LaxFan2000 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:23 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:06 pm
LaxFan2000 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:45 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:09 pm
LaxFan2000 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:11 am
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:30 am
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:43 pm
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:05 pm
Completely different situations.
Sure it is, Doc. Sure it is.
You have NO CLUE what Putin wants. Or Zelensky, for that matter. Stop pretending you do.
That’s the difference between you and me … I don’t rely only on my own assessments when posting on this forum. I’m an informed reader and forum member.
Here is the current U.S. intelligence assessment of “what Putin wants,” and Zelensky, too.
WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin still wants to seize most of Ukraine, but his forces are so degraded by combat that they likely can only achieve incremental gains in the near term, the top U.S. intelligence officer said Wednesday.
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, outlining the current U.S. intelligence assessment of the more than four-month war, said that the consensus of U.S. spy agencies is that it will grind on "for an extended period of time."
… Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy this week told U.S. President Joe Biden and other G7 leaders that he wants the war over by the end of the year.
But Haines' comments suggested that the billions of dollars in modern arms being supplied by the United States and other countries to Zelinskiy's forces may not give them the ability to turn the tide against Russia any time soon.
… She said that Putin remains intent on overruning most of Ukraine even though Ukrainian forces beat back Russia's attempt to capture the capital Kyiv in February, forcing Moscow to reduce its target to seizing the entire eastern Donbas region.
"We think he has effectively the same political goals that we had previously, which is to say that he wants to take most of Ukraine," Haines said.
Russian forces, however, have been so degraded by more than four months of combat that it is unlikely they can achieve Putin's goal any time soon, Haines said in her first public assessment of the war since May.
… "We perceive a disconnect between Putin's near-term military objectives in this area and his military's capacity, a kind of mismatch between his ambitions and what the military is able to accomplish," she said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pu ... 022-06-29/
As I said … Putin is not likely going to end this war until he is forced to end this war. He still pretty much wants all of Ukraine. That hasn’t changed. That’s not just my assessment, that’s the current assessment of U.S. intelligence.
It’s stupid to think the choice in ending this war belongs to Ukraine, the United States, or our allies. It never has.
Putin has been engaging in war against Ukraine for a decade now … he won’t stop until he either gets all of Ukraine or until he LOSES THIS WAR—that is, until he is forced to stop.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand this war.
President Zelensky wants to end this war by the end of this year. The United States and the allies probably want it to end sooner. But those who understand Putin’s intentions know that is unlikely.
This is going to be a long and brutal war in all likelihood, possibly lasting years more until Russia just can’t continue.
For this war to end, Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR.
DocBarrister
I'm not sure that this is an informed assessment, rather what you
want and
think is going to happen. a fan does not strike me as an uniformed reader. How you make that derisory claim is rather bewildering. Do you say these things because you think this forum is your own personal echo chamber? Doesn't seem like your intention is further the discussion, but rather advance your rather dogmatic views on others. It seems very silly. Even I can see that after just a short time using the site. Why do you do this??
2000,
Do you have an opinion on this topic or are you just going to post insults about other posters?
Doc just showed precisely what information ("informed") he was saying should be considered, "US intelligence assessment" as reported by Reuters.
He then makes clear (at least to any friendly reader) his own logic about what this means, in a discussion with another poster (a fan) with whom he disagrees on a particular aspect. They both feel strongly and get a bit testy with one another, but not over the top ranting and insulting.
So, what do
you think?
My own view is that Doc's conclusions are, unfortunately, more likely a fair read of the situation than not. Lots of reasons why I come to that view, which I've explained numerous times over these past months, but I'm open to new information, new logic that I hadn't previously considered.
I'd love to see an early end of this war, but I don't think that is Putin's intent...as, IMO, he's made abundantly clear both through his actions and his words. I'm not going to call it "stupid" but I would call it "naive and foolish" to expect otherwise from him.
Thus, I don't see a stable end until Putin is deposed, and I don't expect that to happen until the Russian military is so thoroughly defeated and demoralized, that Putin can no longer hold onto power.
Love to be wrong.
Doc's conclusions are not a fair read of the situation at all (Too much emotion involved and wishful thinking IMO). There isn't only one solution to this war. Heck, Putin's physical condition doesn't look to be too good these days. Whose to say that he doesn't make it through a long war? Why do you discount that option? Watch any recent videos of him, this does not look like a healthy man. Everything is not black and white in regards to this war. Quick question, why the need to jump in and respond to my comments about DocB? You do realize that talking about a poster does not constitute a personal attack. I wasn't spewing vitriol at him, he went beyond a simple disagreement with a fellow poster. Just trying to get an understanding as to why his posts fit a pattern of doing this.
*FTR, asking someone if they have an opinion about a topic is about the worst look you can have. You are intimating that person has nothing to offer. Maybe their response is
what they have offer. It doesn't have to be what
you like. Seems like you should spend more time considering that. If you were Admin of this site, it would be a different story. But it seems you are not, just a regular old poster like me.
First, I really couldn't give a hoot "about the worst look you(I) can have". Your opinion on that aspect has no value to me. Seriously. Now, if we do engage civilly and I find you to be an interesting guy or gal, reasonable in your approach to others, your opinion of me will begin to have some worth to me...but right now you've jumped in with two feet critiquing others, but offering little to the actual discussions on the thread topic itself.
This is a discussion forum with specific topics, discussions underway...why are you here posting if you don't want to discuss these topics?
Why just post about others?
great, let me credit the above: you came up with another scenario under which Putin could eventually leave power during a long war...he dies of natural causes. Fine. I'm sure Doc would agree that it's quite likely that his successor would then sue for peace, especially if the war has bled Russia and its military to the breaking point.
But if he doesn't leave power, I'd like someone (needn't be you, but you're welcome) to explain why we would have anything but the tiniest probability assigned to his ever being willing to back off, leave Ukraine, and become a functioning part of the world rule of law order. He's staked everything on the expansion of Russia to an Empire status...how does he retain power if he abandons that ambition now?
MD,
I don't think anyone on this entire site is intimating that Putin will back down in any other many then of the following. To insinuate otherwise tells me you are leading to much with your emotions.
1) Official Agreement/Ceasefire
2) All of his backers turn on him in a significant manner in which he is essentially deposed
3) His death
what insinuation?
If you'd been following the discussions we've been having over the past 3+ months, you'd know that the question has been whether #1 is a reasonably likely outcome and, if so, on what terms? #2 and #3 are a very different outcome, could be overlapping with one another. Of course those are the 3 outcome potentials, why would you pretend that others, like me, don't recognize that to be the case?
But is #1 an outcome that should be pursued as likely, and if so on what terms...or should it be pursued with the recognition that only through defeat of the Russian military can #1, resulting in #2 or #3 or both, be a reasonable hope for a stable situation?
Some have argued that we (the US and or the West) should encourage, even force, Zelensky to give up territory, maybe 20%, maybe more, of Ukraine for "peace". Notwithstanding whether either Zelensky (or the Ukrainian people) would agree or Putin would settle for 20%, others have questioned whether doing so would simply embolden Putin...I personally know numerous people from that region of the world who believe that Putin has made it incredibly clear that his ambition is not a piece of Ukraine, nor even all of Ukraine, under his hegemony, but rather all of what was once the Russian Empire...he's said so numerous times, and they believe him thoroughly. I tend to think they're right. At a minimum, a high probability, thus should inform our policy making.
We also know that Putin's word to his neighbors and to the West is absolutely meaningless.
So, any "cease fire" or any promise of "peace" can't be considered to be stable; absolutely nothing that Putin says to the West in assurance can, or should be, trusted ever again.
I don't think that's an emotional response, simply a rational assessment of the unfortunate reality we face.