"How Long Can The Western Consensus On The Ukraine War Hold?" Topic

The goal would be an independent Ukraine. To stop Russian aggression that, if Ukraine falls, will likely include other nations. To stand by the promise that the US made to Ukraine that if they gave up their nukes that they could depend on our support. That the US believes in self-determination. After years of Russian domination I think it is clear that Ukraine does not want to go back to that.

Grattan54 + 1

SBminisguy…
Now I understand that your position is that of a pacifist… what are you doing declaiming on a wargames forum? … talking about war is only for those who have lived through one… you're dodging the issue… Ukraine is defending itself against a horrific and criminal invasion, and the invaders aren't willing to give in on anything… shouldn't you rather focus on criticizing those barbarians?…

Armand

The goal would be an independent Ukraine.

I agree. And we have that. Ukraine survives, for now, but the longer this war of attrition goes on the less likely that is.

SBminisguy…
Now I understand that your position is that of a pacifist

SIGH…no, once again you misunderstand…read what I wrote, not what you WANT to read into it. So childish -- you've decided I'm pro-Russian or whatever, and so you spin EVERYTHING to fit that bias and don't actually take the time to read and understand what I said.

Here's what I said:

real war is to be avoided if possible -- waged if needed, and waged to win an actual defined goal and resourced to win? That we don't risk our young people's lives needlessly?

Do you get that? War is a last resort, but when you do have to fight define victory and then commit the resources to win that victory. If you need to back an aggressor off to get a peace deal, then act that way. If you need to kill them all, then kill them all as fast as you can to end it.

For example, the goal of the Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait and break Saddam's war machine. That's what we were doing until all the sob stories of the "Highway of Death" created misplaced compassion or pressure to be "compassionate" by Bush '41 when Iraqi forces were retreating from Kuwait, and he called off the air attacks. This decision led to MILLIONS of preventable deaths later, since Saddam escaped with the core of his loyal Guard units that later did the butchery that kept him in power.

This Mattis quote resonates with me: "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you #### with me, I'll kill you all."

I've told you what I think repeatedly -- I feel that Ukranian NATIONAL SURVIVAL is victory. It gives them a chance, with assistance, to lay the foundation for long term defense, reconstruction of their society, economy and military.

And my FEAR is that we don't know the true state of affairs, that we don't know how solid or shaky Ukraine actually is, that they could COLLAPSE and hand Putin a victory and a new puppet State in Europe like Byelorus.

On the other hand, as I understand it, you and Sho Boki seem to have some rather absolutist purist positions on the Ukraine War. For you, anything short of total Ukraine reunification is failure, and you're willing to call anyone with a different idea "Pro-Putin" and other stupid insults and just as much say I'm weak for wanting an end to this war.

BUT -- how far are YOU willing to go?
WHAT will it take for total victory?
WHAT price in lives and resources?
AND are you willing to risk nuclear war to get there?

Anyways, have a good weekend, we likely agree on far more things than otherwise.

Versailles, not Munich: Rethinking Ukraine's Postwar Security

link

America's Failure to Win Wars—Inside the Trinity

link

Armand

Book Review | The Russian Understanding of War: Blurring the Lines Between War and Peace

link

Armand

So now Zelensku says Ukraine will commit to an unconditional cease-fire if Russia does as well.

Zelensky said it all the time. Putin refused a ceasefire again and laughed at Trump's feeble attempts to talk peace.
The question is, when will Trump do anything for peace? So far, he's only supported war and killing. And threatens to continue to do so.

Zelensky said it all the time.

Nah, Zelensky has always demanded conditions.

BUT -- I just saw a Newsweek article claiming Zelensky says there can never be a deal as long as Russian troops are on Ukrainian soil. Is this older news than the current news?

If it's new news, which Zelensky are we talking to today?

Is he on meds or something? Does he get the dosage right and Rational Zelensky talks to Trump about a deal, then his meds wear off or he snorts some coke with his buddies Macron and Starmer and then the Danish PM blows smoke up his posterior about standing strong (like Denmark can do anything to help) and we get Belligerent Zelensky beating his chest and killing peace deals?

No, it's Putin who keeps demanding preconditions and refusing peace. Only once has he made a mistake and started talking about a ceasefire without preconditions. But when Zelensky caught him by the tail and immediately agreed, he immediately hid in the bushes and refused to show his face.
Zelensky, on the other hand, keeps offering a 30-day ceasefire.

By the way, Putin has set the elimination of the root causes of the war as a precondition for peace, i.e. fulfilling Putin's ultimatum.
Trump still explains that if he had been President at the time, he would have fulfilled the conditions and the war would have been avoided.
Is he still willing to meet these conditions? There are some signs of this.

These are Putin's demands for peace.
(From the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry.)
…..

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

The United States of America shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the Russian Federation.

The United States of America shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the Russian Federation.

The United States of America shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories to their national territories. The United States of America shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The United States of America shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The United States of America shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

…….

Will Trump fulfill these demands to achieve peace?

Dunno, I'm not Trump, but:

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

That's just Byelorus and Ukraine. OK. Nothing stopping EUROPE from doing a direct defense deal with Ukraine, eh?

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Probably need to negotiate this so US support presence in Ukraine can be established, which could include how many troops, types of troops and weapons, etc. Stuff we did during the Cold War in what was called a "Status of Forces Agreement" – SOFA.

The United States of America shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the Russian Federation.

Sounds like another SOFA, nothing new, something we again did during the Cold War where both sides defined at some level where the would and would not operate strategic systems.

The United States of America shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the Russian Federation.

Probably not. Unless Denmark's PM's temper tantrum results in the US leaving NATO, the US would maintain a deterrent missile presence in Europe. I would guess this a throw-away "wish list" item they know will not be agreed to, but that they can pretend they are "giving on" in negotiations.

The United States of America shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories to their national territories. The United States of America shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

Probably not -- see prior answer. We'll maintain deterrent forces to the presence level our allies want. I would guess this a throw-away "wish list" item they know will not be agreed to, but that they can pretend they are "giving on" in negotiations.

The United States of America shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The United States of America shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

OK, we don't do that anyway. US nuclear weapons are always under US operational and physical control. However, I think Nuclear Defense drills would be appropriate to conduct -- how to shelter, how to clean up, etc. So again, another throw-away "wish list" item they know will not be agreed to, but that they can pretend they are "giving on" in negotiations.

So… Putin Consequently, it shows that it is not interested in peace at all… it continues to attack with all its means despite the "truce" it had announced, and nothing has changed here… except that Ukraine is increasingly defenseless…

Armand

NATO 2027: EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP WILL BE KEY TO DETERRENCE AGAINST RUSSIA

PDF link

Armand

NATO 2027: EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP WILL BE KEY TO DETERRENCE AGAINST RUSSIA

Really? I hope so, but so far they content to complain, not lead.

We all hope so…

Armand

The Air Force's Secret New Fighter Jet Will Be Unstoppable—But Its Design Is a Clever Deception

link

Armand

As I said on another thread …

Putin can claim victory as he wanted to keep Ukraine out of NATO. However, his invasion pushed Sweden and Finland into NATO.

Putin's plan/hope all along was to replace Zilinsky with a puppet. Like Stalin, etc. did after WWII.

He will do all he can to keep his war going. He care little for his high losses in this 3 year + war. E.g. Russian losses 900,000 and counting. Lost 1/2 his armor, and 1/3 of the Black Sea Fleet.

In 3 years of war, the Russians have not taken total control of the Donbas. Only occupy about 20% of Ukraine. All those losses and all this time only makes the Russians look, as one US GEN Ret. described … "marginal".

The US Army is too light to win

link

Armand