Trump and the Ukraine War

All have conceptions, and at time conceptions are wrong.
In 2020 year, the US spent an estimated 60 billion dollars maintaining our Nuclear arsenal.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) then projected that the United States is poised to spend nearly $500 billion, after including the effects of inflation, to maintain and replace its nuclear arsenal between fiscal years 2019 and 2028.
This was more than Russia’s entire military budget.
Not only is Russia’s military budget much smaller in comparison with it’s aims, but it has been involved in a costly war and further there is evidence that much of the budget has been misappropriated by Russian oligarchs and generals.
There isn’t much chance that Russia’s nuclear arsenal has been fully maintained or maintained at all, much less adequately, since the fall of the Soviet Union 30+ years ago.
That arsenal was already aging.
Since taking control of the Russian government, some counted that Putin has threatened the West with nuclear retaliation over 40 times and has never done it, even when so-called “red lines” have been crossed.
Some opinions are that Putin will never order a nuclear strike unless Russia is being nuked.
Even then, it is highly likely that many of their systems would fail.
But this is a conception, and in the reality we see that the leader of N. Korea starves his people, but maintains the nuclear program.
So go figure what really Putin been doing.
The past seven days have fundamentally changed Ukraine’s long conflict.
The week marks an escalation, the White House publicly authorized Ukraine Sunday to fire missiles it supplied into Russia proper, which Ukraine did on Monday.
Moscow responded by using an experimental medium-range missile, with hypersonic speeds and a multiple warhead system usually reserved for nuclear payloads, to strike Dnipro Thursday. Putin claimed the “Oreshnik” could evade all Western air defense.
Putin said that at 3 km per second, its speed meant all Western air defenses were useless.
US and NATO officials called the device medium-range and “experimental,” The weeks ahead will show if the Oreshnik is a singular message or a new tactic.

 

I see it this way. Putin won't resort to nuclear weapons unless he is facing annihilation. If Ukraine were to get to the point where it could dictate anything like a just peace, or at least a peace Ukraine would find satisfactory, Putin would be in a position where he might well resort to using them in Ukraine. Ukraine wouldn't survive a nuclear attack.

At that point, the West would have to decide whether to respond with its own attack and destroy the world as we know it or not respond and try to limit the vast damage that would accompany the attack on Ukraine. Either way, Ukraine would be erased as a functioning society.

That's why in the end Ukraine cannot prevail to the extent Stanislav thinks it can and should.

This isn't fair or just. But a fair and just resolution is impossible. The goal should be to end the war on the best terms Ukraine can get. Those terms won't include recovering all the conquered territories nor will Ukraine receive reparations.

 

Exactly, mutual suicide if either side launches a nuclear attack. Putin is obviously just posturing. Perhaps he's also building a new secret mansion in Siberia someplace, just in case.

 

I would be very happy if someone could show where I'm wrong. I don't like my conclusions either.

 

Happy to oblige. You're wrong here:

Russian propaganda heavily pushes the notion that Putin not getting what he wants from his war of choice constitutes "annihilation", or something comparably dramatic, for either russia or himself. This is not even wrong - this is meaningless wordplay.

 

Military experts, NATO Generals, such as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark say it was a mistake to have tit-for-tat on the Ukraine,
Russia war.
US and the EU should have provided Ukraine all it needs to defend itself against the invaders.
It's been almost 3 years of war, 100,000+ Ukrainians dead.
Putin will keep this war long, as he believes he can win this war and the West can't stop him.
The only way Russia will be convinced they can't win is if we provide Ukraine all it needs to defend itself.
Invite Ukraine in to NATO.

 

"Biden may believe that he is doing Ukraine a big favour with his ATACMS policy shift, but by limiting the missile systems to Kursk and the Russian border, he is repeating the same mistakes he’s made in the last 1,000 days of the full-scale war. He is once again imposing constraints on Ukraine’s ability to go for the win. As Kateryna Bohuslavska, a Ukrainian from war-torn Kharkiv, points out: ‘We can strike into Russia, but… only on Wednesday, after the rain, and when pigs fly. When will this nonsense end?’

Because of Biden’s escalation paralysis, it is Ukraine’s war effort that suffers. Jonathan Sweet, a former US military intelligence colonel, tells me that ATACMS won’t change the war’s course while they are limited to the Russian border regions. ‘If you can’t stop the flow of Russian soldiers and their tanks and their artillery into Ukraine, you’re never going to win the close fight’, he says. ‘You have to defeat them in Russia before they arrive, to strangle Russia’s ability to project such capabilities beyond its borders. And that’s the piece that’s missing right now’."

Link: https://archive.is/TNvgT

And who was most opposed to Ukraine's NATO membership? Biden and Olaf Scholz. "The United States and Germany are blocking any prospect of NATO enlargement to include Ukraine, while France and the United Kingdom are more favorable." (Le Monde)

 

Thanks but no thanks. A Ukrainian victory at the level you describe will be an existential crisis.

 

You can either:

a) “escalate” and allow Ukraine to strike inside the territory of Russia on a full scale

b) do what the United States (the Biden Administration) has done – “staked out an awkward middle ground — supporting the war enough to keep it going, but never enough to win…It is this uneasy dynamic — a Ukraine close to the West, striving for inclusion in the West, but not truly part of it — that has defined the U.S. management of this disastrous war. We want Ukraine to function as a protectorate, but ultimately, we are unwilling to protect it. A sensible, ugly strategy — tactically defensible but morally reprehensible." New York Times commentary quote: https://archive.ph/0UBQT

c) peace negotiations

I think that options a) and c) are preferable to option b).

 

But the US seems to end up doing b).

 

So how about it, Stanislav? Is Ukraine up for twenty years of grinding warfare? The idea horrifies me but thats what may happen.

 

Even with the escalation there is still a chance to end war, and/or escalate further.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv would like to end the war with Russia next year through "diplomatic means" as both countries prepare for President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House.

In an interview with the Ukrainian media outlet Suspilne, Zelenskyy said he is certain that the war will end "sooner" than it otherwise would have once Mr. Trump becomes president.

 

That is not necessarily a good thing. Zelensky is simply facing the reality that Trump will be President. That means two things. First that he must pander to Trump's ego since that is the technique that works best with Trump. That statement is definitely playing to Trump's ego. Second, he knows that Trump has threatened to cut off aid to Ukraine and that Putin has Trump in his pocket. That likely means ending the war sooner rather than later may be the best that Ukraine can hope for. Since there's the threat of aid to Ukraine being cut-off.

 

In a way Ukraine already won.
It survived. The price is huge.
My friends in Odesa just celebrated a newborn grandchild, 3 days no electricity and severe bombings.
The level of Ukrains victory, and a failure of Russian bear, is evident.
And this was achieved with restricted capabilities, and conventional and non conventional out of box thinking.
Even if war stops with some loss of territory, Ukraine will rebuild, and become stronger better equipped for future challenges.
But it's up to Ukranians to determine their future and they need our support.
EU even more needs to support Ukrane.
Who knows if Putin will attack next?

 

I hope that Putin has had a wake up call that Russia is not as powerful as he thought. I hope but doubt that is the case.

Ukraine will likely be forced to give up lots of territory. I just hope that NATO membership is left an option. It's the best hope Ukraine has for an independent future.

 

"Option c" shis seems to be the line Western media all follow and sell as smart and pragmatic. In essence, the argument goes like this: Biden didn't help enough, THEREFORE we are justified to stop helping at all and it will all be not our fault. Charming.

"Peace negotiations" right now will not lead to lasting peace. Any option that will give Ukraine adequate protection (NATO, nukes, truly stupid amount of weapons) will be a non-starter for putin. Therefore, war will continue, sooner or later.

 

Nope. Neither is russia. See USSR and Afganistan.

It must be so hard for you, poor thing.

 

100%. Problem is, Orban, Erdogan and Trump exist.
It looks like Trump wants to sell Ukraine out to putin. The hope is that he's inept enough to screw up even this task.

 

On Biden: his support for Ukraine was wholly inadequate. But the thing is, if you look at US policy and politics since 1989 and up to now (both parties), Biden looks like an absolute hero. This is why I thought him being re-elected would be Ukraine's absolute best bet, even over Kamala. What will happen now? No clue.