Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[bullethead]

Reading all that, why do I get this niggling sensation that people are projecting their grievances over domestic issues, and failed campaigns in the Middle East, on an Eastern European War and making a catastrophic strategic blunder in the process?

I feel like the well on that discussion was poisoned to hell and back by the bureaucratic state and their "defending democracy" talk and gaslighting on Ukraine dissent.

Also, having so much of our foreign policy expert class be old enough to have served in the Cold War did not help, because it's not the Cold War anymore. People want convincing arguments, and the Washington establishment just isn't providing any good enough to sway the people who've lived through ~20 years of enshittification.

It'd be easier if the Bretton Woods global order had actually provided the average American with tangible benefits, but it wasn't designed to, so it's not surprising that people don't give a shit about foreign affairs when the domestic economy and their ability to survive is so damn bad.

 

[Bacle]

The issue is, Trump cannot magically create/replace the experienced UA vets that have been lost, replace the demographic destruction Ru has wrought on UA's populace, and UA is having a hard time keeping up with replacing troops, while also facing increasing AWOL issues.

Trump can help with 'peace through strength', but the damage the Biden admin did in slow rolling aid is not something Trump can really undo, and if UA wants to be a viable country going forward, they have to prioritize preserving personnel, not ground claims.

Just holding a Korean DMZ style situation in UA would take up most of the manpower UA still has, never mind going on the offensive anywhere, and even with international troops in the country, it's going to be a challenge just to get a Korean DMZ situation to a stable point.

Trump and Zelensky may have other avenues to force concessions from Putin, via things like opening up US oil taps to drive the price of crude down below where it is able to be a going concern in Russia, or maybe Letters or Marque against Russian sanction evading ships.

 

[Marduk]

Just holding a Korean DMZ style situation in UA would take up most of the manpower UA still has, never mind going on the offensive anywhere, and even with international troops in the country, it's going to be a challenge just to get a Korean DMZ situation to a stable point.

Given enough economic and military assistance, UA could absolutely do it.
But the biggest issue is the "enough".

Secondly, overall i think a DMZ style situation would have a lot of issues, we should not project the Korean analogy when we have a more direct one - the Donetsk and Luhansk "contact line" 2014-2022.
It does look like Russia is far more competent in leading "hybrid warfare" and "conflict below threshold of war" with generous propaganda and political fuckery, than it is in large scale, overt, conventional warfare.
We still have plenty of confusion, propaganda stories and arguing about it documented in the relevant thread on this very forum even.

Be it Ukrainian, EU or US troops on the contact line, doesn't matter, this shit will most likely happen again, possibly even more, and previous experience suggests that the quality of western politician's reactions to such scenarios (and their reactions in the many similar scenarios involving western forces in Middle East too) is generally disappointingly insufficient - and will be more so if the kind of people who insist on how great such an end to the conflict would be have any say about it.
If people who make it clear that they want the conflict to be frozen no matter what as some sort of ideological-doctrinal imperative, then the cheeky shits on the other side quite often come to the conclusion that they can interpret it that they have license to do said "no matter what" as they wish, with no fear of any retaliation meaningful enough to even suggest "unfreezing" the conflict. That in turn causes political turmoil, demoralization among civilians and military alike, and outright disarray and economic damage in the afflicted country, which is something Ukraine is going to have plenty enough issues with even if it ends the war in an actually optimistic scenario rather than this.

 

[gral]

Trump and Zelensky may have other avenues to force concessions from Putin, via things like opening up US oil taps to drive the price of crude down below where it is able to be a going concern in Russia,

Trump has indicated before that he sees lowering the oil barrel price as a way to end the war, so he might(should?) be planning something like that.

 

[Zachowon]

Any sort of ceasefire that invovled a DMZ style with US or EU Troops is asking for world war 3.

 

[Bacle]

Any sort of ceasefire that invovled a DMZ style with US or EU Troops is asking for world war 3.

The fact is UA doesn't have the troops or gear to do more than hold the line anymore, and not many people want to send other nation's troops to die to reclaim UA lands, when UA has been so wasteful in the past with their troops. Biden slow rolling aid didn't help, but UA's military leadership are still Soviet-minded in a degree UA propagandists tried to hide for a long time.

If UA is going to get it's lands back, it won't be through force, and it won't be through other nations sending troops either. Inducing enough pain on Russia via deep strikes and cutting logistics links can help, but I do not see any way this ends besides a DMZ on some line that is chosen, not without some major black swan events inside Russia.

If you have a plan that could actually avoid a DMZ and your worry of WW3, without requiring US troops to fight/die for UA, I think there are plenty of people in the incoming admin would be all ears.

 

[Zachowon]

The fact is UA doesn't have the troops or gear to do more than hold the line anymore, and not many people want to send other nation's troops to die to reclaim UA lands, when UA has been so wasteful in the past with their troops. Biden slow rolling aid didn't help, but UA's military leadership are still Soviet-minded in a degree UA propagandists tried to hide for a long time.

If UA is going to get it's lands back, it won't be through force, and it won't be through other nations sending troops either. Inducing enough pain on Russia via deep strikes and cutting logistics links can help, but I do not see any way this ends besides a DMZ on some line that is chosen, not without some major black swan events inside Russia.

If you have a plan that could actually avoid a DMZ and your worry of WW3, without requiring US troops to fight/die for UA, I think there are plenty of people in the incoming admin would be all ears.

You tell Russia they pull thier forces out of Crimea and donbass, Ukraine gives back Kursk, and Ukraine allowed to join NATO, or we will put troops in Ukraine and be ready for war with Russia.

Then you pull an operation Paul Bunyan.
You have the entire US military Europe command basically deploy to Poland and the Baltics and have the entirety of NATO of possible as a show of force.

Peace through strength bacle, Peace through strength

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I don't really see any peace deal that doesn't involve Russia keeping the territory it currently occupies happening.

 

[Bacle]

You tell Russia they pull thier forces out of Crimea and donbass, Ukraine gives back Kursk, and Ukraine allowed to join NATO, or we will put troops in Ukraine and be ready for war with Russia.

Then you pull an operation Paul Bunyan.
You have the entire US military Europe command basically deploy to Poland and the Baltics and have the entirety of NATO of possible as a show of force.

Peace through strength bacle, Peace through strength

Peace through strength is a plan Trump has, but it doesn't involve US troops in UA, which is where you keep expecting to push things.

We will sell UA weapons and such, but US troops in UA is a non-starter, and NATO membership is iffy at best. The US public is tired of being a nuclear meatshield for mostly ungrateful Europeans, and UA has not proven itself to have military leadership that is worth US soldiers dying to protect.

If other Euro's want to put troops in UA to help, that's on them, but the US should sell weapons and nothing more. If US service people want to fight for/in UA, they can do it as individuals/volunteers.

Trading Kursk for the Donbass and/or Crimea is viable, US troops in UA is not, and NATO membership is very unlikely to happen for many, many reasons.

So come up with a better plan, one actually in line with the incoming admin's views on the conflict, and that doesn't involve US troops in UA.

 

[Zachowon]

Peace through strength is a plan Trump has, but it doesn't involve US troops in UA, which is where you keep expecting to push things.

We will sell UA weapons and such, but US troops in UA is a non-starter, and NATO membership is iffy at best. The US public is tired of being a nuclear meatshield for mostly ungrateful Europeans, and UA has not proven itself to have military leadership that is worth US soldiers dying to protect.

If other Euro's want to put troops in UA to help, that's on them, but the US should sell weapons and nothing more. If US service people want to fight for/in UA, they can do it as individuals/volunteers.

Trading Kursk for the Donbass and/or Crimea is viable, US troops in UA is not, and NATO membership is very unlikely to happen for many, many reasons.

So come up with a better plan, one actually in line with the incoming admin's views on the conflict, and that doesn't involve US troops in UA.

The only way to ensure no future conflict is to get Ukraine in NATO.
Any ither thing just makes it inevitable for Russia to invade again in another 4 years after Trump gets out

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Trading Kursk for the Donbass and/or Crimea is viable,

I find it highly unlikely that Ukraine can hold onto Kursk for the next two months. They have already lost over half their gains there and don't have the manpower.

 

[Vyor]

The only way to ensure no future conflict is to get Ukraine in NATO.
Any ither thing just makes it inevitable for Russia to invade again in another 4 years after Trump gets out

Pretty much this.

 

[Bacle]

The only way to ensure no future conflict is to get Ukraine in NATO.
Any ither thing just makes it inevitable for Russia to invade again in another 4 years after Trump gets out

Pretty much this.

Find another way then, because UA isn't getting into NATO within 4 years, unless something really drastically changes in Russia or the rest of the west.

Remember how hard it was to get Erdogan and Orban to allow Sweden and Finland to join up? Multiply that by about 100x.

So again, what plans do you both have that actually exist within the realm of what Trump's new admin will likely do, not what you personally wish as the outcome?

 

[Vyor]

Find another way then, because UA isn't getting into NATO within 4 years, unless something really drastically changes in Russia or the rest of the west.

Remember how hard it was to get Erdogan and Orban to allow Sweden and Finland to join up? Multiply that by about 100x.

So again, what plans do you both have that actually exist within the realm of what Trump's new admin will likely do, not what you personally wish as the outcome?

Carpet bombing russia it is then.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I find it highly unlikely that Ukraine can hold onto Kursk for the next two months. They have already lost over half their gains there and don't have the manpower.

As I understand the Russians are massing for a counter attack on that salient. Whilst it has been a deeply embarrassing situation for Moscow, they do seem to have concentrated the necessary forces to get things under control.

The Kursk Offensive was a propaganda move (a very successful one at that) and a pressure release (again, very successful), but it’s probably time to withdraw. Those units getting cut off would be disastrous.

As for the wider discussion of a peace settlement, whilst fast tracking Ukraine into NATO and the EU is essential, rebuilding their military is also vital. Making Ukraine a far more dangerous opponent than it was in 2022 is doable, which may be a disincentive against future Russian incursion. At the very least, it would set them up nicely for (God forbid) round two.

 

[Typhonis]

Nope.. Drop the price of oil. I'm sure Putin would love to have one of his income sources bottom out.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

$500B Lend-Lease program. Massive oil/gas production in the US drops prices across the board and slaps Russia in the economic nutsack. Allow Ukraine to use Western Weapons to target military targets within Russia. Continue to ramp up US military production of shells and missiles along with the weapons platforms.

Russia ends up giving up Crimea and the Donbass. As many people as want to move back to Russia can. Ukraine either gets NATO membership or Nukes.

 

[Bacle]

Carpet bombing russia it is then.

Nah, far too imprecise and wasteful.

FPV drones and thermite, and lots of them, is far more viable and economical.

Nuke's are only needed for special targets like the Kerch or creating a radioactive DMZ.

$500B Lend-Lease program. Massive oil/gas production in the US drops prices across the board and slaps Russia in the economic nutsack. Allow Ukraine to use Western Weapons to target military targets within Russia. Continue to ramp up US military production of shells and missiles along with the weapons platforms.

Russia ends up giving up Crimea and the Donbass. As many people as want to move back to Russia can. Ukraine either gets NATO membership or Nukes.

Ukraine should be going for nukes regardless, and be ready to pull a Belka against Russia if they try any, or even just to help deal with the current fight.

A tac-nuke would certainly be a good way to remove the Kerch bridge for good, and radioactive blastcraters aren't the worst way to create a long-term DMZ with Russia.

 

[Zachowon]

NATO or nukes is the only way Ukraine doesn't get invaded again

 

[Bacle]

Britain, France, Poland Move to Undermine Trump Ukraine Peace Mission

Trump made peace a key campaign pledge but NATO member states are dedicated to total Ukrainian victory and will discuss how to "thwart" him.

www.breitbart.com

Euro's already deciding to undermine any idea Trump has about UA that isn't 'Total UA Victory'.

NATO or nukes is the only way Ukraine doesn't get invaded again

Then they better go for nukes, because NATO membership isn't happening in any but the most absurdly optimist scenarios that rely on black swan events.

Non-proliferation is a dead letter anyway.