All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't a huge cost of extended warfare, to the world, not just the US and our EU allies.

Likewise, I don't think anyone would argue that IF Putin was willing to abandon his aggression, it wouldn't be terrific. If he even simply wanted to back off a bit, give up control of Mariupol and south of there.

But I don't think Putin is interested, remotely, in stopping even where they are now. And won't be until his military says they can't take it anymore. We're not dealing with a rational, much less honest, actor.

SO...my view is that we should be hoping that our superior systems and targeting capabilities, with greater range, once actually deployed, will indeed pound the crap out of the Russian military...and their morale does break... fully.

I'm not buying, yet, the narrative that this MUST be a long, multi-year war with the kind of pace of costs we're committing to these next 6 months. I think this thing can actually be won.

Sure hope I'm right, as I think the Ukrainian people would toss Zelensky on his ear if he didn't press forward at this point.

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Well, I don't think I'd have gone quite there if I'd responded first, as I do find Salty's perspectives interesting, but you are 100% correct that Ukraine and the Ukrainians have never "accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR" nor did they not think Putin would invade further if they stopped fighting and withdrew from the conflict. It was the West that bought the tall tale that Putin was a rational actor and wouldn't actually invade with the intent of crushing Ukraine, erasing any notion of an independent Ukrainian state, any notion that there's a Ukrainian people at all...

and "we" bought it because it was in our "interest" do so, whether because we wanted cheap energy or because we were afraid, like Salty, of another Cold War. Putin put out his propaganda and many, many parroted it for years.

But Putin isn't a reasonable, rational actor and he never intended to stop.

Nor should we so naive as to imagine he'd stop now.

What's really outrageous to me is that Salty is asking for Ukraine to sacrifice huge amounts critical land and resources to Russia, (according to Salty all Putin actually wants anyway...BS) and just go powder their noses. And then he's going to turn around and tell us the next aggression "isn't the West's war"...unless, of course, it's China...

Russia took Crimea & the territory they declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

One of the many striking aspects of the invasion has been how much histories of border-drawing seem to matter. Days before invading, the Russian president claimed that “modern Ukraine was entirely created by … communist Russia”. In doing this, he said, Lenin transferred “to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them”.

https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine ... out-178708

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

https://www.voanews.com/amp/usa_pentago ... 80693.html


The second annual Reagan National Defense Survey, completed in late October, found nearly half of armed services households questioned, 46%, said they viewed Russia as ally.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ry-215247/

[old salt]

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Russia took Crimea & the territory declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

LNR/DNR are not the same as LPR/DPR, note I prefaced with "declared"
Even the Voice of America used LNR/DNR => https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk ... 36806.html

You conflate accuracy with advocacy. You attempt to turn everything you disagree with into an N-word.

I stand by the rest of my post as an accurate analysis of how Ukraine's borders came into existence & how little a series of corrupt Ukrainian governments did to deter & defend against Russian incursions, even when we warned them that invasion was imminent.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Russia took Crimea & the territory declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

LNR/DNR are not the same as LPR/DPR, note I prefaced with "declared"
Even the Voice of America used LNR/DNR => https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk ... 36806.html

You conflate accuracy with advocacy. You attempt to turn everything you disagree with into an N-word.

I stand by the rest of my post as an accurate analysis of how Ukraine's borders came into existence & how little a series of corrupt Ukrainian governments did to deter & defend against Russian incursions, even when we warned them that invasion was imminent.

[DocBarrister]

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Russia took Crimea & the territory declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

LNR/DNR are not the same as LPR/DPR, note I prefaced with "declared"
Even the Voice of America used LNR/DNR => https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk ... 36806.html

You conflate accuracy with advocacy. You attempt to turn everything you disagree with into an N-word.

I stand by the rest of my post as an accurate analysis of how Ukraine's borders came into existence & how little a series of corrupt Ukrainian governments did to deter & defend against Russian incursions, even when we warned them that invasion was imminent.

You just lied to the members of this forum.

The article that you yourself cited actually equates the two:

The pact, intended to end the fighting and provide a political framework for the return of the separatist-held areas to Ukrainian sovereignty, was signed by representatives from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Russia, Ukraine and the Russian-backed leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR).

In other words: DPR = DNR and LPR = LNR.

But you knew that, correct?

You lied, correct?

DocBarrister

[old salt]

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Russia took Crimea & the territory declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

LNR/DNR are not the same as LPR/DPR, note I prefaced with "declared"
Even the Voice of America used LNR/DNR => https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk ... 36806.html

You conflate accuracy with advocacy. You attempt to turn everything you disagree with into an N-word.

I stand by the rest of my post as an accurate analysis of how Ukraine's borders came into existence & how little a series of corrupt Ukrainian governments did to deter & defend against Russian incursions, even when we warned them that invasion was imminent.

You just lied to the members of this forum.

The article that you yourself cited actually equates the two:

The pact, intended to end the fighting and provide a political framework for the return of the separatist-held areas to Ukrainian sovereignty, was signed by representatives from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Russia, Ukraine and the Russian-backed leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR).

In other words: DPR = DNR and LPR = LNR.

But you knew that, correct?

You lied, correct?

DocBarrister

"N" & "P' are different letters, are they not ?

This is lunacy. Both are legitimate abbreviations, used by news agencies & governments.
You are attempting to stigmatize the use of either.
Write to Reuters & VOA & demand they change their style guides.

[DocBarrister]

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Russia took Crimea & the territory declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

LNR/DNR are not the same as LPR/DPR, note I prefaced with "declared"
Even the Voice of America used LNR/DNR => https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk ... 36806.html

You conflate accuracy with advocacy. You attempt to turn everything you disagree with into an N-word.

I stand by the rest of my post as an accurate analysis of how Ukraine's borders came into existence & how little a series of corrupt Ukrainian governments did to deter & defend against Russian incursions, even when we warned them that invasion was imminent.

You just lied to the members of this forum.

The article that you yourself cited actually equates the two:

The pact, intended to end the fighting and provide a political framework for the return of the separatist-held areas to Ukrainian sovereignty, was signed by representatives from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Russia, Ukraine and the Russian-backed leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR).

In other words: DPR = DNR and LPR = LNR.

But you knew that, correct?

You lied, correct?

DocBarrister

"L" & "P' are different letters, are they not ?

This is lunacy. Both are legitimate abbreviations, used by news agencies & governments.
You are attempting to stigmatize the use of either.
Write to Reuters & VOA & demand they change their style guides.

Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) translates in Russian (romanized text) to Donetskaya Narodnaya Respublika (DNR).

Similarly …

Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) translates in Russian to Luganskaya Narodnaya Respublika (LNR).



I should be paid for teaching you Russian.

Anyway … neither of those exist.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't a huge cost of extended warfare, to the world, not just the US and our EU allies.

Likewise, I don't think anyone would argue that IF Putin was willing to abandon his aggression, it wouldn't be terrific. If he even simply wanted to back off a bit, give up control of Mariupol and south of there.

But I don't think Putin is interested, remotely, in stopping even where they are now. And won't be until his military says they can't take it anymore. We're not dealing with a rational, much less honest, actor.

SO...my view is that we should be hoping that our superior systems and targeting capabilities, with greater range, once actually deployed, will indeed pound the crap out of the Russian military...and their morale does break... fully.

I'm not buying, yet, the narrative that this MUST be a long, multi-year war with the kind of pace of costs we're committing to these next 6 months. I think this thing can actually be won.

Sure hope I'm right, as I think the Ukrainian people would toss Zelensky on his ear if he didn't press forward at this point.

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Well, I don't think I'd have gone quite there if I'd responded first, as I do find Salty's perspectives interesting, but you are 100% correct that Ukraine and the Ukrainians have never "accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR" nor did they not think Putin would invade further if they stopped fighting and withdrew from the conflict. It was the West that bought the tall tale that Putin was a rational actor and wouldn't actually invade with the intent of crushing Ukraine, erasing any notion of an independent Ukrainian state, any notion that there's a Ukrainian people at all...

and "we" bought it because it was in our "interest" do so, whether because we wanted cheap energy or because we were afraid, like Salty, of another Cold War. Putin put out his propaganda and many, many parroted it for years.

But Putin isn't a reasonable, rational actor and he never intended to stop.

Nor should we so naive as to imagine he'd stop now.

What's really outrageous to me is that Salty is asking for Ukraine to sacrifice huge amounts critical land and resources to Russia, (according to Salty all Putin actually wants anyway...BS) and just go powder their noses. And then he's going to turn around and tell us the next aggression "isn't the West's war"...unless, of course, it's China...

Russia took Crimea & the territory they declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

One of the many striking aspects of the invasion has been how much histories of border-drawing seem to matter. Days before invading, the Russian president claimed that “modern Ukraine was entirely created by … communist Russia”. In doing this, he said, Lenin transferred “to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them”.

https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine ... out-178708

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

https://www.voanews.com/amp/usa_pentago ... 80693.html


The second annual Reagan National Defense Survey, completed in late October, found nearly half of armed services households questioned, 46%, said they viewed Russia as ally.

Explains a lot. Thanks, TLD.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Russia took Crimea & the territory declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

Here you are falsely and inaccurately arguing that Ukraine accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and “LNR/DNR”. I correct you by saying “LNR/DNR” does not exist.

Later in the post, you pay lip service to Ukraine’s independence but then essentially state that Ukraine’s borders are “artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR.” THAT by the way, is Russia and Putin’s view of those “arbitrary” borders.

Not only did you make the ridiculous assertion that Ukraine essentially accepted Russia’s occupation of vast portions of Ukraine, but you also adopted Putin’s view on the formation of Ukraine’s “arbitrary” borders … an argument that those territories didn’t really belong to Ukraine at all.

Do I need to post more or is this enough, old salt.

Thank you. I’m turning in for the evening.

DocBarrister

LNR/DNR are not the same as LPR/DPR, note I prefaced with "declared"
Even the Voice of America used LNR/DNR => https://www.voanews.com/a/can-the-minsk ... 36806.html

You conflate accuracy with advocacy. You attempt to turn everything you disagree with into an N-word.

I stand by the rest of my post as an accurate analysis of how Ukraine's borders came into existence & how little a series of corrupt Ukrainian governments did to deter & defend against Russian incursions, even when we warned them that invasion was imminent.

You just lied to the members of this forum.

The article that you yourself cited actually equates the two:

The pact, intended to end the fighting and provide a political framework for the return of the separatist-held areas to Ukrainian sovereignty, was signed by representatives from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Russia, Ukraine and the Russian-backed leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR).

In other words: DPR = DNR and LPR = LNR.

But you knew that, correct?

You lied, correct?

DocBarrister

"L" & "P' are different letters, are they not ?

This is lunacy. Both are legitimate abbreviations, used by news agencies & governments.
You are attempting to stigmatize the use of either.
Write to Reuters & VOA & demand they change their style guides.

Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) translates in Russian (romanized text) to Donetskaya Narodnaya Respublika (DNR).

Similarly …

Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) translates in Russian to Luganskaya Narodnaya Respublika (LNR).



I should be paid for teaching you Russian.

Anyway … neither of those exist.

DocBarrister

You should pay for wasted bandwidth & the wasted time of me & other readers.
I used "P" instead of "N" to align with the Reuters article YOU linked which was under discussion.
Even the US Government uses DNR & LNR => https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0602

[Farfromgeneva]

The first or second sentence reads “so called”.

I guess reading isn’t fundamental.

[admin]

People. discuss issues, not post-ers...

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok the treasury piece linked uses “so called” in quotes and describes it as Russia/Putin’s declared which actually proves something different than the claim being made.

What’s the point in linking something that contradicts a claim made in written text?

[old salt]

Useful history & description of Ukraine circa 2014.

https://reconsideringrussia.org/2014/03 ... s-ukraine/

[old salt]

Ok the treasury piece linked uses “so called” in quotes and describes it as Russia/Putin’s declared which actually proves something different than the claim being made.

...& I prefaced with "declared".

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok the treasury piece linked uses “so called” in quotes and describes it as Russia/Putin’s declared which actually proves something different than the claim being made.

...& I prefaced with "declared".

Why “parrot” those propaganda points….it’s a choice.

[old salt]

Ok the treasury piece linked uses “so called” in quotes and describes it as Russia/Putin’s declared which actually proves something different than the claim being made.

...& I prefaced with "declared".

Why “parrot” those propaganda points….it’s a choice.

Because it is not propaganda. It's a simple way to refer to a specific geographic area, more precise than "the Donbas"', & it is in common use by media for that purpose.

[CU88]

From Axios:

If the Kremlin follows through with its purported plans to annex large swaths of southern and eastern Ukraine, as the White House expects, it could fundamentally shift the stakes of the war and make a negotiated settlement all but impossible.

Why it matters: Kyiv and its western backers hope an influx of NATO-caliber weaponry will allow Ukraine to reverse Russia’s gains. But if Russia follows the “playbook” the White House laid out this week, Moscow will claim that fighting is now taking place on Russian soil.

Driving the news: White House spokesperson John Kirby said Tuesday that the U.S. has intelligence indicating the Kremlin is "reviewing detailed plans" to annex four Ukrainian oblasts, or regions: Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk.

• A senior German official tells Axios they share the U.S. assessment about planned annexations.
From Vladimir Putin’s perspective, annexing the four regions dramatically raises the stakes of defending them — and potentially the tools he’s willing to use to do so.
• Western countries would never recognize such annexations, but the move could scramble the risk-reward calculus for providing arms and political support.
• For Ukraine, the threat is more existential: partition, long-term destabilization and the demise of any possible peace deal. It also increases the incentive to counterattack now, before Russia can put any annexation plans into practice.
The big picture: The four oblasts are contiguous and would link Crimea, which Moscow annexed in 2014, to Russia.
• Russian forces took Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine in the early days of the war. Then, after failing to capture Kyiv, they launched a massive offensive in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
• Putin claimed full control of Luhansk earlier this month and is now turning his attention to Donetsk.
• Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledged Wednesday that Russia's military ambitions extend beyond the Donbas, to Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and "a number of other territories" — including potentially Ukrainian-held territory to the West.

Zoom in: In Russian-held Kherson, Russia has installed a puppet government, restricted the internet, mandated the use of the ruble and started issuing Russian passports.
• Kirby said the U.S. believes the next steps of the "annexation playbook" will include a fraudulent referendum on joining Russia, perhaps in mid-September to align with regional elections in Russia.
• Kirby vowed the U.S. and its allies would respond with stiff sanctions and added, "We would remind Mr. Putin that over time he may prove unable to hold this territory."

Such an audacious move would actually be a "logical next step" for Putin, contends Alexander Gabuev, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment.
• Knowing that Ukraine seeks to retake these territories, Putin could up the ante by immediately bringing them under the Russian nuclear umbrella and responding to any Ukrainian counteroffensive with the threat of a tactical nuclear strike, Gabuev says.
• "I think the calculation is that this will be the defining moment where the Western leaders will get very cautious and the goals will shift from retaking all of the pre-Feb. 24 possessions to keeping what Zelensky has right now," Gabuev says.

The other side: By declaring a massive chunk of Ukraine to be part of Russia, Putin would effectively be committing to a large, sustained military presence inside Ukraine and risking embarrassment if Ukrainian counterattacks prove successful.
• But it could also further his objectives of keeping Ukraine divided and weak and placing wedges between Kyiv and its Western backers — and between those backers themselves.
• That's a bet Putin may be willing to make. "The risk appetite of this guy is very different from the risk appetite of Joe Biden," Gabuev says.

Part II: A hinge moment for Ukraine

The annexation threat comes during a "transitional phase" of the war, says Michael Kofman, a leading expert on Russia's military at CNA.
State of play: Russia has been utilizing its artillery advantage over the last three months to make gradual progress in the Donbas.
• CIA director Bill Burns said Wednesday that perhaps 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed and 45,000 wounded in the war. While Burns says Kyiv's losses are likely "a little less than that," they include some of Ukraine's best-trained troops.
• But Ukraine is now hitting back with longer-range artillery of its own. The Russian offensive doesn't seem to be over, Kofman says, but it hasn't yielded any clear progress over the past two weeks.
"I think they're about to run out of steam," MI6 director Richard Moore said today at the Aspen Security Forum. "Our assessment is that the Russians will increasingly find it difficult to supply manpower and materiel over the next few weeks."
• The Ukrainians, meanwhile, have been conducting small-scale counteroffensives, including around Kherson city.
• "It looks very clearly like a positional game in order to put themselves in place for an offensive down the line," Kofman says, noting that Ukrainian forces are doing the same in southern Donbas and in Zaporizhzhia.

What to watch: Ukraine has a clear incentive to make its move before September to try to disrupt any Russian annexation plans.
• Russia, meanwhile, seems to be attempting to secure the boundaries of Kherson and the other oblasts it controls without pushing beyond them, Kofman says, potentially setting the stage for annexation.
• "They would be taking a huge risk trying to annex Kherson because they might lose a large part of it," he says. Kofman thinks the Kremlin may wait until the military outlook in Kherson is clearer before announcing its next moves.

Part III: Where annexations would leave the war

Because the U.S. wouldn't recognize the annexations, the Biden administration's position on the deployment of U.S.-made weaponry — which Kyiv has promised only to use on Ukrainian soil — is unlikely to change.
• But if the Kremlin sets new red lines, all sides will have to reconsider their own risk calculus.
• While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would presumably want to fight full force, Gabuev says, some European countries could feel differently with nuclear weapons on the table and Putin threatening to throttle the gas supply.
Russian annexations would certainly change the diplomatic calculus.
• Western officials have expressed hope that their arms shipments will help create a more favorable status quo, allowing Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire from a position of strength.
• But Zelensky has vowed not to sign a deal that cedes territory to Russia — let alone nearly one-fifth of the country.
Where it stands: Lavrov said Wednesday that now is not the time for peace talks. It remains unclear whether it ever will be, as far as Putin is concerned.
• Burns noted that Putin repeats in private what he's said in public: "Ukraine is not a real country" and "it's his entitlement, Russia's entitlement, to dominate Ukraine."

The bottom line: Annexations could be one step in that direction. But they could also be one more bad bet from a Russian leader who has already made several in this war.

[Farfromgeneva]

The right way to preface it is “declared by our current enemy and murderer who invaded another country by definition of international law , Putin…”

Decided in isolation means nothing.

It is a choice to use certain words and how they are placed of course.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok the treasury piece linked uses “so called” in quotes and describes it as Russia/Putin’s declared which actually proves something different than the claim being made.

...& I prefaced with "declared".

Why “parrot” those propaganda points….it’s a choice.

Because it is not propaganda. It's a simple way to refer to a specific geographic area, more precise than "the Donbas"', & it is in common use by media for that purpose.

Un huh.

[old salt]

The silence from our EU-NATO allies in answering Ukraine's urgent pleas for fighter jets & pilot training is deafening.
There are several EU made aircraft that would be as good or better than retiring USAF F-16's & A-10's.
Except for the A-10, they'd all be effective at shooting down incoming cruise missiles.
You'd think they'd be anxious to help their future EU partner & develop that market for their demand-limited aerospace companies.
...of course, they'd expect the US to pick up the tab to "gift" the aircraft to the Ukrainians.
As usual, I'm betting it will be retiring USAF F-16's that would otherwise have been refurbished, updated & upgraded for sale to NATO allies.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/the ... what-type/
Here's 3 mid-life, combat ready, former Jordanian F-16's that are immediately available.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/299 ... in-florida