Ukraine Might Still Loose the War

[truefiction1]

Blaming everything on massive, nebulous conspiracies is an easy ticket to get anything you say ignored. Quoting Russian state-owned media mouthpieces about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is another. Quoting Col. Douglas Macgregor is an even faster way to show you're not serious about an honest discussion on this war.

For those who aren't familiar with Col. Macgregor, he's basically a Russia & Putin regime apologist who's been paid for the last decade to propagate Russian talking points in the west. Top hits from the last 12 months: Russia is concerned about "NATO troops" or "NATO missiles" in Ukraine and Putin is "not the aggressor"; Zelensky is a "puppet" who needs to "neutralize Ukraine" and surrender to Russia; Ukraine's population is "basically indistinguishable" from Russia's; Russia had been "too gentle" with Ukraine in the first two weeks of the war and tried to keep Ukraine "intact" and "minimise" civilian causalities.

He's been HILARIOUSLY wrong about the course of the Russia-Ukraine war. He predicted in late February 2022 that the war would be over in 10 days, and that Russia would "inevitably annihilate" Ukraine.

By March 2022, he said that a ceasefire agreement was "close" and "inevitable" with the next few days. He was arguing that the war was "really almost over" and that "all of the Ukrainian troops there have been largely surrounded and cut off" and the best they could do was an "occasional pinprick attack".

By July, he was still arguing the war was "largely over" and Russia would take Odessa and Kharkiv.

By September, just days before Ukraine launched the Kharkiv and Kherson counter-offensives, he reported Ukraine had been bled white and that there was no chance for any attack to succeed.

Basically, if he said that the sky was blue in Ukraine, I'd want multiple other sources confirming it before I'd trust anything he said.


By the way, I don't watch 'Western media' - I follow the war through a combination of social media accounts (usually analysis by former military intelligence officials), traditional print trade-style military journals and OPSINT data that I am lucky enough to be privy to.

A worldview is a lens through which these political and military events are interpreted by people. The Russian people (as accurately observed by Nicholai Berdyaev) are an eschatological people, and interpret historical events through the lens of faith in apocalyptic prophecies of Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and many modern day saints and elders who are believed to have received gifts of prophetic, end times visions. I just thought that we ought to be aware of this phenomena, because then we can see that for many Russians, this is indeed a holy war in which "all the stops may be pulled out if necessary" and thus, "Bombs away!!!" (i.e. nuclear, biological, etc... holocaust).

If any of us thinks for one second that Russia is close to being beaten, or stopped, they need to wake up, unless they are prepared to live or to die with the consequences of all out, modern global warfare, and the consequences of this for the planet and all of the hundreds of millions of people who are going to be wiped out.

I'm 100% full-blooded American, yet as an Orthodox Christian I also know very well that what I just said is scarily true. No doubt, however, many will accuse me of being a Russian troll for saying such things.

 

[Gene2memE]

That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing in what you've written there comes close to acknowledging that the sources you "trust" appear to be doing little more than parroting Kremlin talking points about the Ukraine war. Their conclusions may be right, or they may be wrong. However, it doesn't appear to me that these are people who are engaged in any serious, independent thinking about the events of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So, I would inquire as to why you "trust" them.

Neither does it address the fact that you appeal to Alex Jones level conspiracy theories about 'Globalists' and the "One World agenda" to discredit opposing points of view. You can be critical of Western responses to Russia's invasion, or sympathetic to Russian aims, but simply barking out fakenews and lugenpresse does nothing to support your point of view.

 

[truefiction1]

That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing in what you've written there comes close to acknowledging that the sources you "trust" appear to be doing little more than parroting Kremlin talking points about the Ukraine war. Their conclusions may be right, or they may be wrong. However, it doesn't appear to me that these are people who are engaged in any serious, independent thinking about the events of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So, I would inquire as to why you "trust" them.

Neither does it address the fact that you appeal to Alex Jones level conspiracy theories about 'Globalists' and the "One World agenda" to discredit opposing points of view. You can be critical of Western responses to Russia's invasion, or sympathetic to Russian aims, but simply barking out fakenews and lugenpresse does nothing to support your point of view.

Why do I trust my sources? Because they are the saints, and known for their gifts of prophecy. I would trust their testimony rather than others.

 

[Gene2memE]

Why do I trust my sources? Because they are the saints, and known for their gifts of prophecy. I would trust their testimony rather than others.

Your sources - a pair of former journalists with legally questionable real estate and financial interests, and a former US Army Lt Colonel who has been retired for two decades - are saints? And they're prophetic?

Interesting....

Or are you talking about something else entirely?

 

[truefiction1]

Your sources - a pair of former journalists with legally questionable real estate and financial interests, and a former US Army Lt Colonel who has been retired for two decades - are saints? And they're prophetic?

Interesting....

Or are you talking about something else entirely?

You must have me confused with someone else. My sources are the holy Father's and mothers of the Church. They are ascetics and martyrs, who have the gifts of prophecy, not journalists and Realtors.

 

[Gene2memE]

You must have me confused with someone else.

You're right. I did confuse you with another poster.

My apologies.

My sources are the holy Father's and mothers of the Church. They are ascetics and martyrs, who have the gifts of prophecy, not journalists and Realtors.

Ummm.... okay.

I understand you're an ardent believer and that stuff is real to you, but I hold no similar beliefs. If someone had said "I listen to the voices in my head", it would hold the same amount of credibility to me.

Journalists and realtors would be preferable sources to ascetics and martyrs, unless the latter has an demonstrated expertise in the geopolitics of Eastern Europe and the ins and outs of wartime logistics with client state partners.

 

[truefiction1]

You're right. I did confuse you with another poster.

My apologies.



Ummm.... okay.

I understand you're an ardent believer and that stuff is real to you, but I hold no similar beliefs. If someone had said "I listen to the voices in my head", it would hold the same amount of credibility to me.

Journalists and realtors would be preferable sources to ascetics and martyrs, unless the latter has an demonstrated expertise in the geopolitics of Eastern Europe and the ins and outs of wartime logistics with client state partners.

Did righteous Noah build an ark because he was a geopolitical genius? Or did he do it because he was shown what was to come? Failure to believe in Christ is the responsibility of the ones who fail, and sinfulness is the root cause of the failure. This is why the holy ones of God have always Exhorted us to believe and repent. Just FYI. When we begin to hear of the destruction all around, we'll ask ourselves, "Where is the wisdom of the wise geopolitical geniuses?"

 

[Gene2memE]

Did righteous Noah build an ark because he was a geopolitical genius? Or did he do it because he was shown what was to come?

I've no reason to believe Noah was a historical individual and not a mythic figure. Certainly, there doesn't appear to be better evidence for Noah and the Genesis account that there is for Atrahasis, Manu, Ducalion or any of the heroes from a range of near East flood myths.

Failure to believe in Christ is the responsibility of the ones who fail, and sinfulness is the root cause of the failure.

If I understand it, sin cannot be avoided and all people are sinners under the Christian model. Plus, the whole original sin thing. So, if sinfulness is the root cause of failure, and God established a system where it is impossible for men not to sin, then failure to believe would appear to me to be the result of the system and its creator, not the participants in the system.

This is why the holy ones of God have always Exhorted us to believe and repent. Just FYI.

Just believe doesn't cut it for me. Particularly when it comes to religious claims.

Anyone applying standards of evidence equally would be required to accept the metaphysical claims of various religions as equally true - even claims that stand in direct contradiction of each other, or claims that are clearly in opposition to observed reality.

My approach it to apply skepticism and only believe the claims that have evidentiary warrant.

 

[truefiction1]

I've no reason to believe Noah was a historical individual and not a mythic figure. Certainly, there doesn't appear to be better evidence for Noah and the Genesis account that there is for Atrahasis, Manu, Ducalion or any of the heroes from a range of near East flood myths.



If I understand it, sin cannot be avoided and all people are sinners under the Christian model. Plus, the whole original sin thing. So, if sinfulness is the root cause of failure, and God established a system where it is impossible for men not to sin, then failure to believe would appear to me to be the result of the system and its creator, not the participants in the system.



Just believe doesn't cut it for me. Particularly when it comes to religious claims.

Anyone applying standards of evidence equally would be required to accept the metaphysical claims of various religions as equally true - even claims that stand in direct contradiction of each other, or claims that are clearly in opposition to observed reality.

My approach it to apply skepticism and only believe the claims that have evidentiary warrant.

It's possible, through skepticism, to deny anything miraculous or supernatural. So things are basically as explained in the famous quote of Blaise Pascal (author of Pascal's law of physics responsible for hydraulic power in industry):

“In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.” ​

It's one's disposition that counts. Those who don't want to believe don't have to. FYI the model of sin you're familiar with is that of Western Christianity, especially Protestantism, and it's erred. It's possible to become purified of sin by cooperating with the uncreated energy (grace) of God. So, yeah... to continue down the path of sin leading away from God, or to resist the urges to sin and move toward sinlessness is our own personal choice, for which there will be an accounting. Those who choose the sin of self-love and the passions love the darkness and shadows. Others search for more of the uncreated Light, which lets them see the real presence of God. Skepticism isn't going to spare the skeptics in the Judgment, anymore than my own excuses for continuing to sin will spare me, if I continue in my slavery to sin. They who commit sin are slaves to sin, skeptics included. But, as they say in Kansas (the band, that is), "Carry on my Wayward Son".

 

[Merrill]

Excellent post

I would add that the western strategy on this matter is entirely cynical and morally bankrupt. Europe and the US know that Ukraine cannot definitively defeat Russia, but the idea is the bleed Putin's forces white and create a Pyrrhic Victory. After a lengthy, and bloody conflict, Russia will probably grab some land, but the rest of Ukraine will be in ruins, with hundreds of thousands dead.

Meanwhile, things like agricultural exports from Ukraine continue to be disrupted, and energy prices are a problem, causing pain around the world.

This whole thing was a catastrophic foreign-policy disaster by the Biden administration and European leaders. And it could have been avoided. How?

Roll back the clock to January 2020. A deal between Russia and Ukraine could have looked like this:

1. Ukraine drops all NATO bids and signs a formal treaty with Russia (this is one of the stipulations)
2. Ukraine is given a fast-track approval to join the EU--this will not be contested by Russia
3. Russia is given limited rights over pipelines, and a profit-sharing agreement is put into place
4. Ukraine cedes Crimea to Russia
5. Russia formally recognizes Zelensky's government

As much as I criticize Trump for other things, such an agreement would have likely happened under his administration, and there wouldn't be a war going on right now.

Trump knows war and chaos are bad for business

Giving Ukraine billions in aid (lots of it stolen), tanks, weapons, etc. prolongs the conflict. If Russia captures Leopard-2 tanks or Abrams tanks, those things will be sent to China, and end up assisting that country as it modernizes its army.

the GOP has to develop a peace plan, and it must be contrasted with Biden's goals in this matter

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

So what's Ukraine's incentive to hand over pipelines, the Crimea and become a Russian puppet?

 

[Merrill]

So what's Ukraine's incentive to hand over pipelines, the Crimea and become a Russian puppet?

They wouldn't hand them over --there would be some kind of profit sharing arrangement.

Ukraine is not getting the Crimea back, either militarily or through an agreement. It is the critical Black Sea port for Russia.

we have to be realistic about this--both sides are going to have to make concessions, and they won't get everything they want. This idea that Ukraine is going to force the Russians out, and then march on Moscow is a fantasy (Putin can mobilize another million troops if he needs to, and heaven-forbid he uses a tactical nuke)

they key for Ukraine is to get some key concessions from Russia while it still can

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They wouldn't hand them over --there would be some kind of profit sharing arrangement.

What incentive would Russia have to hold to this hypothetical agreement?

Ukraine is not getting the Crimea back, either militarily or through an agreement. It is the critical Black Sea port for Russia.

Russia has other port cities on the Black Sea that are actually within Russia, most notably Novorossiysk. Sevastopol is a better port, of course, but that doesn't give them license to take it.

they key for Ukraine is to get some key concessions from Russia while it still can

I see no real concessions from Russia in your proposal. Russia has no right to contest the application of another country to the EU, and they have no right to deny recognition of their government.

 

[Merrill]

What incentive would Russia have to hold to this hypothetical agreement?

Russia has other port cities on the Black Sea that are actually within Russia, most notably Novorossiysk. Sevastopol is a better port, of course, but that doesn't give them license to take it.

I see no real concessions from Russia in your proposal. Russia has no right to contest the application of another country to the EU, and they have no right to deny recognition of their government.

The concessions from Russia would be recognition of Zelensky and his government (they view him as a usurper and criminal right now), and to not contest a Ukraine EU membership. Eventually, it would involve a troop pullout and treaty.

We can complain all we want about what Russia should be able to do, and how it should act. That isn't going to stop Putin, who feels militarily and economically threatened from all sides.

Life frequently gives us choices between several bad decisions. No easy way out here, but escalation should not be the objective

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The concessions from Russia would be recognition of Zelensky and his government (they view him as a usurper and criminal right now), and to not contest a Ukraine EU membership. Eventually, it would involve a troop pullout and treaty.

"Give the aggressor stuff so that they'll behave" is called appeasement. Historically, it hasn't been a particularly effective policy. Russia already had a treaty with Ukraine and failed to honor it - why should Ukraine trust them a second time?

Life frequently gives us choices between several bad decisions. No easy way out here, but escalation should not be the objective

That would seem to be a decision for Ukraine to make.

 

[Merrill]

"Give the aggressor stuff so that they'll behave" is called appeasement. Historically, it hasn't been a particularly effective policy. Russia already had a treaty with Ukraine and failed to honor it - why should Ukraine trust them a second time?

That would seem to be a decision for Ukraine to make.

what is the alternative then? If final victory for Ukraine is impossible, what then? WWIII with billions dead?

and is Zelensky some nice guy we should even support? Last I checked, he was a corrupt dictator. Not as much of a thug as Putin, but hardly some "ally" we need to support. It does not serve US national interests on any level to continue getting involved in this conflict.

 

[Gene2memE]

The concessions from Russia would be recognition of Zelensky and his government (they view him as a usurper and criminal right now), and to not contest a Ukraine EU membership.

That's not a concession. Russia has nothing to do with either of them, so can't concede on either.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and elects it's own government. Russia can't dictate which multilateral groups Ukraine is a part of, and if Russia wants to negotiate international agreements with Ukraine then it is forced to accept the Zelensky government as legitimate.

BTW, Russia already de-dacto recognises the Zelensky government as legitimate. There was formal intergovernmental communications following the 2019 election and Russia remained a participant in the tripartite contact group right up until it launched the invasion. Putin and Zelensky also held multiple meetings in 2019 (both one-on-one and with German and French participation), which you don't do if you don't recognise the government.

 

[Gene2memE]

what is the alternative then?

Russia takes the loss, packs up and goes home.
UN imposes a temporary demilitarised zone on the eastern border and oversees a ceasefire.
Ukraine undertakes a referendum whether it allows moves towards independence in Donbas, Crimea and Luhansk. Then subsequent referendums for independence are run in these areas, with the vote overseen by an international monitoring group with security guarantees from the UN.

If final victory for Ukraine is impossible, what then? WWIII with billions dead?

Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and what reasons does Russia have to expand the conflict with weapons of mass destruction?

and is Zelensky some nice guy we should even support? Last I checked, he was a corrupt dictator.

You need to check your sources again then. He's demonstrably neither.

Zelensky was legitimately elected (winning nearly 70% of the vote) and one of main platforms he ran on was anti-corruption. While he's not been overly successful (Ukraine remains one of the most corrupt countries in Europe), he has at least got the country moving in the right direction in this regard.

Not as much of a thug as Putin, but hardly some "ally" we need to support. It does not serve US national interests on any level to continue getting involved in this conflict.

US national security interests have included closer and closer ties with Ukraine since the very late 1990s. These ties were only reinforced following the Euromaiden uprising and the deposing of an actually corrupt authoritarian government.

The US and Ukraine have been allies for close to a decade, and have had a security partnership for more than 20 years. That has included the US actively working to help Ukraine get to a position where it could be a full NATO member.

 

[Merrill]

Russia takes the loss, packs up and goes home.
UN imposes a temporary demilitarised zone on the eastern border and oversees a ceasefire.
Ukraine undertakes a referendum whether it allows moves towards independence in Donbas, Crimea and Luhansk. Then subsequent referendums for independence are run in these areas, with the vote overseen by an international monitoring group with security guarantees from the UN.



Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and what reasons does Russia have to expand the conflict with weapons of mass destruction?



You need to check your sources again then. He's demonstrably neither.

Zelensky was legitimately elected (winning nearly 70% of the vote) and one of main platforms he ran on was anti-corruption. While he's not been overly successful (Ukraine remains one of the most corrupt countries in Europe), he has at least got the country moving in the right direction in this regard.



US national security interests have included closer and closer ties with Ukraine since the very late 1990s. These ties were only reinforced following the Euromaiden uprising and the deposing of an actually corrupt authoritarian government.

The US and Ukraine have been allies for close to a decade, and have had a security partnership for more than 20 years. That has included the US actively working to help Ukraine get to a position where it could be a full NATO member.

that is an awfully rosy and idealistic way to view this current conflict

while it is a possible scenario, another scenario is Russia opens up with tactical nukes before it loses the conflict, especially if Ukraine is on the verge of recapturing Crimea

hundreds of thousands dead, and WWIII might result. Russia has already said that a nuclear-armed nation cannot "lose a war" and they will not.

Giving Ukraine NATO membership would be insane, and almost immediately lead to full-scale conflict between NATO and Russia. Sending UN troops in there is another bad idea.

Russia can also do another general mobilization and throw another 500k troops at Ukraine.

Now that being said, another possible scenario may result:

1. Russia's economy completely implodes when oil prices dive during the recession, sanctions continue to impact them, etc. Their war-chest is already down by 80%, and will be gone by the end of the year. China and India will be buying less of their oil because of the global economic slowdown--and discounts will widen. Unemployment soars, and people get angry.

2. The war continues to get bloodier and more disruptive. Both China and India start losing patience with it, and worry about escalation. Xi tells Putin behind closed-doors "you need to wrap this thing up ASAP, and if you don't, we will stop buying your oil" --that could end the conflict within a week.

3. Further escalations and massive personnel losses cause Russian top military officials to lose confidence in Putin. He is either forced out of office, or "catches a cold"

--
Ukraine is not a NATO ally, and the US has no formal military alliance with them. We do not buy Ukrainian natural gas or LNG, or much of their agricultural exports. That nation has always been in the Russian sphere-of-influence.

This is a textbook example of Jefferson's warning about entangling alliances with foreign nations that go against US interests. The war has brought on additional inflation in commodity pricing and food, and has done fiscal damage to the US government. The madness here needs to end

 

[RocksInMyHead]

while it is a possible scenario, another scenario is Russia opens up with tactical nukes before it loses the conflict, especially if Ukraine is on the verge of recapturing Crimea

hundreds of thousands dead, and WWIII might result. Russia has already said that a nuclear-armed nation cannot "lose a war" and they will not.

Again with the appeasement. What happens when Russia rolls up to the Polish border and demands territory? Or Moldova? Or Finland?

Giving Ukraine NATO membership would be insane, and almost immediately lead to full-scale conflict between NATO and Russia. Sending UN troops in there is another bad idea.

That would 100% be on Russia. NATO has no interest in invading Russia. And this sort of intervention into a regional conflict is one of the UN's primary missions. Arguably, the only thing that's prevented the UN from stepping in is Russia's permanent position (and therefore veto) on the Security Council.

Ukraine is not a NATO ally, and the US has no formal military alliance with them.

True, but that does not mean that we don't have a vested interest in maintaining the sovereignty of independent nations.

We do not buy Ukrainian natural gas or LNG, or much of their agricultural exports. That nation has always been in the Russian sphere-of-influence.

Based on 2021 statistics, the US is #12 on the list of Ukraine's export partners, and they do significant business with Western Europe: Ukraine Exports By Country

Russia barely squeaks in ahead of Italy. Ukraine may be "traditionally" in the Russian sphere of influence, but given Russia's behavior towards them over the last decade, they've been looking to change that - as is their right as a sovereign nation.

This is a textbook example of Jefferson's warning about entangling alliances with foreign nations that go against US interests. The war has brought on additional inflation in commodity pricing and food, and has done fiscal damage to the US government. The madness here needs to end

Allowing Russia to annex Ukraine would also go against our national interests.