• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

If there is any lesson to be learned here, it's that skimping out on money for Ukraine would probably be a bad idea. The west didn't support Russia enough in the 1990s, which caused problems down the line. The same mistake shouldn't be repeated with Ukraine and we should give them everything they need to win or at least survive the war, and to rebuild afterwards.

The main problem with support for both Russia and Ukraine at the time was that it was more likely to end up in the pockets of those engaged in organized crime. The Soviet Union always had a huge black market economy, and it continued to thrive after the collapse. Bribery and corruption was endemic from bottom to top. Matters began to improve after the 2000s, but Putin worked closely with corrupt thugs like Prigozhin. Even in 2015-16, the US government had the openly corrupt prosecutor Shokin fired before it would send promised aid. That became the whole basis for the Burisma scandal. So I wouldn't call it a mistake that the US didn't do enough to support Russia. There were really barriers to getting aid where it was needed.

This should have propelled the US and supporting nations to create more stringent checks and balances on aid distribution, rather than deciding to limit or withdraw their support altogether. Such an investment would not only have been beneficial, but also a valuable source of knowledge and experience we could draw upon today.

Just sayin :whistle:

What makes you think that they weren't actually trying to create those checks and balances? You are just jumping to the conclusion that they weren't, because corruption persisted despite their efforts. Systems riddled with corruption don't change overnight, and there is no point in distributing aid that is just going to end up in the pocket of thieves and crooks. When Western countries became frustrated at the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for stealing aid and failing to prosecute organized criminal behavior, it took considerable pressure from the US government just to get that one guy fired. And Shokin is still out there doing what he can to get revenge against Biden for the role he played in getting him fired. Consider the possibility that aid doesn't happen sometimes because there is no reliable way to get it where it is needed. The US can't always control that.
 
The Ukrainians are 50 miles from Mariupol. That's still a long way but nothing Russian inside Ukraine is safe anymore.
 
The Ukrainians are 50 miles from Mariupol. That's still a long way but nothing Russian inside Ukraine is safe anymore.
And Russia has shown they do not have the ability to adequately disperse things, they keep clumping important targets within Ukrainian strike range. Whether this is inherent doctrine problems or an inability to provide adequate security with dispersed locations I don't know and it doesn't really matter.
 
The formatting of this article is completely FUBAR but they're basically saying the cluster munitions provided to Ukraine are being quite effective.

Who thinks it’s a good idea to format an article like this? Anyone? Anywhere? Anytime? :unsure:
Formatting articles as slide shows has been banned 108 countries, but not the USA, Ukraine or Russia, so technically it's not a war crime.
 
The Ukrainians are 50 miles from Mariupol. That's still a long way but nothing Russian inside Ukraine is safe anymore.
They've been 50 miles from Mariupol for over a year now. :rolleyes:

Ukraine is making progress, but at a rate that will not win them their territory back. To me it looks like Ukraine is conserving its reserves, which is the right thing to do, and waiting for more weapons from the west: Abrams tanks in September, F-16 in March, and the usual artillery shells etc. But Russia isn't just going to rest on its laurels and do nothing, they're also ramping up production of artillery shells, tanks, missiles, drones, etc.

Also, whether Ukrainian strategy is successful hinges on casualties. If Ukraine is exchanging people for territory, they'll run out of men before Russia runs out of land. They need to be at least 5-10 times as efficient at eliminating Russian soldiers and equipment than Russia is at doing the same to them, otherwise they'll lose the war of attrition.

I think a possible path to victory that Ukraine might have is if their slow and steady crawl causes Kremlin to implode internally.
 
How do we respond? Congress holds a fucking hearing on UFOs because of some bullshit fake whistleblower that is just regurgitating decades old horseshit from the likes of Robert Bigelow, George Knapp, Lou Elizondo,…. All while demanding to expose our entire intelligence apparatus because the are hiding alien corpses.
 
I think a possible path to victory that Ukraine might have is if their slow and steady crawl causes Kremlin to implode internally.
A year ago I thought that was the least likely outcome. Today I think it is a definite possibility. The two wild cards are China and Russia's economy. If Pootler is able to keep the FSB in his pocket, something that has got to be quite expensive, I don't see an end in sight. Pootler can go to China to secure sufficient funding to continue to pay off the FSB so China figures prominently. When Xi looks in the mirror he sees Putin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD
I think a possible path to victory that Ukraine might have is if their slow and steady crawl causes Kremlin to implode internally.
A year ago I thought that was the least likely outcome.
A year ago the crawl was going in Russia's favor.

Now it's the opposite. When your enemy pushes forward every week, and your own attacks are repelled, it affects the morale of the troops, and tends to make the political top turn on each other trying to find someone to blame. Or make costly mistakes trying to reverse the tide. I don't think it's necessarily a likely scenario even at this point, but it's the only scenario where Ukraine could win quickly (and by quickly I mean before 2025).

Today I think it is a definite possibility. The two wild cards are China and Russia's economy. If Pootler is able to keep the FSB in his pocket, something that has got to be quite expensive, I don't see an end in sight. Pootler can go to China to secure sufficient funding to continue to pay off the FSB so China figures prominently. When Xi looks in the mirror he sees Putin.
Urals oil price is higher than anytime since last November when G7 price cap took effect:


So that's not ideal. But I also don't think Russia will collapse financially, war economies never do. Putin can just print more rubles or appropriate funds from oligarchs or state businesses. What China could do is provide ammunition or components that directly help Russia in the war effort. To some extent this is already happening.
 
So that's not ideal. But I also don't think Russia will collapse financially, war economies never do. Putin can just print more rubles or appropriate funds from oligarchs or state businesses. What China could do is provide ammunition or components that directly help Russia in the war effort. To some extent this is already happening.

It isn't just printing money that will keep him afloat. Half of Russia's oil and gas is now going to India and China, where it can be bartered for lots of things to help it get around the sanctions.
 
So that's not ideal. But I also don't think Russia will collapse financially, war economies never do. Putin can just print more rubles or appropriate funds from oligarchs or state businesses. What China could do is provide ammunition or components that directly help Russia in the war effort. To some extent this is already happening.

It isn't just printing money that will keep him afloat. Half of Russia's oil and gas is now going to India and China, where it can be bartered for lots of things to help it get around the sanctions.

I honestly think that NATO countries need to expand sanctions to include India and China and Iran.
Tom
 
So that's not ideal. But I also don't think Russia will collapse financially, war economies never do. Putin can just print more rubles or appropriate funds from oligarchs or state businesses. What China could do is provide ammunition or components that directly help Russia in the war effort. To some extent this is already happening.

It isn't just printing money that will keep him afloat. Half of Russia's oil and gas is now going to India and China, where it can be bartered for lots of things to help it get around the sanctions.

I honestly think that NATO countries need to expand sanctions to include India and China and Iran.
Tom

AFAIK, the sanctions do cover India and China. They use various methods to get around the sanctions, when necessary. Iran is already under sanctions and was the most sanctioned country in the world before Putin outclassed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD
AFAIK, the sanctions do cover India and China. They use various methods to get around the sanctions, when necessary.

The difference being what, exactly?

They're helping Russians kill Ukrainians. The USA doesn't care enough to sanction them, effectively.
That's the bottom line.

The Iranians are different, obviously. The USA has been attacking them for decades. Obama tried to get the USA to stop doing so, but got torpedoed by Putin's buddies in Washington. So, of course they are helping Putin, and there's little we can do about it(other than cut our oil consumption, fat chance).
Tom
 
So that's not ideal. But I also don't think Russia will collapse financially, war economies never do. Putin can just print more rubles or appropriate funds from oligarchs or state businesses. What China could do is provide ammunition or components that directly help Russia in the war effort. To some extent this is already happening.

It isn't just printing money that will keep him afloat. Half of Russia's oil and gas is now going to India and China, where it can be bartered for lots of things to help it get around the sanctions.

I honestly think that NATO countries need to expand sanctions to include India and China and Iran.
Tom
India will act in its own economic interest. They will not take a principled position on Ukraine. But they are no friend of China's. And for this we should deal with them diplomatically, not place them in the same bad guy category with China. Let the world see China ally itself with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Overall it will not serve them well among nations they hope to court.
 
So that's not ideal. But I also don't think Russia will collapse financially, war economies never do. Putin can just print more rubles or appropriate funds from oligarchs or state businesses. What China could do is provide ammunition or components that directly help Russia in the war effort. To some extent this is already happening.

It isn't just printing money that will keep him afloat. Half of Russia's oil and gas is now going to India and China, where it can be bartered for lots of things to help it get around the sanctions.

I honestly think that NATO countries need to expand sanctions to include India and China and Iran.
Tom
India will act in its own economic interest. They will not take a principled position on Ukraine. But they are no friend of China's. And for this we should deal with them diplomatically, not place them in the same bad guy category with China. Let the world see China ally itself with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Overall it will not serve them well among nations they hope to court.

I think that most countries act in their own economic interest. The US, China, and India all have a strong footprint in the world economy. None of the three countries can actually force either of the other two to adopt their policies and objectives, although I think a lot of Americans imagine that their country has that power. It would devastate the economies of both China and the US if one decided to cut off all trade with the other. China (roughly $18 trillion GDP) has the second largest economy in the world and may well surpass the US economy (roughly $25 trillion) at some point. If China wants to support Russia, there isn't much the US can do about it, but it is also true that it isn't in China's interest to make it politically difficult for the US to ignore its support of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Iran has nothing at all to lose, but China has a lot to lose. India is more vulnerable to economic blackmail, but they aren't lending anything like the military support to Russia that Iran and China are. India gets about a fifth of its military support from Russia, so it has an incentive to look the other way regarding Ukraine.
 
Unlike Russia, Iran, or China, India is a democracy. Sure it has its own problems, but that ought to count for something. We need to get India on our side in the coming conflict between democracies and autocracies, and threatening with crippling sanctions isn't the way to do it.
 
At a cost that would make the West's Pope blush!
It's just a hiccup!
Now they've illegally entered Russia's homeland!
No way. Russians are advancing eastward!
Another illegal seizure of Russian property!
Fools celebrating their own pending demise!

How am I doing, @barbos ? Forgot to mention Nazis... but other than that?
 
Unlike Russia, Iran, or China, India is a democracy. Sure it has its own problems, but that ought to count for something. We need to get India on our side in the coming conflict between democracies and autocracies, and threatening with crippling sanctions isn't the way to do it.

Regardless of whether you think India, Ukraine, or Russia is a democracy or an autocracy. Or whether you think that the conflict is coming or ongoing.

India has chosen a side. It's Putin's side. India is in a war with NATO. They are choosing death and destruction for Ukrainians. I understand that choosing that is in the best interests of India, or at least their elite, but I'm willing to side against them.
Tom
 
Back
Top Bottom