Colors of Blue and Gold

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin has learned something!  I couldn't say it better.  Ukraine has no ability to end the war.  There is no policy or plan that the US and Ukraine force a victory over the enemy as we did in WWII.  It is exactly the situation presented in Vietnam and Afghanistan.  Just fight on and on and on hoping that one day the enemy tires and calls it off.  That is not a strategy.  Do you think the people in the disputed regions, many of whom are ethnic Russians, would prefer to die and have their homes destroyed vs a settlement with Russia that ended the war?  How do you know what they prefer?  The fighting in these regions preceded the invasion.  It is a regional conflict that has gone on for years and will continue for years.   How long does the US bankroll this war?  Five years?  Ten? Twenty?  What is the end point?

Ukraine has no ability to end the war.

Not what I said.

The fighting in these regions preceded the invasion.

Actually, the desperate need of Russia to hang on to a major harbor for their Southern fleet and their invasion of Crimea combined with the lack of any substantive response from the West preceded the invasion.

It is a regional conflict that has gone on for years and will continue for years.   How long does the US bankroll this war?

First of all, they only bankroll part of it and secondly, would you rather they leave the people of Ukraine (who did not want or start this war) to their own devices, with most likely many thousands of them dying to save a few dollars? Compared with what the US spends on their military every year, what they give Ukraine is an insignificant amount, but you would still rather have people die for the sake of not spending that money. Is that really who you are?

[Rick Plant]

Ukraine says it downed 36 Russian missiles and drones
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/air-raid-alerts-declared-across-all-ukraine-kyiv-reports-attacks-2023-06-02/

[Jon Banks]

At the end of the day, the biggest losers in this war are the Ukrainians...

Agreed. Which is exactly why they have to get all the help the need.

The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.

If a year from now, Russia still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine, what should Ukraine’s backers like the US do? Double-down, escalate, or de-escalate?

[Martin Weidmann]

The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.

If a year from now, Russia still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine, what should Ukraine’s backers like the US do? Double-down, escalate, or de-escalate?

The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.

When they force the Russians out of their country, they'll have won the war. With all the new equipment they have been getting and the desperate state of the Russia army it is most certainly possible to send Putin packing.

If a year from now, Russia still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine, what should Ukraine’s backers like the US do? Double-down, escalate, or de-escalate?

Russia won't occupy 1/5 of Ukraine, but just in case they somehow manage to do so, what would you prefer Ukraine's backers do; continue to support their efforts or withdraw all funding and leave Ukraine to it's own devices so that Putin can kill even more civilians than he has already done?

You seem to be arguing that Ukraine should just give up a part of their country and award Putin for his aggression and many war crimes. Do you think rewarding aggressors is a good thing?

[Jon Banks]

The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.

When they force the Russians out of their country, they'll have won the war. With all the new equipment they have been getting and the desperate state of the Russia army it is most certainly possible to send Putin packing.

That is magical thinking. Even the commander of NATO disagrees with the assumption that Russia’s military has been crippled by the war. He testified to the US congress recently that Russia’s military is larger now than before the 2022 invasion. Russian forces are dug-in for a long occupation of Ukraine.

We can hope for Ukraine to win but the question remains, how much time do they have before their backers need to change course? I don’t think it’s realistic to assume that a stalemate would be tolerated long-term.

You seem to be arguing that Ukraine should just give up a part of their country and award Putin for his aggression and many war crimes. Do you think rewarding aggressors is a good thing?

The consequences of every war include potentially losing one’s territory. Why should Ukraine be exempt from the laws of war? “Might makes right”

If you disagree, should the US give up parts of our territory that was taken by force? Potentially, Russia could also lose territory in this war as Ukraine is increasing their cross-border attacks on Russia.

I don’t see Russia being forced out of Ukraine without direct intervention from NATO countries.

[Martin Weidmann]

That is magical thinking. Even the commander of NATO disagrees with the assumption that Russia’s military has been crippled by the war. He testified to the US congress recently that Russia’s military is larger now than before the 2022 invasion. Russian forces are dug-in for a long occupation of Ukraine.

We can hope for Ukraine to win but the question remains, how much time do they have before their backers need to change course? I don’t think it’s realistic to assume that a stalemate would be tolerated long-term.

The consequences of every war include potentially losing one’s territory. Why should Ukraine be exempt from the laws of war? “Might makes right”

If you disagree, should the US give up parts of our territory that was taken by force? Potentially, Russia could also lose territory in this war as Ukraine is increasing their cross-border attacks on Russia.

I don’t see Russia being forced out of Ukraine without direct intervention from NATO countries.

So, you are indeed arguing that Ukraine should surrender part of it's country and thus award aggression and war crimes, which could be an inspiration for other dictators to play the same game. Wow!


Even the commander of NATO disagrees

He can disagree all he wants but the facts are that all we see from Russia is drones and missisle attacks, a withdrawl from ground troops in key locations, officers complaining about not getting enough supplies and the Wagner group pulling out all together.

[Jon Banks]

So, you are indeed arguing that Ukraine should surrender part of it's country and thus award aggression and war crimes, which could be an inspiration for other dictators to play the same game. Wow!

Let's unpack what you're saying.

Since invading Ukraine:

- Russia has become a complete pariah state
- Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world
- Russia has lost somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 troops (depending on which estimates you believe) in just over a year of war
- $500 million in Russian assets remain frozen in Western banks
- Russia is forced to sell their oil at a huge discount to India and China to make up for the loss of the European market

In return, Russia has gained a slither of territory in Ukraine that will be uninhabitable for at least a decade if not longer.

It has worked out so poorly for Russia that one can only assume that it's not going the way Putin expected his invasion of Ukraine to play out.

What world leader in their right mind (dictator or not) is looking at Russia's ongoing quagmire in Ukraine as a good example to follow? This is looking more like Russia's Vietnam.


You care about lines on a map. I care about preserving life. In my opinion, it won't be the end of the world for Ukraine (or anyone else) if they never recover most of the territory that has been taken by Russia. Most of the Ukrainians who lived in the region near the frontlines have already left and wont return any time soon...

He can disagree all he wants but the facts are that all we see from Russia is drones and missisle attacks, a withdrawl from ground troops in key locations, officers complaining about not getting enough supplies and the Wagner group pulling out all together.

Weird how you omitted the fact that Ukrainian forces retreated from Bakhmut two weeks ago after a brutal nine month battle.

With that said, I don't think Russia can capture the entire country of Ukraine but I believe they have enough manpower and supplies to occupy the areas of Ukraine under their control indefinitely.

Ukraine's military is fighting courageously but it simply isn't enough to overcome Russia's inherent advantages in a long war of attrition.

[Martin Weidmann]

Let's unpack what you're saying.

Since invading Ukraine:

- Russia has become a complete pariah state
- Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world
- Russia has lost somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 troops (depending on which estimates you believe) in just over a year of war
- $500 million in Russian assets remain frozen in Western banks
- Russia is forced to sell their oil at a huge discount to India and China to make up for the loss of the European market

In return, Russia has gained a slither of territory in Ukraine that will be uninhabitable for at least a decade if not longer.

It has worked out so poorly for Russia that one can only assume that it's not going the way Putin expected his invasion of Ukraine to play out.

What world leader in their right mind (dictator or not) is looking at Russia's ongoing quagmire in Ukraine as a good example to follow? This is looking more like Russia's Vietnam.


You care about lines on a map. I care about preserving life. In my opinion, it won't be the end of the world for Ukraine (or anyone else) if they never recover most of the territory that has been taken by Russia. Most of the Ukrainians who lived in the region near the frontlines have already left and wont return any time soon...

Weird how you omitted the fact that Ukrainian forces retreated from Bakhmut two weeks ago after a brutal nine month battle.

With that said, I don't think Russia can capture the entire country of Ukraine but I believe they have enough manpower and supplies to occupy the areas of Ukraine under their control indefinitely.

Ukraine's military is fighting courageously but it simply isn't enough to overcome Russia's inherent advantages in a long war of attrition.

You care about lines on a map.

No I care about people and their right to live where they want to live. The Russians that live in Ukraine are free to leave and go to Russia if they want to. On the other hand, the Ukrainians who live in the same area can not make such a choice freely if Russia occupies that part of the country permanently. They will be forced out of their homes and made to live somewhere else, where they don't want to be. That's the difference.

How would you feel if some of the Northern States suddenly decide they want to belong to Canada and anybody who doesn't like that can leave, would that be ok with you?

So it's not about lines on a map. That's just a silly oversimplification of the worst kind.

I care about preserving life.

No you don't, because promoting a surrender of parts of Ukraine to an aggressor will only provoke a continuation of the guerilla war that already exists. Going along with that will be suppression of the native people who will be forced to become Russian against their will (as happened in Crimea). The people living in the occupied area who want nothing to do with Russia will continue fighting despite any agreement. More lives will be lost and it will go on for decades.

Surrending parts of Ukraine to Russia to save a few bucks will send all the wrong signals.


Since invading Ukraine:

- Russia has become a complete pariah state
- Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world
- Russia has lost somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 troops (depending on which estimates you believe) in just over a year of war
- $500 million in Russian assets remain frozen in Western banks
- Russia is forced to sell their oil at a huge discount to India and China to make up for the loss of the European market

In return, Russia has gained a slither of territory in Ukraine that will be uninhabitable for at least a decade if not longer.

It has worked out so poorly for Russia that one can only assume that it's not going the way Putin expected his invasion of Ukraine to play out.

So, why try to reach a settlement that will basically give Putin what he wants and provoke a continued guerilla war? He already has a massive open wound. Why not give him the option to heal that wound by getting out of Ukraine and never come back?