Good grief. Of course the Ukrainians are fighting fools and it makes perfect sense. What doesn't make perfect sense is the US taxpayer funding this slaughter...which is why many of us are praying for any inkling that peace might be given a chance. It's just an utter waste of humanity...unless you don't care about the human cost and merely want to bleed the Russians.

As of February, we had sent about $75B to Ukraine. Contrast that to the $2.1B per week we spent in Iraq. In the process, we (and others) have cut the balls off the Russian military, enabled the destruction of upwards of 2000 Russian tanks, isolated Putin, and effectively neutralized the Russians as a conventional threat to NATO. Finland is now a part of NATO with Sweden close behind. All without one U.S. casualty and the sunk costs associated with war.

From a geopolitical cost/benefit perspective, this is a bargain on the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Incidentally, I can't find a source for that 300,000 number any more than Gustofer could. Does anyone else here have a source for that number that they can cite so that the rest of us can go see who said it and what they actually said?

Consider this - We lost 400,000 in the entire European theater during four years of WWII. To think that they've lost 3/4 of that in one year in one small part of Europe is BS. Complete and utter BS.

Yeah, it's a bargain...In fact, it's such a good deal that we're printing the money to pay for it, and it's not even our war!

quote:

Originally posted by Milliron:
As of February, we had sent about $75B to Ukraine. Contrast that to the $2.1B per week we spent in Iraq. In the process, we (and others) have cut the balls off the Russian military, enabled the destruction of upwards of 2000 Russian tanks, isolated Putin, and effectively neutralized the Russians as a conventional threat to NATO. Finland is now a part of NATO with Sweden close behind. All without one U.S. casualty and the sunk costs associated with war.

From a geopolitical cost/benefit perspective, this is a bargain on the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.

You have succinctly captured the pro Ukrainian war perspective I hear espoused by numerous senior leaders in the military. However, the validity of this viewpoint hinges on whether or not hurting Russia has made them more or less dangerous to us & our interests. I would submit to you that we don’t actually know, and it’s highly possible it has made Russia more dangerous and more likely to do something against us.

This is a classic case of assuming our adversaries have the same weaknesses we do: if we had taken major casualties in an unpopular war, public sentiment would’ve been to stop fighting. It’s possible the Russians will do the opposite; and regarding your final sentence, although some are gloating now we will feel like real assholes if this goes towards something nuclear over a shit country like Ukraine which is not in our national interest.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
You have succinctly captured the pro Ukrainian war perspective I hear espoused by numerous senior leaders in the military. However, the validity of this viewpoint hinges on whether or not hurting Russia has made them more or less dangerous to us & our interests. I would submit to you that we don’t actually know, and it’s highly possible it has made Russia more dangerous and more likely to do something against us.

This is a classic case of assuming our adversaries have the same weaknesses we do: if we had taken major casualties in an unpopular war, public sentiment would’ve been to stop fighting. It’s possible the Russians will do the opposite; and regarding your final sentence, although some are gloating now we will feel like real assholes if this goes towards something nuclear over a shit country like Ukraine which is not in our national interest.

Buy this guy a beer because he's right on the money here. Back a junk yard dog into a corner and he'll bite the shit out of you.

I'm fairly certain that Ukraine (and all countries neighboring Russia) have had a inkling that someday the big bear might come knocking. If they didn't throw every ounce of profit towards their defense, then I say tough shit. Not our pig, not our farm!

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Milliron:
As of February, we had sent about $75B to Ukraine. Contrast that to the $2.1B per week we spent in Iraq. In the process, we (and others) have cut the balls off the Russian military, enabled the destruction of upwards of 2000 Russian tanks, isolated Putin, and effectively neutralized the Russians as a conventional threat to NATO. Finland is now a part of NATO with Sweden close behind. All without one U.S. casualty and the sunk costs associated with war.

From a geopolitical cost/benefit perspective, this is a bargain on the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.

You have succinctly captured the pro Ukrainian war perspective I hear espoused by numerous senior leaders in the military. However, the validity of this viewpoint hinges on whether or not hurting Russia has made them more or less dangerous to us & our interests. I would submit to you that we don’t actually know, and it’s highly possible it has made Russia more dangerous and more likely to do something against us.

This is a classic case of assuming our adversaries have the same weaknesses we do: if we had taken major casualties in an unpopular war, public sentiment would’ve been to stop fighting. It’s possible the Russians will do the opposite; and regarding your final sentence, although some are gloating now we will feel like real assholes if this goes towards something nuclear over a shit country like Ukraine which is not in our national interest.

I will allow that Russia’s invasion definitely opened Pandora’s Box. But that was the Russians’ doing, not ours. Let’s assume we decided to stay out of it—-and the Russians overrun Ukraine and reintegrate it into Russia, which was clearly their aim. Does that make Russia more likely or less likely to act aggressively in the future? Almost certainly the former. So by avoiding the conflict, we only kick the can down the road and leave Russia immeasurably stronger. NATO really had no other choice.

Where I have some reservations is assuming the Russians lose the war, what then? They now have a large, hostile country on their immediate border, are hemmed in by two new NATO members (and maybe more), and are very isolated. That is a dangerous situation to me. Always leave your enemy an escape route.

NATO has been judicious about not giving the Ukrainians the wherewithal to attack Russia proper, but that decision hamstrings the Ukrainian army and prolongs the war. Ukraine, to their credit, seems to understand this. But it’s turned the war into a meat grinder. I would very much like to see a NATO-brokered peace that restores Ukraine’s pre 2014 borders while providing assurance to the Russians that they need not fear aggression from NATO. But the folks on the ground do not seem to think that we are there yet.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
Good grief. Of course the Ukrainians are fighting fools and it makes perfect sense. What doesn't make perfect sense is the US taxpayer funding this slaughter...which is why many of us are praying for any inkling that peace might be given a chance. It's just an utter waste of humanity...unless you don't care about the human cost and merely want to bleed the Russians.

The problem is the only way to get both sides to agree to a lasting peace is something preposterous like the entire world coming together and threatening to bomb both countries into the stone age if they don't stop.

Serious peace negotiations will only occur if both sides think they can achieve, or not lose, more through them than by realistic military means, counting in support of their respective allies. Ukraine will not negotiate if they expect to liberate more of their territory by force than Russia would give them peacefully; Russia will not negotiate if they hope to hold on to what they got, or even take more - they have formally annexed the entirety of four Ukrainian districts which they all control only partially, and there are still Russian voices hoping to take Odessa, thus completing the land bridge to Transnistria.

Depending upon the success of the long-expected Ukrainian counter-offensive, the point where both sides are too exhausted to prefer continued fighting over negotiations may come next year. Except that Russia may hope for a change of government in the US which would result in a reduction or cutoff of aid to Ukraine, permitting themselves to go on the offensive again or making Ukraine give in to their demands; so 2025 is probably more realistic.

Other than full satisfaction of territorial ambitions, I can see four models of decreasing mutual consent that could be the result of negotiations: Spain, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, and Korea. The first would see the regions seceeded from Ukraine given far-going autonomy, but within Ukraine, like the Basque Country and Catalonia within Spain. The problem is, after all the bloodshed not just over the last year, but the last nine, will either side settle for that?

The Northern Ireland solution for the contested regions would go one further and require open borders with Russia and a power-sharing agreement with the pro-Russian party while the regions remain under overall Ukrainian governance. Frankly, I don't think that will be a somewhat stable solution either for at least as long as the Troubles persisted in Northern Ireland.

Kosovo would probably be a more stable model by virtue of pissing off everyone equally; essentially a step back to self-declared independence of the breakaway regions, recognized by some but not by others, becoming ethnically largely cleansed UN protectorates forbidden to join the neighbor country they'd really want to. Which poses the question of who would be both acceptable and stupid enough to provide troops to police and credibly secure them against future intervention by either side.

Korea would certainly be the easiest to implement: establish a DMZ fortified six ways to Sunday on either side, probably rather wider than the original; the mere exclusion zones for heavy weapons under the Minsk Accords didn't turn out to be all that effective even when the agreements were nominally observed. Though with the city of Donetsk right on the frontline, there might be some practical problems, too.

Depending upon the exact construction, I don't however see troops from most Western countries doing much peacekeeping in a post-war Ukraine due to a lack of neutrality which would qualify them for the role. Even Hungary, which has tried its best to keep on Putin's good side, dissatisfied the latter enough to earn an individual nomination for Russia's "unfriendly countries" list recently. As did Switzerland earlier, somewhat surprisingly given their pains to uphold their neutrality in the conflict. Notably absent however is NATO member Turkey, though it remains to be seen whether that will change if a possible successor to Erdogan pursues a different policy than the current playing-both-sides.

Conversely, I'm not sure the West would like to see peacekeepers from countries considered unproblematic by Russia. Particularly China - though I'm not sure Russia would want lots of Chinese troops upholding peace agreements in Ukraine, either. Other potential candidates like Serbia would probably gratefully decline the honor. India or Brazil might be someone both sides could agree on. Otherwise there might be something like a buffer zone itself divided between a Russian and Ukrainian side, monitored by troops from countries somewhat aligned with the interests of either party, but no desire to clash with each other.

quote:

I would very much like to see a NATO-brokered peace that restores Ukraine’s pre 2014 borders

I would put those odds at pretty much nil…

quote:

Originally posted by Milliron:

I will allow that Russia’s invasion definitely opened Pandora’s Box. But that was the Russians’ doing, not ours. Let’s assume we decided to stay out of it—-and the Russians overrun Ukraine and reintegrate it into Russia, which was clearly their aim. Does that make Russia more likely or less likely to act aggressively in the future? Almost certainly the former. So by avoiding the conflict, we only kick the can down the road and leave Russia immeasurably stronger. NATO really had no other choice.

Where I have some reservations is assuming the Russians lose the war, what then? They now have a large, hostile country on their immediate border, are hemmed in by two new NATO members (and maybe more), and are very isolated. That is a dangerous situation to me. Always leave your enemy an escape route.

NATO has been judicious about not giving the Ukrainians the wherewithal to attack Russia proper, but that decision hamstrings the Ukrainian army and prolongs the war. Ukraine, to their credit, seems to understand this. But it’s turned the war into a meat grinder. I would very much like to see a NATO-brokered peace that restores Ukraine’s pre 2014 borders while providing assurance to the Russians that they need not fear aggression from NATO. But the folks on the ground do not seem to think that we are there yet.

In your first paragraph, you make a big assumption (that Russia would continue to act aggressively after taking Ukraine) then say based on that assumption, we had no choice but to back the Ukrainians. I reject your assumption. Who can really know what’s in the minds of Russians, but I personally think evidence indicates this was always a limited military operation to secure a buffer zone from western expansion.

Russia has made clear for decades that it feels threatened by our expansion in Eastern Europe. And for decades we have made false promises about ceasing expansion, and then expanded anyway. Why exactly should we make our country poor and destroy the world economy to prevent Russia from having a buffer zone and warm water port in Crimea?

Our nation has thus far received no benefits from engaging Russia by proxy in Ukraine, but we have seen massive wealth loss and deterioration and quality of life here. And I see no benefit to us if Ukraine wins the war or loses the war… only danger of uncertainty with an even crazier Russia.

And Russia now has a legitimate grievance against us. What if Russia had given billions to ISIS or the Taliban, assisted their targeting and increased their lethality resulting in tens of thousands of US casualties during the GWOT? It would have turned into WW3. Yet we do that to them and expect them to just take it? Very arrogant and dumb of us.

Bottom line, I see zero benefit to the United States in supporting this war, only downsides. When Ukraine loses or gets a Chinese brokered peace deal we’ll be poorer and humiliated on the international stage, thus harming alliances elsewhere. In the off chance Ukraine “wins” by driving Russia out, how are we benefited exactly by having an angrier and isolated Russia nursing legit grievances against us? I’m interested in a practical answer; thus far all I have heard from the pro Ukraine people are generic platitudes about preserving democracy, which I find totally unconvincing for many reasons, not the least of which is that Zelenskyy is a tyrant.

quote:

Originally posted by Milliron:
As of February, we had sent about $75B to Ukraine. Contrast that to the $2.1B per week we spent in Iraq. In the process, we (and others) have cut the balls off the Russian military, enabled the destruction of upwards of 2000 Russian tanks, isolated Putin, and effectively neutralized the Russians as a conventional threat to NATO. Finland is now a part of NATO with Sweden close behind. All without one U.S. casualty and the sunk costs associated with war.

From a geopolitical cost/benefit perspective, this is a bargain on the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.

I’m inclined to agree. It’s basically “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And Putin’s Russia is certainly our enemy.

quote:

Our nation has thus far received no benefits from engaging Russia by proxy in Ukraine, but we have seen massive wealth loss and deterioration and quality of life here. And I see no benefit to us if Ukraine wins the war or loses the war… only danger of uncertainty with an even crazier Russia.

Well said, arabiancowboy.

If only we had spent that money on a wall and our own border security.

Arabiancowboy summed it up perfectly.

One of the more disturbing side effects of the war in Ukraine has been the partial disruption of the petrodollar as the world reserve currency. While settlements for oil are largely still in USD, this may not always be the case.

BRICS and the petroyuan will create alternatives for semi-friendly or non-friendly nation states to avoid sanctions, and create a parallel world commodity system that does not involve D.C. and her woke politics.

So the real question becomes whether the Russian invasion is really the first salvo in an economic proxy war by the Chinese? Or just an aggressive move by Russia to take advantage while there is utterly feeble and Chinese captured leadership in D.C.?

quote:

And Putin’s Russia is certainly our enemy.

Should we be prepared for an attack?

It's not like various countries haven't been trying to do this for decades, with essentially no success.

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
One of the more disturbing side effects of the war in Ukraine has been the partial disruption of the petrodollar as the world reserve currency. While settlements for oil are largely still in USD, this may not always be the case.

BRICS and the petroyuan will create alternatives for semi-friendly or non-friendly nation states to avoid sanctions, and create a parallel world commodity system that does not involve D.C. and her woke politics.

So the real question becomes whether the Russian invasion is really the first salvo in an economic proxy war by the Chinese? Or just an aggressive move by Russia to take advantage while there is utterly feeble and Chinese captured leadership in D.C.?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
It's not like various countries haven't been trying to do this for decades, with essentially no success.

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
One of the more disturbing side effects of the war in Ukraine has been the partial disruption of the petrodollar as the world reserve currency. While settlements for oil are largely still in USD, this may not always be the case.

BRICS and the petroyuan will create alternatives for semi-friendly or non-friendly nation states to avoid sanctions, and create a parallel world commodity system that does not involve D.C. and her woke politics.

So the real question becomes whether the Russian invasion is really the first salvo in an economic proxy war by the Chinese? Or just an aggressive move by Russia to take advantage while there is utterly feeble and Chinese captured leadership in D.C.?

The difference is that now there is a realistic alternative framework being constructed and that the volume of settlements in yuan are increasing. I wouldn't be so confident in dismissing the threat. https://www.nasdaq.com/article...vestors-need-to-know

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


In your first paragraph, you make a big assumption (that Russia would continue to act aggressively after taking Ukraine) then say based on that assumption, we had no choice but to back the Ukrainians. I reject your assumption. Who can really know what’s in the minds of Russians, but I personally think evidence indicates this was always a limited military operation to secure a buffer zone from western expansion.

Russia has made clear for decades that it feels threatened by our expansion in Eastern Europe. And for decades we have made false promises about ceasing expansion, and then expanded anyway. Why exactly should we make our country poor and destroy the world economy to prevent Russia from having a buffer zone and warm water port in Crimea?

Our nation has thus far received no benefits from engaging Russia by proxy in Ukraine, but we have seen massive wealth loss and deterioration and quality of life here. And I see no benefit to us if Ukraine wins the war or loses the war… only danger of uncertainty with an even crazier Russia.

And Russia now has a legitimate grievance against us. What if Russia had given billions to ISIS or the Taliban, assisted their targeting and increased their lethality resulting in tens of thousands of US casualties during the GWOT? It would have turned into WW3. Yet we do that to them and expect them to just take it? Very arrogant and dumb of us.

Bottom line, I see zero benefit to the United States in supporting this war, only downsides. When Ukraine loses or gets a Chinese brokered peace deal we’ll be poorer and humiliated on the international stage, thus harming alliances elsewhere. In the off chance Ukraine “wins” by driving Russia out, how are we benefited exactly by having an angrier and isolated Russia nursing legit grievances against us? I’m interested in a practical answer; thus far all I have heard from the pro Ukraine people are generic platitudes about preserving democracy, which I find totally unconvincing for many reasons, not the least of which is that Zelenskyy is a tyrant.

Not sure I’m understanding all the sudden consideration for the Russians here. These are people who said they would bury us. Russia made it very clear that they regarded Ukrainian sovereignty as illegitimate. The only reason the Cold War relaxed was due to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the greatest of all the republics to leave was Ukraine. As to buffer zones, it’s a bit much to ask for a buffer zone larger than France, wouldn’t you say? I’m surprised to hear this argument. This is literally the same thought process that prevailed in 1938. We all know how that went.

Ukraine is vital to Russia’s long term strategic interests. Russia knows this and so does everyone else. It is absolutely in our strategic interests to prevent that from happening if at all possible. Massive wealth loss? Our outlay so far is one tenth of the Pentagon’s yearly budget. We spent considerably more on the VA in 2021.

As for Russian grievances, I couldn’t give a shit. We have a few grievances of our own (Russian MiG’s over N. Korea come to mind, but there are others) But it doesn’t really matter anyway, because we would better served keeping the Russians reduced so we can deal with China. If the argument is that it’s better to let the Russians rebuild the Soviet Union because the world was “more stable then”, I can’t get behind that. It’s like letting the bully up and hoping he won’t hit you again.

quote:

Not sure I’m understanding all the sudden consideration for the Russians here.

What type of "consideration" are you talking about?
Has anyone argued that we should help the Russians?

quote:

If the argument is that it’s better to let the Russians rebuild the Soviet Union because the world was “more stable then”, I can’t get behind that.

Strawman!