History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Opti said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I never said it was, this is what I talked about earlier. Just because I say Russia imploding is bad, isnt me saying its okay for Russia to invade Ukraine. I saw a people earlier in the thread talking about Russia imploding as a positive outcome, its not.

I think it is much less likely that Russia imploding will result in a positive outcome than a negative one.

Russia is likely going to implode when Putin dies due to his unwillingness to groom a successor.  Maybe it'd be better if they implode earlier.

Not entirely relevant to this discussion, but I though some might find this interesting.   Wonder why they didn't use the cannon to shoot it down? (which would have been rather effective, and much cheaper)

We’ll let the dust settle for the final list of military assets put into motion to shoot down a simple balloon, but we’re tracking: F-15Cs, F-22s, numerous tankers, an E-3 AWACS, 1 Navy P-8 Poseidon, 1 Coast Guard C-130, 4 Navy ships, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Anyhoo, once the order was given, F-22s lit the burners, climbed above 50,000 feet, and lined up for the shot.

Due to the altitude, the Raptor had to use a missile. Why: the stealthy F-22 is restricted from shooting its gun above 50,000 feet due to the design limits of the gun door (when the trigger is pulled, the door pops open, exposing the gun barrel to shoot).

The balloon was somewhere around 60-65,000 feet, and the lead Raptor took the shot at 58,000 feet.

Looks like it might be made of radar absorbing graphite like material.

In reply to aircooled :

The superstructure is so small it likely doesn't matter. I'd be shocked if it was not just carbon fiber tubing.

In reply to aircooled :

Don't forget the U2S's that circled/photographed/probed it the entire trip from Montana onward. FROM ABOVE. People took pictures of both from here in KS.

What if China sent up an empty balloon to gauge our response and generally mess with us. Perhaps it has a black box, and once opened, de-encrypted and translated it Rick Rolls you.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

What if China sent up an empty balloon to gauge our response and generally f--k with us. Perhaps it has a black box, and once opened, de-encrypted and translated it Rick Rolls you.

Yeah, I thinking something similar.  "man, that's an elaborate way to hit some government computers with spyware"

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

What if China sent up an empty balloon to gauge our response and generally f--k with us. Perhaps it has a black box, and once opened, de-encrypted and translated it Rick Rolls you.

I was thinking this very thought.   Oh, the money the USA would waste.

They apparently have been doing this for a while, all around the world, as a way to make up for their less then US level satellite surveillance.  It has been working apparently, since they are rather hard to spot (not much of a radar return)... until one wanders directly over the US of course.

I hear there is supposed to be a bit of a data dump regarding this coming up, as a way to expose what China has been doing.

I do almost wish they would go over all they found, and talk about it from the perspective of weather observation.  E.g. this radar frequency receiver / monitor is clearly and attempt to determine that state of US weather radar....

There of course is value in the enemy not knowing what you know, but at this point I am not sure there is any use in pretending.

In reply to alfadriver :

I didnt say we should stop helping Ukraine. I have said we COULD tell Ukraine no ADDITIONAL help until they try to open up negotiations. They already have 100 billion allotted to them. I have also said that if this continues as a fight with no visible end, Americans will get tired of it and the politicians will lack the political capital to continue to support them and then it gets real bad for Ukraine. Ive also said i think its unlikely Ukraine regains all of its original land, not that I think thats fair or support it, but geopolitics are rarely fair. Ive also said the corruption in Ukraine is something to consider when sending them aid. Ive also said this is first and foremost an EU problem and they should be offering more support. Ive also said most of the rhetoric that this is close to being over because Ukraine is winning, Russians are out of people, or the sanctions are actually working are hyperbole and wrong. This is setting up to be a long war and I believe the longer it goes on the more likely it "escalates.'

Has Putin shown any inclination to seriously negotiate? 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Has Putin shown any inclination to seriously negotiate? 

No party to a conflict is willing to negotiate while they think they have a chance of winning more than they have. Ironically, Putin's statements about being unwilling to negotiate with Ukraine may be stiffening resistance (just as the "unconditional surrender" policy of the US in Europe in WW2 is generally considered to have made even otherwise reluctant Germans fight harder, knowing there was no deal to be had).

When the time comes for negotiations, Russia will probably push to either exclude Ukraine entirely, or counterbalance it with representatives from the breakaway Russian-dominated territories (assuming it hasn't been pushed out of Ukraine, in which case it will be very different, though I consider this outcome unlikely). The Russians would much rather deal with the US and/or the EU (preferably both, so they can argue with each other and undermine any unified position). The trouble is, of course, that the Ukrainians are going to be much less inclined to accept anything that makes it to the table; the US is going to end up doing a lot of arm-twisting to get them to go along, and the Ukrainians will be leaking this left and right to try to generate public pressure in the US to push the Russians to a better deal for Ukraine.

Just remember that the Korean and Vietnam settlements took years of back and forth to conclude, and the fighting continued the entire time in both cases.

In reply to Opti :

At this point, settling for negotiations is almost the same as letting russia win.  They invade, get the land they "want" and then we force Ukraine to negotiate that position.  You were almost demanding that when Ukraine was actively moving russia back.  So forgive me for thinking that negotiating right now is tantamount to letting russia win.  russia is sending kids back to russia, for crying out loud.

And, at this point, we are not even a year into this conflict.  So we are not really even close to getting bored and not supporting them- unless there are enough people questioning if we should be fighting against russia.  Seems rather premature to project ourselves into that point.

Given that pretty much all of our support is in arms, bringing up conditional support based on "corruption" is not really a path that is terribly useful.  Unless you can find our goods that have been sent over on ebay or something.  The corruption in Ukraine isn't really impacting what we send over and how it's used.  And one thing- if the west continues to support Ukraine, the more likely the country will work on getting corruption out of the system- as they have started doing (and what got vlad really angry in the first place).

All that does is question our support of Ukraine.  And what would the goal of that be at this point in the conflict?

If Ukraine wants to keep going, why should we, as a country, force them to stop?  They have everything to lose, even if they get their land back, it's just money to the US.    And if they win, a massive part of the food chain gets to keep going for the rest of the world- and the world would be happy about it.  If russia wins, they are going to be very isolated because of this conflict, and the Ukraine part of the food chain gets very upset.

At this very moment, I would say Putin has almost no reason to negotiate.  The reason being is that he is about to occupy most of south east Ukraine in their great winter offensive.  At least that is what his generals are telling him.

If the offensive fails miserably?  I could see some potential, especially considering if there is potential for the Ukrainians to counter attack.  There is certainly a looming danger come summer as the Ukrainians collect more tanks.

You really never want to negotiate when you are seen as at the disadvantage of course so a failed Russian offensive could very easily make them less receptive.  The most likely chance for negotiation by the Russians is likely a successful offensive, which would even potentially allow them to give up some land as a compromise.

The lesser known dynamic of course is the Russian domestic / political situation.  As O2 had noted multiple times, the important player to the Russians for any negotiations is the US/EU.  The Ukrainians, realistically, have little power in any negotiations.

It's mighty cold there now. Are the fields frozen enough  to support machinery yet?

In reply to 02Pilot :

Wow, well said.

In reply to aircooled :

Good information, thanks. NO negotiation, get Vlad the Impeller.

 I mean, come on, it's only costing money. That thing that the filthy rich corporations used to buyback their stocks to inflate their stock price that we forgot to tax?

In reply to Toebra :

Sure, sure. OR you could try engaging in useful discussion. Your choice. 

In reply to Toebra :

We basically said that we would buy anything that Germany, Italy, and Japan could produce as long as they played nice. 

The US has given a lot more than we have got in the last 100 years. How much does world peace cost? We have picked winners and losers, but at least we are trying. In the end our true real goal has been world peace, can't we all just get along? god-allah-hari vishnu. And I am speaking as a fellow atheist!

We spent the first 100 years including a civil war figuring out that We the People meant everyone; children, women, men, blacks, natives, Chinese, Irish... We are still working on it.

As an American business owner that pays a ton of taxes I don't mind $100bn of our $6.5 trillion budget going to support Ukraine for a few years. It's a lot of money but it's a very good cause and the returns could be immeasurable. 

VolvoHeretic said:

How much does world peace cost?

Everybody wants peace. They just can't agree on the parameters.

alfadriver said:

In reply to Opti :

At this point, settling for negotiations is almost the same as letting russia win.  They invade, get the land they "want" and then we force Ukraine to negotiate that position.  You were almost demanding that when Ukraine was actively moving russia back.  So forgive me for thinking that negotiating right now is tantamount to letting russia win.  russia is sending kids back to russia, for crying out loud.

And, at this point, we are not even a year into this conflict.  So we are not really even close to getting bored and not supporting them- unless there are enough people questioning if we should be fighting against russia.  Seems rather premature to project ourselves into that point.

Given that pretty much all of our support is in arms, bringing up conditional support based on "corruption" is not really a path that is terribly useful.  Unless you can find our goods that have been sent over on ebay or something.  The corruption in Ukraine isn't really impacting what we send over and how it's used.  And one thing- if the west continues to support Ukraine, the more likely the country will work on getting corruption out of the system- as they have started doing (and what got vlad really angry in the first place).

All that does is question our support of Ukraine.  And what would the goal of that be at this point in the conflict?

If Ukraine wants to keep going, why should we, as a country, force them to stop?  They have everything to lose, even if they get their land back, it's just money to the US.    And if they win, a massive part of the food chain gets to keep going for the rest of the world- and the world would be happy about it.  If russia wins, they are going to be very isolated because of this conflict, and the Ukraine part of the food chain gets very upset.

You conflate opening negotiations with settling along the current front. As 02 mentioned the Korean and Vietnam negotiations took many years. Its better to open them now and start instead of 5 years from now, either way it will likely take another couple years to sort it out. They are also currently in a position of power which is when you want to negotiate, this could change at literally any time. Multiple politicians, not just from US, are telling the Ukraine their unwillingness to open negotiations, even if at this point its largely symbolic is undermining their support from the west. The west currently doesnt have the taste for a war that drags on and on. From a geopolitical standpoint the US government (and in a uninvolved way even the populace) doesnt care about Russia stealing children, yes morally its terrible, but if the US government actually cared about humanitarian atrocities maybe we wouldnt be supporting Saudia Arabia in the genocide in Yemen.

It may upset you because you think its not fair, its definitely unfair, but it is highly unlikely that Ukraine will be able to push Russia completely outside its traditional borders. 02Pilot seems to agree with very little I say but seems to here.

When the time comes for negotiations, Russia will probably push to either exclude Ukraine entirely, or counterbalance it with representatives from the breakaway Russian-dominated territories (assuming it hasn't been pushed out of Ukraine, in which case it will be very different, though I consider this outcome unlikely). 

We can keep ignoring that very real possibility or start planning for what it will look like and the best way to limit Russian incursion in negotiations.  

You can say "we" arent tired of supporting the war, which may be correct currently, but polling is showing that support is trending downwards across both parties in the US.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/01/31/as-russian-invasion-nears-one-year-mark-partisans-grow-further-apart-on-u-s-support-for-ukraine/

All the polls are a little different but pretty much everyone Ive seen shows support trending downwards, with the worst showing its pretty much already 50/50 in the US. This is important because Ukraine cannot do it alone, and if it drags on long enough and they actually lose support from the west they are in a much worse situation

 "Pretty much all of our support is in arms" is wrong, 3/5ths (67 billion) has been to military needs,  and 2/5th (48 billion) has been non military including economic support. Considering the corruption is important because if it comes out that some of this is being misappropriated it will also kill support among the west. Even Zelensky agrees, which is why hes on the big anti corruption purge, to keep the west on his side and keep support rolling in. Also I said you should consider the corruption, which means we could do things like structure the aide to make misappropriation less likely.

You keep conflating 2 different things. I never said the US should tell Ukraine to stop. The reality is that Ukraine cant do it without the US, which means we do get some say in how this goes, as 02 has already pointed out.  Its pretty standard practice in geopolitics. Since we are bank rolling this war, its not out of the norm to make sure its is more closely aligned with the USs interests. Currently its in the US interests that Russia is minimized on the global scale, but that this war doesnt drag on too long or escalate.

You can say these things are premature, but it seems rather short sighted to completely ignore them and stick your head in the sand and then when they do pop up not be prepared for them, which in many cases makes it much worse for Ukraine.

In reply to Toebra :

Thank you mister troll.

02Pilot said:

VolvoHeretic said:

How much does world peace cost?

 

Everybody wants peace. They just can't agree on the parameters.

 

Very few of the people in power want peace, War is lucrative