re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

I do not see how a stalemate serves Russia's long term goals and it seems to me that such a stalemate would be inherently unstable.
Assuming that Russia maintains a direct presence in the east, maintenance of troops there in the fact of insurgencies and a newly armed, highly motivated military presence in Ukraine will be extremely expensive and troublesome for Putin. Russia will be an occupying force with formidable opposition. What is Putin's end-game here, short of total subjugation (which is likely not attainable)?

More like Alt Right and Far Left, not Right Wing. With Alt Right and Far Left pretty much the same just different Yeehaw

quote:

---

I'm sick and tired of spending money we don't have on fighting wars that will only end in costing us even more money. In the best case scenario, Ukraine wins and we end up printing trillions of dollars to send there only to have it stolen by both Ukrainians and US contractors then funneled back to groups and politicians in the US. Why are you so willing to do that?

---

The shorter and more correct answer would have been "Yes, I advocate for an end to support to Ukraine to resist Russia's invasion."

And from your comments it appears that the only way to "save money" would be to allow Russia to militarily conquer Ukraine.

Your position is noted. And it is, in fact, a position of support for Russia's invasion.

quote:

---

Ok, then tell me what a full scale European invasion looks like and what the Russians' goals would be. There's no situation that ends well for Russia nor are there any real attainable goals, especially in the medium to long term. Again, this is fantasy.

---

Russia's goals are explicit, which are to break what they call the Anglo-American axis and reassert their dominance of Slavic regions, in Central Asia, and to compete in the Far East. Their strategy has been to undermine the entirety of Western Europe through either capital, trade, or espionage. Dugin stated what the goals should be for the new Russia in 1997, and that wing of Russian politics has followed those goals pretty clearly. Since 2002, when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia was convinced that the US was targeted Russia, and that's the pivotal event, along with Putin's election and the Orange Revolution, that started a new competition between Russia and the West.

From reading Dugin, you definitely get the sense that hardcore Russian supremacists have 'cosmic' goals, as in they believe this struggle to reassert Russian dominance is one that could take centuries, which should give some pause to Russian actions in the early 2000s.

Without this poorly timed invasion, I think their strategy of slowly trying to split the Western Alliance apart may have worked, given how many myopic morons don't see the need for NATO anymore, which is also an odd thing given that many are concerned with the money spent on Ukraine. These people want to give up the money we spent in Europe, as well as the blood we gave up, for no real reason. The return on investment from being involved in European rebuilding efforts has been tremendous. It doesn't make sense from any point of view to give that up to 'focus on China' or some nonsense like that.

quote:

---

Ok, then tell me what a full scale European invasion looks like and what the Russians' goals would be. There's no situation that ends well for Russia nor are there any real attainable goals, especially in the medium to long term. Again, this is fantasy.

---

I don't think a full-scale European invasion was the real concern. The real concern was with systematic little bites here and there which is what they have been doing. Ukraine is the current target and odds are the next up on their dance card WAS Trinistria/Moldova. You don't have to be Rasputin to predict the imperial dreams have resurfaced just look what they have done over the last couple of decades and they were going to continue until someone stopped them.

quote:

---

The real concern was with systematic little bites here and there which is what they have been doing.

---

Approriate clip from the show Yes, Prime Minister.
LINK

The issue was that NATO relied on the US so heavily for national defense that they not only allowed their militaries to atrophy, but also farmed out their strategic needs (energy) to their alleged enemy while neglecting to meet their basic financial obligations to the organization. That's the reason people were asking if NATO was really worth it.

Do you understand that is exactly what we want right?

Now our hammer in the region, Germany, has been traded in for Poland.

quote:

---

I'm sick and tired of spending money we don't have on fighting wars that will only end in costing us even more money. In the best case scenario, Ukraine wins and we end up printing trillions of dollars to send there only to have it stolen by both Ukrainians and US contractors then funneled back to groups and politicians in the US. Why are you so willing to do that?

---

So you mean sending arms which have already been replaced is funneling money to contractors?

What we have found is that "just in time delivery" arms industry wasn't prepared for conventional combat. We have been geared for COIN type warfare instead force on force with even remotely near peer warfare. We have also found that N. Korea artillery ammo is not reliable to do its job.

quote:

---

It doesn't make sense from any point of view to give that up to 'focus on China' or some nonsense like that.

---

That's a red herring too. They don't want to focus on China either. There are already calls to abandon Taiwan. Our embrace of globalism over the last few decades has often been taken to excess, and a reassessment of goals is warranted. But hard core America First didn't work then and it won't work now.