How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Harry Bosch]

I hear we're sending Ukraine cluster munitions now, like those we used to make so much of Southeast Asia unlivable for decades. Russia was, of course, never holding back in the first place. How history repeats itself.

Someone may "win" this war eventually, but no one will come out ahead.

Agreed. This war sucks. Cluster munitions are a crime. However, the sad fact here is that the west is not keeping up with the arms needed to eject the invaders. There needs to be some soul searching into why we are falling behind in generating enough arms to stop this war.

 

[Politesse]

I hear we're sending Ukraine cluster munitions now, like those we used to make so much of Southeast Asia unlivable for decades. Russia was, of course, never holding back in the first place. How history repeats itself.

Someone may "win" this war eventually, but no one will come out ahead.

Agreed. This war sucks. Cluster munitions are a crime. However, the sad fact here is that the west is not keeping up with the arms needed to eject the invaders. There needs to be some soul searching into why we are falling behind in generating enough arms to stop this war.

The US has spent more than a 100 billion dollars on this garland war, nearly 2% of our national budget on a war we're officially "not fighting" in; how much more do you expect or demand?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I hear we're sending Ukraine cluster munitions now, like those we used to make so much of Southeast Asia unlivable for decades. Russia was, of course, never holding back in the first place. How history repeats itself.

Someone may "win" this war eventually, but no one will come out ahead.

Agreed. This war sucks. Cluster munitions are a crime. However, the sad fact here is that the west is not keeping up with the arms needed to eject the invaders. There needs to be some soul searching into why we are falling behind in generating enough arms to stop this war.

The US has spent more than a 100 billion dollars on this garland war, nearly 2% of our national budget on a war we're officially "not fighting" in; how much more do you expect or demand?

I think that we're going to need enough arms to stop the current war and enough to prevent future war. It's that simple. Asking invaders to return home nicely isn't going to work.

 

[Politesse]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

You're equating the Ukranian war with the US war in Afghanistan? I think that the only way to prevent future war is to find ways to stop larger countries from bulling and invading smaller countries. Until we figure out how to do this, there is going to be war and civilians suffering. I'm open to suggestions....

 

[Politesse]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

You're equating the Ukranian war with the US war in Afghanistan? I think that the only way to prevent future war is to find ways to stop larger countries from bulling and invading smaller countries. Until we figure out how to do this, there is going to be war and civilians suffering. I'm open to suggestions....

But we are a large country fighting a proxy war in a smaller country. This isn't a novel situation, it's been the status quo since 1953. I don't have a solution, but I won't pretend the problem is something other than it is.

 

[Copernicus]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

It's fair for you to ask these questions, because the last thing we need or want is a shooting war with Russia. However, we are committed to defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion. So it's also fair to ask you--what would you do now? Simply withdraw and watch the slaughter from afar? Let's assume that we are committed to supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself without committing US or NATO troops, but at tremendous cost to US taxpayers. What is your alternative proposal?

 

[Politesse]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

It's fair for you to ask these questions, because the last thing we need or want is a shooting war with Russia. However, we are committed to defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion. So it's also fair to ask you--what would you do now? Simply withdraw and watch the slaughter from afar? Let's assume that we are committed to supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself without committing US or NATO troops, but at tremendous cost to US taxpayers. What is your alternative proposal?

I wish I had one, Copernicus. Though I suppose if I had, no one would listen to me anyway.

 

[Copernicus]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

It's fair for you to ask these questions, because the last thing we need or want is a shooting war with Russia. However, we are committed to defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion. So it's also fair to ask you--what would you do now? Simply withdraw and watch the slaughter from afar? Let's assume that we are committed to supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself without committing US or NATO troops, but at tremendous cost to US taxpayers. What is your alternative proposal?

I wish I had one, Copernicus. Though I suppose if I had, no one would listen to me anyway.

I appreciate that, because I don't have an alternative either. I think that the consequences for us of just walking away would be far worse, because I don't think that Putin or his successors will just be satisfied with occupying and dominating Ukraine and Belarus. Meanwhile, the more serious danger to all of us is rapidly increasing global warming, and the solution to the war in Ukraine is much easier to solve and much less urgent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ukraine could have more battle tanks than Russia for the first time ever, new data suggests

A compilation of data from various sources suggests Ukraine currently has roughly 1,500 active tanks compared with around 1,400 for Russia, Bloomberg reported.

Russia began the war with 3,417 tanks available. At the same time, Ukraine had 987, according to The Military Balance for 2023, an annual report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank which looks at military equipment inventories.

While Ukraine's tank fleet has continued to grow, Russia's has been severely depleted.

That's major progress if not an outright battlefield victory, if in fact the numbers suggested are correct. It probably has more to do with shitty Russian performance and training than anything else.

Also, US popular support for sending ATACMS, a weapon which would bring into range every Russian position in Ukraine, and much of Crimea, including Sevastopol, has gone from 46% in May to 65% today. So I think Ukraine will receive this weapon system in the near future.

 

[Jayjay]

Also, US popular support for sending ATACMS, a weapon which would bring into range every Russian position in Ukraine, and much of Crimea, including Sevastopol, has gone from 46% in May to 65% today. So I think Ukraine will receive this weapon system in the near future.

I suspect there are reasons why ATACMS has not been sent yet. Maybe US military knows that it wouldn't be that effective, and are weighing the limited gain against the risk of Russia and China seeing it in action and being able to develop counter-measures.

"Popular support" is often not a good basis to make military decisions.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

It's fair for you to ask these questions, because the last thing we need or want is a shooting war with Russia. However, we are committed to defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion. So it's also fair to ask you--what would you do now? Simply withdraw and watch the slaughter from afar? Let's assume that we are committed to supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself without committing US or NATO troops, but at tremendous cost to US taxpayers. What is your alternative proposal?

I wish I had one, Copernicus. Though I suppose if I had, no one would listen to me anyway.

I appreciate that, because I don't have an alternative either. I think that the consequences for us of just walking away would be far worse, because I don't think that Putin or his successors will just be satisfied with occupying and dominating Ukraine and Belarus. Meanwhile, the more serious danger to all of us is rapidly increasing global warming, and the solution to the war in Ukraine is much easier to solve and much less urgent.

Agreed. If we retreat now to a fortress America, the world is fucked. There would be a genocide in Ukraine. Then Russia, buoyed by their conquest, will move on to other weaker nations. The Baltics, Poland, southern Asian nations. They are probably pissed at Finland. They are mad at Turkey now. China will start gobbling up other nations. What the fuck. If borders don't matter any more, maybe the US should just conquer Cuba. Love the cigars. I really like Belize. Lets take it. We could save money and just disband the UN.

 

[Politesse]

It is possible to both decry the violence and poverty of war while still understanding its necessity in some circumstances. You don't have to be either a brainless patriot or a clueless pacifist. And it's legitimate to critique the US for engaging in war by sending aging cluster bombs to Ukraine no matter what their reason for doing so might be.

 

[Ford]

Shall we land troops, then? Dig some trenches? Bomb Moscow? Make it yet another twenty year war we can't leave without "abandoning our allies" amd cannot win because modern wars are never won, just suspended?

It's fair for you to ask these questions, because the last thing we need or want is a shooting war with Russia. However, we are committed to defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion. So it's also fair to ask you--what would you do now? Simply withdraw and watch the slaughter from afar? Let's assume that we are committed to supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend itself without committing US or NATO troops, but at tremendous cost to US taxpayers. What is your alternative proposal?

I wish I had one, Copernicus. Though I suppose if I had, no one would listen to me anyway.

I appreciate that, because I don't have an alternative either. I think that the consequences for us of just walking away would be far worse, because I don't think that Putin or his successors will just be satisfied with occupying and dominating Ukraine and Belarus. Meanwhile, the more serious danger to all of us is rapidly increasing global warming, and the solution to the war in Ukraine is much easier to solve and much less urgent.

Agreed. If we retreat now to a fortress America, the world is fucked. There would be a genocide in Ukraine. Then Russia, buoyed by their conquest, will move on to other weaker nations. The Baltics, Poland, southern Asian nations. They are probably pissed at Finland. They are mad at Turkey now. China will start gobbling up other nations. What the fuck. If borders don't matter any more, maybe the US should just conquer Cuba. Love the cigars. I really like Belize. Lets take it. We could save money and just disband the UN.

I know you were joking about that last bit, but I know someone who is serious. We got into a discussion at work over some issues, and his position is that if a stronger country takes some land, then that's okay. Israel slowly taking land from the Palestinians? He's okay with that (he's Jewish) because might makes right. The ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans? Justified because "they weren't strong enough to hold onto their land." I haven't talked to him about Ukraine (I've avoided getting into discussions about non-work things in general) but I'm certain he'd be fine with Russia annexing it - and any other territory - by force. He is not alone. Not by a long shot.

And yes, the last thing we want is a shooting war with Russia. But if we don't stand with Ukraine, it will come to that, because Russia won't stop at Ukraine. I'd really rather not get into a shooting war with China, but they've already taken Hong Kong, and they will attempt to take Taiwan. It's just a question of when.

The war in Ukraine is unfortunately the "when" for Russia. If we did nothing, the "when" in Taiwan would be moved up to "soon."

 

[bilby]

I'd really rather not get into a shooting war with China, but they've already taken Hong Kong,

They didn't take Hong Kong; It was given back to them when the lease ran out.

I'm inclined to believe that the people of HK should have had a say, and likely they would have voted either to extend the lease, or to become an independent nation, if they had been allowed the choice.

But it wasn't worth a war between two nuclear armed nations. And the people of HK have been dominated by one empire or another since basically forever; They might have preferred British tyranny over Chinese tyranny, but the essence of tyranny is that the man in the street doesn't get asked his opinion, much less have it taken into account by the folks in charge of empires.

 

[bilby]

I know you were joking about that last bit, but I know someone who is serious. We got into a discussion at work over some issues, and his position is that if a stronger country takes some land, then that's okay.

It's always been a very popular idea. The Germans took it a tad too far in the early '40s, and so it fell out of favour for a few decades; But it's never been a particularly unusual or uncommon view, and is one of the bits of history that we seem doomed to repeat endlessly, as we once again fail to learn from it.

 

[Jayjay]

I'd really rather not get into a shooting war with China, but they've already taken Hong Kong,

They didn't take Hong Kong; It was given back to them when the lease ran out.

I don't think he was referring to 1997, but 2020, when Xi signed the national security law and effectively ended Hong Kong's semi-autonomous status.

 

[Ford]

I'd really rather not get into a shooting war with China, but they've already taken Hong Kong,

They didn't take Hong Kong; It was given back to them when the lease ran out.

I'm inclined to believe that the people of HK should have had a say, and likely they would have voted either to extend the lease, or to become an independent nation, if they had been allowed the choice.

The people of Hong Kong did have a say. They said (with votes, then protests) "hey, we want to continue being what we are." Then Beijing said "that's nice, now here's the government we're installing and we'll imprison you motherfuckers if you ever speak up again."

(edit: What Jayjay said)

 

[bilby]

I'd really rather not get into a shooting war with China, but they've already taken Hong Kong,

They didn't take Hong Kong; It was given back to them when the lease ran out.

I'm inclined to believe that the people of HK should have had a say, and likely they would have voted either to extend the lease, or to become an independent nation, if they had been allowed the choice.

The people of Hong Kong did have a say. They said (with votes, then protests) "hey, we want to continue being what we are." Then Beijing said "that's nice, now here's the government we're installing and we'll imprison you motherfuckers if you ever speak up again."

(edit: What Jayjay said)

They might have preferred British tyranny over Chinese tyranny, but the essence of tyranny is that the man in the street doesn't get asked his opinion, much less have it taken into account by the folks in charge of empires.

 

[Ford]

I'd really rather not get into a shooting war with China, but they've already taken Hong Kong,

They didn't take Hong Kong; It was given back to them when the lease ran out.

I'm inclined to believe that the people of HK should have had a say, and likely they would have voted either to extend the lease, or to become an independent nation, if they had been allowed the choice.

The people of Hong Kong did have a say. They said (with votes, then protests) "hey, we want to continue being what we are." Then Beijing said "that's nice, now here's the government we're installing and we'll imprison you motherfuckers if you ever speak up again."

(edit: What Jayjay said)

They might have preferred British tyranny over Chinese tyranny, but the essence of tyranny is that the man in the street doesn't get asked his opinion, much less have it taken into account by the folks in charge of empires.

I wouldn't call what the British were doing at the end of the lease to be "tyranny." Hong Kong was a vestige of the empire, but had about as much to fear from "the crown" as Canada.