Will Ukraine be Putin’s Afghanistan?

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
I’m pretty sure Putin doesn’t want to get bogged down in a long war in Ukraine. You can never be sure what to believe from Russian government sources, but this is an interesting statement from a Russian foreign ministry spokesperson. It sounds like they’re setting up a narrative to be able to declare victory and then withdraw.

 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Hard to believe they will leave Zelensky as leader—he is pro-West, not pro-Russia!

Who will pay to rebuild Ukraine?

Hope the sanctions stay in place for a long while yet!
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
I’m pretty sure Putin doesn’t want to get bogged down in a long war in Ukraine. You can never be sure what to believe from Russian government sources, but this is an interesting statement from a Russian foreign ministry spokesperson. It sounds like they’re setting up a narrative to be able to declare victory and then withdraw.


I agree Putin doesn't want to get bogged down. But I'm not sure Putin will walk away without getting rid of Zelensky. He will see it as a loss of face. I'm concerned that the longer this goes on, the less regard he will have for the innocent civilians caught up in this. He'll just drop bigger and bigger bombs.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
I agree Putin doesn't want to get bogged down. But I'm not sure Putin will walk away without getting rid of Zelensky. He will see it as a loss of face. I'm concerned that the longer this goes on, the less regard he will have for the innocent civilians caught up in this. He'll just drop bigger and bigger bombs.
I worry about that too.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The use of chemical and biological weapons are illegal and outlawed under international law. It is also unlawful to possess, develop, deploy, test, use, or to even threaten to use nuclear weapons under international law. Only the US has ever used nukes in a war. Twice! And, since Russia has used NONE of these weapons, its just more war and fear-mongering.

Can you give me an example of a tactical nuclear strike? Why would Russia even need to use its nukes against the Ukraine(2nd vs 22nd)?? The only tactical reason for Russia to use its nukes, would be to defend its soldiers against interfering meddling foreigners, involved in a proxy war! Foreigners who are willingly supplying the Ukrainian army with foreign fighters, anti-armored munitions, missiles, anti-aircrafts missiles, intelligence, etc. Foreigners whose goal is to kill more Russian soldiers. And, to protect more Ukrainian soldiers. Using nukes might be the only tactical deterrent for Russia, to protect the lives of its soldiers.

But using nukes may not be the means to any tactical end. It may just be the beginning of the end! Why can't we just stay out of it! We are only escalating, and prolonging this conflict. MYOB!
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
It may just be the beginning of the end! Why can't we just stay out of it! We are only escalating, and prolonging this conflict. MYOB!

staying out of it may also prolong the conflict. If he's allowed to walk into Ukraine unchalleged, it will only embolden him to keep going with other former soviet countries ... and assuming we continue to 'stay out' of it, whats to stop him going further once he's taken over all the former soviet countries? Putin is a meglamaniac who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and deserves to rule......... You don't stop bullies by 'staying out of it'
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Didn’t work with the Sudetenland!

LOL, descendants of Sudeten Germans who betrayed Czechoslovakia are mewling to be let into their former homeland. The fathers have eaten sour grapes and their childrens’ teeth are on edge.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Putin is a meglamaniac who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and deserves to rule.........
Gee, that sounds just like another former President of a major nation.

I also agree that you should always stand up to bullies. But this is usually something said, by those who have never stood up to bullies. But supplying the Ukrainian army with bigger and better guns, is simply arming someone else to fight the bullies.

My understanding of this crisis, is that the Ukraine use to be a member-state of the Soviet Union. It has declared its independence, and is now asking to be recognized as a full NATO member. Russia does not want this to happen, because of the full protection offered by NATO to all if its member-nations. As well as full recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty as a nation. So Russia is doing this to stop this from happening. Even making up an excuse, that it is just protecting the Russian-speaking population in the Ukraine.

As I said before, what if the Northern Territory decided to form its own nation? And, it sought NATO recognition to protect its own sovereignty? What do you think the Australian federal government might do? Say, "..good luck, you have our blessings."?

As to speculating/supposing what Putin MAY OR MAY NOT DO, I seriously doubt that world/European-conquest is very high on his "to do" list. Few nations of the world can look after their own nation. Let along look after other nations as well. Oh, except the US!
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
Gee, that sounds just like another former President of a major nation.

I also agree that you should always stand up to bullies. But this is usually something said, by those who have never stood up to bullies. But supplying the Ukrainian army with bigger and better guns, is simply arming someone else to fight the bullies.

My understanding of this crisis, is that the Ukraine use to be a member-state of the Soviet Union. It has declared its independence, and is now asking to be recognized as a full NATO member. Russia does not want this to happen, because of the full protection offered by NATO to all if its member-nations. As well as full recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty as a nation. So Russia is doing this to stop this from happening. Even making up an excuse, that it is just protecting the Russian-speaking population in the Ukraine.

As I said before, what if the Northern Territory decided to form its own nation? And, it sought NATO recognition to protect its own sovereignty? What do you think the Australian federal government might do? Say, "..good luck, you have our blessings."?

As to speculating/supposing what Putin MAY OR MAY NOT DO, I seriously doubt that world/European-conquest is very high on his "to do" list. Few nations of the world can look after their own nation. Let along look after other nations as well. Oh, except the US!
I agree with you that this is about Putin not wanting Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

I also agree that Putin will likely not try to invade any NATO countries after the conquest of Ukraine. After watching the performance of Russia’s air and ground forces as they invade Ukraine, it is more evident than ever before that a concerted defense by NATO forces would be a one-sided slaughter of Russia’s second rate forces.

One thing I don’t understand is what Putin’s end game is. He cannot install a new pro-Russian government by Ukrainians and withdraw his forces. The Ukrainian people will simply not submit to that. So the only other option is to occupy Ukraine with his own forces indefinitely/permanently. Does he really want to tie up his army doing that for decades? And is it worth the economic cost?

As I think about it, it seems to me that Putin’s best option might be to declare a face-saving “victory” and withdraw his forces. He could claim that he “de-nazified” and “demilitarized” Ukraine and that he “protected” the ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine.

Most of the world would scoff at that explanation, but it would probably serve its purpose domestically in Russia.

That still leaves the question of Ukrainian membership in NATO unresolved.

My opinion is that Biden and NATO should be willing to discuss the possibility of an independent but neutral Ukraine.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Putin’s Worsening Problems
Losses in manpower and firepower, bad logistics and new frontlines with too few soldiers: Analysts say the invasion is grinding to a stalemate

One country in Europe has been bolder in making projections that this war will not end in Putin’s favor: Estonia, for which Russia has historically been the overriding national security and military preoccupation at all levels of government. On Feb. 28, Mikk Marran, the head of Välisluureamet, Estonia’s foreign intelligence service, told New Lines that he didn’t believe Putin could “keep up an intensive war for more than two months” and that ultimately “Russia will not win this war.”

A senior Estonian analyst with years of experience tracking Russia’s military affairs concurs with that assessment but doesn’t even think it’ll take another two months to bear fruit — it already is doing so.

As this source asked to remain anonymous, we will refer to him as “Karl.”

“If Russia does not achieve a remarkable advance by the end of this week, it is difficult to see how [the advance] should come at all,” Karl said late this week.

The Russians, he added, have not made any serious encroachments for the past few days. However, the situation remains delicate. According to national security reporter Jack Detsch, a senior U.S. defense official said March 11 that Russian forces have made “additional advances” toward Kyiv in the past 24 hours and that Russian troops are less than 10 miles northwest of the capital’s city center and 20 miles east in Brovary.

But the Ukrainians have started to go on a mildly successful counteroffensive north of Kyiv. According to their defense ministry, they recaptured the town of Baklanova Muraviika, thus halting Russian efforts to take Chernihiv. Moreover, Russia’s losses in firepower also tell a story of squandered manpower. As of this writing (late on March 11), the popular, open-source intelligence analysis blog Oryx has verified at least 171 pieces of abandoned Russian equipment and 464 pieces of captured equipment, ranging from tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery and even sophisticated air defense systems. All of this materiel was once manned by Russian operators who have either been taken as prisoners of war or simply deserted and wandered into the Ukrainian countryside.

Karl specifically indicated to New Lines the “massive” fatigue of Russian units as a reason for the sluggish pace of their movement.

“A third of the units have been replaced [as of now], but incoming units have even worse quality. Another third has been destroyed, killed or wounded. Re-formation of units doesn’t have a good impact on combat capability.”

Russia has several options, according to Karl, as to how to try to regain the momentum, but none of them sounds very feasible. First, they could announce a mobilization in Russia and call in reserve troops. Here, the problem is a lack of training that the reservists have received.

“The possibility of mobilization was supposed to be last on the agenda of the Federation Council and the Duma last Friday [March 4],” Karl said, referring to both chambers of the Russian Parliament. “But allegedly high-ranking military officers convinced Putin of its negative effects.”
https://newlinesmag.com/argument/putins-worsening-problems/

And the thaw is coming closer, making Russian logistics and simple movement of units, esp wheeled and tracked vehicles near impossible.
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
But this is usually something said, by those who have never stood up to bullies. But supplying the Ukrainian army with bigger and better guns, is simply arming someone else to fight the bullies.
which is the only way we're going to stand up to this bully short of going to a full blown World war. Sometimes you have to accept that the best option is not an option and settle for the second best option. helping Ukraine to stand up to Russians bullying by supplying arms is the best we can do right now.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Sometimes you have to accept that the best option is not an option and settle for the second best option. helping Ukraine to stand up to Russians bullying by supplying arms is the best we can do right now.
If you mean that TAKING NO ACTION is the second best option, then the second option IS the best option.

Supplying the Ukraine with more armaments, will only increase the number of body bags and prolong the conflict. It is certainly NOT the best we can do now.

So we should risk a full nuclear war, just to help the Ukraine stand up to a bully?? Really?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I agree with you that this is about Putin not wanting Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

I also agree that Putin will likely not try to invade any NATO countries after the conquest of Ukraine. After watching the performance of Russia’s air and ground forces as they invade Ukraine, it is more evident than ever before that a concerted defense by NATO forces would be a one-sided slaughter of Russia’s second rate forces.

One thing I don’t understand is what Putin’s end game is. He cannot install a new pro-Russian government by Ukrainians and withdraw his forces. The Ukrainian people will simply not submit to that. So the only other option is to occupy Ukraine with his own forces indefinitely/permanently. Does he really want to tie up his army doing that for decades? And is it worth the economic cost?

As I think about it, it seems to me that Putin’s best option might be to declare a face-saving “victory” and withdraw his forces. He could claim that he “de-nazified” and “demilitarized” Ukraine and that he “protected” the ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine.

Most of the world would scoff at that explanation, but it would probably serve its purpose domestically in Russia.

That still leaves the question of Ukrainian membership in NATO unresolved.

My opinion is that Biden and NATO should be willing to discuss the possibility of an independent but neutral Ukraine.
Couldn't agree more, and well said.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Putin longs for a Greater Russia. Ukraine was not going to be admitted to NATO.
 
Top