• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Screams of a Dying Nation - Nato's Non Plan to Save Ukraine.

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unfortunately, the sensationist headlines and understandable joy over Ukraine's continued success at tactical level are but short-term perceptions that ignores a long-term reality: if allied strategy (assuming they have one) does not change, Ukraine will lose, and Putin will win. And It's fast becoming a matter of "when" not "if".

Here's why.

Putin has already occupied major portions of the Donbas and most of Ukraine's coastline. As predicted, he has ceased his drive on Kiev, taking defensive positions and sending some units back for resupply. For the time being he is satisfied with the ground gained near Kiev. In going to the defense here, his casualty rate declines while his units rest and refit. In the meantime, he is transferring some of those freed up units in Byelorussia to the east and is preparing for another major offensive. Because Ukraine has insufficient air cover and no deep strike ability it cannot exploit Russia's current vulnerability by launching it's own strategic counter-offensive. Any overly exposed attempt by Ukrainian to do so and the Russian missile, cruise missile, and air based firepower would wreck havoc on Ukraine's forces. So Putin will continue to have the initiative.

Putin's next goal will be to more broadly expand his occupied territory in the east and perhaps in the south. He feels no need to negotiate and has said so, "The time is not ripe", meaning he wants some more of Ukraine before he is willing to bargain seriously. More importantly the war is now a question of sustainment. Even if Russia does not gain substantial additional ground, it is only a matter of time before Ukraine runs out of SAMs, rocket batteries, artillery, fuel, aircraft, and manpower. While Ukraine can continue to capture some enemy vehicles and ammunition, it remains a fact that Russia produces its own equipment and can replenish nearly at will. Stalemate does not cease the remorseless attrition of Ukrainians limited military resources.

And no, sanctions or social unrest won't change that. Polls show Putin at a 5 year high of approval, at 83%. The vast majority believe Russia is heading in the right direction, embracing every lie issued by the State media. Commentators constantly tell the public that any treaty would be the end of Russia. And while sanctions may eventually bite hard and after a few years create disenchantment with the war it would be too late to save Ukraine - moreover, as Russia has all energy resources, mineral resources, and food sources it needs to sustain itself, how effective can sanctions truly be?

Apparently it serves Washington's and Nato's interest to hear the screams of a dying nation, to provide just enough for the conflict to continue until every city is laid flat in Ukraine. But never do so much to as to enable Ukraine to win.

Heavens no, not that!
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
36,564
Reaction score
16,308
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Unfortunately, the sensationist headlines and understandable joy over Ukraine's continued success at tactical level are but short-term perceptions that ignores a long-term reality: if allied strategy (assuming they have one) does not change, Ukraine will lose, and Putin will win. And It's fast becoming a matter of "when" not "if".

Here's why.

Putin has already occupied major portions of the Donbas and most of Ukraine's coastline. As predicted, he has ceased his drive on Kiev, taking defensive positions and sending some units back for resupply. For the time being he is satisfied with the ground gained near Kiev. In going to the defense here, his casualty rate declines while his units rest and refit. In the meantime, he is transferring some of those freed up units in Byelorussia to the east and is preparing for another major offensive. Because Ukraine has insufficient air cover and no deep strike ability it cannot exploit Russia's current vulnerability by launching it's own strategic counter-offensive. Any overly exposed attempt by Ukrainian to do so and the Russian missile, cruise missile, and air based firepower would wreck havoc on Ukraine's forces. So Putin will continue to have the initiative.

Putin's next goal will be to more broadly expand his occupied territory in the east and perhaps in the south. He feels no need to negotiate and has said so, "The time is not ripe", meaning he wants some more of Ukraine before he is willing to bargain seriously. More importantly the war is now a question of sustainment. Even if Russia does not gain substantial additional ground, it is only a matter of time before Ukraine runs out of SAMs, rocket batteries, artillery, fuel, aircraft, and manpower. While Ukraine can continue to capture some enemy vehicles and ammunition, it remains a fact that Russia produces its own equipment and can replenish nearly at will. Stalemate does not cease the remorseless attrition of Ukrainians limited military resources.

And no, sanctions or social unrest won't change that. Polls show Putin at a 5 year high of approval, at 83%. The vast majority believe Russia is heading in the right direction, embracing every lie issued by the State media. Commentators constantly tell the public that any treaty would be the end of Russia. And while sanctions may eventually bite hard and after a few years create disenchantment with the war it would be too late to save Ukraine - moreover, as Russia has all energy resources, mineral resources, and food sources it needs to sustain itself, how effective can sanctions truly be?

Apparently it serves Washington's and Nato's interest to hear the screams of a dying nation, to provide just enough for the conflict to continue until every city is laid flat in Ukraine. But never do so much to as to enable Ukraine to win.

Heavens no, not that!

So what is your recommendation?
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
20,115
Reaction score
8,724
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unfortunately, the sensationist headlines and understandable joy over Ukraine's continued success at tactical level are but short-term perceptions that ignores a long-term reality: if allied strategy (assuming they have one) does not change, Ukraine will lose, and Putin will win. And It's fast becoming a matter of "when" not "if".

Here's why.

Putin has already occupied major portions of the Donbas and most of Ukraine's coastline. As predicted, he has ceased his drive on Kiev, taking defensive positions and sending some units back for resupply. For the time being he is satisfied with the ground gained near Kiev. In going to the defense here, his casualty rate declines while his units rest and refit. In the meantime, he is transferring some of those freed up units in Byelorussia to the east and is preparing for another major offensive. Because Ukraine has insufficient air cover and no deep strike ability it cannot exploit Russia's current vulnerability by launching it's own strategic counter-offensive. Any overly exposed attempt by Ukrainian to do so and the Russian missile, cruise missile, and air based firepower would wreck havoc on Ukraine's forces. So Putin will continue to have the initiative.

Putin's next goal will be to more broadly expand his occupied territory in the east and perhaps in the south. He feels no need to negotiate and has said so, "The time is not ripe", meaning he wants some more of Ukraine before he is willing to bargain seriously. More importantly the war is now a question of sustainment. Even if Russia does not gain substantial additional ground, it is only a matter of time before Ukraine runs out of SAMs, rocket batteries, artillery, fuel, aircraft, and manpower. While Ukraine can continue to capture some enemy vehicles and ammunition, it remains a fact that Russia produces its own equipment and can replenish nearly at will. Stalemate does not cease the remorseless attrition of Ukrainians limited military resources.

And no, sanctions or social unrest won't change that. Polls show Putin at a 5 year high of approval, at 83%. The vast majority believe Russia is heading in the right direction, embracing every lie issued by the State media. Commentators constantly tell the public that any treaty would be the end of Russia. And while sanctions may eventually bite hard and after a few years create disenchantment with the war it would be too late to save Ukraine - moreover, as Russia has all energy resources, mineral resources, and food sources it needs to sustain itself, how effective can sanctions truly be?

Apparently it serves Washington's and Nato's interest to hear the screams of a dying nation, to provide just enough for the conflict to continue until every city is laid flat in Ukraine. But never do so much to as to enable Ukraine to win.

Heavens no, not that!
This is true. Putin has time on his side. At some point the west will tire of the money pit that Ukraine is quickly becoming and start to pressure Ukraine to come to terms with Russia for the good of the world.
 

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Unfortunately, the sensationist headlines and understandable joy over Ukraine's continued success at tactical level are but short-term perceptions that ignores a long-term reality: if allied strategy (assuming they have one) does not change, Ukraine will lose, and Putin will win. And It's fast becoming a matter of "when" not "if".

Here's why.

Putin has already occupied major portions of the Donbas and most of Ukraine's coastline. As predicted, he has ceased his drive on Kiev, taking defensive positions and sending some units back for resupply. For the time being he is satisfied with the ground gained near Kiev. In going to the defense here, his casualty rate declines while his units rest and refit. In the meantime, he is transferring some of those freed up units in Byelorussia to the east and is preparing for another major offensive. Because Ukraine has insufficient air cover and no deep strike ability it cannot exploit Russia's current vulnerability by launching it's own strategic counter-offensive. Any overly exposed attempt by Ukrainian to do so and the Russian missile, cruise missile, and air based firepower would wreck havoc on Ukraine's forces. So Putin will continue to have the initiative.

Putin's next goal will be to more broadly expand his occupied territory in the east and perhaps in the south. He feels no need to negotiate and has said so, "The time is not ripe", meaning he wants some more of Ukraine before he is willing to bargain seriously. More importantly the war is now a question of sustainment. Even if Russia does not gain substantial additional ground, it is only a matter of time before Ukraine runs out of SAMs, rocket batteries, artillery, fuel, aircraft, and manpower. While Ukraine can continue to capture some enemy vehicles and ammunition, it remains a fact that Russia produces its own equipment and can replenish nearly at will. Stalemate does not cease the remorseless attrition of Ukrainians limited military resources.

And no, sanctions or social unrest won't change that. Polls show Putin at a 5 year high of approval, at 83%. The vast majority believe Russia is heading in the right direction, embracing every lie issued by the State media. Commentators constantly tell the public that any treaty would be the end of Russia. And while sanctions may eventually bite hard and after a few years create disenchantment with the war it would be too late to save Ukraine - moreover, as Russia has all energy resources, mineral resources, and food sources it needs to sustain itself, how effective can sanctions truly be?

Apparently it serves Washington's and Nato's interest to hear the screams of a dying nation, to provide just enough for the conflict to continue until every city is laid flat in Ukraine. But never do so much to as to enable Ukraine to win.

Heavens no, not that!
Another thread to smear the NATO Alliance from an American via Ukrainian Secret Sevice mental warfare.

The SBU is like the FSB part of the former KGB.

Weapons like candy
Intelligence sharing
Refugee help
Turkish Drones
Training

and economic sanctions from the west with the risk of populism.

NATO/EU not doing enough?

You want war? go fight for Zelensky in the foreign legion.

 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
36,564
Reaction score
16,308
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is true. Putin has time on his side. At some point the west will tire of the money pit that Ukraine is quickly becoming and start to pressure Ukraine to come to terms with Russia for the good of the world.

I don't know about that. It seems the west can withstand the sanctions against Russia much longer than Russia can stand it. The Russian economy may be able to hold out for about 1-2 years- but then after that it's really gonna hurt them and people there are gonna know something is not right. It was popular pressure which made them pull out of Afghanistan, and it wasn't hurting them one bit economically. It was just lots of moms talking to each other and realizing none of their kids were coming home. This is going to be that PLUS the economic effects on everyone else.

 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So what is your recommendation?
My recommendation is the same recommendation provided by every military expert and area specialist since nearly the first day...do exactly what President Biden said he would do but has not done. Give the the arms necessary to fight and defend Ukraine. Not some of the arms, not the smaller arms, not the somewhat defend Ukraine arms, but that which is necessary to mount a successful defense of Ukraine as a whole, which can only be successful if Ukraine drives Russia from its country.

That requires a sense of urgency and decisive leadership, and it requires more than manpad weapons. It requires shipping planes that Ukrainians can use (24 Migs and several SUs). It requires getting those S300s promised but reputedly still not delivered. It requires the provision of western SAMs, anti-ship missiles, tanks, and artillery. It requires getting whatever is available NOW to Ukraine, including older reserved systems in storage such as Hawk SAMs and older A-10s (which Ukranian pilots already know how to fly).

The west is fully capable of being the arsenal of democracy, as the US was to the UK and the Soviet Union in WWII. The hour is late but Ukrainians have proven that they can win. But we need NOT a commitment to a stalemate but to an outright win.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nukes.

All intervetionist claims ultimately lead to that.

Except, of course, of the scores of post WWII interventions by free world and communist nations owning nukes, not a single one has used them.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another thread to smear the NATO Alliance from an American via Ukrainian Secret Sevice mental warfare.

Oh sure, I'm an American who (somehow) via the Ukranian Secret Service "mental warfare", is smearing Nato. :rolleyes:

You forgot to mention that I'm also an agent of the deep state, take orders from the Foreign Relations Council, and am a member in good standing in the order of the Illuminati.

The SBU is like the FSB part of the former KGB.

Weapons like candy
Intelligence sharing
Refugee help
Turkish Drones
Training

Irrelevant gibberish about something...or not.

and economic sanctions from the west with the risk of populism.

NATO/EU not doing enough?

Ummm ya, that was the point of the op.

You want war? go fight for Zelensky in the foreign legion.


You want to shill for Putin? Post here...oh wait you are.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,410
Reaction score
37,005
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Except, of course, of the scores of post WWII interventions by free world and communist nations owning nukes, not a single one has used them.

Yet.
 

Yakshi

Who has been tampering with my Pez dispensers?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
9,675
Reaction score
10,263
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Russia is a country where political opponents are jailed, poisoned, or assassinated, where human rights are repressed, and where dissent soon leads to fines or prison.

And you say that support for Putin is at 83 percent.

If you lived in Moscow, and a pollster approached you to ask, "Do you approve of President Putin?" what is the correct answer?
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,777
Reaction score
16,396
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Except, of course, of the scores of post WWII interventions by free world and communist nations owning nukes, not a single one has used them.

None of which were against another nuclear power.
 

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
1. Oh sure, I'm an American who (somehow) via the Ukranian Secret Service "mental warfare", is smearing Nato. :rolleyes:

2. You forgot to mention that I'm also an agent of the deep state, take orders from the Foreign Relations Council, and am a member in good standing in the order of the Illuminati.

3. Irrelevant gibberish about something...or not.

4. Ummm ya, that was the point of the op.
You want to shill for Putin? Post here...oh wait you are.
1 & 2 are satire. The definition of the term is online.

3. Clearly the NATO leader knows better than you. The video that I posted explains it well, is his own words -> the logistics of the help. Is he working for Putin too?

4. Mind of a fanatic in my opinion -> thinks help is only by direct armed conflict. Dismisses the chance of nuclear war in case of direct conflict, humanitarian crisis, economic disaster than can bring upon us another Trump. Also dismisses the daily efforts by the NATO alliance.



I ran away in the West from an oppresive system to enjoy freedom, is sad to see how some people in their quest against Putin's fascism they themselves borrow his approach.

The west is not you though so we're good.
 
Last edited:

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
None of which were against another nuclear power.

Incorrect. Several interventions involved one nuclear power as a direct combatant, the other nuclear power as the primary or sole supplier of the forces arrayed against that nuclear power. combatant...e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,777
Reaction score
16,396
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Incorrect. Several interventions involved one nuclear power as a direct combatant, the other nuclear power as the primary or sole supplier of the forces arrayed against that nuclear power. combatant...e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

The Soviet Air Force was not directly engaging the US Air Force above Vietnam. There’s a difference between “volunteers” being sent and direct intervention.

Likewise, the US Army was not in the Afghan Mountains shooting it out with the Soviets.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Soviet Air Force was not directly engaging the US Air Force above Vietnam. There’s a difference between “volunteers” being sent and direct intervention.

Likewise, the US Army was not in the Afghan Mountains shooting it out with the Soviets.

a) The Soviets supplied both aircraft and pilots, deployed from bases outside of North Korea, to fight Americans.

b) As nothing in my OP suggested US army units going into Ukraine to shoot it out, or to create no fly zones, perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you really have hostile feelings towards helping Ukraine, no?
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,777
Reaction score
16,396
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
a) The Soviets supplied both aircraft and pilots, deployed from bases outside of North Korea, to fight Americans.

b) As nothing in my OP suggested US army units going into Ukraine to shoot it out, or to create no fly zones, perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you really have hostile feelings towards helping Ukraine, no?

However, it was far from a direct soviet intervention, as they were operating under the banner of the North Vietnamese Air Force......which, contrary to the stereotype, was damn good.

Given that you called for Russia to be divided into “dozens of states run by military governors”, the indignant sputtering is a bad joke.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
However, it was far from a direct soviet intervention, as they were operating under the banner of the North Vietnamese Air Force......which, contrary to the stereotype, was damn good.

Given that you called for Russia to be divided into “dozens of states run by military governors”, the indignant sputtering is a bad joke.

And that is why you have hostile feelings towards Ukraine? Try answering again, rather than changing the subject.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,777
Reaction score
16,396
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And that is why you have hostile feelings towards Ukraine? Try answering again, rather than changing the subject.

I have hostile feelings towards jingoistic idiots who are still upset the US Army didn’t rearm the SS and try to roll East in 1945, and want to get us in a shooting war with a nuclear power because “it’ll be just like Desert Storm, honest!”
 

Juks

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
5,295
Reaction score
4,419
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
My recommendation is the same recommendation provided by every military expert and area specialist since nearly the first day...do exactly what President Biden said he would do but has not done. Give the the arms necessary to fight and defend Ukraine. Not some of the arms, not the smaller arms, not the somewhat defend Ukraine arms, but that which is necessary to mount a successful defense of Ukraine as a whole, which can only be successful if Ukraine drives Russia from its country.

That requires a sense of urgency and decisive leadership, and it requires more than manpad weapons. It requires shipping planes that Ukrainians can use (24 Migs and several SUs). It requires getting those S300s promised but reputedly still not delivered. It requires the provision of western SAMs, anti-ship missiles, tanks, and artillery. It requires getting whatever is available NOW to Ukraine, including older reserved systems in storage such as Hawk SAMs and older A-10s (which Ukranian pilots already know how to fly).

The west is fully capable of being the arsenal of democracy, as the US was to the UK and the Soviet Union in WWII. The hour is late but Ukrainians have proven that they can win. But we need NOT a commitment to a stalemate but to an outright win.
I agree with you and share your concern, time is running out. Ukraine loosing is not an option for the west. China moving troops to Solomon Islands. The planed referendum in breakaway regions of Georgia to vote regarding belonging to Russia (No way of guaranteeing it will be conducted properly) China and Russia talking about the new world order. The opposition in Belarus, development in Serbia, Turkey, Macedonia, Moldavia ...... and so on. There are so much more which hangs on if Russia wins or gets the upper hand in the Ukraine or if the Ukraine do. Support and means for the Ukraine needs to be such that the Ukraine not only have a chance of winning, but that they do win.
 

Rogue Valley

Putin = War Criminal
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
81,562
Reaction score
66,519
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And that is why you have hostile feelings towards Ukraine? Try answering again, rather than changing the subject.

Tigerace117 has been hostile to Ukraine and an apologist for Stalin's/Putin's Russia since he registered here.
 
Last edited:

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
7,395
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have hostile feelings towards jingoistic idiots who are still upset the US Army didn’t rearm the SS and try to roll East in 1945, and want to get us in a shooting war with a nuclear power because “it’ll be just like Desert Storm, honest!”
Still dodging. Sigh...
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,777
Reaction score
16,396
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tigerace117 has been hostile to Ukraine and an apologist for Stalins/Putins Russia since he registered here.

I’ll wait for you to post any evidence of me defending Stalinist Russia….or Putin .

I’ll give you a hint—condemning Neo Nazis is not “defending Putin”.

But I’m not surprised someone who wails about how the Russians killed Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera can’t grasp that.
 
Top Bottom