Russia Invades Ukraine

[NDVirginia19]

The path to Victory for Ukraine is incredibly tough however. They're not going to be able to out-bleed Russia, and the levels of mining and defensive infrastructure built up in conquered Ukranian territory makes it a herculean task to actually regain any significant portions of that territory. So it sort of begs the question: what is the endgame? The longer this extends, the harder it becomes for Ukraine to win, and the more death and destruction there will be. I think it is a reasonable position to hold that we should be advocating for a peace negotiation.

 

[drayer54]

The path to Victory for Ukraine is incredibly tough however. They're not going to be able to out-bleed Russia, and the levels of mining and defensive infrastructure built up in conquered Ukranian territory makes it a herculean task to actually regain any significant portions of that territory. So it sort of begs the question: what is the endgame? The longer this extends, the harder it becomes for Ukraine to win, and the more death and destruction there will be. I think it is a reasonable position to hold that we should be advocating for a peace negotiation.

A US POTUS who will tilt the balance one way or the other...

 

[TracyGraham]

There once was a war in a country called Vietnam. A big and powerful country was sure to win, but with proxy help, the underdog prevailed. The Vietnamese didn't have to annihilate the enemy, they just had to inflict enough damage to make their opponent go home.
There was also this war between the Russians and the Afghanis. Same results. It is nearly impossible to invade a country and sustain when you are unwelcome.
Another one you may have heard of: The mighty world power, the British empire was forced to leave the US with proxy assistance from France.
I really don't understand why this of all wars is so seemingly repugnant, especially to the right. Can someone enlighten me? No matter how hard you are pushed, there is no excuse for invading a sovereign country.
And what is the obsession w/Russia and nukes? Russia had nukes during Afghanistan. That didn't stop us from helping the Afghanis to stop them. We had nukes during Vietnam, but Russia still assisted the Vietnamese.
If a country has nukes, does that give them carte blanche to just invade any country??!
This situation is so bizarre to me. it seems like people on the right who advocate being tough on crime domestically, want to be lax on a global stage towards bad actors. On the other hand, people that traditionally want to defund the police want to stop criminal Russia. I personally am pretty conservative these days and believe in being tough both domestically and internationally. Just because Russia has nukes doesn't mean we should look the other way. If a bank robber has weapons does that mean we should let them steal? I really don't get this one at all.

 

[drayer54]

Certain groups of Americans are sad they haven't advanced in their brackets to take Romania next. Thoughts and prayers.

Prob the same ones who cheer for Hamas.

 

[calvegas04]

Prob the same ones who cheer for Hamas.

You should see the MAGA folk on Twitter, they have major russian hard ons and want them to win for whatever psychotic reasons

 

[Giddyup]

Ukraine and NATO, US…. are trying to instigate WWIII now by sending munitions and keeping the fighting going, making Russia advance imo.

 

[NDVirginia19]

There once was a war in a country called Vietnam. A big and powerful country was sure to win, but with proxy help, the underdog prevailed. The Vietnamese didn't have to annihilate the enemy, they just had to inflict enough damage to make their opponent go home.
There was also this war between the Russians and the Afghanis. Same results. It is nearly impossible to invade a country and sustain when you are unwelcome.
Another one you may have heard of: The mighty world power, the British empire was forced to leave the US with proxy assistance from France.
I really don't understand why this of all wars is so seemingly repugnant, especially to the right. Can someone enlighten me? No matter how hard you are pushed, there is no excuse for invading a sovereign country.
And what is the obsession w/Russia and nukes? Russia had nukes during Afghanistan. That didn't stop us from helping the Afghanis to stop them. We had nukes during Vietnam, but Russia still assisted the Vietnamese.
If a country has nukes, does that give them carte blanche to just invade any country??!
This situation is so bizarre to me. it seems like people on the right who advocate being tough on crime domestically, want to be lax on a global stage towards bad actors. On the other hand, people that traditionally want to defund the police want to stop criminal Russia. I personally am pretty conservative these days and believe in being tough both domestically and internationally. Just because Russia has nukes doesn't mean we should look the other way. If a bank robber has weapons does that mean we should let them steal? I really don't get this one at all.

So you picked like three historical examples of plucky underdog being the big bad guy, and there are thousands of historic examples of the opposite outcome occurring.

You can both be tough on the global stage (institution of sanctions, restriction on other trade, blocking Russian foreign development projects like Nordstream) while also not prolonging the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands. I think helping Ukraine has been wise, but we are past the point of giving cheap, legacy military hardware and now committing tens of billions of dollars of actual cash and more advanced US Weapons systems. I think being steadfast in our support to Ukraine in order to give them a position of power to negotiate from and then actually negotiating a peace deal is where we should be directing our energy, not just wish casting that they reclaim all of their land in some grand offensive that will kill hundreds of thousands of more people without any change in territory.

 

[calvegas04]

Ukraine and NATO, US…. are trying to instigate WWIII now by sending munitions and keeping the fighting going, making Russia advance imo.

Lol what? Who invaded who?

 

[TracyGraham]

So you picked like three historical examples of plucky underdog being the big bad guy, and there are thousands of historic examples of the opposite outcome occurring.

You can both be tough on the global stage (institution of sanctions, restriction on other trade, blocking Russian foreign development projects like Nordstream) while also not prolonging the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands. I think helping Ukraine has been wise, but we are past the point of giving cheap, legacy military hardware and now committing tens of billions of dollars of actual cash and more advanced US Weapons systems. I think being steadfast in our support to Ukraine in order to give them a position of power to negotiate from and then actually negotiating a peace deal is where we should be directing our energy, not just wish casting that they reclaim all of their land in some grand offensive that will kill hundreds of thousands of more people without any change in territory.

I just picked those 3 because i didn't want to ramble on. Im pretty sure the invader usually loses eventually if they are unwelcome. Just recently I can think of Iraq/Afghanistan? Kuwait? Korea even? I'd like to know when a country has invaded, been opposed and assisted by world power proxy, and succeeded in modern times? Turkey invading Cyprus is the only example off the top of my head where an invader was successful despite a superpower opposing.
To suggest Ukraine is resisting in vain is pretty unfounded. If anything history suggests it will probably succeed.
But that is not the point. Even if history suggested a 50/50 outcome, isn't that enough to resist allowing countries to invade? Even if it was 1%. IMO it is our duty to stop this behavior vs enabling and I can't imagine sanctions will do anything. Russia is already sanctioned and that doesnt seem to make a difference. North korea, iran, Russia, etc don't appear to give a shit about changing their ways due to sanctions,
It is their right to fight. We are not forcing them. To suggest we are giving false hope sounds like we think they have no ability to think for themselves. Just like no one forced NATO on anyone. It is a choice and their volition to chose. If Russia doesn't like it, they should have offered a better alternative.

 

[drayer54]

You should see the MAGA folk on Twitter, they have major russian hard ons and want them to win for whatever psychotic reasons

I’m on Twitter. I follow many a GOP type. I don’t see this. You sure you’re not following some left wing bs?

 

[Bishop2b5]

You should see the MAGA folk on Twitter, they have major russian hard ons and want them to win for whatever psychotic reasons

I haven't heard a single Conservative that I know IRL express any hope that Russia wins. About half want us to stop funding Ukraine with our tax dollars, but the other half think it's money well spent to hurt Russia. Who are you following??? Nobody I know is pulling for Russia. You're following some propaganda bots most likely.

 

[drayer54]

I haven't heard a single Conservative that I know IRL express any hope that Russia wins. About half want us to stop funding Ukraine with our tax dollars, but the other half think it's money well spent to hurt Russia. Who are you following??? Nobody I know is pulling for Russia. You're following some propaganda bots most likely.

MSNBC must have found one

 

[NDVirginia19]

I just picked those 3 because i didn't want to ramble on. Im pretty sure the invader usually loses eventually if they are unwelcome. Just recently I can think of Iraq/Afghanistan? Kuwait? Korea even? I'd like to know when a country has invaded, been opposed and assisted by world power proxy, and succeeded in modern times? Turkey invading Cyprus is the only example off the top of my head where an invader was successful despite a superpower opposing.
To suggest Ukraine is resisting in vain is pretty unfounded. If anything history suggests it will probably succeed.
But that is not the point. Even if history suggested a 50/50 outcome, isn't that enough to resist allowing countries to invade? Even if it was 1%. IMO it is our duty to stop this behavior vs enabling and I can't imagine sanctions will do anything. Russia is already sanctioned and that doesnt seem to make a difference. North korea, iran, Russia, etc don't appear to give a shit about changing their ways due to sanctions,
It is their right to fight. We are not forcing them. To suggest we are giving false hope sounds like we think they have no ability to think for themselves. Just like no one forced NATO on anyone. It is a choice and their volition to chose. If Russia doesn't like it, they should have offered a better alternative.

Neither of those examples you picked right there were really that analogous. Maybe the Sino-Japanese war is the best analogue in the 20th century, which Japan only lost because of direct US involvement.

Sanctions on Iran were actually incredibly effective under Trump at limiting the Iran terror programs with the IRGC and limiting nuclear development, and only now as Biden has been shipping Iran pallets of cash have they had money to fund terror and refine uranium

 

[Irish#1]

You should see the MAGA folk on Twitter, they have major russian hard ons and want them to win for whatever psychotic reasons

 

[Irish#1]

I just picked those 3 because i didn't want to ramble on. Im pretty sure the invader usually loses eventually if they are unwelcome. Just recently I can think of Iraq/Afghanistan? Kuwait? Korea even? I'd like to know when a country has invaded, been opposed and assisted by world power proxy, and succeeded in modern times? Turkey invading Cyprus is the only example off the top of my head where an invader was successful despite a superpower opposing.
To suggest Ukraine is resisting in vain is pretty unfounded. If anything history suggests it will probably succeed.
But that is not the point. Even if history suggested a 50/50 outcome, isn't that enough to resist allowing countries to invade? Even if it was 1%. IMO it is our duty to stop this behavior vs enabling and I can't imagine sanctions will do anything. Russia is already sanctioned and that doesnt seem to make a difference. North korea, iran, Russia, etc don't appear to give a shit about changing their ways due to sanctions,
It is their right to fight. We are not forcing them. To suggest we are giving false hope sounds like we think they have no ability to think for themselves. Just like no one forced NATO on anyone. It is a choice and their volition to chose. If Russia doesn't like it, they should have offered a better alternative.

Is Korea a good example? North Korea started the war. NATO jumped in to support SK. This was done to keep Russia from expanding communism.

The sanctions against Russia haven't crippled them, but their economy isn't as good as before invading. Data from Russia says everything is okay. World economists disagree.

For instance, with assessments based on Russian-generated data, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has praised Russia’s economic growth, which the IMF claims has demonstrated higher rates of growth than the majority of the world’s most developed countries (Imf.org, April 2024).

The reality, however, is quite different. The Russian economy, while appearing red hot on the surface, is seriously sick, with growth being fueled by increasing and unsustainable war expenses (see EDM, January 12, October 2, 2023, February 12, June 26). Economic reserves are rapidly dwindling, while labor shortages are becoming increasingly acute due to challenging demographics, heavy losses in Ukraine, and massive emigration

Full article

Russia’s War Economy Wilts Under Sanctions as Measures Become More Targeted

Executive Summary: Western sanctions, heavy losses in Ukraine, and short-sighted Kremlin policies have put serious strain on the Russian economy, even if Moscow has managed to weather the storm in some sectors. The Russian economy is grappling with significant structural issues, including...

jamestown.org

 

[NDVirginia19]

The Greats Agree: Ukraine's Kursk Offensive Is Strategic Malpractice

Strategic prudence—from nineteenth-century Europe and ancient China alike—urges Kiev to wind down the Kursk operation, and consolidate scarce manpower and resources to defend what matters most.

nationalinterest.org

Interesting read

 

[TracyGraham]

Fair enough, I realized they are not 100% analagous,and we can nitpick on relevance of past examples, but that was not the point I was trying to illustrate. The point is that the conservatives that i have heard are acting like it is a 0% pipe dream that we are putting Ukraine in when, in actuality there are certainly similar examples in which the mighty invader has lost and to say other wise is dishonest because most examples directly involved the United States. The way to ensure it is a pipe dream is for Trump to come along and remove funding if he wins, then we can be ensure that Ukraine fought in vain.
Yes, Ukrainians are dying.That is the price they are choosing to pay for their independence that the are demonstrating that they completely believe in.
IMO, it is as if we live in a bizarro world here and the only reason republicans oppose this is because Biden is the sitting president. Otherwise, this is 100% imo republican MO in which we want to support the fight for sovereignty against tyranny and punish bad actors with real consequences. I would expect democrats to turn the other cheek and suggest an alternative method, but they support it because it is arguably the only thing Biden is doing right. Why does this have to be a Biden policy? Can't it be an American position? Why, imo, are politics stopping us from supporting the right action?

 

[TracyGraham]

That's a good point. Korea is tricky and depends on what perspective you look at it from. But, that is a side argument. The point is that I have heard conservatives argue that fighting is 100% in vain and we are leading Ukrainians to unnecessary slaughter. But, even one counter example is, by definition enough to demonstrate that claim is false, right? They can't be 100% doomed if Afghanistan can do it. Certainly not 100% if Vietnam and the USA can resist superpower invaders.
In terms of the article you linked. It seems to suggest that Russia is being economically crippled not just due to sanctions but due to the serious human and financial costs due to the war. If we withdraw our support from Ukraine, their ability to resist would be severely weakened, removing a major part of the pressure that’s currently challenging Russia's economy.

 

[Irish#1]

North Korea is the one who invaded regardless of the perspective.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think the Repubs are 100% against funding Ukraine. Most want the other NATO members to have skin in the game. That's why Trump threatened to pull out a while back. Many of the other countries weren't holding up their end financially.

Here was the voting back in April.
Senate
Yes
Democratic 46 Republican 31 Independent 2
No
Democrat 2 Republican 15 Independent 1

House
Yes
Democratic 210 Republican 101
No
Democrat 0 Republican 112

 

[calvegas04]

North Korea is the one who invaded regardless of the perspective.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think the Repubs are 100% against funding Ukraine. Most want the other NATO members to have skin in the game. That's why Trump threatened to pull out a while back. Many of the other countries weren't holding up their end financially.

Here was the voting back in April.
Senate
Yes
Democratic 46 Republican 31 Independent 2
No
Democrat 2 Republican 15 Independent 1

House
Yes
Democratic 210 Republican 101
No
Democrat 0 Republican 112

It's the Maga Republicans that are voting no, the traditional repubs are voting yes

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

https://www.wsj.com/world/ukrainian-f-16-is-destroyed-in-crash-4f6d66f6

 

[GATTACA!]

 

[Bishop2b5]

That thermite stuff's no joke. I know some guys who used some to break into a warehouse and steal a whole drum of methylamine one time.

 

[GATTACA!]

That thermite stuff's no joke. I know some guys who used some to break into a warehouse and steal a whole drum of methylamine one time.

It's gotta be so hot. I'm shocked the drone was able to keep flying.

 

[calvegas04]

It's gotta be so hot. I'm shocked the drone was able to keep flying.

Yeah that is crazy, lots of crazy new stuff to be terrified of from this terrible russian war

 

[Bishop2b5]

It's gotta be so hot. I'm shocked the drone was able to keep flying.

I'm assuming they must ignite the stuff just as it exits the drone. Would seem unlikely you could ignite it internally, even in an insulated ceramic container, then drop it without killing the drone withing a few seconds. Thermite is wicked stuff.

 

[drayer54]

I'm assuming they must ignite the stuff just as it exits the drone. Would seem unlikely you could ignite it internally, even in an insulated ceramic container, then drop it without killing the drone withing a few seconds. Thermite is wicked stuff.

Prob the worst way to go

 

[NDVirginia19]

The entire war is being studied intensely over the coming years. While there was certainly thoughts the implications of drone warfare over the past two decades, the developments of autonomy and miniaturization of these drones and EW efforts to counter them are fundamentally changing the way we think about war. It’s a watershed moment really. Ukraine-Russia will be the harbinger of how the next world war will be fought, similar to how the late American Civil War foretold the tactics that would be employed in WWI

 

[calvegas04]

US should be cranking out cheap(ish) drones and shipping them over to Ukraine to test them out on the commies

 

[Giddyup]

Never thought I’d see the day Democrats became the party of war and the vast republican constituency of the party (not always the rino politicians) wanting to solve the dispute peacefully. Much has changed since Iraq.