The end of NATO?

[Bad_Karma_1310]

With reference to the first part, I was thinking of moderate republicans and democrats - not the wild eyed MAGA/Progressive edges.

I totally agree with the second part except I’m not sure Ukraine has the human capital to last another five years.

Why don’t we let Ukraine decide what human capital they do and don’t have to fight a war protecting their own country?

A lot of bullshit rhetoric out there justifying Ukraine accepting a bad peace based on assessments on the situation from outside Ukraine. Let them decide how much they are willing to lose in order to drive the end of the war they want.

 

[Griz882]

Why don’t we let Ukraine decide what human capital they do and don’t have to fight a war protecting their own country?

A lot of bullshit rhetoric out there justifying Ukraine accepting a bad peace based on assessments on the situation from outside Ukraine. Let them decide how much they are willing to lose in order to drive the end of the war they want.

But we aren’t letting them decide. We give them just enough to hold, but not enough to advance. The situation is so fraught that Biden delayed last year’s arms shipments for months due to a bit of Congressional wrangling and a lot of internal debate over fears of Russia’s nukes. So sure…let Ukraine decide, what, on their own? No western arms = no ability to hold = no more Ukraine. Had Biden won the election we’d be in the exact same place with less trollish drama. Europe wants this war over, Russia wants this war over, the U.S. wants this war over. Internally, even the Ukrainians want this war over.

 

[Swanee]

But we aren’t letting them decide. We give them just enough to hold, but not enough to advance. The situation is so fraught that Biden delayed last year’s arms shipments for months due to a bit of Congressional wrangling and a lot of internal debate over fears of Russia’s nukes. So sure…let Ukraine decide, what, on their own? No western arms = no ability to hold = no more Ukraine. Had Biden won the election we’d be in the exact same place with less trollish drama. Europe wants this war over, Russia wants this war over, the U.S. wants this war over. Internally, even the Ukrainians want this war over.

No one wants war. War is what happens when two opposing states don't agree on something.

The outcome matters. Russia wants Ukrainian sovereign territory for their own. This war is just as easily over if Russia retreats, respects the previously established borders, and Ukraine joins NATO.

 

[Griz882]

No one wants war. War is what happens when two opposing states don't agree on something.

The outcome matters. Russia wants Ukrainian sovereign territory for their own. This war is just as easily over if Russia retreats, respects the previously established borders, and Ukraine joins NATO.

No doubt, but if NATO were a serious option (it isn’t) why didn’t Biden lean into that? The answer is easy…he was afraid of Russian nukes. Same for Obama with Crimea and Donbas…same for Trump with his sanctions. Germany has been a hard “no” on NATO membership. The only remaining options are to fight an all out war (including the possibility of nukes) or give the Ukrainians a smaller “win” by guaranteeing their borders with a European peace keeping force.

On the global stage, Russia has already lost. Russia has already paid a terrible price for marginal gains and is unlikely to repeat the invasion of a well-armed Ukraine. Russia has lost respect worldwide, especially in its military. And great powers in its neighborhood, like India and China, no longer fear Russian arms. Despite his swagger, Putin seeks an end to the war as well. That is a win.

 

[Sonog]

Griz's mental act in this thread trying to pretend this isn't a bad thing:

 

[Griz882]

Griz's mental act in this thread trying to pretend this isn't a bad thing:

No it isn’t. Are you guys seriously so binary in your thinking that the options are only…

1. Total war with Russia…or…
2. Generational proxy with Ukrainians eventually losing because of simple population demographics?

I get it that you don’t like Trump’s diplomacy style (or lack thereof) but you are entirely wrong if you think Biden wasn’t trying to get to the same place using calmer language.

 

[MaxGar]

No it isn’t. Are you guys seriously so binary in your thinking that the options are only…

1. Total war with Russia…or…
2. Generational proxy with Ukrainians eventually losing because of simple population demographics?

I get it that you don’t like Trump’s diplomacy style (or lack thereof) but you are entirely wrong if you think Biden wasn’t trying to get to the same place using calmer language.

At the end of the day, isn’t a generational proxy that is taxing the resources of our longest standing adversary advantageous for our defense policy much more so than immediately moving the Russian border further west to more NATO Nations?

 

[Griz882]

At the end of the day, isn’t a generational proxy that is taxing the resources of our longest standing adversary advantageous for our defense policy much more so than moving the Russian border further west to more NATO Nations?

Setting aside the absolute immorality of giving the Ukrainians enough to bleed human lives, just not bleed to death, there is zero advantage in this case. Ask around the Pentagon and you will find people deeply worried about our weapons stockpiles but also concern over the first risk rule of proxy wars…escalation. In our history, Vietnam is the best example of escalation that went from munitions to advisors to open combat.

Obama hoped to break the escalation chain by not answering Russia’s initial aggression. Biden altered course and went from logistical aid, to military weapons and on to training and advisory roles (albeit out of country). Now consider even the best case: America provides enough lethal aid to allow Ukraine to make rapid gains and sustainable gains. Russia would have every incentive to respond, ratcheting up the stakes and costs of the conflict. How far would the United States be willing to go to counter Russia’s increased commitment? In a cycle of escalation and counter-escalation, it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the United States would be willing to risk more than Russia over Ukraine (meaning no POTUS will seriously consider sending in troops). If we intervene on behalf of a proxy without clarity as to how far we are willing to go, and how important their security is to our own, doesn’t that set us and our partners up for failure?

 

[Bad_Karma_1310]

Setting aside the absolute immorality of giving the Ukrainians enough to bleed human lives, just not bleed to death, there is zero advantage in this case. Ask around the Pentagon and you will find people deeply worried about our weapons stockpiles but also concern over the first risk rule of proxy wars…escalation. In our history, Vietnam is the best example of escalation that went from munitions to advisors to open combat.

Obama hoped to break the escalation chain by not answering Russia’s initial aggression. Biden altered course and went from logistical aid, to military weapons and on to training and advisory roles (albeit out of country). Now consider even the best case: America provides enough lethal aid to allow Ukraine to make rapid gains and sustainable gains. Russia would have every incentive to respond, ratcheting up the stakes and costs of the conflict. How far would the United States be willing to go to counter Russia’s increased commitment? In a cycle of escalation and counter-escalation, it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the United States would be willing to risk more than Russia over Ukraine (meaning no POTUS will seriously consider sending in troops). If we intervene on behalf of a proxy without clarity as to how far we are willing to go, and how important their security is to our own, doesn’t that set us and our partners up for failure?

This is dumb, you are trying to have it both ways. Your blaming Biden for not doing enough while supporting Trump as he negotiates a Ukrainian surrender against their will.

It’s a pretty simple issue, let Ukraine decide when it’s time to negotiate. Giving them more -155 rounds, HIMAR rockets and whatever other supplies we have been giving them so far doesn’t impact the fight we are prepping for with China whatsoever. The only reason to force them to give up is an ideological sympathy for Russia.

 

[taxi1]

Setting aside the absolute immorality of giving the Ukrainians enough to bleed human lives, just not bleed to death, there is zero advantage in this case.

Ukraine wants to fight, we want to grind Russia down, we should support Ukraine in this fight in order to grind Russia down and demonstrate to the rest of the planet that we are reliable Allies who keep our word when offering Security Assurances.

I would want China to get a very important message. Ukraine isn’t just about Ukraine. Wars often start when one side gets the other’s position wrong.

Meanwhile, if I were Ukraine I’d be working as fast as possible on my own nukes now that I’m about to be screwed over by the current POTUS. From Wikipedia…

On 13 November 2024, a report by a Ukrainian think tank that advises the Ukrainian government stated that Ukraine could construct a crude nuclear device "within months" if President Trump cut aid to Ukraine. Such weapons would use plutonium extracted from spent fuel from Ukraine's nuclear power plants.[41]Ukraine's Foreign Ministry responded that Ukraine remains committed to the NPT and does not intend to acquire nuclear weapons.

Edit: article on the topic.

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/02/are-nuclear-weapons-an-option-for-ukraine/

 

[Griz882]

This is dumb, you are trying to have it both ways. Your blaming Biden for not doing enough while supporting Trump as he negotiates a Ukrainian surrender against their will.

It’s a pretty simple issue, let Ukraine decide when it’s time to negotiate. Giving them more -155 rounds, HIMAR rockets and whatever other supplies we have been giving them so far doesn’t impact the fight we are prepping for with China whatsoever. The only reason to force them to give up is an ideological sympathy for Russia.

This is seriously the most immature post on this matter I’ve seen. Sure, if it was a matter of few 155 rounds why not? But it isn’t and it is a fools game to pretend that “just a few more shells” will crack the Russians. If the U.S. can end the war and secure the Ukraine it is a 100% global victory for the west - Putin can spin his “victory” internally any way he wants. Next I didn’t blame Biden…if that is what you got out of this, the debate is over…I can’t shine facts through your partisan shades brother.

One more time…I hate Russia….I seriously do. That said there is ZERO chance that the Ukraine can win. We can’t make enough munitions to offset a 4 to 1 population difference. There simply aren’t enough Ukrainian men to kill enough Russian men. If you are so ardent then I’ll give you the old, common refrain…go over there and fight, plenty have and they could use your highly honed naval aviator skills. Other than that…strap in…because the only other way to beat Russia is US involvement. Now tell us all…when do you expect that to happen?

 

[number9]

It’s hardly 4D Chess…it is simply brute pressure on the Ukraine to get on board. Trump has the statesmanship of an angry mule, but it is clear the status quo isn’t working. Let’s face face it, Obama never thought Ukraine had a chance against Russia (thus his hand wave over Crimea and the Donbas), Trump hoped he could sanction Putin into submission while leaving the Ukraine unarmed, and Biden, while keeping Trump’s sanctions in place, decided to increase defensive weapons shipments and just enough economic and intelligence aid to Ukraine to keep it from collapsing…sufficient to hold but not enough to win it and thereby provoke nuclear Russia. Biden hoped to keep feeding the war endlessly in efforts to bleed out the Russian military, weaken Putin, perhaps provoke a “democratic revolution” in Russia, but never pole the nuclear bear…it didn’t work. (Remember that during the Biden admins final year key shipments and weapons to Ukraine were stalled not just by months of congressional delays, but also by internal debates over escalation risks with Russia).

So President Trump's negotiating strategy is *check notes* to blame Ukraine for being invaded in the first place? And then go along with that shameful UN vote?

I really don't understand how you can categorize his many public pronouncements on the matter as part of some grand negotiating strategy.

 

[Griz882]

Ukraine wants to fight

But they don’t. Since the war started over 10% of their population has (including military aged men) have run off to somewhere else.

Also…https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nation-world/world/article295852174.html

It would be great if Ukraine had some nuclear capability. It would probably give Putin pause.

 

[MaxGar]

It would be great if Ukraine had some nuclear capability. It would probably give Putin pause.

They did, but Russia promised to protect them.
All this will do is further nuclear proliferation. No nukes = no security

Edit: I’m too dumb and taxi1 beat me to the link

 

[Griz882]

So President Trump's negotiating strategy is *check notes* to blame Ukraine for being invaded in the first place? And then go along with that shameful UN vote?

I really don't understand how you can categorize his many public pronouncements on the matter as part of some grand negotiating strategy.

Where did I do that? Where?

For fuck’s sake….take off your childish partisan glasses. I literally write, just above, that Trump’s actions are BRUTE FORCE to drag Ukraine to the peace table. (I’m assuming you know what “literally” means) I can’t count the number of times I’ve faulted Trump’s style…but no…looking at the obvious and stating facts is somehow “pro-Trump.” Tell us, how impressed were you with Hillary Clinton’s “Russia Reset?” How well did that work? Did you cheer Biden’s plan to give 20% of Ukraine to Russia in his peace proposal? How did that work? We have zero idea of how this will work out…or even if it will…but something has to be done.