basically throw up our hands and say to Ukraine, "Well we tried and you got to keep most of your country. Let's kick this can down the road and maybe Russia will collapse when Putin buys it, we can lift the sanctions as a condition for getting your land back" But it didn't happen.

You are talking shooting at Russia. I'm not sure that is even needed. If NATO decides to put troops in Ukriane as a full logistical support and supply Ukraine as needed without restriction, they will be able to push Russia out really quickly. I do agree with Nolastyle that is presents the opportunity for mistake that takes the war fully direct but it would at least be a step before that.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

You are talking shooting at Russia. I'm not sure that is even needed. If NATO decides to put troops in Ukriane as a full logistical support and supply Ukraine as needed without restriction, they will be able to push Russia out really quickly.

The US hasn't fought a war without air superiority, basically since the invention of the airplane (Well, maybe WWI) It forms the basis of our entire conventional military strategy, with few exceptions (spec ops and the silent service)

So I can't see us putting ground troops without air superiority if not outright supremacy. Which means, at minimum we clear the skies of enemy planes Which involves us patrolling airspace over Ukraine, which is reachable by Russia air defense operating within Russia's borders.(both what they consider Russia and what we consider Russia).

While we could do what you suggest, only deploy ground assets would be doable but it would be a domestic politcal disaster, when US troops get hit by the Russia air force/artillery that should have been destroyed if we hadn't held back the air force. And I doubt Putin / Russia would see the distinction, hell they even believe (or have been telling their citizens) "NATO troops are already in Ukraine" so we might as well go full bore

 

[baarbogast]

x.com

x.com

Brien/status/1795918877580259706

 

[DaveXA]

The US hasn't fought a war without air superiority, basically since the invention of the airplane (Well, maybe WWI) It forms the basis of our entire conventional military strategy, with few exceptions (spec ops and the silent service)

So I can't see us putting ground troops without air superiority if not outright supremacy. Which means, at minimum we clear the skies of enemy planes Which involves us patrolling airspace over Ukraine, which is reachable by Russia air defense operating within Russia's borders.(both what they consider Russia and what we consider Russia).

While we could do what you suggest, only deploy ground assets would be doable but it would be a domestic politcal disaster, when US troops get hit by the Russia air force/artillery that should have been destroyed if we hadn't held back the air force. And I doubt Putin / Russia would see the distinction, hell they even believe (or have been telling their citizens) "NATO troops are already in Ukraine" so we might as well go full bore

Yeah, good point. I would absolutely not send our troops on the ground there without air superiority. You either completely commit or it ain't worth it.