Post New

While drone pilots and soldiers have always been front and center, there’s another hero defending the country that has never gotten quite as much attention.

A vast expanse of wire, concrete, trenches, and gravel snaking across the entire Ukrainian front line, serving as one of the country’s most vital defenses against a full-blown Russian takeover.

This fortification belt in the Donetsk region is the top prize Putin wants to claim in negotiations to end the war, and he will undoubtedly go into his face-to-face meeting with Trump today hoping the American president will help him get it.

Of course, Putin hasn’t said this out loud. The Kremlin is pushing for control of the entire Donetsk region, which would push Ukrainian defenses out of the trench lines and into the open, making Ukraine much more vulnerable to future attack.

The Russian leader will almost certainly try to charm his American counterpart into putting more pressure on Ukraine to make this massive concession.

It’s a region the Russians have been unable to capture fully since 2014, thanks largely to the powerful system of fortifications there. At the current pace of the Russian army’s advance, it would take them many years to seize full control.

Giving this defense belt up would enable unhindered, rapid advances of Russian equipment and threaten Ukraine’s very existence as a state.

MARIANA LASTOVYRIA, TANYA NOVAKIVSKA, AND ANASTASIIA KRYVORUCHENKO
AUG 15

https://open.substack.com/pub/counteroffensive/p/p...

Not that Zelensky would ever agree to it, but let’s see if Trump emerges from Putin’s nether regions with this demand on his lips.

there has never been a mtg\call with putin where trump has taken tangible action vs russia. ever.
russia remains untouched by additional eo trade action vs every other nation on liberation day.

contrast this with bolsonaro, on whose behalf trump took action against a entire partner nation, in hours.

MAGA believes that the solution to everything is to treat it like a real estate deal, despite electing someone so bad at real estate that the typical property experiences leverage stress.
and who has people willing to pay for trump name removal so their property values increases, or are at least able to find a buyer.

It's already panned out for Putin.

Getting invited to U.S. territory to meet with the POTUS in a one-on-one summit is already a massive win for Putin. One of the ostensible sanctions against Russia has been diplomatic isolation. In an "ordinary" process, Putin would have been required to make some concessions just to be allowed to have a direct meeting with the POTUS. You don't get the privilege of having all the trappings of a head-of-state meeting with the Leader of the Free World, along with direct one-on-one access to POTUS, if you're still an international pariah.

Trump has never been one to realize when he's being taken advantage of, and this is no exception. He wanted the meeting, so he's giving Putin the meeting.

In an "ordinary" process, Putin would have been required to make some concessions just to be allowed to have a direct meeting with the POTUS. You don't get the privilege of having all the trappings of a head-of-state meeting with the Leader of the Free World, along with direct one-on-one access to POTUS, if you're still an international pariah.

Trump has never been one to realize when he's being taken advantage of, and this is no exception. He wanted the meeting, so he's giving Putin the meeting.

This is a misunderstanding of the situation.

Putin has the upper hand right now in the Ukraine. Why? Because as we've said ad infinitum here Zelensky doesn't have the dudes, the guns or the money to push Putin out.

That means Putin's BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is to just prolong the war. Why? It's not *Russia's* towns being bombed. It's not *Russian* farmland not being planted because it's filled with land mines. It's not *Russian* apartment complexes being attacked with follow-on strikes meant to kill first responders (and demoralize the population). Putin can sit there and continue to bleed the Ukrainians white because he's got the dudes, the guns and the money to do it.

Set aside the "Trump caved into Putin" line because it's the lowest form of 1st order thinking: if you don't get Putin to the table you never have a chance to bargain with him to end the war.

Is prolonging the war in anyone's interest? You have to start somewhere.

For all the keyboard pounding going on in Europe with all the I STAND WITH UKRAINE slogans, flags and virtue signaling idiocy the west is more and more known for, what are Americans and europeans prepared to do about it?

Some suggestions:
1. Directly commit US and NATO forces to the fight.

Do you guys really want to go there? Want American "advisors" on the ground? Or maybe declare the Ukraine a "no fly zone". What happens the first time Putin sends a squadron of Su-35s over the border? Gonna order them shot down?

2. Slap massive tariffs on China and India.

This board is whining about the PPI being high. Welp, China and India and even the idiot europeans are bankrolling the war by buying Russian oil and oil derivatives, either directly or indirectly. India is buying massive amounts of it, some of which they refine and...sell to europe.

Want to end the bankrolling? Tell Xi and Modi they have a choice - they can do business with Putin or they can do business with us. You guys ready to take the economic hit for that? You want 10% inflation and supply shocks all over the economy?

Trump's trying to walk a tightrope here because he recognizes the alternatives to not talking largely suck. The last administration was content to feed Ukrainians into the meat grinder in perpetuum but they're running out of Ukraininas for that.

Set aside the "Trump caved into Putin" line because it's the lowest form of 1st order thinking: if you don't get Putin to the table you never have a chance to bargain with him to end the war.

You can negotiate with Putin without giving him a one-on-one summit with POTUS on American soil. That's why this is a huge win for Putin. He gets a very valuable breach of the upper diplomatic isolation and an enormously valuable propaganda tool for use back home. And he didn't have to meet a single pre-condition to have the meeting.

Want to end the bankrolling? Tell Xi and Modi they have a choice - they can do business with Putin or they can do business with us. You guys ready to take the economic hit for that? You want 10% inflation and supply shocks all over the economy?

The same is true for us, and they know it. Xi and Modi know that the U.S. can't go cold turkey on both China and India. And Modi's already made his choice in the "Putin or us" category - in response to Trump's punitive tariffs, his first response was to emphasize the close and important economic relationship India has with Russia. India doesn't want to take the economic hit of losing the U.S. market, but they also don't want to take the economic hit of losing access to Russian energy. Both are bad options....but they'll choose Russia and China over us, if we make them choose. Which only makes China stronger.

China's not dumb, nor are they impatient. They know that Trump can't impose punitive secondary tariffs on everyone that buys oil from Russia, because it would tank the U.S. economy and send the global economy into a recession. They also know that it's not likely that Trump will permanently force India into an "us or them" choice (because it will be "them" and we can't afford the consequences), so they just have to wait until there's a fig leaf that allows Trump to claim some victory but not really change the status quo. And Putin knows that all he needs to do is string Trump along for a while, because the secondary tariffs can't set up an impenetrable wall around Russian oil and Trump really wants something to come from his meddling.

You can negotiate with Putin without giving him a one-on-one summit with POTUS on American soil. That's why this is a huge win for Putin. He gets a very valuable breach of the upper diplomatic isolation and an enormously valuable propaganda tool for use back home. And he didn't have to meet a single pre-condition to have the meeting.

Again, he’s winning in the battlefield. He can…do nothing.

The west has very few cards to play at the moment.

Both are bad options....but they'll choose Russia and China over us, if we make them choose. Which only makes China stronger.

Okay. So punitive economic sanctions are off the table.

How many American military resources are you willing to commit, of what type and for how long?

Okay. So punitive economic sanctions are off the table.

How many American military resources are you willing to commit, of what type and for how long?

I would continue to supply and fund the Ukrainian military, continue (or increase) the economic sanctions on Russia, work to improve relations with countries like India that have to buy Russian oil in order to avoid crippling their economy but can be induced to forgo Russian energy through diplomacy, etc.

Putin hasn't been able to beat Ukraine in nearly three years. He's not losing on the battlefield, but neither can he win on the battlefield if the West stays resolute in supporting Ukraine.

The West has cards to continue playing, because Russia doesn't have the economic resources to keep doing this indefinitely. Ukraine alone doesn't either, but Ukraine backed by the entire West certainly does.

Putin has the upper hand right now in the Ukraine. Why? Because as we've said ad infinitum here Zelensky doesn't have the dudes, the guns or the money to push Putin out.

Doesn't matter. You seem to refuse to accept that. It just doesn't matter. Look at Afghanistan (twice...once with us, once with the USSR...and if we go back further, the British). Look at Vietnam. There are numerous examples throughout history of an inferior power outlasting a superior one.

All the Ukrainians have to do is outlast him. And they are more than capable of that as long as they get materiel from the west. I won't recapitulate all the facts I've provided in the past. But they haven't changed, and in some cases have become more severe (for Putin). Another six months (maybe a year), and Putin will be desperate to have this war over, and salvage some credibility. Arguably, he's already getting desperate.

As for the Felon, he really wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He thinks he can get it by getting both sides to end the war in Ukraine. IMHO, the only way he would even be in the running is if he got Putin to withdraw completely, including from Crimea. If he did that, he might actually deserve the prize. But that's not going to happen because of the Felon. It will only happen when continued aggression causes Putin more harm than good back home. Plus, he'll never give up Crimea willingly.

I would continue to supply and fund the Ukrainian military, continue (or increase) the economic sanctions on Russia, work to improve relations with countries like India that have to buy Russian oil in order to avoid crippling their economy but can be induced to forgo Russian energy through diplomacy, etc.

We do zero business with Russia. The only way you punish Russia is to sanction the countries we *both* have business with. That's China and India, and you ruled that out in your last post.

So no joy there.

He's not losing on the battlefield, but neither can he win on the battlefield if the West stays resolute in supporting Ukraine. The West has cards to continue playing, because Russia doesn't have the economic resources to keep doing this indefinitely. Ukraine alone doesn't either, but Ukraine backed by the entire West certainly does.

Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to push Putin out.

Before long, he's going to start lacking the dudes to even stay in the fight.

The west has been saying "We'll sanction Putin and he'll quit, you'll see" for 3 and a half years now and Putin is showing no signs of slowing down. He's still able to feed bodies into the fight and he's still able to procure munitions.

So what now?

We do zero business with Russia. The only way you punish Russia is to sanction the countries we *both* have business with. That's China and India, and you ruled that out in your last post.

No, the way you punish Russia is to build up our relationship with India so they choose to divest themselves of Russian oil in a way that makes sense for them. If you sanction them with a "them or us" binary and force them to choose "them," then you strengthen not only Russia but China as well.

Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to push Putin out.

As has been explained to you ad nauseum, he doesn't have to push Putin out. History is full of examples where a small power that lacked the guns, dudes, and money to militarily force out a larger power were still able to win their military objectives merely by making it sufficiently painful for the large power to remain. Which is why Russia didn't win in Afghanistan, the U.S. didn't win in Vietnam (or Afghanistan), and why Iraq isn't a liberal western democracy allied with NATO.

As has been explained to you ad nauseum, he doesn't have to push Putin out. History is full of examples where a small power that lacked the guns, dudes, and money to militarily force out a larger power were still able to win their military objectives merely by making it sufficiently painful for the large power to remain. Which is why Russia didn't win in Afghanistan, the U.S. didn't win in Vietnam (or Afghanistan), and why Iraq isn't a liberal western democracy allied with NATO.

Yeah, he doesn't get it. Asymmetrical warfare is a little more convoluted than -say- the invasion of Normandy. You would think Ukraine (or Vietnam, or Iraq, etc) would be overwhelmed quickly. Heck, look at the British and the American colonies. No way (on paper) we had a chance against the premier superpower on the planet at that time. But we made them give up and go home.**

Ukraine is also introducing new tactics with cheap technologies, specifically drones. A few thousand dollars worth of drones did hundreds of millions of dollars damage to Russia's bomber and tanker fleet, and severely damaged their air force (I'd have to do some digging, but as I recall they eliminated about 1/3 of the Russian bomber wings). Not to mention the decimation of the Russia's Black Sea Fleet (against a power that doesn't have a navy).

Continued support commitments from the west will ensure that Putin will not prevail.



**Though they did remind us that they were still a superpower in 1812, when we couldn't stop them from burning the White House, and doing whatever else they felt like.

No, the way you punish Russia is to build up our relationship with India so they choose to divest themselves of Russian oil in a way that makes sense for them. If you sanction them with a "them or us" binary and force them to choose "them," then you strengthen not only Russia but China as well.

Oh, okay. So how long is that?
Remember that there is a running clock here. What kinds of great deals are you going to offer India and how long will it take to move them away from Russia? How do you prevent them from double dealing?

And what about China? They can bankroll Putin on their own.

As has been explained to you ad nauseum, he doesn't have to push Putin out.

And what should be obvious to you that in Realpolitik possession is 9/10 of the law.

History is full of examples where a small power that lacked the guns, dudes, and money to militarily force out a larger power were still able to win their military objectives merely by making it sufficiently painful for the large power to remain. Which is why Russia didn't win in Afghanistan, the U.S. didn't win in Vietnam (or Afghanistan), and why Iraq isn't a liberal western democracy allied with NATO.

Ahh. So you think this war is exactly like the last war. Do you think the Russians didn't learn anything from their own Afghanistan adventure, or ours? Or us in Iraq?
What might they do differently this time?

Let's say you're living behind enemy lines near Mariupol and you want to do some serious Red Dawn style sh1t. But Putin knows that there will be people ready to do that so he's taken your son and daughter away from you. What now?

"You can negotiate with Putin without giving him a one-on-one summit with POTUS on American soil."

I've only read a few snippets of this thread, so apologies if this has already been covered:
Why would Ukraine trust any agreement made between Trump and Putin ?
Putin has totally disdained Peace Pacts before. Ukraine is well aware of that.
Trump breaks trade agreements like it's nothing. Trump breeches contracts like
they didn't exist.
Didn't the US and Russia agree that if Ukraine gave up their nukes, then the US and
Russia would guarantee Ukraine's safety ?? What the hell happened to that ??

So now Ukraine, and Europe, are going to abide by any agreement reached between Trump
and Putin, despite their proven history of breaking contracts.
Sounds pretty farfetched to me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine+gave+up+th...

"Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer all remaining nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia, formalized in the Budapest Memorandum. "

Not that Zelensky would ever agree to it, but let’s see if Trump emerges from Putin’s nether regions with this demand on his lips.

And if Trump sells out Ukraine how many of the gutless Republicans in Congress will express even mild 'concern'?

(Taking you off of Ignore because I'm watching this thread)

Yeah, he doesn't get it.

No, *you* don't get it. You think that putting the Ukraine Facebook avatar over your photo and reading rando blogs is giving you some insight...but, no. It's not.
Your points about "asymmetrical warfare" are asinine. You think the Russkies don't know how to play dirty? (Which is one way to stomp an insurgency before it starts). Do you think they weren't paying attention to their own failures? And ours?

You - like all the other libs - refuse to look at a map that hasn't changed. At sanctions that haven't worked. At a President who's at least trying to slow down the bloodshed. You won't look because in your mind Trumpbadorangemanhitler is all your brains can process.

Ukraine is also introducing new tactics with cheap technologies, specifically drones. A few thousand dollars worth of drones did hundreds of millions of dollars damage to Russia's bomber and tanker fleet, and severely damaged their air force (I'd have to do some digging, but as I recall they eliminated about 1/3 of the Russian bomber wings). Not to mention the decimation of the Russia's Black Sea Fleet (against a power that doesn't have a navy).

Did that cause Putin to stop? Nope.
At least we have one contestant on this board that agrees that taking the fight to the Russkies is that way to go.

Doesn't matter.

It "Doesn't matter", does it? That's some astute military observation there - just let somebody roll into your country and it Doesn't Matter that they're wrecking your economy, kidnapping your kids and blowing up all your infrastructure.

There's an old joke in NATO circles about how the French and the Germans are prepared to defend Europe right down to the last American. And that's exactly what Biden and the rest of you people sound like here. Stick it to Russia no matter how many Ukrainians it takes to do it!

Reaalll libs of geeeeeniusss.

All the Ukrainians have to do is outlast him.

"All the Ukrainians have to do is outlast him", eh? How's that going so far - are they able to make serious gains on the battlefield? And they've got endless supplies of everything they need to get this done?

IMHO, the only way he would even be in the running is if he got Putin to withdraw completely, including from Crimea.

You got this line from Her Royal Empress Hillary! I, First Of Her Name, today. That's the new lib talking point going around: It's a not-so-clever way to try to raise the bar *and* deflect from the democrats' collective failures with respect to Russia. Remind me who was SecState in 2013 and 2014? Do you even know?

Again. What action are *you* willing to take? It seems that sitting down with Putin to try to work something out is sooo gauche here. So let's ask you - do you want direct NATO action? Massive sanctions on Putin's business partners? What?

Because Kicking Putin In The Nuts Down To The Last Ukrainian isn't a strategy.

Oh, okay. So how long is that?
Remember that there is a running clock here.

I agree - and the running clock favors Ukraine, rather than Russia. The militaries and economies of the combined NATO powers absolutely dwarf those of Russia. At some point, if Russia can't defeat the Ukrainians (which they have failed to do for three and a half years now), it will be difficult for even Putin to maintain the illusion that they might actually be able to conquer the country.

And what should be obvious to you that in Realpolitik possession is 9/10 of the law.

Ummmm, no. History is replete with examples of large powers that invaded smaller ones and "possessed" large portions of them....and then couldn't hold them. Ukraine can't displace Russia, but Russia isn't going to be able to hold onto what it "possesses" if Ukraine keeps fighting them.

Do you think the Russians didn't learn anything from their own Afghanistan adventure, or ours? Or us in Iraq?
What might they do differently this time?

Not very much, no. Like all those other times, Russia appears to have assumed that since it had the overwhelming conventional forces of a much larger army (and a much larger country than Ukraine backing them up) that it would be a relatively simple matter to win just by invading. They don't appear to have learned any of the lessons of asymmetric warfare.

In fact, they seem to have completely repeated the mistakes we made in Iraq. By all accounts, Putin appears to have completely bought into the idea that Ukraine wasn't really a country and that they hated the Zelensky government and were really Russians anyway who would be glad to be invaded. His own version of "greeted as liberators" and "candy and flowers." There's zero chance that he actually contemplated that he would encounter bitter resistance and that his invasionary force would be fought to a standstill for more than three years.

I agree - and the running clock favors Ukraine, rather than Russia.

That's exactly backwards. There are more Russians than Ukrainians, and Putin has zero qualms about throwing more people away.

The militaries and economies of the combined NATO powers absolutely dwarf those of Russia.

I'll ask again: Are you willing to commit NATO to the fight? Otherwise the "combined power" statement means very little. Don't get any mileage out of a car you leave in the garage. So which is it?

Ummmm, no.

Ummm, yes.
History is replete with examples of large powers that invaded smaller ones and "possessed" large portions of them....and then couldn't hold them.

Sure. And people study history, and circumstances change. This "small countries win in the end thing" ignores the even more ample history of bigger countries kicking the crap out of little ones. What you and the other guy aren't getting by repeating this example is that you're both citing the *exceptions*, not the rule.

Not very much, no. Like all those other times, Russia appears to have assumed that since it had the overwhelming conventional forces of a much larger army (and a much larger country than Ukraine backing them up) that it would be a relatively simple matter to win just by invading. They don't appear to have learned any of the lessons of asymmetric warfare.

Uh, huh. Your statement is both true and false.
It's true in the sense that Putin thought he could roll in there and overwhelm Kyiv in 2-3 days but what he forgot is that the Ukrainians are very skilled in intelligence and they had many things sniffed out. He also discounted the initial lethality of Zelensky's forces, lethality earned after years of training by NATO countries - notably, us. The reason they still have an Air Force at all is because of us.

Your statement is false in that Putin doesn't need to conquer the entire country to "win". A "win" is keeping what he has. He's well on the path to doing that.

In fact, they seem to have completely repeated the mistakes we made in Iraq.
LOL. You haven't answered my question.

You and 1pg seem to be under the impression that the Russians are going to sit around and allow an Iraq-style insurgency to spring up. You're a dad in Mariupol and the Russians kicked in your door and took away your kids. They told you that if you thought about getting froggy you'd never see them again.

So. You going to head to the hills and shout WOLVERINES! from the cliff?

I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat, and say that Putin ordered Trump to have this summit with him one on one. He has some really incriminating information on Trump, possibly much worse than the Epstein files and sexual peccadilloes. Such as the Russian mob funding the Trump empire. Something that Trump cannot allow to come out. So I don't think it's Trump meddling so much as Putin reminding him who the boss is and who the bitch is.

That's exactly backwards. There are more Russians than Ukrainians, and Putin has zero qualms about throwing more people away.

This is not a war that's going to be won by having the bigger army; else, Putin would have already won. Ukraine's got more than enough people to hold their position, as long as they have the material and equipment and munitions to back that up. Meanwhile, Russia's economy isn't nearly big enough to handle the resources that it has to keep throwing into the war. They're not going to run out of dudes, but they will eventually run out of money and materiel.

I'll ask again: Are you willing to commit NATO to the fight? Otherwise the "combined power" statement means very little.

We've already committed NATO to the fight - those are all of our tanks and bullets and guns that Ukraine is using. Did you think "military" means only "soldiers" in this day and age? The military power of NATO also (and arguably primarily) consists of the massive economic and industrial prowess that it can apply to supplying weapons, munitions, and technology to the battlefield. Russia can't compete with that. If Ukraine was on its own, Russia would have conquered them in the space of months - because they've had the combined might of all of NATO backing them up, they've fought Russia to a standstill for more than three years. So when you write:

The reason they still have an Air Force at all is because of us.

...yes, exactly! That's the point! This is real life, and Ukraine doesn't have to "win fair" by doing everything with only their own resources. Ukraine's Air Force doesn't "not count" just because it was given to them by us. Putin can't sulk and say that it's not fair that the West is helping Ukraine, that he could have beaten Ukraine if the West hadn't cheated and helped them.

Ukraine still has an Air Force, and it doesn't matter that it's because of us. And that's what I was talking about above - not only do they have an Air Force because of us, they will never not have an Air Force no matter what Russia does - because their Air Force is coming from outside the country, from NATO, and no matter what Russia does within the territorial confines of Ukraine they can't stop the planes from being made and supplied from NATO factories.

Your statement is false in that Putin doesn't need to conquer the entire country to "win". A "win" is keeping what he has. He's well on the path to doing that.

No, he's not. He can't keep what he has unless he keeps massive amounts of military resources committed to the field, which resources are continuously being destroyed. Ukraine can replenish their military resources with ease, because they're backed up by a collective industrial economy that's about 40x larger than Russia.

You and 1pg seem to be under the impression that the Russians are going to sit around and allow an Iraq-style insurgency to spring up.

What are you talking about? There's no future tense here - there's no "allow," and it's not going to be an Iraq-style counter. Neither of us is referring to a domestic insurgency in the future - we're talking about the existing armed resistance to Russian occupation, which in this case consists of an actual military fighting force. Russia can't hold their territory unless they continuously fight Ukrainian Army. The Ukrainian Army is the Wolverines - not some future resistance force, the resistance force that Russia has been unable to defeat or even move very far for three years now.

Russia's been fighting for three years and they haven't even got to the point in the process where they have to deal with an insurgency. They're still unable to beat the actual army.

I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat, and say that Putin ordered Trump to have this summit with him one on one.

Totally makes sense.

I mean, trivial things like maybe trying to stop the bloodshed - who in their right mind cares about that stuff, amirite?

This is not a war that's going to be won by having the bigger army; else, Putin would have already won.

Define "win". Putin doesn't need to roll tanks into Kyiv to get what he wants (for right now).

We've already committed NATO to the fight -

No we haven't.
"committing NATO to the fight" means NATO planes and SAMs shooting down Russian planes and it means NATO soldiers shooting Russians in the face on the front lines.

Are you willing to do that?

Ukraine's Air Force doesn't "not count" just because it was given to them by us. <--- nobody said it did, nice try.

No, he's not. LOL.

One more time: Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to push Putin out of the Ukraine. Increasingly, he's having problems just holding the lines as they are:

https://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-ramps-...

And at home, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's apparent efforts to weaken anti-corruption bodies sparked street protests, while the armed forces' persistent manpower strain is necessitating difficult conversations about widening conscription brackets and hardening responses to draft-dodging.

As for this:
What are you talking about? The two of you are banging the drum about how "history tells us about small countries beating big ones" while simultaneously forgetting that loads of big countries have tended to pretty success in curbstomping small ones. This is your argument, not mine.

The Ukrainian Army is the Wolverines - not some future resistance force, the resistance force that Russia has been unable to defeat or even move very far for three years now.

I think you aren't getting the difference between an "insurgency" and the main force engaged on the battlefield. Insurgent-type attacks or as the other guy likes to say "asymmetric" tactics are the car bombs the Ukrainians are using to remind collaborators that they can be reached out to and touched. The main battle force is where the Abrams tanks and guys wearing blue and yellow are fighting the guys wearing red, white and blue.

Once again. You're a dad in Mariupol and Putin has your kids in Siberia. How willing are you to plant IEDs all day?

What you and 1pg are both REALLY forgetting is that the Russians aren't the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are either of you operating under some illusion that Putin wants to win hearts and minds in the Ukraine?

"All the Ukrainians have to do is outlast him", eh? How's that going so far - are they able to make serious gains on the battlefield?

Actually, pretty well (as wars go). I've said this before, but...

the Russian boneyards are almost empty, some of the refurbished equipment going back to WWII

the Black Sea Fleet has been seriously injured

the Russian bomber force has sustained heavy losses

Russian casualties are extremely high (with mounting complaints from the population about receiving loved ones in body bags)

the Russian economy is foundering

the Russians aren't able to replace equipment at a rate to keep this going without ramping-up production (which will affect their economy)

As long as the west supplies Ukraine, it can be said that Russia is losing this war. Just like we lost in Vietnam (fun fact: every major battle in Vietnam, we won...including Tet, but we still went home in defeat...they made almost no territorial gains against us) Like the Vietnamese, the Ukrainians are facing what most of them consider an existential threat. And, like the Vietnamese, they are motivated to outlast their enemy. Rinse and repeat with Afghanistan (at least 3 times), the American colonies, and more. Short of complete genocide, or the west abandoning Ukraine, Russia isn't going to win.

I won't address the other silliness you posted, because it is silly. And irrelevant.

Define "win". Putin doesn't need to roll tanks into Kyiv to get what he wants (for right now).

Winning would be conquering the territory for good. He can’t keep any of the territory he’s temporarily controlling without continuing the war. It’s not stable. It’s unstable with him in possession, but his army has to be constantly fighting in order to to hold it.

The two of you are banging the drum about how "history tells us about small countries beating big ones" while simultaneously forgetting that loads of big countries have tended to pretty success in curbstomping small ones.

Really? Name three in the last 50 or 60 years. Three large countries that have managed to conquer and absorb a smaller countries over the active opposition of that smaller country’s military. Several of examples of big countries trying to do that - but I’m struggling to think of an example of where they succeeded. Not a lot of places on the map where there used to be a small country but now it’s been absorbed into the big country. Which ones were you thinking of?

I think you aren't getting the difference between an "insurgency" and the main force engaged on the battlefield..

Oh, I get it. But Putin hasn’t even gotten to the point where he’s only dealing with an insurgency. He hasn’t beaten the regular army yet. Because the regular army can thwart his war aims just by fighting to a draw. If Putin can’t beat the Ukrainian army, he can’t win anything. He only controls what his army sits on. And he can’t defeat the Ukrainian army, because he can’t cut off their supplies or destroy their industrial support. Because their supplies and industrial support are all of NATO.

Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to push Putin out of the Ukraine.

He doesn’t need to push Putin out of Ukraine. That’s what you don’t get. Putin lacks the guns and money to push Zelensky out of Ukraine - and as long as Zelensky is in Ukraine, Putin can’t win and will eventually have to stop fighting. Because unlike Ukraine, Putins resources are mostly limited to the industrial capacity of Russia - while Ukraine is drawing on the industrial capacity of all of NATO.

Not very much, no. Like all those other times, Russia appears to have assumed that since it had the overwhelming conventional forces of a much larger army (and a much larger country than Ukraine backing them up) that it would be a relatively simple matter to win just by invading. They don't appear to have learned any of the lessons of asymmetric warfare.

Correct on two counts. First, they thought it would be over in a matter of days or weeks. Had they taken Kyiv, it might have been. But, similar to Operation Barbarossa (which was counting on taking Moscow within a month or two), they failed to achieve that objective. And, once bogged down, they were screwed. Then comes the asymmetric warfare, especially drone use. The result has been a severely degraded Russian military, and so long as they have difficulty selling their oil and natural gas, they can't fund equipment build-up very well.

His own version of "greeted as liberators" and "candy and flowers."

Some very specific regions were almost exactly that. They are a minority, but there are some of pro-Russian Ukrainians. Especially near Crimea. But, most of the country, no. He does seem to think Ukraine should miss being Soviet just as much as Putin does. Clearly, that was wrong.

Because unlike Ukraine, Putins resources are mostly limited to the industrial capacity of Russia - while Ukraine is drawing on the industrial capacity of all of NATO.

I rec'd it, but I'll say "BINGO". In a nutshell, that's the situation.

Ooooh! I'm on "ignore"! Got tired of losing arguments? :-)

Did that cause Putin to stop? Nope.

Not yet. But it will. As long as the west is supplying Ukraine materiel (because Ukraine's industrial base by itself couldn't sustain a conflict like this), the map isn't going to change. And that's really really bad for Russia.

Putin needs that map to change, and in his favor. And, as you rightly point out, it mostly isn't. He didn't learn the lessons of the USSR in Afghanistan, nor the British in Afghanistan, nor the USA in Afghanistan, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq... And, unlike most of those examples, he doesn't even "own" the country. They still have a working government directing an active military. That wasn't the case for most of the examples I just gave.

If the west went insane, and totally abandoned Ukraine [not gonna happen], Kyiv would probably collapse. And then he'd have an insurgency to deal with. But he hasn't even gotten that far yet.

Actually, pretty well (as wars go).

Wow. Is this post of yours a veritable symphony of sloganeering and general gooberiness.

Right. Their GDP is zero and they have Russians making slow inexorable gains. That’s “pretty well”, eh?

the Russian boneyards are almost empty, some of the refurbished equipment going back to WWII

Really? Where are the battlefield photos of T-34s and Il-2 Sturmoviks flying overhead?

the Black Sea Fleet has been seriously injured

How many of cities was the Black Sea Fleet occupying?

Russian casualties are extremely high (with mounting complaints from the population about receiving loved ones in body bags)

Yeah there’s a rich history of protest and civil disobedience in Russia, isn’t there.

the Russian economy is foundering

the Russians aren't able to replace equipment at a rate to keep

And it hasn’t slowed down their war effort. Which would make most people question this and the above assertions, but…

As long as the west supplies Ukraine, it can be said that Russia is losing this wa

Okay, this is just silly. You know that warfighting is the trifecta of dudes, guns *and* money, right? You planning on supplying dudes? Because they’re running out of those.
>
I won't address

You won’t because you can’t. Your posts on this subject are little more than ignorant pablum reminiscent of the “In this house we believe” signs that dot liberal neighborhoods. Perhaps you should sit this debate out because all you’re doing is the equivalent of saying “in this house Ukraine is free”.

Ooooh! I'm on "ignore"! Got tired of losing arguments? :-)

It became clear that Reality wasn’t your thing. Besides, I normally don’t make time for thin-skinned posters who cry when they get even mild pushback to the punches they throw.

But for this thread I’m making an exception.

Not yet. But it will.

Everyone said this 2 years ago and it hasn’t happened. So all you’re doing is saying “Let’s kick Putin in the nuts down to the last Ukrainian”.

Great strategy. Not.

the map isn't going to change.

I see the problem. Your knowledge of the scenario is frozen in amber from oh, 2023.

He didn't learn the lessons of the USSR in Afghanistan, nor the British in Afghanistan, nor the USA in Afghanistan, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq... And, unlike most of

You have zero idea what you’re talking about. The AQU-style “insurgency” that you think is going on isn’t what is going on. I’ll ask you the question that Al keeps ducking. You’re a dad in Mariupol and Putin has your kids in Siberia.

How willing are you going to be to go out and plant roadside bombs?

Read more on this topic. You might realize that your yard sign approach to strategy wilts under the blazing light of actual fact.

Winning would be conquering the territory for good

Winning is keeping the territory, which is exactly what he’s doing.

Really? Name three in the last 50 or 60 years.

Russia in Georgia and Crimea and us in Grenada. What do I win?

But Putin hasn’t even gotten to the point where he’s only dealing with an insurgency.

The why do you and the other guy keep talking about “insurgency”, then, if we’re not in the “insurgency” phase? And are there not people behind the lines right now?

Where is the effect they’re having on the war if an “insurgency” is the prime driver of small countries kicking big countries in the d1ck? All the examples the other guy keeps citing in his miscounting of the war relate to actions the Ukrainian government is taking.

And he can’t defeat the Ukrainian army, because he can’t cut off their supplies or destroy their industrial support.

Supposition on your part. You may hate the repeated phrasing of needing guns, dudes and money to fight but that doesn’t make it any less true.

Russia has more guns than the Ukraine. Fact.

Russia is supplying enough guns to make slow but inexorable gains on the front. Fact.

And somehow - despite loads of sanctions from the west - they’re able to get enough money together. Why? Because China, India and Europe are paying for the war.

You’ve already ruled out any kind of sanctions on India and China because according to you, they value doing business with each more than they value doing business with us.

So all that’s left is…more dudes, more guns and more money to Zelensky.

And that returns me to my original question: how far are you willing to go? How many Americans do you want I. The fight?

If the answer is “zero” and you’re simultaneously advocating for no economic penalties on China/India plus a sacrifice from Europe (they buy more gas from us instead of India)…then your strategy reduces to the FrancoGerman plan for the defense of Europe only with Ukrainians playing the role of casualty-absorbers instead of Americans.

Or instead of all this how about we try and get Putin to the table and at least TRY for a negotiated settlement?

You obviously don't keep track of these things. I do. I'm something of a military wonk. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean that as an insult, just a statement of you knowledge of these things. My sources are even more wonk-ish than I am.

Really? Where are the battlefield photos of T-34s and Il-2 Sturmoviks flying overhead?

No T-34s. But they are (or have been) removing artillery from WWII. It is unclear if they are refurbing them, or scavenging for spare parts. We know that they are being removed from storage, but that is all satellite data tells us. However, we have seen some T-54s and T-55s in Ukraine. That dates back to the late 40s / early 50s. They can't produce nearly enough T-90s, especially the latest version. So they've been fielding whatever they can get running. The oldest I could find mention of was a T-54. T-62s and T-64s are a bit more common, which are from the 1960s.

The last chart I saw, the Russians had lost T-72s (mostly from the 70s) most frequently, and then T-80s, and then T64s. They don't have a lot of T-90s, so numerically that haven't lost that many. But, as a fraction of all T-90s, they've lost a lot of them.

As for "dudes", Russia is losing more of them faster. Estimates vary, but you can ballpark an average at about 80K Ukrainians killed vs 250K Russians. Wounded is about 400K vs 750K. Sure, if the Russians keep killing Ukrainians, eventually there won't be any. But they also will sustain losses, and need to persevere long enough for there to be no Ukrainians left that can operate a drone or fire a weapon. Genocide. Which I did mention previously.

It's highly unlikely they will stick it out that long.

You won’t because you can’t.

I won't because you went off on an irrelevant HRC tangent. Other than stating it was irrelevant to the topic at hand, there really doesn't need to be anything else said.

Is prolonging the war in anyone's interest? You have to start somewhere.

Let’s start by asking the Ukrainians.

“What sort of deal would you accept?”

That’s where we should start.

The red carpet for Putin? The walking into the meeting with only Russian translators?

That’s the disgrace, and it’s certainly no place to start.

You obviously don't keep track of these things. I do.

Hahahahahahaha! Then you suck at your hobby, pal.

However, we have seen some T-54s and T-55s in Ukraine. That dates back to the late 40s / early 50s.

Yeah? And? As is typical for you, you’re a) drawing the wrong lesson from it and b) showing how much you don’t know at the same time.

Tell me. Are they running T-55s as main battle tanks against Abrams and Leopards?

Sure, if the Russians keep killing Ukrainians, eventually there won't be any

Wow! You’ve figured this whole thing out. You’ve also shown your penchant for taking away the wrong lesson. Let me help you out: what does the casualty disparity tell you about Putin’s willingness to absorb losses?

I won't because you went off on an irrelevant HRC tangen

Lulz. You cribbed her line. Now what’s really funny is that you either did and were unaware of what she said -or- the bad sources of info that low-info guys like you rely on are repeating the approved democrat talking points. Either way, it’s hilarious.

Go read some serious literature like Churchill or Boyd.

Let’s start by asking the Ukrainians.

Okay, let’s do that:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-supp...

The article - which you won’t click on because it might tell you something your bubble doesn’t want you to know - doesn’t paint a picture of super high morale.

That’s where we should start.

Okay. Let’s ask Zelensky what kind of deal he’d accept:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/08/14/...

Even though Ukrainian public support for continuing the war has cratered, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is using the Ukrainian Constitution as a firewall against concessions.

As amended in 2019, it both prohibits the Ukrainian government from ceding any territory and somewhat clumsily commits it to pursue membership in NATO. In rejecting Trump’s suggestion that there be land swaps as part of a settlement, Zelenskyy pointed at the constitution’s provision against giving up territory, arguing that “no one will step back from this, nor will anyone be able to.”

An astute poster might ask why Zelensky is so stubborn but we generally lack that here from the left side of the aisle.

But maybe you’re different. Can you think of a reason why Zelensky might be taking this kind of absolutist stance even though he doesn’t have the dudes, the guns or the money to throw Putin out?

All the Ukrainians have to do is outlast him.

And Putin isn’t looking all that healthy.

Though he does seem a bit healthier than Trump.

And Putin isn’t looking all that healthy.

Ahhh. Maybe somebody here is capable of thought after all.

What might be the best way or two to end the war?

But maybe you’re different. Can you think of a reason why Zelensky might be taking this kind of absolutist stance even though he doesn’t have the dudes, the guns or the money to throw Putin out?

Probably for the same reasons that Churchill proclaimed, even as he had to evacuate the major portion of his army by enlisting the help of anyone in England who had a boat, all while London and major cities were being bombed to rubble, and Spitfires and their pilots were being lost at a horrid rate……

Let’s be Roosevelt.

Probably for the same reasons that Churchill proclaimed

The desire for the United States to ride in - as Churchill did in his famous speech - is a desire, not a reason.

Let’s be Roosevelt.

So you want a peacetime draft, the Navy fighting an undeclared war on the high seas and a massive mobilization that directs, oh, 5 to 10 percent more of GDP for defense spending?

What might be the best way or two to end the war?

Putin could end the war tomorrow by withdrawing his invading army from Ukraine.

Zelensky could do the same by surrendering

Neither is going to happen.

Nor will Trump win his peace prize, especially after that backfired publicity stunt in Alaska.

The war will go on. Autocrats who invade other countries and engage in civilian slaughter must be stopped, not catered to.


Looks like the world is going to have to learn that lesson all over again.

But- Putin isn’t looking so hot. Even in Russia, this is “Putin’s war”. If he goes, it’s doubtful thAt a successor would willingly hang that albatross around his own neck.

The war was a huge miscalculation on Putin’s part. But now he’s stuck with it and his own survival depends upon winning. He’s not about to settle for any compromise that doesn’t allow him to refit, rearm and go at it again- soon.

Our best bet for peace is to continue arming Ukraine. Peace will come when the last Russian troops leave the Donbas and Crimea, and not before. Anything short of that simply allows Putin to prepare his armed forces for another go at it.

Of course, Putin doesn’t look so good, and rumors swirl about his health. Not that we can pin our hopes on that, but with his death will come a huge deflation in the will to keep fighting in Ukraine. Not that there aren’t similar Russian authoritarian nationalists with similar warped views about Russian “destiny” in Eurasia…. but the war has drained Russia, and it’s doubtful that a successor would attempt to build his own legacy by picking up a failed war and running with it.

you want a peacetime draft, the Navy fighting an undeclared war on the high seas and a massive mobilization that directs, oh, 5 to 10 percent more of GDP for defense spending?

I’d hate it, but that’s irrelevant. Some things are worth fighting for, and the right to self determination of a free Ukraine is one of them.

You mentioned Churchill a few posts ago. In his multi-volume “History of the Second World War”, the first volume- “The Gathering Storm” I believe it was ( one of the first things I did when I retired was give most of my library away, so I no longer have that collection) but it was in the first hundred pages or so that Churchill, writing with the benefit of hindsight, wrote that in 1933, it would have been a simple matter for England to send in a battalion or two of English troops to put an end to Hitler’s dreams of conquest. And Ww2, or at least the European part of that war- was the sad result of not doing so.

With Russia, we are not at 1934. Perhaps we are somewhere around 1938, just prior to Hitler’s stroll into Czechoslovakia and his assimilation of the Czech armaments industry into the Reich’s military production.

A rough analogy, I concede, but it’s no coincidence that the area of Eastern Ukraine that Putin is trying to assimilate into Mother Russia, includes most of Ukraine’s heavy industry and mineral wealth.. I worry about the Russia that Europe (and we) would face in a few years if we sold Ukraine down the river.

The war will go on. Autocrats who invade other countries and engage in civilian slaughter must be stopped, not catered to.

And now we arrive at the crux of it all, haven’t we? I posed 2 options to Al (severe sanctions on India and China and direct use of force by NATO). He ruled out for the former and didn’t answer on the latter. Your turn. What are your options?

Our best bet for peace is to continue arming Ukraine. Peace will come when the last Russian troops leave the Donbas and Crimea, and not before. Anything short of that simply allows Putin to prepare his armed forces for another go at it.

Lol. Another variant of the “kick Putin right down to the last Ukrainian”. What happens when you run out of Ukrainians?

Of course, Putin doesn’t look so good, and rumors swirl about his health. Not that we can pin our hopes on that, but with his death will come a huge deflation in the will to keep fighting in Ukraine. Not that there aren’t similar Russian authoritarian nationalists with similar warped views about Russian “destiny” in Eurasia…. but the war has drained Russia, and it’s doubtful that a successor would attempt to build his own legacy by picking up a failed war and running with it.</iL

So given this bit, what is the best course of action to take?

I’d hate it, but that’s irrelevant. Some things are worth fighting for, and the right to self determination of a free Ukraine is one of them.

So at last we have some one willing to come out and advocate for US intervention. Thank you. Firm, concrete stances that don’t amount to placards and virtue signals are all but nonexistent from the left on this board because it takes actual intellectual sand to post an idea and then defend it. Good for you.

Perhaps we are somewhere around 1938, just prior to Hitler’s stroll into Czechoslovakia and his assimilation of the Czech armaments industry into the Reich’s military production.


If you’re looking for a historical analogy to pre-WW2 then the closest “dress rehearsal” conflict would be the Spanish Civil War with Germany siding with Franco and the Soviets plus the west providing loose support to the rebels. Ukraine isn’t Spain and the Russians aren’t anywhere near the capability level that Hitler was.

So given this bit, what is the best course of action to take?

Keep arming Ukraine. They were invaded and as long as they have the will to defend themselves, we keep arming them, and ramping up production of tubes, ammunition and other munitions….we need to do those things anyway.

And remain actively engaged with NATO. If Russia breaks through Ukrainian lines, we won’t have time to reconstruct the infrastructure of the alliance that is beginning to fray. Just ask Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Here’s another historical parallel. Stalin’s purge of his general officer corps in the Red Army was devastating to the readiness of his divisions, and it was still a recent thing when Hitler launched Barbarossa, and captured more than 2million Soviet soldiers in the first weeks of the campaign.

I worry about the talent and institutional knowledge that’s being lost due to Hegseth’s firings in the Pentagon. His (and Trump’s) reasoning is quite similar to Stalin’s in that respect- the generals just aren’t ideologically pure enough. (Insert goofy language about “woke” and “DEI”).

Russia in Georgia and Crimea and us in Grenada. What do I win?

Nothing. The question was to name three large countries that have managed to conquer and absorb a smaller countries over the active opposition of that smaller country’s military. When the bigger country actually eliminated the smaller country when the smaller country fought back. None of those three are examples of what the circumstances are now.

The why do you and the other guy keep talking about “insurgency”, then, if we’re not in the “insurgency” phase? And are there not people behind the lines right now?

I don't think I've mentioned "insurgency" once. The reason that 1pg might be mentioning it is that typically it's an insurgency that's doing it, because typically the bigger country hasn't failed to manage defeating the formal army the way Russia has.

I think you misunderstand the key element of asymmetric warfare. What we've learned is that a smaller power doesn't need to have the military resources to drive out a larger power trying to occupy them. Instead, all they need is enough resources to keep inflicting heavy damage on the larger power. If the fighting never stops, the only way that either side can "win" is if the other side gives up. And that equation always favors the country being invaded, no matter how small - because while the invading forces always have the option of giving up and going home, the native forces have no other home to go to. So the invaders can give up with no cost, but the defenders cannot.

Again, usually the bigger country just eliminates the formal army, so the ongoing damage and casualties usually</b. fall to an insurgency. Here, Putin has failed to even do that - so the dynamic is playing out with the heavy damage and casualties still being inflicted by the regular army.

You may hate the repeated phrasing of needing guns, dudes and money to fight but that doesn’t make it any less true.

I don't hate it - it's just simply false. Ukraine has access to effectively unlimited guns and money, relative to the size of the conflict. And their supply of dudes is adequate. You keep saying they don't have enough guns and money to drive Russia out of Ukraine, but they don't need to do that. They just need to have enough guns and money and dudes to keep the war from ending, and they certainly have that.

Russia's economy and military production capacity is small compared to the NATO support available to Ukraine. They still have it - as you point out, China and India are still doing business with them full stop, and Europe has only partially cut them off. But it's not enough to allow Russia to fight a war of this magnitude indefinitely. Their economy isn't big enough to keep doing it at this scale, even if they still have customers.

And again, this goes back to the asymmetry of the combatants. NATO will continue to supply Ukraine because NATO cares very deeply about whether Russia is able to get away with this atrocity. China and India won't supply Russia beyond their normal business dealings, because they don't care whether Russia succeeds or not. Every EU nation's national security interest is affected if Russia can get away with conquering a neighbor, but China and India are indifferent.

And that returns me to my original question: how far are you willing to go? How many Americans do you want in the fight?

We don't need any Americans in the fight. This is what you keep missing. Ukraine will win if we just keep doing what we're doing. They don't need to militarily drive Russia out of their territory. All they need to do is keep the war going at current levels, as they have the last three and a half years. And then Russia will eventually not be able to maintain their military operations there.

Punitive sanctions on India aren't the only single tool that we can use to get them to reduce their purchase of Russian energy. Indeed, the normal approach would be to build up our energy exports to them over time and work on close cooperation with Modi's government to improve our relations and try to drive a wedge between him and Putin....rather than punishing and embarrassing him the way Trump did, with the effect that we saw. Trump turned to tariffs not because they were the only, or even a good, option - it's just that's what he wants to do generally (he loooooooves tariffs) and it's the sort of thing that doesn't involve actually having to be a decent negotiator.


Or instead of all this how about we try and get Putin to the table and at least TRY for a negotiated settlement?

Because you cannot and should not bring Putin to the table "instead of all this." The only way you bring Putin to the table for anything (other than your unconditional surrender) is if you negotiate and all of this. Putin loses if Ukraine keeps fighting indefinitely....so the only way to get an actual negotiated settlement is if the West takes the position that it will assist Ukraine to keep fighting indefinitely. That means not succumbing to the "surrender monkeys" (remember those?) who insist that Russia can't be beaten and the wise choice is to give up now so that at least there won't be as many soldiers killed.

You can't have negotiations with Russia unless Russia reaches the point where it is willing to give something up in exchange for the war ending. You can keep the conversations ongoing and lines of communication open, but a pre-condition to actual negotiations is that Russia has to be willing to put its position in Ukraine on the table for bargaining. If their pre-negotiation stance is that their conquest of Ukrainian territory is not subject to negotiation, then you can't start negotiating.

albaby1: I think you misunderstand...This is what you keep missing.

Understatements of the year.

Russia in Georgia and Crimea and us in Grenada. What do I win?

Thought you might go for those. Creating a straw man again.


AL: And he can’t defeat the Ukrainian army, because he can’t cut off their supplies or destroy their industrial support.

Dpparoony: Supposition on your part. You may hate the repeated phrasing of needing guns, dudes and money to fight but that doesn’t make it any less true.

It's not a supposition since NATO won't fold. No one hates the repeated phrasing, and y9ou keep not understanding, as lone as we don't fold, we win. Are you rooting for Putin? You secretly want Ukraine to lose and think if you repeat your incantation and ignore the premise of AL's point it somehow will disappear?

And Putin isn’t looking all that healthy.

Though he does seem a bit healthier than Trump.

Actually, I though Putin looked svelte, vigorous, and fit as a fiddle next to Trump. 😊

What are you even talking about?

Putin has the upper hand right now in the Ukraine.

Putin has created the illusion he has the upper hand in Ukraine. He doesn't. Somehow he has a hold on Trump and can completely get Trump to buy into some loser positions, and Dope echoes all of the propaganda. This isn't the hundred years war, all we need is another year or two and we've got Putin hurting. Or we could pull a Putin on Putin and put plutonium in his vodka. :)

Putin has these dreams of rebuilding the empire that a lot of Russians share. They feel the loss of their position as one of the great powers. The Chinese take the break up of the Russian empire as a big lesson and are in a semi-expansionist phase themselves. Unwilling to put up with Muslim guerilla terrorfare, the Uyghurs are in education camps - before the terrorfare sets in. They concocted a nine dash line fiction for expansionist purposes.

Putin moved on Crimea, and then moved Russians in and the Muslims out. This expansionism will not stop. If Ukraine falls, Putin or his successor will move on the smaller countries, they've already infiltrated some of them. So there's a constant anti-democracy drumbeat that seems to catch the poorer uneducated amongst us, so we have to get them on democracy's side and lock them up. Putin appeals to the white christian supremacist in our country, but very few move there. Putin plays to them.

How many American military resources are you willing to commit, of what type and for how long?

The entire MAGA gets sent to Ukraine to fight the Russians, etc. They are required to supply their own weapons AND ammunition, as well. They WANTED A FIGHT--so, they GOT ONE. Spankee, in his battle diapers, will be WAAAAAAAY AT THE REAR (as always). MAGA will stay in combat until Poot-Poot surrenders unconditionally. See? Easy solution.

So you want a peacetime draft

All of MAGA *wants* to "go fight", so give them what they want. They get sent to Ukraine to fight against the Russians and their mercenaries. Also, MAGA has to supply their own weapons and ammunition. After all, it is what *they* wanted....

the Navy fighting an undeclared war on the high seas

Which one(s) are you referring to this time?

a massive mobilization that directs, oh, 5 to 10 percent more of GDP for defense spending?

MAGA gets mobilized (what THEY want)--and they pay for it all.

The reason that 1pg might be mentioning it is that typically it's an insurgency that's doing it, because typically the bigger country hasn't failed to manage defeating the formal army the way Russia has.

For the record, I didn't mention it until you responded to him mentioning it. All I said was that you were correct that Ukraine hadn't reached the insurgency stage. They are still a viable government with an active military. If that ends, then (and only then) may there be an insurgency. Or, in Europe, I think they usually call them "partisans". I've seen no evidence of partisans operating in Ukraine, yet.

We don't need any Americans in the fight.

...

You can't have negotiations with Russia unless Russia reaches the point where it is willing to give something up in exchange for the war ending.

Correct on both counts. And no other country's troops are needed, either. The Ukrainians just need armor, bullets, shells, and other materiel.

And Putin will not negotiate in good faith until he is desperate. He's not quite there yet. The "wonks" I follow expect it to reach that point early next year, which I believe I posted commentary a few months ago. At that point, he's going to have to make some hard choices. He simply is running out of equipment, based on satellite imagery. He's going to have to shift to war-time military production to continue much longer. That will have all sorts of consequences domestically. His only real supplier is DPRK, and reports estimate that roughly 1/3 of the shells he's getting from them don't work. And there is no indication they are supplying barrels. You have to replace barrels (tanks and artillery). Usually between 1000-2000 rounds fired, depending on specifics of the system. He's having to make those himself.

No one hates the repeated phrasing,...

It is a bit annoying, but I know where he got it. One of the wonks I follow showed the clip from RW media (may have been FOX...it's probably at least a year old now, so I don't remember exactly). Some talking head was blathering on about "guns, dudes, and money". He clearly had no clue. A very simplistic view of warfare**.

Poland will not stop supporting Ukraine, and neither will most other nations that share a border with Russia. Germany is a bit less certain, but so far they are on-board, as is most of Europe. Those nations are an unassailable industrial base for Ukraine, unless Putin wants to get into it with the whole of NATO. Which would be suicide, even if the USA abstains. Similar to WWII, neither Germany nor Japan could really attack the industrial base of the allies because they couldn't reach it (i.e. the USA). Putin doesn't dare touch Ukraine's industrial base in NATO.


**I'm reminded of an ad I sometimes see when I'm playing a puzzle game on my phone. The whole premise is that you have an "army", and you move it across mathematical functions (add, subtract, multiply, divide), and then encounter an opposing force. You pass that stage if your army is bigger than the opposing army. That's the simplistic view of "more dudes equals victory" on display here.

And Putin isn’t looking all that healthy.

There has been speculation about his health for at least 5 years now. Maybe longer. No one really knows, as best I can tell.

As long as European support continues, Ukraine will be able to outlast Putin/Russia. And it won't take as long as Afghanistan did (where the government was taken over by the Soviets), or Vietnam (where it wasn't taken over by us...at least not the North). Russia can't manufacture enough equipment to support a war without making some major changes in their economy, which will not be popular domestically. Putin expected a swift victory, not a multi-year slog. He was equipped for a swift victory, and would have been fine if they had taken Kyiv and ended the Ukrainian government. But that didn't happen. Ooopsie.

Are they running T-55s as main battle tanks against Abrams and Leopards?

There isn't much in the way of tank battles at this point. But they are still fielding them, and we are still getting visually confirmed losses of such equipment.

...what does the casualty disparity tell you about Putin’s willingness to absorb losses?

Oh, I have no doubt he doesn't give a crap. He's willing to absorb as many losses as he has to. It's just pawns to be sacrificed. Never implied anything else. But he doesn't operate in a vacuum. He has to deal with domestic politics, protests and discontent, and all that other fun stuff. He can't win unless he ramps up his war-time manufacturing. In doing that, he'll feed the discontent. He promised a swift victory, and he didn't deliver.

War and defense economics aren't as simple as "more dudes", and actually have a stronger effect on the outcome of a war.

As for the rest of your rant, you're just wrong. If you consult more than the talking heads of FOX, you'd know more. Just as a quick example, here's CSIS:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-...

That's just one source I had handy. There are a lot more out there. And then there are commentators that distill those disparate sources (with citations!) into easily digestible essays.

You are correct that the front lines aren't moving much. But you draw all the wrong conclusions from that.

As for HRC, I don't know or care what she said. She's history now. Sure, she was the smartest person in whatever room she walked into. But she's done. We've all moved past her. Just some folks in the RW can't seem to let her go for some reason.

The question was to name three large countries that have managed to conquer and absorb a smaller countries over the active opposition of that smaller country’s military

Uh, huh. Sure.

I don't think I've mentioned "insurgency" once. No, you keep going on about small countries vs. larger ones. Given that small ones tend to have small armies and fewer resources…

The reason that 1pg might be mentioning it is that typically it's an insurgency that's doing it, because typically the bigger country hasn't failed to manage defeating the formal army the way Russia has.

He’s misreading history, as he often does. For example, the United States had uniforms and loads of other foreign mercenaries in uniform along with them. Did they combine that with (at the time) nontraditional methods of combat? Sure. But since he Iraq on the brain (and he even gets that wrong) he’s in ‘everything must be like this’ mode.

I think you misunderstand the key element of asymmetric warfare. What we've learned is that a smaller power doesn't need to have the military resources to drive out a larger power trying to occupy them. Instead, all they need is enough resources to keep inflicting heavy damage on the larger power.

I think you’re misreading history right along side your partner. The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out. Joe Biden and Barack Obama chose arbitrary dates and timelines for their own political purposes.

Here, Putin has failed to even do that - so the dynamic is playing out with the heavy damage and casualties still being inflicted by the regular army.

No offense, but both of you keeping going on about ”insurgency” when you yourself said upthread that we hadn’t really reached that stage in the Ukraine. So I’m not really sure what point you’re even trying to make here. It seems to be another variant of “kick Putin down to the last Ukrainian”. That’s not working out very well for them at the moment.

I don't hate it - it's just simply false. Ukraine has access to effectively unlimited guns and money, relative to the size of the conflict. And their supply of dudes is adequate</iL

Wrong. Their supply of dudes is not unlimited and they’re having manpower issues now. Dudes, guns and money tend to be the right equation. Choose any conflict you like. How about the Sovs in Afghanistan? The mujahideen were getting rolled until…we stepped in with guns and money. You think they do as well as they did without US-made Stinger missiles shooting down helicopters? Somebody else will say, “Oh, yeah - what about Iraq?” What, did you guys think AQI wasn’t getting help from the Iranians? And perhaps the Russians and Chinese? Think again.

Small countries sometimes have dudes especially if it’s the civilian population doing the fighting. But that’s not the case in the Ukraine right now.

Once again. You’re a dad in the occupied parts of the Ukraine and Putin has your kids. How motivated are you to fight?

Russia's economy and military production capacity is small compared to the NATO support available to Ukraine. They still have it - as you point out, China and India are still doing business with them full stop, and Europe has only partially cut them off. But it's not enough to allow Russia to fight a war of this magnitude indefinitely

They don’t have to fight “indefinitely”. They just need to outlast Zelenskyy and grind him down. A slow war of attrition favors Putin especially when India/China/Europe keep his economy afloat.

Every EU nation's national security interest is affected if Russia can get away with conquering a neighbor, but China and India are indifferent.

Lol. Really? India is getting VERY cheap oil (that they refine and sell to Europe at a handsome profit). China gets cheap oil AND they get to watch their potential adversaries deplete their war stocks to zero in a conflict they care nothing about.

Oh, the Chinese are in fact watching this go on happily. They play the long game; it’s a shame so few here do.

We don't need any Americans in the fight. This is what you keep missing.

Missing? Nah, bruv. You folks are all frozen in amber ca 2023 when it looked like a rapid infusion of lethality in the form of western tech could push Putin out. That hasn’t happened, and in fact as the conflict grinds on Putin’s hold on the occupied territory of the Ukraine gets stronger.

So. I’ve posited some scenarios and you rejected the economic one. Now you’re rejecting the direct involvement scenario.

They don't need to militarily drive Russia out of their territory. All they need to do is keep the war going at current levels, as they have the last three and a half years. And then Russia will eventually not be able to maintain their military operations there.

Right down to the last Ukrainian, eh?

Trump turned to tariffs not because they were the only, or even a good, option - it's just that's what he wants to do generally (he loooooooves tariffs) and it's the sort of thing that doesn't involve actually having to be a decent negotiator.

Now it’s you not understanding things. Trump and Modi have a good relationship. I swear everyone on this board expects the US to get bent over the table every single time…Modi is very well aware that he’s buying oil from a pariah state and keeping Russia in the war. He’s an adult. He made this decision from his own set of strategic options.

And that’s what all of you forget: other countries act in their own best interest 100% of the time. Doubling dealing in matters like this is the norm, not the exception and Modi was the one seizing an advantage that he thought would help him. If you want sanctions to work on Russia then they need to work…if we’re too afraid to take action, then why bother to sanction Putin at all? *shakes head*

Because you cannot and should not bring Putin to the table

Wow, from a trained negotiator, no less.

If their pre-negotiation stance is that their conquest of Ukrainian territory is not subject to negotiation, then you can't start negotiating.

And why would Putin think this? Might it be that he’s confident that he’s got enough dudes, guns and money to keep what he’s won?

but I know where he got it

Nope. Unlike you, I figured it out on my own.

There isn't much in the way of tank battles at this point.

Egads. What the hell are you talking about?

https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/american-m1a1-a...

One of many examples.

He can't win unless he ramps up his war-time manufacturing. In doing that, he'll feed the discontent.

You’re embarrassing yourself.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ammunitio...
Indeed, Russia is outproducing all of NATO and the U.S in terms of ammunition, rockets, and tanks, despite having a 2023 defense budget of just $100 billion and a GDP of $2 trillion. Compare this to the combined US/NATO defense budget of $1.47 trillion and a combined GDP of about $45 trillion.

*shakes head*

War and defense economics aren't as simple as "more dudes", and actually have a stronger effect on the outcome of a war.

No, dudes, guns and money are the openers. You can have lots of all 3 and be incompetent.
From your link:
While some policymakers and experts argue that Russia holds “all the cards” in the Ukraine war, the data suggests that the Russian military has performed relatively poorly on the battlefield. <—- see the incompetence comment.

course, Putin doesn’t look so good, and rumors swirl about his health.

Yeah, I keep thinking the same thing about the other participant, but so far no luck. You’d think with two old guys that one of them would get tired of the fight, but it keeps not happening.

There isn't much in the way of tank battles at this point. But they are still fielding them, and we are still getting visually confirmed losses of such equipment.

Wherever there are tank battles, there are swarms of drones and unacceptable tank losses. Putin is using his tanks, especially his older tanks, as self propelled artillery.

I think you’re misreading history right along side your partner. The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out.

As Albaby said, several times, a smaller country doesn’t need to drive out a larger, invading army. It merely needs to increase the cost of remaining until it becomes politically and/or economically too painful to remain.

You’d think with two old guys that one of them would get tired of the fight, but it keeps not happening.

It will happen soon. Both have health issues and both are up there in years. Neither will be able to beat death.

But as you imply- “soon” is an incredibly flexible term, and betting that one or both of them will slip their mortal coils in the next three years, though probable, is not enough to base concrete plans on.

Putin is using his tanks, especially his older tanks, as self propelled artillery.

I think you mean "mobile artillery". They also can fire SPA, and probably would use that if they are far away from the lines (longer range). They would have fewer of those than "dumb" rounds, I would expect (unless they've already burned through their dumb rounds).

Yes, they are mobile artillery, and also used for infantry support on occasion (along with BMPs...the equivalent of our Bradleys). There is risk with infantry support, due to drones. But there is also risk to infantry from drones (e.g. explosive packages, remote targeting of artillery). Ukraine has used their western tanks with great effect, but they also now are in danger of drone attacks (and, previously, to air attack before the Ukrainians started shooting everything down that came close to the front lines).

Which is why they are picking their boneyards clean...it's difficult to advance without tanks, and tanks attract drones. Trench warfare (which much of the front has devolved into) is a recipe for not gaining much ground, but incurring lots of casualties.

The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out.

Interesting you carefully OMIT crucial facts in your own citations of history.

GWB signed the surrender papers for Iraq--and then left office. The actual surrender of the US took place per the signed surrender papers a year or two AFTER GWB was gone.

Spankee signed the surrender papers for Afghanistan--and then was out of office. The actual surrender of the US took place per the signed surrender papers after Spankee was fired from office.

Putin is using his tanks, especially his older tanks, as self propelled artillery.

Ding ding ding! Finally, somebody figures it out. Yes. That’s exactly right.

And why wouldn’t they?

And why wouldn’t they?

Of course they are, but none of them have the punch of a 155.

And while on artillery duty, none of them are exercising the role of a modern tank.

(Not that Russia has shown much proficiency in executing mobile, combined arms doctrine)

Uh, huh. Sure.

Yes, sure. Name them. Name the instances in recent history where a large country has been able to do what Russia's trying to do here - absorb a smaller country into their territory when the smaller country is resisting militarily.

The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out.

Yes! Exactly! That's why large countries aren't able to take over smaller countries. It's why Russia left Afghanistan in the 1980's as well, and that's the exact mechanism that Ukraine will use to get Russia to leave now. Small countries don't get the large countries to leave by throwing them out. They get the large countries to leave by continuing to inflict non-trivial casualties and damage to the large countries, so that the large countries are better off leaving than staying. That strategy has a really good track record if you can engage in it, which is why you can't come up with any modern counter-examples where it's failed. If the small country can indefinitely inflict non-trivial damage on the large country, the large country will eventually leave.

So I’m not really sure what point you’re even trying to make here.

Let me try to explain:

1) Large countries usually can't be stopped from invading a smaller country. Once they've invaded they usually cannot be driven out by force from the territory they occupy.
2) However, the smaller country can continue to inflict military damage on the larger country.
3) Usually the continuous infliction of military damage is performed by an insurgency or other irregular force, because typically the large country succeeds in obliterating the regular military.
4) In Ukraine, the continuous infliction of military damage (casualties and materiel) continues to be primarily (though not exclusively) performed by the regular army, rather than an irregular force, because Putin utterly failed to accomplish the first step of Large Country Invasion (eliminating the regular army).
5) The same mechanism still applies. If the large invading country cannot prevent the smaller country from continuing to inflict significant military damage against its forces, then the large invading country cannot stay indefinitely in the country.
6) Russia cannot destroy Ukraine's industrial capacity, supply lines, or sources of funds - because those things are being provided by NATO countries, not just by Ukraine in-country. So Ukraine's army will never run out of guns or bullets or planes or tanks as long as NATO is willing to provide them.
7) So unless Russia is able to persuade the West to give up on Ukraine, it cannot win.

How about the Sovs in Afghanistan? The mujahideen were getting rolled until…we stepped in with guns and money. You think they do as well as they did without US-made Stinger missiles shooting down helicopters? Somebody else will say, “Oh, yeah - what about Iraq?” What, did you guys think AQI wasn’t getting help from the Iranians? And perhaps the Russians and Chinese?

Exactly right again! So why are you not getting it? NATO has stepped in with guns and money. It doesn't matter if Ukraine doesn't have guns and money (or aircraft or Stinger missiles or what have you), as long as NATO is willing to step in.

That's what we've been telling you. A smaller force that is being supplied by a larger force can get the larger force to leave.

You folks are all frozen in amber ca 2023 when it looked like a rapid infusion of lethality in the form of western tech could push Putin out. That hasn’t happened, and in fact as the conflict grinds on Putin’s hold on the occupied territory of the Ukraine gets stronger.

Nah, bruv. You're the one frozen in amber, locked into this weird delusion that Ukraine's defense strategy involves - or has ever really involved - forcing Russian troops out by defeating them on the battlefield. That's not their path forward, and never has been. It does not matter how solid Putin's current hold on the occupied territory is if he has to keep engaging in active military campaigns against a well-supplied force to hold them. Eventually he will withdraw, because that situation is not sustainable for Russia.

Now it’s you not understanding things. Trump and Modi have a good relationship. I swear everyone on this board expects the US to get bent over the table every single time…Modi is very well aware that he’s buying oil from a pariah state and keeping Russia in the war. He’s an adult. He made this decision from his own set of strategic options.

Why do you think I don't understand that? It's completely obvious that Modi's acting in his own strategic self-interest. Which is why if you want to reduce India's purchase of Russia energy, you have to change their self-interest. What I'm saying is that Trump's "us or them" ultimatum was a phenomenally dumb way to try to change their self-interest, because it forced Modi to cozy up to Russia instead of picking us. A range of incentives to make it so that India's self-interest was advanced by shifting away from Russia and towards us might have worked better. It couldn't possibly have been any worse that what Trump's hamfisted approach resulted in.

And why would Putin think this? Might it be that he’s confident that he’s got enough dudes, guns and money to keep what he’s won?

No. He's gambling on people in the West giving up on Ukraine, so that they lose a fight that they could have won. Putin can't win in Ukraine as long as the West keeps giving them guns and money. So he's just trying to persuade folks in the West to stop doing that. Which is why negotiating with him is foolhardy until he reaches the point where he's willing to withdraw from the areas he's stolen. That's probably not anytime soon, which will frustrate the President (and probably frustrates you). But that's the reality.

"I think you’re misreading history right along side your partner. The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out. Joe Biden and Barack Obama chose arbitrary dates and timelines for their own political purposes." - Dumbass Dope

Gotta love Dumbass Dope accusing others of misreading history and then blames Obama and Biden for when we left Iraq and Afghanistan. He doesn't even know enough about history to know who signed the agreements for when the U.S. was leaving those countries (Hint it was Bush and Trump).

Furthermore, he doesn't even realize that he is demonstrating Albaby's point about Ukraine not having to defeat Russia, they just need to keep fighting until it becomes politically untenable for Russia to keep up the invasion because that is why the U.S. left Iraq and Afghanistan, it became too politically untenable for the U.S. to continue.

Of course they are, but none of them have the punch of a 155.

Sure. Of course, Warsaw Pact (i.e. Soviets/Russia) use 152. The 155 is NATO. Just picking a nit.

And while on artillery duty, none of them are exercising the role of a modern tank.

Well...picking another nit...none of them are exercising all the roles of a modern tank. Mobile artillery is certainly a role. But they aren't acting as close infantry support, breaking through lines/trenches, etc, as well as neutralizing opposing tanks.

Never mind that most of the Russian inventory can't be thought of as "modern" tanks. They've lost a lot of their T-90s, and are not able to replace them as quickly as they were losing them. Hence the scavenging of their T-72s, T-64s, and others.

I'm more than happy to inform Dope, but if he refuses to learn, I can't really help him. I have LOTS of good information, and view a lot of deep-dives on various related topics (many by a guy that gets invited to defense symposiums and weapons shows, and has contact with officials and thinktanks all over the world...i.e. an "expert", a.k.a. the nemesis of the right wing dittoheads). The info is there if one can stop watching FOX and Friends for a while.

Sure. Of course, Warsaw Pact (i.e. Soviets/Russia) use 152.

Not mounted on tanks.

Exactly right again! So why are you not getting it?

Yeah, I'm curious about that also. He's got several of the pieces, but he's not putting them together properly.

Small countries don't get the large countries to leave by throwing them out. They get the large countries to leave by continuing to inflict non-trivial casualties and damage to the large countries, so that the large countries are better off leaving than staying.

Exactamundo. (stealing from Simon Phoenix)

And, as you say, that is what Ukraine is doing. Other than that incursion into Russian territory around Kursk (that took Russia months to push out), Ukraine is just subjecting the Russians to a meat grinder.

No. He's gambling on people in the West giving up on Ukraine, so that they lose a fight that they could have won. Putin can't win in Ukraine as long as the West keeps giving them guns and money. So he's just trying to persuade folks in the West to stop doing that.

Exactamundo, again. And many NATO countries will NOT cease providing materiel. Poland, for example, in relation to their size is a MAJOR contributor to the defense of Ukraine. Many NATO nations have a lot to lose if Russia succeeds, so they are doing what they can to prevent it.

Short of using a nuke, Putin is doomed. It's merely a question of how badly he is going to lose.

The ONLY scenario I can see (and I haven't read anything about this, so it may be too outlandish) is if Putin stages a 9/11 event in his country. Similar to the apartment fire he staged as justification to invade Chechnya. If he managed to stage a -for example- VX attack in Moscow, and convince the Russian people that Ukraine did it, they would likely get behind the kind of mobilization that Putin would need to really finish off Ukraine. Short of that, he will get too much resistance (or even open revolt) to dedicate that much of his economy to a war effort. Their economy is already creaking from the strain as it is.

Not mounted on tanks.

True. The T-90 has a 125 standard. I doubled-checked to be sure, but their tanks going back to at least the T-64 are all smooth-bore 125s. I didn't check older than the T-64.

Not 155. That's only NATO.

NATO tanks use 120 smooth bore (at least the Leopard and Abrams).

I'm more than happy to inform Dop

So far you haven’t. You haven’t even come close. You refuse to acknowledge pretty much anything.


You take no positions and you throw around mental authority that..,you don’t have the intellectual firepower to back up. You say stuff, it you can’t think beyond the first order stuff.

Mobile artillery is certainly a role. But they aren't acting as close infantry support, breaking through lines/trenche

Take this bit. Bill figured it out and here you are trying to cover for your lack of knowledge while backpedaling and trying to salvage your earlier statement. Won’t work Mr. “Expert”.

Of course they are, but none of them have the punch of a 155.

If you need to knock down a farmhouse or spray some air burst over a squad of dudes…does it matter?

And while on artillery duty, none of them are exercising the role of a modern tank.
.

Oh, I know. They’re not supposed to. You figured it out. Your running buddy hasn’t yet. Maybe if he runs to his buddy that knows things he’ll get a clue.

If you need to knock down a farmhouse or spray some air burst over a squad of dudes…does it matter?

As the 155 throws an HE projectile that weighs about twice as much as the corresponding tank round in Russian inventory, there’s quite a difference. Much longer range as well.

It became clear that Reality wasn’t your thing. Besides, I normally don’t make time for thin-skinned posters who cry when they get even mild pushback to the punches they throw.

Reality is all I'm interested in. And "thin-skinned"? You must be thinking of someone else. I don't give a crap what people on a message board say about me. I provide as accurate information as I have available, and people make of it what they will. If I'm lucky, someone may even add to that information, increasing my knowledge.

You have zero idea what you’re talking about. The AQU-style “insurgency” that you think is going on isn’t what is going on. I’ll ask you the question that Al keeps ducking. You’re a dad in Mariupol and Putin has your kids in Siberia.

What are you talking about? Insurgency? Both albaby and myself have pointed out that we haven't reached that stage yet, and maybe never will with Ukraine. In fact, I highly doubt it will ever reach that, but I don't have a crystal ball.

The point is that a big country trying to absorb a little country almost always doesn't work. Even if they are there for years, in the end they usually leave. As in the examples I (and others) gave. You are the one refusing to see that.

Putin is toast as long as Europe supports Ukraine. If the USA also supports, he's toast even faster. But we aren't necessary for that end. No, Ukraine will never push Russia out. They will not take over Russia. Russia will eventually leave because it is untenable for them to remain.

Egads. What the hell are you talking about?

That article is over a year old. It even pre-dates the Kursk offensive. What part of "at this point" don't you get? This war is not about major tank battles anymore.

Undoubted, a major push would be accompanied by armor. At present, they are mostly used as mobile artillery trying to evade drones. There is no major push at this time. Could be one tomorrow for all I know. But not right now.

As for production, you are correct. Russia is producing more of a lot of things (not everything) than NATO. Especially artillery shells. And it's straining their economy (as I have said repeatedly). They can't do much more without changing their economy, which will generate a lot of blowback from the Russian people.

You're not telling me anything I didn't know. Europe isn't on a war-time footing, so they aren't really ramping their production aggressively.

You're not seeing the whole picture.

But I will grant you that Russian incompetence has played a role, as has corruption and several other factors. They probably should have been able to take Kyiv in the opening weeks, and they didn't.

BTW, I never said I'm an "expert". I just get my information from experts.

Both albaby and myself have pointed out that we haven't reached that stage yet

Uh, huh. And are there no potential partisans behind Russian lines?

*shakes head*.

The point is that a big country trying to absorb a little country almost always doesn't work. Even if they are there for years, in the end they usually leave. As in the examples I (and others) gave. You are the one refusing to see that.

The both of you are attempting to limit things to the last 60 years (when the world has been at relative peace). I forgot two other examples. China has control over much of Tibet and of course North Vietnam forcibly annexed South Vietnam.

Russia of course has the Crimea and they’re not giving it back very soon.

You say this
Putin is toast as long as Europe supports Ukraine.

Then you say this
No, Ukraine will never push Russia out.

So according to you Russia will…just leave once Putin is “toast”.

Sure, Jan. You *do* understand that Russia doesn’t consider the territory they’ve taken to be something they’re “taking” but rather “reclaiming”, right? Maybe not.

Lots of “experts” have issued your take(s) since 2023 and Putin is still there. What you’re unwilling to understand is that the Russians are very good at evading sanctions. They’re very good at rebuilding wrecked stuff. And they don’t give a crap how many lives they throw away.

You’re doing the typical westerner thing where you’re imprinting whatever
Your values are on the rest of the world. The rest of the world don’t work like that: Russians are *used* to sacrificing for the Motherland. It’s what they do.

This war is not about major tank battles anymore.

Who said it was? Were you under the impression that 73 Easting was being fought out every day (or are under the impression that someone is claiming that)?

You’re not reading what other people type (a common fault among libs here). You’re responding to what you think someone is saying.

You're not seeing the whole picture.

Enlighten me.

Uh, huh. And are there no potential partisans behind Russian lines?

*shakes head*.

You know that's not what was being argued. We mean that the conflict hasn't reached the point where insurgency is the significant vector for inflicting military losses on Russia, because Russia has utterly failed to eliminate the Ukrainian regular army. There's potential partisans behind Russian lines, and no doubt there's some "resistance" in the areas that are being occupied - but that stuff is trivial compared to the losses that Russia continually suffers from Ukraine's regular forces.

So according to you Russia will…just leave once Putin is “toast”.

No - Putin is "toast" prospectively because he's embroiled himself in a conflict that he can't win as long as the West supplies Ukraine with guns and money. Russia will just leave at some point, because it's not worth it for them to keep fighting this war forever for whatever trivial benefit (if any) holding a portion of Ukraine by force brings them.

This isn't simply us imprinting Western values onto Russia. The same thing happened to Russia in Afghanistan. At some point, continuing to fight without ever winning the conflict just isn't in your country's best interest. If Russia can't end the war in Ukraine by eliminating the Ukrainian army, then it can't gain any benefit from holding the land that its army sits on. Or at least, not any benefit that's worth continuing the fight forever. Unlike Ukraine, there's nothing existential about this conflict for Russia. They can always leave and go home and be back to the status quo before they invaded - something that's not an option for Ukraine if they give up.

That's the asymmetry that lets the smaller countries usually win if they're able to push back hard enough and long enough, even if they can't drive the invading country out of the area physically. The larger country never loses much if they give up and go home, while the smaller country always loses almost everything if they give up. That asymmetry is why countries in the modern era don't expand their territory through armed conquest overcoming anything but token opposition anymore. The costs are too high if the other nation fights back with resources from other countries, and physically expanding your country doesn't bring you significant gains. It's very rare for continuing these fights to be in the best interest of the invading country.

We mean that the conflict hasn't reached the point where insurgency is the significant vector for inflicting military losses on Russia, because Russia has utterly failed to eliminate the Ukrainian regular army. There's potential partisans behind Russian lines, and no doubt there's some "resistance" in the areas that are being occupied - but that stuff is trivial compared to the losses that Russia continually suffers from Ukraine's regular forces.

And so far…Russia has been able to replace their equipment and keep feeding in men.
And every day they’re there, the Ukraine isn’t a whole country.

The rest of your post (and virtually everything you’ve said in this thread) hinges on the Ukrainians being able to survive a long, grinding war of attrition.

An article in the WSJ had this to say yesterday:

The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is over, and peace in Ukraine isn’t yet nigh. But the two most likely endings to the Russian invasion are coming into view.

Ukraine could lose land but survive as a secure and sovereign, if shrunken, nation state. Alternatively, it could lose both land and sovereignty, falling back into Moscow’s sphere of influence.

Do folks here agree that these are the 2 most likely scenarios? Does any other outcome seem plausible?

And so far…Russia has been able to replace their equipment and keep feeding in men.
And every day they’re there, the Ukraine isn’t a whole country.

Of course. Again, smaller countries don't beat the invading countries because the invading country is physically unable to maintain their military occupation of some or all of the smaller country. They win because they inflict enough constant damage that it becomes unavoidably clear that the invading country is worse off by trying to stay. The mujahedin didn't make it impossible for Russia to keep feeding helicopters and other military equipment into Afghanistan, for example - they just made it obvious that if Russia were to stay in Afghanistan they would have to endure constantly losing all those helicopters and other military equipment into Afghanistan indefinitely, and that made it not worth it for them to stay.

The rest of your post (and virtually everything you’ve said in this thread) hinges on the Ukrainians being able to survive a long, grinding war of attrition.

Which is overwhelmingly the most likely outcome as long as they continue to receive support from NATO.

Russia's major difficulty is that most of Ukraine's capacity to fight isn't subject to attrition, because it's coming from NATO countries. They're not fighting this war solely with resources generated from their own economy or industrial base. They're fighting it with resources generated from inside NATO, beyond the reach of Russia's military. That capacity can't be degraded over time by any Russia does on the battlefield. They can't slowly destroy Ukraine's factories or munitions plants, because they're mostly outside the military theater.

Russia's path to victory doesn't lie in the battlefields of Ukraine. It lies in trying to get enough people in the West to accept the argument that you've been trying to make - Russia's going to win anyway, so better to just let them win now rather than keep fighting. If the West keeps supplying Ukraine, Russia will eventually choose to leave - but if the West stops supplying Ukraine, Russia would be able to destroy their army and possibly achieve their goals.

Do folks here agree that these are the 2 most likely scenarios? Does any other outcome seem plausible?

A third likely scenario is what we've been discussing - Ukraine loses neither sovereignty nor any significant territory. Instead, Ukraine keeps fighting with Western support, and Russia eventually abandons their plans of conquest and invasion in order to avoid having to perpetually devote so much of their military resources into the unending maw of a forever war. I happen to think that's more likely than either of the two the WSJ mentions.

This could happen slowly, if Russia is successful in finding resources to give it the ability to keep burning up massive amounts of military assets in a fruitless effort to conquer Ukraine. Or it could happen more quickly, if Russia's jerry-rigged war funding effort falls apart, as some economists suspect could happen this year. While Dope is correct that Russia's still getting some financial resources from their energy sales despite the sanctions, the reality is that they are mostly funding the war effort by a combination of drawing down their sovereign wealth fund and massive debt financing - both of which are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. That's the Russian side of the "war of attrition."

"The most critical shortage, however, is budget financing, as Russia's last liquid reserves are likely to run out in the fall of 2025," Åslund wrote in an op-ed for Project Syndicate on Tuesday. "Budget cuts will then become necessary. In the meantime, the war economy might also require price controls and rationing — the old Soviet sins. As the risk of a financial crash rises, Russia's imperiled economy is about to pose serious constraints on Putin's war."

The rapid decline in Russia's wealth fund has been partly driven by Western sanctions, which have prevented Russia from borrowing from other countries. The nation's total foreign debt has collapsed over the last decade, with foreign borrowing down from $729 billion in 2023 to around $293 billion in September 2024, Åslund noted.

Russia's limited ability to finance the war is also spells bad news for the health of its economy, which is plagued by a myriad of other issues.



https://archive.is/MtyZM

It's very rare for continuing these fights to be in the best interest of the invading country.

While I agree with most of what you have said, I would posit that China taking Taiwan would be different. China is so massive, with an economy able to withstand almost anything (including worldwide sanctions, should they come) and Taiwan so small and so isolated that it would be trivial to blockade any materiel support that allies triedto bring in.

and Taiwan so small and so isolated that it would be trivial to blockade any materiel support that allies tried to bring in.

That's a different scenario than Ukraine. If you can block the support, you can subjugate the populace enough. China has tried subjugating the Vietnamese and it hasn't worked. We didn't do well in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras. In fact the Philippines is the one where we could've stayed if we wanted to, and we would've kept a base but they wanted too much money IIRC. The base wasn't seen as strategic enough at the time - it was also contentious, Philippine nationalism was played up.

When I first got to the Philippines, a lot of Filipinos wanted to become a state of the United States. One expat espousing a pathway to statehood and he had thousands of Filipino followers. I got the picture the old AF base was covered in volcanic ash. Remember Duterte didn't like the USA. The NPA got him to release a bunch of prisoners to get to the table, and then never got to the table. The Muslim insurgency took over a town, had to be taken back, but Duterte had tried overtures with them. The Chinese didn't treat him well enough, even though he went along with making XI out as a savior. is he still in Europe waiting trial? Sarah Duterte seems to have flamed out. We have bases there because it's in their interest to help keep China at bay.

Which is overwhelmingly the most likely outcome as long as they continue to receive support from NATO.


This is an assumption on your part.

So you and the others are adopting the European strategy: don’t look for ways to end the war, just keep sending them guns.

So you and the others are adopting the European strategy: don’t look for ways to end the war, just keep sending them guns.

We're looking for ways for Ukraine to win the war. Not end it just for the sake of ending it by letting Russia successfully steal Ukrainian territory...and if they get to do that, eventually destroy Ukraine as a country.

It's easy to end a war by surrendering. But Russia has committed a great wrong. Ukraine did nothing to Russia, but Russia invaded by force killing lots of Ukrainians and stealing their land. That is a horrific - I daresay evil - thing to do. It would be a terrible outcome if they were allowed to keep what they stole.

We send them guns so that they can defeat Russia. They won't defeat Russia by physically driving them from the territory - they will defeat Russia by defending their land indefinitely, so that it becomes unavoidably in Russia's best interest to withdraw rather than fight forever.

The way to end the war is to persuade Russia that Ukraine (and the West) will never stop fighting. The European strategy is exactly that - make it clear and unambiguous that support for Ukraine will continue unstopped until Russia leaves the country.

It's the argument that you're advancing that ends up prolonging the war. As long as Russia believes there might come a day when the West gives up on Ukraine, they have incentive to keep the war going. The only way they can win is if the "let's just give up" faction prevails in the West. So far, thankfully, it hasn't - and the argument you're making that there's no way to avoid an inevitable Russian win has not gained much traction in the West. I fervently hope that remains the case, so that the war can end with the evil actors being defeated, rather than triumphing.

It was better when America was strong against Putin.

Putin never took Crimea.

Oh, wait.

This is an assumption on your part.

So you and the others are adopting the European strategy: don’t look for ways to end the war, just keep sending them guns.

No, that's no what they're saying at all. What I think they're saying is that the paths to end the war *NOW* have outcomes that 1. favor having more war in the future, 2. that Putin has never been known to be trusted on negotiations ( he has a pattern of extracting concessions, taking the concessions home, and not abiding by his obligations), 3. and there's no reason to believe he won't keep his pattern. So if we negotiate now, we have to include no more war in the future - which he won't abide by.

So we're better off continuing to supply Ukraine, which will stretch Putin out in the future - a year or two, etc., to the point where he becomes more willing to negotiate and leave. Even then, he will not honor any negotiations, so we have to build up Ukraine (along with the Euros), because Putin shows no signs of stopping his dream of rebuilding of the empire, and there's lots of little countries there.

If Putin dies or is somehow sidelined, this could change.

If Putin dies or is somehow sidelined, this could change.

I probably won’t be upset if Russian state-run TV starts playing Swan River.

Or, a very old joke:

A paperboy is selling newspapers in Red Square. A man drives up, buys a newspaper, looks at the front page, and throws it on the ground. The next day, the same thing happens. This goes on for a week. Finally,

Newspaper boy: Sir, why do you buy a paper every day, look at the front page, and throw the paper on the ground?

Man in car: I’m looking for an obituary.

Newspaper boy: But sir, the obituaries are in section B.

Man in car: The one I want will be on the front page.

So you and the others are adopting the European strategy: don’t look for ways to end the war

Ahh, I remember way, way back when I was a young lad in the early 1940s, reading this very board. Dope's Great Grandpappy was arguing to let Hitler steamroll continental Europe, and throw in Great Britain for free, what the heck. Plus ca change.

And so far…Russia has been able to replace their equipment and keep feeding in men.
And every day they’re there, the Ukraine isn’t a whole country.

I would add to your reply that they were able to replace their equipment for a while. With older, obsolete equipment from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. That has almost played out now. Their boneyards are almost empty. They're going to have to either buy or make more equipment, and -so far- they aren't able to do that in the numbers required (otherwise, they would have already). Though, the resources to rehab all that ancient equipment could be reassigned to make new stuff, but it still isn't enough. They already are having some labor shortages, and are buying shells from DPRK.

Otherwise, you're pretty much on-the-money about this.

If the West keeps supplying Ukraine, Russia will eventually choose to leave - but if the West stops supplying Ukraine, Russia would be able to destroy their army and possibly achieve their goals.

Yep. There is another option, and that is Ukraine giving up. But that is highly unlikely. Support for opposing Russia is down a bit in Ukraine. Some of the people are willing to accept a negotiated truce. However, the terms Putin is demanding -so far- are mostly unacceptable to them. If we want to be thorough, we do have to mention this.

It was better when America was strong against Putin.

Putin never took Crimea.

Oh, wait.

Yes, it was shameful how the West didn't responded. Including us. A repeat of Czechoslovakia in the 30s. As I recall, Ukraine didn't really respond, either. But, IMHO, Obama messed up the response to this. We did do sanctions in coordination with Europe, but they left Putin unfazed. The consequences weren't dire enough, so he didn't care. The sanctions imposed were more of an inconvenience than something that really hurt. Like shutting off natural gas to Europe (which mostly has happened this time).

It's the argument that you're advancing that ends up prolonging the war. As long as Russia believes there might come a day when the West gives up on Ukraine, they have incentive to keep the war going.

Taking your post in reverse order. This quote is a gross mischaracterization of what I’ve been telling you in this thread.

Your strategy - if one can call it that - has been in effect since 2022. It isn’t working. At some point Brussels is going to have to wake up to reality:

-The war today amounts to a slow, grinding war of attrition on slow moving front lines
-The Russians are slowly gaining ground
-Ukraine is suffering daily destructive attacks on its civilian infrastructure and population
-Ukrainian morale is low and they are facing manpower shortages

This is the current situation.
Upthread you ruled out additional economic action designed to limit Russia’s ability to fight. So Putin can keep cashing India’s and China’s checks. You also don’t want direct NATO involvement so there’s no possibility of a breakout on the front.

Therefore, you’ve ruled out taking the initiative in ways that allow the west to become a more direct and active participant. Unilaterally you and the Europeans are taking chess pieces off of the table and putting the fight even more on Russia’s terms. Fighting on your enemy’s terms is the best and fastest way to lose.

Your strategy reduces to just feeding in more men and matériel. Pyrrhus of Epirus has nothing on you guys!

The European strategy of ‘just hold on’ was perhaps appropriate in 2022 after the momentum of the initial attack was stopped. But we’re 3 years in now and something else needs to be tried.

There’s no ‘just give up’. Those of us who favor negotiations understand that the status quo is grinding Ukraine into a fine powder.

In any conflict one must look at the larger picture and be willing to listen to the hard truths of the current situation. YOU folks are so wrapped up in your moral crusade - one needs only read your 2nd paragraph - that you’ve lost complete sight of the most important thing here:

Making sure the Ukrainians still have a country when this is all over.

Replying to my own post, specifically this part:

Unilaterally you and the Europeans are taking chess pieces off of the table and putting the fight even more on Russia’s terms. Fighting on your enemy’s terms is the best and fastest way to lose.


If I find myself in a bar fight with a bigger, stronger opponent who’s a very skilled boxer, then why on Earth would I adopt a strategy of standing there and trading punches with him?

Applying Brussels’ way of thinking would be me turtling up in the corner and letting the guy pound on me until he gets tired. Never mind the damage he’s inflicting.

Some of you are no doubt going to counter with “hahahaha Dope stupid. Rope-a-dope is how Ali won all the the time”…except when you do that you forget that Ali was perhaps the greatest boxer of all time and most people have 1/10th his combination of speed, power, endurance and smarts.

So. The rest of us who aren’t Muhammad Ali need to find other ways to gain advantages. Like attacking his legs, putting him on the ground or using things laying around bar.

But standing there absorbing punches to my liver, rib cage and eventually my head while hoping he gets tired isn’t a great way to go. That’s what you guys are sentencing them to.

Do folks here agree that these are the 2 most likely scenarios? Does any other outcome seem plausible?

Yes. Those are the most likely outcomes.

I probably won’t be upset if Russian state-run TV starts playing Swan River.

Swan Lake, NOT River.

Obviously, I didn’t have my first cup of decaf coffee before I wrote this. 🤓

Dope's Great Grandpappy was arguing to let Hitler steamroll continental Europe,

Nah, bruv. My family went ashore in Normandy and marched across Europe.

But congrats for the dumbest personal attack in the thread. You win.

"It's easy to end a war by surrendering. But Russia has committed a great wrong. Ukraine did nothing to Russia, but Russia invaded by force killing lots of Ukrainians and stealing their land. That is a horrific - I daresay evil - thing to do. It would be a terrible outcome if they were allowed to keep what they stole." - Albaby

It is unreal that this actually needs to be said and explained to another person.

It is like explaining to someone why violent bank robbers need to be caught and prosecuted. It should be a "No duh" thing.

Then again, the person Albaby is explaining it to also doesn't understand why a convicted felon, rapist, con man, and likely pedophile isn't presidential material.

You can't fix stupid.

In breaking news:
Starker (UK), Merz (Germany), Macron (France), Meloni (Italy), Von der Leyen (EU commissioner), Stubb (Finland) and Rutte (NATO sec gen) are all coming to the White House tomorrow along with Zelensky.

And here’s Marco Rubio summing up the administration’s position this morning.

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1957096683801...

The TL;DR of what he said:
-They thought there was enough movement yesterday to justify having the bigger meeting today
-They can always go for more harsh sanctions, but if you do that Russia walks away from the table for at least a year
-To get a deal done under the current reality, both sides are going to have to agree to concessions
-Goal her is peace with a stable Ukraine that can get on with their lives knowing this never can happen again

He’s right on all points. The last bullet implies a potential security guarantee.

all coming to the White House tomorrow along with Zelensky

We will all know if/when Spankee orders the locks all the doors and windows to be locked, all the blinds pulled down and closed, and he runs to hide under something--IF THERE WAS ANYTHING IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT BIG.

He’s right on all points.

Nope. Want to guess again?

And again replying to myself, looks like I was wrong: an even bigger loser joined the chat. Didn’t know that particular poster still posted here.

I probably won’t be upset if Russian state-run TV starts playing Swan River.

Swan Lake, NOT River.

Somewhere in the back of your caffeine deprived brain, the lyrics were playing….

Way down upon the Swanee River….

"It's easy to end a war by surrendering. But Russia has committed a great wrong.

And aint it ironic that the right wing has become the surrender monkeys? SMH. And Dope understands what we're saying, his tactic is to just refuse to acknowledge it.

And aint it ironic th

Whole thread and you haven’t learned anything. Can’t teach some people to pour water out of a boot.

And Dope understands what we're saying,

Indeed I do.
Virtue signaling doesn’t make for good national policy.

Virtue signaling doesn’t make for good national policy

Neither does stabbing in the back.

Neither does stabbing in the back.

Who’s proposed that? No one.

To your credit, you’re the only person on the board willing to put American troops into this. That’s at least a firm stance on an option that helps win the fight.

The rest are wanting to “PunishPutin” by letting the Ukraine get blown to smithereens. That’s less than useless.

Just about nobody outside of me has expressed any sentiment about making the Ukraine a viable country going forward. Perhaps you all should consider that.

To your credit, you’re the only person on the board willing to put American troops into this. That’s at least a firm stance on an option that helps win the fight.

A little more nuanced than that.

I said Zelensky would be crazy to sign a deal that turned over 20% of his country to Russia, along with its defensive lines that have proven to be such a thorn in the side to Russian troops.

I then said that if circumstances forced him to sign such a deal, he should demand, as a precondition, that a division from each NATO country (ok- a battalion from the smaller countries) be placed directly on or immediately behind the new line of control.

If NATO is going to serve as a guarantor, then let us be exactly that-guarantors in a real sense, not simply signatories on a document filled with flowery verbiage.

France, Germany, Spain, England, the US….send your divisions. Denmark and the rest- send your battalions. Step up to the tripwire. Those NATO states that border Russia? You’re already on the front, so stay put.

My primary hesitation about such a plan????

If I was Zelensky, I’d be worrying that I’d be getting the US First Cav or 10th Mountain about the same time that E. Jean Carroll gets her settlement.

That’s why the troops in place would have to be a precondition for the deal to be finalized.

No troops? Only promises? no deal. Show me the money.

And of course, that’s why Donald Trump would not sign on to a deal that demanded he do more than blow smoke.

And of course, that’s why Donald Trump would not sign on to a deal that demanded he do more than blow smoke.

I don’t want a division of US troops sitting there in the Ukraine. Let the Europeans put somebody there.

If NATO is going to serve as a guarantor, then let us be exactly that-guarantors in a real sense, not simply signatories on a document filled with flowery verbiage.

Makes sense to me.

If this is what Zelenskyy wants. Talks between Putin and the Felon (or, really, anyone) that don't include Zelenskyy are pointless. But if he's on-board with giving up territory for a NATO presence (including US troops), then OK. Otherwise, keep him supplied so he can forestall the conquest of his country until the aggressor has to give up and go home.

In all this time, Zelenskyy has been asking for help (i.e. supplies). Some on the right didn't want to give him that help. I (and many others) did, not only because it helped his country, but as a bonus, it helped ours. If he is now asking for a NATO presence to ensure a peace deal, I'm OK with that, too. It's his country. I'm not OK with outside forces imposing their will on him.

I would be shocked if Putin actually agreed to this. One of his reasons for invading was he didn't want Ukraine to join NATO. Having NATO troops in Ukraine without NATO membership isn't that much different.

Talks between Putin and the Felon (or, really, anyone) that don't include Zelenskyy are pointless.

Wrong again. Did any other world leader get Putin to the table? No.

Otherwise, keep him supplied so he can forestall the conquest of his country until the aggressor has to give up and go home.

There’s the Defend Europe right down to the last Ukrainian strategy again.

I don’t want a division of US troops sitting there in the Ukraine. Let the Europeans put somebody there.

An Air Group in Poland, then.

Plus a Virginia Class attack boat in the Black Sea. That would assure that Turkey was “all in” as a member of NATO.

Wrong again. Did any other world leader get Putin to the table? No.

“Who got who to the table” is debateable

Did any other world leader get Putin to the table? No.

So what? Europe/NATO can act unilaterally. After they do, Putin will be "concerned" and will try to figure out what to do to counteract their action(s). Massing a lot of troops, military eqpt, supplies, and readying aircraft will reinforce his "concern". So what? They can do as they choose. Ignore him. THAT is what will worry him more than anything else.

An Air Group in Poland, then.

Plus a Virginia Class attack boat in the Black Sea. That would assure that Turkey was “all in” as a member of NATO.

Yes to the former, no to the latter. In case Turkey decided to be annoying, that's an expensive asset to bottle up. Plus why let the Russians know to that degree of geographical certainty where a sub was?

To your credit, you’re the only person on the board willing to put American troops into this. That’s at least a firm stance on an option that helps win the fight.

The rest are wanting to “PunishPutin” by letting the Ukraine get blown to smithereens. That’s less than useless.

Oh no, I would be willing to use US Troops, but I don't see any reason to use them yet. No need, and also waiting to see what you surrender monkeys do.

In case Turkey decided to be annoying, that's an expensive asset to bottle up.

As part of NATO, it would be party to the agreement. And after allowing transit of the Bosporous into the Black Sea, it couldn’t very well deny transit out.

Plus why let the Russians know to that degree of geographical certainty where a sub was?

The Black Sea, though contained, is still a pretty big body of water (larger than California). And it’s surprisingly deep. And absent a Russian Navy (remember Turkey?) there’s be little worry about surface searches. And that Air Wing? Base part of it in Romania instead of Poland. It could cover the western half of the Black Sea and prevent Russian air searches- through interdiction and/or jamming.

Park the sub somewhere between Odesa Ukraine and northern coast of Turkey. In case of Russian attack into Ukraine, its first mission could be disable the Kerch bridge.



I’m generally hesitant to engage in speculating on such scenarios, but assuming there are any competent tactical planners left in the Pentagon, I’m sure they could come up with a vastly superior plan than the one just outlined by the guy sitting in this armchair.

But that might be a big assumption on my part, and I’m not at all sure that any such plan wouldn’t end up on Putin’s desk before it could be implemented.

In so many ways, we’ve royally screwed ourselves.

Oh no, I would be willing to use US Troops, but I don't see any reason to use them yet.

Uh, huh. When, then? When the situation gets worse?

and also waiting to see what you surrender monk

Just so dumb, keeping on with the same thing that hasn't worked for 3 years.

In so many ways, we’ve royally screwed ourselves.

Lol. No we haven't.

In so many ways, we’ve royally screwed ourselves.

Lol. No we haven't.

I offer you Hegseth’s ideological purges of the top brass.

And Signalgate.

Nuff said.

I offer you Hegseth’s ideological purges of the top brass

Marshall purged the top ranks of old, ineffective generals just prior to World War II and thanks to that we got Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley.

Putin would probably be arrested and taken to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes if he'd gone to a civilized country.

The way to end the war is to persuade Russia that Ukraine (and the West) will never stop fighting. The European strategy is exactly that - make it clear and unambiguous that support for Ukraine will continue unstopped until Russia leaves the country.

Certainly agree, but it’s not lost on me that the last Russian guy who retreated (from Afghanistan) lost his job just a year or two later (Gorbachev) and I’m sure Putin is also aware of that history. That makes his retreat a much more bitter pill, and he is likely to try to prevail unless internal forces (either political, economic, or otherwise) force his hand.

I wish it were not so, but I’m not optimistic. That said, to allow him to claim land by naked aggression will only encourage him to repeat it again. (Actually, as he has since Crimea (most notably) and other smaller territories in 2022.)

Watching the US Army on their knees rolling out the red carpet for a murdering dictator...
I will never forget this image.
How demeaning and demoralizing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1mt12oy...

Marshall purged the top ranks of old, ineffective generals just prior to World War II and thanks to that we got Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley.

Stalin purged the top, ideologically impure brass just prior to Herr Hitler’s crossing the Bug River. That stupidity lost Stalin 2-3 million men in the next few weeks and put the Wehrmacht at the gates of Moscow.

Hegseth purged the cadre of top officers- not who were necessarily old, but who were disproportionately black, or brown, or female, or who lacked sufficient loyalty to the MAGA cause, They were purged, not because they were old or inefficient, but because Hegseth judged them to have been good soldiers who followed the Constitutional orders of those civilians appointed over them.

We see, writ large across the length and breadth of this administration…. what Trump meant when he said he was only going to hire the”best people”- people with alarming ties to Russian intelligence, with no particular talent other than being suck-ups, people who leave sensitive information strewn about for hostile governments to find, people who lie when the truth would serve them better, people with no discernible integrity or fidelity to the Constitution.

In short, Trump in general, and Hegseth in particular, have purged the very pool of raw talent that produces the Bradleys and Pattons and Eisenhowers, and promoted the dandies, the “made for tv” faces, and the ticking time bombs that MAGA consistently confuses with the “warrior ethos”.

Sadly, this is what you get in a society that has devalued integrity, forgotten commitment to principles rather than personalities, and made the fatal error of confusing performative cruelty with true strength.

We’re fucked, dope. And there’s little time left to un-fuck ourselves before the deluge.

In 1994, Ukraine surrendered a sizable store of nuclear weapons to Russia and Putin, in the Budapest accords, agreed, in return, to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Soooo, we can trust Putin to honor any new accords he enters into.

We’re fuck

This thread has been good because it’s been devoid of the usual paranoia. Let’s keep it that way.

We’re fucked, dope. And there’s little time left to un-fuck ourselves before the deluge.

It does look that bleak, doesn't it.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Marshall purged the top ranks of old, ineffective generals just prior to World War II

A quibble, dope.

Marshall’s purge of Kimmel and Short occurred AFTER Ww2 began, and it was performance based. Whether it was for “failure to perform” or simply a matter of “someone had to take the rap”, Kimmel was the admiral whose navy left the Pacific fleet’s battleships parked stem to stern on Battleship Row, Pearl Harbor, and Short was the general whose army left its air assets parked in rows at Hickham on the morning of December 7th.

For missing the signs that pointed to an imminent attack by the Empire of Japan, signs that everyone seemed to have missed, Kimmel and Short were forced to walk the plank, because they were the ones in charge when disaster struck.

An old, hardbitten Marine colonel was a parishioner of mine during the nineties. He landed at Guadalcanal and the war ended for him with a Japanese grenade on Tarawa.

He had a favorite saying: “Don’t give me excuses. Give me results”.

And that’s the spirit that led Marshall to sack Kimmel and Short.

It’s not the spirit of Hegseth. In fact, it’s the opposite of the spirit of Hegseth.

Heads should have rolled after that Signal communication screw up, including Hegseth’s own. Instead, all we got were excuses, lies, and cover-up.

And they’re still using Signal.

Things fall apart;…..

My mind turns more and more to those lines as well, Lambo

In 1994, Ukraine surrendered a sizable store of nuclear weapons to Russia and Putin, in the Budapest accords, agreed, in return, to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Soooo, we can trust Putin to honor any new accords he enters into.

And the MAGA will erupt "Clinton!" ...as they deal the Donbas into Putin's hand, being the surrender monkeys they are.

Your strategy - if one can call it that - has been in effect since 2022. It isn’t working.

It is working. The Ukrainian defense is holding. Russia has failed to conquer the country or disable the formal Ukranian military. They are suffering a slow, grinding war of attrition on the front lines.

The European strategy of ‘just hold on’ was perhaps appropriate in 2022 after the momentum of the initial attack was stopped. But we’re 3 years in now and something else needs to be tried.

Why? There's no quick way to win this kind of war and defeat the terrible invading power. The only way to end it quickly is for Ukraine to give up and lose. Ukraine winning and keeping Russia from keeping the lands they stole by conquest will take a long time and will come with a terrible cost - but it's much, much better for both Ukraine and the rest of the free world to have that outcome than a quick resolution that lets Russia both successfully conquer a huge chunk of Ukraine and know that they'll be able to get the rest of it whenever they want to.

There’s no ‘just give up’. Those of us who favor negotiations understand that the status quo is grinding Ukraine into a fine powder.

It's not. Ukraine is no more a "fine powder" than Russia is. They're a country at war and that imposes a lot of losses, but losses that they are continuing to bear in the name of defending their country. The status quo is horrible, but the alternative really is "just give up" - unless Russia comes to the table willing to withdraw. If Russia comes to the table with "let us keep all or most of what we stole," then Ukraine cannot and should not ever accept that.

allow him to claim land by naked aggression will only encourage him to repeat it again. (Actually, as he has since Crimea (most notably) and other smaller territories in 2022.)

Yes, but the surrender folks have their orders and are out and about - represented by Dope.

There’s no ‘just give up’. Those of us who favor negotiations understand that the status quo is grinding Ukraine into a fine powder.

No, you're just giving up.

Making sure the Ukrainians still have a country when this is all over.

No one believes for an instant that you give a damn about Ukraine or the Ukrainians.

And...

Ancient Greece against the Persian Empire: The Greek city-states, though outnumbered, fiercely resisted Persian invasions in battles like Marathon and Salamis, ultimately thwarting their expansion into Europe.

The American colonies against the British Empire: The fledgling American forces, with French support, secured their independence against the formidable British military in the Revolutionary War.

North Vietnam against France and the United States: Through persistent guerrilla warfare and national resilience, North Vietnam achieved independence from French rule and later defeated the technologically superior American forces in the Vietnam War.

Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and the United States: Afghanistan successfully resisted both Soviet and US-led forces over several decades, showcasing the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare against powerful external actors.

Japan against Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905): Japan, with a smaller navy and economy, managed to decisively defeat Russia, humiliating the larger empire and shifting the global balance of power,

Finland: During the Winter War of 1939-1940, successfully held out against the Soviet invasion, despite being significantly outnumbered and outgunned,

A quibble, dope.

Marshall’s purge of Kimmel and Short occurred AFTER Ww2 began, and it was performance based. Whether it was for “failure to perform” or simply a matter of “someone had to take the rap”, Kimmel was the admiral whose navy left the Pacific fleet’s battleships parked stem to stern on Battleship Row, Pearl Harbor, and Short was the general whose army left its air assets parked in rows at Hickham on the morning of December 7th.

For missing the signs that pointed to an imminent attack by the Empire of Japan, signs that everyone seemed to have missed, Kimmel and Short were forced to walk the plank, because they were the ones in charge when disaster struck.

Interestingly (at least to me) MacArthur did worse, if you can believe it. That’s because he had the knowledge that the Japanese had already attacked Pearl Harbor, yet when it came to protecting his own forces, he did nothing . He had ten hours to get his planes arranged randomly, yet they were lined up in tidy rows when the Japanese came zooming in overhead. He had 10 hours notice to get his troops ready to repel an attack, yet they weren’t and didn’t. He hesitated, and after being told to evacuate to Australia, made the famous “I shall return” speech.

I don’t understand how he survived, he was terrible, not the least including his disobeying orders later in Korea (which finally brought about his downfall.) Yes, he had some brilliant moments (Inchon!) but mostly, meh.

Marshall’s purge of Kimmel and Short occurred AFTER Ww2 began, and it was performance based. Whether it was for “failure to perform” or simply a matter of “someone had to take the rap”, Kimmel was the admiral whose navy left the Pacific fleet’s battleships parked stem to stern on Battleship Row, Pearl Harbor, and Short was the general whose army left its air assets parked in rows at Hickham on the morning of December 7th.

Marshall purged way more than Kimmel and Short and he did it before the war started. He and his "Plucking Committee" were active well before Pearl Harbor:

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gen-ge...

"The difficulties of leadership which existed in 1917-18 have been enormously multiplied today by the increased mobility and fire power of modern armies, and the necessity for vigorous commanders is greater now than it has ever been before.”

– Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, June 5, 1940

When President Franklin Roosevelt chose Marshall as Army Chief of Staff, he bypassed thirty-three more senior generals. Most importantly, he had rejected Marshall’s major competition for the post, Maj. Gen. Hugh Drum, who had reached that rank in 1930, held almost every top position in the Army below Chief of Staff, and in fact had been regularly recommended for that position since 1930. To those officers content with the existing system, there was no clearer signal that times had changed.

A legend arose during World War II that Marshall kept a “little black book” that had the names of junior officers he had encountered over the years who had impressed him. While it’s been argued that the physical black book itself didn’t exist, what is inarguable is the fact that Marshall did keep tabs on promising junior officers. Many of those, such as Eisenhower, Bradley, Ridgeway, and others, went on to become successful commanders during the war. Marshall’s opportunity to act decisively on the dead wood officer problem occurred when the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1940 was passed. Included in its provisions was the elimination of the seniority-only criteria for promotions. Now vested with the authority to promote deserving junior officers, Marshall acted swiftly to clear the logjam.

The strategic landscape has changed. We need people who not only know what a woman is, but who can understand how to counter China and China working with Russia on land/air/sea/space.

It is working. The Ukrainian defense is holding. Russia has failed to conquer the country or disable the formal Ukranian military. They are suffering a slow, grinding war of attrition on the front lines.


Sure. At what cost? How many civilians are you willing to get blown up along the way?

Why?

Because it's not working. Russia is adept enough at evading sanctions and fielding weapons that they're still able to make progress on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, the West keeps feeding munitions into the fight and is draining its war stocks at a rapid rate.

You guys are forgetting that this grand strategy has the cost of wrecking Ukraine.

Ukraine winning and keeping Russia from keeping the lands they stole by conquest will take a long time and will come with a terrible cost

And yet, upthread you noted that you're unwilling to put the kind of economic pain to Russia that would end the war and you're not willing to add western firepower directly into the conflict, both things that would deliver a knockout punch to Putin.

Why not? If you're that convicted that Russia needs to pay for this, then why aren't you willing to take the actions that get them there? If you're concerned about a wider conflict, then welcome to the "Best of bad options club" that I'm a member of.

It's not. Ukraine is no more a "fine powder" than Russia is.

So the war isn't having a profoundly negative effect on the Ukrainian people?

The status quo is horrible, but the alternative really is "just give up" - unless Russia comes to the table willing to withdraw. If Russia comes to the table with "let us keep all or most of what we stole," then Ukraine cannot and should not ever accept that.

You're viewing this through too small of a lens.
A cease-fire now lets the Ukrainians rest, heal and more importantly, rearm.

Yes, but the surrender folks have their orders and are out and about - represented by Dope.

Reading English isn't your strong suit, is it? Maybe sit this thread out.

No, you're just giving up. And you have bad body odor. See? That statement is just as silly as yours was.

No one believes for an instant that you give a damn about Ukraine or the Ukrainians. Most of you don't know how to pour water out of a boot, and believe in the tooth fairy, so that tells me how much weight to give to your "beliefs".

Your historical analogies have loads of nuance. It's great that AI can summarize these things for you but as you're demonstrating, it can't grant instant understanding of any topic.

Habitual sarcasm toward fools who can’t see why you’re right is usually a sign of political weakness, suggesting that you have no hope or intention of convincing the unpersuaded of anything. Contempt is a style of proud and perpetual defeat. —George Packer

Lambo:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

I'll see your Yeats and raise you an Auden. In “September 1, 1939” W.H. Auden denounces the fascism taking hold in governments around the world and also lays the blame at the feet of individuals for the “evil” that their governments carry out unchecked.

Since governments are made up of imperfect individuals, Auden suggests it is necessary for everyday citizens to question their governments’ motives and authority. The most famous line of the poem arises from a paradox, suggesting that although people must act as individuals, their true strength comes when they act as a group — “We must love one another or die”.

But the poem is not all doom and gloom, the last stanza offers a small flicker of hope:

Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.


“September 1, 1939”: https://poets.org/poem/september-1-1939

Sure. At what cost? How many civilians are you willing to get blown up along the way?

I'm willing to keep supply Ukraine with the guns and money they need for as long as they are willing to keep fighting. It's incredibly important that Russia's evil actions not be allowed to succeed, but it's the choice of the Ukranian's whether it's worth fighting to defend their country. But as long as they're still willing to do that, it's absolutely in the U.S.' best interest to help them do it.

And yet, upthread you noted that you're unwilling to put the kind of economic pain to Russia that would end the war and you're not willing to add western firepower directly into the conflict, both things that would deliver a knockout punch to Putin.

I'm not willing to take economic measures that won't end the war. A massive, "us or them" sanction on India (one of our allies) isn't going to end the war. It will prolong it, because it will probably lead India to choose "them" rather than "us" - and if we force them to go wholeheartedly into that camp, it will force India to integrate more with the Russian economy than they do today. Right now they have economic relations with both Russia/China and the West - if we cut them off from the West, they'll have to increase their economic relations with Russa above where they are now.

No one's saying "don't try to impose more economic harm on Russia." We're saying that the specific thing Trump has tried to do with India is a dumb proposal.

You're viewing this through too small of a lens.
A cease-fire now lets the Ukrainians rest, heal and more importantly, rearm.

And the same for Russia. It lets them heal and re-arm - and rebuild their terribly depleted foreign currency reserves. And then they can just invade some more.

That's worse for Ukraine, because the West will have demonstrated that they're not willing to help Ukraine continue to inflict punishment on Russia's military. Once Putin has that in hand, he'll know he can win. Not just hold the territory he has now; he'll know he can take it all. If the West isn't willing to keep up the fight now, they won't be willing to keep up the fight in the future. If DJT can't abide the current situation in Ukraine today, then a U.S. security guarantee is worthless - if we're not willing to stand up for the Ukrainian military when all we're doing is sending guns and money, there's zero chance we're ever sending our own soldiers there (or genuinely committing to even the guns and money) when Putin starts the invasion again.

Interestingly (at least to me) MacArthur did worse,

He most certainly did, and I’ve often wondered why Roosevelt didn’t sack him upon his ignominious arrival in Australia. Or why Truman didn’t do the same after his insubordinate public comments regarding Korea and China.

I guess his saving grace was his brief flashes of genius and soaring rhetoric. He also had a habit of making promises and keeping them.

But he was hell to work with and tended to be anywhere there was a camera. But for all that, he promised to return to the Philippines, and did just that.

He also managed the post war reconstruction of Japan and was largely responsible for drafting Japan’s post war constitution- a constitution that is still largely in effect.

A complex man indeed.

For all of his poppycock strutting, the name “MacArthur” is still respected in Japan and the Philippines…..though with the passage of time, all things, just as old soldiers, tend to fade away.

Can you tell I’m in a reflective mood today as the ghosts of Munich rattle around the halls of Washington?

We need people who not only know what a woman is,

Thank you for summing up, in one brief sentence, the absolute ignorance of MAGA leadership.

People wonder why we call MAGA “stupid”. You’ve provided the answer better than I could.

“September 1, 1939”:

The day Hitler invaded Poland.

The strategic landscape has changed. We need people who not only know what a woman is, but who can understand how to counter China and China working with Russia on land/air/sea/space.

A woman is not twelve years old. Do you mean like dumping the TPP which gave a big opening to China within Asia instead of renegotiating it to your liking? Forcing Modi to choose Russia and creating all manner of hostilities around the world with tariffs? Alienating allies and pushing them more toward China? Those people?

A woman is not twelve years old.
Wow, you *are* feeding prompts into an AI generator.

Do you mean like dumping the TPP which gave a big opening to China
Yeah that explains why nations are aligning supply chains away from them.

Forcing Modi to choose Russia and creating all manner of hostilities around the world with tariff

Modi knew damn well who he was buying his oil from. Nobody told him to do that.

You seem to be of the mindset that other people aren't actually adults and aren't responsible for their own actions. Explains a lot.

I'm willing to keep supply Ukraine with the guns and money they need for as long as they are willing to keep fighting.

It take three things to tango and you didn't include the dudes part.

I'm not willing to take economic measures that won't end the war. A massive, "us or them" sanction on India (one of our allies) isn't going to end the war. It will prolong it, because it will probably lead India to choose "them" rather than "us" - and if we force them to go wholeheartedly into that camp, it will force India to integrate more with the Russian economy than they do today. Right now they have economic relations with both Russia/China and the West - if we cut them off from the West, they'll have to increase their economic relations with Russa above where they are now.


This boils down to you not being willing to inflict the kind of economic damage on Putin that would put a stop to his being able to get the money *he* needs for guns and dudes. If you want to end the war then the pain level Russia is feeling needs to go up, dramatically.

You're not wiling to do that. Ergo, the war will grind on with the biggest loser being the Ukrainians.

No one's saying "don't try to impose more economic harm on Russia." We're saying that the specific thing Trump has tried to do with India is a dumb proposal.

That's great. I specifically asked about India AND China.
The current sanctions regime isn't imposing enough economic harm on Russia to affect what they're doing.

And the same for Russia. It lets them heal and re-arm - and rebuild their terribly depleted foreign currency reserves. And then they can just invade some more.


Perhaps. But there's now a security guarantee on the table, and the Ukrainians would have a potentially big upgrade in terms of lethality that the Russians wouldn't be able to match.

That's worse for Ukraine, because the West will have demonstrated that they're not willing to help Ukraine continue to inflict punishment on Russia's military.
That depends. If, during the lull period the Ukrainians choose to raise hell in the occupied territories they could do that.

If DJT can't abide the current situation in Ukraine today, then a U.S. security guarantee is worthless - if we're not willing to stand up for the Ukrainian military when all we're doing is sending guns and money, there's zero chance we're ever sending our own soldiers there (or genuinely committing to even the guns and money) when Putin starts the invasion again.

Which again begs the question: are YOU willing to

-Impose painful sanctions on Russia's business partners
-Involve US troops directly

It sounds like 'no' to both.

Thank you for summing up, in one brief sentence, the absolute ignorance of MAGA leadership.

Thank you for the selective parsing. It adds an element of dishonesty that's always present from liberals.

People wonder why we call MAGA “stupid”.

I don't care. Hate filled morons gonna hate filled moron.

Perhaps. But there's now a security guarantee on the table,

I’m soooo curious. Is this anything like the security agreement that Russia already signed (“The Budapest memorandum on Security Assurances”)?

I’m asking for a friend, Neville, who is waving around piece of paper he’d like to sell you.

you didn't include the dudes part.

MAGA is not dudes?

They ALL get sent to the front lines in Ukraine. AND they supply their own weapons and ammunition.

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com
Trump announces that Ukraine will not get Crimea back and and no NATO for Ukraine

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!

The current sanctions regime isn't imposing enough economic harm on Russia to affect what they're doing.

Yes, it is. As pointed out upthread, Russia's rapidly approaching the point where it's burned through all their foreign currency reserves and reached unsustainable levels of debt. The sanctions force Russia to finance their war operations primarily through consuming their reserves and borrowing - and that can't go on forever.

I'm 100% willing to try to inflict as much economic harm as possible on Russia. I think that secondary sanctions in the form of embargo-level tariffs will not inflict economic harm on Russia, and indeed will have the unintended consequence of helping them out. If you tell China and India it's either us or Russia, they'll both choose to continue getting their energy from Russia - and being completely cut off from us means that they'll have no choice but to continue to integrate their own economies together. Which makes things worse for the war.

Perhaps. But there's now a security guarantee on the table, and the Ukrainians would have a potentially big upgrade in terms of lethality that the Russians wouldn't be able to match.

The security "guarantee" is worthless. Do you think that a pledge from the United States to militarily intervene against Russia in Ukraine - especially from this President, who never honors past pledges if he believes that America's current interests require anything different? If the U.S. is unwilling to abide the current conflict, and our limited contribution of just weapons and funding, does anyone really think that Trump (or any future MAGA President like Vance if he wins in 2028) would actually send in U.S. troops then?

Which again begs the question: are YOU willing to

-Impose painful sanctions on Russia's business partners
-Involve US troops directly

It sounds like 'no' to both.

That's right. I think Ukraine's on the path to victory. Painful sanctions on Russia's business partners will be counterproductive and end up making the situation worse, and involving U.S. troops directly makes the situation far too dangerous by risking changing this into a global (rather than a regional) military theater. Neither of those things would help, and neither of them are necessary.

Yes, it is. As pointed out upthread, Russia's rapidly approaching the point where it's burned through all their foreign currency reserves and reached unsustainable levels of debt.

Have they? Or maybe...there's a vested interest in at least one of Putin's silent partners (*cough*China*cough*) to keep him in the war.

I'm 100% willing to try to inflict as much economic harm as possible on Russia. I think that secondary sanctions in the form of embargo-level tariffs will not inflict economic harm on Russia, and indeed will have the unintended consequence of helping them out. If you tell China and India it's either us or Russia, they'll both choose to continue getting their energy from Russia - and being completely cut off from us means that they'll have no choice but to continue to integrate their own economies together. Which makes things worse for the war.

China is an export-driven economy. Them cutting us off in favor of India and Russia is a disaster for them. They can't do it.

Getting to the point:
I think Ukraine's on the path to victory. Painful sanctions on Russia's business partners will be counterproductive and end up making the situation worse, and involving U.S. troops directly makes the situation far too dangerous by risking changing this into a global (rather than a regional) military theater. Neither of those things would help, and neither of them are necessary.

Wow, we see this completely different. I think they're being worn down too far.

Do you think that a pledge from the United States to militarily intervene against Russia in Ukraine - especially from this President, who never honors past pledges if he believes that America's current interests require anything different?

To me, it is abundantly clear that Trump does not act on what he believes America’s current interests require.

He acts on what he believes his current interests require.