|
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. |
Reports/leaks indicate that Ukraine may struggle to maintain their defensive positions (specifically air defense) through the end of May.
The Washington Post reported that one of the leaked Pentagon documents detailed that Ukraine’s air defense may not be able to protect the front lines through the end of May. One of the documents included an assessment from February from the Defense Department’s Joint Staff, which said Ukraine’s “ability to provide medium range air defense to protect the [front lines] will be completely reduced by May 23,” according to the Post.
The reported classified document also says once Ukraine’s first layer of defense munitions run out, the “2nd and 3rd Layer expenditure rates will increase, reducing the ability to defend against Russian aerial attacks from all altitudes.”
The Post also reported that another document shows how quickly the Ukraine’s air defense projectiles will deplete, saying that SA-11 systems will be depleted by April 13, NASAMs, made by the U.S., will be expended by April 15 and SA-8s will be gone by May.
The New York Times reported that the trove of documents includes an assessment on the state of fighting in Bakhmut, a city in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region that has been under siege for seven months. The Times said that the documents appear to show that the U.S. is spying on Ukraine’s top military and political leaders.
The document outlined how Ukrainian forces “were almost operationally encircled by Russian forces in Bakhmut,” as of Feb. 25, the Times reported. The documents show top Ukraine leaders offering grim assessments in the ongoing fight for Bakhmut, with General Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s director of military intelligence, saying that the situation was “catastrophic” at the time of the report.
The Times also reported that Roman Mashovets, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak, said that Ukrainian forces esteem was low in Bakhmut.
thehill.com
|
On April 10 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Reports/leaks indicate that Ukraine may struggle to maintain their defensive positions (specifically air defense) through the end of May. Show nested quote +The Washington Post reported that one of the leaked Pentagon documents detailed that Ukraine’s air defense may not be able to protect the front lines through the end of May. One of the documents included an assessment from February from the Defense Department’s Joint Staff, which said Ukraine’s “ability to provide medium range air defense to protect the [front lines] will be completely reduced by May 23,” according to the Post.
The reported classified document also says once Ukraine’s first layer of defense munitions run out, the “2nd and 3rd Layer expenditure rates will increase, reducing the ability to defend against Russian aerial attacks from all altitudes.”
The Post also reported that another document shows how quickly the Ukraine’s air defense projectiles will deplete, saying that SA-11 systems will be depleted by April 13, NASAMs, made by the U.S., will be expended by April 15 and SA-8s will be gone by May.
The New York Times reported that the trove of documents includes an assessment on the state of fighting in Bakhmut, a city in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region that has been under siege for seven months. The Times said that the documents appear to show that the U.S. is spying on Ukraine’s top military and political leaders.
The document outlined how Ukrainian forces “were almost operationally encircled by Russian forces in Bakhmut,” as of Feb. 25, the Times reported. The documents show top Ukraine leaders offering grim assessments in the ongoing fight for Bakhmut, with General Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s director of military intelligence, saying that the situation was “catastrophic” at the time of the report.
The Times also reported that Roman Mashovets, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak, said that Ukrainian forces esteem was low in Bakhmut. thehill.com
Everything about this smells like a psy ops designed to coax the Russians into throwing their reserves at the Ukrainian positions before the Ukrainians start their own offensives. It wouldn't be the first one either and so far they have worked pretty well.
And that makes sense, too. The Ukrainians know that they have to fight the Russians not manning the frontlines either way and if given the choice, it is always better to draw them into attacking your positions than having to deal with them entrenched in theirs.
Honestly, the more I read about it and the longer I think about it, the more obvious this gets. It is tailor-made and pretty much says "Quickly, attack us while we are running out of things to shoot at you, the timeline of which is very conveniently right before our own big offensives that have been planned and announced for a long time. Maybe you can deal a significant blow before then, wink wink nudge nudge. Oh look, the weather delayed them, you have a few more weeks to get this done, come on, attack us more while we are weak."
I'm sorry, but I am not buying this at all. "Bakhmut is about to fall, one more Russian attack and it's lost" has been going on for almost half a year at this point while similar messages have accompanied it throughout almost the entire time.
|
The Bakhmut part is kind of irrelevant.
The major part of the story was about ground based anti air running out of missiles. Which seems reasonable. Else why would the western nations caved and starting sending in modern, very expensive, anti air systems a while ago?
|
On April 10 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Reports/leaks indicate that Ukraine may struggle to maintain their defensive positions (specifically air defense) through the end of May. Show nested quote +The Washington Post reported that one of the leaked Pentagon documents detailed that Ukraine’s air defense may not be able to protect the front lines through the end of May. One of the documents included an assessment from February from the Defense Department’s Joint Staff, which said Ukraine’s “ability to provide medium range air defense to protect the [front lines] will be completely reduced by May 23,” according to the Post.
The reported classified document also says once Ukraine’s first layer of defense munitions run out, the “2nd and 3rd Layer expenditure rates will increase, reducing the ability to defend against Russian aerial attacks from all altitudes.”
The Post also reported that another document shows how quickly the Ukraine’s air defense projectiles will deplete, saying that SA-11 systems will be depleted by April 13, NASAMs, made by the U.S., will be expended by April 15 and SA-8s will be gone by May.
The New York Times reported that the trove of documents includes an assessment on the state of fighting in Bakhmut, a city in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region that has been under siege for seven months. The Times said that the documents appear to show that the U.S. is spying on Ukraine’s top military and political leaders.
The document outlined how Ukrainian forces “were almost operationally encircled by Russian forces in Bakhmut,” as of Feb. 25, the Times reported. The documents show top Ukraine leaders offering grim assessments in the ongoing fight for Bakhmut, with General Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s director of military intelligence, saying that the situation was “catastrophic” at the time of the report.
The Times also reported that Roman Mashovets, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak, said that Ukrainian forces esteem was low in Bakhmut. thehill.com
That's a projection on assumption that Russian missile strikes were to continue.
Which they have not.
The situation is certainly not good but Ukraine has won some time to improvise solutions.
|
On April 10 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Reports/leaks indicate that Ukraine may struggle to maintain their defensive positions (specifically air defense) through the end of May. Show nested quote +The Washington Post reported that one of the leaked Pentagon documents detailed that Ukraine’s air defense may not be able to protect the front lines through the end of May. One of the documents included an assessment from February from the Defense Department’s Joint Staff, which said Ukraine’s “ability to provide medium range air defense to protect the [front lines] will be completely reduced by May 23,” according to the Post.
The reported classified document also says once Ukraine’s first layer of defense munitions run out, the “2nd and 3rd Layer expenditure rates will increase, reducing the ability to defend against Russian aerial attacks from all altitudes.”
The Post also reported that another document shows how quickly the Ukraine’s air defense projectiles will deplete, saying that SA-11 systems will be depleted by April 13, NASAMs, made by the U.S., will be expended by April 15 and SA-8s will be gone by May.
The New York Times reported that the trove of documents includes an assessment on the state of fighting in Bakhmut, a city in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region that has been under siege for seven months. The Times said that the documents appear to show that the U.S. is spying on Ukraine’s top military and political leaders.
The document outlined how Ukrainian forces “were almost operationally encircled by Russian forces in Bakhmut,” as of Feb. 25, the Times reported. The documents show top Ukraine leaders offering grim assessments in the ongoing fight for Bakhmut, with General Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s director of military intelligence, saying that the situation was “catastrophic” at the time of the report.
The Times also reported that Roman Mashovets, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak, said that Ukrainian forces esteem was low in Bakhmut. thehill.com
I cant believe this was leaked on aMinecraft discord server.
|
On April 10 2023 14:12 Yurie wrote:
The Bakhmut part is kind of irrelevant.
The major part of the story was about ground based anti air running out of missiles. Which seems reasonable. Else why would the western nations caved and starting sending in modern, very expensive, anti air systems a while ago? Sending more (and more modern) anti air systems coincides with Russia stepping up its missile and drone strikes. Seems pretty easy to connect the two.
|
Also, you don't win a war by being a step behind at all times. Ideally Ukraine would receive more AA than needed. The idea is to win in as many aspects of the war as possible.
|
On April 10 2023 17:26 Magic Powers wrote:
Also, you don't win a war by being a step behind at all times. Ideally Ukraine would receive more AA than needed. The idea is to win in as many aspects of the war as possible.
Since there are (presumably) a large number of very smart people designing this situation, it feels very unlikely they are missing what appears to be a very obviously better approach.
What I think the is *actual* plan here is to bleed Russia as much as possible by sacrificing as few Ukrainians as possible. But I think bleeding Russia is the primary priority there.
So long as Ukraine does not start to bleed territory beyond short term highs and lows, I think there isn't much reason to worry and we ought to assume the West will try to keep this war pumping for as long as possible.
Similar to how people will choose to invest more into something if it appears the goal is within reach, I think the goal is to keep Russia optimistic enough to continue without Ukraine suffering too much. Since this is a personal ambition of Putin's, he will likely continue to toss bodies at the situation if he feels victory is within reach.
I think the goal here is for Russia to be permanently downgraded to North Korea 2.0. We'll likely never fully neuter Russia, but eliminating it as a ground army threat has huge benefits and sends a signal to China to stop salivating over Taiwan.
The fact is, the US has the capability to wipe out Russia's presence in Crimea at a moment's notice. I don't see a real possibility of Ukraine getting pushed too far back.
|
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second.
|
On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult.
|
On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult.
There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward.
While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict.
So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war.
|
On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war.
A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one.
Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations.
The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory.
|
On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now.
So all that is left is crippling them long term.
|
On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term.
Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense.
|
On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. How is endless war the most sensible option?
|
On April 11 2023 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. How is endless war the most sensible option?
I don't know where I said endless war?
|
On April 11 2023 20:39 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. How is endless war the most sensible option? I don't know where I said endless war? no peace and Russia not crippled to be unable to wage more wars, how does this not end up with Russia attacking and bullying everyone around them that is not covered by the umbrella of a bigger coalition? (Either NATO to the west or China to the east)
|
On April 11 2023 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:39 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. How is endless war the most sensible option? I don't know where I said endless war? no peace and Russia not crippled to be unable to wage more wars, how does this not end up with Russia attacking and bullying everyone around them that is not covered by the umbrella of a bigger coalition? (Either NATO to the west or China to the east)
We can't stop Russia from bullying everyone, even if the country is "crippled". I may remind of Germany after WW1, which was not only defeated but also facing severe adversity. Out of their ashes rose the worst of all wars in all of human history.
What would've prevented that? A strong and ready coalition. And so NATO was created.
We can't prevent every war, but we can prevent the worst of them. The answer isn't to send a country into ruin, but to strengthen all other countries. There are several more countries wanting to line up for NATO membership, or to at least fall under its umbrella of protection.
|
On April 11 2023 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:39 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. How is endless war the most sensible option? I don't know where I said endless war? no peace and Russia not crippled to be unable to wage more wars, how does this not end up with Russia attacking and bullying everyone around them that is not covered by the umbrella of a bigger coalition? (Either NATO to the west or China to the east)
I wouldn't be so sure about Russia not being crippled. Already you have smaller countries taking control of stuff that's been within Russia's influence (like Kazakhstan taking the spaceport) and sending signals that Russia is too weak to enforce their will (like countries no longer being interested in CSTO membership). These are all pretty clear signs of degrading power and influence.
IMO even if Russia would win the war in Ukraine (which seems rather unlikely at this point) it would be severely hampered in the long term, unable to exert their dominance which in turn would make it even harder to recover from in the future if neighboring countries strengthen their position with weakened Russia being unable to control them to a degree it used to.
|
There's tons of resting conflict, territorial and religious disputes in Russias direct sphere of influence. Look at Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Stans, Chechnya... Those countries won't be the same with Russia losing influence and there will be further war if Russia is crippled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
