It is kind of our problem because we chose to get involved. It's our problem until we decide it isn't. And the same goes with the EU.

Zobel said:

---

It is kind of our problem because we chose to get involved.

---

This thing has exposed and done tremendous damage to the Russian military's reputation. I found stories like this one interesting where the U.S. seems to be trying take advantage.

US Preparing Military Aid Package for India to Cut Russia Weapons Dependence - Bloomberg

Hey India, why would you want to buy that Russian made sh*t? As you can now see from what has happened in Ukraine, US military hardware and technology is clearly the way to go.

aggie93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Recent comment from Russia regarding Musk and "negotiation".

Putin's Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov:

"Unlike professional diplomats, Musk is trying to find ways to achieve peace. And achieving peace without fulfilling Russia's conditions is absolutely impossible,"

So, "peace", in Russia's mind still requires full Ukrainian capitulation. That would seem pretty clear cut.

---

You mean Russia didn't immediately say "YES! Sign me up!" so it's a non starter? K. The fact that Ukraine also showed zero interest (because the US is actually pressuring them to keep fighting as of now) isn't the reason.

Neither side is going to publicly go for this deal of course, the key is getting them to the table and figuring it out. It's a solvable problem because it's in the interest of both sides to stop the war and find a balance.

---

If you'll recall, Russia had months of negotiations during which they essentially stuck to the hard line of "all or nothing, take it or leave it". At this point, in your mind, what is the minimum acceptable concession/compromise to expect from the Russian side?

Because no negotiated peace is possible without Russia and Putin being willing to significantly scale back their demands AND contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Likewise, it's unreasonable to expect Ukraine to be the only side to make appreciable sacrifices in negotiations when they're making significant military progress.

Credible Source said:

---

Elon is not an idiot, he's light years smarter than anyone on this thread.

---

He was. Until I showed up.

Oh don't get me wrong I think it's money well spent as well as the right thing to do. But there's also got to be a point of diminishing returns even from a cold, calculating strategic point of view.

Rossticus said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Recent comment from Russia regarding Musk and "negotiation".

Putin's Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov:

"Unlike professional diplomats, Musk is trying to find ways to achieve peace. And achieving peace without fulfilling Russia's conditions is absolutely impossible,"

So, "peace", in Russia's mind still requires full Ukrainian capitulation. That would seem pretty clear cut.

---

You mean Russia didn't immediately say "YES! Sign me up!" so it's a non starter? K. The fact that Ukraine also showed zero interest (because the US is actually pressuring them to keep fighting as of now) isn't the reason.

Neither side is going to publicly go for this deal of course, the key is getting them to the table and figuring it out. It's a solvable problem because it's in the interest of both sides to stop the war and find a balance.

---

If you'll recall, Russia had months of negotiations during which they essentially stuck to the hard line of "all or nothing, take it or leave it". At this point, in your mind, what is the minimum acceptable concession/compromise to expect from the Russian side?

Because no negotiated peace is possible without Russia and Putin being willing to significantly scale back their demands AND contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Likewise, it's unreasonable to expect Ukraine to be the only side to make appreciable sacrifices in negotiations when they're making significant military progress.

---

You and many others are looking at the trees and not the forest.

The situation has changed significantly. Russia is losing and looks like they will lose entirely if it stays conventional. Yay! Ukraine wins, right? Well what if Russia decides to go nuclear? "They won't do THAT! I mean that would be crazy and suicidal?!" Yes it would, maybe. Maybe Putin is willing to roll the dice that he can hit Ukraine with low level nukes and shift the entire war betting that NATO doesn't have the balls to nuke Russia back. If you don't see that as a very real possibility (even if it is unlikely) you really aren't paying attention.

Russia is in big trouble on multiple fronts. They are at risk of losing complete relevance as a country and they have a leader that DGAF about humanity or sacrificing people. He also couldn't GAS about being tried for war crimes, he would put a bullet in his own head before that happens or more likely nuke the world. There is NO ONE that can stop him in Russia. He has eliminated all opposition and everyone in a position of authority is both loyal to him and fears him. Anyone that even hints of otherwise is murdered. That's how they roll.

We are also in a Global Recession about to be a Depression. We are right on the brink of mass famine and complete breakdowns of society in numerous countries and it's already happened in Sri Lanka. Lights just went out in Bangladesh. The Middle East is about to explode as people won't be able to afford food. Africa will be next. Europe will likely avoid collapse but it is in for a very rough time.

So continuing the war on for a year or so longer so that they can fight over Crimea and what types of access Russia will get in Eastern Ukraine is lunacy. Everyone loses. If we can get them to stop fighting we can get the fertilizer and O&G from Ukraine back online and at least control some of the damage to come. Wait much longer and it will be catastrophic, people don't realize how bad it will already be.

Russia is done. They will never recover from this in our lifetimes. We need to find a way to ends this and focus on much larger problems. We can still make them suffer with sanctions and the fact they have lost so much of their power on the world stage. Giving them no off ramp is lunacy no matter how evil Putin may be. If they didn't have a mountain of nukes maybe that would be different but they do and we need to make sure we don't get caught up in punishing Russia. This is not a comparable situation to WWII or the Taliban or anything else, it's a new dynamic and we have to adapt.

Rossticus said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Recent comment from Russia regarding Musk and "negotiation".

Putin's Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov:

"Unlike professional diplomats, Musk is trying to find ways to achieve peace. And achieving peace without fulfilling Russia's conditions is absolutely impossible,"

So, "peace", in Russia's mind still requires full Ukrainian capitulation. That would seem pretty clear cut.

---

You mean Russia didn't immediately say "YES! Sign me up!" so it's a non starter? K. The fact that Ukraine also showed zero interest (because the US is actually pressuring them to keep fighting as of now) isn't the reason.

Neither side is going to publicly go for this deal of course, the key is getting them to the table and figuring it out. It's a solvable problem because it's in the interest of both sides to stop the war and find a balance.

---

If you'll recall, Russia had months of negotiations during which they essentially stuck to the hard line of "all or nothing, take it or leave it". At this point, in your mind, what is the minimum acceptable concession/compromise to expect from the Russian side?

Because no negotiated peace is possible without Russia and Putin being willing to significantly scale back their demands AND contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Likewise, it's unreasonable to expect Ukraine to be the only side to make appreciable sacrifices in negotiations when they're making significant military progress.

---

Revisionist history. The Istanbul summit had a peace deal ironed out. NATO (3rd party) crushed it.

Russia has blown past every off ramp on their way to this point. It's all well and good to say that they need to
stop fighting, but Russia has displayed no willingness to withdraw from Ukraine unless they achieve maximalist objectives. Ukraine, pragmatically speaking, can't stop fighting until Russia withdraws.

This leads back to my question. What will Russia actually accept as an off ramp? Because, ultimately, unless they're willing to accept something far, far less than what they continue to insist on, it's a moot point.

Allowing them to annex 25% of Ukraine is neither practical, acceptable, nor productive in the long run and incentivizes future aggression. I really don't see an off ramp that Putin accepts that isn't tantamount to a full negotiated victory. And that's not happening. Nor should it.

The Debt said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Recent comment from Russia regarding Musk and "negotiation".

Putin's Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov:

"Unlike professional diplomats, Musk is trying to find ways to achieve peace. And achieving peace without fulfilling Russia's conditions is absolutely impossible,"

So, "peace", in Russia's mind still requires full Ukrainian capitulation. That would seem pretty clear cut.

---

You mean Russia didn't immediately say "YES! Sign me up!" so it's a non starter? K. The fact that Ukraine also showed zero interest (because the US is actually pressuring them to keep fighting as of now) isn't the reason.

Neither side is going to publicly go for this deal of course, the key is getting them to the table and figuring it out. It's a solvable problem because it's in the interest of both sides to stop the war and find a balance.

---

If you'll recall, Russia had months of negotiations during which they essentially stuck to the hard line of "all or nothing, take it or leave it". At this point, in your mind, what is the minimum acceptable concession/compromise to expect from the Russian side?

Because no negotiated peace is possible without Russia and Putin being willing to significantly scale back their demands AND contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Likewise, it's unreasonable to expect Ukraine to be the only side to make appreciable sacrifices in negotiations when they're making significant military progress.

---

Revisionist history. The Istanbul summit had a peace deal ironed out. NATO (3rd party) crushed it.

---

And what were the details of the deal that both parties were fully prepared to accept, which Jens Stoltenberg managed to foil?

Rossticus said:

---

Russia has blown past every off ramp on their way to this point. It's all well and good to say that they need to
stop fighting, but Russia has displayed no willingness to withdraw from Ukraine unless they achieve maximalist objectives. Ukraine, pragmatically speaking, can't stop fighting until Russia withdraws.

This leads back to my question. What will Russia actually accept as an off ramp? Because, ultimately, unless they're willing to accept something far, far less than what they continue to insist on, it's a moot point.

Allowing them to annex 25% of Ukraine is neither practical, acceptable, nor productive in the long run and incentivizes future aggression. I really don't see an off ramp that Putin accepts that isn't tantamount to a full negotiated victory. And that's not happening. Nor should it.

---

Anything up until the last couple of weeks is irrelevant. Russia wasn't really losing until now and they still had hope of winning. That's fading fast. So that means the Bear is cornered but the Bear absolutely still has claws and teeth. The claws are the hundreds of thousands of conscripts on the way. The teeth are the nukes. Realize that Putin is committed and unless we can find a way for him to save face he's going to go all the way. You really ready for that? He is. Telling him that we want regime change and to try him for war crimes certainly isn't going to shift his resolve.

So if you don't leave Russia an off ramp the best case is they extend the war out for months if not a year or longer and after every Russian soldier is dead they will finally have to give up. They certainly won't do it any sooner, they can't without an off ramp. The worst case is they go nuclear. The logical move for Putin is to use tactical nukes on Ukraine and dare NATO to respond. That shifts the entire focus of the war both in escalation but also it makes it so that Ukraine can't win alone. They will need NATO to be directly involved at that point and we are talking about a real WWIII with nukes already on the table.

Those are the 2 options unless we get a peace deal. It's going to be a hell of a lot uglier than giving him a few more concessions than he deserves. It's going to be difficult but it's possible and we need to pursue that option now that there has been a shift. Maybe he keeps Crimea, the Eastern Provinces become autonomous, Ukraine becomes neutral and stays out of NATO and there are some other trade concessions. That deal isn't great but it just might work for everyone. Realize as well that Zelensky is a NATO/Biden puppet at this point, we own him and he will do what we tell him.

Oh, and spare me the "Stand with Ukraine!" stuff. Biden and NATO couldn't give a damn about Ukraine other than using them as a proxy war to prevent Russia from attacking NATO countries. They also have value because of their oil and grain and fertilizer that Europe needs and they are a massive grifting machine for Biden and NATO. They are a chess board piece to them.

What you just described is essentially a full surrender. An unallied, unaligned, demilitarized Ukraine who sacrifices most of its agricultural and industrial lands in addition to its sea access is dead man walking. We both also know that, based on historical precedent, Russia won't leave Ukraine well enough alone after that.

You'd like for Ukraine to accept a slow death in place of a fighting chance for your own peace of mind. That's all fine and well but the situation you outline achieves literally nothing positive for Ukraine, and Russia concedes nothing in the negotiation.

Russia's green conscripts are a non-factor. It will take months for them to be anything other than meat for the grinder, many more will be lost to winter exposure and victim of nonexistent supply, and of the rest only the ones who then have survived winter and a few months of combat will be of value. Russia's new conscripts are of no immediate concern and will pay marginal dividends in spring at the earliest.

You don't fold when you're winning and you don't disincentivize aggressive expansionism by way of appeasement. Russia's weakness will only continue to grow with time. Nuclear threat will be successfully mitigated via MAD, the same way it always has.

Ukraine is free to lay down and give up whenever they want to but for now their national spirit remains strong and they robustly support their fight and their country. They're kicking Russia's ass out of their country and I'm happy to watch them continue doing so as long as they're willing. Russia has an easy off ramp at any time. It's called giving up and going home.

There is no inherent responsibility for anyone to manufacture a successful outcome for Russia. If they choose to wipe out thousands of their young men at the hand of the Ukrainians in pursuit of an unattainable victory then so be it. That's their unfortunate decision and the decision of Ukraine as to whether the wish to accommodate them in their folly.

If Ukrainians have the backbone to stand up to the risk and consequence of the war currently ongoing in their own country, what justification do you have to be scared?

One other possible outcome is that this goes sideways fast for Russia, and they get rolled. I don't think that's the most likely outcome but it is definitely on the table. I still think the most likely outcome is it stalls in the east and drags on until ??

jefe95 said:

---

Zelensky is so busy with the war effort he has time to **** around with a twitter poll.

Elon isn't wrong here.

---

One could argue much of this war is about winning over public opinion. I'd say it was a pretty efficient use of maybe 90 seconds or so to make a mobile twitter post.

BlueTaze said:

---

jefe95 said:

---

Zelensky is so busy with the war effort he has time to **** around with a twitter poll.

Elon isn't wrong here.

---

One could argue much of this war is about winning over public opinion. I'd say it was a pretty efficient use of maybe 90 seconds or so to make a mobile twitter post.

---

Wait… we have a problem with presidents on Twitter now?

Zobel said:

---

One other possible outcome is that this goes sideways fast for Russia, and they get rolled. I don't think that's the most likely outcome but it is definitely on the table. I still think the most likely outcome is it stalls in the east and drags on until ??

---

With all due respect, you thought Ukraine was going to get rolled 8 months ago. You denied the losses that Russia was taking and you have thought they should surrender on day 1 of the war.

Like a Nazi concentration camp, where gold teeth of murdered Jews were collected. In liberated village of Pisky-Rad'kivs'ki - Kharkiv region, #Ukraine army found a Russian torture chamber - box of ripped out gold teeth, electrical wire, dildo, gas mask... https://t.co/Idd1MZV1sl pic.twitter.com/pcleXgXx4t

— Glasnost Gone (@GlasnostGone) October 4, 2022

^^^^
Sometimes it's a battle of good vs evil. People that invade other countries and steal gold from other people's mouths shouldn't be allowed a voice on the world stage.

You were wrong 8 months ago and you are wrong today. Russia is a terrorist state and its right for the world to condemn them for this illegal and unprovoked aggression.

Rossticus said:

---

What you just described is essentially a full surrender. An unallied, unaligned, demilitarized Ukraine who sacrifices most of its agricultural and industrial lands in addition to its sea access is dead man walking. We both also know that, based on historical precedent, Russia won't leave Ukraine well enough alone after that.

You'd like for Ukraine to accept a slow death in place of a fighting chance for your own peace of mind. That's all fine and well but the situation you outline achieves literally nothing positive for Ukraine, and Russia concedes nothing in the negotiation.

Russia's green conscripts are a non-factor. It will take months for them to be anything other than meat for the grinder, many more will be lost to winter exposure and victim of nonexistent supply, and of the rest only the ones who then have survived winter and a few months of combat will be of value. Russia's new conscripts are of no immediate concern and will pay marginal dividends in spring at the earliest.

You don't fold when you're winning and you don't disincentivize aggressive expansionism by way of appeasement. Russia's weakness will only continue to grow with time. Nuclear threat will be successfully mitigated via MAD, the same way it always has.

Ukraine is free to lay down and give up whenever they want to but for now their national spirit remains strong and they robustly support their fight and their country. They're kicking Russia's ass out of their country and I'm happy to watch them continue doing so as long as they're willing. Russia has an easy off ramp at any time. It's called giving up and going home.

There is no inherent responsibility for anyone to manufacture a successful outcome for Russia. If they choose to wipe out thousands of their young men at the hand of the Ukrainians in pursuit of an unattainable victory then so be it. That's their unfortunate decision and the decision of Ukraine as to whether the wish to accommodate them in their folly.

If Ukrainians have the backbone to stand up to the risk and consequence of the war currently ongoing in their own country, what justification do you have to be scared?

---

Wrong quote. Meant for aggie93.

Russia has little leverage at the moment. There's nothing to suggest these new draftees will make much if an impact except in the Russian body bag industry.

EDIT: Sorry. Responded before your edit.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Zobel said:

---

It is kind of our problem because we chose to get involved.

---

This thing has exposed and done tremendous damage to the Russian military's reputation. I found stories like this one interesting where the U.S. seems to be trying take advantage.

US Preparing Military Aid Package for India to Cut Russia Weapons Dependence - Bloomberg

Hey India, why would you want to buy that Russian made sh*t? As you can now see from what has happened in Ukraine, US military hardware and technology is clearly the way to go.

---

They buy from Russia because of the US/Pakistan alliance, and out bizarre continuing support there.

I mean Russia literally leased them a nuclear attack submarine to both operate and study, which has led to them developing their own small missile boats.

Rossticus said:

---

What you just described is essentially a full surrender. An unallied, unaligned, demilitarized Ukraine who sacrifices most of its agricultural and industrial lands in addition to its sea access is dead man walking. We both also know that, based on historical precedent, Russia won't leave Ukraine well enough alone after that.

You'd like for Ukraine to accept a slow death in place of a fighting chance for your own peace of mind. That's all fine and well but the situation you outline achieves literally nothing positive for Ukraine, and Russia concedes nothing in the negotiation.

Russia's green conscripts are a non-factor. It will take months for them to be anything other than meat for the grinder, many more will be lost to winter exposure and victim of nonexistent supply, and of the rest only the ones who then have survived winter and a few months of combat will be of value. Russia's new conscripts are of no immediate concern and will pay marginal dividends in spring at the earliest.

You don't fold when you're winning and you don't disincentivize aggressive expansionism by way of appeasement. Russia's weakness will only continue to grow with time. Nuclear threat will be successfully mitigated via MAD, the same way it always has.

Ukraine is free to lay down and give up whenever they want to but for now their national spirit remains strong and they robustly support their fight and their country. They're kicking Russia's ass out of their country and I'm happy to watch them continue doing so as long as they're willing. Russia has an easy off ramp at any time. It's called giving up and going home.

There is no inherent responsibility for anyone to manufacture a successful outcome for Russia. If they choose to wipe out thousands of their young men at the hand of the Ukrainians in pursuit of an unattainable victory then so be it. That's their unfortunate decision and the decision of Ukraine as to whether the wish to accommodate them in their folly.

If Ukrainians have the backbone to stand up to the risk and consequence of the war currently ongoing in their own country, what justification do you have to be scared?

---

MAD doesn't apply. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine doesn't have nukes. If Russia sends a tactical nuke against Ukraine, especially against a military target, there is no "assurance" at all that NATO will send nukes at Russia. Putin is all in on this war right now as he has no other choice. You really want to find out?

You seem to like the other option though, let's drag this war out for God knows how long. Assuming Russia doesn't go nuclear they can still send up those bodies into the meat grinder for a very long time. Remember in WWII they lost 21 million. While that's sad and no telling how many Ukrainians will also die. Still that's not the real impact to worry about as I stated. Millions if not tens of millions or more will die globally from the food and energy shortages that will create famine and additional conflicts. Not counting the massive financial impact. A lot of the damage has already been done and the impact will start to hit home this Winter but another year of this and it's going to get really, really ugly.

While I understand your sympathies for Ukraine and how they have been wronged the reality is Ukraine needs peace as well. While it may sound great that they can keep fighting Russia endlessly they won't have a country left. Certainly they should try to get the best terms they can and right now they have some leverage so they should use it.

You just aren't playing the game to the end and understanding what it means and you really are underestimating the risks. You are literally betting that Putin will just accept defeat instead of finding a way to have an off ramp. If you are right maybe just a few million die. If you are wrong then hundreds of millions could die. Russia isn't going to try this again, they aren't going to be capable of doing so and Ukraine will be defended. The reality is though that fair or not Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and a man in charge that very well might use them. Russia also sees this as a threat to their security and if they aren't going to stop until they feel confident that Ukraine isn't going to be used as a future way to threaten them.

aggie93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

What you just described is essentially a full surrender. An unallied, unaligned, demilitarized Ukraine who sacrifices most of its agricultural and industrial lands in addition to its sea access is dead man walking. We both also know that, based on historical precedent, Russia won't leave Ukraine well enough alone after that.

You'd like for Ukraine to accept a slow death in place of a fighting chance for your own peace of mind. That's all fine and well but the situation you outline achieves literally nothing positive for Ukraine, and Russia concedes nothing in the negotiation.

Russia's green conscripts are a non-factor. It will take months for them to be anything other than meat for the grinder, many more will be lost to winter exposure and victim of nonexistent supply, and of the rest only the ones who then have survived winter and a few months of combat will be of value. Russia's new conscripts are of no immediate concern and will pay marginal dividends in spring at the earliest.

You don't fold when you're winning and you don't disincentivize aggressive expansionism by way of appeasement. Russia's weakness will only continue to grow with time. Nuclear threat will be successfully mitigated via MAD, the same way it always has.

Ukraine is free to lay down and give up whenever they want to but for now their national spirit remains strong and they robustly support their fight and their country. They're kicking Russia's ass out of their country and I'm happy to watch them continue doing so as long as they're willing. Russia has an easy off ramp at any time. It's called giving up and going home.

There is no inherent responsibility for anyone to manufacture a successful outcome for Russia. If they choose to wipe out thousands of their young men at the hand of the Ukrainians in pursuit of an unattainable victory then so be it. That's their unfortunate decision and the decision of Ukraine as to whether the wish to accommodate them in their folly.

If Ukrainians have the backbone to stand up to the risk and consequence of the war currently ongoing in their own country, what justification do you have to be scared?

---

MAD doesn't apply. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine doesn't have nukes. If Russia sends a tactical nuke against Ukraine, especially against a military target, there is no "assurance" at all that NATO will send nukes at Russia. Putin is all in on this war right now as he has no other choice. You really want to find out?

You seem to like the other option though, let's drag this war out for God knows how long. Assuming Russia doesn't go nuclear they can still send up those bodies into the meat grinder for a very long time. Remember in WWII they lost 21 million. While that's sad and no telling how many Ukrainians will also die. Still that's not the real impact to worry about as I stated. Millions if not tens of millions or more will die globally from the food and energy shortages that will create famine and additional conflicts. Not counting the massive financial impact. A lot of the damage has already been done and the impact will start to hit home this Winter but another year of this and it's going to get really, really ugly.

While I understand your sympathies for Ukraine and how they have been wronged the reality is Ukraine needs peace as well. While it may sound great that they can keep fighting Russia endlessly they won't have a country left. Certainly they should try to get the best terms they can and right now they have some leverage so they should use it.

You just aren't playing the game to the end and understanding what it means and you really are underestimating the risks. You are literally betting that Putin will just accept defeat instead of finding a way to have an off ramp. If you are right maybe just a few million die. If you are wrong then hundreds of millions could die. Russia isn't going to try this again, they aren't going to be capable of doing so and Ukraine will be defended. The reality is though that fair or not Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and a man in charge that very well might use them. Russia also sees this as a threat to their security and if they aren't going to stop until they feel confident that Ukraine isn't going to be used as a future way to threaten them.

---

Didn't have to read.

MAD will apply because if that becomes the norm in buffer states that are actively waging the most effective war against the Kremlin then what will it take? You're waiting on a strike to NYC?

Sounds like Russia should capitulate. I dont buy your scenario.

Quote:

---

With all due respect, you thought Ukraine was going to get rolled 8 months ago. You denied the losses that Russia was taking and you have thought they should surrender on day 1 of the war.

---

I think you have me confused with someone else. I did think Ukraine was going to lose, and was surprised at how well they did. I don't think I'm alone in that. But your second sentence is flat out incorrect.

Quote:

---

Sometimes it's a battle of good vs evil. People that invade other countries and steal gold from other people's mouths shouldn't be allowed a voice on the world stage.

You were wrong 8 months ago and you are wrong today. Russia is a terrorist state and its right for the world to condemn them for this illegal and unprovoked aggression.

---

see this is where things get confused again. i agree with your first paragraph. Russia is clearly the aggressor here, they are wrong, their targeting of civilians is brutal and barbaric and wrong. it is just as wrong in Ukraine as it was in Syria.

so I'm not sure why you're leveling this at me. i've never said anything to the contrary.

Musk coming across as the nerdy computer guy who has zero 'street smarts'.

We should tax democrat voters to pay Ukraine. Putin took Crimea under Obama and now the rest of Eastern Ukraine under Biden. In fact, Biden probably had more to do with both Putin encroachments than any other American.

He is weak, but most importantly overflowing with kompromat. Is admin got an "or else" from Kremlin, and he then proceeded to bump his gums and protect western Ukraine and Nato. Eastern Ukraine is a lost cause.

Quote:

---

If Russia sends a tactical nuke against Ukraine, especially against a military target, there is no "assurance" at all that NATO will send nukes at Russia.

---

You're going to have to explain how you think using nuclear weapons is actually going to make a difference militarily for your theory to make any sense. The folks who know more about this than I do don't believe that there is really any military advantage in using tactical nuclear weapons here -- the Ukrainian forces are too dispersed. You need large concentrations, or large fixed targets in order for tactical nukes to make sense. Otherwise, you're just make a lot of noise, and not doing anything to change the military situation.

The threat of throwing hundreds of thousands of conscripts at Ukraine rings hollow. Putin has tried desperately to avoid the draft because, up to now, the war has not had a large impact on most Russians. Start calling up their sons and husbands for suicide missions and that changes. This isn't Stalingrad in WWII. Masses of untrained, poorly equipped conscripts will not turn the tide.

If we put nuclear weapons in the "total war" category - and then set them aside for the reasons you just said - what else is in that category?

If Putin believes that this is an existential conflict for Russia, and if 93 is correct that there's really no one to oppose him or oust him (which matches what I have read from others eg Zeihan) he might be expected to go to a full war footing in Russia. What does that look like? Even with sanctions can they produce enough conventional power to prolong the conflict? And for how long?

There is always someone else. We just don't know who. Russia is near the culmination point. When it happens it will be a sudden and violent collapse. At this point I'm fairly confident that Russia as we know it will cease to exist in my lifetime. Perhaps within the next 5 years.

Zobel said:

---

If we put nuclear weapons in the "total war" category - and then set them aside for the reasons you just said - what else is in that category?

If Putin believes that this is an existential conflict for Russia, and if 93 is correct that there's really no one to oppose him or oust him (which matches what I have read from others eg Zeihan) he might be expected to go to a full war footing in Russia. What does that look like? Even with sanctions can they produce enough conventional power to prolong the conflict? And for how long?

---

We're talking about war, not a fireworks show.

As I've said before, if it was the Ukrainians with the tactical nukes, it would be easier to come up with some hard targets where they might be effectively deployed (like the naval base at Sebastopol or the Kerch Straight bridge). But if what you're shooting at is just small units of tanks and soldiers dispersed across a wide front, how does using a nuclear weapon make sense. It would be like using a bazooka to shoot birds; theoretically possible, but not exactly practical, and will not change the situation militarily.

But, let's assume for a second that Putin is that stupid and decides to shoot nukes off just for effect. We can track what he's doing, and if we even let him shoot the first one, we could destroy the others in short order and would be seen as being justified in intervening to do so. The theory that the advocates of using nukes are relying upon is escalating to de-escalate -- that you do something to so radically escalate that everyone decides to step back from the precipice. If you actually run through the plausible scenarios, rather than just talking about use of nukes in general terms, it becomes very difficult to imagine a scenario where this would actually work.

I think you misunderstood what I was asking - sorry for being unclear. If we accept the premise that Putin is going to consider all options including nukes, what else does that mean? I agree with you that nukes don't seem to be militarily relevant, so let's assume he won't use them. But if he says, I'm 100% in - what does that look like (excluding nukes)?

Like actual total war where GM is making tanks and lipstick factories making ammo kind of options. How long can Russia do this?

Putin's been 100% in since day 0 of this war. There's nothing left to commit. Do people actually think the Russians have anything left conventionally to throw at this war that can in any way change it's trajectory?

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

With all due respect, you thought Ukraine was going to get rolled 8 months ago. You denied the losses that Russia was taking and you have thought they should surrender on day 1 of the war.

---

I think you have me confused with someone else. I did think Ukraine was going to lose, and was surprised at how well they did. I don't think I'm alone in that. But your second sentence is flat out incorrect.

Quote:

---

Sometimes it's a battle of good vs evil. People that invade other countries and steal gold from other people's mouths shouldn't be allowed a voice on the world stage.

You were wrong 8 months ago and you are wrong today. Russia is a terrorist state and its right for the world to condemn them for this illegal and unprovoked aggression.

---

see this is where things get confused again. i agree with your first paragraph. Russia is clearly the aggressor here, they are wrong, their targeting of civilians is brutal and barbaric and wrong. it is just as wrong in Ukraine as it was in Syria.

so I'm not sure why you're leveling this at me. i've never said anything to the contrary.

---

So then why give them an inch? Maybe Crimea is a bridge too far right now, but the rest of Ukraine should be off the table. If Ukraine is willing to fight for it then the west should support them in kicking Russia out of their country. It's still a defensive stance. Ukraine is not trying to invade Russia.

Cmon, no they weren't. They thought this was going to be a fun run to Kiev, and they were badly mistaken. The story so far is Russia belatedly and ineffectively reacting to a very very wrong picture of the effectiveness of both sides.

This is not what 100% looks like, at least not historically. 100% is a full mobilization and all industrial capacity turned to wartime production. I'm not saying Russia can do this, their population might not support it and they may not even have the relevant industrial capacity to do it. But it is a possibility.

Because the world is not black and white and there is no option at this point that is an unmitigated good.

If you had a magic wand and could make russia concede, great, use it. I don't think that option exists.

There's only two options. defeat them for a complete concession or withdrawal, or come to some kind of negotiated settlement.

Both have costs to consider. That's the thing you seem to miss. It isn't like we can support Ukraine until they defeat Russia without a price. That price is billions from our taxpayers, billions of economic impact in the EU, and depending on how long this goes on a potential global famine with millions of lives lost. There's also a cost to a negotiated settlement.

TAMUallen said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

What you just described is essentially a full surrender. An unallied, unaligned, demilitarized Ukraine who sacrifices most of its agricultural and industrial lands in addition to its sea access is dead man walking. We both also know that, based on historical precedent, Russia won't leave Ukraine well enough alone after that.

You'd like for Ukraine to accept a slow death in place of a fighting chance for your own peace of mind. That's all fine and well but the situation you outline achieves literally nothing positive for Ukraine, and Russia concedes nothing in the negotiation.

Russia's green conscripts are a non-factor. It will take months for them to be anything other than meat for the grinder, many more will be lost to winter exposure and victim of nonexistent supply, and of the rest only the ones who then have survived winter and a few months of combat will be of value. Russia's new conscripts are of no immediate concern and will pay marginal dividends in spring at the earliest.

You don't fold when you're winning and you don't disincentivize aggressive expansionism by way of appeasement. Russia's weakness will only continue to grow with time. Nuclear threat will be successfully mitigated via MAD, the same way it always has.

Ukraine is free to lay down and give up whenever they want to but for now their national spirit remains strong and they robustly support their fight and their country. They're kicking Russia's ass out of their country and I'm happy to watch them continue doing so as long as they're willing. Russia has an easy off ramp at any time. It's called giving up and going home.

There is no inherent responsibility for anyone to manufacture a successful outcome for Russia. If they choose to wipe out thousands of their young men at the hand of the Ukrainians in pursuit of an unattainable victory then so be it. That's their unfortunate decision and the decision of Ukraine as to whether the wish to accommodate them in their folly.

If Ukrainians have the backbone to stand up to the risk and consequence of the war currently ongoing in their own country, what justification do you have to be scared?

---

MAD doesn't apply. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine doesn't have nukes. If Russia sends a tactical nuke against Ukraine, especially against a military target, there is no "assurance" at all that NATO will send nukes at Russia. Putin is all in on this war right now as he has no other choice. You really want to find out?

You seem to like the other option though, let's drag this war out for God knows how long. Assuming Russia doesn't go nuclear they can still send up those bodies into the meat grinder for a very long time. Remember in WWII they lost 21 million. While that's sad and no telling how many Ukrainians will also die. Still that's not the real impact to worry about as I stated. Millions if not tens of millions or more will die globally from the food and energy shortages that will create famine and additional conflicts. Not counting the massive financial impact. A lot of the damage has already been done and the impact will start to hit home this Winter but another year of this and it's going to get really, really ugly.

While I understand your sympathies for Ukraine and how they have been wronged the reality is Ukraine needs peace as well. While it may sound great that they can keep fighting Russia endlessly they won't have a country left. Certainly they should try to get the best terms they can and right now they have some leverage so they should use it.

You just aren't playing the game to the end and understanding what it means and you really are underestimating the risks. You are literally betting that Putin will just accept defeat instead of finding a way to have an off ramp. If you are right maybe just a few million die. If you are wrong then hundreds of millions could die. Russia isn't going to try this again, they aren't going to be capable of doing so and Ukraine will be defended. The reality is though that fair or not Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and a man in charge that very well might use them. Russia also sees this as a threat to their security and if they aren't going to stop until they feel confident that Ukraine isn't going to be used as a future way to threaten them.

---

Didn't have to read.

MAD will apply because if that becomes the norm in buffer states that are actively waging the most effective war against the Kremlin then what will it take? You're waiting on a strike to NYC?

---

So you are certain that if Russia sends any nukes against Ukraine that NATO will respond in kind with a nuclear strike against Russia? Sorry but I disagree. That's certainly one scenario (and a terrifying one because it is WWIII) but it's not assured. If it's not assured then it is on the table for Russia. Remember Russia is Putin and Putin is getting pretty damn paranoid and has no concern for hum an life. You want to really gamble on that because Ukraine would like to have full autonomy over a small portion of their Eastern provinces? Sorry but I disagree.

If you or anyone can explain to me why MAD absolutely will apply and that NATO will let the nukes fly once Russia sends a nuke to Ukraine I'm all ears. Remember it's not just about "maybe" they will, it required Putin KNOWING that they will. If Putin is unsure it's very possible he rolls those dice because he sees no other option other than winning (unless we offer him an off ramp). I sympathize with the Ukrainian people but in the end I am not down with WWIII over this and I think most people would agree with me. Putin is very likely willing to go there if the only alternative is surrender and putting himself at the mercy of NATO. That's not something he will accept.

Zobel said:

---

This is not what 100% looks like, at least not historically. 100% is a full mobilization and all industrial capacity turned to wartime production. I'm not saying Russia can do this, their population might not support it and they may not even have the relevant industrial capacity to do it. But it is a possibility.

---

That's the point they don't have the industrial base to churn out equipment. In WWII it wasn't the Russians churning out the equipment to support their front against Germany. It was the United States doing that for them. So in 2022 they have zero additional industrial capacity to build weapons. What's worse is whatever capacity they did have is dependent on western chips to work properly which they cannot source anymore.

However, yes Russia was 100% committed to this war day 0. You are falling for their propaganda if you don't see that. They sent their best troops and best equipment in the initial waves. It just turned out that they were incompetent and performed poorly in actual battlefield conditions.

There's nothing left.