Ukraine may, just may get rolled.
Even if Russia wins, it has already lost.

If the pressure remains and doesn’t falter, they will be an outcast state.

Besides, Sweden and Finland will shortly be part of NATO.

No foreign direct investment no rubles for the oligarch caste.

It’s been an economic disaster for Russia.

At some point Putin will die, his successor may be worse, or broker something more manageable with the West.

I doubt Sweden and Finland will step out of NATO.

Remember, things have been worse for the Ukrainian, Stalin and Barbarossa come to mind.

I also disagree that a hot war cannot be fought with the west directly for fear of nuclear war.

It would be limited and no chance of victory, but to maintain status quo… after all, that’s what proxy wars are.

We gave those pricks a drubbing in Syria… they cannot tangle with the West and they know it.

Paranoid as they are, I believe they are cautious of a follow up attack by the west after depleting resources in the Ukraine.

It’s more complicated than just “can Ukraine win”.IMO

Ukraine Faces Difficulties Getting Western Weapons to Front Lines

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ont-lines/ar-AAZJFOA

Western weapons are now in action in the battle for Ukraine. But getting them into operation on the front lines is creating serious headaches for Ukraine’s military.

Ukrainian officials have depicted Western arms as essential in their efforts to turn the tide of the war against Russia, which has in recent months been making grinding territorial gains—and they want more. Until recently, Ukraine has been dependent on heavy weapons built or derived from Soviet-era systems, of which Russia has better equipment in much greater numbers.

More modern and effective Western weapons, particularly long-range artillery pieces, are now in the fight. They are already making a difference, allowing precision Ukrainian strikes on important ammunition dumps, air-defense infrastructure and command centers deep behind the lines that are disrupting the Russian offensive.

But absorbing this new equipment, coming in dribs and drabs from different Western countries, into the Ukrainian army is proving a serious challenge.

“The current approach by which each country donates a battery of guns in a piecemeal way is rapidly turning into a logistical nightmare for Ukrainian forces with each battery requiring a separate training, maintenance and logistics pipeline,” said the Royal United Services Institute, a London defense and security think tank, earlier this month.

The Western artillery being absorbed by the Ukrainian military include M777 towed howitzers from the U.S., Australia and Canada, and self-propelled howitzers such as the Caesar from France and the Panzerhaubitze 2000, or PzH 2000, from Germany—as well as the U.S. M109 and the AHS Krab from Poland.

“None of these systems have that much commonality…Ammunition should be interchangeable, etc. But that’s not the case,” said Jack Watling, a co-author of the report, based in part on interviews with Ukrainian military and intelligence officials.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has attempted to standardize equipment such as ammunition—under standardization agreements known as Stanags—so that it becomes interchangeable between nations and benefits from economies of scale. But these efforts at standardization have had limited effect.

NATO has more than 1,000 Stanags that set common military standards for processes and materials but it is up to each ally to decide which to implement. A NATO official pointed out that NATO leaders agreed at last month’s summit in Madrid to help Ukraine in its transition from Soviet-era weapons to modern NATO weapons.

It isn’t just different types of weapons that Ukraine has been given. Its military must also learn to handle and maintain Western weapons, which are more complicated to operate and maintain than those they have been using up to now. “When you transition to non-Soviet-origin platforms you begin to have to deal with a lot of things that were not in play before,” said Scott Boston, a senior defense analyst at Rand Corp.

“A lot of the Ukrainian stuff is legacy—40-year-old vehicles that you fix with a hammer and a wrench, brute force, lubricants and prayer. If you think about how a mechanic fixes a modern consumer automobile—with a hand-held computer that you hook up to read the sensors inside the vehicle—it is going to be different,” he said.

The complexity is a trade-off for better performance, said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. “To achieve the higher level of capability that Western systems have, there is a level of complexity that’s needed involving hydraulics, electronics, of the weapons systems as well as the ammunition that’s needed to get to extra precision and range,” he said.

According to Mr. Watling, this is a nonexhaustive list of the issues Ukraine faces in handling different artillery systems.

Some are 39-calibre systems and some are 52-calibre, giving them different ranges. They have different spare parts and maintenance requirements, different loading mechanisms and require different charges. They may use their own proprietary computers, leading to questions about data transfer, and some have proprietary shells. There are different training requirements to operate and maintain the systems, and different supply chains for parts.

Because some of these systems are provided in such small numbers, there aren’t enough pieces to rotate in and out of the front line for maintenance and therefore they have to be withdrawn when they break down. Multiple artillery pieces with different capabilities also create challenges for command-and-control systems and battlefield commanders.

Another issue is spares, said Mr. Boston. With its Soviet-era weapons, the Ukrainians can cannibalize old or disused equipment for repairs. “There are no spares other than what they have received” for the Western equipment, he said.

Some artillery systems now being operated by Ukraine are particularly challenging, in particular the powerful and capable German PzH 2000, which has—among other things—very specific requirements for loading charges. Ukrainian troops needed some 40 days of training to operate and maintain the system. At 57 metric tons, it is also heavier than most Soviet-derived equipment, meaning that some bridges aren’t strong enough to bear its weight, potentially complicating its journey into the battlefield.

With only 12 such platforms being sent by Germany and the Netherlands, the transport problem is limited for now. But weight would be a factor if Western nations began to send in their battle tanks, which weigh upward of 60 metric tons—though that seems unlikely for now.

No Western analyst argues that Ukraine would be better without these new systems. But Mr. Watling believes Ukraine’s Western supporters should draw a lesson with future supplies, for example of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and try to limit the numbers of different systems being supplied.

About the artillery...

What isnt mentioned is the range advantage Western artillery provides to offset Russias numerical advantage.

Given the same reach, Ukrainian artillery is at a numeric disadvantage.

Being able to hit Russian artillery from beyond counter battery measures is proving effective.

This is an important point.

So, say Russia embraces WWI fighting - untrained conscripts, crap logistics, and a willingness to absorb huge casualties/inflict massive atrocity, and just slowly marches its conscripts into Ukraine’s guns, until Ukraine is out of bullets.

Putin is, obviously, that much of a monster, and the savage part of Russia has always backed his delusional BS.

(Russia is maybe 25% civilized, 75% backward central Asian hellhole, with a culture to match)

Biden won’t stop his war on US energy, and unless France and Germany get their nuke plants up PDQ, come winter, their support folds, right?

^^ Putin's showed a reluctance to formally declare war, which is what it would take for Russia to field that many soldiers. His reluctance is enough that he's offering major incentives for enlistment and doing a form of shadow recruiting in the sense that government employees are being told that they may have to serve as a condition of their (non-military) deployment. That's why the Russians are relying so heavily on artillery - they don't have the everlasting waves of infantry that they did in WWI or WWII.

Meanwhile, the EU is steadily weaning itself off of Russian fuel to the point that Putin's offering to leave Nordstream I open and full of gas but warning that delivery capacity could be cut to 20% if the turbine that got repaired in Canada isn't returned to Russia.

FWIW, I don't think a simple scenario like the one you posited is in the cards.

Orban urges new strategy on Ukraine, says sanctions have failed

https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/0...nctions-have-failed/

The European Union needs a new strategy on the war in Ukraine as sanctions against Moscow have not worked, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Saturday.

“A new strategy is needed which should focus peace talks and drafting a good peace proposal…instead of winning the war,” Orban said in a speech in Romania.

Orban, reelected for a fourth consecutive term in April, reiterated that Hungary – a NATO member – would stay out of the war in neighbouring Ukraine.

He is facing his toughest challenge since taking power in 2010, with inflation in double digits, a weak forint and EU funds still held up amid a dispute with Brussels over democratic standards.

Orban has said before that Hungary is unwilling to support EU embargoes or limitations on Russian gas imports as that would undermine its economy, which is about 85% reliant on Russian gas imports.

He said in his speech that the Western strategy on Ukraine has been built on four pillars – that Ukraine can win a war against Russia with NATO weapons, that sanctions would weaken Russia and destabilise its leadership, that sanctions would hurt Russia more than Europe, and that the world would line up in support of Europe.

Orban said this strategy has failed as governments in Europe are collapsing “like dominoes”, energy prices have surged and a new strategy was needed now.

“We are sitting in a car that has a puncture in all four tyres: it is absolutely clear that the war cannot be won in this way,” Orban told his supporters.

He said Ukraine will never win the war this way “quite simply because the Russian army has assymetrical dominance”.

Orban said there was no chance for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

“As Russia wants security guarantees, this war can be ended only with peace talks between Russia and America,” he said.

THREAT OF RECESSION

Orban said the threat of economic recession loomed over entire Europe now which also posed a risk to Hungary’s economy. Analysts project GDP growth will slow to about 2.5% next year.

“We must reach a new agreement with the European Union, these financial talks are underway and we will come to an agreement,” he said.

The row over billions of euros of EU funds has weighed on the forint in the past weeks as investors sold the currency amid a worsening global sentiment, forcing Orban’s government to announce steps to cut the budget deficit and scrap years-long price caps on gas and power prices for higher-usage households. Orban said keeping the price caps would have cost over 2 trillion forints ($5.15 billion) to the budget this year alone.

The European Commission believes EU money is at risk in Hungary because of what it says is corruption in tenders. It also has concerns about the independence of the judiciary, media and non-governmental organisations.

Orban has in the past dismissed EU and U.S. concerns over corruption in Hungary.

quote:

“A new strategy is needed which should focus peace talks and drafting a good peace proposal…instead of winning the war,” Orban said in a speech in Romania.

This isn't a war between Russia and Ukraine, but the first phase of a war between the East and the West, and for all its flawed policies and failed leaders, I greatly prefer to be governed by Western philosophy over the Eastern one.

Any peace talks that involve Ukraine giving up as much as one square inch of territory amount to nothing more than appeasement of Putin and a win for Russia, and will only invite and embolden him to invade other neighboring countries.

Conceding Ukraine territory only enriches Russia and further enables Putin to utilize or sell its resources to aid or fund his future efforts to invade his neighbors and re-establish the old Soviet empire.

When Putin is willing to conduct unconditional peace talks I'm good with that, but until such time he must be stopped at all costs and I'm cool with continuing to assist Ukraine in any way that leads to them eventually expelling Russian forces and influence and seriously degrading Putin's ability to make war.

Russia must be stopped with this war, and not allowed to continue their aggression into the next one.

All our involvement is doing is to make it sooner than later we fall under China's control

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
All our involvement is doing is to make it sooner than later we fall under China's control

How so?

Watch he "Jaw-Dropping" video above and try to understand it's not the war you think it is. This war was instigated by the west.

Stop sending weapons and money to the Ukraine and they will come to the "Peace Talks".

quote:

This war was instigated by the west.

Which is why Russia invaded Ukraine? I think that's a bit of a reach.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Watch he "Jaw-Dropping" video above and try to understand it's not the war you think it is. This war was instigated by the west.

Stop sending weapons and money to the Ukraine and they will come to the "Peace Talks".

If you're referring to the Jimmy Dore video, try to keep in mind that he is a Bernie Sanders supporting Progressive Marxist Leftist (as pointed out months ago in this thread), who relies on other Progressive Marxist Leftist sources like Noam Chomsky and the long time Russia apologist Dr. John Mearsheimer to make his talking points.

In this day and age of global rapid transportation, communication, interconnectability, and national cooperation, in which continents can be crossed in hours or less, I may disagree with those who push for isolationism, but can at least respect their position...right up to the point that isolationists resort to using Leftist source talking points to make their case. Then they lose me.

Jimmy Dore may occasionally criticize a politician in his party for not being as progressively left as he wants, but he is no strategist, has no foreign policy expertise, and certainly no friend to those on the Right.

I wasted my time watching two Jimmy Dore videos posted previously here. Not knowing who he was I decided to give him a fair shot and watched them all the way to the end. Then I went out and researched who he was, what he supported, and who his sources were. I deconstructed one of his videos earlier in this thread and won't waste anymore time on his videos.

Garbage in, garbage out.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I think that's a bit of a reach.

A bit—?

Modern Day Savage, once again we agree.
Sometimes I think—hell, I’m certain—that I’d be happier if I knew as much about history and the other ways of the world as those stunningly ignorant college students who get recorded answering such puzzlers as “How many states are there in the US?” and “Why does it get dark at night?”

This was released probably 5 years ago, long before the current controversy. It helps explain what has been happeneing in Ukraine for many decades leading up to the current war.

^^^ "Featuring Oliver Stone and Vladimir Putin"?

I haven't heard of any of the rest of the people named in the credits, and certainly haven't seen any of Igor Lopatonok's other films, but those two are both famous for being loons who distort history every time they try to explain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

This isn't a war between Russia and Ukraine, but the first phase of a war between the East and the West, and for all its flawed policies and failed leaders, I greatly prefer to be governed by Western philosophy over the Eastern one.

Any peace talks that involve Ukraine giving up as much as one square inch of territory amount to nothing more than appeasement of Putin and a win for Russia, and will only invite and embolden him to invade other neighboring countries.

Conceding Ukraine territory only enriches Russia and further enables Putin to utilize or sell its resources to aid or fund his future efforts to invade his neighbors and re-establish the old Soviet empire.

When Putin is willing to conduct unconditional peace talks I'm good with that, but until such time he must be stopped at all costs and I'm cool with continuing to assist Ukraine in any way that leads to them eventually expelling Russian forces and influence and seriously degrading Putin's ability to make war.

Russia must be stopped with this war, and not allowed to continue their aggression into the next one.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I have little doubt that Ukraine has been used as essentially a slush fund for corrupt American politicians (Bidens, Clintons, McCains) for years. That does not excuse Russia's invasion actions. Ivan must be stopped at all cost.

Modern Day Savage

quote:

f you're referring to the Jimmy Dore video, try to keep in mind that he is a Bernie Sanders supporting Progressive Marxist Leftist (as pointed out months ago in this thread), who relies on other Progressive Marxist Leftist sources like Noam Chomsky and the long time Russia apologist Dr. John Mearsheimer to make his talking points.

That is the exact same attitude the far left uses to cancel anyone with a conservative point of view "I am not listening to them, they are Trump supporters"
The fact that Jimmy Dore's party in is in control of 2 of the 3 branches of government, and he still criticizes this administration's foreign policy on Ukraine makes me think his opinion is not based on purely political dogma, and he may actually believe what he is spouting off. As far as Dr Mearsheimer he did predict that if Ukraine went down the path of seeking NATO admission then Ukraine would be wrecked by Russia. In that he was very much correct.


Illcavitto quote ^^^ "Featuring Oliver Stone and Vladimir Putin"?
I haven't heard of any of the rest of the people named in the credits, and certainly haven't seen any of Igor Lopatonok's other films, but those two are both famous for being loons who distort history every time they try to explain it. Quote


The United States was neck deep in instigating the coup of Ukraine in 2014, as was George Soros and his many NGO's. If you don't like the message then kill the messenger. Why don't you try to dispute the facts that he is bringing out. I will keep an open mind if you decide to do so.


Here are my opinions on Ukraine:

When the Soviet Union left Eastern Europe and withdrew their military back to their borders it was done voluntarily, they were not forced out. The Soviet Union gave up communism and that was huge victory. The United States gave assurances that if Germany were allowed to reunify then NATO would not move forward toward Russia. Many people in and out of government advised against moving NATO closer to Russia including Henry Kissinger and many others. They knew this would be unacceptable to Russia and would lead to an eventual conflict.

Under Bill Clinton Poland was allowed to join NATO 8 years after the Soviet Union withdrew. Russia began to protest to the West that they were breaking their agreement. More countries were allowed into NATO and Russia protested more. Then it was announced that NATO membership was going to be offered to Ukraine and Georgia which were right on Russia's border. Russia said this was a redline for them that they would not accept, Russia then invaded Georgia.

The 2014 Maidan coup occurred and a hostile to Russia government was installed. I remember news commentators in the U.S. talking about how NATO would be allowed in Ukraine and that Crimea would now be a naval base for NATO instead of Russia. I thought at the time that it was hard to believe that Russia would give up this base. Then Russia took over all of Crimea. After the coup the Eastern section of Ukraine wanted to secede from the newly installed government and hostilities began. I am sure Russia welcomed this and probably helped with the instability.

In my opinion the West missed a huge opportunity when the Soviet Union withdrew it's forces and eventually gave up communism. What a much different world it would be today if we had drawn Russia closer to Europe and the United States, both economically and militarily. Now Russia is being drawn toward China while China will soon be the largest economy on Earth and growing stronger militarily every year.

I found it interesting that President Zelinskyy told the Western press after the war had started that he was told before the war that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, but publicly it would be stated they would be allowed to join NATO. First I was surprised he would admit this, and second it showed that the West did not want to deescalate the situation, but wanted to provoke a response from Russia

Many people will say it is none of Russia's business if Ukraine joins NATO and in a perfect world this would be true. In reality strong nations have a sphere of influence around their nations to preemptively protect their own countries. Case in point is the United States Monroe Doctrine.

"The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.[1] The doctrine was central to U.S. foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.[2]"

We expect other nations to stay out of our sphere of influence. Should other powerful nations be able to enforce their own doctrines and red lines?


I really believe that if roles were reversed and instead of Russia it were the U.S. and Mexico instead of Ukraine, the United States would have taken military action a lot quicker than Russia did in Ukraine. Just look at the Cuban missile crisis as an example. We came really close to nuclear war and thankfully the Soviet Union backed down. What was not reported was the United States moved nuclear missiles out of Turkey in an agreement with the Soviet union.

"But NATO is a defensive organization and not a threat to Russia."

Would our country feel the same way if Russia or China were aligning militarily with countries in our hemisphere? I know we would not be comfortable with that, defensive weapons can be made offensive very quickly.

So if you agree with that line of thinking or not, the question now becomes how to respond to Russia taking military action in Ukraine.


The West has released unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia. 600 billion dollars in international funds belonging to Russia have been frozen. Very restrictive import/export punishments have been imposed, but what have the results been?

I am sure it has had a negative effect on Russia but so far not devastating. I would argue that it has hurt the Western nations more than Russia, especially Western Europe. This Winter is going to be brutal for many people and I would not be surprised if a huge recession or depression hits Europe. Some governments have already had instability and it would not be hard to imagine civil uprisings if conditions deteriorate enough.

Most of the world's population is not sanctioning Russia and are continuing to trade with Russia and buy her exports. Russia is making much more on it's energy exports than before the war because of rising energy costs and selling more product to areas other than Europe.

The one thing the sanctions have done is move the rest of the world closer to developing an alternative to the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Seizing Russia's 600 billion dollars was a huge mistake. Other countries now realize if they cross the United States their funds can be frozen unilaterally by the United States. Just like Canada freezing bank accounts of protestors, the U.S. is doing this on an international scale. The BRICS countries are now working on new system to create a way for countries to trade without dollars or the SWIFT payment system. If they succeed and enough countries participate this will be very bad news for our country. Being the world's reserve currency allows us to print massive amounts of currency and run huge deficits, we will truly be in a world of hurt economically if they succeed.

Since the 2014 Maidan coup NATO has been building up the Ukrainian militarily on a large scale. large amounts of weapons and training have been provided. The U.S.and other NATO countries actually had soldiers in Ukraine providing training. In the eastern part of the country in the Dombass, the war among Ukrainians raged for 8 years. Atrocities were committed by both sides but more importantly the Ukraine government was turning the front lines into layered defenses complete with concrete fighting positions trenches and tunnels. The fighting has been compared to trench warfare in World War I. Ukraine is a large country about the size of Texas and there is a huge amount of territory in the Eastern part where the war is ongoing.

If Russia is able to finish taking over the part of Ukraine that has been fortified for 8 years, and they have taken the majority of it, the gains will then be made at a very rapid pace.

Large amounts of war supplies have been sent into Ukraine since the war started. The problem is the Ukrainians are not properly trained on much of it. The equipment is a mish/mash of different systems, with components that won't interchange with each other and have different maintenance and spare parts. It is a logistical nightmare. Many artillery pieces use different caliber shells. Also many systems such as the Himars were put into U.S battle plans that were integrated into a multisystem battle plan, and assuming the U.S. would have air superiority. Ukraine has none of this, and has lost massive amounts of the military armament it was provided with. Ukraine may damage some Russian assets with the 12 Himars the U.S. has provided but they will eventually be destroyed by the Russians. They have claimed they have destroyed 4 already and have provided video footage of the missile strikes. The U.S. however denies any have been destroyed while before saying once equipment is handed over to Ukraine the U.S. has no idea where it goes. U.S. officials earlier stated that Russia has a 10 to 1 advantage on artillery systems in Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine weeks ago said the Russians were killing 200 Ukrainian soldiers daily, and many wounded which were estimated around 6-800. That would put approximately 800 Ukrainian soldiers out of the fight each day. Ukraine can not properly train and field enough replacements to sustain these losses. And many of the ones they have lost are their most trained senior, battle hardened soldiers who have been fighting in Eastern Ukraine for 8 years.

The only possible way to remove Russia from Ukraine would require the use of NATO soldiers. Let that sink in for a moment. Is Ukraine such a vital interest to the world that we are willing to have a direct conflict between two nuclear powers? And make no mistake, if NATO becomes directly involved in this conflict it will most likely be a war that will escalate to nuclear weapons.


Many people say we must stop Putin at any cost to keep him from invading the rest of Europe. No one really knows what is in Putin's head and I don't have anymore knowledge than anyone else. Putin has been in power more or less for the past 22 years. I guess it is possible that he was waiting decades to make the right move but most psychopaths would not have that much patience. If he had been wanting to invade all of Ukraine it would have been much better to move right after the Maidan coup in 2014 before Ukraine was heavily armed and trained by NATO. So if that were his intention, it would make no sense to have waited.

War has a way of gaining momentum and many times sends civilization in a direction no one expected. I do know that Western Europe has become weaker economically, and militarily, by sending so many weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. You can see fractures politically that will probably become worse as things deteriorate this Winter. So Western Europe is becoming weaker in many ways. Similarly our own country is certainly not being strengthened by this war.

Our deficit keeps growing,(30.5 trillion) recession is looming and large stocks of U.S. weapons are being sent to Ukraine, some of which will take years to replenish.

Weak countries and fading empires always seem to end up in war. A strong Europe not a weakened one would do more to deter Putin if he decides to escalate to other countries.

What if we continue to arm Ukraine and Russia then prevails over Ukraine? I could see a very disillusioned , weak Europe that no longer trusts the United States or NATO. Especially if it's economy is left in shambles.

What if Ukraine stops Russia but does not drive them out? Years and years of a proxy war with increased damage to Western Europe's finances and stability. The majority of costs will be provided by increased debt to the U.S. taxpayers.

There is also the very real possibility of world wide food shortages if this war continues which would lead to more mass migration to Western Europe and the United States, further destabilizing our societies.

Russia has indeed drawn a red line with Ukraine. Putin and Russia know if they lose this war in Ukraine, which right on their border, they are finished as a power, and maybe as a country. Putin has gone too far to back down now, and retreat back to Russia.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

Some history on U.S. involvement in Ukraine before the Russian invasion, and it's impact on the political situation in our country. Namely the Trump/Russia collusion hoax and the first impeachment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

An interesting video on the US Aid package to Ukraine: