Ukraine - somebody explain to me

[LVAllen]

Ukraine writing into their constitution that they will never join NATO then Putin will have won. It will have been at a very high cost, but it will be a win.

As Belarus just showed, constitutions can be changed with a little foreign influence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am sure the Ukranians are going to be reluctant to accept a scenario where this could happen again. I think they keep fighting as long as they can and will want close ties with the west going forward.

The sanctions will be interesting. Sanctions rarely work in the long term, but I don't think we have ever seen sanctions like this.

Thank God Trump is not in power right now.

[Bo Diddley]

Thank God Trump is not in power right now.

I can't imagine.

[Pelado]

Thank God Trump is not in power right now.

Had he been in power, it wouldn't have surprised me for him to sign a non-aggression pact with Putin so that they could divvy up Ukraine.

[old_gregg]

Had he been in power, it wouldn't have surprised me for him to sign a non-aggression pact with Putin so that they could divvy up Ukraine.

like trump could have cut a deal that good

[SeattleUte]

There's a lot of abstraction in this podcast, but famous Yale historian of Ukraine Tim Snyder says something I'd never thought of that way. Ukraine was really at the heart of the Second World War. Hitler's ultimate aim was to capture Ukrainian farmlands and the Caucasian oil fields, mostly Ukraine. In that way have a bread basket like our Midwest, connected to Germany by freeways. His primary aim was not to occupy Western Europe or of course Russia per se. We now recognize that World War 2's center of gravity was the Eastern Front. Before that, empires repeatedly made conflicting claims to Ukraine. Ukraine has consistently been at the center of modern European history.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000554066715

[Pelado]

like trump could have cut a deal that good

Good point. He would have wanted to, though.

[myboynoah]

like trump could have cut a deal that good

If one just thinks this statement through, it shows what a dumb shit Trump is. Of course, we already knew that.

Embedded Tweet

[SeattleUte]

eye candy

https://twitter.com/josephhdempsey/s...932205065?s=21

https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1...382764038?s=21

https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status...057502726?s=21

[Omaha 680]

The expert consensus seems to be that Putin's resort to shelling children's and maternity hospitals is a last resort. The West is already pouring money into Ukraine, and over half of it is for economic and humanitarian aid.

The West can't back down for similar reasons as Putin can't, but they run deeper. The memory of Neville Chamberlain and the Western myth of inevitability. It would be politically catastrophic to abandon Ukraine.

This all depends on the resolve of the Ukrainian people not the West. The West has made clear what it will and will not do. It is willing to invest the money it takes. Ukrainians have everything to fight for and time is running against Russia as well or more so.

I disagree. I think it is all on us, not the Ukrainians. If it were up to their resolve a victory would be inevitable. They have held off the Russians for weeks when the entire world thought it would he over in a couple days. But to expect them to suffer and die indefinitely without firm continuous signals that the west has their back is not reasonable. When we say shipping javelins and stingers into Ukraine is not an escalation but allowing someone to use our base to transfer planes into Ukraine is an escalation that is playing Putin's game. When you have European players like Macron openly calling for an end to hostilities without tying it to Zelensky's publicly stated terms, that's a problem.

I like the sanctions and the aid on the ground. We need more of it. Mbn talked about a gradual ratcheting up of pressure on Russia to back Putin down. While I don't think we can move to a no fly zone, I think the concept is correct. It's the only thing that can make up for a couple decades of failure in containment and deterrence. But I fear the opposite is happening. Putin is backing us off slowly. Eventually the Ukrainians may accept terms that hand Putin a win if they lose confidence that we will keep our word. The United States in particular doesn't have the best track record on that since the fall of Saigon.

I do agree the stakes could not be higher. If Putin gets a de facto win, his next move will eventually be to break NATO through an incident with a border member (perhaps a "mistake" in targeting) with the gamble that the west will not respond. And that is not out of the realm of possibilities. Again I sincerely hope I am wrong. Maybe in this modern interconnected world the sanctions and financial warfare will break him before our resolve weakens. But to your point in your last few posts, Russian leaders don't view 10,000 or 50,000 more dead soldiers than expected or massive civilian casualties as issues in and of themselves, as long as the goal is still in reach.

[myboynoah]

Ukraine got 'em on the run.

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

I disagree. I think it is all on us, not the Ukrainians. If it were up to their resolve a victory would be inevitable. They have held off the Russians for weeks when the entire world thought it would he over in a couple days. But to expect them to suffer and die indefinitely without firm continuous signals that the west has their back is not reasonable. When we say shipping javelins and stingers into Ukraine is not an escalation but allowing someone to use our base to transfer planes into Ukraine is an escalation that is playing Putin's game. When you have European players like Macron openly calling for an end to hostilities without tying it to Zelensky's publicly stated terms, that's a problem.

I like the sanctions and the aid on the ground. We need more of it. Mbn talked about a gradual ratcheting up of pressure on Russia to back Putin down. While I don't think we can move to a no fly zone, I think the concept is correct. It's the only thing that can make up for a couple decades of failure in containment and deterrence. But I fear the opposite is happening. Putin is backing us off slowly. Eventually the Ukrainians may accept terms that hand Putin a win if they lose confidence that we will keep our word. The United States in particular doesn't have the best track record on that since the fall of Saigon.

I do agree the stakes could not be higher. If Putin gets a de facto win, his next move will eventually be to break NATO through an incident with a border member (perhaps a "mistake" in targeting) with the gamble that the west will not respond. And that is not out of the realm of possibilities. Again I sincerely hope I am wrong. Maybe in this modern interconnected world the sanctions and financial warfare will break him before our resolve weakens. But to your point in your last few posts, Russian leaders don't view 10,000 or 50,000 more dead soldiers than expected or massive civilian casualties as issues in and of themselves, as long as the goal is still in reach.

If Russia attacked a NATO country, I have zero doubt that NATO would respond with full force.

[myboynoah]

Time for Georgia to make a move on S Osatia.

Embedded Tweet

[Omaha 680]

If Russia attacked a NATO country, I have zero doubt that NATO would respond with full force.

Zero doubt? If some artillery lands over the border in Poland and kills civilians or military, you think we will respond with full force? Putin doesn't have to invade a NATO country to break the alliance. He just has to incrementally show that we don't have the stomach to go to the mat if needed. I know it's not apples to apples because Ukraine isn't NATO but that's how we ended up with the current situation.

Edit: I agree a response is very likely, but I do not have 100% confidence.

[PaloAltoCougar]

For those interested in a pretty objective, if a bit dull, daily analysis of how the war's going I recommend the Institute for the Study of War, a D.C. think tank. It requires a sign-up but is free. The daily summaries are fairly brief but apparently unbiased.