It now looks like we will be throwing tens (maybe hundreds) of billions into Ukraine. What is the plan here? Simply out spend and out last Russia? Give Putin those eastern areas and rebuild the rest of the country? Haven’t seen any sort of strategy outlined.
Ukraine….what’s our endgame here
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
I agree. I’m honestly not sure what the outcome is. I think we’re in a shadow war and we’re being forced to spend the same amount (or extra) as if we actually had troops there.
Agreed, the benefit of not spending American blood on the ground of another foreign nation is worth the extra if we "have" to be involved.
what end game plan? hell we dont even have a gsme plan. kind of the same as for our inflation, and the pandemic.
One has to wonder if the US and NATO would have shown this commitment level to Ukraine nine months ago would there even be a war.
The US and Nato treat the maxim, 'Prevention is worth a pound of cure/treatment.' about like the insurance and medicare industry do.
We also need to remember that we got burned trying to fund prevention in Afghanistan Just a few months prior. We didn’t know for sure how motivated the Ukrainians would be. They were unexpectedly gallant and that has made them a good horse to back.
I recall you bringing the Afghans up when we were talking about why we weren’t arming the Ukrainians. I also remember a certain poster stating “the Ukrainians are nothing like the Afghans. They will fight to the end”.
Putin didn’t worry about Ukraine when Trump was in office working to deny military aid, getting ready to get out of NATO, and undermining Zelensky. Biden and Jan 6 changed the equation for Putin. To be fair, Putin looked at Ukraine joining NATO the way the US looked at the USSR putting missiles in Cuba. He couldn’t allow a hostile NATO neighbor. Biden might have avoided a invasion by working for a Ukrainian neutrality guarantee. Too late now.
We’re beginning to see a shift in dialogue regarding the outcome here. From the defeat of Russia to conceding Russia eastern territories in exchange for peace. It also appears the once United coalition against Putin is beginning to crack.
A shift in dialogue from Kissinger who is about 110 years old and doesn’t have his head on straight.
NYTs is also now running this narrative. I tend to pay attention when the NYTs starts floating new narratives. Especially where a Democratic Admin is involved.
NY Times shifts pro-war narrative - Asia Times
The New York Times has a job to do – and it has done that job spectacularly well over the past few months. The Times is a leader – and in the
asiatimes.com
Last edited:
Where are all of those republicans who whines about appeasement (and the Sudetenland) a few months ago?NYTs is also now running this narrative. I tend to pay attention when the NYTs starts floating new narratives. Especially where a Democratic Admin is involved.
NY Times shifts pro-war narrative - Asia Times
The New York Times has a job to do – and it has done that job spectacularly well over the past few months. The Times is a leader – and in the
Not sure how this is a partisan issue other than those who try to make it one
. Neither side wanted appeasement. Not sure either side has officially changed their position. I do know the NYTs isn’t changing their position by accident. Public support for the war is down. Ukraine isn’t doing as well as it was say a month ago. Negative stories are starting to come out about Zelenskyy. Again….it’s a coordinated pivot. We’re about to see the US and NATO start to put pressure on Zelenskyy imo. I would expect Biden to announce a proposal where Putin gets to keep certain territory in exchange for peace. The key is how to give up territory and not look weak and/or defeated .
until/unless Vlad declares a full mobilization the war is still very much in doubt for Russia. They’re taking some territory in the east but their attrition in doing so is stunning. Upwards of 80 vehicles lost in a single river crossing attempt for example. They won’t be able to hold it unless the mobilize the country
I don’t think this is coordinated by a Dem admin though… it’s been Republicans that have been against the war fund backing And Republicans who visited with Zelensky. Also Kissinger ( a Republican administration cabinetperson ) suggesting appeasement. Also, Republicans complaining about the resultant inflation effects of the war (for their own gain in coming elections).Not sure how this is a partisan issue other than those who try to make it one
Appeasement helps them because they can say that they fixed all these issues when they got into office. It doesn’t make Biden look good. It doesn’t achieve his goals with Russia.
Personally I would say that we should support Ukraine as long as Russia is in pre 2014 Ukranian territory. Yes we’re hurting. Yes Ukraine is hurtibf… but make no mistake, Russia is hurting too. Their foreign ministers are resigning in protest of Putin. Cracks are showing. Now is not the time to give in. If Putin wants Ukrainian territory he better be willing to risk his own neck (on a rope) to buy it.
Last edited:
That could change immediately if they were able to capture that point in the railway which would cut their supply line. You know, the one Russia is approaching from three directions.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t say that the NYT’s pivot helps the pubs, but it does align with what their desire has been shifting towards since the first days only the conflict.
You don’t believe the largest liberal media voice in the country changing its opinion to align with the Pubs helps their position? Interesting.
I don't think the NYT is the largest liberal voice in the country. It has a left lean typically sure, but it's not CNBC it's certainly not the contrapositive to Fox News.
The point is, that it’s not so left leaning that it wont ever publish opinions or stories that align with Republican interests rather than Democratic ones.
The NYTs hasn’t endorsed a Republican for President in over 60 years. They are a lot more left leaning than you care to admit.
Quit trying to prove a point that is false because you had a knee jerk reaction to the original post. Watching you work a point like this is tiring, boring, pointless, long, and drawn out.
Like the WSJ, the NYT separates its editorial from its reporting. A good example of this separation was the WSJ reporting staff’s public letter of complaint about the factual misrepresentations in the paper’s editorials. Reporting has accuracy standards.
Tucker Carlson’s defense is that his show is not a ”news” show and he is not a journalist, so he doesn’t have to meet the journalism standards that reputable reporting does.
Tucker Carlson’s defense is that his show is not a ”news” show and he is not a journalist, so he doesn’t have to meet the journalism standards that reputable reporting does.
Last edited:
What point is false? That the NYT isn't extremely left leaning to the point that they're Fox-News-Esque? That's not false. Also not false is the presumption that they can, on occasion, publish articles that don't strictly agree with a broader Democratic agenda, but instead agree with a Republican one.
If you just want to cry about any post I make, please feel free to block me.
For about 5% of the annual US defense spending we support a democracy, slap a despot, and degrade a primary enemy that justifies that enormous defense spending, while not losing a single US serviceman. As bonuses we buttress the world order we helped build in which wars of conquest are seriously frowned upon (thus discouraging future significant conflicts), galvanize NATO, and prove the efficacy of American weapon exports, intelligence, and western style training.
Ignoring the impacts on Ukrainian people and other consequences: to appease Putin would increase the risk of a broader conflict later that may require full engagement, which would be a disaster on many levels. The geopolitics of getting directly involved are seriously messy, but thus far this is a huge strategic win for the USA. With all sympathy and respect to Ukraine; if one could not have sustained peace, this is probably the next best outcome for our strategic aims
Someone explain the positives of appeasement? The weapons we designed and purchased to degrade the military of Russia wouldn't be used to degrade the military of Russia? Are we pretending to be worried about our military budget? Do we think Putin would grab a few more oblasts and then be totally cool?
Sarcasm aside, I really don't see how appeasement is a shorty term or long term strategic win for the USA.
Ignoring the impacts on Ukrainian people and other consequences: to appease Putin would increase the risk of a broader conflict later that may require full engagement, which would be a disaster on many levels. The geopolitics of getting directly involved are seriously messy, but thus far this is a huge strategic win for the USA. With all sympathy and respect to Ukraine; if one could not have sustained peace, this is probably the next best outcome for our strategic aims
Someone explain the positives of appeasement? The weapons we designed and purchased to degrade the military of Russia wouldn't be used to degrade the military of Russia? Are we pretending to be worried about our military budget? Do we think Putin would grab a few more oblasts and then be totally cool?
Sarcasm aside, I really don't see how appeasement is a shorty term or long term strategic win for the USA.
Here's what I got from the opinion piece: it's not a strategic win, but confronting Putin is too scary because he has nukes.
Obviously diplomacy is preferred, but Russia's position seems to be Ukraine isn't a real country and Russia is entitled to whatever Ukrainian territory it wants; Ukraine's position seems to be that Russia is a bully and all invaders should be killed. Diplomacy would be difficult until something changes, so it boils down to abandoning Ukraine to appease Putin.
1) Appeasement never works; and
2) What's the point of having a giant military budget if we are too afraid to even use it by proxy?
I get being afraid of Putin's nukes, but if we back down because we are afraid then why the hell wouldn't he just keep waiving them around anytime he wants more? And history suggests he will want more (as will anyone else who understands the new policy of appeasement).
Again, I don't see the strategic win. Help me see the other side.
The other side is the world needs peace in Europe. We are at a stalemate. Russia occupies eastern Ukraine. Ukraine likely can’t displace the Russian forces and Russia can’t maintain a further invasion. So here we are. What is the end game? What is a solution where both sides can save face . A solution which leads to peace. A solution which gets energy flowing. A solution which opens up the trade of grain so people don’t starve. A solution which scales back the nuclear threat. A solution which saves lives.
I don’t claim to have any answers. I do know an extended military conflict will largely destroy both the Ukraine and Russia. It will do serious damage to the rest of the world including the US. I’ve purposely used the word “solution” and not “appeasement”. Regardless of the wording, we need to find a peaceful solution.
I don’t claim to have any answers. I do know an extended military conflict will largely destroy both the Ukraine and Russia. It will do serious damage to the rest of the world including the US. I’ve purposely used the word “solution” and not “appeasement”. Regardless of the wording, we need to find a peaceful solution.
I think we need to have strategic discussions with India and Egypt. They hold a lot of power right now. India is buying cheaper Russian oil, and its being routed through the Suez. If Russia’s invasion is causing Egypt to starve due to lack of grain, Egypt needs to close the Suez to Russian oil traffic. Make them go all the way around Africa.
Something certainly needs to be done. We are on the cusp of a world wide humanitarian crisis due to lack of food. As I said above, I don’t have the answers but I do know our current path isn’t sustainable. The world needs peace.
Why fertiliser prices are soaring
The world relies on agrichemicals to feed itself. Rising costs will play havoc with harvests
The word needed peace in 1939 too And 1940, and 41…and so on and so forth. But peace at what cost? The cost isn’t likely to simply be a couple of regions in Eastern Ukraine. And even once ‘peace’ exists I’m not sure things would go back to the way they were antebellum.Something certainly needs to be done. We are on the cusp of a world wide humanitarian crisis due to lack of food. As I said above, I don’t have the answers but I do know our current path isn’t sustainable. The world needs peace.
Why fertiliser prices are soaring
The world relies on agrichemicals to feed itself. Rising costs will play havoc with harvestswww.economist.com
Similar threads
