Biden authorizes Ukraine to use US-supplied missiles in Russia

[Shakmasda 258]

Well, what else do some people here expect? For Russia to "cripple" or tear Ukraine to shreds? At least this gives Ukraine a chance to defend themselves. As for Biden being evil.... All of them r evil so there you have it!

[4th Time Around 5,059]

6 hours ago, Bebe said:

Russia doesn’t want a war with the United States. Their red lines have continuously moved as the world has acted against their illegal invasion.

Ukraine called Russia’s bluff when it liberated occupied regions claimed by Russia, when it sank 1/3 of the Black Sea fleet, when it used short range missiles to strike targets in Russia near Kharkiv and when the Ukraine army invaded Russia itself. This entire conflict has been Russia drawing “red lines” and then doing nothing when they are crossed.

We have already seen significant political pressure within Russia to end the conflict - there was even close to an attempted coup during the Wagner group rebellion.

I am absolutely not comfortable with the idea of WW3. Which is why I find Russia’s continued aggression and land grabs so concerning. Whose next? Belarus? Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? What about Poland? There is one nuclear power that is pushing the world closer to a global conflict and it is Russia.

Russia is currently engaging in intelligence operations, cyber warfare and actual warfare with the intention of destabilising Europe/NATO, shifting the global powers and rebuilding a Soviet-Style empire. The violence doesn’t stop at Ukraine, the deaths don’t stop at Ukraine. 

The framing of the US/NATO providing weapons to Ukraine and allowing them to actually use them in strikes targeting bases within Russia as some escalation is purely Russian propaganda. Russia has no problems with utilising missiles and boots on ground from foreign countries within Ukrainian territory. You are not being a realist here, you are parroting Russian propaganda that the West is the one provoking Russia and that propaganda is being spread to limit support and aid to Ukraine. 

If we are being honest about the success and failures of Ukraine in their efforts, we need to acknowledge that the assistance they have been provided has come with conditions. It is very difficult to defend your territory when the other side is able to place short and long range missile launchers at the edges of their borders to shoot within your territory while YOU are unable to strike into their territory to destroy said missile launches.

It is difficult when one side can prepare troops, weapons and organise supplies on one side of the border and the other side is unable to act to disrupt or destroy these military targets.

I’m not calling for NATO troops on the ground, I’m not calling for a refusal for the use of sanctions and other diplomatic measures to bring an end to the war - what I am saying is that Russia’s “red lines” are bullshit, they have already shown it’s bullshit and the accusation that the US is escalating this conflict by allowing Ukraine to use the weapons they have to properly defend their territory is nothing but Kremlin talking points.

You say the best solution would be to  “Freeze this conflict as soon as possible and avoiding the loss of yet more Ukranian territory”. I doubt there is anyone here that would disagree. How would you suggest we do this?

The Kremlin have also shown no interest in ending this conflict without the outcome being complete destruction of the Ukrainian state. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said it himself: “Russia is only interested in negotiations that result in the removal of the current Ukrainian government from power”.

I would love for there to be an easy, simple diplomatic solution to this conflict that would see an end to the war but as long as we have RUSSIA escalating by invading sovereign countries, committing war crimes, flying missiles/drones over NATO airspace, enlisting states such as North Korea to assist with weapons and troops and threatening the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine it will be hard to do.

With Russia refusing to end the conflict in Ukraine without the end being a non-existent Ukraine or a crippled Ukraine beholden to Russia, the best Ukrainian allies can do is provide Ukraine the tools and support needed to fight back against Russian aggression and escalation. That includes allowing them to use missiles to destroy military targets in Russian territory.

Let’s also be real that this move comes after Russia has escalated the conflict and employed NK troops to try to retake the Kursk region (within Russia) from the Ukraine. This region has been seen as a major bargaining chip for the Ukraine. I hope an end to this conflict comes sooner rather than later, but it is Russia prolonging this conflict not the Ukraine and its allies.

It's logic like yours that will result in the total destruction of any truly independent Ukranian state unfortunately. You say that Russian red lines have already been crossed before but this is a lie. The western powers have crossed red lines that they placed on themselves at the start of the invasion. They said no F 16 fighter jets initially but eventually sent them for instance. Russia never said they would consider supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial aid an act of war like they have with launching US missiles into Russian territory. I never denied that Russia was an aggressor in initiating this war and I supported financial and military aid to Ukraine so stop putting words in my mouth please.

You falsely claim that I am parroting Russian propaganda despite the fact that the pentagon itself agrees with my assessment that allowing missiles to be used inside Russia is walking on very thin ice and will do nothing to reverse the hopeless military situation Ukraine currently finds itself in. These missiles have already been proven to be ineffective when launched against Crimea because they get taken out by the Russian air defense system.

[4th Time Around 5,059]

45 minutes ago, Shakmasda said:

Well, what else do some people here expect? For Russia to "cripple" or tear Ukraine to shreds? At least this gives Ukraine a chance to defend themselves. As for Biden being evil.... All of them r evil so there you have it!

How does it give Ukraine a chance to defend themselves? The majority of these missiles will be shot down by the Russian air defense and even if all of them made it through, that would have no impact on the ultimate outcome of a war in which Ukraine is impossibly outnumbered in terms of manpower and military production. The Pentagon itself has come out and said these missiles are irrelevant.

Unless the western powers start putting boots on the ground or there is some revolution inside Russia, the war is lost. It's as simple as that because we are talking about a struggle of attrition.

[Bebe 17,289]

3 hours ago, King of the Fall said:

You say that Russian red lines have already been crossed before but this is a lie. The western powers have crossed red lines that they placed on themselves at the start of the invasion. They said no F 16 fighter jets initially but eventually sent them for instance. Russia never said they would consider supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial aid an act of war like they have with launching US missiles into Russian territory.

You falsely claim that I am parroting Russian propaganda despite the fact that the pentagon itself agrees with my assessment that allowing missiles to be used inside Russia is walking on very thin ice and will do nothing to reverse the hopeless military situation Ukraine currently finds itself in. These missiles have already been proven to be ineffective when launched against Crimea because they get taken out by the Russian air defense system. The United States military is over extended all across the world and Russia could strike us abroad with ease whenever they wanted. We have not even been able to defend our own shipping from Houthi rebels. Not only that but Russia will start supplying all US enemies around the world with technology, especially in the Middle East.

The Biden administration is giving Russia the excuse to start moving against our global assets with impunity and risking escalation to give Ukraine missiles that will have no impact on the outcome of the war anyway. Can you seriously not see the folly of this decision from a practical standpoint?

My hope only hope is that Putin won't respond in a major way because he knows that the Biden administration is on it's way out. If he is smart, he will wait to see what Trump does upon taking office.

 

It’s not a lie:

Here is my source for Russia having a red line over the re-taking of Russian occupied territory

“In his 30 September speech on the illegal annexation of four oblasts of Ukraine, he [Putin] declared these territories as Russian land and threatened ‘to protect our land with all the forces and means at our disposal’, implying that Russia could use nuclear weapons against Ukrainian forces if they threatened to end the Russian occupation”

https://www.iiss.org/sv/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/10/russia-is-unlikely-to-use-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/

Supplying weapons to Ukraine at all was at one point a red line and Putin threatened mobilising missiles to target Europe and advised any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target. Do we remember the threat of Dmitry Medvedev? “The supply of foreign weapons to Ukraine ultimately brings this very nuclear apocalypse closer.”

https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/putins-red-line-over-ukraine-new-test-european-and-transatlantic-resolve

Russia’s red line over short range missiles into Russian territory warning of “absolutely undesirable and rather unpleasant scenarios” if Western supplied weapons were used in Russia (they have been used already)

https://www.courthousenews.com/russia-warns-west-of-weapons-repercussions-pounds-ukraine/

https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/23308

The Pentagon has not assessed that long range strikes would be “walking on thin ice” and what global military experts are advising is not that it would do nothing but instead experts like Stephan Fruehling, from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU, advise that although no one military system or asset would turn the tide at this point in the war, the move would be about "slowly grinding down" the Russian air defence systems, which were under significant stress.

George Barros, a lead analyst on Russia and Ukraine at the US Institute for the Study of War notes that this is not an escalation from the US but a response to Russian escalation that will finally allow Ukraine to target the logistical framework that the Russian army uses to make its war happen — the supply lines, logistics hubs, communication equipment and other networks that get food, fuel and ammunition to the frontline saying:

"You really do start to chop off a military at its knees or at his ankles, and you degrade the frontline forces.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/ukraine-long-range-missiles-us-biden/104612892

No, this isn’t going to radically change the outcome of this war (which is also why the idea that Russia will drastically retaliate due to these false red lines is ridiculous) but while Russia refuses to negotiate an end to the conflict in any meaningful way this move does assist in the margins, which matter.

Let’s be real, the military that is currently overextended is Russia. The US’ reduced presence in Syria and the discarding of stockpiled missiles and weapons due to be destroyed to Ukraine is hardly the definition of stretched and overextended. Russian interests in the Middle East and the war in their backyard mean they do not want further escalation in the Middle East.

The idea that they would strike the US or supply valuable technology in a proxy war while struggling to meet demand for the war in their backyard is frankly absurd. 

Once again, I would ask what you would like the US and its allies to do in Ukraine with a Russia that refuses to negotiate an end to the war that doesn’t involve Ukraine crippled?

You mentioned in an earlier post that you want the war ended before more Ukraine territory is lost and annexed by Russia in any peace deal - how does that occur if you allow any Russian escalation to remain unchecked? 

Your solution right now seems to be “Allow Russia to escalate the conflict by bringing in troops and weapons from NK and allow them to make slow and steady gains against Ukraine until Russia decides that, despite the gains they are making and a lack of response from the US and its allies, they want to enter into negotiations.”

The reality is that a lack of military aid and inaction from the US when Russia escalates will lead to the collapse of the Ukraine as stated by the centre for strategic and international studies: https://www.csis.org/analysis/impact-ending-military-aid-ukraine-gradual-decline-then-collapse

 

This move will not cause any major reaction from Russia. Putin is not an irrational actor and the idea that THIS move from the US will be the red line Russia sticks its neck out for, despite you yourself claiming this action will have little impact on the war, is self-evidently nonsense. It is complete and utter Kremlin propaganda that only seeks to strengthen Russia’s position in this conflict and it is surprising to me how blind you are to that.

Russia has not only run a very effective disinformation campaign in the US and Europe to dissuade against further Ukrainian aid but has also been effective in framing any action taken or assistance provided to Ukraine as an escalation to the conflict while Russia launches Iranian and North Korean artillery into Ukrainian territory and at Ukrainian infrastructure every hour of the day.

The talking point that allowing Ukraine to use weapons that they have to to target supply lines and front line targets is an escalation of the conflict while 11,000 North Korean troops have just been deployed in Russia's Kursk region and Russia continues to conduct air strikes on civilian infrastructure is a gross perversion of the reality of what is occurring. Russia escalated, as they continue to do, and the US has adjusted as a result.

[27monster27 15,857]

I found an interesting take on another forum:

Biden could just be doing this to put a check and balance in the face of Trump. He's probably hoping that Putin will react strong enough to this so Trump has no true way to pull out of Ukraine. Essentially, this could be bait for Putin.

(I'm just the messenger here!)

[4th Time Around 5,059]

2 hours ago, Bebe said:

It’s not a lie:

Here is my source for Russia having a red line over the re-taking of Russian occupied territory

“In his 30 September speech on the illegal annexation of four oblasts of Ukraine, he [Putin] declared these territories as Russian land and threatened ‘to protect our land with all the forces and means at our disposal’, implying that Russia could use nuclear weapons against Ukrainian forces if they threatened to end the Russian occupation”

https://www.iiss.org/sv/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/10/russia-is-unlikely-to-use-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/

Supplying weapons to Ukraine at all was at one point a red line and Putin threatened mobilising missiles to target Europe and advised any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target. Do we remember the threat of Dmitry Medvedev? “The supply of foreign weapons to Ukraine ultimately brings this very nuclear apocalypse closer.”

https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/putins-red-line-over-ukraine-new-test-european-and-transatlantic-resolve

Russia’s red line over short range missiles into Russian territory warning of “absolutely undesirable and rather unpleasant scenarios” if Western supplied weapons were used in Russia (they have been used already)

https://www.courthousenews.com/russia-warns-west-of-weapons-repercussions-pounds-ukraine/

https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/23308

The Pentagon has not assessed that long range strikes would be “walking on thin ice” and what global military experts are advising is not that it would do nothing but instead experts like Stephan Fruehling, from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU, advise that although no one military system or asset would turn the tide at this point in the war, the move would be about "slowly grinding down" the Russian air defence systems, which were under significant stress.

George Barros, a lead analyst on Russia and Ukraine at the US Institute for the Study of War notes that this is not an escalation from the US but a response to Russian escalation that will finally allow Ukraine to target the logistical framework that the Russian army uses to make its war happen — the supply lines, logistics hubs, communication equipment and other networks that get food, fuel and ammunition to the frontline saying:

"You really do start to chop off a military at its knees or at his ankles, and you degrade the frontline forces.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/ukraine-long-range-missiles-us-biden/104612892

No, this isn’t going to radically change the outcome of this war (which is also why the idea that Russia will drastically retaliate due to these false red lines is ridiculous) but while Russia refuses to negotiate an end to the conflict in any meaningful way this move does assist in the margins, which matter.

Let’s be real, the military that is currently overextended is Russia. The US’ reduced presence in Syria and the discarding of stockpiled missiles and weapons due to be destroyed to Ukraine is hardly the definition of stretched and overextended. Russian interests in the Middle East and the war in their backyard mean they do not want further escalation in the Middle East.

The idea that they would strike the US or supply valuable technology in a proxy war while struggling to meet demand for the war in their backyard is frankly absurd. 

Once again, I would ask what you would like the US and its allies to do in Ukraine with a Russia that refuses to negotiate an end to the war that doesn’t involve Ukraine crippled?

You mentioned in an earlier post that you want the war ended before more Ukraine territory is lost and annexed by Russia in any peace deal - how does that occur if you allow any Russian escalation to remain unchecked? 

Your solution right now seems to be “Allow Russia to escalate the conflict by bringing in troops and weapons from NK and allow them to make slow and steady gains against Ukraine until Russia decides that, despite the gains they are making and a lack of response from the US and its allies, they want to enter into negotiations.”

The reality is that a lack of military aid and inaction from the US when Russia escalates will lead to the collapse of the Ukraine as stated by the centre for strategic and international studies: https://www.csis.org/analysis/impact-ending-military-aid-ukraine-gradual-decline-then-collapse

 

This move will not cause any major reaction from Russia. Putin is not an irrational actor and the idea that THIS move from the US will be the red line Russia sticks its neck out for, despite you yourself claiming this action will have little impact on the war, is self-evidently nonsense. It is complete and utter Kremlin propaganda that only seeks to strengthen Russia’s position in this conflict and it is surprising to me how blind you are to that.

Russia has not only run a very effective disinformation campaign in the US and Europe to dissuade against further Ukrainian aid but has also been effective in framing any action taken or assistance provided to Ukraine as an escalation to the conflict while Russia launches Iranian and North Korean artillery into Ukrainian territory and at Ukrainian infrastructure every hour of the day.

The talking point that allowing Ukraine to use weapons that they have to to target supply lines and front line targets is an escalation of the conflict while 11,000 North Korean troops have just been deployed in Russia's Kursk region and Russia continues to conduct air strikes on civilian infrastructure is a gross perversion of the reality of what is occurring. Russia escalated, as they continue to do, and the US has adjusted as a result.

You failed to prove that Russian red lines have been crossed previously in your comment because Putins statements are all vague, he never definitely stated he will use nukes or conventional weapons now did he? We can agree to disagree and if Ukraine uses these US made missiles in Russian territory that can only be operated with US expertise, I am pretty sure there will be a response from Russia in some way even if nuclear war is doubtful. You dont seem to appreciate that firing US weapons that can only be operated by the US into Russia itself is an entirely different level of escalation than giving Ukraine weapons to use. We are talking about a series of disastrous outcomes and your view on the conflict will lead to the total destruction of an independent state in Ukraine unless there is a revolution in Russia or we put boots on the ground. Two things that are almost certainly not going to happen. I want to ensure that Ukraine survives even if they have to concede territory that they have no hope of retaking anyway, you would rather see Ukraine wiped from the face of the earth than cede Donbas. The 2023 counter offensive was a disaster, they are never taking that territory back. In fact, the longer this war goes on, the more territory they will continue to lose. So why do you want them to keep losing more of their country exactly? If there was any hope of retaking that land, I would be more in line with your position but the issue is that there is no hope and everyone in Ukraine knows it behind the scenes.

Again, these missiles will have little overall impact in the grand strategic picture of this war and you are blind if you can't see something so obvious. Firing a few missiles into Kursk will not change the collapse on the eastern front and Russia's advantage in manpower and military production which has grown to a point where Ukraine is doomed in a war of attrition. Again, I was an advocate of military and financial aid to Ukraine but the situation has changed and these missiles represent a significant risk with no reward from the perspective of the United States

[4th Time Around 5,059]

1 hour ago, 27monster27 said:

I found an interesting take on another forum:

Biden could just be doing this to put a check and balance in the face of Trump. He's probably hoping that Putin will react strong enough to this so Trump has no true way pull out of Ukraine. Essentially, this could be bait for Putin.

(I'm just the messenger here!)

I think that take has some validity but Putin knows Trump will soon be coming to power and he might just try to play a wait and see type of game. Certainly these missiles represent no serious threat to Russia in practical terms but perhaps Putin is trying to send a message to discourage US involvement in the war

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, King of the Fall said:

We can agree to disagree and if Ukraine uses these US made missiles operated by the US, I am 99% certain there will be a response from Russia in some way. We are talking about a series of disastrous outcomes and your solution is the total destruction of an independent state while I want to ensure that Ukraine survives even if they have to concede territory that they have no hope of retaking anyway. The 2023 counter offensive was a disaster, they are never taking that territory back. In fact, the longer this war goes on, the more territory they will continue to lose.

Again, these missiles will have literal overall impact in the grand strategic picture of this war and you are blind if you can't see something so obvious. Firing a few missiles into Kursk will not chance the collapse on the eastern front and Russia's advantage in manpower and military production which has grown to a point where Ukraine is doomed in a war of attrition. Again, I was an advocate of military and financial aid to Ukraine but the situation has changed and these missiles represent a significant risk with no reward 

I’m sure when North Korea starts threatening to nuke South Korea, Japan and the US unless there is a relaxation of sanctions we should also believe their red lines without question and stop escalating the situation with such harsh economic diplomacy….

Every Kremlin expert is shouting about how this is common Russian bluster, Russia does not want this to escalate to a full scale nuclear war or European war involving the US. What strategical objective does that achieve? 

This invasion has been a more significant disaster for Russia than it has for the the US, but at this stage it can still see the majority of its objectives achieved by essentially crippling the Ukraine and making it beholden to Russia by taking significant assets and territories and making them guarantee not to join NATO. 

There is no perfect solution to this conflict, but the worst solution I see possible right now is allowing Russia, who has no intention of reasonably negotiating an end to this war, escalate the conflict further with no response.

Do you think the country that has just gained and deployed thousands of foreign troops is looking to negotiate a reasonable peace agreement? No. They are looking to gain more territory and crush Ukraine and are banking on the propaganda campaigns in the US and Europe sowing enough tension and political pressure that NATO continue to delay, or even stop, aid to Ukraine and are hoping their boisterous threats are enough to make any military strategy seem like a risk or escalation while Russia continues to commit war crimes and acts with little restraint.

The idea that I’m looking for the destruction of a state, while your seemingly non-existent plan (as I’ve asked for your solution and you have yet to provide one), would lead to an end to the war with Ukraine conceding a little territory is laughable. Everyone at this point should understand Ukraine will have to give up some territory however I don’t see how letting Russia steamroll Ukraine allows for Ukraine to have any sort of bargaining power in these negotiations.

The solution I’m looking for is a negotiation to end this war that:

1. Discourages Russia’s imperialist expansion in Europe

2. Allows NATO membership for Ukraine

3. Restores significant amounts of lost territory to Ukraine that allow it to remain economically viable, stable and not reliant on Russia

4. Discourages other actors from similar imperialist ambitions 

The unfortunate reality is that if the US wants to curb Russian aggression against a UN member, stop their expansionist ambitions and convince China it would be unwise for them to try the same in Taiwan the US and Europe need to stop delaying critical supplies and allow Ukraine to defend itself without these arbitrary conditions set by the aggressor of this conflict.

The blame for this invasion and this instability remains squarely with Russia and blame for the continuation of this war and its escalations lie solely with Russia and its allies.

Last post I made I put in some effort to actually provide sources for what I was saying. I would greatly appreciate any source you have that “these missiles will have literal [no?] overall impact in the grand strategic picture of this war” and provide no reward.
 

As I have explained, with sources, these missiles allow Ukraine to better defend themselves by targeting the logistical framework that the Russian army uses to make its war happen — the supply lines, logistics hubs, communication equipment and other networks that get food, fuel and ammunition to the frontline. Russian airfields, military bases and command centres that are used to mount almost daily, lethal missile and drone attacks on Ukraine’s cities and energy infrastructure have been out of range and now they are not.

Does it turn the tide? As I keep saying, no but it matters when it comes to this battle of margins. The longer Ukraine can hold on to territory and push back Russia, the more military and economic pressure is placed on Russia, better chance Ukraine has of retaining critical territory in future negotiations and the better chance US and Europe has of deterring future aggression.

I can only guess, as your position has been unclear, that you would like to respond to Russia’s aggression and threats by sitting down and “negotiating” (heavy on the air quotes) a peace deal that involves Russia keeping all currently occupied territories and important resources.

You seem to be suggesting we simply give Putin everything he wants for a temporary and false “peace” instead of continuing to place military pressure on Russia in a war that has 0 US or NATO casualties and 600,000 Russian casualties all while the citizens of the country being illegally invaded is overwhelmingly in favour of wanting to continue to defend itself. Overall the US and its European allies are not losing a lot by providing aid with the intention of securing stability in Europe.

Surrendering to Russian aggression and threats and placing a temporary political win over geopolitical stability in Europe is simply irresponsible. Carving up Ukraine to Russia the way Russia demands will have Russia view the conflict as a win against The US and its NATO allies and embolden its imperialist ambitions while further destabilising Europe. It doesn’t lead to a lasting peace it leads to a divided NATO and emboldened US adversaries.

The alternative position you may hold is simply “don’t respond to Russian escalation and allow them to simply take the Ukraine themselves” which is a worse position I’m sure you don’t believe.

[4th Time Around 5,059]

20 minutes ago, Bebe said:

You seem to be suggesting we simply give Putin everything he wants for a temporary and false “peace” instead of continuing to place military pressure on Russia

We all know that Ukraine will be forced to concede territory in any settlement but I would like to see Ukraine get NATO membership in exchange but the problem is that Russia will never allow that so what's your solution? Continue to fail to see the military reality of the situation and lose your entire country in the process? All because "we can't let Russia win". They already have won the war in military terms and experts inside Ukraine know this as well as the soldiers on the ground. The military situation is hopeless and this idea that using missiles is going to put pressure on Russia in any meaningful way is deluded. The only military pressure that exists is on Ukraine, who is impossibly outmached in terms of manpower and military production and continues to lose territory every day as we speak. The fact you are talking about putting military pressure on Russia at this stage only shows how out of touch you are with the reality of the situation on the ground.

You keep talking about all these conditions you want to see for a peace agreement but the unfortunate reality is that the losing side in a military conflict does not get to dictate terms and you have yet to tell me how Ukraine is going to force Russia to agree to any of this. Unless you can engineer a revolution in Russia or we send boots in on the ground, your entire point is a strawman argument. 

[Bebe 17,289]

3 hours ago, King of the Fall said:

We all know that Ukraine will be forced to concede territory in any settlement but I would like to see Ukraine get NATO membership in exchange but the problem is that Russia will never allow that so what's your solution? Continue to fail to see the military reality of the situation and lose your entire country in the process? All because "we can't let Russia win". They already have won the war in military terms and experts inside Ukraine know this as well as the soldiers on the ground. The military situation is hopeless and this idea that using missiles is going to put pressure on Russia in any meaningful way is deluded. The only military pressure that exists is on Ukraine, who is impossibly outmached in terms of manpower and military production and continues to lose territory every day as we speak. The fact you are talking about putting military pressure on Russia at this stage only shows how out of touch you are with the reality of the situation on the ground.

You keep talking about all these conditions you want to see for a peace agreement but the unfortunate reality is that the losing side in a military conflict does not get to dictate terms and you have yet to tell me how Ukraine is going to force Russia to agree to any of this. Unless you can engineer a revolution in Russia or we send boots in on the ground, your entire point is a strawman argument. 

Absolutely Ukraine can still have bargaining chips to bring into a negotiation with Russia, do you think Russia wants an endless war and another 600,000 casualties? This is not a war that Russia can afford to maintain and their land grabs mean nothing if they are unable to keep up with the labor and production demands to keep the territories they have stolen and keep their economy afloat.

We have seen discontent already from the Russian public and elites and this is not insignificant. How long can Russian men continue to die on a never ending war with such little progress made? There is a time when throwing soldiers and ammunition to defend 17% of what Russia wanted to capture becomes more hassle than worth. 

Ukraine improves their position at the negotiation table the longer it is able to defend it’s current territory, occupy and expand it’s occupied Russian territory and destroy Russian assets while the rest of the world continues to apply economic pressure through sanctions. The Ukrainian’s have faced a lot of difficulty however a large part of that is due to NATO delaying crucial supplies and aid as well as dictating what Ukraine is able to do with the assets provided.

This decision by the US actually allows the Ukraine to disrupt Russia more effectively and adds logistical difficulties when planning and executing military action.

As noted quite well in this article: 

“Russia’s war economy is heading toward an impasse. Signs that the official data masks severe economic strains brought on by both war and sanctions have become increasingly apparent. No matter how many workers it tries to shift to the defense industry, the Kremlin cannot expand production fast enough to replace weapons at the rate they are being lost on the battlefield. Already, about around half of all artillery shells used by Russia in Ukraine are from North Korean stocks. At some point in the second half of 2025, Russia will face severe shortages in several categories of weapons”

and

”Russia is losing around 320 tank and artillery cannon barrels a month and producing only 20. The Russian engineering industry lacks the skills to build rotary forges; in fact, the world market is dominated by a single Austrian company, GFM. Russia is unlikely to acquire more forges and increase its production rate, and neither North Korea nor Iran have significant stockpiles of suitable replacement barrels. Only a decision by China to provide barrels from its own stockpiles could stave off Russia’s barrel crisis.”

and

”Russia’s economy cannot indefinitely sustain its war against Ukraine. Labor and production bottlenecks will condemn Russia to defeat as long as Ukraine’s allies sustain it beyond the second half of 2025.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/14/russia-war-putin-economy-weapons-production-labor-shortage-demographics/
 

This is not a war that Russia can afford to wage forever and the reality is that the cost to NATO has been negligible. What happens when Russia’s war economy starts to collapse? This war is not sustainable for Russia and not something it can tolerate indefinitely. 
 

It’s exactly why Russia is engaging in cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns in Europe to create a divide in providing aid to Ukraine , why is boisterously making threats trying to discourage actions like this and why it has desperately reached out to North Korea for military assistance.

This is what I mean by Ukraine and it’s allies continuing to apply pressure militarily and economically, by the US and the rest of NATO  needing to stop delaying crucial supplies, with Ukraine continuing to hold territory they have both in Ukraine and Russia and why actions like this help. There are different levels of “wins” there are absolute victories, such as Russia steamrolling Ukraine because it’s allies refuse to provide aid or respond to escalations, and there are the sort of victories where you gain a lot less than you lost.

The more pressure put on Russia, the more bargaining chips the Ukraine and its allies have to work with. That includes ensuring some key assets and territories are kept by Ukraine (so they can actually sustain themselves) and some allowances on timeframes for Ukraine to be able to apply for NATO membership (as of now it would be out of the question anyway).

In return the world can ease the significant sanctions placed upon Russia to help its economy transition out of this military Keynesianism. Defence spending is projected to consume more than 41 percent of Russia’s budget next year, with the true amount far higher (Russia’s nearly 560,000 armed internal security troops, many of which have been deployed to occupied Ukraine, are funded outside the defence budget—as are the private military companies that have sprouted across Russia).

Paring back these massive defence expenditures will inevitably produce an economic downturn and a scale back of their forces will find them with a lot of traumatised veterans and high paid officers redundant.

An ease on these sanctions will help avoid, or at least lessen, the effects of a post-war recession. 

If Ukraine manages to expand, or at least hold, the Russian territory is has captured this again can provide bargaining chips when it comes to discussions on territorial disputes.

The decimation of Russian tanks, artillery, cannons, ships, jets, troops and aircraft/military bases provides bargaining chips to Ukraine as Russia struggles to keep up with labour and production demands.

All of these certainly provide a lot more bargaining power than letting Russia escalate to their hearts desire, bully the world with empty threats, expand further into the Ukraine and Europe (collecting oil and gas reserves on the way to help with their economy problem) with little to no response from NATO.

In this instance Russia can claim some sort of win with the territory it is able to keep, however the cost of their “win” would be enough to deter further expansion any time soon. The rest of the world would also take note of Ukraines ability to resist with the support of NATO and discourage other actors (China) from taking similar actions (invading Taiwan).

This is why I keep calling your talking points Kremlin propaganda. Your position is to give Russia everything they want by removing the very real military and economic pressures they are facing and allowing them to achieve their key objectives with basically no resistance.

Russia can barely manage a war in it’s backyard let alone conducting strikes on the US or another NATO country.

What happens when Russia is done with its invasion of Ukraine, meets its key objectives by having Ukraine essentially crippled, gains important natural resources and has a military economy it needs to sustain after it bested the US and its NATO allies? Where does it expand to next? Russia has shown it is aggressive, dangerous and unafraid to exploit its status as a nuclear state to invade other sovereign countries to meet its objectives.

 

[4th Time Around 5,059]

1 hour ago, Bebe said:

Absolutely Ukraine can still have bargaining chips to bring into a negotiation with Russia, do you think Russia wants an endless war and another 600,000 casualties?

We have seen discontent already from the Russian public and elites and this is not insignificant. How long can Russian men continue to die on a never ending war with such little progress made? There is a time when throwing soldiers and ammunition to defend 17% of what Russia wanted to capture becomes more hassle than worth. 

Ukraine improves their position at the negotiation table the longer it is able to defend it’s current territory, occupy and expand it’s occupied Russian territory and destroy Russian assets while the rest of the world continues to apply economic pressure through sanctions. The Ukrainian’s have faced a lot of difficulty however a large part of that is due to NATO delaying crucial supplies and aid as well as dictating what Ukraine is able to do with the assets provided.

This decision by the US actually allows the Ukraine to disrupt Russia more effectively and adds logistical difficulties when planning and executing military action.

As noted quite well in this article: 

“Russia’s war economy is heading toward an impasse. Signs that the official data masks severe economic strains brought on by both war and sanctions have become increasingly apparent. No matter how many workers it tries to shift to the defense industry, the Kremlin cannot expand production fast enough to replace weapons at the rate they are being lost on the battlefield. Already, about around half of all artillery shells used by Russia in Ukraine are from North Korean stocks. At some point in the second half of 2025, Russia will face severe shortages in several categories of weapons”

and

”Russia is losing around 320 tank and artillery cannon barrels a month and producing only 20. The Russian engineering industry lacks the skills to build rotary forges; in fact, the world market is dominated by a single Austrian company, GFM. Russia is unlikely to acquire more forges and increase its production rate, and neither North Korea nor Iran have significant stockpiles of suitable replacement barrels. Only a decision by China to provide barrels from its own stockpiles could stave off Russia’s barrel crisis.”

and

”Russia’s economy cannot indefinitely sustain its war against Ukraine. Labor and production bottlenecks will condemn Russia to defeat as long as Ukraine’s allies sustain it beyond the second half of 2025.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/14/russia-war-putin-economy-weapons-production-labor-shortage-demographics/
 

This is not a war that Russia can afford to wage forever and the reality is that the cost to NATO has been negligible. What happens when Russia’s war economy starts to collapse? This war is not sustainable for Russia and not something it can tolerate indefinitely. 
 

It’s exactly why Russia is engaging in cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns in Europe to create a divide in providing aid to Ukraine , why is boisterously making threats trying to discourage actions like this and why it has desperately reached out to North Korea. 
 

This is what I mean by Ukraine and it’s allies continuing to apply pressure militarily and economically, by the US and the rest of NATO  needing to stop delaying crucial supplies, with Ukraine continuing to hold territory they have both in Ukraine and Russia and why actions like this help. There are different levels of “wins” there are absolute victories, such as Russia steamrolling Ukraine because it’s allies refuse to provide aid or respond to escalations, and there are the sort of victories where you gain a lot less than you lost.

The more pressure put on Russia, the more bargaining chips the Ukraine and its allies have to work with. That includes ensuring some key assets and territories are kept by Ukraine (so they can actually sustain themselves) and some allowances on timeframes for Ukraine to be able to apply for NATO membership (as of now it would be out of the question anyway).

In return the world can ease the significant sanctions placed upon Russia to help its economy transition out of this military Keynesianism. Defence spending is projected to consume more than 41 percent of Russia’s budget next year, with the true amount far higher Russia’s nearly 560,000 armed internal security troops, many of which have been deployed to occupied Ukraine, are funded outside the defence budget—as are the private military companies that have sprouted across Russia.

Paring back these massive defence expenditures will inevitably produce an economic downturn and a scale back of their forces will find them with a lot of traumatised veterans and high paid officers redundant.

An ease on these sanctions will help curb, or at least lessen, the effects of a post-war recession. 

If Ukraine manages to expand, or at least hold, the Russian territory is has captured this again can provide bargaining chips when it comes to discussions on territorial disputes.

The decimation of Russian tanks, artillery, cannons, ships, jets, troops and aircraft/military bases provides bargaining chips to Ukraine as Russia struggles to keep up with labour and production demands.

All of these certainly provide a lot more bargaining power than letting Russia escalate to their hearts desire, bully the world with empty threats, expand further into the Ukraine and Europe (collecting oil and gas reserves on the way to help with their economy problem) with little to no response from NATO.

This is why I keep calling your talking points Kremlin propaganda. Your position is to give Russia everything they want by removing the very real military and economic pressures they are facing and allowing them to achieve their key objectives.

You read too much information from mainstream news sources only that hardly ever get their predictions about anything correct and exist to spread narratives and support Israels genocide in Gaza, they are mouthpieces to spread propaganda. China has no plans to invade Tawain. This is a war of attrition and Ukraine is doomed in a war of attrition against Russia because they will run out of manpower ages before the Russians do like any person with half a brain could figure out, it's not rocket science. Why are you talking about exhausting Russian resources when Ukraine is the only one in danger of their resources being exhausted? Like I said before, boots on the ground or some kind of uprising in Russia are the only ways in which Ukraine could avoid territoral losses in a peace agreement and neither look likely to happen. The Kursk offensive got stopped in it's tracks the moment Russia deployed a significant number of troops to the area and now it's in the process of getting pushed back so stop with the nonsense of Ukraine being able to expand the Kursk offensive or even hold the territory long term because it's not going to happen. Actually the Kursk offensive has contributed to Ukraines military defeat because it pulled forces away from the main front in Donbas and allowed the Russians to start increasing the rate of their advances. 

You have yet to provide me with any realistic way Ukraine can avoid defeat in a war of attrition, the only one in danger of running of men and equipment is Ukraine, not Russia. You go rambling on with deluded nonsense like missiles aka the latest "wonder weapon" having a significant impact in the big picture, using Kursk as a bargaining chip or the same old tired narrative that Russia is magically going to start running out of troops and equipment despite the fact that the size of their economy, military and production base has continued to expand. Sanctions have been a total failure to harm Russia because they have just switched their trade and economic relations to Brics states. You are way behind the times and sound like someone talking in 2022 about all the things that never turned out to be true. These articles you keep citing come from publications that told us Trump was never going to become president in 2016 or 2024, Putin was going to die of cancer or some other illness, Russia was about to run out of shells, Russia would be diplomatically isolated, Russia's economy will be broken by sactions, Ukraine's 2023 counter offensive will be a success and so on.

This conversation is a waste of my time because you lack any understanding of this conflict beyond false narratives in mainstream media and will label any realistic view that I hold about the reality of the military and political situation as "Russian propaganda" and will ignore the fact that I was a supporter of granting military and financial aid to Ukraine when Russia invaded in 2022.

[Bebe 17,289]

42 minutes ago, King of the Fall said:

You read too much information from mainstream news sources only. This is a war of attrition and Ukraine is doomed in a war of attrition against Russia because they will run out of manpower ages before the Russians do like any person with half a brain could figure out. Why are you talking about exausting Russian resources when Ukraine is the only one in danger of their resources being exausted? Like I said before, boots on the ground or some kind of uprising in Russia are the only ways in which Ukraine could avoid territoral losses in a peace agreement. The Kursk offensive got stopped in it's tracks the moment Russia deployed a significant number of troops to the area and now it's in the process of getting pushed back so stop with the nonsense of Ukraine being able to expand the Kursk offensive or even hold the territory long term because it's not going to happen. Actually the Kursk offensive has contributed to Ukraines military defeat because it pulled forces away from the main front in Donbas and allowed the Russians to start increasing the rate of their advances. 

You have yet to provide me with any realistic way Ukraine can avoid defeat in a war of attrition, the only one in danger of running of men and equipment is Ukraine, not Russia. You go rambling on with deluded nonsense like using Kursk as a bargaining chip or the same old tired narrative that Russia is magically going to start running out of troops and equipment despite the fact that the size of their military and production base has continued to expand.These articles you keep citing come from publications that told us Putin was going to die of cancer, Russia was about to run out of shells, Russia's economy will be broken by sactions, Ukraine's 2023 counter offensive will be a success and so on.

This conversation is a waste of my time because you lack any understanding of this conflict beyond false narratives in mainstream media and will label any realistic view that I hold about the reality of the military and political situation as "Russian propaganda".

I love that I’m being accused of consuming to much mainstream media. That’s new for me  For the record I consume a lot of media that would be considered mainstream as well as more independent news.

I’m interested in what non-mainstream (read propaganda) you are consuming that has you parroting Kremlin talking points.

I would happily explain to you why Russia’s economy is growing with wages rising despite sanctions (their war economy creating an increased and unsustainable demand for labor which is also leading to significant inflation as Russian businesses pass on the costs of labour leading to no increases to standard of living or any development).

I think the points on how Russia is going to run out of equipment is pretty self evident when Russia is losing around 320 tank and artillery cannon barrels a month and producing only 20 and is stripping its old Soviet tanks bare. When Russia is needing to recruit 30,000 fresh troops each month to replace casualties when it has “virtually no unemployment” due to the high demand for labor, when it’s forced to reach out to North Korea for additional troops. 

Ukraine still has significant armed forces and are relying on stockpiles from the US and Europe who not only have more stockpiles than Russia but are also able to produce tanks, vehicles, missiles and weapons that Russia does not have the capacity to produce.

You also keep implying that I believe Ukraine can win against Russia which is not what I have stated, in fact I have stated the opposite, that Ukraine is likely going to have to give up territory and that Russia’s “win” can still come at a cost that is greater than what it gains. 

Russia can  win the war and still come out of this conflict in a worse position and without managing to meet its key objectives (objectives it’s already had to significantly shift due to Ukrainian resistance).

Ukraine still has the ability to lose the war while minimising territorial loss through negotiation, but the time for that negotiation isn’t when Russia is escalating with thousands of North Korean soldiers in Europe and demanding nothing less than the complete collapse of the Ukraine. 

You are correct on one thing though, although fun, it’s probably no longer productive to discuss this with someone who provides no sources for their outlandish claims, dismisses experts, places blame on the US and NATO for “escalating” the conflict while ignoring the clear escalations from Russia and who seemingly gets their information from alternative news networks that parrot Kremlin talking points.

For the record since you edited your post: I don’t care that you supported aid to Ukraine in 2022, it’s irrelevant. Most people did. Russia has also engaged in a large scale information war since 2022 that has been highly reported and documented. Seeing you blame the US for escalating the war after they react to Russia’s actual aggression and escalation  and seeing you provide “solutions” to this conflict that mirror exactly what the Kremlin want is why I keep saying you are spouting Russian propaganda.

[4th Time Around 5,059]

7 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I love that I’m being accused of consuming to much mainstream media. That’s new for me  For the record I consume a lot of media that would be considered mainstream as well as more independent news.

I’m interested in what non-mainstream (read propaganda) you are consuming that has you parroting Kremlin talking points.

I would happily explain to you why Russia’s economy is growing with wages rising despite sanctions (their war economy creating an increased and unsustainable demand for labor which is also leading to significant inflation as Russian businesses pass on the costs of labour leading to no increases to standard of living or any development).

I think the points on how Russia is going to run out of equipment is pretty self evident when Russia is losing around 320 tank and artillery cannon barrels a month and producing only 20 and is stripping its old Soviet tanks bare. When Russia is needing to recruit 30,000 fresh troops each month to replace casualties when it has “virtually no unemployment” due to the high demand for labor, when it’s forced to reach out to North Korea for additional troops. 

Ukraine still has significant armed forces and are relying on stockpiles from the US and Europe who not only have more stockpiles than Russia but are also able to produce tanks, vehicles, missiles and weapons that Russia does not have the capacity to produce.

You also keep implying that I believe Ukraine can win against Russia which is not what I have stated, in fact I have stated the opposite, that Ukraine is likely going to have to give up territory and that Russia’s “win” can still come at a cost that is greater than what it gains. 

Russia can  win the war and still come out of this conflict in a worse position and without managing to meet its key objectives (objectives it’s already had to significantly shift due to Ukrainian resistance).

Ukraine still has the ability to lose the war while minimising territorial loss through negotiation, but the time for that negotiation isn’t when Russia is escalating with thousands of North Korean soldiers in Europe and demanding nothing less than the complete collapse of the Ukraine. 

You are correct on one thing though, although fun, it’s probably no longer productive to discuss this with someone who provides no sources for their outlandish claims, dismisses experts, places blame on the US and NATO for “escalating” the conflict while ignoring the clear escalations from Russia and who seemingly gets their information from alternative news networks that parrot Kremlin talking points.

Good job editing my comment in your reply to remove any mention of the fact that most of the media you consume is pro palestinain genocide. You can keep lying to yourself that Russia will run out of military equipment and manpower or that there economy will collapse. I will continue to hope for the best possible outcome for the fuure of an independent Ukranian state and ignore you lies that a realistic understanding of basic military and diplomatic reality equals spreading Russian propaganda as if I was not a supporter of helping Ukraine with military and financial aid.

The fact you think Russia was forced to reach out to North Korea because they have a manpower problem reveals to me the true depth of your ignorance regarding the military situation. 

 

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, King of the Fall said:

Good job editing my comment in your reply to remove any mention of the fact that most of the media you consume is pro palestinain genocide. You can keep lying to yourself that Russia will run out of military equipment and manpower or that there economy will collapse. I will continue to hope for the best possible outcome for the fuure of an independent Ukranian state and ignore you lies that a realistic understanding of basic military and diplomatic reality equals spreading Russian propaganda as if I was not a supporter of helping Ukraine with military and financial aid.

 

I don’t edit anything, I quoted your response  before you went back and edited 🙂

I’m pro-Palestine and so is the majority of the news I consume! 

Have a fantastic day!

[4th Time Around 5,059]

8 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I don’t edit anything, I quoted your response  before you went back and edited 🙂

I’m pro-Palestine and so is the majority of the news I consume! 

Have a fantastic day!

Nope, based on what you cited, the majority of the news you consume is pro genocide, pro false predictions and pro destruction of an independent Ukranian state. You accuse me of parroting Russian propaganda for wanting the best possible outcome for Ukraine's future as an independent state and despite the fact that I have friends impacted by the war in Ukraine. Once Ukraine is destroyed and all your delusions about Russia running out of men and equipment or their economy collapsing have been proven to be the fantasies we all know they are, history will validate what I was telling you

Have a fantastic day!