American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

A Trump plan for peace in Ukraine would hinge on him being willing to negotiate, including surrendering of land occupied by Russian troops. For as long as the Blinken-Biden team wants to indulge the fantasy of pushing Russia out of Ukraine the war will continue. But I don't think there are any signs Putin is in a hurry to negotiate, either.

I think your last sentence is an important one. Its important to note what Putins at least PUBLICLY demands. Now this doesn't mean its his actual ones, but still important what he is saying. This was as of June and I can't find any more recent statements. In order to enter negotiations and mind you this is to ENTER negotiations.
- Ukraine must leave all 4 territories Russia wants
- Ukraine must demilitarize
- Ukraine can't join NATO

Now some may ask heh what does Ukraine have to bargain with after they do all this and enter the negotiations? But lets assume it wasn't a serious proposal, but more of an initial offer.

Now I don't think its up to America to negotiate Ukrainian land. That is up to the Ukrainians, NOT Trump. However, if we assume that first point isn't the actual thing Putin wants (and as they tried taking Kiev what exactly Putin wants at this point is a big unknown), maybe there is a deal to be made with current battle lines and then do some land swaps for what Ukraine has taken. But those last two points are pretty important for Ukraine to even consider any deal. Russia has a habit of reinvading countries if they don't get everything they want the first time. At minimum being able to keep and grow out their own army is probably is a must for Ukraine. Maybe you can negotiate not joining NATO, but just saying "heh we trust Russia will never do this again" isn't on the table. And if I'm giving up my nations nations land I would want assurances that isn't happening again, so to me joining NATO would be pretty high as a must have as well. My overall point of is Putin going to want more or less in these negotiations if Trump takes office stands. And the more he wants, the less likely Ukraine is to just give up. Even if the EU (including Poland and Finland) also stepped aside I'm still not sure the Ukrainians would just basically surrender. Would you?

That is assuming your premise is true that it is a fantasy Ukraine can't win. As someone pointed out a while back it certainly is a fantasy to imagine Vietnam or Afghanistan wearing down a vastly superior military power to the point they pull out. What craziness! Granted I do think actually taking large amounts of land is probably off the table. Ukraine has already done far more than anyone would have suspected in retaking land and pushing back Russia at sea, but to me its a war of attrition at this point. Its a war Ukraine and the west can win if it has the political will, but I'm not sure we do. But appeasement and giving the green light to other autocrats to invade their neighbors also doesn't seem great.

[greenline]

And the more he wants, the less likely Ukraine is to just give up. Even if the EU (including Poland and Finland) also stepped aside I'm still not sure the Ukrainians would just basically surrender. Would you?

That is assuming your premise is true that it is a fantasy Ukraine can't win. As someone pointed out a while back it certainly is a fantasy to imagine Vietnam or Afghanistan wearing down a vastly superior military power to the point they pull out. What craziness! Granted I do think actually taking large amounts of land is probably off the table. Ukraine has already done far more than anyone would have suspected in retaking land and pushing back Russia at sea, but to me its a war of attrition at this point. Its a war Ukraine and the west can win if it has the political will, but I'm not sure we do. But appeasement and giving the green light to other autocrats to invade their neighbors also doesn't seem great.

The Ukranians might insist on fighting without assistance provided by the US and the EU. Their capacity in resisting the Russians would plummet. They would run out of money very quickly to keep funding their drone warfare programs and to buy artillery shells, which would make it very easy for the Russians to occupy Kiev, perhaps in a matter of weeks. Realistically, they need our help to get anywhere, and they know it.


The wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan were won through guerilla tactics. Repeated assaults and terrorism conducted by small actors with small arms. The main weapon used by the Taliban was the IED. Ukraine has been asking repeatedly for artillery, aircraft, air defense, and all other kinds of heavy munitions used to win pitched battles. A significant package of the remaining stock of Cold War era arms was given to them for use in a counteroffensive (and then frittered away!) to drive the Russian army out by force, rather than hoping to exhaust them to the point where they would leave on their own.

If you want to see a Taliban style victory in Ukraine, that would look very different than what is currently being done. It would mean providing a great deal of small scale and covert aid to the most ideologically committed groups willing to resist the Russians at all costs - that being the infamous Neo Nazi Banderites. Currently these militia groups are being sent to die in pitched battles rather than being able to establish any sort of effective partisan resistance in the country to make Russian occupation difficult following any victories.

[Mjmd]

Its much easier for a country to resist NOT being occupied. It can be done via partisan and guerilla tactics, but that is not the easier way. Given the better position of NOT currently being occupied its easier for them to resist vs letting Russia occupy them.

Look at the casualties for Russia (Soviet Union at the time) in Afghanistan vs Russia in Ukraine. Ukraine has already inflicted over double that (conservative estimates). You also get the advantage of NOT being occupied, you get to better use your own countries resources, and you make your opponent use more resources.

Soviet Afghan war was 9 years. US was in Afghanistan for 20 and Vietnam total involvement was also near 20 years. I don't think this one is going as long as any of those, but it probably has a couple more years in it. But with more difficult circumstances the underdog won those, so again calling it a fantasy for Ukraine in a better position isn't accurate. Difficult and requiring political will for sure, but not a fantasy.

[greenline]

Look at the casualties for Russia (Soviet Union at the time) in Afghanistan vs Russia in Ukraine. Ukraine has already inflicted over double that (conservative estimates). You also get the advantage of NOT being occupied, you get to better use your own countries resources, and you make your opponent use more resources.

Unspoken is that there is also a very heavy rate of casualties being inflicted on the Ukranians by the Russians. To the point where continuing the war will destroy Ukraine as a country almost as effectively as Putin is said to do if Ukraine gives up.

The comparisons between Vietnam and Afghanistan also miss the reason why the underdog parties won. Vietnam was a tiny country of no strategic value to the United States save as a base for illicit drug money that no politician could happily speak of. Afghanistan was a worthless outpost in Central Asia for the USSR to fool around with comintern nonsense for ten years, followed by the US trying it's hand at expecting liberal democracy magic to create an allied country out of sand. It was easy for the US and the USSR to give up on Vietnam or Afghanistan because they were ultimately worthless. The heavy Russian commitment to Ukraine and the high level of casualties show that Putin, and Putin's backup of advisors see it as a very important objective to fight and die over.

The people expecting Russia to run out of men and material before Ukraine does have been exposed to be high on copium. The people expecting Putin to back down or capitulate over Ukraine are even more deluded. So victory in Ukraine can only come via the deployment of all high level US assets from other fronts (thus exposing far more valuable targets than Ukraine to incursion). Better advice would be figuring out a sane peace deal for everyone involved. In seeking a peace deal, Trump proves that he is at least not high on copium.

[Mjmd]

I mean Ukraine won't be a country if Putin wins. Also, the Ukrainians are suffering far less casualties than Russia. Numbers may highly vary, but unless you are taking the Russia figures as fact, everyone else has them in Ukrainians favor. If they tried doing a partisan guerrilla fight do you think the casualties to the Ukrainians would be less?

I don't disagree on this point actually, but it doesn't mean Russia is willing to utterly destroy themselves for it either. They've already gone over their Afghan figure as noted and I suspect it will go much higher.

I mean again, what is a sane peace deal and HOW do you get there? This is going to very WILDLY on opinion. If you are a Ukrainian an all out surrender doesn't seem sane to you. Now I agree a lines as is peace deal doesn't sound bad assuming a NATO membership or at least Ukraine gets to keep its army, but if Ukraine suddenly isn't receiving aid from its major military supplier I suspect Putin will want more. So is Trump seeking a peace deal or is Trump seeking to have Ukraine surrender. These are two vastly different things and quite frankly Trump is extremely light on details for the "how and what a deal would look" but yet people take it at face value.

As you've noted we've been sending them cold war excess and what we think we can spare. We have 5,500 tanks. The only geopolitical foe we could EVER need that many tanks against is wait for it, RUSSIA if it invades a NATO partner. No other war the US gets involved in will take that many (China would be a naval, air force, and lots of missiles event). My understanding is there are 800 of the older model Abrams amongst those. The US is paying to maintain and run every once in a while. We will NEVER use those. The US is never losing a war badly enough to dredge up those 800 tanks without giving up long before then. We've sent Ukraine 31. I would love a reduction in the US arms inventory of stuff we will never use, but are paying to maintain. I've been saying for a while now I would really like a reduction in the army and this seems like an excellent use of some of those materials that even if we went to war we will never use.

[greenline]

I mean Ukraine won't be a country if Putin wins. Also, the Ukrainians are suffering far less casualties than Russia. Numbers may highly vary, but unless you are taking the Russia figures as fact, everyone else has them in Ukrainians favor. If they tried doing a partisan guerrilla fight do you think the casualties to the Ukrainians would be less?

The ratio is probably in Ukraine's favor. Most realistic estimates put it at a favorable ratio from 1.5-2 Russian casualties per Ukranian casualty. Russia has a population of 146 million, Ukraine of 35 million. That is a ratio they can afford to trade on if it means wiping out Ukraine as an entity. More absurd ratios of 4 or 5 to 1 only tend to come from intelligence and freak groups heavily biased towards Ukraine, like Oryx, whose data would have you believe that Ukraine was inflicting 3 to 1 casualties while on the offense in 2023. That same attack wiped out Ukraine's entire offensive ability for an entire year and heavily depleted their supplies of munitions and tanks.

As you've noted we've been sending them cold war excess and what we think we can spare. We have 5,500 tanks. The only geopolitical foe we could EVER need that many tanks against is wait for it, RUSSIA if it invades a NATO partner. No other war the US gets involved in will take that many (China would be a naval, air force, and lots of missiles event). My understanding is there are 800 of the older model Abrams amongst those. The US is paying to maintain and run every once in a while. We will NEVER use those. The US is never losing a war badly enough to dredge up those 800 tanks without giving up long before then. We've sent Ukraine 31. I would love a reduction in the US arms inventory of stuff we will never use, but are paying to maintain. I've been saying for a while now I would really like a reduction in the army and this seems like an excellent use of some of those materials that even if we went to war we will never use.

Of that 5,500 figure of tanks, I imagine a significant portion of them are vehicle hulls sitting in a desert that would need significant refurbishment to drive again. Being paid to refurbish old tanks sounds nice until you realize that the money Ukraine is paying for its arms is coming from loans given by the US to Ukraine that Ukraine has no hope of paying back. So, expensive.

The operating tanks will probably not be used in a Chinese theater. But they would be indispensable for a middle eastern theater. Iran is a geopolitical foe there whose presence has only been strengthened by the 20 years of Bush era nonsense. Those tanks alone would also not be enough to give Ukraine a fighting chance, they would also need a great deal of artillery, air defense, and air assets to make any tangible difference. And those three things would be quite valuable in all other theaters of war.


A sane peace deal would have to begin with Putin laying out real terms. He obviously isn't going to do so while Biden / Harris / Blinken are in charge, because they either see the continuation of the war as a cynical means to wear down the Russian economy at the expense of Ukraine, or are high on their own bullshit and think Ukraine can actually win the war. Trump is someone who could make such a negotiation happen, because his primary goal in life is not defeating Russia. Putin might offer a real set of terms then, or just continue the war until Ukraine ceases to function.

[Boro]

Look at the casualties for Russia (Soviet Union at the time) in Afghanistan vs Russia in Ukraine. Ukraine has already inflicted over double that (conservative estimates). You also get the advantage of NOT being occupied, you get to better use your own countries resources, and you make your opponent use more resources.

Unspoken is that there is also a very heavy rate of casualties being inflicted on the Ukranians by the Russians. To the point where continuing the war will destroy Ukraine as a country almost as effectively as Putin is said to do if Ukraine gives up.

The comparisons between Vietnam and Afghanistan also miss the reason why the underdog parties won. Vietnam was a tiny country of no strategic value to the United States save as a base for illicit drug money that no politician could happily speak of. Afghanistan was a worthless outpost in Central Asia for the USSR to fool around with comintern nonsense for ten years, followed by the US trying it's hand at expecting liberal democracy magic to create an allied country out of sand. It was easy for the US and the USSR to give up on Vietnam or Afghanistan because they were ultimately worthless. The heavy Russian commitment to Ukraine and the high level of casualties show that Putin, and Putin's backup of advisors see it as a very important objective to fight and die over.

The people expecting Russia to run out of men and material before Ukraine does have been exposed to be high on copium. The people expecting Putin to back down or capitulate over Ukraine are even more deluded. So victory in Ukraine can only come via the deployment of all high level US assets from other fronts (thus exposing far more valuable targets than Ukraine to incursion). Better advice would be figuring out a sane peace deal for everyone involved. In seeking a peace deal, Trump proves that he is at least not high on copium.

It is worth noting here that the expectations in early-/mid-february 2022 were ukraine collapsing in two weeks (Milley, kiev in 72 hours), and the "sanctions from hell", plus the cost of occupation (administrative, as well as human), combined with a guerilla movement, would put the russian leadership facing a choice between withdrawal (and political loss) and a collapsing economy (and also a political loss), leaving ukraine as easy pickings for nato infrastructure, (and mining exploitation), and Russia softened up for regime change.

The intent for regime change can be gleaned from many statements by various western and ukrainian officials, the guerilla plans on the focus on infantry portable missiles for anti-air and anti-tank purposes (Javelin, Stinger) during the armament of the war in 2019-2021. (US Senator Lindsey Graham, in his usual unapologetic style, talked enough about the US desire for Ukraine's mineral resources.)

What happened was a very powerful "surprise attack", with gains focused on the black sea coast for the land corridor to Crimea, and securing the Dnieper canal that Ukraine welded shut, and the not-fortified northern Ukraine as a way to pressure Zelensky's group into signing a favourable peace deal, with peace talks starting in days (2? 3? I don't remember this detail) and a preliminary agreement reached in Istanbul by late march, with the main russian demand being a guarantee against NATO aspirations. This was later confirmed by ukraine's chief negotiator David Arakhamia. (mind me, until the pro-american takeover of ukraine, this neutrality was enshrined in the country's constitution)

Now, as successful as this attack was, mainly the initial missile and airstrikes to Ukraine's military installations, it used Russia's "normal" number of troops from the relevant military districts. There was no general or partial mobilization, the amount of troops involved were around 150 000, and local error aside from the soldiers serving under contract with the MoD. The donbass republics had about 50 000 and were facing about 190 000 nato-trained ukrainians, plus 100 000 paramilitaries. This ratio is far from the 3:1 attacker to defender ratio that most offensives require. It wasn't until the late 2022 counteroffensives by the ukrainians that Russia decided to bolster it's troops on the frontline with a partial mobilization.

[Mjmd]

Edit: response to Greenline as Boro posted while I was posting.

Ho Chi Minh: 'You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it." Wars are not decided by the race to 0, but by political will of the people fighting. Russia also out populaced Germany in WWI, but that war led to the end of the Czars. Population helps don't get me wrong, but its no where near the only determinant.

They are not hulls and this is part of my problem with them as a taxpayer. They are actively maintained and run at significant expense and they will never be used. The 800 older models should have been disposed of about 2000 tanks ago, but might as well send them now. But overall I think the money to Ukraine isn't understood. Some of its old junk we should value at scrap. A vast majority is money we are sending them to then send back to us for stuff. And the rest degrades a primary geopolitical rival while simultaneously sending signal to other geopolitical rivals, while also making us look good to our allies. Its the best military money we've spent in at least 40 years (not that that is a hard bar to pass).

We are never using 5500 tanks in a middle east war and certainly not the older 800. I'm not saying send the newer models, but get the old junk out. To your other point yes they need stuff to be able to stand up to Russia. Of the things you listed only the air defense is relevant to our needs. We have literally millions of artillery rounds we will never use. Our wars tend to be more "shoot lots of expensive missiles at people with a little artillery". We only used 60,000 shells in Desert Storm. We have 841 F-16s...... 841. Yes its probably still relevant as a 2nd line aircraft (for us), but give 100 of those away. The F-16s that have been pledged / given have been from nations moving onto F-35s, which we have 630 of, so ya 100 F-16s get off the maintenance rolls why not.

Agreed Putin would need to lay out real terms as would Ukraine. They have to be close ish together for a peace to occur. If Ukraine and Russia said tomorrow that they would do a deal I'm positive Biden would take it. It would be a huge political win and great for his legacy. I don't think the two sides are even close atm. If Trump wins what are Trumps levers to getting Putin to make a real set of terms Ukraine would actually accept? If he cuts aid, Putin will want more and we know he initially wanted Kiev, although we don't know his current thoughts. Now Ukraine with less aid may be willing to give up more, but is it give up territory Russia doesn't even control and give up is army and NATO ambitions meaning Russia can just fully conquer it later more. Probably not. Trump hasn't really given us details on the how. Its more of the infrastructure week is coming and I'll have a health plan out in two weeks kind of talk. It sounds good, but without details its hard to take seriously.

[Mjmd]

@ Boro This all seems awful like copy paste Russia propaganda. I especially love how "successful attack" involved themselves beaten back on several fronts. That is kind of the giveaway maybe its propaganda. I think the numbers involved were more a product of Russian overconfidence and I don't think a particularly harsh Western sanctions were expected. A good signal of this is the Russian assets currently frozen that Russia 100% could have moved well ahead of time if they thought it was going to face a lot of push back / a long war.

[superdeath]

Russia will lose. Whether thats 6months from now, or 6 years from now. They cannot continue to bully their neighbors. Fuck them.

Also fuck west Taiwan as well.