How Does the War in Ukraine End?

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Threads that mention Trump inevitably decline into orange man bad/ trump is the saviour of America.

Love him or loathe him most people agree he is a divisive figure.

I think the OP is just trying to stay out of those waters and actually discuss the war , not US politics.

So we only discuss the realities we agree with?

Great, another good look.

Did anyone say that?

There are plenty of Trump threads. Go play in the swamp if you want to.

Some of us would actually like to discuss the issues without it becoming another US political threat.

No, I get it. This thread is the "reality I want to see" thread. The parameters address the outcome the OP wishes to see by trying to exclude variables that are highly likely.

Real balanced.🥱

Clearly you don't get it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a OP defining the parameters of the thread. It's what we are meant to do.

He isnt stating his view is fact and no dissent is allowed. He is stating assumptions that he wants to discuss.

So am I!!

Then do your own thread

Simple solution.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: YourFaceAgain
Ah, the voice of innocence.

Yeah, nothing you stated after this was news to me. I said myself in the OP that the comparison was simplistic. You could write a book and still not have it be exactly apples to apples. And as you demonstrated, the "huge" 1,000-word OP was already too long for some people. I didn't want to get any more detailed because it would be a waste of time.

As for the war, even the MSM are reporting that Ukraine has run out of weapons and ammunition and the man power is virtually nil as for the last few months the Ukrainians have been roaming the country finding anyone, male or female, and forcing the to "serve".

Back on topic, thank you. I take it this means you don't think the West's current "strategy" is gonna work either? So how do you see it ending?

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
**Fair warning: I don’t usually call mods but if you come in here crying about Trump I’m gonna report you over to them for trying to derail the thread. This has nothing to do with Trump. In fact, for the sake of argument, this discussion assumes the stalled US aid package to Ukraine passes soon and Biden wins the 2024 election. So take your Trump obsession elsewhere, this is meant to be an adult discussion.**

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the aid package is nuked and Trump wins the 2024 election. You see, you're wanting to discuss one side of the coin whilst commanding those who respond to this thread to ignore that other side.

Question is relevant to your OP, sorry.

Yeah, no. Maybe you should have gone on to read the rest of it.

The entire point of the OP was to convey to the reader that what we've been doing, you know, in the past, isn't working and if we keep doing that in the future it's not going to enable Ukraine to win. After establishing that, I ask the question how the war ends if we keep going with the current strategy.

So no, hypotheticals where Trump wins and completely changes our strategy, or if Biden and the other current leaders change our strategy, are not relevant to the question of "if we keep doing what we've been doing, how does the war in Ukraine end?"

Reading the OP before you reply: a lost art.

I read your junk.

You're all in for funding and support. I truly get it now, it's just another sycophantic thread in support of more death, destruction and escalation. Of course you would want to steer the discussion into "how can we do more".

Gotcha.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Threads that mention Trump inevitably decline into orange man bad/ trump is the saviour of America.

Love him or loathe him most people agree he is a divisive figure.

I think the OP is just trying to stay out of those waters and actually discuss the war , not US politics.

So we only discuss the realities we agree with?

Great, another good look.

Did anyone say that?

There are plenty of Trump threads. Go play in the swamp if you want to.

Some of us would actually like to discuss the issues without it becoming another US political threat.

No, I get it. This thread is the "reality I want to see" thread. The parameters address the outcome the OP wishes to see by trying to exclude variables that are highly likely.

Real balanced.🥱

Clearly you don't get it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a OP defining the parameters of the thread. It's what we are meant to do.

He isnt stating his view is fact and no dissent is allowed. He is stating assumptions that he wants to discuss.

So am I!!

Then do your own thread

Simple solution.

I have to create a redundant thread because you can't handle opposing views?

Come on now...

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Threads that mention Trump inevitably decline into orange man bad/ trump is the saviour of America.

Love him or loathe him most people agree he is a divisive figure.

I think the OP is just trying to stay out of those waters and actually discuss the war , not US politics.

So we only discuss the realities we agree with?

Great, another good look.

Did anyone say that?

There are plenty of Trump threads. Go play in the swamp if you want to.

Some of us would actually like to discuss the issues without it becoming another US political threat.

No, I get it. This thread is the "reality I want to see" thread. The parameters address the outcome the OP wishes to see by trying to exclude variables that are highly likely.

Real balanced.🥱

Clearly you don't get it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a OP defining the parameters of the thread. It's what we are meant to do.

He isnt stating his view is fact and no dissent is allowed. He is stating assumptions that he wants to discuss.

So am I!!

Then do your own thread

Simple solution.

I have to create a redundant thread because you can't handle opposing views?

Come on now...

You have now wasted both my time and yours enough.

If you want to discuss the OP please do so.

If you want to keep going on about how you dont like the premise of the OP I will happily just ignore you.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Threads that mention Trump inevitably decline into orange man bad/ trump is the saviour of America.

Love him or loathe him most people agree he is a divisive figure.

I think the OP is just trying to stay out of those waters and actually discuss the war , not US politics.

So we only discuss the realities we agree with?

Great, another good look.

Did anyone say that?

There are plenty of Trump threads. Go play in the swamp if you want to.

Some of us would actually like to discuss the issues without it becoming another US political threat.

No, I get it. This thread is the "reality I want to see" thread. The parameters address the outcome the OP wishes to see by trying to exclude variables that are highly likely.

Real balanced.🥱

Clearly you don't get it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a OP defining the parameters of the thread. It's what we are meant to do.

He isnt stating his view is fact and no dissent is allowed. He is stating assumptions that he wants to discuss.

So am I!!

Then do your own thread

Simple solution.

I have to create a redundant thread because you can't handle opposing views?

Come on now...

You have now wasted both my time and yours enough.

If you want to discuss the OP please do so.

If you want to keep going on about how you dont like the premise of the OP I will happily just ignore you.

I AM DISCUSSING THE OP. 🤷🏻

Lol, geezus...

There are only two directions in this. Russia takes Ukraine in a long and bloody battle, or NATO gets involved and then the war is over quickly.

In the first scenario, if the Russian people will accept a million Russian casualties, never-ending sanctions with also the war crushing their economy, never-ending attacks on their infrastructure, and 50+ years to rebuild Ukraine I guess they will take Ukraine at some point. Not much of a win though.

In the second scenario, The war ends quickly and then it is up to Putin how far he is willing to take it. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what he does. When this all stalled out past 2 months he realized he was in a world of hurt no matter what.

His only chance at anything would be to say we will leave if we keep Donbas, that is his only chance to save some face and still have a chance of having sanctions lifted.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

a reply to: Boomer1947

We, along with the UK, Ukraine, and Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine's borders as they existed in 1991 in return for Ukraine getting rid of 1,900 or so nuclear weapons and strategic delivery systems. Part of the bargain was that the US and the UK would support Ukraine in resisting what everyone thought would probably be the Russians ignoring that agreement--short of sending US and UK troops into direct military conflict with Russian troops. That's what we're doing now and it's why we've avoided giving Ukraine enough military assistance to threaten Russia on its own turf. We're abiding by the agreement we made back then. That was very much in our self interest and makes it our business.

This is how I see it as well.
And to the OP, this will only end with a loss of face for Mad Vlad with even more loss of life and military equipment, even if Mad Vlad eventually takes control of Ukraine or parts of it. His loses will be huge and will eventually lead to his down fall.

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole


I read your junk.

You're all in for funding and support.

I'm usually hit with emotional (and false) accusations of me being a Putin stooge for questioning the official narrative, and now I've got an emotional (and false) accusation that I'm all in for funding Ukraine. Thanks for the laugh.

My views are much more nuanced than the simplistic, false dichotomies that you think in. The problem here is you've been in a flailing emotional state since you saw the line about Trump and you've been reacting emotionally instead of using the thinking side of your brain.

Let me spell it out for you?

I made the case in the OP that Ukraine cannot win given the current strategy if winning is defined as them regaining all their territory.

I suggested that the only way they'll retake all that land is if NATO gets directly involved to help them do it.

Hint: I'm against that. I think the best thing at this point would be a negotiated settlement that's inevitably gonna include Russia keeping much of the territory they currently hold. If we keep funding Ukraine's effort for another 5 years, that is still gonna be the likely outcome, so they might as well do it sooner rather than later. And I definitely do not support a bottomless pit of funding until the Western and Ukrainian leaders recognize that reality.

Now, are you gonna keep trolling, leave, or contribute something intelligent and maybe even bordering on accurate? Your choice.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You don't think there's a third path where Russia just keeps what they've already taken and keeps going around Western sanctions?

Whenever someone points out to a Western leader that the sanctions haven't been effective, they defend themselves by saying Russia has ways to cheat the sanctions.

Then they turn around and out the other side of their mouth act like long-term sanctions are gonna change Russia's behavior.

Those two things don't jive. I don't think Putin gives a # about the sanctions, especially since they appear to have been carefully crafted to avoid hurting him directly for some reason.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Trolls do what trolls do. They troll.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: Xtrozero

You don't think there's a third path where Russia just keeps what they've already taken and keeps going around Western sanctions?

Whenever someone points out to a Western leader that the sanctions haven't been effective, they defend themselves by saying Russia has ways to cheat the sanctions.

Then they turn around and out the other side of their mouth act like long-term sanctions are gonna change Russia's behavior.

Those two things don't jive. I don't think Putin gives a # about the sanctions, especially since they appear to have been carefully crafted to avoid hurting him directly for some reason.

The sanctions certainly do have an effect on the Russian economy.

What's not clear is the political effect within Russia. Are ordinary russians going to continue to accept declining living standards, we don't really know how secure Putins grip on power really is.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: Xtrozero

You don't think there's a third path where Russia just keeps what they've already taken and keeps going around Western sanctions?

Whenever someone points out to a Western leader that the sanctions haven't been effective, they defend themselves by saying Russia has ways to cheat the sanctions.

Then they turn around and out the other side of their mouth act like long-term sanctions are gonna change Russia's behavior.

Those two things don't jive. I don't think Putin gives a # about the sanctions, especially since they appear to have been carefully crafted to avoid hurting him directly for some reason.

The sanctions certainly do have an effect on the Russian economy.

What's not clear is the political effect within Russia. Are ordinary russians going to continue to accept declining living standards, we don't really know how secure Putins grip on power really is.

I get that, I just think that point is losing its potency. In 2022 I heard plenty of "experts" saying this was gonna topple Putin. Some even put a timeline on it of a few months or before the end of the year.

The end of the year came and went. Then we heard the same thing in 2023. The end of that year came and went.

It's now two years in.

What people are forgetting is that dictators don't have to worry about the whims of the people as much as leaders who are voted into office. If our leaders piss off the citizens enough, we can stick it to them just by voting.

There is a much longer road that dictators have to go down. Their citizens have to get fed up enough that they're willing to risk death. There have been people in Russia protesting and getting arrested and killed, but I haven't seen it on a vast enough scale that I think Putin is worried about it.

The most likely man to topple him already tried it and his effort barely amounted to a mouse fart. He's dead now. I think it's gonna be at least several years before anyone works up the nerve to try it again.

Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg says it is inevitable Ukraine will join NATO....so it`s not anymore if , but when .

Nato chief says it is inevitable Ukraine will join defence alliance


How`s that play with the " ukraine will loose" card ?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think the problem with this war is that the US and Europe can't make up their minds as to whether actually help Ukraine to drive Russians away from its territory or not. They want Ukraine to win but are afraid of Russia. So they are helping Ukraine without actually helping it. And the worst thing you can do in the time of crisis is sitting on the fence.

I don't know how it will end. I don't want to speculate but I have bad feelings about it. This s**t looks bleak and it's likely to escalate. There's a lot of hostility on the Russian side. It's never been too friendly but I don't recall so much vitriol. The government propaganda addressed to the Russian public (not the Western one) seems to be trying to accustom and desensitize an average Russian to the vision of a global war.

Russia's objectives in Ukraine involve the total ruin of this country, I'm afraid. Not just taking some land but installing a puppet government there, demilitarizing it and neutering it economically too, i.e., plunging it into poverty and then taking it whole.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: Xtrozero

You don't think there's a third path where Russia just keeps what they've already taken and keeps going around Western sanctions?

Whenever someone points out to a Western leader that the sanctions haven't been effective, they defend themselves by saying Russia has ways to cheat the sanctions.

Then they turn around and out the other side of their mouth act like long-term sanctions are gonna change Russia's behavior.

Those two things don't jive. I don't think Putin gives a # about the sanctions, especially since they appear to have been carefully crafted to avoid hurting him directly for some reason.

It's not just the sanctions. EU has moved completely away from Russian energy. Everything in Russia is Chinese under new brands and that lasts until we scantion China... China is already pulling back a good deal. If Russia stops now Ukraine isn't and there is no tradeoff. To be honest I think this will end up in using NATO air assets then Russia is in trouble of losing it all including Crimea.

If that happens I suspect Putin is killed and the "new" leader says it was all his fault, we want to be nice now so let us join the world stage again.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain
I think you are correct in what you think will happen. The only problem is "NATO" or should I say USA and UK trying to get out from under the rock of their making and agreeing with Putin to accept the area he has taken and leave the rest of Ukraine to the Ukrainians.
What the "war hawks" in the governments and on ATS don't want to acknowledge is that Putin has never wanted the whole of Ukraine and neither Poland, Germany, France, the UK or any other place. But keep rolling with the total BS of "we can beat the Russians if we send more military aid" or "if we put boots on the ground" or "lets send in NATO". The Ukraine debacle (I say debacle because that is what it was and what it is) is now over bar the shouting and no amount of gung ho attitude will alter the fact.

PS. Ukraine joining NATO is like me becoming the next king of England. It aint gonna happen and it never should even be mooted because that would be like putting the fox to look after the hens.

How Does the War in Ukraine End?

With tens of thousands of dead, cities in ruin, civilian lives destroyed, and Russia gaining all the land it now holds. Russia is going to steal the land and win.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF TUCKER CARLSON: A man has just been arrested in Moscow, accused of being paid by Ukrainian intelligence to plant an explosive device on Tucker Carlson's vehicle and assassinate the prominent American journalist while he was there to interview Putin.
twitter.com...
Simon was a White House journalist.
Do you think this speeds things up one way or the other?