If I had to make a prediction (for the week) it would be in this area…I think Ukraine will continue its grind against the Surovikin Line. SW of Verbove
Last edited:
Russia-Ukraine war has begun
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
If I had to make a prediction (for the week) it would be in this area…I think Ukraine will continue its grind against the Surovikin Line. SW of Verbove
U.S., European officials broach topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, sources say
The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal with Russia.
www.nbcnews.com
If we had any adults in charge of this country we would realize that our budgetary problems combined with our lack of domestic manufacturing are a strategic weakness.
Feels like we are getting ready to make a shift...
Kind of a big deal. A big breakthrough here could cut off Russian Crimean troops.
How long before those Dutch F-16s go on line?
The Washington Post is basically a mouthpiece for the administration. If the Ukrainians blew up Nordstream, that kind of blows up the narrative they were pushing since it happened. Some thoughts that groundwork may be getting laid to try and force a ceasefire/peace deal.
I said at the beginning of the summer that if Ukraine cannot make a real push this summer and take advantage that the calculus should/would probably change. Nobody appears capable of really pushing an advantage right now and the will to continue to pay hundred billion dollar payments to Ukraine is beginning to wane.
At a certain point, our debt is a strategic threat. And our deficits are becoming more expensive to finance.
I agree, but Ukraine isn't driving the deficit and it wouldn't matter if all Ukraine aid stopped today - the debt will continue to grow exponentially.
This is why the West looks weak to our enemies - anything that takes too much time or money and we lose interest. We expect instant success while our enemies view their struggle against us as lifetime commitments - and they won't stop until they've won. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan..... all were countries we should have beat into submission and didn't because we never considered them real 'wars'.
And now that we have people literally dying to actually defend the West against real enemies, we throw up our hands and say "Well, it's taking too long and we're running a deficit, so.....".
Israel should be worried about their relationship with us.
The debt would continue to grow without the aid, but it is in part a driver. The bad news is piling up. They were discussing the absolute corruption in the country that siphons off money. They were going to have a big offensive this Spring/Summer and the gains have been measured in meters. They are running out of men:
The average age of Ukrainian soldier is older than 40 as the country grapples with personnel problems
Casualties have raised the average age of a Ukrainian soldier by nearly 10 years since Russia invaded in February 2022.
www.google.com
We have bled Russia and Ukraine has paid a heavy price. I just don't see them being able to affect enough change on the battlefield to support that kind of money all at once again. They had the will and we backed them and they haven't been able to get it done. They don't have as much meat to throw in the grinder and they've apparently destroyed a generation in two years.
The debt would continue to grow without the aid, but it is in part a driver. The bad news is piling up. They were discussing the absolute corruption in the country that siphons off money. They were going to have a big offensive this Spring/Summer and the gains have been measured in meters. They are running out of men:
The average age of Ukrainian soldier is older than 40 as the country grapples with personnel problems
Casualties have raised the average age of a Ukrainian soldier by nearly 10 years since Russia invaded in February 2022.
We have bled Russia and Ukraine has paid a heavy price. I just don't see them being able to affect enough change on the battlefield to support that kind of money all at once again. They had the will and we backed them and they haven't been able to get it done. They don't have as much meat to throw in the grinder and they've apparently destroyed a generation in two years.
agreed, Ukraine has done better than could be expected but Russia will inevitably get the post-war conditions it's sought. Ukraine will not be in NATO and a major buffer region will be neutralized if not completely wrangled. and it will again prove that Western aid alone is not enough to win a major land war against a major power in Eurasia. that is meaningful to russia and china.
on the bight side for the US/ West, in relative terms, we've spent very little money to flirt with and then support Ukraine during the war. russia has spent a lot, in money and people, reputation. if Ukraine was almost almost a bridge too far than NATO members Poland or the Baltics are unthinkable as things currently stand in the world.
no bright side for Ukraine other than maybe they fought their way out of complete regime change at the barrel of a gun. now their fate is at the hands of leaders of other countries whose interests do not match their own. man, can't even imagine.
damn, it's good to be an American.
The debt would continue to grow without the aid, but it is in part a driver. The bad news is piling up. They were discussing the absolute corruption in the country that siphons off money. They were going to have a big offensive this Spring/Summer and the gains have been measured in meters. They are running out of men:
The average age of Ukrainian soldier is older than 40 as the country grapples with personnel problems
Casualties have raised the average age of a Ukrainian soldier by nearly 10 years since Russia invaded in February 2022.
We have bled Russia and Ukraine has paid a heavy price. I just don't see them being able to affect enough change on the battlefield to support that kind of money all at once again. They had the will and we backed them and they haven't been able to get it done. They don't have as much meat to throw in the grinder and they've apparently destroyed a generation in two years.
So, apply all that to Taiwan. If we can't fund Ukraine and tell the world that, what signal does that send Xi?
Well Marvin, I think we're good and screwed. Eventually that credit card bill comes due and the printing presses overheat. Nobody in D.C. is going to believe that or have the courage to be real with people until we face a disaster apparently.
Last I checked, foreign aid is typically less than 1 percent of spending. This war has resulted in Germany announcing they intend to increase spending on their military pretty significantly.The debt would continue to grow without the aid, but it is in part a driver. The bad news is piling up. They were discussing the absolute corruption in the country that siphons off money. They were going to have a big offensive this Spring/Summer and the gains have been measured in meters. They are running out of men:
The average age of Ukrainian soldier is older than 40 as the country grapples with personnel problems
Casualties have raised the average age of a Ukrainian soldier by nearly 10 years since Russia invaded in February 2022.
We have bled Russia and Ukraine has paid a heavy price. I just don't see them being able to affect enough change on the battlefield to support that kind of money all at once again. They had the will and we backed them and they haven't been able to get it done. They don't have as much meat to throw in the grinder and they've apparently destroyed a generation in two years.
We don't know where the screwed point is. I remember when we hit a trillion, people were predicting total collapse. We might be $1 away, we might not be halfway there.
Where we differ is I have no problem to raise taxes to pay for Ukraine. I don't mind a freeze, even the 1% cut to all other spending. But until Vietnam we raised taxes to fight a war. Since Vietnam we cut taxes to fight a war. I think the earlier example works better.
However screwed we might be, I think Russia has to be far worse. They are losing men, incurring huge costs in lost equipment, present and future medical bills, and of course the various sanctions.
A constitutional provision calling for all wars (ours and others) to be financed via a special tax might not be a bad idea.
In the past, it was our soldiers’ lives that we thought would be the main constraint. But as drone tech improves, that won’t be as much a limiting factor.
They've held the Russian army at bay and gained territory, all without any kind of effective air support. The US military would never think to go into battle without air superiority.The debt would continue to grow without the aid, but it is in part a driver. The bad news is piling up. They were discussing the absolute corruption in the country that siphons off money. They were going to have a big offensive this Spring/Summer and the gains have been measured in meters. They are running out of men:
The average age of Ukrainian soldier is older than 40 as the country grapples with personnel problems
Casualties have raised the average age of a Ukrainian soldier by nearly 10 years since Russia invaded in February 2022.
We have bled Russia and Ukraine has paid a heavy price. I just don't see them being able to affect enough change on the battlefield to support that kind of money all at once again. They had the will and we backed them and they haven't been able to get it done. They don't have as much meat to throw in the grinder and they've apparently destroyed a generation in two years.
When the F-16s arrive, things could change quickly.
PS As someone pointed out above, this is war of drones and technology. That doesn't require the size of military that it used to.
The average age of their soldiers is 43. That is a guy like me being out in the field and they are way less healthy than we are.
In the article I linked they said manpower was an issue and that even if they had the equipment, they don't have the men. Drones are great and all but they don't hold territory. Men do.
What is the average age of their infantry? Average age of the military in total doesn't mean much
I would assume it to be in the 40's. They don't have much of an air force or navy. All other jobs outside of infantry would have to skew exceptionally high to bring the total average up to 43.
Infantry requires a lot of support personnel, including logistics, intelligence, etc. And artillery isn't considered infantry.
I would doubt the average age for infantry is 40, but it's no doubt higher than a force such as the US.
You have to consider the motivation of a 35 year old Ukranian vs a 20 year old Russian from Siberia. The Ukranians aren't making human wave attacks and seem to be judicious in their use of front-line troops.
I think the biggest danger to the Ukrainian war effort is just weariness of war on the part of the average Ukrainian. The temptation would be strong to push for a land for peace deal.
I still think a viable solution would be a disarmament of all occupied territories and administration by the UN or some international body. But, in the end, it's up to the Ukrainians to decide what they want to do. I doubt Putin gives up until he's ousted or dies in office. Interesting you don't hear how sick he is anymore.
the next leader of Russia will also want to tame or at least neutralize Ukraine. it's a "must have" for them. russia won't entertain the UN administering anything on their borders. not for a second, the war will go on.
I think the answer for Ukraine is Belgium. After Napoleon, Belgium was created as neutral ground. France, Germany, and Britain all agreed to fight whoever entered Belgium. Without that agreement, it is difficult to believe Britain enters WW1. NATO and Russia agree to stay out of Ukraine. Ukraine poses no risk on their own to Russia, it would be like Canada attacking the US. Ukraine could attack individual NATO countries but would face a similar analogy attacking NATO as a whole.
I just don't think Russia can leave Ukraine alone. it's a vital buffer. western invasions of russia have always come via Ukraine.
Canada wouldn't pose an existential threat on its own to the US but we still would never ever ever ever let them be neutral. we be like that. lol. and I think russia is too.
Suppose the US were to invade the northern part of Mexico to stop illegal immigration and drugs. You think the US wouldn't accept a treaty where the UN promises to administer the area to stop all that? I think we would, gladly.
Last edited:
Belarus has been more the way in, that's how Napoleon came. Hitler came both, but Army Group Center was the main force and it came via Belarus. I think having a Ukraine just strong enough to defend itself is the answer.
What I don't think Putin gets is that China is claiming any territory that was once Chinese is again Chinese. Vast areas of Asian Russia could become part of that, including Vladivostok. Russia has a major threat to its southeast. One can Google it, China hasn't forgotten that there are a lot of ethnic Chinese in that area.
the US would never allow the UN to administer territory on our borders. I think that would be in direct opposition to how we view our role in the world: other countries need UN assistance, not us. more importantly, the US would ever allow that scenario to even arise. we don't even let the UN administer behind our invasions in other parts of the world, not when we've conquered land directly. we prefer to hand power directly to the governments of our choosing (see Iraq, Afghanistan). the US would rather UN troops go into places like the Balkans, parts of Africa, where we wouldn't function very well.
I think he gets its but that is at the moment a secondary issue for another time. china, if it wanted to get serious about former territory in russia, would more likely go for a slow-creep method rather than threatening outright invasion. i.e. settle folks on the border, integrate over the border economically, intensify these things it already does.
Close enough. We agree to disagree, but I just don't see it. Haiti is another example of a place the US is happy to let UN troops patrol, but not on our borders. I just don't think we'd be comfortable with that many foreign troops, foreign commanders, weapons -- even if ultimately under US orders -- operating so close to our borders within a neighboring country we are deeply allied with, connected with economically, politically, culturally. the us and Mexico would both rather keep this in-house, for some good and not-so-good reasons.
I think if the UN said 'look, we want to patrol in Northern Mexico in order to stop illegal migrants coming into US - we'll set up a processing center - and attempt to stop fentanyl smuggling', I think the US would thank them profusely. Mexico might have a problem with it, but if it's still their sovereign territory, why not? It's just something they don't have to deal with.
I just don't think countries view outside military help in that way. seems like it's usually a reaction to an existential crisis. having foreign soldiers in your country or a neighboring country is a big deal.
example: the police and prosecuting attorneys for my city and nearby cities fight crime inconsistently but I'd rather not have Kenyan or Belgian solders driving humveess down my block lol
Again, it's not your block. It's some Mexican's block. And, in the case of Ukraine/Russia, it would be Ukraine's block, not Russia's.
Ukraine has crossed the Dnipro, Russia even concedes that. It is the major natural barrier in the region, heck, in Ukraine. Hopefully Russia may not have built as extensive defensive positions there counting on the river.
Agree to disagree. Why would we care about what happens on the Mexican side of the border that would help us out?
Because we wouldn't want blue helmeted foreign soldiers in our sphere of influence.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...s-to-united-nations-peacekeeping/#:~:text=Top contributors of troops to UN peacekeeping efforts globally in 2023&text=At April 2023%2C Bangladesh was,contributed just above 5%2C500 troops.
There are the countries who contribute the most troops to UN missions. Outside of Italy, who would you want across the river from El Paso? Additionally, to be effective, you would need 10's of thousands of them over there. We'd care.
If they're in Mexico with a blue helmet, I don't care where they're from.
Putin and Xi used 'sphere of influence' as an excuse, too.
UN resolution 1234 declares that Mexican drug cartels have become a threat to Mexico and world stability. Accordingly, we move to set up a 30,000 man security force to bring peace and order to the country.
"Ok, who would like to put their military on America's doorstep in an internationally sanctioned peace keeping force?"
Xi, Putin, and Khamenei: "We're in..."
