Solution to Russian blocking of Ukrainian grain?

[unicorn]

Putin's blocking of Ukrainian grain exports could again stoke marked rises in grain prices, with consequent effects on inflation and the world economy. It would seem that NATO countries could defuse that by announcing that ships registered with NATO countries would be transporting said grain. Any attack on ships from NATO countries would therefore trigger NATO involvement, which would probably result in Putin's demise. I don't think even Putin is crazy enough to attack ships from NATO countries. That would be tantamount to suicide. 

[forky123]

It's what needs to happen but most Nato leaders don't have the balls.

[stevenkesslar]

On 7/22/2023 at 11:59 AM, forky123 said:

It's what needs to happen but most Nato leaders don't have the balls.

Then again, getting NATO directly involved after Vlad bombs NATO ships could lead to World War III.  Oops!

Russian wheat exports were up 36 % last year.  So part of the reason the rumors of the demise of Vlad's Russia were premature is he is making lots of money on food and energy exports.  He's helping to create and sustain inflation in both commodities, and profiting from it., too.  Clever guy!

African Union calls on Russia to reinstate Ukrainian grain deal

A recent study projected a famine in the Horn of Africa that will impact tens of millions in three African nations alone.  They are suffering from a combination of drought and Putin's war.  For what it's worth, I think Russia and China suck at soft power.  I've read countless stories about how Europeans think Vlad wants them to freeze to death. And Africans have good reason to think Vlad wants them to starve to death.  This can't be helping Russia, and indirectly China, in the long run.  That said, desperate people do desperate things.  in the short term, it is funding Vlad's war and crippling Ukraine.

Given the declining Republican support for simply sending weapons to Ukraine - which US corporations make a lot of money on and which employs US workers - it's a no brainer that Biden won't be looking for ways to get NATO directly involved in the run up to an election.  Trump will argue Biden essentially started the war.  And he'll work it out with Vlad in no time at all.  Probably a day or so.  🤫

If you want to watch something really depressing, watch this YouTube video that's a little over an hour:

John Mearsheimer Ukraine Salon

Mearsheimer thinks Putin has the upper hand, for three reasons.  It's a war of attrition.  He has more soldiers.  More artillery.  And more capacity to strangle Ukraine economically, as we are seeing. 

Mearsheimer is an awesome strategic thinker who has been saying some things for decades that have aged well.  First, he's a hawk on China, arguing it would not rise peacefully.  Because that's not what great powers do.  Second, he's a dove on most other US wars:  Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.  He argued democracies suck as occupying forces.  Third, he was the odd man out arguing decades ago that Ukraine should keep their nukes as deterrence.  Then, like George Kennan and Clinton's Defense Secretary, among others,  he argued we really were poking the bear.  In his case he says this all really started with our post-2008 NATO expansion plans.   He preferred Bernie in 2020 (because of his focus on income inequality) and thinks Trump is a blundering disaster.  But he also clearly sees this war as Biden's folly.

The best counter argument I've heard, from Edward Luttwak recently for example, is that both Putin and Biden have strategic interests to settle this.  While Putin has juggled the Russian war economy well, and it has shrunk way less than was promised, that can't last forever.  Meanwhile, Biden (and The Blob) want to focus on China.  Implicit in this thinking is the idea that there are alternatives to driving Xi and Vlad into each other's arms.  Even though they are two of the nicest guys around, of course.  😉 

I also think Mearsheimer underestimates Vlad's problems.  He thinks Vlad will double down and go for four more Ukrainian oblasts eventually - meaning all eight ones that primarily speak Russian.  Including Odesa and all the ones along the Black Sea.  And that Vlad will have to spend a decade or two absorbing that before he can think about moving on to Kyiv, the Baltic states, or Poland.  Maybe.  But over 80 % of every oblast except Crimea voted NOT to be part of Russia.  So I suspect Vlad knows that he could have a new Afghanistan on his hand.  And what's left of Ukraine would be the equivalent of Pakistan.  Where it is all too easy to cross a border to go find Russians to kill.

Then again, it worked in Chechnya.  Vlad may find the prospect irresistible.

If anyone wants to watch an hour of Mearsheimer I'm curious if others think he is right or wrong.

 

 

[forky123]

29 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Then again, getting NATO directly involved after Vlad bombs NATO ships could lead to World War III.  Oops!

Putin has been using that threat continually while committing war crimes with his destruction of civilian infrastructure and now food and ships. The only way to stop a bully is to punch them on the nose. NATO either needs to hit back hard if ships are attacked or set up a humanitarian corridor within Ukraine to guarantee food shipments. They won't because the Republicans are backed and funded by Russia and will stall. Trump would likely win in 2024 and fall over himself lubing himself and bending over for Putin and his Russian golden shower girls. The US is a mess and Ukraine is suffering for it. 

[unicorn]

On 7/27/2023 at 8:42 AM, stevenkesslar said:

Then again, getting NATO directly involved after Vlad bombs NATO ships could lead to World War III.  Oops!...

 

I can't imagine any circumstance in which there'd be a WWIII. If Putin were stupid enough to engage NATO, no one would back him up, not even Belarus or China. The Russian armed forces are a joke. Look how easily the mercenaries almost walked right into Moscow. Russia isn't even able to take down Ukraine. Russia wouldn't even be able to fend off Germany or France alone, were it not for supply-chain/logistics issues. It was barely able to fend off Turkey. You really think Russia could put up a fight with Germany, France, and Turkey together--not to mention the US, UK, Canada, Finland, Sweden? Absurd. Even someone as stupid as Putin knows damned well he can't win a fight with NATO. 

[stevenkesslar]

11 hours ago, unicorn said:

Russia isn't even able to take down Ukraine. Russia wouldn't even be able to fend off Germany or France alone, were it not for supply-chain/logistics issues. It was barely able to fend off Turkey. 

The issue is about using NATO ships to transport grain, and whether Russia would attack them.

Do I think that alone would trigger World War III?  Extremely unlikely. But that is partly because both Putin and NATO are making it clear that they don't want to directly engage each other.  The provocation that would really test how far Putin would go is if NATO said, "Sure, Ukraine.  Join NATO immediately."  They just had a great chance to show they had balls, and do that.  Zelenskyy has balls, and wanted just that.  But NATO didn't do it.  I don't think NATO wants to go to war with Russia.  And I don't think Putin wants to go to war with NATO.

The somewhat more likely scenario is that many geopolitical analysts think there's a reasonable chance Putin would use nukes to prevent a loss in Ukraine.  The most frequent suggestion is that to prevent Ukraine from taking back Crimea and humiliating Putin, he might well launch nukes on Ukrainians.  But not against NATO.  Who knows?  But I would not rule that out.  Right now, it doesn't look like Putin is humiliated so much.  He's saying the counter-offensive is a bust.

Some version of all your arguments were used for years to predict that of course Putin would never actually start a war in Ukraine.  Because he isn't stupid enough to provoke NATO that way and become a global pariah.  And possibly start World War III.  And yet, he did.  First in Crimea.   And then the whole nation.  So the idea that we can predict just how far Putin will actually go hasn't worked so well.

I despise Murderous Vlad.  And I'd rather have Biden than Trump because Biden will do "whatever it takes" to support Ukraine militarily.  That said, at the same time I agree with Mearsheimer's argument I posted above that NATO was stupid to keep ignoring what Putin said about Ukraine and NATO starting in 2008.  Even moreso, they were stupid to say to Ukraine, "We've got your back.  But not really."  So, again, the idea that we can just poke the bear as we wish knowing that of course bears are not stupid enough to go to war hasn't really worked so well.  NATO ships would be a different form of the same goading. 

The thing I most want NATO and the US to do, for now, is keep sending Ukraine whatever it needs to win.  But Mearsheimer makes the best argument I've heard to date that Putin simply has more soldiers and more artillery.  Which is what wins wars.  So Ukraine simply won't be able to "win" as we would hope.  He argues that as the war of attrition grinds on,  possibly for years, Putin may be able to seize all the Russian-speaking Southern oblasts along the Black Sea.  If that happens, it solves the NATO ship problem.  Because Ukraine will be landlocked.  All of this seems very plausible.  The strategy that's been debated since the war started is whether Putin can gradually prevail in a long war of attrition against Ukraine, but not NATO.  Right now it's not looking so bad for Putin.

11 hours ago, unicorn said:

You really think Russia could put up a fight with Germany, France, and Turkey together--not to mention the US, UK, Canada, Finland, Sweden?

I'll up the ante on your question and ask you this. 

Do we really have the balls to engage Russia directly and militarily?  Because that would stop the slaughter.  Why fuck around with NATO ships with grain on them?  Let's skip that and give Ukraine what they really want:  NATO jets with bombs on them. Why not?

We could have a real fun competition to see whether US or UK or French or Canadian bombers could take out more Russian soldiers.  Fuck all those land mines.  That's so World War I.  Let's just bomb the fuck out of them.  And let's invite Vlad to send his entire military across the border.  So we can fry the fuck out of them, too.  Without starting World War III.  Because, after all, we're only defending Ukraine's territorial integrity. 

That's what I'd argue the US and NATO would do if we want to prove that we really have balls. That's what Zelenskyy and probably most Ukrainians want.   They want us to actually have their backs, with our blood.  And if we actually did it, there's probably no more than a 50/50 chance that Vlad would escalate to nukes or attacks on NATO. Because he knows that would escalate to direct NATO hits on Russia.  Why not roll the dice?

The sobering thing Mearsheimer is saying is if we don't do something like that, which he would probably argue is folly, then we are stuck with a horrific, bloody, and long war of attrition that Ukraine is more likely to lose.  Meaning they will never regain the territory they have already lost.  And they are at risk to gradually lose more.  So then, militarily, our best hope is a stalemate that wrecks Ukraine.  And punishes Russia greatly for wrecking Ukraine.  

I think that's a pretty sobering assessment of the choices we may eventually face, if we learn that the vaunted counteroffensive barely moves entrenched Russian positions.  It's entirely predictable that Gen. Petraeus will pop up, yet again, and make the same "surge" arguments that didn't really work in Iraq or Afghanistan.  It's a proven recipe for quagmire. 

So I'll argue we either Go Big and Go NATO and bomb the fuck out of them.  Or we start to accept the fact that Ukraine got wrecked.  As Mearsheimer predicted for several decades it would if we poked the bear too much.  But the good news is at least a smaller version of a Western-oriented Ukraine survived.  And Russia's big victory is they get a brand new Afghanistan inside their proclaimed border.  Or worse.  Because it will be so much easier for pissed off Ukrainians to endlessly kill Russians.  As Mearsheimer asked in that video above, "Where does it end?"  Excellent question.

By the way, since I've cited him a lot, I should mention Mearsheimer is no dove.  His core argument is that the real strategic threat is China.  He would argue you are right about the military power of nations like Germany, or France, or the UK. @unicorn.  He's been saying since the end of the Cold War that  NATO could de-escalate and leave a weakened Russia to fight Ukraine, with the direct support of Germany and maybe other European nations.   He also argued decades ago, after the collapse of the USSR, that Ukraine should keep its nukes to prevent the bear from ever starting this kind of war.  So his strategic ideas have aged well.  Mostly he thinks the US and our allies should really be focusing on China.  And another forever war in Ukraine is a distraction from that, which was avoidable.  I agree with him. 

That said, we are where we are. And I want Ukraine to win, if they can.

[forky123]

If Russia use tactical nukes in Ukraine, NATO should destroy the Kerch bridges and isolate Kaliningrad. Allowing Putin to use tactical nukes unpunished is a very dangerous step. The main risk for Ukraine at this point, other than nukes, is Trump/GOP winning in 2024 as support for Ukraine from the US will be gutted as will NATO.

[stevenkesslar]

47 minutes ago, forky123 said:

If Russia use tactical nukes in Ukraine, NATO should destroy the Kerch bridges and isolate Kaliningrad. Allowing Putin to use tactical nukes unpunished is a very dangerous step. The main risk for Ukraine at this point, other than nukes, is Trump/GOP winning in 2024 as support for Ukraine from the US will be gutted as will NATO.

What you and I don't know is what message Putin got from Biden/NATO about what happens if he actually uses nukes.  My hunch is that Putin was told that nukes = NATO in some way.  Like maybe that's when NATO jets start bombing Russian positions inside Ukraine, but not in Russia.  China has probably sent a similar message:  that nukes is not good for a bosom buddy relationship.

In the shorter term, we agree that Trump is the worst thing that could happen to Ukraine.

In the longer term, listening to Mearsheimer I just had this sinking feeling of yet another forever war.  He's the first to admit he doesn't know.  And he wants Ukraine to win.  He is a patriot that graduated from West Point.  But he is also a realist who tends to make well educated guesses.

[unicorn]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:09 AM, stevenkesslar said:

...The thing I most want NATO and the US to do, for now, is keep sending Ukraine whatever it needs to win...

"Where does it end?"  Excellent question...

What does your first sentence mean? Who knows the answer to that? I'm pretty confident, though, that where it ends is Putin's death. My suggestion is that NATO use its civilian-flagged ships to transport the food/grain from Ukraine, and warn Putin not to attack them. I feel it's unlikely Putin will attack those ships, but, if he did we'd not have too much trouble taking him out. And anyone would know that any use of nukes would mean we'd be saying "the country formerly known as Russia"... Putin is stupid and insane, but not to that extent. Someone will take out Putin eventually. 

[gayinpattaya]

They ship it to China. China re-sell it to Europe for a higher price. 
Just as they are doing with Natural Gases. 

Ugh.... 

[stevenkesslar]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:09 AM, stevenkesslar said:

The thing I most want NATO and the US to do, for now, is keep sending Ukraine whatever it needs to win.

 

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

What does your first sentence mean? Who knows the answer to that?

Precisely.

I think there's at least two good ways to explain what I mean.  One, I want Biden to keep doing what he is doing now.  And NOT what some of the more isolationist voices in the Republican Party want to do.  Which is disengage.  Two, you are also correct that the number of people who know what Ukraine needs to win is ZERO.  Zelenskyy does not know. Putin does not know.  And Biden does not know.

I'll repeat the main sobering thing I took away from the video I posted above.  We have known from Day One that if the basic idea is that Ukraine and Russia are going to fight a long and bloody war of attrition, Russia has the upper hand.  Why?  Two reasons.  One, more soldiers.  Two, more artillery.  Last year it looked like maybe Ukraine could push Russia out of Ukraine.  Now it doesn't look that way so much.  But, again, you and I don't know.  I don't think anyone knows.  So for now we just keep throwing massive amounts of weapons and lots of people into the meat grinder.  And mostly what we get these days is lots of blood and dead Ukrainians and Russians.  If it's a question of who wins the War Of The Human Meat Grinder, Russia has proven both through history and demography that it does have the upper hand. 

Will Ukraine somehow break through the defenses and drive Russians back?  Maybe.  Will Ukrainians shift toward thinking all we are doing is killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians (and eventually hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians) with no hope of taking any territory back?  Maybe.  Do you know?  Nope.   Do I know?  Nope.  I think the problem kind of solves itself.  If things just grind down into a military stalemate, which seems quite possible, it probably reduces everyone's willingness to fund more war.  That's predictable in the US, I think.  And it increases Ukraine, the US, and NATO getting their mind around whatever a "cold peace" is.  But we are nowhere near that yet.

I think my wildly optimistic but not impossible "win" would be that Ukraine drives Russia out of the four oblasts they annexed and largely occupy.  And they give up Crimea.  In other words, go back to 2021, but not 2013.  In the vote on Ukrainian independence the Crimea was the only oblast that was around 50/50.  And now they have supposedly voted to be part of Russia.  The idea of winning Crimea back militarily and making it Ukraine again just seems undoable.  But, realistically, right now it's seems more like Western propaganda than reality to think Ukraine can actually push Russia back to the 2021 borders.  We'll see.  But I want Biden and NATO to keep trying, since that is what Ukraine wants.

The other answer to your question is that if I got to choose who knows how to answer the question, I would choose Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer.  Kissinger has been saying for years we should be spending more time trying to understand Putin, and less time trying to understand how to kill or depose him.  Kissinger was for figuring out some way to make Ukraine a neutral state, like Austria.  Whatever you think about that idea, Kissinger now says that is no longer possible.  We're too far into a war to the death.  So his best case scenario is like mine.  We go back to the pre-2022 borders and Ukraine then gets to join NATO.  Only problem, Mearsheimer adds, is that there is no way Putin will accept that.  Oh, and it turns out Murderous Vlad has enough soldiers and artillery to enforce his will.  And if it takes (fill in a number between 0 and 5 million) dead Ukrainians to enforce his will, who cares?  That's why we call him Murderous Vlad.  If he can't have Ukraine, he'll wreck it.

That's the sober view of things.  To me that sums it up.  I think there's only two really important things that could change.  One, maybe Ukraine actually can drive Russia out with their soldiers and US and NATO weapons.  I am rooting for them.  Or, two, we send in NATO and blow the shit out of as many Russian soldiers and weapons as we can inside the boundaries of what we recognize as Ukraine.  And then see whether Vlad really wants World War III.  Anyone here want to make THAT call?  😱

I do think the US and the EU are in a good position.  The US fucks up when we decide to impose democracy on Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or Vietnam.  Even if I take the most cynical pro-Putin view, that we can blame Hillary and the CIA for stirring up this mess, it is still 1000 % clear that most people in Ukraine don't want to be part of Russia.  And now they deeply and passionately want to kill Russians.  They may not throw roses at the feet of US soldiers.  But they welcome their training, and their weapons.  So I can say I'm proud to be an American, if that is what we Americans do.  I'm guessing most Europeans feel the same way.  And I don't get the feeling that the rest of the world, even if they want to stay neutral, feels like America is going off again, like we did in Iraq. 

If I could change one thing in America, it would be that we all agree to appropriate more money to build more weapons that Ukraine wants faster.  But the Trumpy part of the GOP that is going soft on Ukraine won't have it.  My poor Reagan-loving WWII veteran Dad must be rolling in his grave.

But even if Vlad "wins," I think he loses.  The most he can hope to win is a new Afghanistan, inside his self-proclaimed borders.  Which is much closer and much more able and willing to fuck with Russia forever.  Who knows.  Maybe one of them will manage to kill Vlad.  I'd gladly piss on his grave.  But I wouldn't count on something better taking his place.

[Moses]

On 7/30/2023 at 7:09 PM, stevenkesslar said:

The issue is about using NATO ships to transport grain, and whether Russia would attack them.

You will find zero insurance companies who will be ready to insure such transportations.

[Moses]

On 7/30/2023 at 7:09 PM, stevenkesslar said:

Russia's big victory is they get a brand new Afghanistan inside their proclaimed border.

Again: zero chance for this prediction to be true. There are HUGE differences in Afghan story and story of Ukrainian regions what became part of Russia already:

• There is no language barrier
• There is no overseas logistic - "next door country"
• There are a lot of loyal to Russia citizens who are not only applied and received Russian passports already, but also who working and/or cooperating with Russian administrations, non loyal citizens are minority on these territories.

[forky123]

Zero chance? There are already more Russian deaths in Ukraine than in 10 years of Afghanistan.

[Moses]

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

Zero chance

correct

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

There are already more Russian deaths in Ukraine than in 10 years of Afghanistan

There military conflict is going, what do you expect? Soldiers dies from both sides on military contact line. But there is no resistance or guerilla war on taken territories. Maybe not all are happy (for sure), but most are.

[forky123]

If you think there is zero chance, you are terrible at statistics. 

[Moses]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

If you think there is zero chance, you are terrible at statistics. 

Speaking about statistic: 1,5 mln of Ukrainians applied for Russian passport in new regions in 2022.

[forky123]

How many of those not under threat of an occupying force murdering civilians and kidnapping children?

[Moses]

4 hours ago, forky123 said:

How many of those not under threat of an occupying force murdering civilians and kidnapping children?

Again speaking about statistic: for first half of 2023 another 1.5 mln applied for passport, today in news.

By the way: Youtube isn't blocked in Russia. What did you saw a lot of evidences from local people in new Russian regions about "threat of an occupying force murdering civilians and kidnapping children" there?

 

Lines for passports

[forky123]

You may want to stop getting your news from Russian youtube. It's about as reliable as Putin's mental state. 

[Moses]

2 minutes ago, forky123 said:

You may want to stop getting your news from Russian youtube. It's about as reliable as Putin's mental state. 

Russian YouTube has name RuTube. Now I'm talking about American YouTube.

[forky123]

7 hours ago, Moses said:

Again speaking about statistic: for first half of 2023 another 1.5 mln applied for passport, today in news.

By the way: Youtube isn't blocked in Russia. What did you saw a lot of evidences from local people in new Russian regions about "threat of an occupying force murdering civilians and kidnapping children" there?

Lines for passports

I am sure the machine gun is just there for protection.

[stevenkesslar]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:46 AM, Moses said:

You will find zero insurance companies who will be ready to insure such transportations.

I agree.  I was summarizing the argument someone else made. 

I think putting NATO ships at risk is not a particularly good idea.  A better idea, if we Americans want to to roll the dice, is to blow the living fuck out of as many Russian soldiers in Ukraine as quickly and as mercilessly as can we can.  With NATO planes, not ships.  

The only problem with my idea, like the NATO ship idea, is that Murderous Vlad might use the nuclear codes.  That's probably why NATO jets won't blow the shit out of Russian soldiers.  And even Murderous Vlad won't go nuclear.

On 8/1/2023 at 3:10 AM, Moses said:

Again: zero chance for this prediction to be true. There are HUGE differences in Afghan story and story of Ukrainian regions what became part of Russia already:

• There is no language barrier
• There is no overseas logistic - "next door country"
• There are a lot of loyal to Russia citizens who are not only applied and received Russian passports already, but also who working and/or cooperating with Russian administrations, non loyal citizens are minority on these territories.

Short answer:  you're right.  That's exactly why Ukrainians will hate Russians more, and find it easier to kill you.  You are right next door. 

How many drones from Kabul are ending up in Moscow these days?  From Ukraine, a dead Russian in Moscow is just a drone's throw away.  But why bother killing Russians in Moscow when it is so much easier to kill them in Ukraine?

And the idea that you are slaughtering the Ukrainian children that you supposedly love, and that speak Russian, and are just like you, is precisely why Ukrainians will spend generations, if not lifetimes, wanting to slaughter you like pigs.  Even the US, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam, couldn't figure out how to get Canadians to want to kill us. Somehow, Murderous Vlad managed to figure it out.  Congratulations, @Moses!

Long answer:  let's discuss theory, and reality.

As a preface, that video of John Mearsheimer saying Ukraine is more likely to lose a long and bloody war of attrition to Russia has a number of comments from what sound like very reasonable Russian citizens.  Their point is that this academic, an American patriot, is able to see the world the way many or most Russians do.  Why is that so hard?

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

Mearsheimer referred to the love letter MV (I'll abbreviate for Murderous Vlad) wrote to Ukrainians in 2021.  Listening to Mearsheimer, it honestly was a head scratcher.  The Western propaganda I'd heard about the love letter was that MV is some psycho.  Who has these delusions about history.  And I will agree with  MV's critics that his historical scholarship is very one-sided.  But it honestly does read like a love letter.  Or perhaps a plea.  Let me quote MV.  And since MV has a warm fuzzy spot is in his heart for Gays like me, I'll even stipulate that We Gays should view MV kindly.  So let's assume what he says is correct:

Quote

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.

I said above that I think NATO fucked up in 2008.  Mearsheimer would argue that Ukraine was essentially invited to be wrecked by NATO.  And now they are being wrecked, with no end of the slaughter in sight.  Now I'll add that we're going to stipulate that this is basically because Crooked Hillary and the CIA could not let it go.  Fucking up Libya and fucking up Iraq was not enough.  Crooked Hillary just had to fuck up Ukraine, too.  Let's also say, as Mearsheimer and Kissinger do, that Ukraine played their cards poorly.  They had a chance to be a peaceful bridge between NATO and Russia.  Which is what MV is actually begging for in his love letter.  

So we have Crooked Hillary doing evil shit, which we all know she is good at.  And MV and Ukrainian kids, who are all peace and love.  Or all Мир и Любовь in the language they both speak.  Ain't it swell?

Let me quote MV again, from his love letter:

Quote

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

Aww!  What a guy!

I said let's compare theory to reality.  So we have Vlad's love letter as theory.  Now let's shift to reality.

Here's the rub.  If Murderous Vlad respects Ukrainians' desire to be free, why the invasion?  He has to know that in every oblast but the Crimea, over 80 % of Ukrainians voted for freedom from Russia.  How is this respect?  And if he wants Ukrainian children, many of whom speak Russian, to be safe, why is he slaughtering them like pigs?  That's a really big problem, I'd say.  Maybe that's how you build respect.  But I'd guess it is how you build hate.  Shit.  Ukraine just voted to not even celebrate Christmas on the day Russians do.  So much for traditions.

I could make a good argument that Murderous Vlad fell into Crooked Hillary and the CIA's trap.  He said in his love letter that it was unacceptable to further stoke these "anti-Russia" feelings in Ukraine.  Well, geez Louise!  (How do you say Geez, Vlad! in Russian?)  I'd say he got exactly what he didn't want.  He lost the geopolitical game.  Ukrainians now hate Russians.  And of course they would happily slaughter Russians like pigs.  Just like Russians slaughter Ukrainian kids like pigs.  Can you blame them?

So we do have the Crooked Hillary Theory.  But I think Mearsheimer is also right that this is a classic example of the tragedy of great power conflict.  Although he says a big part of the problem is that MV is only a great power wannabe.  If there is a road to peace, it probably starts with a military stalemate.  And the idea that neither the US nor Russia really benefit from this in the long run.  But China does.  That said, I'd much rather be the US than Russia.  Ukrainians are welcoming US soldiers who train them.  Yet they are slaughtering Russian soldiers as quickly and as brutally as they can.  Why do you you think that is, @Moses?

One way in which this is exactly like Afghanistan, whether we are talking about the USSR or US invasion, is that it is a quagmire that the invading power can't win.  Mearsheimer has the most optimistic take I've  heard for MV, based on what he hears from smart Russians.  The very best hope is that MV can hold the four oblasts he occupies, and maybe take a few more.  But that is years of bloody war that will be really bad news for the Russian economy.  Probably the best case for Russia is that they're able to continue to shrink slowly, rather than shrink a lot.  Maybe all those Ukrainians forced to relocate to Russia can help.

The way in which this is worse for Russia than Afghanistan is that your enemy is right next door.  Or, actually, inside what Murderous Vlad now calls Russia.  If you think they will stop wanting to slaughter you like pigs, @Moses, dream on.  But it might be wise to lock your door when you're asleep.

If I wanted to make a wildly optimistic prognosis for how Ukrainians will soon be swooning over Murderous Vlad, it would simply be that he is Murderous Vlad,  If they don't love him, and respect him, he will kill them.  So basically what played out in Chechnya plays out in Ukraine.  It could work.  Mearsheimer argues that Poland will be safe for 20 or so years.  Because that's about how long it will take Murderous Vlad, or his Murderous Replacement, to pacify the Russian speaking part of Ukraine.  Who voted 4 to 1 against being part of Russia.  Oh, did I mention that was BEFORE their kids were systematically slaughtered?

I think the problem is that Chechnya has a little more than 1 million people, compared to over 2 million in Kyiv alone.  And Chechnya is not split in two, with NATO on their border.  So MV did get exactly the problem he didn't want when he started a war.  There's every reason to think this is like Afghanistan, just closer.  And easier to kill Russians.  If not, the other example not far away is West and East Germany, as the younger MV knew all too well.  We all know how that ended.

On 8/1/2023 at 4:30 AM, forky123 said:

There are already more Russian deaths in Ukraine than in 10 years of Afghanistan.

A lot more.   Google says 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan.  The estimates are 50,000 to 100,000 Russian soldiers so far.  And if MV has his way, the slaughter is just getting started.

Historians suggest the 15,000 dead soldiers and quagmire in Afghanistan helped bring down the USSR.  If so, what does this mean for Murderous Vlad?

[KeepItReal]

14 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

I think putting NATO ships at risk is not a particularly good idea. 

 

Perhaps, but have you considered...

(No, I am not a war monger, but a bully needs to be punched in the nose) 🤓

[forky123]

15 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I think putting NATO ships at risk is not a particularly good idea.

You don't just use merchantmen, you escort. You also make sure that any attacks on NATO flagged vessels will invite swift retribution. No need to strike troops, isolating Kaliningrad is one option. Performing exactly the same acts as Russia, denying reprovision by sea and closing land routes. NATO should hold off attacking the Kerch bridge as it invites infrastructure attacks on NATO members but, should Russia attack NATO infrastructure targets, the Kerch Bridge should be destroyed end to end within hours of such an attack. Appeasing Hitler didn't work and appeasing Putin is an even worse idea. Time for NATO to stop Russian attacks on Ukraine that are outside the Geneva Convention.