|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United States41958 Posts
On July 16 2022 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2022 03:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine. There's no diplomatic solution to be had here. + Show Spoiler + Putin's Russia is fascist and genocidal. Diplomacy requires the ability to give the other side what they want and when what they want is the destruction of the Ukrainian people there simply is no concession that can be given. You can't haggle with fascists.
There is also no push by the US to indefinitely sustain the war. There is an absolute need to avoid direct conflict between nuclear powers for obvious reasons which results in a series of bizarre compromises and workarounds. If the US directly attacks Russia we end up in a potentially escalatory situation which is prudent to avoid. During the Cold War a set of rules was developed to avoid things getting to that point and the US is following those rules in terms of the arms it is making available to Ukraine. A US flagged ship that carries weapons bound for Ukraine could be judged as a reasonable target for Russia. The Ukrainian soldiers training on Salisbury plain in the UK could be judged as reasonable targets. However both of those would necessitate direct responses by those nations so Russia is extremely hesitant to do those if not forced. But if Ukraine fired long range missiles at weapons factories within Russia then Russia may feel forced to destroy ships bringing those weapons to Ukraine.
A Ukrainian soldier shooting a Russian soldier in Ukraine with bullets given to them by the US is considered below the line that forces a response. The life of a soldier is not worth it to Russia. A Ukrainian soldier launching US sourced missiles at Russian territory is potentially above it. The US is doing all it can to prop Ukraine up, they're pushing that line pretty hard with some of the more advanced weapon systems they've given. I think it's worth digging into what that means. What solutions are to be had here in your view then?
Either Ukraine is destroyed or liberated. Russia won’t stop until Ukraine drives them back and establishes a fortified frontier.
|
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
I think that pretending there is a diplomatic solution to Russia’s aggression is somewhat of a logical fallacy. There really isn’t an effective or even ethical appeasement solution. Russia is trying to expand their land through military force. Appeasement has never worked and we can even look directly as Russia:Ukraine dynamics in recent years to prove that. Crimea did not appease Russia. Crimea empowered Russia to continue to be even more unethical. Complete and total push back is the only answer.
What is the supposed alternative here? It feels like Crimea is a direct example of anything other than military support being a bad solution.
|
If Ukraine chooses to initiate diplomatic solutions, we have to accept that. It would not be beneficial to them or to the rest of the world, but there are diplomatic solutions. We know they suck, but they exist.
|
On July 17 2022 02:35 Broetchenholer wrote:
If Ukraine chooses to initiate diplomatic solutions, we have to accept that. It would not be beneficial to them or to the rest of the world, but there are diplomatic solutions. We know they suck, but they exist. yes, Ukraine surrendering Donbas and waiting for Russia to claim the rest of the country in 2 years is a technical possibility.
Just not a practical one.
|
On July 17 2022 02:35 Broetchenholer wrote:
If Ukraine chooses to initiate diplomatic solutions, we have to accept that. It would not be beneficial to them or to the rest of the world, but there are diplomatic solutions. We know they suck, but they exist.
In order for something to be considered a “diplomatic solution”, it must mean a permanent end to Russia's military aggression. Since history indicates appeasement of Russia only makes the situation worse, any recommendation that involves conceding land can’t be considered a solution.
I think an easy way to think about this is: did the situation improve or get worse after Crimea?
|
That may not be true forever, it might noit even be true now. Obviously Ukraine needs to make the decision how long they want to keep fighting, but there is definetly a scenario where the fighting stops, Russia keeps land, Ukraine does not release it's claim for it, and the west makes sure, that Russia is not bold enough to attack again. For instance with a Nato membership for Ukraine as soon as a ceasefire is signed. I am not claiming that this is a good solution, it is just a possibility, because Ukrainians are currently dying en masse and at some point Ukraine might consider the loss of life and normality for it's citizens to be too much. Not advocating for that, just pointing the possibility out.
|
|
|
Ukraine should keep fighting even if they don't believe they can take Donbas back. It's pretty easy to justify sending new equipment to Ukraine now, but if there was a ceasefire some people in the West could decide it should be fine to stop helping.
|
On July 17 2022 03:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
That may not be true forever, it might noit even be true now. Obviously Ukraine needs to make the decision how long they want to keep fighting, but there is definetly a scenario where the fighting stops, Russia keeps land, Ukraine does not release it's claim for it, and the west makes sure, that Russia is not bold enough to attack again. For instance with a Nato membership for Ukraine as soon as a ceasefire is signed. I am not claiming that this is a good solution, it is just a possibility, because Ukrainians are currently dying en masse and at some point Ukraine might consider the loss of life and normality for it's citizens to be too much. Not advocating for that, just pointing the possibility out. No, a country can't join NATO while it is in an ongoing conflict, that is part of why the 'civil war' was started by Russia in the first place.
If Russia or the 'insurgents' hold Donbas and Ukraine doesn't relinquish their claim on it then they can't join.
|
Putin has directly said that anything less than USSR reunification is essentially an abomination. We have his own words to indicate what his long term goals are. So long as Russia views Ukraine's existence as a point of shame, it will never be safe until they join NATO. The only way I would view land concession as a reasonable solution would be if it meant immediate Ukraine NATO membership. Giving up land now without joining NATO is just making it easier for Russia to take more land.
|
On July 17 2022 03:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
That may not be true forever, it might noit even be true now. Obviously Ukraine needs to make the decision how long they want to keep fighting, but there is definetly a scenario where the fighting stops, Russia keeps land, Ukraine does not release it's claim for it, and the west makes sure, that Russia is not bold enough to attack again. For instance with a Nato membership for Ukraine as soon as a ceasefire is signed. I am not claiming that this is a good solution, it is just a possibility, because Ukrainians are currently dying en masse and at some point Ukraine might consider the loss of life and normality for it's citizens to be too much. Not advocating for that, just pointing the possibility out.
That's the dumbest thing I've read. That hits red lines for UA, RU and and the West simultaneously. Kinda impressive, in its own way...
A "diplomatic solution" is code for UA being forced to concede by Western Europe a la Minsk. The fighting wouldn't stop like it didn't after Minsk agreements either, there was constant fighting along the front lines since 2014.
It's possible UA cannot launch an offensive, but looking at how successful HIMARS strikes have been at suppressing RU capabilities, and resulting UA posturing, I'd say we'll probably see an offensive in the coming days.
|
How exactly did you come to this made up conclusion of my post? Did you just read diplomatic solution, poster comes from Germany and the rest of my post was auto completed from your brain? There are plenty of wars that do not end in capitulation of the defender or attacker. As nobody here believes that Russia will be forced into a surrender, it's almost impossible that this war will not end with a diplomatic solution. Even if Ukraine can force Russia out of their entire borders, they can't force them to surrender.
|
8 years ago today Russian backed separatists fighting in this war shot down a passenger plain.
Bilohorivka was the site of another Russian disaster as the kraken light infantry supported by artillery was able to encircle the troops sent in to capture the town. After storming buildings at night it seems a number of Russians surrendered.
In the last military budget $100m was listed to help train ukranians on how to fly f15s and f16s which would-be a massive escalation but probably wouldn't do much against the s400 air defences in Ukraine right now. Along with them having to fly out of static areas that could be missile struck.
With the Russian inability to stop HIMARs Russia is apparently abandoning the concept of ammo deposits and are going to try to supply in the field right from the truck itself.
Polish upgraded soviet era tanks are being shipped to Ukraine now and the grand southern counter attack by Ukraine could come any time now.
|
I might be mixing something up but I remember reading a few years ago that f-16 and other expensive American fighters aren't that great in "low eco" situations where you don't have an overwhelming air superiority. I mean, we should keep sending them whatever they can use against the Russians, like those PT-91 Twardy tanks, but I wonder how cost effective that kind of aid would be.
|
On July 18 2022 01:08 Sent. wrote:
I might be mixing something up but I remember reading a few years ago that f-16 and other expensive American fighters aren't that great in "low eco" situations where you don't have an overwhelming air superiority. I mean, we should keep sending them whatever they can use against the Russians, like those PT-91 Twardy tanks, but I wonder how cost effective that kind of aid would be.
UA keeps praising older but more rugged f-18s... So you might be onto something...
***
This thread is surprisingly (don't know who the person is) accurate:
|
Pretty confident this is a good sign. It appears that Russia is pulling back high-value targets like their ships to Russian territory, and from what I can gather it's most likely due to the HIMARS
|
|
|
The question is how fast can Egypt/Europe get the infrastructure up and running to ship to Europe...
Egypt stands ready to play whatever role it can in helping ease the current Europe gas crisis, President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi said Monday.
El-Sisi, speaking in a news conference with the German chancellor, said that with the current gas liquefaction stations, Egypt “could export all the natural gas that it can produce from the Eastern Mediterranean.”
“If Egypt has a role to play in mitigating the impact of any crisis, it’s ready to play this role,” Sisi was quoted as saying by the state-run Middle East News Agency.
Source
|
On July 19 2022 00:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The now question is how fast can Egypt/Europe get the infrastructure up and running to ship to Europe... Show nested quote +Egypt stands ready to play whatever role it can in helping ease the current Europe gas crisis, President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi said Monday.
El-Sisi, speaking in a news conference with the German chancellor, said that with the current gas liquefaction stations, Egypt “could export all the natural gas that it can produce from the Eastern Mediterranean.”
“If Egypt has a role to play in mitigating the impact of any crisis, it’s ready to play this role,” Sisi was quoted as saying by the state-run Middle East News Agency. Source
When does Europe need the gas by for the winter?
|
On July 19 2022 00:59 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2022 00:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The now question is how fast can Egypt/Europe get the infrastructure up and running to ship to Europe... Egypt stands ready to play whatever role it can in helping ease the current Europe gas crisis, President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi said Monday.
El-Sisi, speaking in a news conference with the German chancellor, said that with the current gas liquefaction stations, Egypt “could export all the natural gas that it can produce from the Eastern Mediterranean.”
“If Egypt has a role to play in mitigating the impact of any crisis, it’s ready to play this role,” Sisi was quoted as saying by the state-run Middle East News Agency. Source When does Europe need the gas by for the winter?
At the latest in winter, but the earlier the better. The standard plan appears to be to basically import constant amounts over the year, fill the stores during summer and use the filled stores during winter. From what i know, gas storage is currently filled to the point that we should be okay-ish for most of winter.
I have no clue if the infrastructure here supports getting a burst of gas in november or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
