Biden IN surprise visit to Kyiv, Ukraine! pearl harbour?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: putnam6
So respectfully map it out, what happens next?

After being there for an extended time the Ukrainians won't quit, they'd prefer to be dead than live under Russian rule and this goes for my friends who are from Donbas and are of Russian ancestry. They don't see themselves as anything other than Ukrainian.

That being said I am starting to think this is going to be a long war. Russia is still in Ukraine smashing **** and killing people and the only way you get that to stop completely is attack them on their home territory until they capitulate which is very unlikely to happen.

So short of a regime change, which could happen but even then you need someone who wants the war to end, you get a prolonged conflict. In the end many civilians will be dead and there may very well need to be a buffer zone between an EU/NATO-integrated Ukraine and Russia. But at some point it will end, one side will tire of war and make overtures.

Appreciate your thoughts, thanks.

So stock up on lead underwear and iodine tablets

...or does it atleast stay conventional?

Percentage-wise likelihood of going hot in the next 3 months?

and does China ally with Russia?

and I'll try not to bother you anymore...

PS

I didn't get the double side order of snarky is there any way I can get it to go?

a reply to: putnam6

There's no money to be made in nuclear war or even an all-out war like WWII.

This will be a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: putnam6

There's no money to be made in nuclear war or even an all-out war like WWII.

This will be a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

At some point...somewhere...There Will Be Nukes.

Unlike Leftist protests...there are no 'Mostly Peaceful Global Conflicts'.

I'd feel much better about what is about to go down...if we had 'Captain Kirk' at the helm of our Ship of State...instead of 'Captain Crunch'.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Agreed! "We come in peace. Set phasers on kill."

originally posted by: IAMTAT
They're now feeling they no longer need to pretend to be.

I think they are far too economically dependent on the US so it would be a very tough call for them to forgo the export money they make sending us cheap crap.

originally posted by: putnam6
So stock up on lead underwear and iodine tablets

...or does it atleast stay conventional?

I think I addressed that, Putin is too rich to get himself nuked. Plus he's also a giant pussy.

Percentage-wise likelihood of going hot in the next 3 months?

I think it stays contained in Ukraine just like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan stayed there. Eventually they'll get tired of having their teeth kicked in and leave.

and does China ally with Russia?

I think they already have. They don't want a liberal democracy-dominated world and Russia is a natural ally. Without them China is basically on their own and they need to run the calculus if it's better to go all in with a loser or try to keep relations with the West at a level that still permits enough trade to keep their population supported.

Did anyone else catch that Biden in his speech promised to fund Ukrainian pension's?

I mean social security will stop paying full benefits in about a decade and now we are funding another countries pensions...

Well THANK GOD no more mean tweets right...

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Did anyone else catch that Biden in his speech promised to fund Ukrainian pension's?

What is the point of doing that?
It makes no sense.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Did anyone else catch that Biden in his speech promised to fund Ukrainian pension's?

What is the point of doing that?
It makes no sense.

Obviously for votes.

Duh.

🤣

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's money going right into their elite pockets, this is the first time cold hard cash has been mentioned... before all we were talking about was "aid" in the form of weapons and support.

The Ukrainian people will never see this fantasy pension... Ukraine is not a strategic interest to the United States, and it is not a NATO member.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: putnam6

There's no money to be made in nuclear war or even an all-out war like WWII.

This will be a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

Most of these "so-called" experts seem to agree with you DB and AM

Russia will likely absorb another 100,000 troops being lost and will continue to fight, Multi-year war multi-billions spent and in the end, we will still have to negotiate a chitty little treaty, that one or the other will dispute in a few months and it will re-ignite hostilities

www.csis.org...

After suffering another hundred thousand or more casualties and feeling the internal strains of an unjust and ill-conceived war, Russia could be driven by Ukrainian grit and Western firepower and battlefield intelligence to slump its way to a table at which it agrees to leave the lands it has pillaged, and the populations it has occupied, violated, and slaughtered.

NATO and other friends of Ukraine should plan for a multiyear conflict and develop sustainable plans for keeping Ukraine’s forces and population resilient. For refugees, those plans look like work programs—in particular support for Ukraine’s women to work remotely in their Ukrainian jobs whenever possible—education for children, and mental health support. A soldier unburdened with worries about their spouse and kids is a soldier better able to focus on the fight. For those fighting, efforts to create sustainable rotations on and off the battlefield for training and rest are a basic start. Fostering the belief that the fight is winnable with public symbols of support—from flags waving over Washington, to the United Kingdom hosting Eurovision on behalf of Ukraine, to NAFO Fellas, to, yes, tanks and HIMARS—will keep determination high.


Eliot A. Cohen
How Might This End?
Eliot Cohen
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy

The conventional wisdom says “negotiations,” of course. That is the point that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, and numerous civilian officials in the U.S. government have often made.

In some sense this is true: a bunch of tired men sitting around a table conclude most wars—but that can be a surrender negotiation (which is not much of a negotiation), or a ceasefire arrangement (which merely creates an interlude until the next round of fighting) or a grand peace-fest like Vienna 1815. “Negotiation,” in other words, covers a multitude of events.

In this case, it is most likely that what will not happen is the kind of negotiation Milley and others have in mind—a genuine compromise that brings about peace. What is more likely is that one side or the other collapses in exhaustion, and that the result is a ceasefire for now, which is the predicate for another conflict.
Conceivably, if the West continues to be dilatory in arming Ukraine, it could be Kyiv that crawls wearily to the table. But it is rather more likely the Russians will be the ones to do so, if (as laid out above) outside support is robust, the Ukrainians maintain their immense capacity to adapt and continue the fight, Russia sees collapses in its fighting force, and the West maintains a united front rejecting nuclear threats.

But it depends on us.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Its either money laundering on an epic scale...

Or some cog in the attempt to save globalism.

Other than that I got nothing.

It must of been really important to pay tribute to Ukraine on Presidents day. To give our money away personally along with a private conversation that entails kickback embezzling money.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: putnam6

There's no money to be made in nuclear war or even an all-out war like WWII.

This will be a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

At some point...somewhere...There Will Be Nukes.

Unlike Leftist protests...there are no 'Mostly Peaceful Global Conflicts'.

The Forbes defense expert seems to agree especially in regard to a tactical nuke. What a cluster----.

Here's what is crazy to me hearing approximately 60,000 dead Russian soldiers, 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers, and 20,000 civilians and that was from NOVEMBER 30TH.

Another year double those totals...


nypost.com...

Ukraine has not given regular updates on how many casualties its military has suffered although the European Union head Ursula von der Leyen said that 100,000 soldiers and over 20,000 civilians died during an address on Nov. 30.

www.csis.org...

Putin is relying on nuclear threats for two primary reasons. First, he wants to deter NATO from directly intervening in Ukraine. While the West has gradually increased its military support for Ukraine, Putin’s efforts have arguably had some success preventing direct Western military intervention for fear of escalation. Keeping NATO out of Ukraine will remain a top priority for Putin. But the second reason for Putin’s nuclear threats is even more dangerous and risky. By suggesting a willingness to use nuclear weapons, Putin is also signaling his commitment to winning the war in Ukraine at ever-increasing costs. In the event Russia is facing defeat on the battlefield, Putin may resort to tactical nuclear weapons use in a key strategic region, such as Kherson.

www.forbes.com...

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and now the deputy chair of the country’s security council, has said the U.S. and its NATO allies are too afraid of a “nuclear apocalypse” to directly intervene in Ukraine, even if Moscow used nuclear weapons. It’s not clear how the rest of the world might respond. Putin’s comments have prompted India and China to break their long silence on the war in Ukraine and voice concern. NATO’s secretary general Jens Stoltenberg warned of “severe consequences” for Russia if it uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, echoing private warnings of “catastrophic consequences” from Washington. A retaliatory nuclear strike is possible but would mark a dramatic and dangerous escalation. More likely is a “devastating” NATO response using conventional weapons, said Zbigniew Rau, Poland’s foreign minister.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR
A Russian nuclear attack would be unlikely to take the West completely by surprise, Thornton told Forbes. There would probably be a lot of “background noise” and “signals chatter” between various government and defense agencies that would be picked up by Western listening stations if Russia was planning to go nuclear, he explained. If the West did pick up on signals pointing towards a nuclear attack, Thornton said there would be a “massive increase in the diplomatic pressure put on Russia” to change course. There would also be significant diplomatic pressure on countries like China and India to take a stronger stance against Russia, he added, which could have more sway given Moscow’s reliance on them for energy exports.

BIG NUMBER
5,977. That’s how many nuclear warheads Russia has, according to an estimate by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). Around 1,500 are retired and due to be dismantled, the organization says. Most of the remaining warheads are strategic—larger weapons that can be used over long distances—and the rest are smaller tactical weapons. Russia is believed to have more nuclear weapons than any other country. It is followed by the U.S., which has an estimated 5,428 warheads, according to FAS, and the two together have approximately 90% of all nuclear warheads. Seven other countries are known or widely believed to possess nuclear weapons: China (350), France (290), the U.K. (225), Pakistan (165), India (160), Israel (90) and North Korea (20).

originally posted by: putnam6
www.csis.org...

pfft... a Democrat institution claiming to be bipartisan, what's new?

It's good to know the Obama administration employed so much of their service.

a reply to: putnam6

Obama Foundation Announces Wally Adeyemo as President Obama.org › He is currently a senior advisor at BlackRock and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: IAMTAT

Its either money laundering on an epic scale...

Or some cog in the attempt to save globalism.

Other than that I got nothing.

It's the money on arms current and future contracts and a few connected politicians and business persons getting paid throughout NATO the US, Ukraine, and Russia

originally posted by: sean
It must of been really important to pay tribute to Ukraine on Presidents day. To give our money away personally along with a private conversation that entails kickback embezzling money.

I know, right? President's Day is sacrosanct, we should only be looking for amazing deals on mattresses and maybe a new vehicle on this most special of days.

I'M OUTRAGED, DAMMIT!!! DEY TERK MER HERLIDER!!!!