But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:13 pm
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
It's not a matter of Putin being satisfied. It's a matter of what his military can accomplish.
Ukriaine (now, with our & NATO's help) will finally defend themselves, even if they don't have the ability to drive Russian forces out of all the territory they currently hold. They need defensible borders (based on terrain & natural boundaries).
We can't produce enough munitions for the Ukrainians to kill every potential Russian conscript that can be brought to the front.
Russia’s war and war crimes against Ukraine are making things more difficult for China, showing how the conflict in Ukraine is impacting the circumstances regarding Taiwan.
Seoul, South Korea
CNN
—
A year after Russia invaded Ukraine, Xi Jinping’s backing of Vladimir Putin has opened the door for the United States and partners in the Pacific to shore up sometimes frayed relationships to the detriment of Beijing.
In the past few months alone, Japan has pledged to double defense spending and acquire long-range weapons from the US; South Korea has acknowledged that stability in the Taiwan Strait is essential to its security; the Philippines has announced new US base access rights and is talking about joint patrols of the South China Sea with Australia, Japan and the United States.
Those might be the biggest initiatives, but they are far from the only events that have left China increasingly isolated in its own backyard as it refuses to condemn the invasion of a sovereign country by its partner in Moscow while keeping military pressure on the self-ruled island of Taiwan.
But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:13 pm
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
It's not a matter of Putin being satisfied. It's a matter of what his military can accomplish.
Ukriaine (now, with our & NATO's help) will finally defend themselves, even if they don't have the ability to drive Russian forces out of all the territory they currently hold. They need defensible borders (based on terrain & natural boundaries).
We can't produce enough munitions for the Ukrainians to kill every potential Russian conscript that can be brought to the front.
You're asking for a continuation of bloody trench warfare and the ongoing destruction by artillery and missiles from Russia. "Defending" isn't going to be sufficient; the Russian military must be thoroughly defeated and know it, else the Russian strategy will remain to terrorize the Ukrainian people and blackmail the world.
I see zero basis for saying the bulk of their territory can't be re-taken if the morale of the Russian military is thoroughly broken, as it appears is quite possible to do.
Crimea will be a bigger challenge and may get sacrificed at the end. We'll see.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:13 pm
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
It's not a matter of Putin being satisfied. It's a matter of what his military can accomplish.
Ukriaine (now, with our & NATO's help) will finally defend themselves, even if they don't have the ability to drive Russian forces out of all the territory they currently hold. They need defensible borders (based on terrain & natural boundaries).
We can't produce enough munitions for the Ukrainians to kill every potential Russian conscript that can be brought to the front.
You're asking for a continuation of bloody trench warfare and the ongoing destruction by artillery and missiles from Russia. "Defending" isn't going to be sufficient; the Russian military must be thoroughly defeated and know it, else the Russian strategy will remain to terrorize the Ukrainian people and blackmail the world.
I see zero basis for saying the bulk of their territory can't be re-taken if the morale of the Russian military is thoroughly broken, as it appears is quite possible to do.
Crimea will be a bigger challenge and may get sacrificed at the end. We'll see.
Drop the Kirch Bridge (and continually bomb to eliminate reconstruction) and cut off the water supply. Game over for Crimea. Don't need to physically possess it to make it untenable. "Parched-earth" policy...
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:13 pm
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
It's not a matter of Putin being satisfied. It's a matter of what his military can accomplish.
Ukriaine (now, with our & NATO's help) will finally defend themselves, even if they don't have the ability to drive Russian forces out of all the territory they currently hold. They need defensible borders (based on terrain & natural boundaries).
We can't produce enough munitions for the Ukrainians to kill every potential Russian conscript that can be brought to the front.
You're asking for a continuation of bloody trench warfare and the ongoing destruction by artillery and missiles from Russia. "Defending" isn't going to be sufficient; the Russian military must be thoroughly defeated and know it, else the Russian strategy will remain to terrorize the Ukrainian people and blackmail the world.
I see zero basis for saying the bulk of their territory can't be re-taken if the morale of the Russian military is thoroughly broken, as it appears is quite possible to do.
Crimea will be a bigger challenge and may get sacrificed at the end. We'll see.
Drop the Kerch Bridge (and continually bomb to eliminate reconstruction) and cut off the water supply. Game over for Crimea. Don't need to physically possess it to make it untenable. "Parched-earth" policy...
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:13 pm
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
It's not a matter of Putin being satisfied. It's a matter of what his military can accomplish.
Ukriaine (now, with our & NATO's help) will finally defend themselves, even if they don't have the ability to drive Russian forces out of all the territory they currently hold. They need defensible borders (based on terrain & natural boundaries).
We can't produce enough munitions for the Ukrainians to kill every potential Russian conscript that can be brought to the front.
You're asking for a continuation of bloody trench warfare and the ongoing destruction by artillery and missiles from Russia. "Defending" isn't going to be sufficient; the Russian military must be thoroughly defeated and know it, else the Russian strategy will remain to terrorize the Ukrainian people and blackmail the world.
I see zero basis for saying the bulk of their territory can't be re-taken if the morale of the Russian military is thoroughly broken, as it appears is quite possible to do.
Crimea will be a bigger challenge and may get sacrificed at the end. We'll see.
Drop the Kirch Bridge (and continually bomb to eliminate reconstruction) and cut off the water supply. Game over for Crimea. Don't need to physically possess it to make it untenable. "Parched-earth" policy...
That's the other way Crimea could be 'sacrificed'.
But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
You're listening through rose colored ear plugs (especially to Gen Milley), hearing only what you want to hear.
The trend in polling of US domestic support is downward. That's why Zelensky is now saying they can win in '23.
The EUroburghers are wavering. The delivery of Leopards is slowing & Germany is backing off their defense budget increases.
But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
You're listening through rose colored ear plugs (especially to Gen Milley), hearing only what you want to hear.
The trend in polling of US domestic support is downward. That's why Zelensky is now saying they can win in '23.
The EUroburghers are wavering. The delivery of Leopards is slowing & Germany is backing off their defense budget increases.
Your open rooting for Russia is truly an embarrassment for this forum.
Putin and Russia’s hope that the U.S. and its allies will simply tire of this war and walk away is delusional. Unpopular direct wars in Vietnam and Iraq both lasted a decade or more.
You badly underestimate American resolve and resilience, just as Putin vastly underestimated the resolve and resilience of Ukraine.
But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
You're listening through rose colored ear plugs (especially to Gen Milley), hearing only what you want to hear.
The trend in polling of US domestic support is downward. That's why Zelensky is now saying they can win in '23.
The EUroburghers are wavering. The delivery of Leopards is slowing & Germany is backing off their defense budget increases.
Your open rooting for Russia is truly an embarrassment for this forum.
Putin and Russia’s hope that the U.S. and its allies will simply tire of this war and walk away is delusional. Unpopular direct wars in Vietnam and Iraq both lasted a decade or more.
You badly underestimate American resolve and resilience, just as Putin vastly underestimated the resolve and resilience of Ukraine.
DocBarrister
Get over it. You're rah rah warmongering for this stupid, unnecessary war is the embarrassment.
You & Victoria Nuland can take pleasure in the massive killing of the youth of both countries for their corrupt oligarch leaders.
Keep hoping for regime change in Moscow. You underestimate the tolerance of the Russian people for suffering when they feel threatened.
I'm providing a reality check to all the wishful happy talk & propaganda we're being fed.
But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
You're listening through rose colored ear plugs (especially to Gen Milley), hearing only what you want to hear.
The trend in polling of US domestic support is downward. That's why Zelensky is now saying they can win in '23.
The EUroburghers are wavering. The delivery of Leopards is slowing & Germany is backing off their defense budget increases.
Your open rooting for Russia is truly an embarrassment for this forum.
Putin and Russia’s hope that the U.S. and its allies will simply tire of this war and walk away is delusional. Unpopular direct wars in Vietnam and Iraq both lasted a decade or more.
You badly underestimate American resolve and resilience, just as Putin vastly underestimated the resolve and resilience of Ukraine.
DocBarrister
Get over it. You're rah rah warmongering for this stupid, unnecessary war is the embarrassment.
You & Victoria Nuland can take pleasure in the massive killing of the youth of both countries for their corrupt oligarch leaders.
Keep hoping for regime change in Moscow. You underestimate the tolerance of the Russian people for suffering when they feel threatened.
I'm providing a reality check to all the wishful happy talk & propaganda we're being fed.
But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.
And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.
And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.
With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?
I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.
# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.
Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.
Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?
Yes, certainly collectively.
As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.
And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.
doing so officially would be tragically wrong.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
You're listening through rose colored ear plugs (especially to Gen Milley), hearing only what you want to hear.
The trend in polling of US domestic support is downward. That's why Zelensky is now saying they can win in '23.
The EUroburghers are wavering. The delivery of Leopards is slowing & Germany is backing off their defense budget increases.
Your open rooting for Russia is truly an embarrassment for this forum.
Putin and Russia’s hope that the U.S. and its allies will simply tire of this war and walk away is delusional. Unpopular direct wars in Vietnam and Iraq both lasted a decade or more.
You badly underestimate American resolve and resilience, just as Putin vastly underestimated the resolve and resilience of Ukraine.
DocBarrister
Get over it. You're rah rah warmongering for this stupid, unnecessary war is the embarrassment.
You & Victoria Nuland can take pleasure in the massive killing of the youth of both countries for their corrupt oligarch leaders.
Keep hoping for regime change in Moscow. You underestimate the tolerance of the Russian people for suffering when they feel threatened.
I'm providing a reality check to all the wishful happy talk & propaganda we're being fed.Not true. China hasn't provided arms to Russia. And Russia has a massive ammo shortage, and just acted like you don't know that. You're not calling balls and strikes.
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 pmNot true. China hasn't provided arms to Russia. And Russia has a massive ammo shortage, and just acted like you don't know that. You're not calling balls and strikes.
We don't know what China has provided. Do you really think they're going to let Russia run out of ammo ?
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 pmNot true. China hasn't provided arms to Russia. And Russia has a massive ammo shortage, and just acted like you don't know that. You're not calling balls and strikes.
We don't know what China has provided. Do you really think they're going to let Russia run out of ammo ?
I don't know, and neither do you. You're claiming to be calling balls and strikes, and discussing the matter at hand...and you're not doing that. China has not given them ammo. Stop acting like they have, or that they will.
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 pmNot true. China hasn't provided arms to Russia. And Russia has a massive ammo shortage, and just acted like you don't know that. You're not calling balls and strikes.
We don't know what China has provided. Do you really think they're going to let Russia run out of ammo ?
I don't know, and neither do you. You're claiming to be calling balls and strikes, and discussing the matter at hand...and you're not doing that. China has not given them ammo. Stop acting like they have, or that they will.
China considers sending artillery and ammunition to Russia, U.S. officials say
The disclosure comes days after Beijing put forward a 12-point peace plan for Russia and Ukraine.
Feb. 26, 2023,
By Courtney Kube, Carol E. Lee, Andrea Mitchell, Kristen Welker and Leila Sackur
New intelligence suggests China is considering sending artillery and ammunition to Russia, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The officials did not say what specific evidence they had to support the intelligence, which was originally reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed to NBC News by a former U.S. official and a Western official briefed on the matter.
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to a request for comment about the disclosure, which came after Beijing put forward a 12-point peace plan on Friday — on the one-year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
It called for both countries to agree to a gradual de-escalation, to keep nuclear facilities safe and to establish humanitarian corridors, and to prevent attacks on civilian populations.
Earlier this month Beijing hit back strongly against U.S. allegations that it may be providing nonlethal military assistance to Moscow, telling Washington to stay out of its relationship with the Kremlin.
It “could be a significant development” if China did decide to provide arms to Russia, Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a Philadelphia-based think tank, said on Twitter.
He added that “artillery ammunition availability for Ukraine and Russia is arguably the single most important variable that could influence the course of the war.”
But Keir Giles, a Russia expert and a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, a London based think tank, said by telephone Sunday that “previous assessments and predictions of Russia imminently running out of a given type of ammunitions has not turned out to be the case in real life.”
He also said that if Moscow was turning to alternative suppliers “over and above the drones it has received from Iran,” then it was “an indication that they are depleting their post-Cold War stocks of arms and munitions at a pace they feel is unsustainable.”
From a Chinese perspective it is important that Russia is not defeated, according to Michael A. Horowitz, a geopolitical and security analyst, and head of intelligence at Le Beck consultancy.
Beijing, he said, had “already been providing Russia with significant support, be it in the form of increased oil imports, dual-use components, micro-chips imported from Western countries and satellite imagery.”
He added that if China provided only arms munitions to Russia, that might not register in Europe, which along with the U.S. is one of its main trading partners. “But if they provide anything beyond that, including artillery shells that are heavily used in Ukraine, or drones, then Europe will feel pressured to respond,” he said.
“China would not necessarily be unhappy with a diminished Russia that would increasingly have to align with Beijing. But avoiding a Russian defeat is in Beijing’s interest,” he said.
The goal was “to make sure Russia can’t lose, and to force a negotiated settlement,” he said, saying that this was why China released the peace plan.
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 pmNot true. China hasn't provided arms to Russia. And Russia has a massive ammo shortage, and just acted like you don't know that. You're not calling balls and strikes.
We don't know what China has provided. Do you really think they're going to let Russia run out of ammo ?
I don't know, and neither do you. You're claiming to be calling balls and strikes, and discussing the matter at hand...and you're not doing that. China has not given them ammo. Stop acting like they have, or that they will.
Stay tuned.
No. I'm not going to stay tuned. We all know about these conversations and "what if's", OS.
You're posting as if this has already happened, and doing it for effect.
That's not "a reality check". That's making stuff up that hasn't happened.
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:49 pmNot true. China hasn't provided arms to Russia. And Russia has a massive ammo shortage, and just acted like you don't know that. You're not calling balls and strikes.
We don't know what China has provided. Do you really think they're going to let Russia run out of ammo ?
I don't know, and neither do you. You're claiming to be calling balls and strikes, and discussing the matter at hand...and you're not doing that. China has not given them ammo. Stop acting like they have, or that they will.
Stay tuned.
No. I'm not going to stay tuned. We all know about these conversations and "what if's", OS.
You're posting as if this has already happened, and doing it for effect.
That's not "a reality check". That's making stuff up that hasn't happened.
Show me where I predicted what China was going to do. Do you dismiss the possibility ?
If so, why all the warnings to China not to do it. Even the CIA Director went on tv.
If it's not a realistic possibility, why all the uproar ?
