This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

[h-hawk]

Interesting opinion piece...

Zelensky is also in a far more precarious position than his current popularity suggests. He has promised his people total victory, and polls say that close to 90 per cent of voters believe him. Failing to deliver would be politically fatal. So would signing any peace deal that involves a loss of Ukrainian land. That will, almost inevitably, put Zelensky and his western backers on a collision course. If Putin advances, then announces a ceasefire and calls for talks, the Nato alliance will immediately split between those members who want justice and those who want peace. That won’t, in itself, stop Ukraine from fighting on. But it’s Nato which has its hand on the throttle of materiel, and a potential forever war will test the resolve even of Ukraine’s staunchest allies. Even the optimistic scenario of forcing the Russians back to pre-invasion borders would still leave Ukraine dismembered and Putin probably still in power. Tragically, there is almost no realistic outcome for this war that will not end in the Ukrainians crying ‘Betrayal!’. But if the alternative would be fighting World War 3, that may end up being the least bad option.

One year on: how will the Ukraine war end?

In early October 2021 President Joe Biden, the CIA director William Burns and other top members of the US’s national security team gathered in the Oval Office to hear a disturbing briefing from US military chief General Mark Milley. ‘Extraordinary detailed’ intelligence gathered by western spy...

www.spectator.co.uk

The good news is at least several of the Western powers agree with Ukraine that Crimea belongs to them, and that they will support Ukraine until the end. Of course, talk can be cheap. But in this case, defeat may mean Russia on the border with NATO members or worse. Because of that, I don't think the West will give in.

Russia has to make this war last in order to have any chance to "win", Ukraine wants it to end this year. I am hoping that once Ukraine makes it move, the end will come relatively quickly for Russia. Maybe Hitler will finally be right almost 100 years later, “We have only to kick in the door,” Hitler said, “and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

The good news is at least several of the Western powers agree with Ukraine that Crimea belongs to them, and that they will support Ukraine until the end. Of course, talk can be cheap. But in this case, defeat may mean Russia on the border with NATO members or worse. Because of that, I don't think the West will give in.

Russia has to make this war last in order to have any chance to "win", Ukraine wants it to end this year. I am hoping that once Ukraine makes it move, the end will come relatively quickly for Russia. Maybe Hitler will finally be right almost 100 years later, “We have only to kick in the door,” Hitler said, “and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”

I think Crimea is where the NATO members will be pretty split. Eastern members for it...western against.

There's going to be a point where Ukraine and NATO interests split.

 

[Joes Place]

Interesting opinion piece...

Zelensky is also in a far more precarious position than his current popularity suggests. He has promised his people total victory, and polls say that close to 90 per cent of voters believe him. Failing to deliver would be politically fatal. So would signing any peace deal that involves a loss of Ukrainian land. That will, almost inevitably, put Zelensky and his western backers on a collision course. If Putin advances, then announces a ceasefire and calls for talks, the Nato alliance will immediately split between those members who want justice and those who want peace. That won’t, in itself, stop Ukraine from fighting on. But it’s Nato which has its hand on the throttle of materiel, and a potential forever war will test the resolve even of Ukraine’s staunchest allies. Even the optimistic scenario of forcing the Russians back to pre-invasion borders would still leave Ukraine dismembered and Putin probably still in power. Tragically, there is almost no realistic outcome for this war that will not end in the Ukrainians crying ‘Betrayal!’. But if the alternative would be fighting World War 3, that may end up being the least bad option.

One year on: how will the Ukraine war end?

In early October 2021 President Joe Biden, the CIA director William Burns and other top members of the US’s national security team gathered in the Oval Office to hear a disturbing briefing from US military chief General Mark Milley. ‘Extraordinary detailed’ intelligence gathered by western spy...

www.spectator.co.uk

Zelensky understands that allowing Russia to retain ANY Ukranian lands (including Crimea) simply kicks the can down the road so that Russia can "try again later" after they've re-armed.

And he is correct on this, which is why his stance is what it is. The rest of the Western world should likewise acknowledge this, and ramp up worse sanctions on Russia and arm Ukraine with anything and everything it needs to accomplish this. Inclusive of weapons with >200-300 mile range to attack Crimea and Russian bases directly.

 

[kc78]

It's why I think it might make sense for them to hit up the south hard and cut off Crimea from the rest of Ukraine and then maybe make the move towards Crimea leaving the Donbas for later. If they can push Russia out of the Donbas first then there's going to be a ton of a push for them to negotiate and let Russia keep Crimea, but if they can swing a surprise attack that way and take Crimea (Which will be difficult) then that changes.

 

[noleclone2]

I think Crimea is where the NATO members will be pretty split. Eastern members for it...western against.

There's going to be a point where Ukraine and NATO interests split.

I think NATO is in for the long hall. The US/NATO is destroying militarily and soon more so economically, their biggest enemy these last 80 years for less than 5% of their annual military budget and zero troop loss...

I think it is a defining moment because there is no going back to trusting Russia ever again. The more they refuse to give up and relent, the further weakened they get. They want them off the world power stage and more aligned to a power of their GDP which is smaller than Canada's.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Zelensky understands that allowing Russia to retain ANY Ukranian lands (including Crimea) simply kicks the can down the road so that Russia can "try again later" after they've re-armed.

And he is correct on this, which is why his stance is what it is. The rest of the Western world should likewise acknowledge this, and ramp up worse sanctions on Russia and arm Ukraine with anything and everything it needs to accomplish this. Inclusive of weapons with >200-300 mile range to attack Crimea and Russian bases directly.

Zelensky's position is totally understandable.

Unfortunately there will probably be a split in the western alliance on the subject...

I agree with the author...sooner or later there will be a point where "Western" and Ukrainian interests diverge.

 

[torbee]

View embedded media

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I think NATO is in for the long hall. The US/NATO is destroying militarily and soon more so economically, their biggest enemy these last 80 years for less than 5% of their annual military budget and zero troop loss...

I think it is a defining moment because there is no going back to trusting Russia ever again. They want them off the world power stage and more aligned to a power of their GDP which is smaller than Canada's.

We'll see.....I could see Crimea being a "red line" in the conflict but I totally understand Ukraine's ambition to take it back.

 

[kc78]

Zelensky's position is totally understandable.

Unfortunately there will probably be a split in the western alliance on the subject...

I agree with the author...sooner or later there will be a point where "Western" and Ukrainian interests diverge.

I think the only way that happens anytime in the next year or so is if it becomes obvious that Ukraine cannot win back their land without NATO intervention at which point they're told to cut their losses OR if the US changes it's stance and decides to stop backing Ukraine. The latter is the more dangerous of the two.

 

[Tenacious E]

I think Crimea is where the NATO members will be pretty split. Eastern members for it...western against.

There's going to be a point where Ukraine and NATO interests split.

You probably know more than me but it would seem it would be in NATO's interest to get Crimea back. Once that is done they can blow up the Kerch bridge, and get Sevastopol back. Seems like it would neuter an axis of force projection that Russian enjoyed after 2014.

 

[torbee]

Smug til their graves are dug.

View embedded media

These dumbasses are totally unaware that the ONLY REASON the Soviet Union was able to effectively take on Nazi Germany was because of American weaponry and economic assistance.

World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945​

Home | News & Events | World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945
351
Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

You probably know more than me but it would seem it would be in NATO's interest to get Crimea back. Once that is done they can blow up the Kerch bridge, and get Sevastopol back. Seems like it would neuter an axis of force projection that Russian enjoyed after 2014.

I don't know more than you or anybody else here. Just spit balling.

My reasoning is the even though we're supporting Ukraine very well...we're not giving them everything. We're staying away from stuff (aircraft/long range missiles) that could really carry the fight to the Russians.

Which means the western alliance still takes the risk of escalation seriously.

Crimea is a little different animal than the Donetsk and Luhansk. Crimea historically has outsized importance for the Russians. I think they really think of it as "Russian"....whether that's justified or not.

Minus going into Russia proper I think Ukraine going into Crimea would up the "escalation" meter quite a bit. I just think a lot of the "Western" alliance doesn't want that.

On a side note...If Ukraine is on the verge of taking Crimea maybe Western support doesn't matter because it probably means a total Russian collapse.

 

[Joes Place]

Crimea is a little different animal than the Donetsk and Luhansk. Crimea historically has outsized importance for the Russians. I think they really think of it as "Russian"....whether that's justified or not.

Why do we care what they "think"?

Letting them off the hook, so they can just "try again" in another decade doesn't solve the problem here.
Until the oligarchs and rich in Russia feel the pain, nothing changes. And, unfortunately, greed and capitalism are the perfect combination to keep propping them up.

 

[kc78]

You probably know more than me but it would seem it would be in NATO's interest to get Crimea back. Once that is done they can blow up the Kerch bridge, and get Sevastopol back. Seems like it would neuter an axis of force projection that Russian enjoyed after 2014.

Well, Russia has used Sevastopol for a long time. They entered into a 20 year lease agreement with Ukraine in 1997. In 2010 the lease was extended to 2042. Russia was paying about 97 million annually to lease it.

That's going to be the major sticking point on Crimea. There's no way Ukraine would enter into an agreement with Russia on that base again and Russia isn't going to want to let that go. So either Russia loses it's most important port or Ukraine loses Crimea. Russia can take a black eye on giving back the Donbas, etc... if forced. I do think they'll go all in on protecting Crimea. So while I want to see Crimea back in Ukraine's hands. I don't know how we do that without major escalation.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Why do we care what they "think"?

Letting them off the hook, so they can just "try again" in another decade doesn't solve the problem here.
Until the oligarchs and rich in Russia feel the pain, nothing changes. And, unfortunately, greed and capitalism are the perfect combination to keep propping them up.

The “Western” alliance cares because they don’t want escalation.

That’s pretty obvious from the limits on military aid. If “we” didn’t care Ukraine would have been getting Western aircraft/long range missiles and hundreds of modern MBT’s.

We’ve put limits on the military hardware we’ve been sending…and we’ve limited the amounts.

If “we” didn’t care NATO would have been bombing the crap out of the Russians.

Why do you think that is?

 

[h-hawk]

You probably know more than me but it would seem it would be in NATO's interest to get Crimea back. Once that is done they can blow up the Kerch bridge, and get Sevastopol back. Seems like it would neuter an axis of force projection that Russian enjoyed after 2014.

If (when) Ukraine attacks the bridge again I would expect the offensive to start. Don't have any idea of the strategy but it looks like a drive down to Mariupol would cut Crimea off from mainland Russia along with the destruction of the bridge.
I imagine desperate, fleeing Russian troopships being sunk by anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon. (I may be one sick puppy...)

 

[h-hawk]

Well, Russia has used Sevastopol for a long time. They entered into a 20 year lease agreement with Ukraine in 1997. In 2010 the lease was extended to 2042. Russia was paying about 97 million annually to lease it.

That's going to be the major sticking point on Crimea. There's no way Ukraine would enter into an agreement with Russia on that base again and Russia isn't going to want to let that go. So either Russia loses it's most important port or Ukraine loses Crimea. Russia can take a black eye on giving back the Donbas, etc... if forced. I do think they'll go all in on protecting Crimea. So while I want to see Crimea back in Ukraine's hands. I don't know how we do that without major escalation.

I may be crazy but I see a new lease for the base and a guarantee that the bridge will be left alone as a possible cornerstone of an agreement. Ukraine can isolate and surround the naval base while Russia will be happy still having their traditional port on the Black Sea.

 

[Tenacious E]

I may be crazy but I see a new lease for the base and a guarantee that the bridge will be left alone as a possible cornerstone of an agreement. Ukraine can isolate and surround the naval base while Russia will be happy still having their traditional port on the Black Sea.

So the status quo ante as of February 2022?

 

[torbee]

So the status quo ante as of February 2022?

No. Just the base lease. Russian troops out of the rest of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk.

 

[noleclone2]

These dumbasses are totally unaware that the ONLY REASON the Soviet Union was able to effectively take on Nazi Germany was because of American weaponry and economic assistance.

World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945​

Home | News & Events | World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945
351
Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

How da fuq we send them all that ontop of everything we produced for our side of combat. Freakin nuts how we geared up and produced things that war.

 

[Aardvark86]

View embedded media

So you're saying there are genetic tendencies among media-types?

 

[TC Nole OX]

 

[Joes Place]

The “Western” alliance cares because they don’t want escalation.

Escalation is the only language Putin and Russia speak in.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Escalation is the only language Putin and Russia speak in.

True.

 

[h-hawk]

No. Just the base lease. Russian troops out of the rest of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk.

This-the Sevastapol naval base is just the tip of Crimea.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Escalation is the only language Putin and Russia speak in.

It's the only card they have to keep the wolves at bay.

If they didn't have that card NATO troops would be in the Kremlin by now....

It is what it is...

 

[h-hawk]

How da fuq we send them all that ontop of everything we produced for our side of combat. Freakin nuts how we geared up and produced things that war.

There is a very good book filled with facts about how the Allies overwhelmed the Axis with their resources.
(The author had another book with all the research he had done for this book which was fairly expensive and meant for other authors and researchers.) If anyone is into the nuts and bolts of supplies being the major factor in the Allied victory, Brute Force is for you.

"Ellis's argument, backed with statistics, is that the Allied victory in WW II was the inevitable consequence of enormous advantages in manpower and materiel, but that the deployment of this overwhelming force was so maladroit that the war dragged on longer than necessary. In his lucid summaries of the major campaigns (Blitzkreig, Battle of Britain, Eastern Front, Battle of the Atlantic, Bomber Offensive, Mediterranean, Northwest Europe, Pacific) the author is highly critical of the conduct of Allied operations, charging British General Bernard Montgomery, for instance, for overcautious tactics, and RAF Marshall Arthur Harris with "insane insistence" on area bombing. Ellis ( Cassino: The Hollow Victory ) contends that the U.S. Navy ignored the speediest and most cost-effective way to defeat Japan, choosing to squander resources in the Central Pacific instead of strangling the country economically by severing its access to the raw-material deposits in the East Indies. The book's pragmatic interpretation is convincing, and fundamentally changes the received wisdom about WW II. Copyright 1990"

Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics... book by John Ellis

 

[h-hawk]

It's the only card they have to keep the wolves at bay.

If they didn't have that card NATO troops would be in the Kremlin by now....

It is what it is...

I don't see NATO as being anywhere near that aggressive, as the past 60 years seems to have shown. They have done their job, for the most part, of keeping the Soviet Union and now Russia contained and western Europe safe.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I don't see NATO as being anywhere near that aggressive, as the past 60 years seems to have shown. They have done their job, for the most part, of keeping the Soviet Union and now Russia contained and western Europe safe.

You're probably right.

NATO would have destroyed the Russian air force and provided close air support for the Ukrainians though.....kicked the Russians back to their borders.

 

[h-hawk]

 

[h-hawk]

You're probably right.

NATO would have destroyed the Russian air force and provided close air support for the Ukrainians though.....kicked the Russians back to their borders.

(Sorry if I missed your point.) Yeah, I wish Russia was not a nuclear power so they could be smashed and taught a lesson. But a part of me wonders if the world needs a boogie man to keep the rest of it united. Too many Outer Limits episodes as a child

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

(Sorry if I missed your point.) Yeah, I wish Russia was not a nuclear power so they could be smashed and taught a lesson. But a part of me wonders if the world needs a boogie man to keep the rest of it united. Too many Outer Limits episodes as a child

Solid point.

Read a article a while back about our current political divide.

One of the things that was brought up was the end of the cold war. Common enemy that kept the political divide to more of a minimum. Not sure I totally agree but it has some merit.

 

[h-hawk]

Just a factoid.

 

[h-hawk]

 

[h-hawk]

Well done propaganda IMO. Poor suckers...

 

[h-hawk]

 

[h-hawk]

 

[torbee]

How da fuq we send them all that ontop of everything we produced for our side of combat. Freakin nuts how we geared up and produced things that war.

13,000 tanks to the Soviet Union in WWII

And now the little bitches are crying about a couple hundred going to Ukraine.

They are the world's bitch.

 

[h-hawk]

Spies?

 

[h-hawk]