John Mearsheimer's latest Ukraine analysis is grim

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
Mearsheimer is the University of Chicago scholar who famously predicted back in 2015 that Washington's Ukraine policy would end up wrecking Ukraine. I've quoted him a number of times here.

A week ago he gave his current take on the situation -- how we got here and where things are headed -- to an audience in Europe. It's grim stuff.

He says things are at a stage where neither Russia nor Ukraine can afford to lose. It's become an existential issue for both countries. And the U.S. has now invested so much in the conflict...and raised the stakes so high...that any Russian "win" (or perceived "win") would be a serious blow to our own government's global credibility and prestige.

What all this therefore points to is: escalation...which has always been the logic and dynamic of this insane war. Mearsheimer warns that given the circumstances, nuclear escalation is a real possibility. He thinks that if the Russians find themselves in a desperate situation, they might well use nukes rather than "lose." If such a thing were to happen, we'd be looking down the barrel of an unprecedented world crisis.

In sum, this is not a pretty picture...and will likely get even uglier in the coming weeks:

 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,438
601
1
Mearsheimer is the University of Chicago scholar who famously predicted back in 2015 that Washington's Ukraine policy would end up wrecking Ukraine. I've quoted him a number of times here.

A week ago he gave his current take on the situation -- how we got here and where things are headed -- to an audience in Europe. It's grim stuff.

He says things are at a stage where neither Russia nor Ukraine can afford to lose. It's become an existential issue for both countries. And the U.S. has now invested so much in the conflict...and raised the stakes so high...that any Russian "win" (or perceived "win") would be a serious blow to our own government's global credibility and prestige.

What all this therefore points to is: escalation...which has always been the logic and dynamic of this insane war. Mearsheimer warns that given the circumstances, nuclear escalation is a real possibility. He thinks that if the Russians find themselves in a desperate situation, they might well use nukes rather than "lose." If such a thing were to happen, we'd be looking down the barrel of an unprecedented world crisis.

In sum, this is not a pretty picture...and will likely get even uglier in the coming weeks:

Wrong. It’s an existential crisis for Ukraine, important to Russia, and less so for the US. Of course, Putin is Trump level unstable, so he might look at as more important than it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

crazyivan77

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2007
13,063
15,153
1
Wrong. It’s an existential crisis for Ukraine, important to Russia, and less so for the US. Of course, Putin is Trump level unstable, so he might look at as more important than it is.

Well, during Trumps term we had no ground war in Europe, North Korea wasn’t launching rockets, foreign hostages were returning to the US, the Taliban wasn’t stoning women with regularity and gas was cheap.
Seems pretty stable to me.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,438
601
1
Well, during Trumps term we had no ground war in Europe, North Korea wasn’t launching rockets, foreign hostages were returning to the US, the Taliban wasn’t stoning women with regularity and gas was cheap.
Seems pretty stable to me.
He didn’t get us into any new wars, his only accomplishment.
Instead, he opted to end democracy in the US by himself.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,438
601
1
It's the Dims that think giving away money is the answer to all problems. Biden's presidency is Exhibit A.
If we get in a nuclear war, you won’t have to worry about your precious money, Philistine. A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Righties are the ultimate cynics.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,850
20,597
1
DFW, TX
Mearsheimer is the University of Chicago scholar who famously predicted back in 2015 that Washington's Ukraine policy would end up wrecking Ukraine. I've quoted him a number of times here.

A week ago he gave his current take on the situation -- how we got here and where things are headed -- to an audience in Europe. It's grim stuff.

He says things are at a stage where neither Russia nor Ukraine can afford to lose. It's become an existential issue for both countries. And the U.S. has now invested so much in the conflict...and raised the stakes so high...that any Russian "win" (or perceived "win") would be a serious blow to our own government's global credibility and prestige.

What all this therefore points to is: escalation...which has always been the logic and dynamic of this insane war. Mearsheimer warns that given the circumstances, nuclear escalation is a real possibility. He thinks that if the Russians find themselves in a desperate situation, they might well use nukes rather than "lose." If such a thing were to happen, we'd be looking down the barrel of an unprecedented world crisis.

In sum, this is not a pretty picture...and will likely get even uglier in the coming weeks:


So sending weapons to Ukraine isn't a brilliant idea?

Who would have known.

What's happening today is that Biden is incompetent.
That leads to very bad things.

LdN
 

crazyivan77

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2007
13,063
15,153
1
He didn’t get us into any new wars, his only accomplishment.
Instead, he opted to end democracy in the US by himself.

Haha, this from the side that literally fixed their primary elections for 2 straight presidential cycles via “superdelegates” and back room deals w candidates. Don’t lecture anyone about “democracy”, comrade.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,685
8,726
1
He didn’t get us into any new wars, his only accomplishment.
Instead, he opted to end democracy in the US by himself.

I find it amusing every time a left-winger lectures us on how Trump nearly ended democracy. The only thing that remotely comes to mind was the divergence of funds to build a wall, for lack of action by the Congress to deal with the southern border. On that one it could be argued that Trump actually did what he was supposed to do ("...protect and defend...") whereas his successor has done everything possible to make the USA more vulnerable, a complete sell-out to the world's communist and fascist regimes, a complete sell out of our education and healthcare funds to people who paid nothing into those funds.

Biden is as "anti-democratic" as we have had. He's unilaterally wrecking the US economy by decree to enact a Green New Deal through all out war on fossil fuels as he begs the most nasty people on earth to produce oil in our stead, racking up more debt in the process via the associated trade imbalance.

This is just one more lie by a false narrative. One more way the Left accuses their opponents of the very thing they do in spades.

@maypole, you have no credibility.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,438
601
1
I find it amusing every time a left-winger lectures us on how Trump nearly ended democracy. The only thing that remotely comes to mind was the divergence of funds to build a wall, for lack of action by the Congress to deal with the southern border. On that one it could be argued that Trump actually did what he was supposed to do ("...protect and defend...") whereas his successor has done everything possible to make the USA more vulnerable, a complete sell-out to the world's communist and fascist regimes, a complete sell out of our education and healthcare funds to people who paid nothing into those funds.

Biden is as "anti-democratic" as we have had. He's unilaterally wrecking the US economy by decree to enact a Green New Deal through all out war on fossil fuels as he begs the most nasty people on earth to produce oil in our stead, racking up more debt in the process via the associated trade imbalance.

This is just one more lie by a false narrative. One more way the Left accuses their opponents of the very thing they do in spades.

@maypole, you have no credibility.
1/6. I rest my case.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,438
601
1
Haha, this from the side that literally fixed their primary elections for 2 straight presidential cycles via “superdelegates” and back room deals w candidates. Don’t lecture anyone about “democracy”, comrade.
Ivan, I know you love Putin and hate democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

john4psu

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2003
11,187
7,649
1
Well, during Trumps term we had no ground war in Europe, North Korea wasn’t launching rockets, foreign hostages were returning to the US, the Taliban wasn’t stoning women with regularity and gas was cheap.
Seems pretty stable to me.
Mean tweets are far worse than peace and prosperity are good.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,685
8,726
1
1/6. I rest my case.

1/6. You have no case.

All Trump did was push for a demonstration on that date. If you believe that protestors waving flags with horns on their heads, with no weapons, amounts to an overthrow of democracy, then you are nuts.

Trump (rightfully) questioned the election results in key swing states. The courts did not have time to take up the matter. 1/6 was the recognition that the courts had failed to do their job. It should have never happened, because the procedures should not have been changed. Your side created the mess that has led many to believe that we now have an illegitimate government. So who really wrecked democracy? It wasn't Trump. Nor was it any conservative.

It was your side that pushed the corruption of voting laws and kept Republicans away from seeing the 11th hour shenanigans at polling locations, particularly those in big cities that swung the election.

Trump rightfully questioned what was unprecedented corruption.

I'm not defending Trump. I'd rather see someone else. But it was your side that brought democracy to its knees.
 

crazyivan77

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2007
13,063
15,153
1
Ivan, I know you love Putin and hate democracy

90
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,919
1
An altered state
Mearsheimer is the University of Chicago scholar who famously predicted back in 2015 that Washington's Ukraine policy would end up wrecking Ukraine. I've quoted him a number of times here.

A week ago he gave his current take on the situation -- how we got here and where things are headed -- to an audience in Europe. It's grim stuff.

He says things are at a stage where neither Russia nor Ukraine can afford to lose. It's become an existential issue for both countries. And the U.S. has now invested so much in the conflict...and raised the stakes so high...that any Russian "win" (or perceived "win") would be a serious blow to our own government's global credibility and prestige.

What all this therefore points to is: escalation...which has always been the logic and dynamic of this insane war. Mearsheimer warns that given the circumstances, nuclear escalation is a real possibility. He thinks that if the Russians find themselves in a desperate situation, they might well use nukes rather than "lose." If such a thing were to happen, we'd be looking down the barrel of an unprecedented world crisis.

In sum, this is not a pretty picture...and will likely get even uglier in the coming weeks:

Yeah, we would have been much better off handing Ukraine over to Putin. That would have bought peace in our time. He is a rational man, just cut a deal. It’s not like he has a track record of invading other countries.

There are reports that both sides are near collapse. The Russians are out of weapons as evidenced by using anti ship missiles from the 60s to randomly bomb buildings. Transcripts with only a couple weeks training at the front lines. Old guys brought back out of retirement. Their troop loses in four months are higher than eight years of Afghanistan.

Don’t know if Ukraine can hold out long enough to force Putin to withdraw. Highly unlikely he would ever admit defeat of his mistake. Most likely outcome is he plants his forces in the Donbas and Ukraine continues to bleed him out for the rest of the year.

When wet fall weather hits offensive operations will cease. If Putin shuts off the gas to Europe it will get uglier. Add in global famine without Ukraine’s grains.

Putin is downright crazy. There is no way for him to win. He can seize the Donbas but will watch his military be sliced and diced for years if he stays. All the cities there have been destroyed and even if he ‘wins’ it will be his cost to rebuild them. And he is putting the rest of country at risk by moving too many forces away from sensitive areas. Turkey is threatening to move forces into parts of Syria that were protected by Russian forces that have removed to Ukraine.

This may go down as one of the worst decisions in history. Right up there with Hitler attacking Russia before defeating England. Some legacy he is creating.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,034
6,315
1
He didn’t get us into any new wars, his only accomplishment.
Instead, he opted to end democracy in the US by himself.
And yet, democracy wages on...unless you think that calls for unrest, defying the laws and attacking democratic institutions might lead to ending democracy
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
Yeah, we would have been much better off handing Ukraine over to Putin. That would have bought peace in our time. He is a rational man, just cut a deal. It’s not like he has a track record of invading other countries.

There are reports that both sides are near collapse. The Russians are out of weapons as evidenced by using anti ship missiles from the 60s to randomly bomb buildings. Transcripts with only a couple weeks training at the front lines. Old guys brought back out of retirement. Their troop loses in four months are higher than eight years of Afghanistan.

Don’t know if Ukraine can hold out long enough to force Putin to withdraw. Highly unlikely he would ever admit defeat of his mistake. Most likely outcome is he plants his forces in the Donbas and Ukraine continues to bleed him out for the rest of the year.

When wet fall weather hits offensive operations will cease. If Putin shuts off the gas to Europe it will get uglier. Add in global famine without Ukraine’s grains.

Putin is downright crazy. There is no way for him to win. He can seize the Donbas but will watch his military be sliced and diced for years if he stays. All the cities there have been destroyed and even if he ‘wins’ it will be his cost to rebuild them. And he is putting the rest of country at risk by moving too many forces away from sensitive areas. Turkey is threatening to move forces into parts of Syria that were protected by Russian forces that have removed to Ukraine.

This may go down as one of the worst decisions in history. Right up there with Hitler attacking Russia before defeating England. Some legacy he is creating.



Geez, Spin, and here I thought that you were finally ready to concede here that old Jerry was right all along. ;)

But seriously, the alternative leading up to the conflict was not "handing Ukraine to Putin." Though of course in the face of this unfolding catastrophe, it's no surprise that the line now from the Powers whose policy triggered it is: We had no choice. The reality, however, as Mearsheimer shows, is that they did have a choice, and what you see now is a result of the choice they made.

Yes, last week I read those news reports predicting doom for the Russian military. Are they accurate? Who knows. Our media propaganda organs are now little more than Regime mouthpieces, so it's hard to credit anything you read from them anymore.

I agree that Russia's decision to invade may go down as one of the worst in history. But the U.S. decisions that set the stage for it will also go down as among the worst in history. And now the Dem-Mediacrats in charge keep doubling down on disaster as Dem-Mediacrats typically do.

At the end of the day, there seems a kind of parallel between this war of the early 21st century and the avoidable folly of the war that Europe stumbled into at the beginning of the 20th century, which slaughtered an entire generation, permanently changed the global landscape, and laid the groundwork for something even worse.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,919
1
An altered state
Geez, Spin, and here I thought that you were finally ready to concede here that old Jerry was right all along. ;)

But seriously, the alternative leading up to the conflict was not "handing Ukraine to Putin." Though of course in the face of this unfolding catastrophe, it's no surprise that the line now from the Powers whose policy triggered it is: We had no choice. The reality, however, as Mearsheimer shows, is that they did have a choice, and what you see now is a result of the choice they made.


Yes, last week I read those news reports predicting doom for the Russian military. Are they accurate? Who knows. Our media propaganda organs are now little more than Regime mouthpieces, so it's hard to credit anything you read from them anymore.

I agree that Russia's decision to invade may go down as one of the worst in history. But the U.S. decisions that set the stage for it will also go down as among the worst in history. And now the Dem-Mediacrats in charge keep doubling down on disaster as Dem-Mediacrats typically do.

At the end of the day, there seems a kind of parallel between this war of the early 21st century and the avoidable folly of the war that Europe stumbled into at the beginning of the 20th century, which slaughtered an entire generation, permanently changed the global landscape, and laid the groundwork for something even worse.
So ‘the alternative ‘ was to recognize the Crimea s now just a Russian province. And the Donbas would become some kind of “neutral territory’ as a buffer between the two countries. But there was no way in hell that Putin would have removed his troops from the area. He moved them in in 2014 without uniforms or identifying insignia to disguise his invasion then. He would just have kept them there. And who the hell has the right to tell Ukraine to give up yet more territory with yet another ‘promise’ to defend them THIS TIME! And why should Ukraine be stupid enough to believe the west THIS TIME?

Your buddy Mearshiemer has an easy argument.....”If only you listened to me” .......with no way to disprove his musings. He will spend the rest of his life basking in the glory of his pronouncements without ever having to prove anything. Nice gig.

Putin has always been very aggressive and willing to push the envelope. Now he is acting far worse in irrational ways. And this is the man the world is supposed to trust?
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
So ‘the alternative ‘ was to recognize the Crimea s now just a Russian province. And the Donbas would become some kind of “neutral territory’ as a buffer between the two countries. But there was no way in hell that Putin would have removed his troops from the area. He moved them in in 2014 without uniforms or identifying insignia to disguise his invasion then. He would just have kept them there. And who the hell has the right to tell Ukraine to give up yet more territory with yet another ‘promise’ to defend them THIS TIME! And why should Ukraine be stupid enough to believe the west THIS TIME?

Your buddy Mearshiemer has an easy argument.....”If only you listened to me” .......with no way to disprove his musings. He will spend the rest of his life basking in the glory of his pronouncements without ever having to prove anything. Nice gig.

Putin has always been very aggressive and willing to push the envelope. Now he is acting far worse in irrational ways. And this is the man the world is supposed to trust?

Mearsheimer has the credibility gained from being right on a really big thing. To wit, his prediction in 2015:

>>The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.<<

I think by any measure what we're seeing now qualifies as "wreckage."

In fact, Mearsheimer's side of the argument says the war could have been avoided and even the occupation of Crimea headed off if the U.S. had pursued a different policy.

The side opposite Mearsheimer, which championed NATO expansion, supported the overthrow of a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv, and sought to entice Ukraine into the U.S. orbit insists that the Mearsheimer camp is wrong.

Each side's argument is hypothetical and not provable after the fact. However, what is not hypothetical is the catastrophe now inflicted on Ukraine and the disastrous ripple effect this has created far beyond Ukraine.

The point being, we can't know for certain where a different policy might have led...but it's hard to see how it could have ended in a worse place than the one we pursued.

Accordingly, here's the closing paragraph from Mearsheimer's talk:

>>The tragic truth is that if the West had not pursued NATO expansion into Ukraine, it is unlikely there would be a war in Ukraine today and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine. In essence, Washington played the central role in leading Ukraine down the path to destruction. History will judge the United States and its allies harshly for their remarkably foolish policy on Ukraine.<<
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,919
1
An altered state
Mearsheimer has the credibility gained from being right on a really big thing. To wit, his prediction in 2015:

>>The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.<<

I think by any measure what we're seeing now qualifies as "wreckage."

In fact, Mearsheimer's side of the argument says the war could have been avoided and even the occupation of Crimea headed off if the U.S. had pursued a different policy.

The side opposite Mearsheimer, which championed NATO expansion, supported the overthrow of a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv, and sought to entice Ukraine into the U.S. orbit insists that the Mearsheimer camp is wrong.

Each side's argument is hypothetical and not provable after the fact. However, what is not hypothetical is the catastrophe now inflicted on Ukraine and the disastrous ripple effect this has created far beyond Ukraine.

The point being, we can't know for certain where a different policy might have led...but it's hard to see how it could have ended in a worse place than the one we pursued.

Accordingly, here's the closing paragraph from Mearsheimer's talk:

>>The tragic truth is that if the West had not pursued NATO expansion into Ukraine, it is unlikely there would be a war in Ukraine today and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine. In essence, Washington played the central role in leading Ukraine down the path to destruction. History will judge the United States and its allies harshly for their remarkably foolish policy on Ukraine.<<
His claim that war could have been avoided is very weak, especially the taking of Crimea. Both sides have been playing the Great Power Game in Ukraine since the fall of the USSR. Putin was especially interested and active in meddling in Ukraine internal affairs ever since he took power. Poisoning opponents, rigging elections, placing in bad actors to stir up trouble.

And the NATO boogie man is a straw man argument by Putin to justify his lust for land. NATO was a defensive organization that seriously underfunded its own defense. It was never going to attack a major nuclear power like Russia. And several members repeatedly stated that Ukraine would not be permitted to join. NATO expansion was way down on the list for Putin’s reasons for annexing Crimea, the Donbas, and eventually all of Ukraine.

Mearshiemer will spend the rest of his life claiming he was correct. But following his pathway of appeasement would most likely have led to the same conclusion. Putin would have followed his historical method of seizing lands when the west was weakest. ......under W Bush in his last few months, under Obama/Biden and now under Biden/Harris. There was only one way for Ukraine to have stopped Putin’s aggressions and that was they should have kept 500 nuclear weapons thirty years ago. Barring their possessing nukes Ukraine was destined to be a battlefield between world powers.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
His claim that war could have been avoided is very weak, especially the taking of Crimea. Both sides have been playing the Great Power Game in Ukraine since the fall of the USSR. Putin was especially interested and active in meddling in Ukraine internal affairs ever since he took power. Poisoning opponents, rigging elections, placing in bad actors to stir up trouble.

And the NATO boogie man is a straw man argument by Putin to justify his lust for land. NATO was a defensive organization that seriously underfunded its own defense. It was never going to attack a major nuclear power like Russia. And several members repeatedly stated that Ukraine would not be permitted to join. NATO expansion was way down on the list for Putin’s reasons for annexing Crimea, the Donbas, and eventually all of Ukraine.

Mearshiemer will spend the rest of his life claiming he was correct. But following his pathway of appeasement would most likely have led to the same conclusion. Putin would have followed his historical method of seizing lands when the west was weakest. ......under W Bush in his last few months, under Obama/Biden and now under Biden/Harris. There was only one way for Ukraine to have stopped Putin’s aggressions and that was they should have kept 500 nuclear weapons thirty years ago. Barring their possessing nukes Ukraine was destined to be a battlefield between world powers.

You and I started this Ukraine debate back in November 2021, three months before the Russian invasion, and our positions haven't changed.

In fact, it's interesting...in those early exchanges, I made the very same argument presented by Mearsheimer in the talk linked in this post.

Back then I had a very bad feeling about where things were heading, and I feel no better about it now, 8 months later.

Call it the Karmic Recipe: a corrupt leadership class, an anesthetized citizenry, a decadent culture, a suicidal civilization, an insane war involving a nuclear power. Mix well...wait for explosion.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,919
1
An altered state
You and I started this Ukraine debate back in November 2021, three months before the Russian invasion, and our positions haven't changed.

In fact, it's interesting...in those early exchanges, I made the very same argument presented by Mearsheimer in the talk linked in this post.

Back then I had a very bad feeling about where things were heading, and I feel no better about it now, 8 months later.

Call it the Karmic Recipe: a corrupt leadership class, an anesthetized citizenry, a decadent culture, a suicidal civilization, an insane war involving a nuclear power. Mix well...wait for explosion.
Actually, I was wrong on several points. Never thought Putin wouldn’t invade as I figured Magoo would appease him in some way. Also said if it did come to an invasion that Putin would just take the Russian speaking areas of the Donbas. Never thought he attack Kyiv in an attempt to take the entire country at once. He made some terrible choices and miscalculations.

Now he is stuck. Can’t ever admit defeat to a little weakling like Ukraine. Can’t look weak in some compromise. Can’t sustain these severe loses. Major loses in his upper Officer corps. Massive turnover in his support apparatus. Terrible troop moral. Looks weak across the globe. A united NATO. An expanding NATO. Has turned out better than I expected.

Don’t know how it ends. Best guess is a stalemate until Putin is out of office. His health appears to be very bad so it may not be long. And a long stalemate would lead to his demise.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,326
24,772
1
2020evidence.org
Mearsheimer has the credibility gained from being right on a really big thing. To wit, his prediction in 2015:

>>The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.<<

I think by any measure what we're seeing now qualifies as "wreckage."

In fact, Mearsheimer's side of the argument says the war could have been avoided and even the occupation of Crimea headed off if the U.S. had pursued a different policy.

The side opposite Mearsheimer, which championed NATO expansion, supported the overthrow of a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv, and sought to entice Ukraine into the U.S. orbit insists that the Mearsheimer camp is wrong.

Each side's argument is hypothetical and not provable after the fact. However, what is not hypothetical is the catastrophe now inflicted on Ukraine and the disastrous ripple effect this has created far beyond Ukraine.

The point being, we can't know for certain where a different policy might have led...but it's hard to see how it could have ended in a worse place than the one we pursued.

Accordingly, here's the closing paragraph from Mearsheimer's talk:

>>The tragic truth is that if the West had not pursued NATO expansion into Ukraine, it is unlikely there would be a war in Ukraine today and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine. In essence, Washington played the central role in leading Ukraine down the path to destruction. History will judge the United States and its allies harshly for their remarkably foolish policy on Ukraine.<<

His claim that war could have been avoided is very weak, especially the taking of Crimea. Both sides have been playing the Great Power Game in Ukraine since the fall of the USSR. Putin was especially interested and active in meddling in Ukraine internal affairs ever since he took power. Poisoning opponents, rigging elections, placing in bad actors to stir up trouble.

And the NATO boogie man is a straw man argument by Putin to justify his lust for land. NATO was a defensive organization that seriously underfunded its own defense. It was never going to attack a major nuclear power like Russia. And several members repeatedly stated that Ukraine would not be permitted to join. NATO expansion was way down on the list for Putin’s reasons for annexing Crimea, the Donbas, and eventually all of Ukraine.

Mearshiemer will spend the rest of his life claiming he was correct. But following his pathway of appeasement would most likely have led to the same conclusion. Putin would have followed his historical method of seizing lands when the west was weakest. ......under W Bush in his last few months, under Obama/Biden and now under Biden/Harris. There was only one way for Ukraine to have stopped Putin’s aggressions and that was they should have kept 500 nuclear weapons thirty years ago. Barring their possessing nukes Ukraine was destined to be a battlefield between world powers.
People like Spin can deny it all they want but shit like the below is one of the red lines putin warned nato about over and over. Instead of adjusting they kept double down on the inflammatory rhetoric smh..Also last feb zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders publicly talked about their desire to acquire nukes.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm (2008 Nato summit where they say “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”)
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
Actually, I was wrong on several points. Never thought Putin wouldn’t invade as I figured Magoo would appease him in some way. Also said if it did come to an invasion that Putin would just take the Russian speaking areas of the Donbas. Never thought he attack Kyiv in an attempt to take the entire country at once. He made some terrible choices and miscalculations.

Now he is stuck. Can’t ever admit defeat to a little weakling like Ukraine. Can’t look weak in some compromise. Can’t sustain these severe loses. Major loses in his upper Officer corps. Massive turnover in his support apparatus. Terrible troop moral. Looks weak across the globe. A united NATO. An expanding NATO. Has turned out better than I expected.

Don’t know how it ends. Best guess is a stalemate until Putin is out of office. His health appears to be very bad so it may not be long. And a long stalemate would lead to his demise.

I think you're whistling past the graveyard, Spin. I mean, if "better than you expected" is...Ukraine wrecked, a potential 3rd-world famine, economic shocks that have boomeranged on Western economies, an emerging global alliance of Russia-China-India, five million Ukrainian refugees, a total maritime blockade of Ukraine, a bloody mess with no end in sight, and the possibility of nuclear escalation...I'd hate to see what "worse than you expected" looks like.

As for your predicted imminent destruction of the Russian military, as I said, that assessment is based on news reports from the propaganda organs which were doing victory dances a few months ago over Ukraine's supposed glorious victory. 120 days later...the Russians control the entirety of the Luhansk region, half the Donestsk region, most of the Ukrainian coastline, a southern swath of the country from Kherson through Mariupol...etc.

All that's come at a very high price to Russia...but also to Ukraine, which by its own admission is losing on the order of 200 troops a day and has had to fall back on ill-trained volunteers. The current rate of attrition and destruction is not sustainable by Ukraine. How long Russia can hold up, I don't know, but I don't trust the assessments you cite because they come from sources with an agenda.

Meanwhile, if Ukraine survives this, the country will be rebuilt at immense cost by American taxpayers...the people who have already financed, what, $45 billion of weaponry to enable this madness. The money will come from the pockets of your family and mine. It won't inconvenience the wealthy Ruling Class of Brave New Amerika, which for some reason best explained by psychiatrists has turned Ukraine into a clinical obsession.

>>"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked." John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago, September 2015.<<
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,031
37,425
1
The only possible peace agreement would be for Russia to withdraw in exchange for Ukraine promising not to seek NATO membership and for Zelensky's administration to be replaced by Russian approved "moderates". I don't see that happening because both sides are dug in too deep at this point.

IMO Russian forces will continue to attack until there simply aren't enough Ukrainian soldiers left to fight. Russia will take over the eastern territories and as far south as Odesa. That way they would control all the ports and they would restrict shipments to the west until they get sanction relief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
The only possible peace agreement would be for Russia to withdraw in exchange for Ukraine promising not to seek NATO membership and for Zelensky's administration to be replaced by Russian approved "moderates". I don't see that happening because both sides are dug in too deep at this point.

IMO Russian forces will continue to attack until there simply aren't enough Ukrainian soldiers left to fight. Russia will take over the eastern territories and as far south as Odesa. That way they would control all the ports and they would restrict shipments to the west until they get sanction relief.

The problem now is that both sides have expended so much blood and treasure that nothing less than actually "winning" would be acceptable.

That means there is little room for compromise or negotiation. All the off-ramps have been shut down. The deal possible before Day One of the invasion, which might have allowed both sides to save face, is long since off the table. This makes escalation the most likely scenario.

Meanwhile, our own leadership in Washington, which is composed of overgrown juveniles who've never in their lives been denied anything they wanted, respond with rage at being thwarted by the Evil Putin. By gum, they'll show him who's boss. How? By doubling down on their failed policy.

As for reports of imminent Russian military exhaustion, spun by supposed intelligence assessments regurgitated by our propaganda organs, linked below is a piece from CNN today. Somebody at that network appears to have escaped the Regime reservation:

 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,609
5,460
1
Yeah, we would have been much better off handing Ukraine over to Putin. That would have bought peace in our time. He is a rational man, just cut a deal. It’s not like he has a track record of invading other countries.

There are reports that both sides are near collapse. The Russians are out of weapons as evidenced by using anti ship missiles from the 60s to randomly bomb buildings. Transcripts with only a couple weeks training at the front lines. Old guys brought back out of retirement. Their troop loses in four months are higher than eight years of Afghanistan.

Don’t know if Ukraine can hold out long enough to force Putin to withdraw. Highly unlikely he would ever admit defeat of his mistake. Most likely outcome is he plants his forces in the Donbas and Ukraine continues to bleed him out for the rest of the year.

When wet fall weather hits offensive operations will cease. If Putin shuts off the gas to Europe it will get uglier. Add in global famine without Ukraine’s grains.

Putin is downright crazy. There is no way for him to win. He can seize the Donbas but will watch his military be sliced and diced for years if he stays. All the cities there have been destroyed and even if he ‘wins’ it will be his cost to rebuild them. And he is putting the rest of country at risk by moving too many forces away from sensitive areas. Turkey is threatening to move forces into parts of Syria that were protected by Russian forces that have removed to Ukraine.

This may go down as one of the worst decisions in history. Right up there with Hitler attacking Russia before defeating England. Some legacy he is creating.


If Russia stops fighting the war ends.

If Ukraine stops fighting they cease to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister