Also, there are  no places in Ukraine that are Pro Russian 

(May 6, 2023 at 5:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 4:56 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Yes, when you turn a power like Russia's satellite state (Ukraine) into a liability for them, and blow up the Crimean bridge and blow up pipelines and bomb Russia's nuclear triad inside of Russia, and you show Russia that almost the entire West is behind them by providing weaponry, Russia is going to respond pretty harshly. This is war. It's not going to be pretty. Countless innocent people were killed and targeted, by all sides, during the world wars. Yes, Russia has gone beyond that in breaking international laws of war, but even still, there were going to be loads of innocent casualties regardless.

Who is the "you" here? And who invaded Crimea in 2014? And what gives Russia the right to kill civilians because a sovereign state won't do its bidding?

(May 6, 2023 at 4:56 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: What truth do you want to know? You want to know if I believe there needs to be regime change in Russia? Not particularly, and I think it's counter productive for politicians around the world to be talking about such. Am I glad that Russia is destroying innocent people's lives? Obviously not, as my preference would have not been for Russia to take the land they will take inside of Ukraine. My preference would have been that Ukraine didn't get too big for its' britches, and war didn't break out. That's the truth and that's what I wanted. And I'm aware that fighting has been happening already for years, and you have Crimea and all of that, but when I talk about war breaking out, I'm referring to the more recent invasion of Ukraine.

Well, that's an arbitrary point you've selected given that it started in 2014, by Russian aggression in violation of the Minsk Accords.

(May 6, 2023 at 4:56 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: It's too late for the war to not break out though, so you want to know what I want at the current moment? I want a peace deal, which the spy documents show Zelensky knows is going to have to happen very soon. That means giving something up. May as well give up the couple of spots that are already the most pro-Russian. Be done with it and end the war. Yes, this is what I want. And I don't want it because I'm pro-Russia. That's not the reason I want a peace deal, and that is the truth, whether you want to believe it or not.

So you're okay with rewarding aggression with territorial concession wrung from the force of arms. Thanks for being honest about it.

(May 6, 2023 at 4:56 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Zelenski knows that a peace deal must be reached soon, and he's going through his fighting forces pretty quickly, so you can't keep up the war endlessly.

He knows the war must be put to an end soon -- perhaps by, you know,  winning, but if we're talking in terms of manpower, the Ukrainians have around a million under arms, while the Russians are scraping out prison cells to round out their ranks. The Ukrainians are receiving and training on fairly modern weaponry, while the Russians are dusting off 50-year-old tanks. Tranches of Ukrainian volunteers are training for military service, and I'm not talking four days with a 19th-century Nosin-Magant before being sent in as cannon-fodder.

(May 6, 2023 at 4:56 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I know this. Zelensky knows this. Russia knows this. Which is why they will take the couple most pro-Russian places, and peace will be made, whether it's China or India helping put the peace deal together. The US need not play a role in the peace deal since China and India have stepped up to the plate. There doesn't appear to be an alternative to peace, which is why you guys should be shifting your positions right now, because you guys are pretending that the Pentagon documents don't exist, when they show us, clearly, how this war must end.

I'm all for peace. I'm definitely against rewarding aggression and definitely for Ukrainians who wish to defend their own freedoms. I've never been fond of appeasement. Your mileage seems to vary. I hope that peace comes through Russia being defeated on the battlefield, which I think is possible given the parlous state of their military as well as its demonstrated incompetence as compared to Ukrainian generalship. I'd rather America feed Ukraine supplies to defend itself than feed Russia bits and pieces of land to further whet its appetite, myself.

China's offer to chair negotiations is suspect at best, given their obvious interest in a Russian victory. A defeated Russia makes their issues dealing with both central Asia and Taiwan greater, and so I'm skeptical of their objectivity. But again, you seem to trust authoritarian regimes while I don't.

As for the document leak, there's not much telling which have been altered and which haven't -- for instance, the returns on casualty rates, or the interference with HIMARS guidance systems, both of which strike me as suspect.

(May 6, 2023 at 5:31 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: So again, me calling the US the great Satan is kind of just a playful thing. Don't take it too seriously.

Trust me when I say I don't take too much of anything you say very seriously.

We of course know that Russia will lose and will gain nothing for all the trouble they have caused. That's the only just outcome.

(May 6, 2023 at 6:08 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: You are AOK with Russia getting away with annexing land just as I am. Crimea. Do you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea? No? Then you're ok with Russia annexing them, and you and I are not as different as you think. You do support awarding aggression with land. Unless, again, you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea by force.

Wrong. I am fine with Ukrainians retaking Crimea even as I don't wish to deploy American troops for that job. Put shortly, this is an excluded-middle fallacy on your part. One can support Ukraine's fight without pushing for American combat involvement -- and you will struggle long and hard to find any quote of mine supporting that. But go on, go look for it and link to what you find.

(May 6, 2023 at 6:08 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: China being pro-Russia is a good thing for peace talks. China need not be objective. It might scare Ukraine into coming to terms quicker, because Ukraine is looking over their shoulder right now thinking China might supply weapons to Russia. This gives Ukraine even more of a reason to come to peace, and at least China is trying to reach a peace deal, unlike the US.

Or it might make Ukraine think that it must score a victory now, which is likely what you fear. The idea that Ukraine might accept Chinese mediation, in the absence of a major Russian victory that endangers Ukrainian war aims, is naive, to put it kindly. A Chinese offer now, when the Russians are shooting themselves in the feet and their only friend is in fact China, would be spurned in Kyiv -- and rightly so -- for the bullshit it is.

Even if the Ukrainians lose on the field of battle, which I doubt will happen, but let's entertain that thought for a moment -- even if their army did lose, the ensuing insurgency would and will collapse Russia's government just as insurgency in Afghanistan brought about the end of the Soviet Union. If Russia wanted Chinese intervention in peace talks, why are they still launching missiles?

The Chinese proposal has little to do with Ukraine, and much to do with China wanting to see itself as some sort of arbiter. But they cannot project force into Ukraine, nor can they leverage either party to the table.So this is a stage-show.

(May 6, 2023 at 7:15 pm)Helios Wrote: We of course know that Russia will lose and will gain nothing for all the trouble they have caused. That's the only just outcome.

I'd like to agree, but the fact is that Ukraine can possibly lose. On a rational analytic level, they may be forced to negotiate, which in one sense would be a defeat, but it's also possible that given the demonstrated performance characteristics of the two combatting armies Ukrainian force may well hustle the Russians out of conquered territories. We just don't know.

I personally believe that the Ukrainians have three big factors working for them:

1) Morale: the Ukrainians not only know why they're fighting, but they have bought into the motivation. Motivated troops are a force-multiplier.

2) Leadership: Ukrainian leadership, especially in the autumn offensive, has shown itself to be both bold in planning, and diligent in logistics. We can't say the same for Russian leadership, which has shown itself leaden and concerned more about bureaucratese than results on the field.

3) While the Russians have already expended the cream of their forces and equipment, and are now digging into old tanks, old guns, prison conscripts, and old rifles, the Ukrainians are receiving newer equipment and training on it manned by fighters who have already been indoctrinated in the concept of NCOs being the linchpin of an operation.

The Russians may still have the larger numbers and resources. And that means they can still issue some hurt. Whether enough to make a difference at any negotiating table, hard to say.

And even if the UAF fail and get blown apart ... you've still got Russia in a quagmire insurrection fueled by the seeds of hatred that they themselves have sown. There is literally no victory narrative for them except for a deux ex machina intervention by superpower negotiations, or Russia going first with nukes, which won't happen.

China has already shown that it is playing the middle and looking for its own interests first. They will happily let Russia twist in the wind and pick up the scraps where and when they can. They already know that Russia has hit its sundown.

The depressing footnote for history here is that regardless of whether ukraine prevails, there was never anything for russia to win.

USA only cares for influence/money, just like russia. USA wants Ukraine to host NATO Black sea fleet, not russian fleet. Russians want their influence at their borders, of course.

What would USA do if russians wanted to build military ports in mexico and wanted to host their navy there? Cheer?

Quote:USA only cares for influence/money, just like russia. USA wants Ukraine to host NATO Black sea fleet, not russian fleet. Russians want their influence at their borders, of course.

What would USA do if russians wanted to build military ports in mexico and wanted to host their navy there? Cheer?

The US already has access to the Black Sea and already has alliances with countries that border Russia and Russia already has military bases a stone's throw away from US territory so why would they need Mexico?

(May 7, 2023 at 6:07 am)Helios Wrote:

Quote:USA only cares for influence/money, just like russia. USA wants Ukraine to host NATO Black sea fleet, not russian fleet. Russians want their influence at their borders, of course.

What would USA do if russians wanted to build military ports in mexico and wanted to host their navy there? Cheer?

The US already has access to the Black Sea and already has alliances with countries that border Russia and Russia already has military bases a stone's throw away from US territory so why would they need Mexico?

I am not educated in geopolitics. But its obvious that its all about the money/influence. Why else USA has military bases all over the world? To hoard money and influence. Just like in medievel times, only now people pretend to be noble.

EDIT:

Here are the quotes of an educated man in geopolitics.

“The reality is that the American people have no desire for an empire. This is not to say that they don't want the benefits, both economic and strategic. It simply means that they don't want to pay the price. Economically, Americans want the growth potential of open markets but not the pains. Politically, they want to have an enormous influence, but not the resentment of the world. Military, they want to be protected from dangers but not to bear the burdens of long-term strategy.”

― George Friedman, 

Another quote:

There are three global realities that must be faced in the coming decade. First, the United States has become an empire, shaping and reshaping the world through its actions. Second, it is an unintended empire, which means that it neither recognizes the reality of empire nor is prepared to exercise that power prudently. Finally, the greatest challenge to that empire does not come from outside, but from the profound tension between empire and republic.

The more direct analogy would be to ask what the us would do if mexico wanted to build military ports in mexico.

(May 7, 2023 at 6:12 am)purplepurpose Wrote:

(May 7, 2023 at 6:07 am)Helios Wrote: The US already has access to the Black Sea and already has alliances with countries that border Russia and Russia already has military bases a stone's throw away from US territory so why would they need Mexico?

I am not educated in geopolitics. But its obvious that its all about the money/influence. Why else USA has military bases all over the world? To hoard money and influence. Just like in medievel times, only now people pretend to be noble.

EDIT:

Here are the quotes of an educated man in geopolitics.

“The reality is that the American people have no desire for an empire. This is not to say that they don't want the benefits, both economic and strategic. It simply means that they don't want to pay the price. Economically, Americans want the growth potential of open markets but not the pains. Politically, they want to have an enormous influence, but not the resentment of the world. Military, they want to be protected from dangers but not to bear the burdens of long-term strategy.”

― George Friedman, 

Another quote:

There are three global realities that must be faced in the coming decade. First, the United States has become an empire, shaping and reshaping the world through its actions. Second, it is an unintended empire, which means that it neither recognizes the reality of empire nor is prepared to exercise that power prudently. Finally, the greatest challenge to that empire does not come from outside, but from the profound tension between empire and republic.

Well there are truths to these quotes Ukraine is a bit unique because I have pointed out there is nothing on a broad geopolitical scale America gains from Ukraine they don't already have and  if the goal is merely to screw over Russia they already can do that from territories they already have influence over.