The Ukraine Crisis

[DSUrocks07]

Its getting too late in the game; our team is the diplomatic junior varsity sent to the World Cup, we've been putting our eggs in the military basket, and what we do with respect to Ukraine and NATO will be a prime determinent our relationship with the Chinese. That and Putin's history of ignoring agreements like the one that Ukraine surrendered its nukes for mean that the quicker we start spending Russia into brokeness a la 1989 the better terms we'll be able come to with the Chinese

How do we spend them into brokeness? This isn't 1989, the military Russia has now bears little resemblance to the Soviet armies of that time. They don't need to nor will they try to keep up with us in terms of nuclear missiles, tanks, jets, other armaments, etc. They are quite content to be strapping C6 onto radio controlled drones to blow up things that they can and are building for pennies (or the penny equivalent in rubels).

And also with an integrated global market. Russia's main source of income to fund their aggression (oil), makes it very difficult to enforce restrictions. Too strict, will drive up domestic oil prices, too loose, and prices would plummet.

High oil prices makes US domestic product more financially viable, but hurts US consumers. Low oil prices is bad for domestic producers but helps consumer prices.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

How do we spend them into brokeness? This isn't 1989, the military Russia has now bears little resemblance to the Soviet armies of that time. They don't need to nor will they try to keep up with us in terms of nuclear missiles, tanks, jets, other armaments, etc. They are quite content to be strapping C6 onto radio controlled drones to blow up things that they can and are building for pennies (or the penny equivalent in rubels).

And also with an integrated global market. Russia's main source of income to fund their aggression (oil), makes it very difficult to enforce restrictions. Too strict, will drive up domestic oil prices, too loose, and prices would plummet.

High oil prices makes US domestic product more financially viable, but hurts US consumers. Low oil prices is bad for domestic producers but helps consumer prices.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

Yes, all that shit and more. And insulting, bullying, and threatening our closest allies while simultaneously groveling at the feet of our
adversaries while getting-dogwalked in our own yard.

None of that shit will be improved when Russia annexes Ukraine

[UNI88]

No. We have already pissed away what, 300? billion. At some point you have to say ‘No Mas‘.

We need some type of a reset or some change in policy here. Like I said, Russia is now fighting this thing on the cheap, sending up droves of cheaply made autonomous weapons and largely hunkering down in eastern Ukraine. All the while their economy is doing just fine with more than enough markets available to them for their oil, which is pretty much driving their economy at this point. And with China more than willing to give them a lifeline, they're set up to continue this conflict as is for a considerable amount of time.

I agree with the sentiment that we just can't stand idly by as large, threatening countries like Russia swallow up local neighbors simply because they want to. That era of great nation games ended a good century ago, and would not be something we should really allow the world to sink back into.

Trump has been the first to finally float the idea that we need to cut off the Russian oil or this will go on forever. But again, with China in Russia's corner, even that sound economic policy won't be effective.

Yes, it's been something like 300 billion, just from us, over 3-4 years to keep this going, not even counting what Europe has offered up. Are we willing to devote $1T to this for the next quarter century? We have our own military issues here at home - we can't make enough armament to replace the ones we're sending to Ukraine, which are vastly more expensive than what Russia is using, and we can't even keep up with the ship building and ship maintenance we need to even keep our own fleet afloat in light of the growing menace that is China's vast navy. At some point we have to make a change. Europe is right next door to Ukraine - if we need boots on the ground to stand up to Russia that may be something that has to happen. And we'd need to hear European voices saying that, which to date we haven't heard from them. The status quo is just a slow bleed towards defeat for Ukraine.

I don't think the russian economy is doing just fine. There are cracks there - it's being held up by oil and government/military spending. The lose of so many young men to death, injury and fleeing the country will also have an impact. Oil revenues might be sustainable but will they be enough to hold up the house of cards?

I agree that a plan is needed and that Europe should take the lead but the US shouldn't just leave Ukraine to the wolves either.

[GannonFan]

We need some type of a reset or some change in policy here. Like I said, Russia is now fighting this thing on the cheap, sending up droves of cheaply made autonomous weapons and largely hunkering down in eastern Ukraine. All the while their economy is doing just fine with more than enough markets available to them for their oil, which is pretty much driving their economy at this point. And with China more than willing to give them a lifeline, they're set up to continue this conflict as is for a considerable amount of time.

I agree with the sentiment that we just can't stand idly by as large, threatening countries like Russia swallow up local neighbors simply because they want to. That era of great nation games ended a good century ago, and would not be something we should really allow the world to sink back into.

Trump has been the first to finally float the idea that we need to cut off the Russian oil or this will go on forever. But again, with China in Russia's corner, even that sound economic policy won't be effective.

Yes, it's been something like 300 billion, just from us, over 3-4 years to keep this going, not even counting what Europe has offered up. Are we willing to devote $1T to this for the next quarter century? We have our own military issues here at home - we can't make enough armament to replace the ones we're sending to Ukraine, which are vastly more expensive than what Russia is using, and we can't even keep up with the ship building and ship maintenance we need to even keep our own fleet afloat in light of the growing menace that is China's vast navy. At some point we have to make a change. Europe is right next door to Ukraine - if we need boots on the ground to stand up to Russia that may be something that has to happen. And we'd need to hear European voices saying that, which to date we haven't heard from them. The status quo is just a slow bleed towards defeat for Ukraine.

I don't think the russian economy is doing just fine. There are cracks there - it's being held up by oil and government/military spending. The lose of so many young men to death, injury and fleeing the country will also have an impact. Oil revenues might be sustainable but will they be enough to hold up the house of cards?

I agree that a plan is needed and that Europe should take the lead but the US shouldn't just leave Ukraine to the wolves either.

There's always been cracks there, it's Russia. But oil and military spending have always been the cornerstone of their economy since the collapse of the Soviet system. They certainly lost a lot of casualties at the start of the war, but as the war has moved into a fairly autonomous style, are they still losing large numbers? Is anyone really fleeing the country in large numbers? These all sound hopeful, but will that change anything on the ground in reality? Even this conflict is different now than when it started, but we're still shooting down $1000 (or less) drones with $1M (or more) weapons. At 3 orders of magnitude difference, that's probably why we're seeing cracks on our end in terms of being able to just make enough replacements, let alone the cost of doing that.

I don't want to leave them to the wolves either, but I want to know what the answer is other than just keep doing what we're doing and crossing our fingers.

[UNI88]

I don't think the russian economy is doing just fine. There are cracks there - it's being held up by oil and government/military spending. The lose of so many young men to death, injury and fleeing the country will also have an impact. Oil revenues might be sustainable but will they be enough to hold up the house of cards?

I agree that a plan is needed and that Europe should take the lead but the US shouldn't just leave Ukraine to the wolves either.

There's always been cracks there, it's Russia. But oil and military spending have always been the cornerstone of their economy since the collapse of the Soviet system. They certainly lost a lot of casualties at the start of the war, but as the war has moved into a fairly autonomous style, are they still losing large numbers? Is anyone really fleeing the country in large numbers? These all sound hopeful, but will that change anything on the ground in reality? Even this conflict is different now than when it started, but we're still shooting down $1000 (or less) drones with $1M (or more) weapons. At 3 orders of magnitude difference, that's probably why we're seeing cracks on our end in terms of being able to just make enough replacements, let alone the cost of doing that.

I don't want to leave them to the wolves either, but I want to know what the answer is other than just keep doing what we're doing and crossing our fingers.

We're in agreement. The problem is that biden just wanted us to cross our fingers and keep doing what we're doing while trump and his yahoos seem to want to let putin string them along and leave Ukraine to the wolves. Neither is the right answer. I wish I could expect better from our elected leaders.

[GannonFan]

There's always been cracks there, it's Russia. But oil and military spending have always been the cornerstone of their economy since the collapse of the Soviet system. They certainly lost a lot of casualties at the start of the war, but as the war has moved into a fairly autonomous style, are they still losing large numbers? Is anyone really fleeing the country in large numbers? These all sound hopeful, but will that change anything on the ground in reality? Even this conflict is different now than when it started, but we're still shooting down $1000 (or less) drones with $1M (or more) weapons. At 3 orders of magnitude difference, that's probably why we're seeing cracks on our end in terms of being able to just make enough replacements, let alone the cost of doing that.

I don't want to leave them to the wolves either, but I want to know what the answer is other than just keep doing what we're doing and crossing our fingers.

We're in agreement. The problem is that biden just wanted us to cross our fingers and keep doing what we're doing while trump and his yahoos seem to want to let putin string them along and leave Ukraine to the wolves. Neither is the right answer. I wish I could expect better from our elected leaders.

I don't think Trump is doing that. I think he genuinely wants to end the war. Granted, he may be perfectly fine with letting Russia keep what they occupy now, but I think he does want the war ended. It would feed his ego that he was some kind of peacemaker. I'm not sure Russia wants that - they already have the weaponry and tactics in place to keep slicing off more and more of Ukraine. They seem to want to keep going to see how much they can gain while at the same time flipping the tables on the West and having them spend themselves into defeat. If this war goes another 5 years, we'll end up spending more than Russia is spending and given the way the war is being fought, we're not going to be seeing any gains by Ukraine. Something has to change but I don't see anyone coming up with that change.

[UNI88]

We're in agreement. The problem is that biden just wanted us to cross our fingers and keep doing what we're doing while trump and his yahoos seem to want to let putin string them along and leave Ukraine to the wolves. Neither is the right answer. I wish I could expect better from our elected leaders.

I don't think Trump is doing that. I think he genuinely wants to end the war. Granted, he may be perfectly fine with letting Russia keep what they occupy now, but I think he does want the war ended. It would feed his ego that he was some kind of peacemaker. I'm not sure Russia wants that - they already have the weaponry and tactics in place to keep slicing off more and more of Ukraine. They seem to want to keep going to see how much they can gain while at the same time flipping the tables on the West and having them spend themselves into defeat. If this war goes another 5 years, we'll end up spending more than Russia is spending and given the way the war is being fought, we're not going to be seeing any gains by Ukraine. Something has to change but I don't see anyone coming up with that change.

One, trump seems to be asking Ukraine to make all the concessions without getting one they really need to justify them (a promise of long term security)

Two, trump has talked tough about putin and Ukraine but he doesn't follow through. prior to the talks with putin in Alaska, he warned them that russia would face “very severe consequences” if he determined that the putin wasn't serious about ending the war with Ukraine. What has russia done since that meeting?
- Launched more than 800 drones and decoys + 13 missiles in a single massive attack on Kiev including the Cabinet of Ministers building (first time central government locations have been targeted).
- Sent 3 MiG-31 fighters into Estonian airspace without permission, transponders off, no flight plan, no radio contact.
- Sent a wave of drones into Polish airspace.

Have there been "very severe consequences”?

[GannonFan]

I don't think Trump is doing that. I think he genuinely wants to end the war. Granted, he may be perfectly fine with letting Russia keep what they occupy now, but I think he does want the war ended. It would feed his ego that he was some kind of peacemaker. I'm not sure Russia wants that - they already have the weaponry and tactics in place to keep slicing off more and more of Ukraine. They seem to want to keep going to see how much they can gain while at the same time flipping the tables on the West and having them spend themselves into defeat. If this war goes another 5 years, we'll end up spending more than Russia is spending and given the way the war is being fought, we're not going to be seeing any gains by Ukraine. Something has to change but I don't see anyone coming up with that change.

One, trump seems to be asking Ukraine to make all the concessions without getting one they really need to justify them (a promise of long term security)

Two, trump has talked tough about putin and Ukraine but he doesn't follow through. prior to the talks with putin in Alaska, he warned them that russia would face “very severe consequences” if he determined that the putin wasn't serious about ending the war with Ukraine. What has russia done since that meeting?
- Launched more than 800 drones and decoys + 13 missiles in a single massive attack on Kiev including the Cabinet of Ministers building (first time central government locations have been targeted).
- Sent 3 MiG-31 fighters into Estonian airspace without permission, transponders off, no flight plan, no radio contact.
- Sent a wave of drones into Polish airspace.

Have there been "very severe consequences”?

At this point, what is the next step that would be the "very severe consequences"? Tell me it's something other than a shooting war with Russia with American troops deployed. What's in between where we are now and that?

[UNI88]

One, trump seems to be asking Ukraine to make all the concessions without getting one they really need to justify them (a promise of long term security)

Two, trump has talked tough about putin and Ukraine but he doesn't follow through. prior to the talks with putin in Alaska, he warned them that russia would face “very severe consequences” if he determined that the putin wasn't serious about ending the war with Ukraine. What has russia done since that meeting?
- Launched more than 800 drones and decoys + 13 missiles in a single massive attack on Kiev including the Cabinet of Ministers building (first time central government locations have been targeted).
- Sent 3 MiG-31 fighters into Estonian airspace without permission, transponders off, no flight plan, no radio contact.
- Sent a wave of drones into Polish airspace.

Have there been "very severe consequences”?

At this point, what is the next step that would be the "very severe consequences"? Tell me it's something other than a shooting war with Russia with American troops deployed. What's in between where we are now and that?

I don't know, maybe more sanctions, tariffs on china, Turkey and other countries buying russian oil (not just arbitrarily India). I'm not the one who made the statement. trump said it, it's on him and his regime to come up with those consequences.

[Caribbean Hen]

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs

Some of the tradeoffs would be very unpopular

Not everyone is going to get everything they want

If Trump has done anything, he’s helping Vladimir look like the global two faced liar madman… Putin is purposely acting this way to threaten us with nukes and making us believe he’s crazy enough to do it

Make concessions but warn Putin if we give you something and later you overstep your bounds …. You will severely regret it.. if this is too tough we’ll just dig yourself in for the 10 year war

[kalm]

Will MAGA be ok with this?

[GannonFan]

Will MAGA be ok with this?

Will Dems be okay with it? No one on this board appears to have any solutions, so it's hard to say what people will feel about this. Let's see NATO shoot something down and what Russia's response will be and then we'll go from there.

[kalm]

Will MAGA be ok with this?

Will Dems be okay with it? No one on this board appears to have any solutions, so it's hard to say what people will feel about this. Let's see NATO shoot something down and what Russia's response will be and then we'll go from there.

Dems aren’t in power now so they matter less. Solutions are to unite as much of the world as we can against the aggressor state. Sanctions that are difficult to work around, military commitments by NATO including us which is what Trump has done a 180 on. I’d say most of the left is in full support of Ukraine except the tankies.

[DSUrocks07]

Will Dems be okay with it? No one on this board appears to have any solutions, so it's hard to say what people will feel about this. Let's see NATO shoot something down and what Russia's response will be and then we'll go from there.

Dems aren’t in power now so they matter less. Solutions are to unite as much of the world as we can against the aggressor state. Sanctions that are difficult to work around, military commitments by NATO including us which is what Trump has done a 180 on. I’d say most of the left is in full support of Ukraine except the tankies.

It's a matter of convenience to the narrative. Trump is a warmonger again. The script has been flipped once more.

I did enjoy the zinger he threw at Russia on his post.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Will Dems be okay with it? No one on this board appears to have any solutions, so it's hard to say what people will feel about this. Let's see NATO shoot something down and what Russia's response will be and then we'll go from there.

Dems aren’t in power now so they matter less. Solutions are to unite as much of the world as we can against the aggressor state. Sanctions that are difficult to work around, military commitments by NATO including us which is what Trump has done a 180 on. I’d say most of the left is in full support of Ukraine except the tankies.

Dems are voters, of course they matter. Mid terms are 13 months away. It would be nice to have sanctions that work, but apparently for the past 3-4 years everyone's (even NATO countries) been buying Russian oil, which is really the only thing their economy is based on. Even when Russia flies things into NATO countries, the collective response from NATO is "hmm, what are we going to do about that?". Russia isn't going to leave just by asking them, they'll have to be pushed out. How we do that will be very interesting.

Btw, who are the "tankies"?

[kalm]

Dems aren’t in power now so they matter less. Solutions are to unite as much of the world as we can against the aggressor state. Sanctions that are difficult to work around, military commitments by NATO including us which is what Trump has done a 180 on. I’d say most of the left is in full support of Ukraine except the tankies.

Dems are voters, of course they matter. Mid terms are 13 months away. It would be nice to have sanctions that work, but apparently for the past 3-4 years everyone's (even NATO countries) been buying Russian oil, which is really the only thing their economy is based on. Even when Russia flies things into NATO countries, the collective response from NATO is "hmm, what are we going to do about that?". Russia isn't going to leave just by asking them, they'll have to be pushed out. How we do that will be very interesting.

Btw, who are the "tankies"?

Economic leftists who support totalitarian regimes.

[SeattleGriz]

Dems aren’t in power now so they matter less. Solutions are to unite as much of the world as we can against the aggressor state. Sanctions that are difficult to work around, military commitments by NATO including us which is what Trump has done a 180 on. I’d say most of the left is in full support of Ukraine except the tankies.

Dems are voters, of course they matter. Mid terms are 13 months away. It would be nice to have sanctions that work, but apparently for the past 3-4 years everyone's (even NATO countries) been buying Russian oil, which is really the only thing their economy is based on. Even when Russia flies things into NATO countries, the collective response from NATO is "hmm, what are we going to do about that?". Russia isn't going to leave just by asking them, they'll have to be pushed out. How we do that will be very interesting.

Btw, who are the "tankies"?

Russia flew nothing into Poland. The range on those drones was too short. Most likely downed in Ukraine and repurposed to fly into Poland to try and drag more onto Ukraine side.

[SeattleGriz]

Will Dems be okay with it? No one on this board appears to have any solutions, so it's hard to say what people will feel about this. Let's see NATO shoot something down and what Russia's response will be and then we'll go from there.

Dems aren’t in power now so they matter less. Solutions are to unite as much of the world as we can against the aggressor state. Sanctions that are difficult to work around, military commitments by NATO including us which is what Trump has done a 180 on. I’d say most of the left is in full support of Ukraine except the tankies.

Yes, it's an awesome way to virtue signal.

[UNI88]

Dems are voters, of course they matter. Mid terms are 13 months away. It would be nice to have sanctions that work, but apparently for the past 3-4 years everyone's (even NATO countries) been buying Russian oil, which is really the only thing their economy is based on. Even when Russia flies things into NATO countries, the collective response from NATO is "hmm, what are we going to do about that?". Russia isn't going to leave just by asking them, they'll have to be pushed out. How we do that will be very interesting.

Btw, who are the "tankies"?

Russia flew nothing into Poland. The range on those drones was too short. Most likely downed in Ukraine and repurposed to fly into Poland to try and drag more onto Ukraine side.

Proof or are you just helping spread another russian disinformation campaign?

belarus is right next to Poland and russia used it to stage the failed assault on Kiev in 2022. Do you think they'd tell putin he couldn't launch drones from belarus?

[SeattleGriz]

Russia flew nothing into Poland. The range on those drones was too short. Most likely downed in Ukraine and repurposed to fly into Poland to try and drag more onto Ukraine side.

Proof or are you just helping spread another russian disinformation campaign?

belarus is right next to Poland and russia used it to stage the failed assault on Kiev in 2022. Do you think they'd tell putin he couldn't launch drones from belarus?

https://www.mk.ru/politics/2025/09/10/m ... onakh.html

Looks like you fell for a false narrative again. How gullible can one be? Of course that happens when you're too lazy to do any research.

[Caribbean Hen]

Trump calls out NATO

Tell me why you’re funding Putins war again …. Loud so everyone can hear

[UNI88]

Proof or are you just helping spread another russian disinformation campaign?

belarus is right next to Poland and russia used it to stage the failed assault on Kiev in 2022. Do you think they'd tell putin he couldn't launch drones from belarus?

https://www.mk.ru/politics/2025/09/10/m ... onakh.html

Looks like you fell for a false narrative again. How gullible can one be? Of course that happens when you're too lazy to do any research.

I may be gullible but at least I'm not gullible enough to vote for trump. That takes a special kind of sucker.

[SeattleGriz]

https://www.mk.ru/politics/2025/09/10/m ... onakh.html

Looks like you fell for a false narrative again. How gullible can one be? Of course that happens when you're too lazy to do any research.

I may be gullible but at least I'm not gullible enough to vote for trump. That takes a special kind of sucker.

While I was happy with Trump 1.0, I can honestly say that Trump 2.0 seems to have made deals to win the Presidency and I'm definitely not as thrilled. He's really pulled a few sucker punches on other countries and while I don't know if they can fully give payback, they certainly will turn away from the US if possible.

[kalm]

We’re still on the side of the good guys right?

[GannonFan]

We’re still on the side of the good guys right?

I don't think we're providing any funding or weapons to Russia, are we?