(I can’t find a standing ovation emoji)
(Ukranian Baba) “We’re going to need more sunflower seeds”
I think the best thing at this point is to send in mobile anti-aircraft and ant-missile systems into Ukraine as a denial of air support and long range missiles. Let the Ukrainians chew up Russian ground assets. It will be an asymmetric war of attrition. Russia will burn through hard assets than can’t easily replace.
From the Netherlands alone: 200 stinger anti-aircraft missiles
What they need now is s-300 missile defense systems to shoot down cruise missiles and ballistic missiles
https://eurasiantimes.com/not-s-400-ukraine-pleads-for-s-300-missile-defense-system/
Maybe this is a minority opinion - and I have no credentials to back it up beyond a layman’s understanding of the conflict and my own intuition - but I can’t still can’t see how sending military aid to Ukraine is going to do anything but prolong the conflict and push Russia closer and closer to escalating with more powerful bombings and eventually tactical nuclear weapons. Maybe I’m just jaded by 20 years of America being involved in seemingly-pointless wars and the “defense” industry profiting from it, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s an impetus here from Western arms manufacturers leaning on NATO leaders to continue the conflict instead of pushing for more progress with the negotiations (which would mean that Ukraine would have to make some concessions and Putin might look like he won a victory - but what’s the alternative exactly?)
I mean that - what is the alternative? The diplomatic negotiations have received FAR less media coverage than the “kinetic” part of the conflict, and it’s unclear to me exactly how the process works or what each side’s diplomats might be asking for that the public doesn’t know about.
I guess I just don’t see a scenario where Putin thinks, “I’ve poured enough money and troops into this, it’s going badly, I should just cut my losses and accept defeat.” He seems to have too big of an ego and Czar complex to settle for that kind of humiliation.
It’s unclear that Russia’s side has made any offers that are just some concessions on the part of Ukraine. Keep in mind that when one of the demands is a “neutral Ukraine”, the only way to enforce that is to replace the current government with one acceptable to Russia.
The same way that doing the same did so in Afghanistan - you bleed the invader dry. Franky, I think if the USSR (and really, later, the USA) can’t invade and conquer a country that has a substantial segment that is willing to fight and has even mild support from outside, you can’t do it without a willing populace. Even then, it’s harder than it appears.
And yeah, none of the Russian proposals have been serious. They’re losing, they know it, and they need to learn that everyone else does, too. Then they’ll negotiate from a position that they could get agreement on.
If a woman is being beaten up by her ex and she’s asking for you to send in a gun then, yeah, she might miss and he escalates. But it’s what she’s asking for and, if there aren’t any cops or any other way for you to intervene, it’s pretty reasonable to abide by her judgement.
But yes, in the real world in theory it could escalate to nuclear war and other people being affected. But if everyone dies for good reasons, making a choice to do what’s right in the face of aggression and cruelty, I feel like that’s a good end for humanity.
Or better yet–go in the direction that they won’t suspect. Invade through Vladivostok.
Realistically, there is no negotiation if one side is clearly losing. Negotiations tend to be a formal agreement to recognize the reality on the ground, where things stalled out between the forces involved.
That said, you might stall out because you’repretty certain that you’d lose rather than because you’ve actually lost in battle. Once Russia flips into defense mode, Zelensky might determine that he’s not confident that he could take some of his cities back and so he might negotiate to lose them (for example) in exchange for controlling a small slice of land on either side of the Dnieper through Kherson, while letting Russia otherwise own the town.
But I probably don’t see that happening. If Putin can’t topple the Ukrainian government then Ukraine will have to have control of the Dnieper and everything West of it. Russia already has a firm grip on Kherson and isn’t going to want to let go. So Zelensky has at least one siege that he is going to have to conduct or fail attempting before negotiations can happen. At the moment, Zelensky is still tied up in the North so I don’t see that happening for at least a few weeks or months.
Probably the only thing that could stop it from getting there is for Russia to start losing land to Turkey, Georgia, Japan, China, etc. If Russia starts shrinking and they’re losing massive numbers of troops in Ukraine, Putin will get thrown out.
How old are you, if I might ask? Because I’ve had other people say this to me, or some variation of it, and they’re always my parents’ age or older, i.e. in their 60s or 70s, and I get the impression that they feel they’ve had a good life, they have accomplished pretty much everything that they wanted to, and their attitude towards nuclear war is informed by that perspective. I swear I’m not trying to insult you, or the other like-minded people, at all by saying this. It’s just a different kind of outlook on life and mortality.
I myself am “only” 35 and I in no way share this perspective.
I’m 72 and I in no way share this perspective either.
I think this is the best possible end-game: Putin is “retired” by his own intelligence staff. The people in Russia will not revolt - they have very little experience with any kind of government other than dictatorship. The oligarchs have money, but lack the ground game within Russia (troops, security services, black-bag operators).
The folks who can “retire” Putin are the security and intelligence political operatives. Putin is right to isolate himself from these folks, and he’s attempting to pit them against each other.
If they decide that the best course of action for Russia’s continued survival is the removal of Putin, this is what they’ll do. They can blame the whole misadventure on the “madman Putin”, remove the army from everywhere except Crimea and perhaps the Donbas region, and then lick their wounds. And hope that the Ukraine army does not follow them home.
I heard a lady on a CBC call in show on Sunday (said she was in her 60’s) and this is basically what she said. Didn’t care about nuclear holocaust. Bring it on.
I’m not sure she really fully grasped what the world would look like afterwards, but she really expressed that she didn’t care because “I’ve had a good life”. The moderator was a bit stunned by this sort of comment.
40ish.
It’s not a matter of being done with life, it’s a matter (in my case) of knowing history.
Every point in time in history sucked, in every country.
In modern day, we basically have it made because for the last two or so centuries, a fairly small group of people decided to formalize a philosophy of justice, fairness, and mutual respect and to argue that position with consistency and passion.
I am not a slave, I’m not indentured, I married my wife for love, I chose my profession, I can spend my free time arguing on the internet, and I can order pizza delivery in under 30 minutes. That is all thanks to the work of dedicated, thoughtful, and caring individuals.
That train must not stop. It does not take long to roll back 200 years. We are very far from being in the safe zone.
This isn’t to say that we should be unreasonable, unrealistic, jump into a meaningless nuclear war, etc. But we should resolve ourselves to being consistent on doing right, being reasonable, being helpful, and allowing no way for anyone to accuse us of hypocrisy or selfishness.
The Ukrainians were attacked for no reason and they’re being murdered under thousands of pounds of concrete with their children at their sides. That could be me and those could be my children. Taking knowing risks to defend them is taking a knowing risk to defend myself. It could all go to hell but it is unlikely and it is worth it.
A police officer doesn’t run into a gun battle thinking or wanting to die but it is a risk, he mitigates it to the extent that he can, and he proceeds forward. This is just the same.
I understand what you’re saying, but there’s been horrific atrocities committed all around the world within our lives and the US/NATO did not intervene, and that was when the bad guys didn’t have nuclear bombs. Why is this specific situation so much more important?
I’m in my 50’s, and I do care deeply about whether or not a large nuclear exchange happens. That’s partly because I’m very unlikely to survive the initial exchange. They build the F-35 across town, and I’m pretty sure that plant is on the short list of targets.
So, that’s why I’m still on the fence WRT our doing more than supplying the population of Ukraine with as much as we can muster in the way of supplies and weapons and cutting off all possible trade with Russia. I feel that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the next country will be a NATO nation anyway. So, if we don’t stop him there, the likelihood of nuclear war actually goes up.
Which specific situations are you talking about? And in which you yourself would argue that we ought not to have done anything? Because if you think that we should have done something, and the poster you’re replying too might also think we should have done something, that’s not really a winning argument. It’s the sunk cost fallacy of not doing anything.
And that’s assuming that the conflict wasn’t also so long ago that a new set of people is both in power and in the voting booth. We also don’t have to apply the sunk cost fallacy of doing nothing when comparing what we do to what an almost entirely separate group of people did 25 or so years ago, give or take.
I’m 70, and I don’t think “because Putin is an obnoxious ass” is a good reason.
I suppose that a generally-agreed upon decision to commit species suicide because we’re a species that lets Putin and others like him behave like that might be a good reason. But then, if we were trying to stop him, that wouldn’t be a good reason either, because it wouldn’t be a true one.
Also, that sort of nuclear war would take a whole lot of others with us. It’s not the fault of the cats, or the reindeer, or very etcetera. If we’re going to knowingly finish ourselves off, I wish we’d pick a method that only gets us (though even that would be hard on a lot of the domestics.)
I really hope that happens.
Or that some cleaning lady who nobody notices takes him out.
I doubt they need to worry about that. For one thing, I think Ukraine’s got sense enough not to want to be bogged down in the mud in Russia – if Russia can’t finish off Ukraine, Ukraine’s hardly likely to be able to finish off Russia, either; for another, they’ve got a huge cleanup job on their hands.
Nah. It just looks like it from here because we’re used to what we’re used to.
Some places at some times certainly sucked for most people. But not all of them.
That would put you among the lucky ones.
Probably not. The next country on the list, assuming Russia has the strength to have a list past Ukraine, will probably be Moldova. After that Finland and Sweden. I seriously doubt Russia would have any semblance of a military that can invade at that point, but only then would Putin get to NATO countries.