Ukraine is losing

The USA has been training the Ukrainian military a lot since 2014, providing weapons, intel, and defense strategies. They correctly predicted a future possibility and planned against it.

Had Russia taken Ukraine, they’d have moved on to Moldova. Then maybe more places beyond that?
Putin underestimated the United States. He’s now paying a heavy price. Xi sees this and is going to steer clear of invading Taiwan.

One could argue that in preparing for an invasion, they were provoking one.
I don't think the aim was to take over Ukraine, just the chunks of it that would benefit them most, and impose economic and political reforms on the rest that would be severely pro-Rus. They'd benefit more from turning the Ukraine into a vassal state than by absorbing it directly.

I think that NATO has had a huge role in limiting Russian ambitions on expansion, both in territory and influence, but I think that a lot of what's going on here is a bit more subtle than Russia wanting to Blitzkrieg all of Eastern Europe.

I hope that you're right about Taiwan. I have friends living there, and it would be a disaster for everybody (including the West) if it did actually happen. 

One could argue that in preparing for an invasion, they were provoking one.
I don't think the aim was to take over Ukraine, just the chunks of it that would benefit them most, and impose economic and political reforms on the rest that would be severely pro-Rus. They'd benefit more from turning the Ukraine into a vassal state than by absorbing it directly.

I think that NATO has had a huge role in limiting Russian ambitions on expansion, both in territory and influence, but I think that a lot of what's going on here is a bit more subtle than Russia wanting to Blitzkrieg all of Eastern Europe.

I hope that you're right about Taiwan. I have friends living there, and it would be a disaster for everybody (including the West) if it did actually happen. 

One thing Taiwan has going for it is that it's an island. One that has been preparing to defend against an invasion for 70 years. It would be very difficult for China to attain a foothold to launch a ground invasion. Like walking into a woodchipper. But China has the manpower and the proclivity to charge troops into certain death.

China would win eventually, but it would be far more challenging than invading Ukraine.

Like I said before, if they really want to acquire more lebensraum for whatever ridiculous dreams of empire, it would be far better to continue the "diplomatic" approach, i.e. subverting and influencing local politics and turning the local populous against western hegemony and into their hands.

Demonstrating their ambitions through aggression only justifies what their enemies have been saying all along and makes the prospect of a full scale war to prevent further aggression more likely. which neither China nor Russia would realistically be able to survive.

No one can convince me that it is a good idea to attempt a land war in Eastern Europe in winter.

They must have known it would become a drawn out slogging match.
They must have known Ukraine would be provided with the collective intelligence and military tech of 'free' world.
They must have known that it would bolster the West's position on Russia (and China).
They must have known it would garner unprecedented support for NATO.
They must have known it would lead to more NATO members.

Even if it was part of a wider plan to (1) capitalize on and further strain weaker economies coming out of COVID; (2) stretch the West's resources; and (3) test the waters and lay the foundations for a Chinese assault on Taiwan, I won't be persuaded that it was anything but a colossal mistake.

Again, you don't seem willing or able to see things from their point of view. For starters, they have claimed that Ukraine was preparing a serious offensive that could have possibly broken the LPR and DPR. Given the arms buildup by the West and Ukraine's rejection of a treaty based on autonomy, this is at least plausible.

What should they have done? Die the death of 1000 cuts? Accept permanent status as a punching bag of the West?

Yes, ideally they'd give up all arms and make like Costa Rica. But then that could be said about the U.S. What we have is more akin to competing cartels. Okay, one is a little slicker, but lets not kid ourselves.

People say that "inherent contradictions" brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. I think  that some contradictions are popping up in the West which make our system far more unstable than initially thought. In particular our financial-economic-social welfare system and our commitment to values that are starting more and more to clash in these contradictory fashions.

Easy to claim things *might* have happened. Just as easy to deny it.
In any case, even if Ukraine was ready to roll in and slaughter everybody in the LPR and DPR, does that justify a *Russian* invasion? One that looks to have been very long in the planning (considering that those areas were already thick with Russian paramilitary troops).

Again, making contingencies is smart, but a preemptive invasion is still an act of aggression. Their casus belli was pretty weak.
 Russia tossed decades of social capital to the wind with that invasion, and it looks like they got very little in return.

Again, you don't seem willing or able to see things from their point of view. For starters, they have claimed that Ukraine was preparing a serious offensive that could have possibly broken the LPR and DPR. Given the arms buildup by the West and Ukraine's rejection of a treaty based on autonomy, this is at least plausible.

What should they have done? Die the death of 1000 cuts? Accept permanent status as a punching bag of the West?

Yes, ideally they'd give up all arms and make like Costa Rica. But then that could be said about the U.S. What we have is more akin to competing cartels. Okay, one is a little slicker, but lets not kid ourselves.

People say that "inherent contradictions" brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. I think  that some contradictions are popping up in the West which make our system far more unstable than initially thought. In particular our financial-economic-social welfare system and our commitment to values that are starting more and more to clash in these contradictory fashions.

I don't see how the territorial sovereignty of a different country poses an existential threat to Russia. Especially when they're the ones who started the conflict in the first place. Even if the entirety of Russia were surrounded by NATO members, it's not like it would magically result in WW3. No one wants a full-scale conventional war between equal nations. It's not going to happen. It's a zero-sum game where everybody loses. The most we will ever see in our lifetimes are proxy wars and unilateral proxy wars like the situation in Ukraine. The days of conventional land empires and physically occupying territory are long gone.

I'm not in favor of disarmament, at all. Quite the contrary. And I am fully able to understand and sympathize with both Russia and China's positions. I just think Russia should have taken a leaf out of China's book when it comes to their opposition of the West. We see how some countries are aligning themselves with Russia even despite their dumbf*** aggression; imagine how convincing their recruitment drive would've been if they pretended to be the nice guy.

As someone who is from (and aligned with) the West, however, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a net positive. They've blown their load early. Tragic as it is be for the Ukrainian people, it has all but guaranteed Russia is out on its ass for the foreseeable future.

Like I've said many, many times now, there is no outcome in this situation that is favorable for Russia.

Like I said before, if they really want to acquire more lebensraum for whatever ridiculous dreams of empire, it would be far better to continue the "diplomatic" approach, i.e. subverting and influencing local politics and turning the local populous against western hegemony and into their hands.

Again, this notion that Russia and Putin wanted to blitzkrieg through Europe is just silly. No one in Russia thinks that's feasible and there is no basis for believing that other than the regurgitation of propaganda.

You don't think "Fight NATO in Ukraine or fight it on Russian soil" was their thinking? That seems far more plausible than thinking they had plans to march into Berlin while the U.S. just twiddled its thumbs.

Demonstrating their ambitions through aggression only justifies what their enemies have been saying all along and makes the prospect of a full scale war to prevent further aggression more likely. which neither China nor Russia would realistically be able to survive.

This assumes the political will exists for young people across the U.S. and Europe to be drafted and called into service to go fight in the Russian Steppe or Manchuria in winter. Otherwise, yes, they would survive. And this is before nuclear weapons enter the equation.

Like, where is this manpower and level of resources coming from to fight a total war against both Russia and China simultaneously?

Again, making contingencies is smart, but a preemptive invasion is still an act of aggression. Their casus belli was pretty weak.
 Russia tossed decades of social capital to the wind with that invasion, and it looks like they got very little in return.

Actually, under international law, a pre-emptive invasion IS NOT an act of aggression and a very legitimate casus belli. The state on the verge of being attacked does not have to wait.  Of course, Ukraine could claim the same thing.

Given that the trend of much of the global south is towards Russia and away from the U.S. and support for the war has fallen across much of the West, I don't think we can declare the social capital game to be over.

Remember, much of the global south has historical experience with the west creeping up to its borders while claiming that they are "only defensive" before attempting to topple their country, often with some flimsy pretext about how their mighty tribe was a mortal danger to everyone (not the global hegemon that was occupying across the globe).

Again, this notion that Russia and Putin wanted to blitzkrieg through Europe is just silly. No one in Russia thinks that's feasible and there is no basis for believing that other than the regurgitation of propaganda.

You don't think "Fight NATO in Ukraine or fight it on Russian soil" was their thinking? That seems far more plausible than thinking they had plans to march into Berlin while the U.S. just twiddled its thumbs.

I never said I believe Russia will blitzkrieg through Europe. I'm well aware that their plan is to maintain a buffer zone. However, I don't believe nor accept that their existence is or was ever under threat by NATO's expansion with or without said buffer.

This assumes the political will exists for young people across the U.S. and Europe to be drafted and called into service to go fight in the Russian Steppe or Manchuria in winter. Otherwise, yes, they would survive. And this is before nuclear weapons enter the equation.

Like, where is this manpower and level of resources coming from to fight a total war against both Russia and China simultaneously?

You're forgetting that while Russia is great in landmass, it is comparatively poor in manpower, as evidenced by its inability to take (one part of) a country less than 28 times its size and less than a third of its population. You also seem to be operating under several unfortunate assumptions:

- That China would (1) be willing to fight a conventional war (if you know anything about Chinese history, they don't have the best track record) or (2) be willing to support Russia in such a conflict. Spoiler: they wouldn't.

- That the war would be fought like a campaign in EU IV where you have to control 90% of the territory to sue for peace, when we know in reality all you have to do is overwhelm the military infrastructure of the country and depose the government. There would be no "fighting in the steppes".

- That the massive technological disparity wouldn't serve as a deterrent in the first place. The Chinese in particular have come leaps and bounds since the 90s, but there is a reason why no one takes the threat of their military might seriously.

I don't see how the territorial sovereignty of a different country poses an existential threat to Russia. Especially when they're the ones who started the conflict in the first place. Even if the entirety of Russia were surrounded by NATO members, it's not like it would magically result in WW3.

Because from there NATO would start to fund internal uprising and dissident movements and if they ever turned into anything, would start shipping arms in across that border.

You realize that, right? It's exactly what Russia would do if they were on Canadian and Mexican soil.

We see how some countries are aligning themselves with Russia even despite their dumbf*** aggression; imagine how convincing their recruitment drive would've been if they pretended to be the nice guy.

Again, while "the West" is against Russia, that was probably always going to be the case given the power of the West's propaganda arm. And as I've said- that support for Ukraine has been trending downward. Likewise, in the global south, support for Russia and away from the U.S. is trending upward. The Middle East at this point is defacto on Russia's side as they are looking to collude on oil prices. Other countries are making noises or actively starting to move away from the dollar. India and the U.S.' relations are some of the worst in the past 30 years.

Where is this great fail again? It seems that many in the West has basically been living off the first couple of weeks in the war and haven't adjusted to any recent changes. This is very typical of modern Western conflict views- declaring victory at Half-Time (or earlier) while everyone else insists on playing the entire game.

They've blown their load early. Tragic as it is be for the Ukrainian people, it has all but guaranteed Russia is out on its ass for the foreseeable future.

The game is not over.

Like I've said many, many times now, there is no outcome in this situation that is favorable for Russia.

How about this (not saying it WILL happen, but is certainly possible)
1. The Mideast continues its path of reconciliation and coalesces into a more or less unified bloc. Thanks to recent peace agreements with Israel and Israel's own internal issues, this does not provoke a conflict. The Mideast turns its current economic alliance with Russia into a more integrated one.
2. India and the global south continue to drift away from the U.S. and the U.S. dollar, while still the primary reserve currency, is no longer essentially exclusive. RICS of BRICS becomes more integrated with the understanding that all three have a mutual adversary- the United States.
3. Internal economic pressures hit much of Western Europe. France, Spain, and Italy reach a point of strain either with internal politics or economics or both where they essentially are forced to reduce support to a trickle. Worst case someplace like France gets "Orbanized" under a Le Pen or whomever. Things can cascade quickly in Europe. A movement in one place tends to spread outward, historically. Also, skyrocketing inflation in Eastern Europe eventually comes home to roost as "Fear of Russia" is replaced with "I can't afford sh*t".
4. The bloody military conflict is finally resolved. Yes, Russia has to lick its wounds. But it learns some valuable lessons which have led to some much needed reforms. Russia can recover. Out on its ass for the foreseeable future is not forever. The U.S. was once out on its ass in the mid-70s. The game goes on.

Because from there NATO would start to fund internal uprising and dissident movements and if they ever turned into anything, would start shipping arms in across that border.

You realize that, right? It's exactly what Russia would do if they were on Canadian and Mexican soil.
Again, while "the West" is against Russia, that was probably always going to be the case given the power of the West's propaganda arm. And as I've said- that support for Ukraine has been trending downward. Likewise, in the global south, support for Russia and away from the U.S. is trending upward. The Middle East at this point is defacto on Russia's side as they are looking to collude on oil prices. Other countries are making noises or actively starting to move away from the dollar. India and the U.S.' relations are some of the worst in the past 30 years.

Where is this great fail again? It seems that many in the West has basically been living off the first couple of weeks in the war and haven't adjusted to any recent changes. This is very typical of modern Western conflict views- declaring victory at Half-Time (or earlier) while everyone else insists on playing the entire game.
The game is not over.
How about this (not saying it WILL happen, but is certainly possible)
1. The Mideast continues its path of reconciliation and coalesces into a more or less unified bloc. Thanks to recent peace agreements with Israel and Israel's own internal issues, this does not provoke a conflict. The Mideast turns its current economic alliance with Russia into a more integrated one.
2. India and the global south continue to drift away from the U.S. and the U.S. dollar, while still the primary reserve currency, is no longer essentially exclusive. RICS of BRICS becomes more integrated with the understanding that all three have a mutual adversary- the United States.
3. Internal economic pressures hit much of Western Europe. France, Spain, and Italy reach a point of strain either with internal politics or economics or both where they essentially are forced to reduce support to a trickle. Worst case someplace like France gets "Orbanized" under a Le Pen or whomever. Things can cascade quickly in Europe. A movement in one place tends to spread outward, historically. Also, skyrocketing inflation in Eastern Europe eventually comes home to roost as "Fear of Russia" is replaced with "I can't afford sh*t".
4. The bloody military conflict is finally resolved. Yes, Russia has to lick its wounds. But it learns some valuable lessons which have led to some much needed reforms. Russia can recover. Out on its ass for the foreseeable future is not forever. The U.S. was once out on its ass in the mid-70s. The game goes on.

If you honestly believe that Russia, India, and China will remain close allies for anything but the sake of economic treaties, I have a bridge to sell you.

Off topic: what's your stance on North Korea?

However, I don't believe nor accept that their existence is or was ever under threat by NATO's expansion with or without said buffer.

Why? They've already attempted regime change in Russia and have openly stated they want to dismantle Russia, and this was pre-War.

You're forgetting that while Russia is great in landmass, it is comparatively poor in manpower

Yes, but you're forgetting that we struggled with manpower issues to control the far smaller and less populous country of Iraq. To fight a full-scale total war against Russia we'd need at least 1,000,000 people deployed. Where is this coming from without a draft?

That China would (1) be willing to fight a conventional war (if you know anything about Chinese history, they don't have the best track record) or (2) be willing to support Russia in such a conflict. Spoiler: they wouldn't.

I seem to recall people in 1950 saying the same thing.

when we know in reality all you have to do is overwhelm the military infrastructure of the country and depose the government. There would be no "fighting in the steppes".

If China is still able to mount some kind of threat and fight from within its territory, then yes, you have to go in. Hence, why we still had to go in (or try to), in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.)

That the massive technological disparity wouldn't serve as a deterrent in the first place. The Chinese in particular have come leaps and bounds since the 90s, but there is a reason why no one takes the threat of their military might seriously.

Again, you're ignoring political will. No one in the West wants a total war with China either. A draft over fighting in Taiwan would go over like a lead balloon. And this assumes everything goes well for the U.S. What if it doesn't? What if things don't go exactly to plan? What then?

Actually, under international law, a pre-emptive invasion IS NOT an act of aggression and a very legitimate casus belli. The state on the verge of being attacked does not have to wait.  Of course, Ukraine could claim the same thing.

Aplogies, I might not have been clear: what I meant was that the reasons justifying their pre-emptive attack were weak. It invaded on various pretexts that it itself helped precipitate.
A pre-emptive attack is only really legitimate if there is a strong reason to believe that one will be invaded. This is clearly not the case. NATO as it exists today will not invade Russia. It will do everything it can to curtail Russian influence, but it wont do that.

Is that Marty defending Russia's aggression again under the pretext of feeling "threatened"?

Does he forget that Russia invaded Crimea?

Is that Marty defending Russia's aggression again under the pretext of feeling "threatened"?

Does he forget that Russia invaded Crimea?

Russia invading Crimea is the equivalent of us invading Hawaii to retake Pearl Harbor or Panama if some Panamanian dictator decided to close off the canal.

It is an existential base for them. You understand that, right?

How can anyone feel threatened by the U.S. military and foreign policy establishment? I mean what with Iraq and Syria and Libya, and interfering in Russian internal politics and trying to get Putin toppled and openly calling for Russia to be divided. And NATO going right up to its borders. How could they possibly feel threatened?

That's like saying how could the U.S. feel threatened by "defensive" nuclear missiles in Cuba?

Is that Marty defending Russia's aggression again under the pretext of feeling "threatened"?

Does he forget that Russia invaded Crimea?

No, no, you see, they were provoked by Western Imperialist Expansion™ /s

I'd like to know if he just really really enjoys playing devil's advocate, is counterculture and actually buys into the propaganda, or is doing his usual schtick of arguing away his time.

From previous threads, he's clearly passionate about the subject. But there's a reason why little ol' Marti ended up teaching in Korea instead of sitting in a war room in Washington discussing the issue.

If you honestly believe that Russia, India, and China will remain close allies for anything but the sake of economic treaties, I have a bridge to sell you.

Off topic: what's your stance on North Korea?

I don't know how they will behave, but expecting them to behave in a manner that is most beneficial to you and least beneficial to them strikes me as a bit overly optimistic.

North Korea? Not much reliable information to judge. I will say that Trump was on to something. Unfortunately the NeoCon-NeiLib types have such a controlling mindset that they wouldn't let such a thing pass.

No, no, you see, they were provoked by Western Imperialist Expansion™ /s

Question- Do you think the U.S. foreign policy-intelligence-military-industrial complex is some sort of benevolent organization that basis its decisions off of moral principles? If not, what possibilities regarding its behavior and motives does that open up?

I mean, if you want to look at the history of the three biggest pillars of NATO- The U.S., the U.K. and France, Imperial expansion was their historic calling card. The whole reason the U.S. exists is imperialist expansion. The whole reason the U.S. stretches to the Pacific Ocean is imperialist expansion. Do you think that impulse which then went to Hawaii, the Philippines and the Caribbean suddenly disappeared? Or do you think it got re-branded and given a slicked coat of paint?

I'd like to know if he just really really enjoys playing devil's advocate, is counterculture and actually buys into the propaganda, or is doing his usual schtick of arguing away his time.

What I believe is complicated because these situations are complicated. What I don't believe in is simplistic "these guys are good, these guys are bad" interpretations. If I could give it a term, perhaps the best I could do is use the term "Rashomon Effect" to describe this. That is, each side brings its own perspective, generated by past experiences, biases, future ambitions, etc. And if you don't bother to look at things through someone else's perspective then you are basically existing in a sphere of selfishness.

I think many people struggle to comprehend how things look through the lens of other people, put themselves in another's position, or to understand that other people do not exist to fulfill their view of the way things ought to be.

For example, I think the Japanese Empire was "wrong". But at the same time, you have to see things from their perspective- They watched Europe divide up the world and colonize people across the globe, often treating them like utter sh*t. They managed to avoid this fate. They were faithful allies to the British who one day decided to turn their backs and embrace the Americans, giving the Japanese the impression that they would always be regarded as second-class people based on race. Their response? Well if everyone else is going to have an empire for survival and strength, we need one too. That doesn't make their actions right, but FFS, if you can't see why they thought and behaved the way they did, then you are utterly incapable of empathy. I mean, when you look at those events, one could almost say that we basically drove them into it (which some suggest was actually our intent).

The point is that we should always be deeply skeptical of simplistic 'good vs. evil' interpretations of events.

https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/12rbn05/yoon_states_that_korea_may_provide_ukraine_with/jgtqii4/

Russia starts transferring advanced military tech (esp tanks) to N Korea, narrowing the huge gap in conventional capabilities between the two.

Imagine beieving that Russia has some secret stash of super cool weapons in case............... .... NK gets attacked?

Delusional.

Russia should be asking NK for some of their tanks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/12rbn05/yoon_states_that_korea_may_provide_ukraine_with/jgtqii4/

Imagine beieving that Russia has some secret stash of super cool weapons in case............... .... NK gets attacked?

Delusional.

Yeah, what we see is what we get. I don't think there's magic Russian tanks as most tanks these days are all 120-125mm smoothbore slug tossers with reactive-composite armor and some other features. Sure the latest T-90 or T-14 could be an upgrade, but it's not a game-changer relative to what the ROK-US would field.

The only thing that might make a difference is Russian hypersonic missile tech and battlefield electronics. Apparently Russia has had good success with its battlefield jamming capabilities and its hypersonic missiles have been virtually immune to countermeasures. Some of its other missile systems have done well enough, though that could be said of any country's missiles in sufficient quantity and use.

Really what this conflict is proving is absent complete air domination, artillery remains quean of the battlefield, though drones are hot on its heels. And who knows? Maybe drones start to negate an airpower advantage.

Russia should be asking NK for some of their tanks.

Tanks haven't really shown much utility either way. Russia's limiting factors appear to be manpower and logistical supply to field additional armies to start pressuring Ukraine from more directions. If they had American-level logistics they'd have a true Anaconda plan going on right now, but they don't.

This is a two-way thing. We're seeing real problems with Western supply efforts. Trucks and people aren't a huge problem, but shells and possibly systems appear to be (unless Ukraine has preserved a MASSIVE cache for its counteroffensives)