History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I'm guessing the Russians also don't want their frozen assets to go towards rebuilding Ukraine, so that might be a bit of a sticking point, too.

On a wider geopolitical scale, assume Ukraine takes a sucky peace deal.  Russia would still be a pariah to most European nations, but a deal would provide political cover to other nations (read: China) to provide them with everything they need to re-arm.  It's also a given that Putin does not negotiate in good faith.  He'd do everything he could to keep what is left of Ukraine from being viable, and China (unless sufficiently warned, and maybe not even then) would use Russia in much the same way they do North Korea, as a way to occupy rival countries' resources and efforts.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

a trillion couldnt crush the Taliban, probably not going to be enough to crush Russia once and for all.

Opti said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

a trillion couldnt crush the Taliban, probably not going to be enough to crush Russia once and for all.

But we don't need to crush Russia.  We need to help Ukraine kick them out of their country.  And again, apples and oranges.

In reply to Opti :

China is funding Russia right now, but they are presently being careful about military hardware, to keep from pissing off other major trade partners.  If there is a peace deal, the Russians (and the Chinese) are unlikely to accept the level of embargo right now being codified.  Which means this is pretty much a now or never situation for Ukraine.

Other major differences: 

• A negotiated deal when Russia holds chunks of Ukraine at the end can be spun as a win by Putin.  Getting kicked out is going to be a lot more difficult for him.
• China can still use Russia as a foil, but they will be in a weaker place.
• Ukraine recovers resources denied them by Russia (Black Sea oil/natural gas deposits), other potential deposits Russia was trying to grab with this invasion.  Developing them means Ukraine can stand on their own faster during the rebuilding process.

Opti said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

a trillion couldnt crush the Taliban, probably not going to be enough to crush Russia once and for all.

We don't need to crush Russia.  Russia is already collapsing. Their population is down to 243 million.  That's problem #1 

problem #2  Anybody who's not tied to the upper echelon  is leaving as soon as they can.  
 
problem#3   They have the biggest country in the world with a small population density. China considers  the area above It as the northern resource  region.  It has oil, gold, timber , minerals, that hasn't been even discovered yet and no way to develop it.  Playing nice until they disarm themselves is China's approach here. Of course they are providing Russia with weapons.   China is extremely good at the long game. 
 

Putin is blindly trusting his Commie buddies who have major problems of their own.  North Korea is broke and hungry.  They can't sell their nukes/missles because they are closed to outsiders who'd be willing to buy them but can't get in. 
China has a population problem as well. Too many old people, not enough children to support them. Too few women in the child bearing age because of China's one couple, one child policy and the"value" of boys over girls.    Sometime this Year India will pass China in the wealth and population department. The difference there is much of China's wealth is tied up overseas in non producing investments while it's population's wealth is tied up in over valued property.  

Opti said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

a trillion couldnt crush the Taliban, probably not going to be enough to crush Russia once and for all.

I remember President Shrub not being able to afford to take on the Taliban after first giving giant tax cuts to the filthy rich and then starting a war in Iraq and having to finance both wars on borrowed money from China. And Rumsfeld stating that it would be a Cakewalk. They also wouldn't follow the Taliban across the border into Pakistan to finish them off. Not to mention the other reasons we failed that have already been mentioned.

In reply to eastsideTim :

I pretty much agree with you. Id be willing to bet China is passing arms through its allies making their way to Russia. All they need is a little plausible deniability. Everyone already knows they are supplying the military with a bunch of non arms type things.

I dont see how even if this ends with Russia being pushed back and embarrassed anyone is going to be able to stop China from selling them arms and rebuild. Defeat of Russia in Ukraine isnt like a total defeat of Russia where outside forces get to dictate its future terms.

I agree that getting kicked out is going to be difficult for him, but if he gets kicked out it doesnt mean the war ends. Do you think he will stop attacking even if they are pushed out? IF, and I think its a big if, he gets pushed out of Ukraine, nothing is stopping him from continued attacking along the border, or take more drastic measures. Its still not a clear end to the war

Russia is weaker no matter how this ends. Even if they take a piece of Ukraine, they still have a vastly damaged outlook on the world stage with massively reduced trading partners. A deal might mean some of the EU use them for a little energy, but I seriously doubt we will see their prewar energy exports to the EU unless their is a radical change to the regime. China is going to take a  bunch of the market share in the arms industry even if they get a deal, Russia is too economically damaged to maintain what they have. China utilized North Korea, it doesnt get much weaker than that, they will still utilize Russia, like you said

Ukraine couldnt stand on their own prior to the invasion and wont be able to, no matter how it ends, until Russia stops attacking them and pressuring them for good. Which i dont see happening. Ukraine may be able to stand on its own, once their is a regime change in Russia.

In reply to frenchyd :

1st of all I didnt say we needed to crush Russia. It was in reference to a comment someone else made, you may want to go read it.

2nd Russia population is 143 million, which is flat for about the last decade

I think you believe Russia collapsing is much easier than it really is. Also for like the millionth time, Russia collapsing is terrible for pretty much everyone. They still have like 2500 nukes, we dont want a power struggle with ambiguous custody of those nukes. Also a complete collapse is pretty bad for the people, and many times pretty terrible regimes rise from situations like that, we may just be back in the same boat with an even worse leader, Hitler esque rise.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Yah Im sure we wont repeat any of those mistakes in Russia. Lots of talk about how Russias already lost or collapsing, sounds a lot like Rumsfeld takes on the middle east. Deficit spending to fund a war, seems familiar.

Opti says there's no oversight, not enough oversight, nobody's talking about oversight, everybody's talking about oversight, politicians on both sides of the aisle are demanding oversight, it looks like there's finally some discussion about oversight. Frankly, I don't know where he gets his information, but it's hard not to interpret that as an attempt to sow doubt among us about, or justify his own objection to, providing aid to Ukraine. At least that's how it reads to me.

It's probably a given that most people now get their from a source that either reinforces their existing biases or preys on their fears (the "your values are under attack!" approach). It's probably also a given that most people don't make much effort to check other sources for contradictory reporting or for stories their preferred outlets aren't covering.

I mention that because, in keeping an eye on a couple of Reddit feeds, I have seen several stories from Ukrainian outlets of government officials and employees being arrested on suspicion of corruption of one kind or another. I didn't anticipate the need to document them, but here's a fresh one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/101j0pe/ukroboronprom_executives_charged_for_supplying/

I'm sure someone more skilled than me at navigating Reddit could find many more stories that have been reported on r/Ukraine and r/UkrainianConflict. Those stories might give some here a little more faith that at least some effort is being made to eliminate corruption from within Ukraine. 

That's all I got for now. Time to be a dad for a while.

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

1st of all I didnt say we needed to crush Russia. It was in reference to a comment someone else made, you may want to go read it.

2nd Russia population is 143 million, which is flat for about the last decade

I think you believe Russia collapsing is much easier than it really is. Also for like the millionth time, Russia collapsing is terrible for pretty much everyone. They still have like 2500 nukes, we dont want a power struggle with ambiguous custody of those nukes. Also a complete collapse is pretty bad for the people, and many times pretty terrible regimes rise from situations like that, we may just be back in the same boat with an even worse leader, Hitler esque rise.

Yes to the first and you are right I did put 2 there when I meant 1. So yes to that.  
    As to the third.  
   Russia doesn't have to worry about NATO or the US.   
    China calls Russia the Northern resource territory.Bot NATO or the U.S. Both NK and China could walk in right now and Russia can't defend it. 
 Except China is playing the long game.  They don't want  the global Sanctions put on them like Russia. 
    The area north of China is slowly filling up with Chinese.  Who when they have enough to take that area away from Russia will simply vote them out. They've been doing that now for more than 50 years and fought 2 wars with Russia over just that.  

DarkMonohue said:

Opti says there's no oversight, not enough oversight, nobody's talking about oversight, everybody's talking about oversight, politicians on both sides of the aisle are demanding oversight, it looks like there's finally some discussion about oversight. Frankly, I don't know where he gets his information, but it's hard not to interpret that as an attempt to sow doubt among us about, or justify his own objection to, providing aid to Ukraine. At least that's how it reads to me.

It's probably a given that most people now get their from a source that either reinforces their existing biases or preys on their fears (the "your values are under attack!" approach). It's probably also a given that most people don't make much effort to check other sources for contradictory reporting or for stories their preferred outlets aren't covering.

I mention that because, in keeping an eye on a couple of Reddit feeds, I have seen several stories from Ukrainian outlets of government officials and employees being arrested on suspicion of corruption of one kind or another. I didn't anticipate the need to document them, but here's a fresh one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/101j0pe/ukroboronprom_executives_charged_for_supplying/

I'm sure someone more skilled than me at navigating Reddit could find many more stories that have been reported on r/Ukraine and r/UkrainianConflict. Those stories might give some here a little more faith that at least some effort is being made to eliminate corruption from within Ukraine. 

That's all I got for now. Time to be a dad for a while.

Because thats the way it works nowadays, if you dont agree with the current established narrative, you must have some evil motive "to sow doubt." It's also comical that you mention people being in an echo chamber and questioning where they get their news, while you are unwilling to doubt or question anything. You should doubt everything. People used to not be so scared to talk about things and debate them.

CSIS -  we need oversight https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-requires-increased-oversight

The Hill - opinion piece - we need oversight https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3487430-theres-no-oversight-of-billions-in-ukraine-aid-we-need-an-inspector-general/

WATIMES -Dems stop Reps push for Oversight https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/dec/8/house-democrats-block-republicans-push-oversight-u/

Bloomberg - opinion piece - Appoint a Watchdog for Ukraine Aid. More transparency over how billions are being spent would protect US taxpayers and sustain political support for the war. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-10-31/ukraine-aid-from-us-needs-a-watchdog

Poltico - Pentagon vs. Congress tension builds over monitoring billions in Ukraine aid - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/02/congress-pentagon-ukraine-aid-oversight-00036463

Let me attempt to clarify.

Your comments about whether there is support for oversight are inconsistent to the point of appearing contradictory.

I don't see anyone here protesting oversight, but there is consensus that there are practical and political limitations that must be considered. There is also urgency in funding Ukraine's defense. Does that mean we have blinders on, or that we think we should just take bank bags full of cash and scatter them over major urban areas and hope for the best? Not really, no.

It also seems likely that discussions would take place between Ukrainian leaders and anyone providing aid regarding what that aid can and cannot be spent on. That kind of discussion hardly makes a sexy headline, so we might not hear of it, but it seems likely to occur before any really big checks are written. The way you speak suggests that you believe that it does not. 

I mentioned that reviewing various sources of information can be beneficial, and in turn you accuse me of being unable to doubt or question anything. Puzzling, but not really my problem. 

Opti, nobody has attacked you, but we don't have context or tone of voice or body language or much else to work with on a forum. Your writings here suggest that you are interested in scaling back support for Ukraine and forcing negotiations, which can only really be called negotiations if Ukraine concedes something to russia. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but those aren't popular sentiments here, and they raise eyebrows.

Not sure what else I can say. I hope the link and the Reddit suggestions I provided are of value to someone. 

Finally, before this gets out of hand, it might be a good time to revisit the request aircooled made when he started this thread:

--please note - no intent on any political content - please do not add any --

Opti said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

a trillion couldnt crush the Taliban, probably not going to be enough to crush Russia once and for all.

Ukraine has shown a lot more will to fight than the Afghan "army", so purely from an ROI (on the world stage), a trillion in Ukraine makes more sense than just burning a trillion in Afghanistan.  Not that we should send them 1 trillion just because.

I also have issues with the oversight (or lack thereof) of what we have sent, in terms of cash payments and weapons.  Are they using it to buy mortars from Italy and IFVs from Finland?  Sure, probably are.  Are they doing some backroom deals and buying blackmarket weapons that originated in Iran?  Seems like they might be...  Is a large chunk of that money just disappearing without anything useful coming from it?  Probably.  I have heard reports that some of our weapons systems are ending up in Africa after being sent to Ukraine.  I have a huge problem with that.  

Demanding that Ukraine go to the negotiation table before they get anything else from us seems a bit extreme.  After all, their sovereignty has been attacked and they have suffered huge losses.  From their perspective, I understand the thought to not take anything less than a complete withdrawal from Russian troops.  Perhaps Zelensky's rhetoric is so extreme ("let us in NATO now" etc) so that they have that to negotiate with if Russia will come to the table.  

Opti said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

I dont think Ukraine taking a deal is a direct cause of those things happening. They are going to happen pretty much anyway this ends. China is already helping fund Russia. Russia is going to try and undermine Ukraine no matter what, even if they are pushed out completely. China is already using Russia to occupy everyone's interest. Pretty much anyway this ends, we have all that to look forward to.

Pretty much no one honors their agreements and negotiates in good faith, including the US, only as long as it serves their purpose. Its called geopolitics.

So you're saying "Accept the genocide of Ukrainians".

Sorry Opti, but I'm a human being with morals and a conscience. 

Isn't Russia's position currently that Ukraine is a breakaway Russian province being ruled by Nazi rebels, therefore Russia will not negotiate with the UKR government because they lack legitimacy?

Alternatively, I thought I read that Russia will negotiate with the nazis after they lay down their weapons.

It seems that Russia has no intent to negotiate peace with the legitimate government of UKR. Therefore UKR has no choice but to continue the fight.

In reply to jmabarone :

I agree with you. Ukraine is more willing to fight that the Afghan army, and minimizing Russia is good for us, so I think the we are seeing a better ROI on the money. Also doesnt mean I want to send a trillion over there, why isnt the EU sending more. All of these things can be true at once

completely agree with the 2nd paragraph

I said they need to open negotiations, Im not saying they have to make a deal right this second, but it is good to START negotiates from a position of power, which Ukraine currently has. I also understand their thought that they should take no less than all of Ukraine back, Id probably feel the same way if I was Ukrainian, unfortunately they cant do it on their own. They are relying on like 40 countries so they can defend their country, eventually support will dry up (its already split) and then they will be forced to the negotiation table. Let me make this clear, I pray that Ukraine returns to its 2014 borders, but I do not a realistic path for that to happen.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

This is an disingenuous jump from what Im saying. Please show me where I say accept genocide of Ukrainians.

Im also a human being and a realist. I conduct my life based on my morals and conscience, but I understand that in reality governments rarely act with morals or a conscience, which means these things rarely have happy endings. There is a difference in saying that Ukaine will probably end up giving up territory, and I want Ukraine to give up territory and have people be slaughtered. If you cant understand the difference, I cant help you.

Aid by GDP

US is 9th in rankings of aid given when going by GDP.

Yeah, the EU as a whole may not be contributing to the effort as much as the US, but some individual members are contributing a lot more.  It's not like they are a single entity.  It is also enlightening that a lot of the countries contributing more of their GDP are the ones that are more likely to be directly affected by a resurgent Russian Empire.

In reply to eastsideTim :

I understand they arent a single entity or even everyone that would be effected by an emboldened Russia, but the EU is a guick and easy reference to most of the close countries and the power structure that would really not want to see Russia take Ukraine. Also that graph is out of date with the Omnibus we almost doubled the amount of aid weve given. Still wouldnt make the top, probably put is in the top 5, without doing the math.

Quick update:  The first one is of particular interest (expanded below).  This is a prime example of the point / counterpoint of warfare.  The Ukrainians seem to have created an effective defense against the Russian drones. 

There is a bit of a counter point to this though.  It looks like they used NASAMS to shoot a lot of them down, which shoots AMRAAM missles (an active homing, originally, air to air missile), which cost.... around a million a shot (I suspect the drones are lot cheaper).  Some can also shoot sidewinders (IR homing), which I am not sure would track a drone, but those are still around $400,000 a shot. 

The Ukrainians do have far more affordable options available (Gephard tanks etc) so I would not expect this to be a cost trade off assumption in all cases.  You also really should factor in what damage the drone might do also (e.g power infrastructure)

• Ukrainian air defenses reportedly intercepted all drones from two consecutive nights of Russian drone strike attacks against Ukraine on December 31 ­– January 2.
• Russia’s air and missile campaign against Ukraine is likely not generating the Kremlin’s desired information effects among Russia’s nationalists.
• A devastating Ukrainian HIMARS strike on a Russian base in Makiivka, Donetsk Oblast, on December 31 generated significant criticism of Russian military leadership in the Russian information space.
• The Russian MoD is likely attempting to deflect the blame for its poor operational security (OPSEC) onto Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) officials and mobilized personnel.
• Russian sources responded lukewarmly to Russian President Vladmir Putin’s staged New Year’s address, while Russian milbloggers lauded Wagner Group financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin’s appearances on the frontlines over the New Year’s holidays.
• Russian forces continued to carry out unsuccessful attempts to improve their tactical positions northwest of Svatove after reportedly conducting a tactical pause.
• The Ukrainian Center for Defense Strategies reported that Russian forces are continuing to deploy personnel on the Kharkiv-Siversk frontline.
• Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces are redeploying along the eastern axis while struggling to maintain their pace of artillery strikes.
• Russian forces attempted limited offensive operations in Zaporizhia Oblast and continued efforts to reinforce defensive structures.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to extend financial promises made to Russian soldiers as Ukrainian officials continue to warn of an impending wave of Russian mobilization.

Ukrainian air defenses reportedly intercepted all drones from two consecutive nights of Russian drone strike attacks against Ukraine on December 31 – January 2. Ukraine’s air force reported on January 1 that Ukrainian air defense forces shot down all 45 Russian Iranian-made Shahed-136 drones that Russia fired at Ukraine on New Year's Eve.[1] Ukrainian Air Force Spokesman Yuriy Ignat stated on January 1 that Ukrainian forces used the US-provided NASAMS air defense system to shoot down these drones.[2] The Ukrainian General Staff reported on January 2 that Ukrainian forces intercepted all 39 Shahed-136 drones launched against Ukraine between the night of January 1 and 2.[3] The Ukrainian General Staff again reported on January 2 that Ukrainian forces shot down all 27 Shahed-136 drones that Russian forces launched against Ukraine on January 2, though it is unclear if this figure includes the previously reported intercepts from the night between January 1 and 2.[4] Deputy Head of the Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Vadym Skibitsky reiterated on January 1 that Russian forces only have enough cruise missiles to conduct two to three more large-scale missile attacks against Ukraine.[5]

 Estonia is giving nearly half their GDP meant for their entire military. Considering they've been invaded what, 3 times by the USSR it's not surprising.

Opti said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

This is an disingenuous jump from what Im saying. Please show me where I say accept genocide of Ukrainians.

Im also a human being and a realist. I conduct my life based on my morals and conscience, but I understand that in reality governments rarely act with morals or a conscience, which means these things rarely have happy endings. There is a difference in saying that Ukaine will probably end up giving up territory, and I want Ukraine to give up territory and have people be slaughtered. If you cant understand the difference, I cant help you.

You claim to be a realist, but as we've shown there really is no negotiating with Russia on any term that isn't their own- and the comments you've been making have been implying that Ukraine isn't willing to even attempting to do so, which is a blatant lie. Your comment I replied to also has implications that they should give in because of possible Chinese influence. All of that is accepting Russia's attempt at Ukranian genocide and shrugging it away- Your "Realist" opinion should understand that after Georgia, Crimea and then Dontesk it'll just be a question of what's next.

Here's the thing- I learned early in my life about the Rwandan Genocide and how nobody did anything until it was too late. I learned that we've had a genocide basically every 2-3 years since, and that many have been unopposed in much of the world. I feel that as a human being, this can be a major moment where people finally begin to openly say we're not gonna stand for this anymore, and actually mean it- and If you're gonna be a "realist" about that, I can't help you.

Zelensky said in September he would only negotiate with Russias next leader.

Now Russia is saying it will not discuss the 4 regions they annexed and Zelensky will not start unless Russia leaves completely. Sounds like negotiations wont happen.

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/08/zelensky-peace-talks-putin-war-criminals

"The White House has asked Zelensky to express willingness to negotiate not because it thinks Russia is prepared for constructive talks, but because of the message Ukraine's position sends to countries concerned that the war will drag on indefinitely, the Washington Post reports"

This is exactly what im talking about. Public support wanes quickly, and Ukraine cant do it on their own.

If you go back and read. my comment was in response to a comment that mentioned a deal would cause certain things to happen between China and Russia in the event of a deal. I simply said those things will happen wether a deal is made or not and that all governments negotiate in bad faith. None of them where genocide.