Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Gehrman]

We owe the Chinese money though, not the other way round.

Good point

 

[4bars]

Even if all they did was give away the assets of the already defenstrated that must be worth something. Utterly bonkers that there is no serious groundswell for it.

I think they will make sure that will be minimal

 

[4bars]

I think it's more systemic than about individual people. We keep learning at each crisis that it's much more important to protect the financial sector and the idea you're money is safe, than actually protect people.

You are right in US an EU but in russia the system is the oligarchy. And as the financial system influence parties, russians oligarchs do the same as seen in the donations to the tory party or sure something is going on in US and their elections

 

[maniak]

You are right in US an EU but in russia the system is the oligarchy. And as the financial system influence parties, russians oligarchs do the same as seen in the donations to the tory party or sure something is going on in US and their elections

That surely happens, but we have this mindset of "you don't mess with someone's money, this is free market baby" so ingrained in us as a society, that just taking someone's money is almost a sin.

 

[VorZakone]

Got ourselves a nice clusterfeck of an investigation going on here.

Nord Stream Probe Hampered by Resistance From Poland

In one instance, Polish prosecutors told their European counterparts that no explosives were found on the Andromeda, although no forensic investigation had taken place. Yet the Polish internal security service told European investigators that the border guard officers who had checked the crew never boarded the boat, contradicting the prosecutor’s claim.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-probe-faces-resistance-from-poland-962aa5f9

 

[HTG]

Got ourselves a nice clusterfeck of an investigation going on here.

Nord Stream Probe Hampered by Resistance From Poland


https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-probe-faces-resistance-from-poland-962aa5f9

At this point I’m quite sure it’s been Ukraine with Polish support. Which I’m honestly fine with. The whole pipeline was just a shameful act of corruption, greed and a masterstroke of Russian intelligence. A monument to Germany‘s naivety.

 

[4bars]

That surely happens, but we have this mindset of "you don't mess with someone's money, this is free market baby" so ingrained in us as a society, that just taking someone's money is almost a sin.

You are 100% on that. Didnt think on this angle. Would be like open a pandora box for all shady money

 

[Beans]

That surely happens, but we have this mindset of "you don't mess with someone's money, this is free market baby" so ingrained in us as a society, that just taking someone's money is almost a sin.

One article said there's no law to allow it, and it seems they're reluctant to open Pandora's box. You'd think they'd make a law, and bring charges against Russia or the individuals in question, to validate the decision.

 

[Beans]

You are 100% on that. Didnt think on this angle. Would be like open a pandora box for all shady money

Last person to mess with shady money was the journalist who published the Panama Papers. She died in a car bomb, which is still considered an effective refutation of her allegations.

 

[4bars]

Last person to mess with shady money was the journalist who published the Panama Papers. She died in a car bomb, which is still considered an effective refutation of her allegations.

And a warning for any other journalist. World sucks

 

[foolsgold]

Because all this assets are from people that rubbed shoulders with any rich and powerful personality of US, europe and any other country. They are friends and they share interests.

Once the conflict will be over, they will unfreeze most of the assets but a few that maybe had been defenestrated or scapegoats

Also, there's also a lot (less than $300bn but still a lot) of western assets in Russia that would immediately be confiscated in retaliation, I imagine the people who own these are pushing back on taking the Russian assets in the west.

 

[DT12]

Two things to add on the question of asset seizure that haven't been mentioned yet:

Firstly, the legal issue is in fact incredibly complex, as acknowledged by Janet Yellen (the "international law" the West claims to be defending becomes a little less sacrosanct if one side can simply rewrite those laws when convenient). This conversation started with someone saying they had no idea why the West doesn't just seize the assets no matter the consequences or precedent, but it's nowhere near as simple as that. Economic reprisals during war are the prerogative of injured states, not of third countries. Ukraine exercised this right by seizing around $880 million in Russian assets within its borders in May 2022. But Ukraine's allies are not at war with Russia (hence the crux of the illegality). The West can't have it both ways, they can't claim wartime powers while still insisting they're not at war with Russia.

Also, there's the question of how that 300 billion is to be distributed. When Biden had Zelenskiy visit the US at the end of December to publicly beg for more money, the Biden Admin produced charts and graphs (they literally produced charts and graphs, it was comical) to show each senator how much their individual states were profiting from the Ukraine war. It was part of their strategy of temporarily shifting the narrative from "Ukraine is defending global democracy" to "The Ukraine war is a great job сreation scheme for America". 35 states in total were shown to be making a net profit out of the war through weapons contracts. But Europe does not and will never have anything close to America's capacity for supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs, and neither does Japan or South Korea (ironically due to America forbidding it - yay sovereignty). When it comes to military - as opposed to economic - assistance, Ukraine can do nothing more useful with those 300 billion dollars than send it back over to Washington. "We need to seize Russian assets and give them to Ukraine" is a loosely defensible position, at least morally. The more accurate "The US should compel France and Belgium to hand Russian money over to American military contractors" is less so.

Don't get me wrong, there will be an announcement on February 24th that the West is going to send the profits on Russian assets to Ukraine. Biden has already channeled David Brent again by saying Ukraine needs another "morale boost" on the 2nd anniversary of the war. And some of the assets will eventually be seized and used for 'reconstruction', there's a legal path to that from what I've read. But the notion that 300 billion dollars are going to be "sent to Ukraine" is a non-starter. The problems it will create far outweigh the problems it will solve, and besides which (really the only point that matters...), it is economically unnecessary. US and EU aid to Ukraine has so far amounted to way more than $100 billion per year. This sum is sustainable for the transatlantic economy, if they're serious about supporting Ukraine long-term (they're not but that's another issue).

So to close out my first point, I'm 99% sure the West will go with the far less risky approach of funding Ukraine with the several billion euros in annual profits accruing from Russian assets. This will redirect income streams rather than touching the principal, making international legal ramifications a lot milder. It also avoids the problematic optics of US senators taking money of the Russian people (that's what the frozen central bank reserves essentially are) held in Europe and re-distributing it to their pals at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. This new policy will be announced on February 24th, with a huge amount of fanfare. It will change nothing at all about the outcome of the war or its aftermath, but hey, just like those EU membership talks in lieu of new money or weapons...morale-boost I guess.

The 2nd issue to mention has already been touched on above: future negotiations. Despite Raoul's claim a couple of pages ago that Russia has taken no significant territory, Russia currently controls trillions of dollars of Ukrainian assets. At one point it was estimated at 12.4 trillion...

https://markets.businessinsider.com...gy-metals-oil-gas-coal-deposits-secdev-2022-8

...and is now reckoned to be 'down to' around 8 trillion following the autumn 2022 counteroffensives in Kharviv and Kherson. If the lines were frozen now, Ukraine would permanently lose around 40% of its wealth.That's a non-functioning country. No country can survive such a loss and still support a population of around 40 million people (assuming the 10 million who have either left or now find themselves in Russian-controlled territory return). Ukraine needs constant Western help just to pay salaries to their civil servants, never mind the military. That can't continue forever. Prior to the war Ukraine was already the 2nd poorest country in Europe after Moldova. Try running Europe's largest country again with 40% less wealth and resources. 300 billion won't even come close to footing the bill for reconstruction (already estimated at well over a trillion dollars), let alone get the economy back on its feet. I strongly encourage people to stop posting garbage Twitter accounts in this thread like The Institute for the Study of War (a delusional propaganda "think tank" run by Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland's husband) and the UK's DoD, and follow instead the accounts of Zelenskiy's own circle (Yermak, Podolyak...). They consistently speak about the existential necessity of taking back their land due to the economic value of it. If Russia keeps what it currently has, Ukraine cannot function as an independent state. They directly state this over and over again when people suggest 'giving' Russia territories in return for peace, but nobody is listening to them. If Russia DID actually control worthless land, as Raoul suggests, they'd have happily signed a 'peace deal' already. But it's not worthless. It's the lifeblood of the Ukrainian economy and they need it back in order to survive.

Hence - future negotiations. Putin wants back into the global financial system. That's America's primary leverage (acknowledged by Yellen in the same speech about the difficulty of seizing Russian money). Legalising the theft of Russian assets massively complicates that. "Once in a generation intellect" Jake Sullivan (even by the subterranean standards of the Biden Admin, a jaw-droppingly stupid individual) has begun to prattle on about a potential future economic "sharing" of the 4 regions Russia has annexed, but all of this entirely misses the point - made repeatedly by Zelenskiy's people - that Ukraine cannot allow itself to lose what Russia has taken to any degree. They're not saying "send us more weapons" because they love fighting, they're saying it because taking back their land is the only way Ukraine survives as a viable state. Giving Russia the territories it currently controls is a slow economic death for Ukraine. I am seemingly the only person in this thread who thinks Putin is a very rational actor who WILL negotiate in good faith with a competent West. He has a 23 year record of hundreds of thousands of deals with non-Western countries which have not been broken, at some point the West may want to take a look at itself for its role in this shitshow (spoiler alert, it won't). There are, I believe, things the West can still do to ensure Ukraine gets out of this with a not-terrible deal (they're never going to get a good deal now). The problem is that 22 months into the war, there is still nobody offering real leadership on Ukraine's behalf, they're still just spewing out empty "morale-boosting" nonsense.

As I wrote in a previous post, Ukraine has no good options now. It is going to lose the war and Russia will achieve the 4 objectives set out at the start (occupation of Ukraine never being one of them). The standard of Western "leaders" is the lowest I've ever known it and Ukraine is unfortunate to be in this mess during the weakest era in living memory of American and European 'leadership'. Mike Johnson gave an interview yesterday and reiterated that he's not going to approve more Ukraine funding until Biden provides (I quote) "a clear endgame in Ukraine. A clear strategy. A clear statement of what our goals there are". That's problematic, because there is no endgame, there is no strategy, and they have no idea what their goals are (for the record, more funding will be approved, probably in February. This brinkmanship over the border is just political theatre). The ONLY way Ukraine could ever 'win' this war was by militarily defeating Russia. Zelenskiy has said this a thousand times, to his credit he has zero tolerance for all this meaningless Western bullshit about how "Putin has already lost because Ukraine is still a free state!". The West decided not to let Ukrainian victory happen when they had the chance. Now it's my firm belief and bedrock conviction that Ukraine will just be the latest American project to be led down the garden path and then tossed aside when it becomes inconvenient. The Kurds and Afghans can commiserate.

 

[Raoul]

The 2nd issue to mention has already been touched on above: future negotiations. Despite Raoul's claim a couple of pages ago that Russia has taken no significant territory, Russia currently controls trillions of dollars of Ukrainian assets. At one point it was estimated at 12.4 trillion...

https://markets.businessinsider.com...gy-metals-oil-gas-coal-deposits-secdev-2022-8

Much of which was already controlled by Putin after 2014 - certainly the Donestk, Lughansk areas. As for the oil and gas reserves - there's limited infrastructure for Putin to leverage any of it for himself.

 

[Suedesi]

Putin didn't attempt a full blown invasion? Do you mean Kyiv was a "feint"? What were those troops coming in from Belarus supposed to do?

I'm not sure how one could attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine using 190,000 troops against Ukraine's 700,000. It seems Moscow aimed to instigate a coup, establish a puppet government, consolidate control over Crimea, secure concessions in the eastern regions, and then conclude their "special operation". Clearly, they grossly miscalculated, failing to anticipate the fierce resistance that significantly thwarted their efforts.

 

[Suedesi]

Peter Zeihan semes to think that Putin would move on the likes of Poland and Romania to block the potential invasion routes from outside into their heartlands if they win the war in the Ukraine. When that happens, NATO will have to involve (obviously) and the Russians will use nuclear weapons pretty quickly because their forces can't match the NATO's. So the goal for "The West' is to keep the Russians inside the Ukraine.

I would think that that is pretty much how most people think anyway at least at this point.

Peter Zeihan's analysis is highly questionable. For example he has been predicting the collapse of China as a political entity within one to two decades and as an economic entity within a decade, consistently since 2010. Additionally, he has claimed that China has not made significant technological advancements in the last 15 years, despite notable progress in areas such as renewables, electric vehicles, 5G, smartphones, semiconductors, and drones. I mean this guy's living under a rock.... but is very confident and eloquent which are the only prerequisites to gain clicks and followers.

 

[The United]

Peter Zeihan's analysis is highly questionable. For example he has been predicting the collapse of China as a political entity within one to two decades and as an economic entity within a decade, consistently since 2010. Additionally, he has claimed that China has not made significant technological advancements in the last 15 years, despite notable progress in areas such as renewables, electric vehicles, 5G, smartphones, semiconductors, and drones. I mean this guy's living under a rock.... but is very confident and eloquent which are the only prerequisites to gain clicks and followers.

But yeah, it doesn't mean he can't say what he thinks of the UKR situation or he is wrong about that.

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

How can Russia be winning if the initial goal was to denazify Ukraine by removing the evil jew Nazi leader Zelenskyj, he is still very much there. Or if it was because of a red line for more border next to Nato, they fecked up by pushing Finland into the embrace of it.

Now if it's about land grabbing, which i assume it is in the end, Yeah they have some kind of victory, hard to see Ukraine getting it back in current situation without a massive increase in arms support from it's allies. Hopefully sanctions will be upheld against Russia until the territory is given back, even if they agree to freeze the conflict.

 

[VorZakone]

I'm not sure how one could attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine using 190,000 troops against Ukraine's 700,000. It seems Moscow aimed to instigate a coup, establish a puppet government, consolidate control over Crimea, secure concessions in the eastern regions, and then conclude their "special operation". Clearly, they grossly miscalculated, failing to anticipate the fierce resistance that significantly thwarted their efforts.

They came in from the north, south and east while bombing the country and they were on their way to Kyiv. Sounds like a full scale invasion to me. It seems that they thought there would be little resistance but that doesn't change what happened: it was an invasion from multiple sides.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Don’t act dumb. You know what the issue is. You shared Russian propaganda without giving it any context whatsoever. That’s not cool. Someone kindly gave you an opportunity to set this little mistake right. A reasonable person would just say „my bad, next time I’ll be more careful“. Instead you must create this drama, so you can be right. Tiresome.

Just this guy's standard MO all across the caf. It's sad.

 

[4bars]

Two things to add on the question of asset seizure that haven't been mentioned yet:

Firstly, the legal issue is in fact incredibly complex, as acknowledged by Janet Yellen (the "international law" the West claims to be defending becomes a little less sacrosanct if one side can simply rewrite those laws when convenient). This conversation started with someone saying they had no idea why the West doesn't just seize the assets no matter the consequences or precedent, but it's nowhere near as simple as that. Economic reprisals during war are the prerogative of injured states, not of third countries. Ukraine exercised this right by seizing around $880 million in Russian assets within its borders in May 2022. But Ukraine's allies are not at war with Russia (hence the crux of the illegality). The West can't have it both ways, they can't claim wartime powers while still insisting they're not at war with Russia.

Also, there's the question of how that 300 billion is to be distributed. When Biden had Zelenskiy visit the US at the end of December to publicly beg for more money, the Biden Admin produced charts and graphs (they literally produced charts and graphs, it was comical) to show each senator how much their individual states were profiting from the Ukraine war. It was part of their strategy of temporarily shifting the narrative from "Ukraine is defending global democracy" to "The Ukraine war is a great job сreation scheme for America". 35 states in total were shown to be making a net profit out of the war through weapons contracts. But Europe does not and will never have anything close to America's capacity for supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs, and neither does Japan or South Korea (ironically due to America forbidding it - yay sovereignty). When it comes to military - as opposed to economic - assistance, Ukraine can do nothing more useful with those 300 billion dollars than send it back over to Washington. "We need to seize Russian assets and give them to Ukraine" is a loosely defensible position, at least morally. The more accurate "The US should compel France and Belgium to hand Russian money over to American military contractors" is less so.

Don't get me wrong, there will be an announcement on February 24th that the West is going to send the profits on Russian assets to Ukraine. Biden has already channeled David Brent again by saying Ukraine needs another "morale boost" on the 2nd anniversary of the war. And some of the assets will eventually be seized and used for 'reconstruction', there's a legal path to that from what I've read. But the notion that 300 billion dollars are going to be "sent to Ukraine" is a non-starter. The problems it will create far outweigh the problems it will solve, and besides which (really the only point that matters...), it is economically unnecessary. US and EU aid to Ukraine has so far amounted to way more than $100 billion per year. This sum is sustainable for the transatlantic economy, if they're serious about supporting Ukraine long-term (they're not but that's another issue).

So to close out my first point, I'm 99% sure the West will go with the far less risky approach of funding Ukraine with the several billion euros in annual profits accruing from Russian assets. This will redirect income streams rather than touching the principal, making international legal ramifications a lot milder. It also avoids the problematic optics of US senators taking money of the Russian people (that's what the frozen central bank reserves essentially are) held in Europe and re-distributing it to their pals at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. This new policy will be announced on February 24th, with a huge amount of fanfare. It will change nothing at all about the outcome of the war or its aftermath, but hey, just like those EU membership talks in lieu of new money or weapons...morale-boost I guess.

The 2nd issue to mention has already been touched on above: future negotiations. Despite Raoul's claim a couple of pages ago that Russia has taken no significant territory, Russia currently controls trillions of dollars of Ukrainian assets. At one point it was estimated at 12.4 trillion...

https://markets.businessinsider.com...gy-metals-oil-gas-coal-deposits-secdev-2022-8

...and is now reckoned to be 'down to' around 8 trillion following the autumn 2022 counteroffensives in Kharviv and Kherson. If the lines were frozen now, Ukraine would permanently lose around 40% of its wealth.That's a non-functioning country. No country can survive such a loss and still support a population of around 40 million people (assuming the 10 million who have either left or now find themselves in Russian-controlled territory return). Ukraine needs constant Western help just to pay salaries to their civil servants, never mind the military. That can't continue forever. Prior to the war Ukraine was already the 2nd poorest country in Europe after Moldova. Try running Europe's largest country again with 40% less wealth and resources. 300 billion won't even come close to footing the bill for reconstruction (already estimated at well over a trillion dollars), let alone get the economy back on its feet. I strongly encourage people to stop posting garbage Twitter accounts in this thread like The Institute for the Study of War (a delusional propaganda "think tank" run by Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland's husband) and the UK's DoD, and follow instead the accounts of Zelenskiy's own circle (Yermak, Podolyak...). They consistently speak about the existential necessity of taking back their land due to the economic value of it. If Russia keeps what it currently has, Ukraine cannot function as an independent state. They directly state this over and over again when people suggest 'giving' Russia territories in return for peace, but nobody is listening to them. If Russia DID actually control worthless land, as Raoul suggests, they'd have happily signed a 'peace deal' already. But it's not worthless. It's the lifeblood of the Ukrainian economy and they need it back in order to survive.

Hence - future negotiations. Putin wants back into the global financial system. That's America's primary leverage (acknowledged by Yellen in the same speech about the difficulty of seizing Russian money). Legalising the theft of Russian assets massively complicates that. "Once in a generation intellect" Jake Sullivan (even by the subterranean standards of the Biden Admin, a jaw-droppingly stupid individual) has begun to prattle on about a potential future economic "sharing" of the 4 regions Russia has annexed, but all of this entirely misses the point - made repeatedly by Zelenskiy's people - that Ukraine cannot allow itself to lose what Russia has taken to any degree. They're not saying "send us more weapons" because they love fighting, they're saying it because taking back their land is the only way Ukraine survives as a viable state. Giving Russia the territories it currently controls is a slow economic death for Ukraine. I am seemingly the only person in this thread who thinks Putin is a very rational actor who WILL negotiate in good faith with a competent West. He has a 23 year record of hundreds of thousands of deals with non-Western countries which have not been broken, at some point the West may want to take a look at itself for its role in this shitshow (spoiler alert, it won't). There are, I believe, things the West can still do to ensure Ukraine gets out of this with a not-terrible deal (they're never going to get a good deal now). The problem is that 22 months into the war, there is still nobody offering real leadership on Ukraine's behalf, they're still just spewing out empty "morale-boosting" nonsense.

As I wrote in a previous post, Ukraine has no good options now. It is going to lose the war and Russia will achieve the 4 objectives set out at the start (occupation of Ukraine never being one of them). The standard of Western "leaders" is the lowest I've ever known it and Ukraine is unfortunate to be in this mess during the weakest era in living memory of American and European 'leadership'. Mike Johnson gave an interview yesterday and reiterated that he's not going to approve more Ukraine funding until Biden provides (I quote) "a clear endgame in Ukraine. A clear strategy. A clear statement of what our goals there are". That's problematic, because there is no endgame, there is no strategy, and they have no idea what their goals are (for the record, more funding will be approved, probably in February. This brinkmanship over the border is just political theatre). The ONLY way Ukraine could ever 'win' this war was by militarily defeating Russia. Zelenskiy has said this a thousand times, to his credit he has zero tolerance for all this meaningless Western bullshit about how "Putin has already lost because Ukraine is still a free state!". The West decided not to let Ukrainian victory happen when they had the chance. Now it's my firm belief and bedrock conviction that Ukraine will just be the latest American project to be led down the garden path and then tossed aside when it becomes inconvenient. The Kurds and Afghans can commiserate.

That is a great post, specially on the economic and west behaviour perspective but i dont agree on putin's analisys. As much as he respected agreements on non european countries is because it was convenient for him.

We can take also what happen with the CSTO when armenia and azerbaijan showdown happened. Not to be seen. It might be understandabledue to the ukraine war but there is that. It was not convenient for putin to put resources on a defense treaty forfeiting it and abandoning armenia.

Also the 2014 invasion was supposed to be the last. We would probably agree that the west meddling in ukraine before 2014 russia but i cant condone war as a result to lose the political geostrategical influence. At the same time, US had been doing that in the entirety of the XXs century. But thats another tale.

Agreeing with putin on. Negotations would not guarantee anything at all. Specially because in 10 years putin might not be there and someone else might decide to push through emboldened by the loss of influence of the west vs china (will see what happens with taiwan).

All in all, there is a stalemate in ukraine. On the field and geostrategically because as you point out the west has little appetite for more and also because it seems is just business for the US while depleting the old enemy resources while they dont care ukraine beeds out.

And at the other side putin is not truatworthy to negociate with.

2024 is very key. Biden reelection might move the pieces in favour of ukraine. Trump could turn the table pretty quick and even menacing other european countries

 

[Lemoor]

So to close out my first point, I'm 99% sure the West will go with the far less risky approach of funding Ukraine with the several billion euros in annual profits accruing from Russian assets. This will redirect income streams rather than touching the principal, making international legal ramifications a lot milder. It also avoids the problematic optics of US senators taking money of the Russian people (that's what the frozen central bank reserves essentially are) held in Europe and re-distributing it to their pals at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. This new policy will be announced on February 24th, with a huge amount of fanfare. It will change nothing at all about the outcome of the war or its aftermath, but hey, just like those EU membership talks in lieu of new money or weapons...morale-boost I guess.

I love that the previous completely absurd predictions never coming to fruition don't stop you from making new ones with even more conviction.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Suedesi]

The US and Europe have 300billion in frozen Russian assets they can use to continue funding for another 5 years.

This would signal the end of the USD's role as the reserve currency, significantly diminishing the likelihood of countries holding USD in reserves or opting to finance US debt.

 

[Raoul]

This would signal the end of the USD's role as the reserve currency, significantly diminishing the likelihood of countries holding USD in reserves or opting to finance US debt.

It certainly would for authoritarian dictatorships seeking to invade their neighbors for no valid reason.

 

[VorZakone]

I think this is a good point to remember. Regardless of Western aid, I expect Ukraine to continue to fight but Russia will make frontline gains as Ukraine eventually has to shift to lower intensity resistance.

Also, the West has influence on Ukraine while providing aid. I think I recall reading that Ukraine had plans on attacking Wagner in Syria but eventually halted those plans. But if we stop giving aid, there is less incentive for Ukraine to consult the West or take the West's interests into account. And things may get nastier than they already are.

Anyway, Western aid will likely continue.

 

[Morty_]

That is a great post, specially on the economic and west behaviour perspective but i dont agree on putin's analisys. As much as he respected agreements on non european countries is because it was convenient for him.

We can take also what happen with the CSTO when armenia and azerbaijan showdown happened. Not to be seen. It might be understandabledue to the ukraine war but there is that. It was not convenient for putin to put resources on a defense treaty forfeiting it and abandoning armenia.

Also the 2014 invasion was supposed to be the last. We would probably agree that the west meddling in ukraine before 2014 russia but i cant condone war as a result to lose the political geostrategical influence. At the same time, US had been doing that in the entirety of the XXs century. But thats another tale.

Agreeing with putin on. Negotations would not guarantee anything at all. Specially because in 10 years putin might not be there and someone else might decide to push through emboldened by the loss of influence of the west vs china (will see what happens with taiwan).

All in all, there is a stalemate in ukraine. On the field and geostrategically because as you point out the west has little appetite for more and also because it seems is just business for the US while depleting the old enemy resources while they dont care ukraine beeds out.

And at the other side putin is not truatworthy to negociate with.

2024 is very key. Biden reelection might move the pieces in favour of ukraine. Trump could turn the table pretty quick and even menacing other european countries

Obviously, Biden winning is key, and if he does, i reckon the house flips back to dems as well, unfortunately, thats not enough.

Dems needs a trifecta to avoid republicans taking Ukraine-aid hostage, there may be a majority in the senate now, that favors aid, but if GOP takes back the senate, which is pretty likely, then who is to tell the senate majority leader simply refuses to bring up the bills for a vote?

 

[Suedesi]

It certainly would for authoritarian dictatorships seeking to invade their neighbors for no valid reason.

Your point is valid on several levels

 

[4bars]

Obviously, Biden winning is key, and if he does, i reckon the house flips back to dems as well, unfortunately, thats not enough.

Dems needs a trifecta to avoid republicans taking Ukraine-aid hostage, there may be a majority in the senate now, that favors aid, but if GOP takes back the senate, which is pretty likely, then who is to tell the senate majority leader simply refuses to bring up the bills for a vote?

Certantly Biden relected is not enough, but is the only path in this elections. Other pieces falling in place will affect the liklyhood of ukraine to receive aid or not. And even with a trifecta, doesnt guarantee anything as the west might decide that it doesnt worth it anymore as in the end is business and they already hurted russia. They care little of ukraine and it might be less apetite to keep going. Specially with israel conflict and with taiwan in the horizon

But with trump it wouls go to shitters pretty quickly

 

[That_Bloke]

It certainly would for authoritarian dictatorships seeking to invade their neighbors for no valid reason.

Too bad we didn't think of that for enlightened democracies doing exactly the same thing.

 

[That_Bloke]

I think this is a good point to remember. Regardless of Western aid, I expect Ukraine to continue to fight but Russia will make frontline gains as Ukraine eventually has to shift to lower intensity resistance.

Also, the West has influence on Ukraine while providing aid. I think I recall reading that Ukraine had plans on attacking Wagner in Syria but eventually halted those plans. But if we stop giving aid, there is less incentive for Ukraine to consult the West or take the West's interests into account. And things may get nastier than they already are.

Anyway, Western aid will likely continue.

It's not about it continuing or not (I think it will), but will it continue in a meaningful way allowing the Ukrainians to fight on an even ground? If it's as it was until now, I fail to see what the West's endgame is.

 

[Abizzz]

Too bad we didn't think of that for enlightened democracies doing exactly the same thing.

So what? Did Afghanistan or Irak not fight back because you think the US got it wrong?

It's such an incredibly naive thought to think democracies will never fight their corner again because they got some things wrong in the past.

 

[That_Bloke]

So what? Did Afghanistan or Irak not fight back because you think the US got it wrong?

It's such an incredibly naive thought to think democracies will never fight their corner again because they got some things wrong in the past.

The irony.

 

[Abizzz]

The irony.

What? Democracies have interests and they fight for them. The thought that they need to be holy nuns or else some bloke on the internet can righteously claim "hypocrisy" is laughable.

(*well the bloke can claim it but to the same effect as stroking himself. We have some posters on here who almost exclusively do that on here these days, sadly).

 

[4bars]

What? Democracies have interests and they fight for them. The thought that they need to be holy nuns or else some bloke on the internet can righteously claim "hypocrisy" is laughable.

(*well the bloke can claim it but to the same effect as stroking himself. We have some posters on here who almost exclusively do that on here these days, sadly).

If some bloke(s) on internet or elsewhere would not call them out in their hypocrisy, they would do much worse

 

[Abizzz]

If some bloke(s) on internet or elsewhere would not call them out in their hypocrisy, they would do much worse

I wish I had the confidence to claim other people in power in countries far away only act the way they do because of my opinion about them.

 

[Raoul]

What? Democracies have interests and they fight for them. The thought that they need to be holy nuns or else some bloke on the internet can righteously claim "hypocrisy" is laughable.

(*well the bloke can claim it but to the same effect as stroking himself. We have some posters on here who almost exclusively do that on here these days, sadly).

In case you haven’t noticed, appeals to hypocrisy are a very popular means of point scoring on Internet forums. Particularly among people with limited knowledge about the topic.

 

[Red in STL]

Obviously, Biden winning is key, and if he does, i reckon the house flips back to dems as well, unfortunately, thats not enough.

Dems needs a trifecta to avoid republicans taking Ukraine-aid hostage, there may be a majority in the senate now, that favors aid, but if GOP takes back the senate, which is pretty likely, then who is to tell the senate majority leader simply refuses to bring up the bills for a vote?

Unless Moscow Mitch decides to retire he's the senate majority leader in this scenario, given he's very much in favor of Ukrainian aid he's not likely to refuse taking up bills

 

[That_Bloke]

In case you haven’t noticed, appeals to hypocrisy are a very popular means of point scoring on Internet forums. Particularly among people with limited knowledge about the topic.

Pot, kettle and all that.

 

[That_Bloke]

What? Democracies have interests and they fight for them. The thought that they need to be holy nuns or else some bloke on the internet can righteously claim "hypocrisy" is laughable.

(*well the bloke can claim it but to the same effect as stroking himself. We have some posters on here who almost exclusively do that on here these days, sadly).

Oh I'm fully aware and under no illusion. Being all worked up, you kinda missed my point.

I just wish some on this forum would come off that high horse which has been shot by a 155mm shell aeons ago, and call a spade a spade.

 

[maniak]

In case you haven’t noticed, appeals to hypocrisy are a very popular means of point scoring on Internet forums. Particularly among people with limited knowledge about the topic.

And saying that "appeals to hypocrisy are a very popular means of point scoring on Internet forums" and accusing people of having "limited knowledge about the topic" are very popular means of avoiding having to admit our side fecks up all the time but let's focus on the bad guys instead, therefore squashing any deeply needed self reflection and any possible change.