|
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. |
On April 12 2023 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more... Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it? Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written?
Russia leaves no other choice than be crippled. They were warned before invasion, they were given a chance multiple times to withdraw from Ukraine. They never did. Let's not go full Neville Chamberlain and allow them to take territory after territory. If world powers acted after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, a lot of pain would have been saved probably.
So what do you mean not cripple them? If they don't leave and keep bombing Ukrainian civilians, infrastructure and steal territories, how else would you stop them besides sanctions? You obviously can't use nukes, so that's out of the question.
|
On April 12 2023 08:40 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more... Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it? Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written? Russia leaves no other choice than be crippled. They were warned before invasion, they were given a chance multiple times to withdraw from Ukraine. They never did. Let's not go full Neville Chamberlain and allow them to take territory after territory. If world powers acted after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, a lot of pain would have been saved probably. So what do you mean not cripple them? If they don't leave and keep bombing Ukrainian civilians, infrastructure and steal territories, how else would you stop them besides sanctions? You obviously can't use nukes, so that's out of the question.
I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what?
|
On April 12 2023 15:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 08:40 SC-Shield wrote:On April 12 2023 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more... Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it? Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written? Russia leaves no other choice than be crippled. They were warned before invasion, they were given a chance multiple times to withdraw from Ukraine. They never did. Let's not go full Neville Chamberlain and allow them to take territory after territory. If world powers acted after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, a lot of pain would have been saved probably. So what do you mean not cripple them? If they don't leave and keep bombing Ukrainian civilians, infrastructure and steal territories, how else would you stop them besides sanctions? You obviously can't use nukes, so that's out of the question. I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what?
Why are you acting like literally anybody is suggesting or even implying to invade Russia or push them further than their borders?
That is a completely seperate thing from this entire discussion.
|
On April 12 2023 15:56 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 15:50 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 08:40 SC-Shield wrote:On April 12 2023 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more... Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it? Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written? Russia leaves no other choice than be crippled. They were warned before invasion, they were given a chance multiple times to withdraw from Ukraine. They never did. Let's not go full Neville Chamberlain and allow them to take territory after territory. If world powers acted after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, a lot of pain would have been saved probably. So what do you mean not cripple them? If they don't leave and keep bombing Ukrainian civilians, infrastructure and steal territories, how else would you stop them besides sanctions? You obviously can't use nukes, so that's out of the question. I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what? Why are you acting like literally anybody is suggesting or even implying to invade Russia or push them further than their borders? That is a completely seperate thing from this entire discussion.
I'm not "implying" it. People are literally claiming that western countries are trying to cripple Russia, i.e. deliberately not giving Ukraine the best chances at winning the war in the fastest, most convincing way possible, for the purpose of, say, weakening Russia's internal structure.
|
And that absolutely doesn't mean that "Ukraine pushes Russia behind it's borders" isn't the end of the story.
|
On April 12 2023 16:08 Mikau313 wrote:
And that absolutely doesn't mean that "Ukraine pushes Russia behind it's borders" isn't the end of the story.
Do you even understand what the claim is?
|
On April 12 2023 16:02 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 15:56 Mikau313 wrote:On April 12 2023 15:50 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 08:40 SC-Shield wrote:On April 12 2023 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more... Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it? Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written? Russia leaves no other choice than be crippled. They were warned before invasion, they were given a chance multiple times to withdraw from Ukraine. They never did. Let's not go full Neville Chamberlain and allow them to take territory after territory. If world powers acted after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, a lot of pain would have been saved probably. So what do you mean not cripple them? If they don't leave and keep bombing Ukrainian civilians, infrastructure and steal territories, how else would you stop them besides sanctions? You obviously can't use nukes, so that's out of the question. I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what? Why are you acting like literally anybody is suggesting or even implying to invade Russia or push them further than their borders? That is a completely seperate thing from this entire discussion. I'm not "implying" it. People are literally claiming that western countries are trying to cripple Russia, i.e. deliberately not giving Ukraine the best chances at winning the war in the fastest, most convincing way possible, for the purpose of, say, weakening Russia's internal structure.
Well, as far as I remember, HIMARS and others weapons were unthinkable when this war started. If you provide all weapons at once, it may be seen as "too many too fast" (escalation). Admittedly, that's also fine for western powers if Russia gets even more weakened in the process. Again, it's entirely Russia's fault to be stubborn and to keep pushing. It reminds me of Hitler and Napoleon when they were pushing in Russia. Except this time it's at Russia's expense in Ukraine.
|
On April 12 2023 16:52 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 16:08 Mikau313 wrote:
And that absolutely doesn't mean that "Ukraine pushes Russia behind it's borders" isn't the end of the story. Do you even understand what the claim is?
I understand that most of your recent posts here are strawmen, and that I've seen you comment often enough to know that you know that and that you can do far better than that.
|
I think everyone agrees that the best solution would be for Russia to have a post-WW2 Germany or Japan experience.
But literally no one knows any way to get there, because Russia has nukes. So we are left with the second best option: Helping Ukraine defend itself, and see what happens. I assume the people in command have slightly better plans than "see what happens", but ultimately that is what is going on in some variant.
Not everything is a deep plan where every move is planned in detail for one specific goal. Especially in large coalitions with lots of people, the actions that happen are usually a result of som compromise and tend towards the conservative option of doing less, and slower. Because the default is doing nothing, and convincing a lot of people to do something doesn't lead to extreme action. And that, very obvious, reason is why we didn't send all the weapons to Ukraine right away. Not some conspiracy to slowly trickle in stuff to bleed Russia dry.
|
The line was shifting every so slowly from ammunition and old soviet style tanks over Leo2s and HIMARS to warplanes over the last 14 months. That has nothing to do with "supply them slowly so Russia bleeds more"
Correct me if I am wrong but I think what most people here want to say with "cripple Russia" is just their economy has to tank hard and the lives of Russians have to be made difficult so they either cut of the head themselfes from within or ask for help to cut of the head for them to let a new and hopefully better head grow with which deals can be made to start fresh.
|
'Crippling Russia' is in general a strange take on what is yet another containment strategy.
No one in the west wants to see Russia fragment with all the possible wonders of local warlords auctioning nukes to the likes of ISIS.
|
On April 12 2023 17:15 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 16:52 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 16:08 Mikau313 wrote:
And that absolutely doesn't mean that "Ukraine pushes Russia behind it's borders" isn't the end of the story. Do you even understand what the claim is? I understand that most of your recent posts here are strawmen, and that I've seen you comment often enough to know that you know that and that you can do far better than that.
Read the following comment from Mohdoo again VERY carefully.
On April 11 2023 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There is no strawman on my part. He said what he said, and what I said he's saying is exactly what he was saying.
|
On April 12 2023 18:52 pmp10 wrote:
'Crippling Russia' is in general a strange take on what is yet another containment strategy.
No one in the west wants to see Russia fragment with all the possible wonders of local warlords auctioning nukes to the likes of ISIS.
I actually think fragmenting the Russian empire is the ideal way to go.
|
On April 12 2023 20:21 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 18:52 pmp10 wrote:
'Crippling Russia' is in general a strange take on what is yet another containment strategy.
No one in the west wants to see Russia fragment with all the possible wonders of local warlords auctioning nukes to the likes of ISIS. I actually think fragmenting the Russian empire is the ideal way to go.
Let's amend it to 'no western government' then.
The Russian empire is long gone but since it fragmented in a very ugly manner there are good reason to avoid an encore.
|
On April 12 2023 18:52 pmp10 wrote:
'Crippling Russia' is in general a strange take on what is yet another containment strategy.
No one in the west wants to see Russia fragment with all the possible wonders of local warlords auctioning nukes to the likes of ISIS.
I guess all the misunderstandings come from the fact that people interpret "crippling" of Russia. What I mean by that for example (and I think what most military strategists think and aim for as a goal) is to make Russia lose so much men and equipment in Ukraine that it'll be unable to project its power inside its sphere of influence outside its own borders. This way a lot of those smaller countries that are under the shadow and threat from Russia can get a breather and maybe grow strong enough with enough connections to not have to fear Russia in the future.
It was never about getting Russia to fall apart completely (although it might happen), just making it stick to whats inside its own borders for the next generation or so.
According to some analysts the war in Ukraine is waged to facilitate this, not because it's the best possible course of action (as it forces Ukraine to suffer more than it should) but because that's the only way it can be done without escalating the conflict too much (no one wants a nuclear holocaust). Compare it to a slowly boiling frog. The goal is to make Ukraine win, but not too decisively. Russia must at all times think it can actually win this war and once it's no longer possible be given an option to withdraw. Sure, NATO could've ended this war within a week probably, but the chance of Russia doing something stupid in desperation was simply too high to consider this option. I think Russia knows this too and won't resort to Nukes even if it would mean losing the war in Ukraine because that would open up this can of worms again and potentially give a green light for NATO to intervene (and it's not very far from Finland and Ukraine to reach Moscow).
|
On April 12 2023 19:32 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 17:15 Mikau313 wrote:On April 12 2023 16:52 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 16:08 Mikau313 wrote:
And that absolutely doesn't mean that "Ukraine pushes Russia behind it's borders" isn't the end of the story. Do you even understand what the claim is? I understand that most of your recent posts here are strawmen, and that I've seen you comment often enough to know that you know that and that you can do far better than that. Read the following comment from Mohdoo again VERY carefully. Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 06:59 Mohdoo wrote: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. There is no strawman on my part. He said what he said, and what I said he's saying is exactly what he was saying.
I responded specifically to this comment:
I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what?
Which seems like a total non sequitor to anything anybody said here, and is totally unrelated to the comment by Mohdoo you're now quoting.
|
So Wagner is kidnapping recently mobilized Russian soldiers in order to have them join Wagner... how has Putin and co. not stamped this out?
Dozens of Russian draftees were reportedly rounded up in the middle of the night on Russian territory and driven across the border to Ukraine’s Luhansk region, where they say they were locked in an old factory and “sold” like cattle to the notorious Wagner Group.
That’s according to a new report from Astra, which spoke with family members and reviewed text and audio messages from some of the men. All in all, more than 100 draftees were allegedly scooped up in the bizarre bait and switch.
The troops were reportedly told they would be going to the Rostov region for training to serve in territorial defenses, but were instead packed into vehicles and dumped in a railway car repair plant in Stakhanov last week.
“They’re already herding us around at gunpoint, that’s it, the turning of the screws has started. Representatives of Wagner arrived with weapons, there are about 30 of them,” one of the soldiers was quoted telling his family by phone.
He went on to warn that “people with weapons” were about to take the draftees’ phones away.
Some of the draftees were forced to sign contracts with Wagner, but told they would be forming their own private military group called the “Wolves,” according to the report.
“We don’t have a choice. Those who said ‘no’ – they’ve already been taken away and I don’t know what is happening to them now. Wagner arrived. You see, they don’t give a fuck, they’ll kill us and dump us in the field and that’s it,” another soldier reportedly told relatives.
Bizarrely, the former president of the Russian-backed “republic” of South Ossetia allegedly arrived to help break the resistance of those who refused to sign contracts. Widely circulated video purportedly shows Anatoly Bibilov cursing out the dissenters.
“You need to think with your fucking heads, guys! … We will not disgrace those who remain on the battlefield! We will win this fucking war! And what will you have to be proud of? What will you say? How will you justify yourselves? … Who will protect the country?” reportedly Bibilov said, calling one soldier who spoke up a “coward” before challenging him to fight.
Fifty seven out of 170 draftees agreed to sign contracts with Wagner and then left the plant, Astra reports, while 113 stood their ground and were subsequently transported elsewhere in Ukraine’s Luhansk region. Their phones were reportedly confiscated and family members have no idea what happened to them.
Source
|
On April 12 2023 22:18 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 18:52 pmp10 wrote:
'Crippling Russia' is in general a strange take on what is yet another containment strategy.
No one in the west wants to see Russia fragment with all the possible wonders of local warlords auctioning nukes to the likes of ISIS. I guess all the misunderstandings come from the fact that people interpret "crippling" of Russia. What I mean by that for example (and I think what most military strategists think and aim for as a goal) is to make Russia lose so much men and equipment in Ukraine that it'll be unable to project its power inside its sphere of influence outside its own borders. This way a lot of those smaller countries that are under the shadow and threat from Russia can get a breather and maybe grow strong enough with enough connections to not have to fear Russia in the future. It was never about getting Russia to fall apart completely (although it might happen), just making it stick to whats inside its own borders for the next generation or so. According to some analysts the war in Ukraine is waged to facilitate this, not because it's the best possible course of action (as it forces Ukraine to suffer more than it should) but because that's the only way it can be done without escalating the conflict too much (no one wants a nuclear holocaust). Compare it to a slowly boiling frog. The goal is to make Ukraine win, but not too decisively. Russia must at all times think it can actually win this war and once it's no longer possible be given an option to withdraw. Sure, NATO could've ended this war within a week probably, but the chance of Russia doing something stupid in desperation was simply too high to consider this option. I think Russia knows this too and won't resort to Nukes even if it would mean losing the war in Ukraine because that would open up this can of worms again and potentially give a green light for NATO to intervene (and it's not very far from Finland and Ukraine to reach Moscow).
I just wanted to quote this because i wholeheartedly agree with everything you said here.
|
On April 12 2023 23:05 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 19:32 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 17:15 Mikau313 wrote:On April 12 2023 16:52 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 16:08 Mikau313 wrote:
And that absolutely doesn't mean that "Ukraine pushes Russia behind it's borders" isn't the end of the story. Do you even understand what the claim is? I understand that most of your recent posts here are strawmen, and that I've seen you comment often enough to know that you know that and that you can do far better than that. Read the following comment from Mohdoo again VERY carefully. On April 11 2023 06:59 Mohdoo wrote: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. There is no strawman on my part. He said what he said, and what I said he's saying is exactly what he was saying. I responded specifically to this comment: Show nested quote +
I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what?
Which seems like a total non sequitor to anything anybody said here, and is totally unrelated to the comment by Mohdoo you're now quoting.
Your whole argument with me is a non sequitur, in case you didn't catch that.
I initially responded to Mohdoo, not to you or anyone else. Do you understand better now?
|
On April 12 2023 16:02 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 15:56 Mikau313 wrote:On April 12 2023 15:50 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 08:40 SC-Shield wrote:On April 12 2023 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more... Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it? Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written? Russia leaves no other choice than be crippled. They were warned before invasion, they were given a chance multiple times to withdraw from Ukraine. They never did. Let's not go full Neville Chamberlain and allow them to take territory after territory. If world powers acted after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, a lot of pain would have been saved probably. So what do you mean not cripple them? If they don't leave and keep bombing Ukrainian civilians, infrastructure and steal territories, how else would you stop them besides sanctions? You obviously can't use nukes, so that's out of the question. I don't know what's hard to understand. Ukraine pushes Russia behind its borders, that's the end of the story. Do you wanna invade Russia or what? Why are you acting like literally anybody is suggesting or even implying to invade Russia or push them further than their borders? That is a completely seperate thing from this entire discussion. I'm not "implying" it. People are literally claiming that western countries are trying to cripple Russia, i.e. deliberately not giving Ukraine the best chances at winning the war in the fastest, most convincing way possible, for the purpose of, say, weakening Russia's internal structure.
Without western boots on the ground and western pilots bombing Russians in Ukraine, the west is doing a tiny fraction what it could be if the goal was to allow Ukraine to win as quickly as they could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
