Desperate Zelensky

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 17
Topic's author
#1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Knowing exactly what is going to happen Jan 20th,

Zelensky pleads with NATO to let him join if he ends the war by letting Putin get the Donbas.

My guess is NATO is going to tell Zelensky to pound sand like they have been for decades, knowing it would be suicide to admit a corrupt former Soviet state into NATO who would trigger artilcle 5 over stupid crap.

Putin is also likely to say nyet.
#2
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,146
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Knowing exactly what is going to happen Jan 20th,

Zelensky pleads with NATO to let him join if he ends the war by letting Putin get the Donbas.

My guess is NATO is going to tell Zelensky to pound sand like they have been for decades, knowing it would be suicide to admit a corrupt former Soviet state into NATO who would trigger artilcle 5 over stupid crap.

Putin is also likely to say nyet.
Smart move by Zelensky to drag NATO to negotiate with the Russians. Not sure if NATO will go to war with Russia for Ukraine.
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,075
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Ukraine was doing well until North Korea joined the war. Zelensky was warned not to make attacks on Russian soil. He triggered Korea-Russia defense alliance, and now Kim Jong Un can literally even test his ICBM's on Ukraine. North Korea wins in Ukraine.
#4
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,116
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
From a purely selfish perspective, the West doesn't need Ukraine to win. It just needs Russia to suffer a high cost for invading another country in order to discourage further invasions to Western allies. Even if the West is paying a cost as well, it might be better to pay a higher financial cost for each war but have fewer of them overall. In this case, Russia is paying in lives and the West is paying in money, so the punishment to Russia outweighs the cost to Western nations.
Topic's author
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Sadly, their GDP really didn't take much of a hit, and it actually strengthened its BRICS position as well as Chinese ties.

This has been a failure on every front up to now. All strategic operations have not had the intended effect, from the decision to back the Maidan revolt in 2014, to the sweeping sanctions, to the sabotage of the Nordstrom, to the decision to allow missile strikes in Russian territory. All of these have spectacularly backfired. It's Vietnam/Afghanistan all over again. We just never learn. Let's hope Trump can exit better than Biden did from Afghanistan.

 in order to discourage further invasions to Western allies. 

The thing is, it was during a civil war, so it's also seen by many countries as a liberation, much like the USA came to the aid of one side of a civil war countless times and occupied with troops (Syria for the latest example).... clearly Ukraine is in such a mess not a single member nation including the US was willing to actually send troops to aid the Maidan revolt. This is why the war can't be won and was never meant to be won. It was actually not meant to weaken Russia, but mainly to weaken Ukraine so that the land and petroleum resources could be parceled out to business interests. This was never about "saving Ukraine"...it was all about exploiting Ukraine. (like we did with Iraq with the reconstruction contracts and the sell off of oil production to large companies) There's an article I posted a while back that shows NATO member states now owning over half of Ukraine's farmland.... it's a huge scam, as war for profit always is. Break the country apart, and pick the bones clean after.
#6
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,146
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
From a purely selfish perspective, the West doesn't need Ukraine to win. It just needs Russia to suffer a high cost for invading another country in order to discourage further invasions to Western allies. Even if the West is paying a cost as well, it might be better to pay a higher financial cost for each war but have fewer of them overall. In this case, Russia is paying in lives and the West is paying in money, so the punishment to Russia outweighs the cost to Western nations.
That is the Reagan strategy to support Afghanistan against Russia that saw the collapse of the Soviet Union. Only here Russia will not collapse under Putin.
#7
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,075
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
West doesn't need Ukraine to win. It just needs Russia to suffer a high cost for invading another country in order to discourage further invasions to Western allies.
Thats true, but Ukraine's war is very much a tie.

Ukraine already received more money than Russia's entire military budget, yet it has failed to achieve anything other than drain both Russia's and NATO's supplies.

Its true that if NATO didnt support Ukraine, then Ukraine would fall completely and Putin would win territory, resources and population.

Right now, Russians are losing lives while NATO soldiers arent, which is beneficial for NATO.

However, in terms of resources, NATO is being drained more, and they are also losing modern weapons in Ukraine. This is important in case some other war starts somewhere else, because if NATO uses too many resources to defeat Russia, then countries like China or North Korea can take advantage of situation and start another war.

So this war might be just a tie where neither side can easily give up but neither side can realistically win either, but in terms of resources, NATO has for sure payed too much to Ukraine, and Ukraine made bad moves so now they are fighting North Korea too. So when we are talking of war of resources, if NATO is losing resource war against Russia and North Korea, it will lose much more if China starts war with areas it has interest in.

There is just the "cost to effect" ratio, and right now NATO is paying high cost which doesnt  seem to be making the desired effect in terms of global scale. Russia is just one of the enemies, and if it takes this much resources to contain just Russia alone, then NATO is in trouble if other enemies decide to start something.
#8
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,116
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@Shila
their GDP really didn't take much of a hit
They've lost a lot of soldiers though, and much of their military equipment has been destroyed. The war took much longer than Russia expected. Its BRICS position has strengthened, but that was always something Russia knew they could fall back on. If Russia wins, it will be a pyrrhic victory, especially if they don't get all of Ukraine. I'm not sure other countries will look at this war and think that invading another country is worth it. There's a sliding scale to how much Russia gains in this war, and harming them in ways they don't expect can deter invasions even if Ukraine still loses.

It's Vietnam/Afghanistan all over again
The US doesn't have boots on the ground. Big difference. Russia is the country losing soldiers.

Now, is it ethical to kill Russian and Ukrainian conscripts for a war Ukraine will likely lose, just to deter future invasions? From a utilitarian perspective, maybe. If you don't think the ends justify the means, then probably not. But from a purely strategic perspective, Russia losing a lot of soldiers for invading another country sends a pretty strong message.

Russia will not collapse under Putin
I don't know that the main benefit is "collapsing Russia" as much as "deterring invasions."

Ukraine's war is very much a tie.
If the West wants to deter invasions, that's better than Russia winning easily.
#9
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,116
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Forgot to tag
Topic's author
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Russia losing a lot of soldiers for invading another country sends a pretty strong message
It also sends a chilling message to the west as well. That the days of curbstomping small countries into a civil war with no pushback is over. Russia has forever proved it will be willing to shed blood to prevent the west from starting any more civil wars on their doorstep.

Again, this war was never about "saving Ukraine"

It was to break it apart like Iraq and sold off piece by bloody piece.
#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,116
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
It also sends a chilling message to the west as well.
So win-win. Everyone receives a message.
Topic's author
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Yeah, and the message to Ukraine is that it is now half owned by foreign interests. Such is the case when the west backs a civil war. With friends like the west, who needs enemies?
#13
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,116
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Which half isn't owned by foreign interests? The part under American influence or the part occupied by Russia?
Topic's author
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant

If this is what we really meant by "saving Ukraine" it feels like a twist ending on an episode of the Twilight Zone.

“This is a lose-lose situation for Ukrainians. While they are dying to defend their land, financial institutions are insidiously supporting the consolidation of farmland by oligarchs and Western financial interests"
Topic's author
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
So yeah, from a utilitarian viewpoint, we can declare victory over Ukraine.
Topic's author
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
it mirrors the pattern seen in Iraq, where local populations bore the brunt of the conflict’s human and economic toll. In Iraq, far more allied Iraqis died than Americans, yet the reconstruction phase disproportionately benefited US and foreign corporations and financial interests. Similarly, in Ukraine, while Ukrainians fight and suffer the consequences of war, Western oligarchs (corporations) gain control of valuable farmland and resources. These conflicts historically leave the local population paying the highest price for gains that largely benefit western powers. I don't know if it's ethical to continue to support this kind of exploitation.
#17
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,075
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
They've lost a lot of soldiers though, and much of their military equipment has been destroyed
The problem is that Ukraine needed 380 billion dollars to destroy much less worth of Russia's military.

With such exchange ratio, we cant really say "great job!".

If it was 380 for 380 billion, I would say, sure its somewhat worth it.

Russia's military budget per year is 75 billion and its not even all spent on Ukraine, thus Russia's losses in Ukraine arent even close to 380 billion. In fact, entire Russian yearly budget isnt 380 billion.

Nothing Russian destroyed by Ukraine is worth 380 billion dollars.

The old tanks which would anyway go out of service soon cant really count as some significant loss for Russia.

Ukraine was given 380 billion vs Russia's yearly 75 billion military budget.

Ukraine did not get just any 380 billion dollars, but was given some of the NATO technology which was considered far superior to Russian's.

It failed.

The proper plan would be to give Ukraine just enough so it doesnt fall easily, or if it falls so that it can continue fighting through guerrila warfare. Giving it 380 billion didnt seem to pay off much, and NATO is already greatly drained and unprepared for next wars which might follow.