How does the war in Ukraine end?

[AUDub 11,151]

 

 

It's things like this that make you appreciate living in a democracy over the constant insecurity of an autocracy.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

57 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

 

It's things like this that make you appreciate living in a democracy over the constant insecurity of an autocracy.

They pinned their hopes to a "strongman".  Now, they need a stronger "strongman".

There are voices inside Russia calling for extreme measures, even nuclear war.

I will never understand the misery mindset of the Russian people.  It seems they have completely surrendered to the might makes right ideology.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

I think we reaching the point where Americans & our many of our allies are nearing exhaustion on continued funding without a resolution in sight. The reality is neither side is likely to get what they want and while it’s unjust for Russia to retain any land seized I don’t see a limitless budgeting of this war effort and the longer it goes, escalation becomes a greater possibility. I don’t see either said agreeing to cede land, but an armistice like the one ending the Korean conflict may be the way to move forward. Of course, Ukraine can fight as long as it wants, but any realistic chance relies on funding from others.

https://www.news18.com/amp/world/majority-of-americans-against-us-congress-giving-more-to-ukraine-war-poll-8505529.html

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

How does Biden back off of *as long as it takes* mantra?

Who is in control of this war?  Who is driving the continuation of the conflict?

I agree the public is growing tired of this conflict, but the public are more into their individual rights to care about just sending money over there. If we put boots on the ground the protests may occur, otherwise the public may not care.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How does Biden back off of *as long as it takes* mantra?

Who is in control of this war?  Who is driving the continuation of the conflict?

I agree the public is growing tired of this conflict, but the public are more into their individual rights to care about just sending money over there. If we put boots on the ground the protests may occur, otherwise the public may not care.

Support is becoming more politically polarized by party. Many Republican candidates are opposed. The ground is shifting. Given the needs of Ukraine for a prolonged war are great. So is the cost of recovery and shoring up defenses. I think the public needs to see progress toward a sustainable end.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

How does Biden back off of *as long as it takes* mantra?

Who is in control of this war?  Who is driving the continuation of the conflict?

I agree the public is growing tired of this conflict, but the public are more into their individual rights to care about just sending money over there. If we put boots on the ground the protests may occur, otherwise the public may not care.

I do think after this counter offensive is allowed to play out this will definitively need to forced to a Korean War kind of  ending. The question will be - what will keep Russia from repeating in again in 3 years. Part of the resolution may have to nato membership - that being potentially the least bad option. Imo China will go after Taiwan in 3-5 years.   And that could be a real nightmare.

[LPTiger 5,167]

A couple of points (1) why is the US' assistance outpacing all other nations by such a large margin.    We are the greatest nation in the world, so much is expected from us, but the latest all-in number I saw we have given is $76B.   Our economy is just 3x the size of the Italian economy and yet Italy has given just $2B.   Our economy is 8x France and France has given $2B.    The UK has given $12B the same as Germany.    I believe we have given more than all other countries combined.  (2) when does it stop-- on the far extreme no one would want us to bankrupt ourselves to help Ukraine.   So where do you draw the line?  $100B, $200B?  

[auburnatl1 4,940]

30 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

A couple of points (1) why is the US' assistance outpacing all other nations by such a large margin.    We are the greatest nation in the world, so much is expected from us, but the latest all-in number I saw we have given is $76B.   Our economy is just 3x the size of the Italian economy and yet Italy has given just $2B.   Our economy is 8x France and France has given $2B.    The UK has given $12B the same as Germany.    I believe we have given more than all other countries combined.  (2) when does it stop-- on the far extreme no one would want us to bankrupt ourselves to help Ukraine.   So where do you draw the line?  $100B, $200B?  

The us gdp is significantly larger than the entire EU. But you’re right - it’s still not fully proportional.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

54 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I do think after this counter offensive is allowed to play out this will definitively need to forced to a Korean War kind of  ending. The question will be - what will keep Russia from repeating in again in 3 years. Part of the resolution may have to nato membership - that being potentially the least bad option. Imo China will go after Taiwan in 3-5 years.   And that could be a real nightmare.

This war needs to be settled in the next year or so.  Any further claims of ending the war depends on Joe’s re-election.  If Joe is re-elected (without a solution in the next year) the war continues and China will invalid Taiwan as our military stores will be depleted to the point we offer little resistance other than a strongly worded letter.

Weak begets weak.  Joe needs to end this war.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

The us gdp is significantly larger than the entire EU. But you’re right - it’s still not fully proportional.

It is interesting that the Russian threat should be more deeply felt in the EU yet they don’t want to finance enough to stop the war.  Why are we so he!! Bent on doing so?  This strategy didn’t work in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This war needs to be settled in the next year or so.  Any further claims of ending the war depends on Joe’s re-election.  If Joe is re-elected (without a solution in the next year) the war continues and China will invalid Taiwan as our military stores will be depleted to the point we offer little resistance other than a strongly worded letter.

Weak begets weak.  Joe needs to end this war.

Many people don’t realize that Taiwan makes over 75% of the us’s high end computer chips. In many ways much more strategically critical than oil. Unless the us frantically builds out this highly sophisticated manufacturing capability immediately we literally will have no choice but to defend Taiwan. 100 miles from chinas shore and 6000 miles from ours…

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

Many people don’t realize that Taiwan makes over 75% of the us’s high end computer chips. In many ways much more strategically critical than oil. Unless the us frantically builds out this highly sophisticated manufacturing capability immediately we literally will have no choice but to defend Taiwan. 100 miles from chinas shore and 6000 miles from ours…

To the bolded part:  if Joe is re-elected do you want to bet?  We’ll just gladly pay what China wants to charge for the chips until our resurgence of the semiconductor facilities are up and running.  Of course, that resurgence could change.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the bolded part:  if Joe is re-elected do you want to bet?  We’ll just gladly pay what China wants to charge for the chips until our resurgence of the semiconductor facilities are up and running.  Of course, that resurgence could change.

I think acquiescing to China while the world watched, letting Taiwan fall (and giving that strategic industrial and military capability to them), and then heavily subsidizing it by being beholden to them for the technology is not my favorite option.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think acquiescing to China while the world watched, letting Taiwan fall (and giving that strategic industrial and military capability to them), and then heavily subsidizing it by being beholden to them for the technology is not my favorite option.

Not mine either, but we have little to do with that decision other than voting Biden out of office.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is interesting that the Russian threat should be more deeply felt in the EU yet they don’t want to finance enough to stop the war.  Why are we so he!! Bent on doing so?  This strategy didn’t work in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam.

 EU countries formerly under the USSR have contributed more per capita than we have.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not mine either, but we have little to do with that decision other than voting Biden out of office.

Based on what? Biden has made stronger commitments to Taiwan than any predecessor? 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Based on what? Biden has made stronger commitments to Taiwan than any predecessor? 

Every time Joe made strong commitments to Taiwan Blinken states we do not support Taiwan independence. Does anybody know how Biden would react to an attempt of China to take over Taiwan.

Here is some word salad the Department of State has put out:

U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

As a leading democracy and a technological powerhouse, Taiwan is a key U.S. partner in the Indo-Pacific.  Though the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have a robust unofficial relationship. The United States and Taiwan share similar values, deep commercial and economic links, and strong people-to-people ties, which form the bedrock of our friendship and serve as the impetus for expanding U.S. engagement with Taiwan.

Through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a non-governmental organization mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act to carry out the United States’ unofficial relations with Taiwan, our cooperation with Taiwan continues to expand. Taiwan has become an important U.S. partner in trade and investment, health, semiconductor and other critical supply chains, investment screening, science and technology, education, and advancing democratic values.

The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations.  The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.  We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means. We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles and services as necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability -– and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of Taiwan.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

 

[AU9377 4,950]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This war needs to be settled in the next year or so.  Any further claims of ending the war depends on Joe’s re-election.  If Joe is re-elected (without a solution in the next year) the war continues and China will invalid Taiwan as our military stores will be depleted to the point we offer little resistance other than a strongly worded letter.

Weak begets weak.  Joe needs to end this war.

I forgot that Joe Biden started this war.  This has nothing to do with weakness or strength on the part of the U.S.

Russia started this war when they, unprovoked, invaded Ukraine and started killing civilians while claiming they were ridding Ukraine of Nazis.  This was, by far, the most barbaric land invasion for the purpose of acquiring territory the world has seen since the end of WWII.

We can't fund the effort forever and, unfortunately, Russia is well aware of that.  Even so, we can continue to isolate Russia, working with our allies to send a clear signal that this behavior is not acceptable in order to have world order.

We wasted trillions of dollars in Afghanistan building an infrastructure for a population that did not want to fight for their freedom.  I am not suggesting that we should spend those kind of resources helping Ukraine, but we should learn from our mistakes and help those that will help themselves.  The Ukrainian people are clearly doing the heavy lifting and are fighting for their right to exist.  I can respect that.

Russia talks about its borders being threatened by NATO.  That is absolute nonsense.  NATO is not an offensive coalition.  NATO is a defensive organization that was established to protect the member institutions from an attack.  Russian leadership knows this very well.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I forgot that Joe Biden started this war.  This has nothing to do with weakness or strength on the part of the U.S.

Russia started this war when they, unprovoked, invaded Ukraine and started killing civilians while claiming they were ridding Ukraine of Nazis.  This was, by far, the most barbaric land invasion for the purpose of acquiring territory the world has seen since the end of WWII.

We can't fund the effort forever and, unfortunately, Russia is well aware of that.  Even so, we can continue to isolate Russia, working with our allies to send a clear signal that this behavior is not acceptable in order to have world order.

We wasted trillions of dollars in Afghanistan building an infrastructure for a population that did not want to fight for their freedom.  I am not suggesting that we should spend those kind of resources helping Ukraine, but we should learn from our mistakes and help those that will help themselves.  The Ukrainian people are clearly doing the heavy lifting and are fighting for their right to exist.  I can respect that.

Russia talks about its borders being threatened by NATO.  That is absolute nonsense.  NATO is not an offensive coalition.  NATO is a defensive organization that was established to protect the member institutions from an attack.  Russian leadership knows this very well.

The Soviet Union had a population of 300 million. Russia today has a population of 140 million.  And it’s shrinking. Their pop and gdp is now smaller than Brazil’s. Candidly besides nukes and geography (and 60% of their territory is uninhabitable) they’ve been fading into irrelevance for 30 years. Putin needed ukraines population, industry, and agriculture. It literally was almost a last gasp move.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I forgot that Joe Biden started this war. 

He didn’t start the war, he just didn’t do much to prevent it.  There was Russian build up along the Ukrainian border that was unchecked.  Biden lifting sanctions on the Nord Stream pipeline and his mistakes in handling the exit of Afghanistan all encourage Putin that now was the time.  Biden saying if Putin only took some territory would be OK was a brilliant move on his part.

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

This has nothing to do with weakness or strength on the part of the U.S.

Biden has been giving Ukraine weapons in a piecemeal fashion because he didn’t want to appear the aggressor.  It’s a game and Putin is a master at playing that game.

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

We can't fund the effort forever and, unfortunately, Russia is well aware of that. 

We agree and that is why Biden needs to end it.  He may not have started it, but he needs to end it.

 

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Even so, we can continue to isolate Russia, working with our allies to send a clear signal that this behavior is not acceptable in order to have world order.

How are those sanctions on the oligarchs going?  Have we stopped Russia selling oil?  It doesn’t seem we are serious.

 

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I can respect that.

I can too.

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Russia talks about its borders being threatened by NATO. 

This is their talking point.  They will get what they can out of it.  Time to negotiate.

[AU9377 4,950]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The Soviet Union had a population of 300 million. Russia today has a population of 140 million.  And it’s shrinking. Their pop and gdp is now smaller than Brazil’s. Candidly besides nukes and geography (and 60% of their territory is uninhabitable) they’ve been fading into irrelevance for 30 years. Putin needed ukraines population, industry, and agriculture. It literally was almost a last gasp move.

That was his motivation, but it doesn't excuse his actions.  The number of people in Russia with actual wealth has grown over the past 20 years greatly.  They have become very accustomed to sending their children to Europe to be educated and traveling around the globe. They have no interest in being outcasts on the world stage.  Putin is now under a lot of pressure due to the impact that sanctions are having and the growing discontent with a war that many Russians realize is illegitimate. 

What Putin has achieved so far is the exact opposite of what he wanted.  His neighbors to the West are all shoring up their defenses and his military looks outdated and ill prepared. I don't think it would shock many to wake up and read that he has been replaced.  Of course, it is almost as likely that he will linger for another 10 years, so who knows really?

[AuburnNTexas 7,150]

On 8/6/2023 at 8:34 AM, TexasTiger said:

Support is becoming more politically polarized by party. Many Republican candidates are opposed. The ground is shifting. Given the needs of Ukraine for a prolonged war are great. So is the cost of recovery and shoring up defenses. I think the public needs to see progress toward a sustainable end.

Most Republicans support funding the war. What they are asking is auditing to verify what is being sent is actually being used properly and not to supporting corruption.

As we have seen with Covid funding (which was needed) when government sends out large quantities.of money we don't always audit it responsibly.

[AuburnNTexas 7,150]

I think Ukraine via drone attacks both air and sea Re slowly bringing the war to Russia. I expect next you will see sabatoge of oil pipelines hurting Russian cash flow.  

The US and its allies have to decide if we will provide both airplanes and longer range missles. With air support Ukraine offensive would be more efficient without it lines won't change much.

There are no good options because of a legitimate fear of escalation we did not support with the right assets before Russia had time to dig in.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

6 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I think Ukraine via drone attacks both air and sea Re slowly bringing the war to Russia. I expect next you will see sabatoge of oil pipelines hurting Russian cash flow.  

The US and its allies have to decide if we will provide both airplanes and longer range missles. With air support Ukraine offensive would be more efficient without it lines won't change much.

There are no good options because of a legitimate fear of escalation we did not support with the right assets before Russia had time to dig in.

The problem with playing chicken is you have to make an assessment how suicidal resolved the other guy is.  Ukraine is fully committed and Putin (not Russia) is fully committed.  They won’t stop and will practically fight to the last man . WW1 ended only because Germany almost exhausted their entire fighting age male population (so they waited to generationally reload the population and then started again). Attrition wars don’t end well and without a breakthrough soon - will require international pressure to stop it. How to keep it from starting again is the real problem.

[AuburnNTexas 7,150]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

The problem with playing chicken is you have to make an assessment how suicidal resolved the other guy is.  Ukraine is fully committed and Putin (not Russia) is fully committed.  They won’t stop and will practically fight to the last man . WW1 ended only because Germany almost exhausted their entire fighting age male population (so they waited to generationally reload the population and then started again). Attrition wars don’t end well and without a breakthrough soon - will require international pressure to stop it. How to keep it from starting again is the real problem.

I agree.  I think the mistake was made at the beginning before the Russians were entrenched. After Ukraine initially stalled the Russian offensive with small arms ammunition SAM type missiles and anti-tank type missiles combined with very poor planning from the Russians. We meaning US and Allies had the opportunity to provide type of weapons quickly to allow Ukraine to go on the offensive, long range missiles, attack helicopters, rtc. While immediately start training on our modern jets so we could provide that early on. If they had that when they started the 1st offensive where they took back a lot of territory in the North East and Kherson they could have taken most of the territory and Bahkmut would never have been taken. 

Because of it being new weapon systems you couldn't give everything up front as training was needed but enough support as the 1st offensive took off there would have been much larger gains.   It would not have changed everything  but would have put Ukraine in a much stronger position.  

I understand why we were hesitant to do that as there was a risk with Putin and Russia using field nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It was a legitimate concern.  Hindsight is wonderful as we have seen as we keep giving them better weapons Russia has not used Nuclear weapons so we could have given them things earlier.

At this point you are correct dug in positions without air superiority is costly both in equipment and more importantly in man power.  If we do decide to continue supporting Ukraine long run it would have to include the Jets and training they have requested and Ukraine should dig in and protect what they have until that can have a new offensive at end of the next spring.  Also with the Jets and long range missiles Ukraine would be much more effective in attacking the logistics that are needed to fight trench warfare which requires huge amounts of ammunition, missiles, fuel,  food, etc.  

Western weapons like artillery, long range missiles have allowed Ukraine to be more precise in taking out Russian artillery and missile systems. The Ukrainians also have changed the way war is fought with Drone technology both air and sea.  They are working on new technology in underwater Drone technology and have been working on a new more agile submarine that they have been developing in UAE that has showed promise in being able to put Russian shipping at risk at least in the Black Sea.  

If Ukraine keeps attacking Bridges, Refineries, and find a way to attack shipping and pipelines it could cripple the Russian economy.  You are starting to see Ukraine attacking the type of infrastructure that could cripple the Russian economy which has already been weakened via the West's sanctions. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by AuburnNTexas