Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[mike]

I don't know if slow walking the military equipment was actually a terrible strategy. In hindsight it looks bad - and perhaps it was. But wars and international diplomacy is opaque.
In the first year and a half or so, there was serious concern about Russia using nukes, attacking other countries, etc. And if the West had jumped in with both feet early on, like people now think would have been effective, we have no idea how Russia would have responded. The idea that the West could have more fully supported Ukraine with all that equipment out the gate, and think that Russia would have simply played the hand that they did play, seems highly unlikely. Y
You can't go back in time and change one hand, and expect the opponent to not change accordingly as well. The West dribbled out more powerful arms, in such an incremental fashion that it was difficult for Russia to go into full berserker mode.

One thing we do know, is that what the West did was not effective in helping Ukraine repel Russia from its territory. And nothing changes the reality that Ukraine is now diminished and must accept peace terms that are disadvantageous to itself. It is a partial loss for them, not a full loss, but it's a loss. And this is what happens when countries lose in war.

[R7ehr]

I don't know if slow walking the military equipment was actually a terrible strategy. In hindsight it looks bad - and perhaps it was. But wars and international diplomacy is opaque.
In the first year and a half or so, there was serious concern about Russia using nukes, attacking other countries, etc. And if the West had jumped in with both feet early on, like people now think would have been effective, we have no idea how Russia would have responded. The idea that the West could have more fully supported Ukraine with all that equipment out the gate, and think that Russia would have simply played the hand that they did play, seems highly unlikely. Y
You can't go back in time and change one hand, and expect the opponent to not change accordingly as well. The West dribbled out more powerful arms, in such an incremental fashion that it was difficult for Russia to go into full berserker mode.

One thing we do know, is that what the West did was not effective in helping Ukraine repel Russia from its territory. And nothing changes the reality that Ukraine is now diminished and must accept peace terms that are disadvantageous to itself. It is a partial loss for them, not a full loss, but it's a loss. And this is what happens when countries lose in war.

Sure. But what would the other two options look like, would they have better or worse outcomes?
Option 1, Fully support from day one, risk nukes and WW3.
Option 2, Zero support from day one, a complete takeover of Ukraine.

Of course we have no way of knowing where those to options would have taken us. What would the world look like three years later with each of those options? Better? Worse? Who knows?

[Southerner]

I don't know if slow walking the military equipment was actually a terrible strategy. In hindsight it looks bad - and perhaps it was. But wars and international diplomacy is opaque.
In the first year and a half or so, there was serious concern about Russia using nukes, attacking other countries, etc. And if the West had jumped in with both feet early on, like people now think would have been effective, we have no idea how Russia would have responded. The idea that the West could have more fully supported Ukraine with all that equipment out the gate, and think that Russia would have simply played the hand that they did play, seems highly unlikely. Y
You can't go back in time and change one hand, and expect the opponent to not change accordingly as well. The West dribbled out more powerful arms, in such an incremental fashion that it was difficult for Russia to go into full berserker mode.

One thing we do know, is that what the West did was not effective in helping Ukraine repel Russia from its territory. And nothing changes the reality that Ukraine is now diminished and must accept peace terms that are disadvantageous to itself. It is a partial loss for them, not a full loss, but it's a loss. And this is what happens when countries lose in war.

Ukraine at one point in the war reclaimed a lot of territory and then went into Kursk. Nevertheless, it is David against Goliath. And good points about Russia negotiating w the US considering all the ammo the US provided. I just feel sad when we slash the funding for helping repair Ukraine's power grid. Ukraine has some tech prowess when you reflect on how far they've taken drone warfare.

[mike]

I don't know if slow walking the military equipment was actually a terrible strategy. In hindsight it looks bad - and perhaps it was. But wars and international diplomacy is opaque.
In the first year and a half or so, there was serious concern about Russia using nukes, attacking other countries, etc. And if the West had jumped in with both feet early on, like people now think would have been effective, we have no idea how Russia would have responded. The idea that the West could have more fully supported Ukraine with all that equipment out the gate, and think that Russia would have simply played the hand that they did play, seems highly unlikely. Y
You can't go back in time and change one hand, and expect the opponent to not change accordingly as well. The West dribbled out more powerful arms, in such an incremental fashion that it was difficult for Russia to go into full berserker mode.

One thing we do know, is that what the West did was not effective in helping Ukraine repel Russia from its territory. And nothing changes the reality that Ukraine is now diminished and must accept peace terms that are disadvantageous to itself. It is a partial loss for them, not a full loss, but it's a loss. And this is what happens when countries lose in war.

Sure. But what would the other two options look like, would they have better or worse outcomes?
Option 1, Fully support from day one, risk nukes and WW3.
Option 2, Zero support from day one, a complete takeover of Ukraine.

Of course we have no way of knowing where those to options would have taken us. What would the world look like three years later with each of those options? Better? Worse? Who knows?

Option 1, huge risk, but more risky for Russia than the US. But also extremely risky for Ukraine and EU. I think a better possibility of Russia standing down than of WWIII, but a very scary risk.

Option 2, Ukraine ceases to exist, but hundreds of thousands of people still alive today instead of dead.

Both very bad options, but again, what we have had is the hundreds of thousands of dead with Ukraine standing to lose some of its best land and resources in spite of all it has sacrificed and the West has given.

[ohio jones]

Are you aware that Trump is reported to be a Russian spy?

Nope. Never heard such a thing.

viewtopic.php?p=261046#p261046

[JohnH]

Are you aware that Trump is reported to be a Russian spy?

Nope. Never heard such a thing.

viewtopic.php?p=261046#p261046

Reminds me of the AM radio right wingers in the 1990s who claimed Bill and Hillary Clinton were Chinese agents.

[Ernie]

Look at how many Russian lives have been lost to US weaponry in the past three years. It is amazing that Russia is even interested in dialogue with the US given how much of its losses in the war have been due to American support of the war effort. It goes to show the evil cynicism of Putin how many Russian lives he has been willing to waste in pursuit of just a little more land and resources, and how he's suddenly willing to ignore all those dead Russians and pivot to make peace with the US.

If that even happens. I mean, nothing has been decided or set in stone at this point. Nothing has actually been given or conceded to Putin yet other than what he has gained himself by aggression and military force. We don't know how this will all shake out yet. What if Europe chooses to flood Ukraine with new support, weaponry, or even troops? Maybe this whole thing could in theory yet turn in favor of Ukraine militarily. A very small probability, but at this point, it feels like anything could happen.

I do agree with you that it is ridiculous to say this war is Ukraine's fault.

I don't know if slow walking the military equipment was actually a terrible strategy. In hindsight it looks bad - and perhaps it was. But wars and international diplomacy is opaque.
In the first year and a half or so, there was serious concern about Russia using nukes, attacking other countries, etc. And if the West had jumped in with both feet early on, like people now think would have been effective, we have no idea how Russia would have responded. The idea that the West could have more fully supported Ukraine with all that equipment out the gate, and think that Russia would have simply played the hand that they did play, seems highly unlikely. Y
You can't go back in time and change one hand, and expect the opponent to not change accordingly as well. The West dribbled out more powerful arms, in such an incremental fashion that it was difficult for Russia to go into full berserker mode.

These are some worthwhile perspectives to consider.

[temporal1]

Option 2, Zero support from day one, a complete takeover of Ukraine.

Option 3, Zero support from day one, Ukraine ignored by Russia. Or some other non-aggressive combination.

There’s this funny thing about men/males. Without opposition, competition, provocation, they tend to be peaceful.
Anyway. Those options are unlikely to ever be known. Too many willing participants.

[Szdfan]

Option 2, Zero support from day one, a complete takeover of Ukraine.

Option 3, Zero support from day one, Ukraine ignored by Russia. Or some other non-aggressive combination.

Ukraine has never been ignored by Russia. It was never going to be ignored by Russia.

[Southerner]

Option 2, Zero support from day one, a complete takeover of Ukraine.

Option 3, Zero support from day one, Ukraine ignored by Russia. Or some other non-aggressive combination.

There’s this funny thing about men/males. Without opposition, competition, provocation, they tend to be peaceful.
Anyway. Those options are unlikely to ever be known. Too many willing participants.

Zero support from day 1??? I don't think there would be a Ukraine....maybe a lot like Belarus. Interestingly, Poland and Ukraine left the USSR at roughly the same time. Poland's economy has quadrupled whereas Ukraine's hasn't due to endemic corruption which I think Zelensky is trying to weed out.