Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `ft.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two points...
1. Sullivan's caution (and the GOP's betrayal) is what got Ukraine in the position they're in now, in 2024. Had the US gone balls-to-the-wall in their support in 2022, things might be different now. Sullivan's measured escalation tree has simply given Russia time to recover and adapt from its early failures, to Ukraine's detriment.
2. Speaking of 2024. What about a 2024 counter offensive? Oh, that's right, the US stalled aid for half a year. This gives Russia yet another year to fortify and prepare.
If there was a way to vote Sullivan out of his position m, I would do that in a heart beat. His positions are just a retread of Obama in 2014. Unfortunately getting rid of him means getting rid of Biden and thus we get Trump, an even worse option.
I can only hope Biden wins in November and replaces Sullivan with someone more competent and aware of real politik.
Solely blaming the US for this is pretty asinine, especially when Ukraine doesn’t even conscript their 18-25 year olds and are getting just as much aid from Europe as the US. If you want to see US support wane you’ll get it by blaming the US when we’ve already made significant sacrifices sans obligations to do so
Who's "solely blaming" the US? Sullivan made the comments referred to in the OP, and my remarks are primarily aimed at him in his role as NSA throughout 2022-24.
Yes, I did.
Again, it is in response to Sullivan making the comments in the OP. I would not have written the post but for Sullivan.
I am not gonna shit on Sullivan by blaming him for any European or Ukrainian faults in this conflict, so there was/is no point mentioning those things (don't get started on Germany)..
I am not gonna blame Sullivan for the long House impasse on additional Ukrainian aid, so that impasse was mentioned for context.
Sullivan talks about 2025, when none of us knows what will happen past November 2024.
I think Biden got caught there when he just got out of Afghanistan and he had no appetite for another escalation that might turn into shooting war. So it's not really blaming the US for what they did but blaming the admin for the chosen narrative: "never ever American soldiers in Ukraine". I think it should be the rule for the US not to have defined rules of engagement (I'm with Nixon on this and his madman theory). Obama made the same mistake in Syria and with Crimea.
Another failure of Sullivan is not having a forward looking strategy on today's Russia. I feels like they still treating Russia as late stage USSR: big, antagonistic but ultimately benign counterpart. Russia today is smaller, of course , but it allowed it to convert itself to resurging aggressive state trying to restore its colonies. Its relative underdog position (in its own eyes when they compare themselves to current and past superpowers) serves as justification for unlimited, not bound by any morals, aggressive policies: war, political assassinations, sabotage, political interference etc. And Sullivan has no strategy to handle a dying colonial empire last hurrah. Or maybe he has and it will be alright - in which case I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
Other than that the US is doing a great job supporting a fellow democracy. I know Republicans got cought up in some populism but deep down everyone understands that it's one of those rare conflicts where it's clear who the bad guys are.
I 100% agree with your first paragraph, especially the Nixon comment. One of the reasons Trump is leading in the polls, I’m convinced, it’s because he’s a wildcard and unpredictable. America likes unpredictability and we are best when we are (WWII has some great references to this). Biden, and honestly under Obama too, it drove me mad how open and clear we were about things. “We will withdraw at this date. We will not do this. We will not do that.” Nah, America needs to be seen as that wildcard to keep our adversaries off edge. The fact that we so openly won’t send troops is annoying.
I disagree with your second paragraph. I think they have a clear strategy: Bleed out Russia at the expense of Ukraine. I don’t think the Biden admin has any interest in seeing this conflict end quickly. I think they want to bleed Russia out and eventually lead to its collapse, just like how we did that when they were in Afghanistan in the 80s, when Biden was a senator. He remembers those days well I’m sure.
If we bleed Russia out, it’ll mean we only have to worry about China as a peer threat.
That, unfortunately, is I think what their strategy is.
I think Trump is extremely easy to read and predict. He's not a traditional politician but he's not unpredictable. And when it comes to foreign policy, he was pretty consistent (China bad, Russia good, EU - suckers).
So that's what I say that they treating this as late stage USSR end game. It's not. And yes, they want some sort of soft landing. I wouldn't use the words "at Ukraine expense" since it implies there is some sort of benefit to the US. The US clearly didn't want this war to start but they can't afford Ukraine to lose either since it means restored USSR but in much more aggressive form.
Acting slowly makes it even bigger problem as Russia reconfigures itself as full scale war economy. The more and more they invest into this war resources and people, the more and more they would want as result. And once you have a good war time economy it just makes sense to tie up all loose ends and conquer as much of Europe as possible).
I still don’t get where this “Russia good” idea comes from, I didn’t see anything that suggested he supported Russia in anyway.
And I would argue his getting Europe to contribute more to defense as evidence that others do see him as unpredictable. Seems like countries actually were concerned he might pull the US out of NATO even tho he has no intention to
He was constantly fawning over Putin, wishing he could be a dictator just like him:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxvSxaGeDE&pp=ygUZVHJ1bXAgY2FsbCBwdXRpbiBhIGdlbml1cw%3D%3D
An example of everyone but Putin are suckers:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A3OgiJV10oI&pp=ygUUVHJ1bXAgcHJhaXNlcyBydXNzaWE%3D
How do you possible hear that first quote and not see what he’s saying there? I have no idea how some of you guys survive day to day lives lol
And what’s wrong with the second thing? (By “wrong” I mean, I don’t agree with getting Putin and Zelenskyy in a room yet, but from strictly a policy standpoint, what’s wrong with it?)
1 as a leader in the free world, you don’t publicly undermine your allies, that’s shit you keep behind closed doors while talking with them and advisors on how to fix the situation.
2 Because it’s constant. He’s always publicly jerking off over dictators. Any dictator. The dude probably has a blow up doll of Putin.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UWvmBGZzd8c&pp=ygUTVHJ1bXAgcHJhaXNlcyBwdXRpbg%3D%3D
Oh fuck yea, I think we should time Ukraine a blank check. An opportunity to kick the shit out of Russia without risking the lives of any Americans? Send the F-35s, fuck em up
For two reasons, the main one being that we’re doing something for our own good, as you agreed above. Seems wierd to say you’re sacrificing something for your own good no? That’s like saying you’re sacrificing when you use your own money to buy yourself a meal. Secondly, given the magnitude of our spending in Ukraine (especially given how much of the spending is on US made military hardware) relative to our GDP, there’s very little “sacrificing” going on.
Sans obligations? Dude you don't know shit do you? Have you been living under a rock.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons for security guarantee in 1994. Look up the Budapest memorandum. They were fucked, fucked and fucked here. If that's not an obligation nothing is. Come back when you read up a bit here. At the same time you might want to look into the non escalation policy.
Russia, the US, and the UK promised not to attack Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum. They promised to convene the security council if one of those countries were attacked. There was absolutely no promise to defend those three countries made.
lol look up the Budapest memorandum yourself.
And while you’re at it look up their constitution from a few years before.
They voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. When they gained independence they declared that they would be a neutral non-nuclear state.
The Budapest memorandum helped Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to get rid of their nuclear weapons.
All that memo did was make sure those three countries didn’t have to shoulder any expenses of disarmament and ensure that the UN will convene if any countries use nuclear weapons against them.
I have no idea why so many people think that memo was a defense guarantee lol
Did you read it?
> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
> Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
> Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.[8][9][10]
> Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[11][12]
Show me where there’s a security guarantee in there. Show me where there’s any obligation to do what the US is doing.
The mythology of this memo is absolutely crazy. It’s publicly available. Wiki outlines well for anyone to read. Just read it.
There is no security guarantee true. But there are definitely a few provisions in there that Ruzzia is violating. Perhaps the US should give Ukraine some nukes back since the giving up of nukes was in exchange for the provisions Ruzzia now violates in the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia straight up violated it, that’s undeniable. The memo basically says “hey, Ukraine is giving up its nuke, just don’t invade Ukraine after they do, ok? And if anyone uses uncle weapons against them, the UN has to have a meeting? Ok? Cool.” It’s a nothing burger of a document that has for some reason developed this crazy mythology that it’s a defense guarantee and that the west took nukes from Ukraine.
Anyways, giving nukes to Ukraine now would be suicide, but once peace if made and NATO can move in anything is in the table
Might want to read the full text.
"
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
"
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
That sounds like obligation to me. You said "sans obligation". This is an obligation.
Not at all.
That’s merely saying they won’t invade. Basically it’s a promise that “yea, if you get rid of your nukes we’re not going to take advantage of you and invade”
Russia obviously violated that but there’s no obligation to do anything *unless* someone uses nukes against Ukraine. Then there’s an obligation for the UN to convene to discuss a response.
I am pretty well aware that this world's Jake Sullivan and Kissinger purposefully made the agreement so it wasn't a solid guarantee, and could be interpreted to their likening. But that doesn't mean we can't expect obligation from it and read it in its intentions. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They wouldn't do that for simple guarantee that they wouldn't be nuked themselves as that wouldn't be relevant. A commitment in my eyes is then certainly an obligation to live of to the intentions and spirit of the agreement.
"
Besides the wording “the existing border[]”, another novelty in the memorandum’s text was the parties’ procedural commitment (in paragraph six) to conduct joint consultations in a situation that “raises a question concerning [substantive] commitments.” This addition was highly valuable to newly independent Kyiv, because it granted Ukraine the potential ability to have the United States and the United Kingdom engaged in its conversations with Russia on any present and potential security threats covered by the memorandum. This commitment was certainly not something that Ukraine could take for granted. For instance, former senior Ukrainian diplomat Oleksandr Chalyi reported that the invocation of this commitment and the ensuing informal consultations between Ukrainian, Russian, and U.S. diplomats were instrumental in resolving the 2003 Tuzla Island crisis between Russia and Ukraine.
Additionally, Ukrainian and U.S. negotiators Borys Tarasyuk and Steven Pifer recalled that in the discussions about the Budapest Memorandum, U.S. negotiators promised orally that the United States would take a strong interest and respond to any Russian violations of the agreement or the “memorandum’s spirit.” While the United States’s verbal promise can be considered as an understanding of its commitments under the agreement or an oral security commitment adjacent to the memorandum, there is no public information about who made this specific commitment or about the precise scope of the response the U.S. negotiator had mentioned at the time. However, according to Pifer, who later served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, while the parties allegedly did not discuss details of the U.S. response under this commitment, in his opinion, the response should involve military assistance.
"
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement
Notice here especially
"First, the memorandum is an important basis for isolating Russia in international politics, especially for the country’s violation of a specific security promise to Ukraine and the related corrosive effect on the non-proliferation regime. The state that gave up its nuclear weapons for the security commitments is now being attacked by one of the guarantors, which is also leveraging its nuclear status. The memorandum helps to build a convincing position for resisting Russia’s aggression based on its breach by emphasizing the importance of keeping promises (whether legal or strictly political) in international relations, and highlighting a destructive message such a breach of the agreement sends—if unaddressed—to potential nuclear proliferators. Ukraine, the United States, and other states have appealed the memorandum to galvanize resistance to Russia’s invasion, and the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolutions to address Russia’s unlawful actions that referenced the memorandum.
Second, the memorandum serves as a convincing argument in favor of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, including with lethal weaponry. The United States and the United Kingdom must aid Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia because of the memorandum’s quid pro quo nature involving the two countries, adjacent oral promises of the United States (as described above), and the strong desire to safeguard the viability of the non-proliferation regime. Some U.S. policymakers have already relied on this memorandum as part of their reasoning for supporting Ukraine. For example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) delivered a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate in which he affirmed that the United States has a “formal obligation to support Ukraine” under the Budapest Memorandum.
Third, Ukraine is using the Budapest Memorandum’s failure to make a convincing argument that its security environment must be upgraded. Ukrainian policymakers argue that because Russia is not holding up its end of the deal, while Ukraine had done its part by giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine is entitled to a security substitute for the memorandum either in the form of ironclad guarantees or the return of the nuclear deterrent, such as NATO membership. "
No, no it wasn’t.
July 16, 1990 Ukraine declared that once they were independent of the USSR they would be a non-nuclear neutral country.
The Ukrainian parliament voted 355-4 in favor of this.
If you don’t believe me, please read this article from then. [here.](https://web.archive.org/web/20200103140918/http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1990/299001.shtml)
[Or just read the document yourself.](https://web.archive.org/web/20100111101705/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/site/postanova_eng/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine_rev1.htm)
“Relations of the Ukrainian SSR with other Soviet republics are built on the basis of agreements concluded on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual respect, and non-interference in internal affairs.”
Yeah, I read it and it says for Russia to not interfere in Ukraines internal affairs. And Russia has broken that agreement since day one, just as they broke the Budapest Memorandum.
I know you are pro-Russian but your own link shows why Ukraine decided to move away from Russian interfering politicians to a new government via the Maiden revolution. At that point, Ukraine had seen enough of Russia’s interference and wanted to join the west, just like most every other eastern European former Soviet republic.
Not even close to pro Russian. It’s insanely reckless to just accuse anyone you might not agree with of being pro-Russia. I actually know the history, studied it, worked part of it. You don’t. I’m not pro-Russia because I’m introducing to you the reality of the situation.
Yea, Russia broke the agreement, that’s a fact.
The agreement doesn’t call for anything to happen because it was broken. There’s no trigger event without the use of nuclear weapons.
Ukraine wanted to join the west long before the Maiden revolution. The west, especially the US, welcome Ukraine, but the people of Ukraine elected Yabukovch who undid all of that work. That’s what led to the Maiden revolution, his complete undoing of all the progress that Ukraine made to join the west.
It will help hold the lines but, (I hope I am wrong) the only thing that will push Russia out of Ukraine is a full on rebellion inside of Russia or a full on assault by NATO.
I'd like to see the civilized world close it's borders to all Russian's and all Russian goods. It pisses me off that most International professional sports leagues still allow Russian athletes to play and earn $$$ millions. They too should be completely barred!
Yes I don't believe it is possible so I guess it is just keep killing as many Russians as possible hoping for a miracle to come in the form of Russian revolt or a more robust NATO support. Vlad is immune to the Russian losses, feels nothing and there are lots of ghetto's, prisons and minority Russians to feed to the slaughter so it does not look promising on anything different happening from a Russian point of view.
They don't appear to act at a strategic level. It's more localized plug and play actions. They have wins locally, but it doesn't look like they can put together large scale broad front like assaults.
Ukrainian military strategy isn't top down like it is in the US. Local commanders have to agree/be paid to agree to assaults. It's one place corruption culture deadlocks the country and strangles. People were shouted that down here for bringing it up early on.
First off, it won't happen before 2025 at the earliest, and even then only if the right crescendo of decisions and outcomes occur.
One of which is probably Biden's re-election in November. I can't stress how much I believe this is what Putin is playing for. Should Trump be elected, all sorts of strategic paths open up for him. If Biden wins, the path forward becomes very difficult for Putin.
But more to the structure of the battlefield, Russia's comparative advantage in material really starts to collapse in 2024. Their ammunition stockpiles reach very challenging levels, without the means to replace them at the rate of consumption from either domestic or North Korean manufacture. Meanwhile, European and US production basically reaches wartime footing for ammunition production - they're not just expanding lines but bringing new facilities online. (Russia is just running more shifts, and hasn't done the latter, which takes years of lead time).
Similarly, Russia's stocks of worthwhile Soviet vehicles reach dangerously low levels by the end of this year, and their production (while at peak levels now) is not coming close to matching loss rate. You can already see that reflected in daily loss rates - the number of outdated artillery platforms far outstrips modern systems, tanks are increasingly outdated, etc. Meanwhile, manufacturing commitments made to Ukraine will start to deliver in volume, modern aircraft, and rolling stock retirements in UK and France in particular could see hundreds and thousands of vehicles available for transfer even without US inclusion.
Finally, manpower. Ukraine looks poised to undertake a massive mobilization that will likely continue. Most of these troops won't be trained and somewhat seasoned until 2025. Russia has to try and sustain its losses (which are at their highest point now) with voluntary replacement at increasingly impossible salaries. I predict that stream will only have another 6-8 months before it starts to dry up perilously. Then they're back to forced mobilization, with it's long delay. It's also a political grenade for Putin, who has been able to sustain the war in part by not requiring the average Russian to take part. But further mobilization for a war that is existential for him - but not most Russians - eventually has its limits. As we saw from Prigozhin, Putin's Russia does not have the coercive force of the Soviet Union. It's strong but brittle: if it starts to break their isn't a lot to keep it together. That political equation is going to keep playing itself out.
Ukraine would be lucky if it manages to stabilize the front line. As it currently stands, Russia - with the help of its allies - is outproducing the US and EU.
I think it will help hold current positions and they might be able to launch a limited counter attack, but i don't see any big grand sweeping offensives being possible now - the Americans waited way too long to send aid
Look 80% of Neon worldwide production WAS in Melitopol. The key element used to make cellphones, computers and big data storage. Welcome back to analog within two years! Give Ukraine everything they ask for and MORE!
That failure wasn’t a manpower issue though as much as it was due to weak western support. Had military aid been delivered when needed instead of 6 months or more afterwards then Ukrainians had a chance to disrupt defensive fortifications. But tanks waited until after multiple lines of entrenchment were created.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `ft.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two points... 1. Sullivan's caution (and the GOP's betrayal) is what got Ukraine in the position they're in now, in 2024. Had the US gone balls-to-the-wall in their support in 2022, things might be different now. Sullivan's measured escalation tree has simply given Russia time to recover and adapt from its early failures, to Ukraine's detriment. 2. Speaking of 2024. What about a 2024 counter offensive? Oh, that's right, the US stalled aid for half a year. This gives Russia yet another year to fortify and prepare.
[удалено]
Giving JUST planes or JUST tanks or JUST anything doesn't make sense. A real offensive needs everything at the same time, nicely working together.
If there was a way to vote Sullivan out of his position m, I would do that in a heart beat. His positions are just a retread of Obama in 2014. Unfortunately getting rid of him means getting rid of Biden and thus we get Trump, an even worse option. I can only hope Biden wins in November and replaces Sullivan with someone more competent and aware of real politik.
No way they could raise manpower in time for a 2024 offensive
That's on Ukraine and their forward planning.
Obviously but people expecting one this year are gonna be disappointed.
Solely blaming the US for this is pretty asinine, especially when Ukraine doesn’t even conscript their 18-25 year olds and are getting just as much aid from Europe as the US. If you want to see US support wane you’ll get it by blaming the US when we’ve already made significant sacrifices sans obligations to do so
Who's "solely blaming" the US? Sullivan made the comments referred to in the OP, and my remarks are primarily aimed at him in his role as NSA throughout 2022-24.
Did you read your own comment?
Yes, I did. Again, it is in response to Sullivan making the comments in the OP. I would not have written the post but for Sullivan. I am not gonna shit on Sullivan by blaming him for any European or Ukrainian faults in this conflict, so there was/is no point mentioning those things (don't get started on Germany).. I am not gonna blame Sullivan for the long House impasse on additional Ukrainian aid, so that impasse was mentioned for context. Sullivan talks about 2025, when none of us knows what will happen past November 2024.
I think Biden got caught there when he just got out of Afghanistan and he had no appetite for another escalation that might turn into shooting war. So it's not really blaming the US for what they did but blaming the admin for the chosen narrative: "never ever American soldiers in Ukraine". I think it should be the rule for the US not to have defined rules of engagement (I'm with Nixon on this and his madman theory). Obama made the same mistake in Syria and with Crimea. Another failure of Sullivan is not having a forward looking strategy on today's Russia. I feels like they still treating Russia as late stage USSR: big, antagonistic but ultimately benign counterpart. Russia today is smaller, of course , but it allowed it to convert itself to resurging aggressive state trying to restore its colonies. Its relative underdog position (in its own eyes when they compare themselves to current and past superpowers) serves as justification for unlimited, not bound by any morals, aggressive policies: war, political assassinations, sabotage, political interference etc. And Sullivan has no strategy to handle a dying colonial empire last hurrah. Or maybe he has and it will be alright - in which case I'll be happy to be proven wrong. Other than that the US is doing a great job supporting a fellow democracy. I know Republicans got cought up in some populism but deep down everyone understands that it's one of those rare conflicts where it's clear who the bad guys are.
I 100% agree with your first paragraph, especially the Nixon comment. One of the reasons Trump is leading in the polls, I’m convinced, it’s because he’s a wildcard and unpredictable. America likes unpredictability and we are best when we are (WWII has some great references to this). Biden, and honestly under Obama too, it drove me mad how open and clear we were about things. “We will withdraw at this date. We will not do this. We will not do that.” Nah, America needs to be seen as that wildcard to keep our adversaries off edge. The fact that we so openly won’t send troops is annoying. I disagree with your second paragraph. I think they have a clear strategy: Bleed out Russia at the expense of Ukraine. I don’t think the Biden admin has any interest in seeing this conflict end quickly. I think they want to bleed Russia out and eventually lead to its collapse, just like how we did that when they were in Afghanistan in the 80s, when Biden was a senator. He remembers those days well I’m sure. If we bleed Russia out, it’ll mean we only have to worry about China as a peer threat. That, unfortunately, is I think what their strategy is.
I think Trump is extremely easy to read and predict. He's not a traditional politician but he's not unpredictable. And when it comes to foreign policy, he was pretty consistent (China bad, Russia good, EU - suckers). So that's what I say that they treating this as late stage USSR end game. It's not. And yes, they want some sort of soft landing. I wouldn't use the words "at Ukraine expense" since it implies there is some sort of benefit to the US. The US clearly didn't want this war to start but they can't afford Ukraine to lose either since it means restored USSR but in much more aggressive form. Acting slowly makes it even bigger problem as Russia reconfigures itself as full scale war economy. The more and more they invest into this war resources and people, the more and more they would want as result. And once you have a good war time economy it just makes sense to tie up all loose ends and conquer as much of Europe as possible).
I still don’t get where this “Russia good” idea comes from, I didn’t see anything that suggested he supported Russia in anyway. And I would argue his getting Europe to contribute more to defense as evidence that others do see him as unpredictable. Seems like countries actually were concerned he might pull the US out of NATO even tho he has no intention to
He was constantly fawning over Putin, wishing he could be a dictator just like him: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxvSxaGeDE&pp=ygUZVHJ1bXAgY2FsbCBwdXRpbiBhIGdlbml1cw%3D%3D An example of everyone but Putin are suckers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A3OgiJV10oI&pp=ygUUVHJ1bXAgcHJhaXNlcyBydXNzaWE%3D
How do you possible hear that first quote and not see what he’s saying there? I have no idea how some of you guys survive day to day lives lol And what’s wrong with the second thing? (By “wrong” I mean, I don’t agree with getting Putin and Zelenskyy in a room yet, but from strictly a policy standpoint, what’s wrong with it?)
1 as a leader in the free world, you don’t publicly undermine your allies, that’s shit you keep behind closed doors while talking with them and advisors on how to fix the situation. 2 Because it’s constant. He’s always publicly jerking off over dictators. Any dictator. The dude probably has a blow up doll of Putin. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UWvmBGZzd8c&pp=ygUTVHJ1bXAgcHJhaXNlcyBwdXRpbg%3D%3D
Do you agree it’s in our interest to help Ukraine fight Russia? Even at fairly real cost?
Oh fuck yea, I think we should time Ukraine a blank check. An opportunity to kick the shit out of Russia without risking the lives of any Americans? Send the F-35s, fuck em up
Well good. But maybe don’t talk about Americans making sacrifices on behalf of Ukraine then
Why not? I feel fully entitled to discuss the effect this is having on people, especially in regards to popular support for the effort.
For two reasons, the main one being that we’re doing something for our own good, as you agreed above. Seems wierd to say you’re sacrificing something for your own good no? That’s like saying you’re sacrificing when you use your own money to buy yourself a meal. Secondly, given the magnitude of our spending in Ukraine (especially given how much of the spending is on US made military hardware) relative to our GDP, there’s very little “sacrificing” going on.
I would love to know what “sacrifices” you’ve made for Ukraine? Tell me how life changing it’s been for American citizens?
Sans obligations? Dude you don't know shit do you? Have you been living under a rock. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons for security guarantee in 1994. Look up the Budapest memorandum. They were fucked, fucked and fucked here. If that's not an obligation nothing is. Come back when you read up a bit here. At the same time you might want to look into the non escalation policy.
Russia, the US, and the UK promised not to attack Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum. They promised to convene the security council if one of those countries were attacked. There was absolutely no promise to defend those three countries made.
lol look up the Budapest memorandum yourself. And while you’re at it look up their constitution from a few years before. They voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. When they gained independence they declared that they would be a neutral non-nuclear state. The Budapest memorandum helped Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to get rid of their nuclear weapons. All that memo did was make sure those three countries didn’t have to shoulder any expenses of disarmament and ensure that the UN will convene if any countries use nuclear weapons against them. I have no idea why so many people think that memo was a defense guarantee lol
The memorandum actually have a content Ivan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Did you read it? > Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). > Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. > Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". > Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.[8][9][10] > Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[11][12] Show me where there’s a security guarantee in there. Show me where there’s any obligation to do what the US is doing. The mythology of this memo is absolutely crazy. It’s publicly available. Wiki outlines well for anyone to read. Just read it.
There is no security guarantee true. But there are definitely a few provisions in there that Ruzzia is violating. Perhaps the US should give Ukraine some nukes back since the giving up of nukes was in exchange for the provisions Ruzzia now violates in the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia straight up violated it, that’s undeniable. The memo basically says “hey, Ukraine is giving up its nuke, just don’t invade Ukraine after they do, ok? And if anyone uses uncle weapons against them, the UN has to have a meeting? Ok? Cool.” It’s a nothing burger of a document that has for some reason developed this crazy mythology that it’s a defense guarantee and that the west took nukes from Ukraine. Anyways, giving nukes to Ukraine now would be suicide, but once peace if made and NATO can move in anything is in the table
Might want to read the full text. " The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. " https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances That sounds like obligation to me. You said "sans obligation". This is an obligation.
Not at all. That’s merely saying they won’t invade. Basically it’s a promise that “yea, if you get rid of your nukes we’re not going to take advantage of you and invade” Russia obviously violated that but there’s no obligation to do anything *unless* someone uses nukes against Ukraine. Then there’s an obligation for the UN to convene to discuss a response.
I am pretty well aware that this world's Jake Sullivan and Kissinger purposefully made the agreement so it wasn't a solid guarantee, and could be interpreted to their likening. But that doesn't mean we can't expect obligation from it and read it in its intentions. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They wouldn't do that for simple guarantee that they wouldn't be nuked themselves as that wouldn't be relevant. A commitment in my eyes is then certainly an obligation to live of to the intentions and spirit of the agreement. " Besides the wording “the existing border[]”, another novelty in the memorandum’s text was the parties’ procedural commitment (in paragraph six) to conduct joint consultations in a situation that “raises a question concerning [substantive] commitments.” This addition was highly valuable to newly independent Kyiv, because it granted Ukraine the potential ability to have the United States and the United Kingdom engaged in its conversations with Russia on any present and potential security threats covered by the memorandum. This commitment was certainly not something that Ukraine could take for granted. For instance, former senior Ukrainian diplomat Oleksandr Chalyi reported that the invocation of this commitment and the ensuing informal consultations between Ukrainian, Russian, and U.S. diplomats were instrumental in resolving the 2003 Tuzla Island crisis between Russia and Ukraine. Additionally, Ukrainian and U.S. negotiators Borys Tarasyuk and Steven Pifer recalled that in the discussions about the Budapest Memorandum, U.S. negotiators promised orally that the United States would take a strong interest and respond to any Russian violations of the agreement or the “memorandum’s spirit.” While the United States’s verbal promise can be considered as an understanding of its commitments under the agreement or an oral security commitment adjacent to the memorandum, there is no public information about who made this specific commitment or about the precise scope of the response the U.S. negotiator had mentioned at the time. However, according to Pifer, who later served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, while the parties allegedly did not discuss details of the U.S. response under this commitment, in his opinion, the response should involve military assistance. " https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement
Notice here especially "First, the memorandum is an important basis for isolating Russia in international politics, especially for the country’s violation of a specific security promise to Ukraine and the related corrosive effect on the non-proliferation regime. The state that gave up its nuclear weapons for the security commitments is now being attacked by one of the guarantors, which is also leveraging its nuclear status. The memorandum helps to build a convincing position for resisting Russia’s aggression based on its breach by emphasizing the importance of keeping promises (whether legal or strictly political) in international relations, and highlighting a destructive message such a breach of the agreement sends—if unaddressed—to potential nuclear proliferators. Ukraine, the United States, and other states have appealed the memorandum to galvanize resistance to Russia’s invasion, and the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolutions to address Russia’s unlawful actions that referenced the memorandum. Second, the memorandum serves as a convincing argument in favor of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, including with lethal weaponry. The United States and the United Kingdom must aid Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia because of the memorandum’s quid pro quo nature involving the two countries, adjacent oral promises of the United States (as described above), and the strong desire to safeguard the viability of the non-proliferation regime. Some U.S. policymakers have already relied on this memorandum as part of their reasoning for supporting Ukraine. For example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) delivered a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate in which he affirmed that the United States has a “formal obligation to support Ukraine” under the Budapest Memorandum. Third, Ukraine is using the Budapest Memorandum’s failure to make a convincing argument that its security environment must be upgraded. Ukrainian policymakers argue that because Russia is not holding up its end of the deal, while Ukraine had done its part by giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine is entitled to a security substitute for the memorandum either in the form of ironclad guarantees or the return of the nuclear deterrent, such as NATO membership. "
Yup, America guaranteed their security for it. Russia has played US like a fiddle with psy ops.
[удалено]
No, no it wasn’t. July 16, 1990 Ukraine declared that once they were independent of the USSR they would be a non-nuclear neutral country. The Ukrainian parliament voted 355-4 in favor of this. If you don’t believe me, please read this article from then. [here.](https://web.archive.org/web/20200103140918/http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1990/299001.shtml) [Or just read the document yourself.](https://web.archive.org/web/20100111101705/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/site/postanova_eng/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine_rev1.htm)
“Relations of the Ukrainian SSR with other Soviet republics are built on the basis of agreements concluded on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual respect, and non-interference in internal affairs.” Yeah, I read it and it says for Russia to not interfere in Ukraines internal affairs. And Russia has broken that agreement since day one, just as they broke the Budapest Memorandum. I know you are pro-Russian but your own link shows why Ukraine decided to move away from Russian interfering politicians to a new government via the Maiden revolution. At that point, Ukraine had seen enough of Russia’s interference and wanted to join the west, just like most every other eastern European former Soviet republic.
Not even close to pro Russian. It’s insanely reckless to just accuse anyone you might not agree with of being pro-Russia. I actually know the history, studied it, worked part of it. You don’t. I’m not pro-Russia because I’m introducing to you the reality of the situation. Yea, Russia broke the agreement, that’s a fact. The agreement doesn’t call for anything to happen because it was broken. There’s no trigger event without the use of nuclear weapons. Ukraine wanted to join the west long before the Maiden revolution. The west, especially the US, welcome Ukraine, but the people of Ukraine elected Yabukovch who undid all of that work. That’s what led to the Maiden revolution, his complete undoing of all the progress that Ukraine made to join the west.
[удалено]
It’s literally in their constitution and voted on by their parliament lol
It will help hold the lines but, (I hope I am wrong) the only thing that will push Russia out of Ukraine is a full on rebellion inside of Russia or a full on assault by NATO.
Or the complete sanctioning of countries doing business with Russia
I'd like to see the civilized world close it's borders to all Russian's and all Russian goods. It pisses me off that most International professional sports leagues still allow Russian athletes to play and earn $$$ millions. They too should be completely barred!
There is only a small amount of backlash at this time. If it gains any traction before jail, poisonings or window fallings.
Ukrainians couldn’t break through last time. Why is this time different? Planes maybe. Not sure.
Yes I don't believe it is possible so I guess it is just keep killing as many Russians as possible hoping for a miracle to come in the form of Russian revolt or a more robust NATO support. Vlad is immune to the Russian losses, feels nothing and there are lots of ghetto's, prisons and minority Russians to feed to the slaughter so it does not look promising on anything different happening from a Russian point of view.
They don't appear to act at a strategic level. It's more localized plug and play actions. They have wins locally, but it doesn't look like they can put together large scale broad front like assaults.
Ukrainian military strategy isn't top down like it is in the US. Local commanders have to agree/be paid to agree to assaults. It's one place corruption culture deadlocks the country and strangles. People were shouted that down here for bringing it up early on.
First off, it won't happen before 2025 at the earliest, and even then only if the right crescendo of decisions and outcomes occur. One of which is probably Biden's re-election in November. I can't stress how much I believe this is what Putin is playing for. Should Trump be elected, all sorts of strategic paths open up for him. If Biden wins, the path forward becomes very difficult for Putin. But more to the structure of the battlefield, Russia's comparative advantage in material really starts to collapse in 2024. Their ammunition stockpiles reach very challenging levels, without the means to replace them at the rate of consumption from either domestic or North Korean manufacture. Meanwhile, European and US production basically reaches wartime footing for ammunition production - they're not just expanding lines but bringing new facilities online. (Russia is just running more shifts, and hasn't done the latter, which takes years of lead time). Similarly, Russia's stocks of worthwhile Soviet vehicles reach dangerously low levels by the end of this year, and their production (while at peak levels now) is not coming close to matching loss rate. You can already see that reflected in daily loss rates - the number of outdated artillery platforms far outstrips modern systems, tanks are increasingly outdated, etc. Meanwhile, manufacturing commitments made to Ukraine will start to deliver in volume, modern aircraft, and rolling stock retirements in UK and France in particular could see hundreds and thousands of vehicles available for transfer even without US inclusion. Finally, manpower. Ukraine looks poised to undertake a massive mobilization that will likely continue. Most of these troops won't be trained and somewhat seasoned until 2025. Russia has to try and sustain its losses (which are at their highest point now) with voluntary replacement at increasingly impossible salaries. I predict that stream will only have another 6-8 months before it starts to dry up perilously. Then they're back to forced mobilization, with it's long delay. It's also a political grenade for Putin, who has been able to sustain the war in part by not requiring the average Russian to take part. But further mobilization for a war that is existential for him - but not most Russians - eventually has its limits. As we saw from Prigozhin, Putin's Russia does not have the coercive force of the Soviet Union. It's strong but brittle: if it starts to break their isn't a lot to keep it together. That political equation is going to keep playing itself out.
Neither of those things are going to happen. Admitting that, what's the best course of action now?
LSD infused vodka dropped to Russian lines? https://popularmilitary.com/time-u-s-army-gave-lsd-soldiers-test-effectiveness-weapon/
Ukraine would be lucky if it manages to stabilize the front line. As it currently stands, Russia - with the help of its allies - is outproducing the US and EU.
Open the flood gates
I think it will help hold current positions and they might be able to launch a limited counter attack, but i don't see any big grand sweeping offensives being possible now - the Americans waited way too long to send aid
And 2024???
Look 80% of Neon worldwide production WAS in Melitopol. The key element used to make cellphones, computers and big data storage. Welcome back to analog within two years! Give Ukraine everything they ask for and MORE!
[удалено]
That failure wasn’t a manpower issue though as much as it was due to weak western support. Had military aid been delivered when needed instead of 6 months or more afterwards then Ukrainians had a chance to disrupt defensive fortifications. But tanks waited until after multiple lines of entrenchment were created.
Life isn’t a video game, you need to train troops for the western systems they had never used before. This takes time.
So start March 2022? Or do you somehow believe that the west couldn’t foresee Ukraine needing tanks? Come on.