Colors of Blue and Gold

[Martin Weidmann]

Given that Russia can't even conquer all of eastern Ukraine after 10 months of war against a smaller and poorer country (albeit a country with intelligence and military aid from NATO countries), why do you think it's realistic that Putin would try to invade a NATO country next?

This war has exposed Russia's weaknesses in terms of waging a conventional war. They're in no position to expand their war beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they're not a NATO member state so they're on their own. And I doubt that they can win the war. The best case for Ukraine in terms of what is realistically possible is for them to fight Russia to a stalemate.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think there's a realistic threat of Putin attacking a NATO country any time soon. I don't think we need to "stand up" to Russia. They're not attacking the US or our national interests. 

This war is a regional war being fought over regional issues. It's not America's fight. Regardless of the outcome of the war, there's very little at stake for us. I also don't believe Russia intends to nuke Ukraine. They are doing more than enough damage to Ukraine with conventional weapons.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russia today is a corrupt and declining country. It doesn't do the US any good to exaggerate or overestimate the threat to us posed by Russia.

While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...

While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...

And that's exactly why it is in the interest of America to support (within NATO) Ukraine, because if they don't help and Putin takes Ukraine it may well send the message to China that it's ok to take Taiwan, because the Americans won't do anything anyway.

[Richard Smith]

So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year?  A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent.  Sounds familiar.

Yes, it shows a high level of ignorance. If you really believe it's not in American interest to keep Russia, China and others at bay, you're even a bigger fool than I thought you are. Hasn't Pearl Harbor tought you nothing? Do you really think America is an island that can easily stay out of an international conflict? Really?

It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator).

Oh boy... this is dumb, even for you.

Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule.

This is simply not true and only shows just how little you know and understand about the actual situation.

What is really going on here?  American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war.   In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism.  In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to the it was largely overstated treat from Russia during the Cold War.  All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies.  It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries.  But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.

In hindsight it's easy to make speeches, but the reality is that all it takes is underestimating a crisis once. The fact that America has politicians that are just as corrupt as those in other countries doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of treats and challenges out there and just shutting your eyes for them for mere monetary reasons is naive and self destructive.

You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US?  Wow.  Maybe you do live in "Europe" with that level of ignorance.  The US has no apparent interest in this conflict.  Most Americans never heard of Ukraine before the media adopted it as an ersatz cause.  Obama certainly was aware of the risks of intervention when he sent blankets instead of weapons.  Our politicians have used emotion to convince some Americans that we need to spend billions to fund a war with no clear objective or end game.  They needed a replacement war for Afghanistan to continue funding their supporters.  It will just go on and on until Russia decides how it ends.  Does Russia escalate?  What happens then?  The US must already have advisors in Ukraine to train them on how to use the defense systems that are being sent despite lies about it.  Sound familiar?  When that doesn't work, what then?  Creeping escalation for over years as in Vietnam?  American should have learned by now that there is nothing to gain and much to be lost from intervening in these regional conflicts which can't be won through military intervention and with no clear objective or means to bring about an end.  Our corrupt politicians understand all this.  They are not sending this money for any cause or objective, however.  They want to gain access to the money and funnel it to the military contractors who kick back the funding to their campaigns, relatives, and cronies.  Conducting war is an enormous source of power to them.

[Jon Banks]

While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...

And that's exactly why it is in the interest of America to support (within NATO) Ukraine, because if they don't help and Putin takes Ukraine it may well send the message to China that it's ok to take Taiwan, because the Americans won't do anything anyway.

Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.

Nations typically do what they perceive as 'in their best interests' regardless of the consequences. Hence our invasion of Iraq in 2003 over the objections of many countries.

In the case of Taiwan, the only reason I see for China to invade is if Taiwan allows US or other foreign militaries to have bases on their land, or if Taiwan officially declares independence from China.

I don't really see how our spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine deters China. If anything, it encourages China given the fact that our aid to Ukraine limits how much aid we can give Taiwan. So right now would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan. But China, unlike Russia, is an ascending world power and has more to lose from a potential war. So in the near future, an invasion of Taiwan seems highly unlikely. 

[Richard Smith]

Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.

Nations typically do what they perceive as 'in their best interests' regardless of the consequences. Hence our invasion of Iraq in 2003 over the objections of many countries.

In the case of Taiwan, the only reason I see for China to invade is if Taiwan allows US or other foreign militaries to have bases on their land, or if Taiwan officially declares independence from China.

I don't really see how our spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine deters China. If anything, it encourages China given the fact that our aid to Ukraine limits how much aid we can give Taiwan. So right now would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan. But China, unlike Russia, is an ascending world power and has more to lose from a potential war. So in the near future, an invasion of Taiwan seems highly unlikely.

Great points.  And "Europe" wouldn't send a dime to defend Taiwan.  It would be the responsibility of the US despite the alleged compelling interest involved.  The same story repeated over and over.

[Jon Banks]

As Ukraine Prepares for a Second Year at War, the Prospect of a Stalemate Looms

As the war in Ukraine soon enters its second year, Ukrainian troops will find it much more challenging to reclaim territory from Russian forces who are focused on defending their remaining land gains rather than making a deeper push into the country, American officials say.

Over the course of the first 10 months of the war, the Ukrainian military has — with significant American support — outmaneuvered an incompetent Russian military, fought it to a standstill and then retaken hundreds of square miles and the only regional capital that Russia had captured.

Despite relentless Russian attacks on civilian power supplies, Ukraine has still kept up the momentum on the front lines since September. But the tide of the war is likely to change in the coming months, as Russia improves its defenses and pushes more soldiers to the front lines, making it more difficult for Ukraine to retake the huge swaths of territory it lost this year, according to U.S. government assessments.

All of these factors make the most likely scenario going into the second year of the war a stalemate in which neither army can take much land despite intense fighting.

On Russia's new Commander, General Surovikin and Russia's mobilization:

American officials say there is evidence that the Kremlin is finally beginning to learn from its mistakes. It has put a single general in charge of the war — Sergei Surovikin — who American officials say is executing complicated military operations more efficiently.

In recent weeks, Ukrainian military officials have said Moscow has conducted stepped-up airstrikes on the army’s defensive lines, increasing Ukrainian casualties.

As botched as the initial Russian partial mobilization of 300,000 reservists was, the sheer numbers are now making a difference along the defensive lines. And unless those troops suffer a bad winter, which is possible with poor logistics and bad leadership, they will only shore up more by the spring, American officials said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate.html


Bottom-line, the consensus among western leaders is that Ukraine is unlikely to outright win the war.

Best-case scenario for Ukraine is a stalemate with some concessions from Russia. Worst-case is that Putin bites off a larger chunk of Ukraine's territory within the next few months as 300,000+ troops are being deployed into the conflict by Russia.

[Jon Banks]

Great points.  And "Europe" wouldn't send a dime to defend Taiwan.  It would be the responsibility of the US despite the alleged compelling interest involved.  The same story repeated over and over.

Right. Europeans are a bit inconsistent. They complain about the US benefitting from the war but haven't been willing to shore up their own militaries and defense industries so they can be less reliant on the US defense industry.

So the US remains the head and the EU is the tail in terms of the foreign policy of the western world. That relationship won't change until EU countries spend more on defense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.

Nations typically do what they perceive as 'in their best interests' regardless of the consequences. Hence our invasion of Iraq in 2003 over the objections of many countries.

In the case of Taiwan, the only reason I see for China to invade is if Taiwan allows US or other foreign militaries to have bases on their land, or if Taiwan officially declares independence from China.

I don't really see how our spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine deters China. If anything, it encourages China given the fact that our aid to Ukraine limits how much aid we can give Taiwan. So right now would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan. But China, unlike Russia, is an ascending world power and has more to lose from a potential war. So in the near future, an invasion of Taiwan seems highly unlikely.

Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.

Who said anything about arming Taiwan. If China invades Taiwan, America will take military action to help them. That's policy! That, the potential threat of nuclear conflict and the economic interests of China in America is what deters XI.

[Martin Weidmann]

Great points.  And "Europe" wouldn't send a dime to defend Taiwan.  It would be the responsibility of the US despite the alleged compelling interest involved.  The same story repeated over and over.

Hey, that's what happens when you keep on sticking your nose in other country's business and the US has been doing for decades.