Trump and the Ukraine War

I think the point Rich was making was that a big difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine is that the guerillas fighting USSR and USA could hide in the mountains and let USSR and USA take control of the cities. A tactic such as that would not seem to work nearly as well in Ukraine.

 

Is that really necessary?

I realize you're emotionally compromised on this issue, but that doesn't suddenly become reasoned discussion. It's just petty and rude. Pass.

 

From my perspective, we seem to be witnessing a repeat of the 1930s especially when I see synagogues burn in Australia, Jews opressed on campuses and streets of civilized countries etc—another prelude to a global conflict, perhaps even World War III. The complex reality of international politics is unfolding, and it’s clear that in times of power vacuum, one nation’s weakness is another’s opportunity to rise.
The signs of a looming world war are becoming undeniable. Who could have predicted that Russia’s war against Ukraine would drag on for almost three years? In 2014, Russia’s annexation of Crimea seemed like the actions of a neighborhood bully taking candy from a child. But now, Russia’s ambition, particularly its historical view of Kyiv as a key center in early Russian history, is becoming clearer.
Some draw comparisons to Finland, which lost territory to Russia but survived as a nation. Ukraine, too, has heroically made Russia pay a heavy price, but the question remains: how long can it continue to persevere?
Meanwhile, Russia’s growing ties with China raise concerns, and we must not overlook the precarious situation in Taiwan. Turkey, seeking to reclaim some of its former Ottoman glory, eyes its interests in Syria, while the balance of power shifts further. Iran, determined to become a nuclear power, adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile region.
The global balance of power is in flux, and the stakes are higher than ever.

 

I don't see what this argument is supposed to do here. And Ukrainians can do guerilla warfare, if you knew anything about our history.

Well, the suggestion that in this Russia-started war Ukraine seeks to "conquer Russia" in a way that's somehow parallel to what Russia seeks to do is not a reasoned discussion. You may have meant it as a figurative language, in which case it was not at all clear, not to mention smug as all heck. Especially for someone with pristine uncompromised emotions.

 

Has any country as high-income, technologically advanced, civilly unified and prepared, and militarily prepared as Ukraine been invaded and occupied successfully in recent memory?

Ukraine has both some advantages in common with local forces facing superpowers in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam, and some big advantages the local forces in Afghanistan and Vietnam did not have. Granted that "terrain" is less an advantage in Ukraine.

 

Again, pass. Go argue with someone else.

 

They also have much more to lose. See France, 1940.

 

Worked great for France's Jews. Would work equally great for the rest of it, save for the Allies. Are you predicting a full scale WWIII?

 

Putin's calculation (as well as the USA's estimate of the situation) was that the Ukraine government would fall within a few days and Russian troops would just march into Kyiv. I think the reasons this didn't work out that way for Russia was two-fold. The less important reason was that the Russian troops were much less ready and competent than previously assumed. Most importantly, Ukraine fought back with amazing ferocity and tenacity. Also, the government never collapsed.

 

I assumed that Rich's two sentences were two separate thoughts. The reference to France was that France was taken over relatively easily in 1940 and France had the attributes listed by Jonathan, "high-income, technologically advanced, civilly unified and prepared, and militarily prepared".

Regarding the much more to lose thought, I'm not sure what is meant by that.

 

Again, go argue with someone else.

 

I just saw a news piece about podcasts put out by uninformed poor sources that liked talking about WW III that was supposedly on the way. They get folks worried but put out this nonsense because it gets them to return for more of it. I just hope that isn't what is happening here. It's best to only consume reliable sources for news.

 

Fear and negativity work. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

 

If you follow reliable, certified news sources—whether international or national—rather than unverified podcasts or obscure outlets, you'll notice the same trends and developments I’ve observed. The reporting is consistent across respected media platforms.

It seems increasingly clear to me that Vladimir Putin will remain a serious threat to NATO allies for the foreseeable future. His aggressive actions could potentially lead to attempts to absorb one or more smaller NATO members, which might draw the U.S. into yet another major European conflict.
The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that the four-way axis of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is real. The latter three have all come to Russia’s aid, especially after its initial incursion faltered.
The new administration would do well to plan against such a scenario and retain forces in both Europe and the Middle East to prevent the four-way axis from working as one, as they are now doing against a beleaguered Ukraine.
While some may prefer to remain comfortably detached from the harsh realities of global politics, ignoring these developments won’t make them disappear. Denial is not a strategy—vigilance and preparedness are essential if we hope to prevent further escalation.

That said, de-escalation through diplomatic solutions should always be the preferred course of action. Engaging in meaningful dialogue and pursuing peaceful resolutions must remain a priority to avoid unnecessary loss and conflict.

 

So what do YOU think is possible, Stanislav? Do you think Ukraine could seize Moscow? If not, what lesser pressure can Ukraine put on Russia (not just Putin) to obtain the peace you insist upon? How do you see it working out?

 

Quoting myself:

1. Strengthen Ukraine's hand by providing more of the obsolete equipment from US warehouses.
2. Negotiate ceasefire in exchange for REAL security guarantees (either immediate NATO membership for Ukraine or treaties equivalent to Article 5).

 

...also, acknowledge terrorist nature of Russia's actions attacking energy infrastructure. In this context, long-range weapon use on russia territory is NOT "escalation". Punish russia for further acts of terrorism against civilians - by giving more hardware to Ukraine.

 

My turn: where does the idea of "seizing Moscow" coming from? If you heard it from Ukrainians (and we do entertain it) or from pro-Ukrainian sources (I know of only one - russian dissident journalist Arkadii Babchenko) - newsflash - it's a joke. No one sane says it seriously. No one wants to take responsibility for that steaming pile of stuff.

 

That's a very reasonable and realistic assessment, in my opinion. The situation with China and Taiwan is also a concern.

I don't pretend to know Putin well but I'll guess that he's probably sorry that he attacked Ukraine. The war has had to put pressure on Russia economically and I'll guess it has cost Putin politically. I hope that means he's not looking for a bigger mess by attacking a NATO country although it's unknown what the chaos of Trump might bring. Trump has in the past invited Putin to take over some NATO countries.