The only way to stop putin: coalition between Ukraine and the West

[para bellum]

In post after post you suggest the only reason for Putin to go to war this year was that Trump was no longer in office, but there is no basis for thinking Putin held Trump in such high regard that he would have hesitated to launch the invasion for fear of what Trump might do. So, if you want to help Ukraine, leave toxic US politics out of it.

Please link these posts you say I wrote. I have never said that was the only reason (or even a reason) for Putin's invasion.

I have observed that he did not invade while Trump was in office (a fact), and I have said that Biden is weak- and that weakness empowers both Putin and Xi (another fact). I have noted that for Xi and Putin both, Trump was unpredictable- and that unpredictability will naturally factor into their calculus.

Those replies, when I have written them, have always been in response to another poster who tries to lay the blame on Trump, or attempts to insert Trump into the Ukraine conversation, or makes stupid claims about Trump being a stooge for Putin.

I have never just made a post that blames the invasion on Biden, because the invasion was Putin's decision, and no one else is responsible. I have never made a post to say "This would not have happened on Trump's watch", or anything that could be taken that way.

You seem to be suffering from TDS. Get over it. Or at least take your grievances to the politics forum where they belong...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Please link these posts you say I wrote. I have never said that was the only reason (or even a reason) for Putin's invasion.

I have observed that he did not invade while Trump was in office (a fact), and I have said that Biden is weak- and that weakness empowers both Putin and Xi (another fact). I have noted that for Xi and Putin both, Trump was unpredictable- and that unpredictability will naturally factor into their calculus.

Those replies, when I have written them, have always been in response to another poster who tries to lay the blame on Trump, or attempts to insert Trump into the Ukraine conversation, or makes stupid claims about Trump being a stooge for Putin.

I have never just made a post that blames the invasion on Biden, because the invasion was Putin's decision, and no one else is responsible. I have never made a post to say "This would not have happened on Trump's watch", or anything that could be taken that way.

You seem to be suffering from TDS. Get over it. Or at least take your grievances to the politics forum where they belong...

I point out to another poster that there is no reason to think Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president, and you are so immersed "toxic" US politics that you launch into this hysterical defense of Trump, based entirely on the single fact that the invasion did not begin until after the election, and then advise me not to get involved in "toxic" US politics. This brings up the question of whether your unending complaints that Biden is not doing enough to support Ukraine is an expression of support for Ukraine or for Trump.

 

[para bellum]

I point out to another poster that there is no reason to think Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president, and you are so immersed "toxic" US politics that you launch into this hysterical defense of Trump, based entirely on the single fact that the invasion did not begin until after the election, and then advise me not to get involved in "toxic" US politics. This brings up the question of whether your unending complaints that Biden is not doing enough to support Ukraine is an expression of support for Ukraine or for Trump.

This is what you call a "hysterical defense of Trump":

There is no need to argue the counterfactual when we have the factual. It doesn't matter what someone supposes Trump might have done or not done.

The factual is that Russia didn't invade on Trump's watch.

That was a reply to your statement:
"Although Trump likes to say the invasion would never have happened if he had been president, he has never said what he would have done differently to prevent the invasion."

You got triggered by Rambunctious when he suggested that electing Trump in 24 would stop the war. You responded by saying that Trump has shown "nothing but admiration" for Putin, etc. You followed that with more TDS about not saying what he would have done differently, etc. IOW, a bunch of irrelevant deflection.

The rest of my "hysterical defense" of Trump is critique of the US response, and some examples of how you mischaracterized Trump as some kind of Putin ally. The facts are in the record, and Trump provided much more support for Ukraine than Obama did, even without an invasion.

I said:
---------------
"Ukraine was already at war with Russia since 2014, and Trump had provided Javelin missiles, counter battery radar systems, coastal patrol vessels, and had trainers in Ukraine from the National Guard. Trump was critical of Western European countries for their NATO spending and dependence on Russian energy, but he increased US troop presence in Poland and Estonia.

The US assistance to Ukraine since Feb 24 has been a small fraction of what we are capable of providing if we were truly committed. We have the largest stockpiles of equipment in NATO, and we could easily be providing 10x what we have so far. Compare to what we gave Israel in 30 days in 1973. It included over 100 F-4's, in some cases they landed on an Israeli base, the US pilot got out, they slapped Israeli markings on it and were flying sorties over the Sinai the same day.

We didn't send heavy weapons to Ukraine until after they had turned Russia back from Kiev. If it wasn't for Ukraine's close neighbors, this would have been lost before the first US weapons even arrived.

One HIMARS or M270 for every 100km of front line is pathetic. It pisses me off that we don't do better for the people of Ukraine."
----------------
There is nothing hysterical or misleading in any of what I wrote. Stop trying to deflect on Trump, and focus on what the US is doing (or failing to do) to help the people of Ukraine.

 

[toobfreak]

Amnesty International should advise Ukraine’s military where to position itsef as it defends civilian populated areas from a brutal aggressor.​

Ukraine is like an ANT biting at the heel of an elephant.

All Zelensky is good for is a new place for Biden to dump 100 billion dollars in total waste while he ignores our own looming issues!

 

[para bellum]

toomuchtime_

And just for the record, I replied a while back to a post by (IIRC) Concerned American, about Trump's lack of a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the invasion, and said explicitly that I could not vote for him again for that reason.

So if you think I am some kind of rabid Trump fanatic, you couldn't be more wrong. My personal opinion is that Trump (and DeSantis too) should not have tried to dance around the question, and should have been hammering Biden relentlessly for his weak response.

Instead all I see from either one is fence straddling. This is not the time for that, and Ukraine is not the place. It helps Ukraine that there is still broad support from the GOP members of Congress, but that's still not enough to overcome Biden's cowardice.

Q. Where are the MQ-4's that were promised months ago?
A. They aren't coming...

 

[ESay]

toomuchtime_

And just for the record, I replied a while back to a post by (IIRC) Concerned American, about Trump's lack of a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the invasion, and said explicitly that I could not vote for him again for that reason.

So if you think I am some kind of rabid Trump fanatic, you couldn't be more wrong. My personal opinion is that Trump (and DeSantis too) should not have tried to dance around the question, and should have been hammering Biden relentlessly for his weak response.

Instead all I see from either one is fence straddling. This is not the time for that, and Ukraine is not the place. It helps Ukraine that there is still broad support from the GOP members of Congress, but that's still not enough to overcome Biden's cowardice.

Q. Where are the MQ-4's that were promised months ago?
A. They aren't coming...

As always, there is the other side of a coin. Sometimes I want to harshly criticize some people here who don't support giving any aid to Ukraine. But then, I try to put myself on their place. What would I think if I were an American?

And I realize it would be a hard sell for me to support providing military aid and financing for a nation that is mostly known for total corruption and ineffective economy. That is a sad truth.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This is what you call a "hysterical defense of Trump":

There is no need to argue the counterfactual when we have the factual. It doesn't matter what someone supposes Trump might have done or not done.

The factual is that Russia didn't invade on Trump's watch.

That was a reply to your statement:
"Although Trump likes to say the invasion would never have happened if he had been president, he has never said what he would have done differently to prevent the invasion."

You got triggered by Rambunctious when he suggested that electing Trump in 24 would stop the war. You responded by saying that Trump has shown "nothing but admiration" for Putin, etc. You followed that with more TDS about not saying what he would have done differently, etc. IOW, a bunch of irrelevant deflection.

The rest of my "hysterical defense" of Trump is critique of the US response, and some examples of how you mischaracterized Trump as some kind of Putin ally. The facts are in the record, and Trump provided much more support for Ukraine than Obama did, even without an invasion.

I said:
---------------
"Ukraine was already at war with Russia since 2014, and Trump had provided Javelin missiles, counter battery radar systems, coastal patrol vessels, and had trainers in Ukraine from the National Guard. Trump was critical of Western European countries for their NATO spending and dependence on Russian energy, but he increased US troop presence in Poland and Estonia.

The US assistance to Ukraine since Feb 24 has been a small fraction of what we are capable of providing if we were truly committed. We have the largest stockpiles of equipment in NATO, and we could easily be providing 10x what we have so far. Compare to what we gave Israel in 30 days in 1973. It included over 100 F-4's, in some cases they landed on an Israeli base, the US pilot got out, they slapped Israeli markings on it and were flying sorties over the Sinai the same day.

We didn't send heavy weapons to Ukraine until after they had turned Russia back from Kiev. If it wasn't for Ukraine's close neighbors, this would have been lost before the first US weapons even arrived.

One HIMARS or M270 for every 100km of front line is pathetic. It pisses me off that we don't do better for the people of Ukraine."
----------------
There is nothing hysterical or misleading in any of what I wrote. Stop trying to deflect on Trump, and focus on what the US is doing (or failing to do) to help the people of Ukraine.

I wasn't "triggered", but clearly you were triggered by my response to his declaration that the solution to the conflict in Ukraine was to elect Trump. Rambunctious challenged me to produce evidence that Trump had praised Putin and I responded with two articles that did just that. That triggered your frenzied defense of Trump in which you first claimed the only relevant fact is that the invasion didn't occur until after the election and then declaring Trump's own words as "irrelevant to the discussion. And then you started touting nonsense about Trump's alleged unpredictability being a strength that would have discouraged Putin from invading and Biden's alleged weakness being what spurred Putin to invade, and then declaring me insane, suffering from TDS, for daring to criticize Trump. Yes, hysterical, frenzied both appropriate characterizations of your posts.

You keep insisting that there is no point in speculating about what Trump might have done had he been president or what he might do if he becomes president again, but a lot of people, some on this board, base their lack of support for US assistance to Ukraine on Trump's cynical use of the war to attack Biden, and this has even led some Americans who would describe themselves as patriots to defend Putin. There is simply no way to improve popular support for US aid to Ukraine without debunking Trump's groundless claims that he could have prevented the invasion without caving in to Putin.

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime_

And just for the record, I replied a while back to a post by (IIRC) Concerned American, about Trump's lack of a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the invasion, and said explicitly that I could not vote for him again for that reason.

So if you think I am some kind of rabid Trump fanatic, you couldn't be more wrong. My personal opinion is that Trump (and DeSantis too) should not have tried to dance around the question, and should have been hammering Biden relentlessly for his weak response.

Instead all I see from either one is fence straddling. This is not the time for that, and Ukraine is not the place. It helps Ukraine that there is still broad support from the GOP members of Congress, but that's still not enough to overcome Biden's cowardice.

Q. Where are the MQ-4's that were promised months ago?
A. They aren't coming...

I said pretty much the same thing about voting for Trump again on July 10:

Your senile dumb fuck of a president doesn't think at all much less makes speeches (except the ones from a teleprompter, sidenotes included) but somehow you don't like Putin who thinks and makes speeches himself. What the fuck? I don't understand the american logik.

The whole world hates Putin, but as for Biden, I have always thought Joe Biden was an entirely unprincipled, opportunistic politician but on this issue of Russia's invasion of Ukraine he is entirely right. I voted for Trump twice because I believed he had the best Ideas for America, but if he doesn't change his position on Ukraine, I wouldn't be able to vote for him a third time.

However, in this post, you call Trump's clear statement that the only way to have prevented the war was to "make a deal" with Putin, that is, to have appeased Putin at the expense of Ukraine, "dancing" and not cowardice, but label Biden a coward for not sending as many weapons as you would like to see.

Clearly, you are unable to see anything having to do with Ukraine from any perspective other than deep immersion in what you call toxic US politics.

Here's an example of Trump's dancing (not cowardice):

BUCK: And what did you think of Zelensky doing a Vogue cover shoot with his wife recently? Did you see some of the photos?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I haven’t seen that, but that’s, you know, probably not the greatest thing. (chuckles) No, I would say it’s not the greatest thing. Look, that should have — it would have — never happened. We wouldn’t have had even negotiated something. You know, somebody said, “Well, what would you do?” I said we wouldn’t have had to do anything. He wouldn’t have done it with me. He wouldn’t have done it. At a minimum, they should have made a deal.

They could have given up Crimea. They could have done something with NATO, “Okay, we’re not gonna join NATO,” and you’d have a country, because I believe Putin wanted to make a deal. And now I don’t think he wants to make a deal. I think it’s much tougher to make a deal. He’s blowing up the whole place. I mean, he’ll take over the whole place. And it’s very, very sad to watch what happened with Ukraine. Very, very sad. I think if they did a cover shoot… Is that true? I haven’t seen the cover shoot.

BUCK: Yeah, extensive, video, everything, still shots. It really… A lot of people said in the middle of a war it feels like a strange move.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No. Doesn’t sound very good. No. They have to make a deal. They have to make a deal before everything is gonna be over. You have hundreds of thousands of people that are dead now and maimed — some are maimed.

BUCK: You know Putin. When do you think he’d stop? When he gets the whole country? When he takes half of Ukraine? What do you think he wants to do?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think he’d rather have the whole country. I mean, now that he started. I don’t think he ever intended to start. I think that was a great negotiation. He went, he put troops on the board, and I think it was a great negotiation. I said, “Well, he’s a good negotiator.” I never thought he was gonna go in. He would have never… He knew that he would have been under attack, and he understood that, and I told him that, and it would have never happened, and to see what’s happened now…

And you have hundreds of thousands of people — you may have millions of people, but you have hundreds — when you have buildings like that that are blown up, those are big apartment houses. I know a lot about apartment houses. Those are big buildings and a lot of people didn’t leave. And when you look at those buildings totally burned out, those people are all dead. You lost a lot of people. That’s a deal that could have been settled. Should have never happened. But if it was going to happen, it could have been settled. And he moved 200,000 troops to the border to negotiate, and he couldn’t make a deal — and now I’m not sure you can make a deal very easily. You understand that?

President Trump to C&B: "Our Country Is Going to Hell"

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Everything that you're seeing right now, I said was going to happen.

www.clayandbuck.com

 

[para bellum]

And I realize it would be a hard sell for me to support providing military aid and financing for a nation that is mostly known for total corruption and ineffective economy. That is a sad truth.

Fair enough, if someone says to me "I do not support Ukraine because they cannot account for the support", I can accept that. That history of corruption (at least in part) does not exclude the US and the sitting POTUS, and his own baggage wrt Ukraine and his own family casts a long shadow over it all.

In theory at least, that is being addressed. There is a control system in place, weapons are not supposed to be misappropriated, and there is no evidence that the system has broken down in that regard.

I am not interested in protecting corrupt oligarchs, it is the daily bombing of innocent civilians hundreds of kilometers from the front lines that gets my goat more than anything else.

There are other considerations. Commitments were made during the process of disarming Ukraine post-1994, and those commitments must be honored. At stake is more than just Ukraine, the entire non-proliferation regime is at risk here.

Personally, I have no doubts that Putin will keep going after Ukraine, and the Balts and/or parts of Poland will be next up. Given the chance to reset and rebuild his military, the next go-round will not look like this one.

So I can set aside the history of corruption, knowing it was not the fault of innocent civilians who just want to get through their day, with the expectation that the aid will go where it's intended.

I can make the argument that promises were made to Ukraine, and if they are not honored, then other countries will not trust the US/Europe when it is their turn to cut a deal that we think is in our interests (but not necessarily theirs).

And I can ask- would we rather see Ukraine defeat the Russian army in Ukraine today? The Russian army who can't hit their own ass with a scoop shovel? Or should we give Russia an off-ramp, so they can use the lessons learned and come back in 5 or 8 years with a much more capable force?

I have 3 votes for aye, and one vote for nay. The ayes have it.

 

[ESay]

And I can ask- would we rather see Ukraine defeat the Russian army in Ukraine today? The Russian army who can't hit their own ass with a scoop shovel? Or should we give Russia an off-ramp, so they can use the lessons learned and come back in 5 or 8 years with a much more capable force?

That is an interesting question. I don't exclude at all that Russia can try again in say 8 years if they don't achieve their goals now. But who said they would do their work on mistakes?

I have heard numerous times that Putin's regime made appropriate conclusions from their Georgian campaign in 2008. Their army saw the same issues it does now in Ukraine - poor logistics, ineffective command, bad maintenance etc.

And that after this they change much. New weapons coming into service almost every year, new training, motivation etc. The reality showed that was empty words.

About Ukraine's win. What this win should be? The borders of 1991 with devastated army and liberated cities in rubble? I don't know. Ukraine can't fight against a mobilized Russian army and their tactical nukes. As for now, at least.

 

[AlexanderPK]

The whole world hates Putin

The whole pedophilic world where all those fifty genders dwell and which you must be a citizen of. Normal people like him. See the Roger Waters interview by that CNN freak?
As for the rest, I think you were talking to someone else. But since you mentioned that, the only thing you could have done to prevent the Ukraine crisis was to not have meddled in their inner political affairs and it wasn't Trump who threw shit on the fan. But you had a bug up your ass about that. Must have been gays being abused there, weren't they?

 

[para bellum]

That is an interesting question. I don't exclude at all that Russia can try again in say 8 years if they don't achieve their goals now. But who said they would do their work on mistakes?

I don't think anyone should doubt that they will learn the lesson from their experience in Ukraine. They know this war has transformed the way ground combat will be done in the future. It will be dominated by drones and precision fires- 2 things the RF is seriously lacking today. The see how the old way of tons of dumb munitions is neutralized by just a few precision weapons on the other side.

The corruption in the Russian military establishment that is visible today was not there in the Soviet era. The arsenal was in good condition, the army was proficient- they made their own roads across the mountains when they invaded Afghanistan, and they used to be the best army in the world at crossing rivers.

They could get that back, if given the opportunity. I don't think kleptocrats stop being kleptocrats just because there is a war on, but I do think that Putin can crack down on the corruption in the military establishment without reforming the entire system of patronage in Russia.

I have heard numerous times that Putin's regime made appropriate conclusions from their Georgian campaign in 2008. Their army saw the same issues it does now in Ukraine - poor logistics, ineffective command, bad maintenance etc.

And that after this they change much. New weapons coming into service almost every year, new training, motivation etc. The reality showed that was empty words.

Russia wants neighbors that are defenseless and dependent on Russia for security. Georgia is all of that. Like Chechnya- no air defenses, small armies, no air power. Syria the same- the opposition forces are not well equipped and do not give the Russian forces any meaningful competition.

So up to now, it hasn't hurt them. They can use mercenaries for the dirty work. Ukraine is very different- it's a much larger country with more capable armed forces, a deeper pool of potential soldiers, effective air defenses and combat aviation, battle hardened from 8 years of fighting in the Donbas and possesses a well trained artillery component.

It's the first time Russia has had to face a near-peer opponent, and they know they have performed poorly. The revolving door at the command level illustrates that. So it would be mistake to think they will not learn the lesson this time. (If they don't, so much the better, but I don't rely on it)

About Ukraine's win. What this win should be? The borders of 1991 with devastated army and liberated cities in rubble? I don't know. Ukraine can't fight against a mobilized Russian army and their tactical nukes. As for now, at least.

1991 borders, a large enough army equipped with sufficient NATO weapons to deter Putin, and liberated cities (including Crimea) in rubble. Cities can be rebuilt.

Russia cannot use tactical nukes in Ukraine, and they have stopped with that rhetoric. They can mobilize, but they do not have the armor and other kit to equip a large ground force. The "shadow mobilization" has generated about 20K husbands and sons of future Lada owners, but they are only getting one week of basic and riding in MT-LB's and BMP-1's from the 1960's. These new battalions are not really battalions- typically 250-300 (mostly) older men on 4-month contracts. They lack the basics- body armor, night vision, digital comms, etc.

I agree- Russia can throw more bodies into the meat grinder (like they are doing right now), but it will be the same as today- they will be poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led. If Ukraine can establish local air superiority it would be very messy for the invaders.

The better alternative is to make this "SMO" so costly that the Russian military just refuses to go along with Putin's imperial ambitions. A military coup would be nice. Dictators always have a firm grip on power, right up until they don't...

 

[ESay]

I don't think anyone should doubt that they will learn the lesson from their experience in Ukraine. They know this war has transformed the way ground combat will be done in the future. It will be dominated by drones and precision fires- 2 things the RF is seriously lacking today. The see how the old way of tons of dumb munitions is neutralized by just a few precision weapons on the other side.

The corruption in the Russian military establishment that is visible today was not there in the Soviet era. The arsenal was in good condition, the army was proficient- they made their own roads across the mountains when they invaded Afghanistan, and they used to be the best army in the world at crossing rivers.

They could get that back, if given the opportunity. I don't think kleptocrats stop being kleptocrats just because there is a war on, but I do think that Putin can crack down on the corruption in the military establishment without reforming the entire system of patronage in Russia.

Russia wants neighbors that are defenseless and dependent on Russia for security. Georgia is all of that. Like Chechnya- no air defenses, small armies, no air power. Syria the same- the opposition forces are not well equipped and do not give the Russian forces any meaningful competition.

So up to now, it hasn't hurt them. They can use mercenaries for the dirty work. Ukraine is very different- it's a much larger country with more capable armed forces, a deeper pool of potential soldiers, effective air defenses and combat aviation, battle hardened from 8 years of fighting in the Donbas and possesses a well trained artillery component.

It's the first time Russia has had to face a near-peer opponent, and they know they have performed poorly. The revolving door at the command level illustrates that. So it would be mistake to think they will not learn the lesson this time. (If they don't, so much the better, but I don't rely on it)

1991 borders, a large enough army equipped with sufficient NATO weapons to deter Putin, and liberated cities (including Crimea) in rubble. Cities can be rebuilt.

Russia cannot use tactical nukes in Ukraine, and they have stopped with that rhetoric. They can mobilize, but they do not have the armor and other kit to equip a large ground force. The "shadow mobilization" has generated about 20K husbands and sons of future Lada owners, but they are only getting one week of basic and riding in MT-LB's and BMP-1's from the 1960's. These new battalions are not really battalions- typically 250-300 (mostly) older men on 4-month contracts. They lack the basics- body armor, night vision, digital comms, etc.

I agree- Russia can throw more bodies into the meat grinder (like they are doing right now), but it will be the same as today- they will be poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led. If Ukraine can establish local air superiority it would be very messy for the invaders.

The better alternative is to make this "SMO" so costly that the Russian military just refuses to go along with Putin's imperial ambitions. A military coup would be nice. Dictators always have a firm grip on power, right up until they don't...

Yes, the Russians can reform their army successfully. And this possibility can't be underestimated. It is better to be prepared for a stronger enemy.

The Putin's regime stopped nuclear rhetoric, as of yet. But who can say for sure that if Ukraine takes Kherson, crosses over the Dnieper, enters the Crimea and directly threatens Sevastopol (though, I consider this scenario as a purely imaginary), the Kremlin won't decide to use tactical nukes. I am not sure, really.

Anyway, it is too early to make any predictions. The first meaningful conclusions can be made somewhere in November, when active fighting will be halted for a winter period.

 

[Litwin]

It would be good if such a coalition took place on practice, but hardly it can be really possible. Though, it depends on what the term 'West' is applied to, and what a 'coalition' means in this context.

Ukraine should seek an economic and military union with Poland as a main objective.