Why are we rushing to defend Ukraine? [merged threads]

[TBoneTX 45,259]

14 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Although this might be the case, I am not really sure that it is. 

I agree with your reasoning and conclusion.

[Dashinka 24,480]

Although Ukraine has taken a back seat to the ME conflict, things do not look very promising for a complete Ukraine victory.  I do wonder when Zelenskyy will start requesting troops.

 

Is it worse than 'stalemate' in Ukraine right now?

 

George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy at QI, highlighted the perils of extrapolating a “stalemate” from the current lack of significant battlefield movements in Ukraine. “Those who believe this war has settled into a long-term stalemate make the mistake of measuring the relative progress of each side with maps. They see that the frontlines have not moved significantly over the last year and conclude that the sides are stalemated,” Beebe told me. 
 

“But other metrics, though, paint a different picture. Ukraine is using up its quite limited supplies of men, weapons, and ammunition, and the West cannot provide what Ukraine needs. That is not a formula for stalemate; it's a formula for Ukraine's eventual collapse or capitulation,” he continued. 

 

A purely cartographical view of the Ukraine war neglects key military factors, including differentials in manpower and resources, attrition rates, and logistics challenges, that many experts say are not unfolding in Ukraine’s favor. 

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-war-stalemate-2666354627/

[Boiler 45,445]

Ukraine has the same sort of population as France did in 1914.

 

I think they are different in that I can envisage a solution in Ukraine, political not military, but cannot in ME.

[Dashinka 24,480]

45 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Ukraine has the same sort of population as France did in 1914.

 

I think they are different in that I can envisage a solution in Ukraine, political not military, but cannot in ME.

Big difference though as there was no NATO in 1914.  Would NATO use its own troops in Ukraine, and would that be an act of war committed by NATO?  Does NATO even want to open that can of worms?  

[Boiler 45,445]

23 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Big difference though as there was no NATO in 1914.  Would NATO use its own troops in Ukraine, and would that be an act of war committed by NATO?  Does NATO even want to open that can of worms?  

I am not sure they have to, and I see no desire to, much more politically acceptable to be the quartermaster.

 

I mentioned France more as a guide to how long this can last and obviously the casualties there were many factors higher. Obviously there have been significant losses, most of the coverage has been of Russian losses but defies logic to think that Ukranian lossed have not been significant. 

 

From a practical perspective it is much cheaper to resupply, I suppose that has a comparability with the ME as Iran causes a lot of issues without seriously impacting its economy. 

 

I have yet to watch yesterdays, I am sure it is excellent and covers this far better than I can.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,480]

29 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I am not sure they have to, and I see no desire to, much more politically acceptable to be the quartermaster.

 

I mentioned France more as a guide to how long this can last and obviously the casualties there were many factors higher. Obviously there have been significant losses, most of the coverage has been of Russian losses but defies logic to think that Ukranian lossed have not been significant. 

 

From a practical perspective it is much cheaper to resupply, I suppose that has a comparability with the ME as Iran causes a lot of issues without seriously impacting its economy. 

 

I have yet to watch yesterdays, I am sure it is excellent and covers this far better than I can.

 

 

I understand what you mean, but Ukraine is not really in a position to keep using its troops as cannon fodder in a WWI stalemate like war, and at some point, Zelenskyy will start asking for manpower as without troops, weapons are fairly ineffective.

[Boiler 45,445]

We simply do not have the information and I seriously doubt NATO forces will be involved. I see no one interested, Russia has managed the casualties by focussing on recruiting from their minority areas, not sure if this will eventually backfire.

[Dashinka 24,480]

Ukraine needs 500k troops.  I wonder where they will come from.

 

Zelensky says Russia made no military gains in 2023, expresses faith in U.S.

 

Kyiv’s situation seems increasingly difficult, however, with crucially needed military and economic aid stalled in Washington and Brussels, and with frequent reports of shortages in military personnel and weapons. Ukrainian cities are still under constant bombardment by Russian missiles and explosive drones, and Moscow’s troops are pushing to advance at several points along the front line in the east and south.

 

While the European Union agreed to open membership talks, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban blocked a proposed $55 billion aid package. A proposal by President Biden, for roughly $60 billion in aid, has been blocked for months by Republicans in Congress, who are demanding sweeping changes in border security and immigration policy in exchange for approving the funds.

 

At his news conference, Zelensky expressed confidence that the U.S. aid would be approved in the near future. “We’re working very hard on this. I’m sure that the U.S.A. won’t betray us,” he said.

 

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/dec/19/zelensky-says-russia-made-no-military-gains-in-202/

[Dashinka 24,480]

I thought Biden was all in until Russia was trounced by Ukraine?

 

The Biden Administration Is Quietly Shifting Its Strategy in Ukraine

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211

[TBoneTX 45,259]

13 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Ukraine needs 500k troops.  I wonder where they will come from.

1.  Bidementia has let in 300,000 illegals during December alone.

2.  They can join our military, gain expedited U.S. citizenship, serve in Ukraine, and then vote Democrat.   

13 hours ago, Dashinka said:

"[...] I'm sure that the U.S.A. won’t betray us"

The proposed idea will work!   

[Dashinka 24,480]

Very good read, and good analysis.

 

Ukraine Facing Increasingly Unfavorable Odds

 

The Biden administration is therefore correct to warn that without continued and massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine, Russia will quickly win. It is however equally clear that U.S. aid — still less at the levels sustained to date — cannot be guaranteed even in the medium term. Partly due to the new U.S. commitment to Israel created by the Gaza war and the threat of it spreading, the United States is also failing adequately to replenish Ukraine’s dwindling stocks of air-defense missiles, which are crucially important both on the battlefield and in the protection of Ukrainian infrastructure and industry. Both the United States and Europe are failing to meet their targets for increased production of artillery shells, which Russia is firing at some three to five times the Ukrainian rate.

 

And even if the West could vastly increase its military production (highly doubtful given the pressure on Western budgets, supply chain problems, and skilled labor shortages), we cannot provide Ukraine with more soldiers. Ukrainian manpower shortages are becoming increasingly acute, and are leading to increasingly draconian conscription measures and bitter disputes within the Ukrainian government over how to enforce conscription, which is faltering in the face of growing public resistance.

 

Following the failure of last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive, the Biden administration and the Ukrainian government and military have all shifted to a defensive strategy, including trying to fortify Ukraine’s long northern border with Russia and Belarus. This region has been quiet since Moscow withdrew its troops in the spring for 2022, after the failure of its initial invasion from the north. However, Russia’s growing advantage in numbers means that at some point in future, its army may be able to attack again along this front.

 

While smart, and even if successful in the short term, a strategy of standing indefinitely on the defensive has two colossal disadvantages for Ukraine. Politically, it brings with it the obvious implication that Russia will go on holding the areas it now controls. This being so, more and more Ukrainians and Westerners will obviously begin to call for a compromise peace. The danger is that if we leave this too long, the balance will have shifted so decisively against Ukraine that Russia will have few incentives left to compromise.

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ukraine-peace/

[millefleur 5,046]

I'm kind of baffled why the counteroffensive was overhyped so much. Was it for the morale? Because it seems like hyping it up did nothing but hurt in the end. 

[Dashinka 24,480]

5 hours ago, millefleur said:

I'm kind of baffled why the counteroffensive was overhyped so much. Was it for the morale? Because it seems like hyping it up did nothing but hurt in the end. 

Yes, it seems to have backfired n the Western leaders, and from that there is much more reluctance to dumping money and scarce weapons/munitions into Ukraine.

[TBoneTX 45,259]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

Yes, it seems to have backfired n the Western leaders, and from that there is much more reluctance to dumping money and scarce weapons/munitions into Ukraine.

This, and there was always a thin veneer of justification for Western/U.S. intervention anyway.

[Boiler 45,445]

I am not sure scace is the right word.

 

Strikes me that a lot of soon to be past use by date has gone over and looking at it from a very realpolitik perspective it is a very cheap way of degrading the Russian military, a lot of money but small beer is US military spending terms.