Solution to Russian blocking of Ukrainian grain?

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

Appeasing Hitler didn't work and appeasing Putin is an even worse idea

Exactly.

There's two issues.  I assume the generals and diplomats are both working overtime to calibrate aggression and response.  So you have good ideas about measured responses.  If they do A, we do B.  But we don't do C.  My point is that Putin, for now, is fighting a long and very bloody war of attrition.  In which he has more soldiers and more artillery.  So if we are talking about what NATO's force can do, I hope Putin has been told that if he does certain things, like nukes, we'll send in NATO jets.  Not ships or escorts.  And we will blow the fuck out of Russian soldiers and defenses.  To me the absolute worst form of appeasement would be tolerating Putin's use of nukes. That said, whatever we do involving grains and ships doesn't alter the fundamental dynamic.  Putin could win a long and bloody war of attrition by outmanning and outgunning his opponents.

Second issue.  Putin is not Hitler.  This is where I think Mearsheimer, who I have cited a lot, is right on.  His basic shtick, and the title of his most recognized book, is about the tragedy of great power politics.  His pithy line about Hitler is that he ran "Murder, Inc." and killed about 20 million people, mostly civilians.  Nazi Germany was fundamentally an aspiring great power that was going to cause trouble and had to be stopped, he argues.  He viewed the USSR the same way, but less deadly.  He puts Putin in a different category, I think appropriately.  He argues, and I agree, that NATO fucked up in 2008 when it promised Ukraine, "We have your back, but not really."  He has argued for years Ukraine was in danger of being wrecked.  And now it is being wrecked.   Mearsheimer has a word that I think describes this perfectly:  tragedy.  Especially for Ukraine.

That's not excusing or apologizing for Murderous Vlad.  But it is saying he is not Hitler.  Meaning he does not have to be stopped at all costs, even if it totally wrecks Ukraine.  Because even Murderous Vlad, in his love letter to Ukraine I posted above, seems to say that wrecking Ukraine is not the purpose of this exercise.  Besides, even if he gets what he wants, like four or more oblasts, he's going to have to fix what he wrecked.  While millions of Ukrainians (even if they are forced to be Russians) with dead husbands or kids dwell on how much they hate Russians. 

i agree with Kissinger and Mearsheimer that until Putin chose to start this war, there was a path to a neutral Ukraine that was a peaceful bridge between Russia and NATO.  Not a country to be wrecked.  Both those guys now argue it's too late for Plan A, thanks to Murderous Vlad.  And if Ukraine wants to and can win a bloody war of attrition, I'm all for it.  Like I said, what I most want now is for Biden and Congress to appropriate more money to send them more weapons ASAP.  That's not appeasement.  But the least bad Plan B for Ukraine may end up being a bloody and awful military stalemate.  And the avoidance of even worse things that will further wreck Ukraine, like nuclear bombs dropping on Ukrainian cities or soldiers. 

[forky123]

It's interesting that NATO has so far mostly avoided giving Ukraine long range weapons. Russia is not under that restriction and has been illegally targeting civilians, infrastucture, food. In addition they have raped and murdered with no regard for human life. If it's a war of attrition then the US and UK especially, since they guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for giving up it's nuclear weapons, should supply weapons that can strike deep into Russia. Let the attrition be real on both sides and see how Russia likes high explosive missiles raining on Moscow instead of drones.

[stevenkesslar]

32 minutes ago, forky123 said:

It's interesting that NATO has so far mostly avoided giving Ukraine long range weapons. Russia is not under that restriction and has been illegally targeting civilians, infrastucture, food. In addition they have raped and murdered with no regard for human life. If it's a war of attrition then the US and UK especially, since they guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for giving up it's nuclear weapons, should supply weapons that can strike deep into Russia. Let the attrition be real on both sides and see how Russia likes high explosive missiles raining on Moscow instead of drones.

Which is where it gets tricky.  If we really wanted Ukraine to have a deterrent, there were two things we could have done.  One, told them to keep their nuclear weapons, so they could decide to remove Moscow from the planet at will.  Or two, actually get them in NATO in 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter.  We did neither.  So, again, I think we - the US, NATO, the West - helped create this uncertainty where Ukraine is now being wrecked.

So part of that uncertainty is that Ukraine, by design or error, could in fact start dropping our bombs on Russia.  Some have argued they have a huge incentive to escalate, since it will draw NATO in.  Which is what they want.  It is very understandable to me that Zelenskyy was incensed about Biden's reticence about NATO.  Because he is left dangling by a thread with a brutal butcher nearby.  But Biden has read the polls and knows America is not itching to go to war with Russia.  And meanwhile of course Trump will settle the whole thing in a day.  Or maybe a few hours.  Who knows.

On the list of things that could provoke Vlad to use nukes, US bombs dropping on Moscow would probably be pretty high up there.  Even if they were sent courtesy of Ukraine.   I'd make a clear distinction there.  Some have argued that Vlad may use nukes if Ukraine starts successfully retaking the four oblasts and humiliating Russia.  If he did that, that's where I hope NATO just send the jets in.  Because we are defending Ukrainians who are defending Ukrainian territory.  Actually attacking Moscow with US weapons is a very different thing.  I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq War.  I hope what we've learned is that when we go on offense, we tend to suck.  When we are defending people who actually want to be defended, we do much better.

If you go with the idea that Ukraine is being wrecked, which is not really what either the US or even Murderous Vlad wants, it does make sense to keep the war in Ukraine and try to make it the least bad it can be.  That means, best case, Ukraine can actually win a war of attrition.  Worst case, Murderous Vlad chews off and swallows a chunk of Ukraine.  But then, whether he realizes it or nor, I think just about 100 % of the 20th Century - not to mention more recent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - suggests he's gonna have some really nasty shit inside him for a long time to come.  I do think Murderous Vlad has a huge problem, either way. Poor thing.

As far as US and NATO interests, I like the idea that what starts in Ukraine stays in Ukraine and ends in Ukraine.  If US or NATO leaders decide it is in our interest to blow up lots of Russians, we should do that inside Ukraine.  There are lots of Russian soldiers there that the locals would absolutely love to see slaughtered.

[forky123]

10 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq War.

Which? Op Granby/Desert Storm was absolutely necessary. GW2 was simply wrong and Bush/Blair have blood on their hands. 

Bullies bluster. There is as much chance of Putin using nukes due to attrition as to Ukraine bombing Moscow. There is no 'right' answer in this but the more he is allowed to get away with, the more he will push. He's currently bombing Danube ports. It wouldn't take much of an error to accidentally bomb Romania. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

Which? Op Granby/Desert Storm was absolutely necessary. GW2 was simply wrong and Bush/Blair have blood on their hands. 

Bullies bluster. There is as much chance of Putin using nukes due to attrition as to Ukraine bombing Moscow. There is no 'right' answer in this but the more he is allowed to get away with, the more he will push. He's currently bombing Danube ports. It wouldn't take much of an error to accidentally bomb Romania. 

I agree.  I refer to Bush 41's war as "Desert Storm."  The salient point there is what I think is still called the Powell Doctrine.  Have defined objectives.  Get in.  Get out. We did.  We won.

To me the Bush 43 War, what I call the Iraq war, was total folly.  When I'd argue with people about it I would use some quote or part of an essay from Bush 41, in the context of defending why he did NOT go to Baghdad.  Everything Bush 41  predicted could go wrong did go wrong under Bush 43.  I think there were four points.  We'd get bogged down in a quagmire.  It would split our allies.  It would divide America.  It would unite our opponents, especially Iran at the time.  All turned out to be true.

This is actually where I would differ a bit with Mearsheimer.  Watching his speech I posted above (to some centrist DC think tank) is the first time I really rethought how I have felt since the war started.  I think he's just right, from a military perspective, that time and the odds are on Putin's side.  If Putin's objective is in fact to take over some or all Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.  I think Mearsheimer biggest thing really is that this is wrecking Ukraine.  Which is what we don't want, and which was avoidable.  He'd be the first one to say, "But, we are where we are."  What I think he may underestimate is all Bush 41's points.  This is unifying NATO.  This is turning the world against Russia, and to some degree China.  Even though much of the world wants to stay neutral, understandably.  This is going to be a quagmire for Putin, even and especially if he can swallow a big chunk of Ukraine.  The biggest problem for the US is this could also eventually split America.  Since the Trump/MAGA folks want to cut a deal with Putin so Ukraine is not our problem.

On my list of what would cause Vlad to actually use tactical nukes, not bluster, #1 would be to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.  My logic goes like this.  He did write a love letter to Ukraine.  Which I think can be read as a plea to not turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia neighbor.  But when push came to shove, all bluster and rhetoric aside, he decided that it made sense to just start slaughtering Ukrainian children like pigs, anyway.  That's not bluster.  So it suggests he's actually willing to go pretty far.  Putin's a realist.  So he has to know Ukrainians now hate Russia, even if some are forced to become part of it.  But to Murderous Vlad slaughtering Ukrainian children like pigs and earning their hate and retaliation forever was worth preventing Ukraine from becoming an anti-Russia NATO neighbor.  So would he take it one step further and use tactical nukes in Ukraine to prevent that?  I'd say there's a good chance he would.

Here's a debate I'd like to listen to.  It would only take on real world meaning if Ukraine can't kick Russian soldiers out, and so there  is a military stalemate.  The debate I want is between Mearsheimer and Kissinger.  Both argued for years for Ukraine to be a neutral and peaceful bridge between Russia and NATO.  Otherwise, they warned, it might get wrecked.  Both argue it is now too late for that. Mearsheimer argues that there is no way Putin will let any part of Ukraine join NATO.  And don't even think about it, because he will use nukes to prevent that.  Kissinger argues that Russia might accept Ukraine joining NATO.  But it would have to be in the context of really changing the way Russia is treated.  Like not as a pariah.  Mearsheimer would argue, "Good luck with that."  The West now sees Putin as Hitler.  And Putin has no reason to trust a word any Western leader says. 

Like I said, the only point at which I think this kind of debate even makes sense is if there is a military stalemate that both sides want to somehow negotiate their way out of.    For now, I'm for Ukraine turning Russia's young men into fertilizer.  Russian Moms can thank Vlad for that.  😱

[Moses]

On 8/3/2023 at 10:08 PM, forky123 said:

It wouldn't take much of an error to accidentally bomb Romania. 

Till now there was only accident - Ukraine bombed Poland. 

 

Oh, sorry, two. There also was accident in Zagreb, Croatia. Also Ukrainian bombing.

[KeepItReal]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

Till now there was only accident - Ukraine bombed Poland. 

 

Oh, sorry, two. There also was accident in Zagreb, Croatia. Also Ukrainian bombing.

You forgot to mention all the friendly fire incidents on the Russian side. The Wagner Group rebellion incident was the ultimate friendly fire event. 🙈

[forky123]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

Till now there was only accident - Ukraine bombed Poland. 

 

Oh, sorry, two. There also was accident in Zagreb, Croatia. Also Ukrainian bombing.

That's quite an admission.

[Moses]

18 hours ago, KeepItReal said:

You forgot to mention all the friendly fire incidents on the Russian side.

Today, August 6, is anniversary of first in human history military nuclear bombing of civilians. On August 6 1945 United States bombed Hiroshima city in Japan. Barbarian bombing. 500 thousands of victims.

[forky123]

And at least 1.6 million people died in the Soviet gulags if we are just listing things that have little to do with the subject matter.

[alvnv]

Also, on August 6 in 1940 USSR annexed Estonia

[Moses]

17 hours ago, forky123 said:

And at least 1.6 million people died in the Soviet gulags if we are just listing things that have little to do with the subject matter.

 

9 hours ago, alvnv said:

Also, on August 6 in 1940 USSR annexed Estonia

If you both wanted to talk about past century and Soviet era, then we may talk about European colonies in Africa, and slavery. So better for you just shout up. Or I may start to talk about war in Vietnam.

And tomorrow I will remind you about anniversary of the Barbarian nuclear bombing Nagasaki city.

[KeepItReal]

18 hours ago, Moses said:

Today, August 6, is anniversary of first in human history military nuclear bombing of civilians. On August 6 1945 United States bombed Hiroshima city in Japan. Barbarian bombing. 500 thousands of victims.

I don't get your point... How is this connected to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine? 

[forky123]

5 hours ago, Moses said:

 

If you both wanted to talk about past century and Soviet era, then we may talk about European colonies in Africa, and slavery. So better for you just shout up. Or I may start to talk about war in Vietnam.

And tomorrow I will remind you about anniversary of the Barbarian nuclear bombing Nagasaki city.

You are the one that started talking about things 80 years ago, not either of us. The thread is about Russian atrocities today, not things we weren't alive for. 

[Moses]

11 hours ago, KeepItReal said:

How is this connected to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine? 

In famous Griboyedov's WOE FROM WIT Chatsky says "And who's to judge?" 

6 hours ago, forky123 said:

You are the one that started talking about things 80 years ago, not either of us.

I'm talking about actions what US did. The same country what exists now and where some of you are living. Russia isn't USSR, not by economical system, nor by political system. Your attempts to make links USSR=Russia are pure propagandist tricks.

[forky123]

22 minutes ago, Moses said:

I'm talking about actions what US did. The same country what exists now and where some of you are living. Russia isn't USSR, not by economical system, nor by political system. Your attempts to make links USSR=Russia are pure propagandist tricks.

And your attempts to change the subject are incredibly obvious. 

[alvnv]

2 hours ago, Moses said:

Russia isn't USSR, not by economical system, nor by political system. Your attempts to make links USSR=Russia are pure propagandist tricks.

You only acknowledge Russia as a successor of the USSR when it’s convenient for you. Wasn’t Putin was KGB operative of the USSR first? Although, I should agree that the two are different: USSR was a superpower, which Russia will never be. Economically, it’s just a decrepit gas station, and politically, it matches the title of the famous Griboyedov play you mentioned in your post.

[Moses]

Just reminder: president Truman, who issued order for nuclear bombing of Japan, was from the same Democratic party, what is ruling now, and supporting war on Ukraine by sponsoring and supplying Ukraine with weapon and money. Sponsors of the war and Nazi.

US still not apologized for this barbarian act, nor Democrats. Tomorrow we will talk about Nagasaki destiny.

[forky123]

26 minutes ago, Moses said:

Just reminder: president Truman, who issued order for nuclear bombing of Japan, was from the same Democratic party, what is ruling now, and supporting war on Ukraine by sponsoring and supplying Ukraine with weapon and money. Sponsors of the war and Nazi.

US still not apologized for this barbarian act, nor Democrats. Tomorrow we will talk about Nagasaki destiny.

You are very selective about the atrocities you take umbrage to. There were atrocities all over WW2 committed by many nations. Some cost many million more lives than the atomic bombs. 

[Moses]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

Some cost many million more lives than the atomic bombs. 

No one single, not lasting action during WWII costed as many as nuclear bombing of 2 Japanese cities. Next one is - UK's bombing of Dresden -  10 times less victims within civilians.

[forky123]

Dead is dead. As I said, you are highly selective picking atrocities. Under your method of selecting atrocities, one man killing 5 people in one day would be an atrocity while one man killing 1 person every 3 days for eternity would not. 

Dresden was an allied mission. All wars are atrocities. Send the politicians, not the young men and watch how quickly peace occurs. 

[stevenkesslar]

15 minutes ago, Moses said:

No one single, not lasting action during WWII costed as many as nuclear bombing of 2 Japanese cities. Next one is - UK's bombing of Dresden -  10 times less victims within civilians.

Who started World War II? I don't recall.

And now Germany and Japan are both strong US allies.

Vlad might want to factor that into his calculations.  This has not gone well for Russia.  And it ain't gonna end well for Russians.  Even China is becoming wobbly.  So much for eternal friendship.

And don't worry about Americans killing Russians.  The Ukrainians you love, respect, and want peace for are very busy killing Russians right now.  In a war Russia started.  Probably best to focus on that.

[alvnv]

12 hours ago, Moses said:

Just reminder: president Truman, who issued order for nuclear bombing of Japan, was from the same Democratic party, what is ruling now, and supporting war on Ukraine by sponsoring and supplying Ukraine with weapon and money. Sponsors of the war and Nazi.

US still not apologized for this barbarian act, nor Democrats. Tomorrow we will talk about Nagasaki destiny.

Plenty of atrocities committed by that Zasranets Putin - not only the same party, but the same a**h**e! How about he start apologizing for those before he sh*ts himself to oblivion.

[unicorn]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:58 AM, Moses said:

In famous Griboyedov's WOE FROM WIT Chatsky says "And who's to judge?" 

I'm talking about actions what US did. The same country what exists now and where some of you are living. Russia isn't USSR, not by economical system, nor by political system. Your attempts to make links USSR=Russia are pure propagandist tricks.

Unfortunately, the Russian people still suffer from their centuries-long history. Russia has always been ruled by ruthless dictators (except Yeltsin). This has led the population believe they're best led by at least more effective ruthless dictators (ones who will keep goods, especially food, on the shelves). I had a boyfriend for over 13 years, who grew up in Russia (born USSR). Even after the fall of the USSR, his mother kept a statue of Lenin in her closet, in case communism came back. 

[forky123]