Cold war 2.0

[Virtual ghost]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Thought experiment: How would the sizable Ukrainian diaspora in Chicago feel if the U.S government was giving Russia a great deal of money to invade Ukraine?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Putin’s vision for Russia’s next 6 years: Keep fighting, quit drinking, have babies

Ukrainian forces hunt down Russian fighters worldwide

Ukraine updates: Kyiv's aerial success, struggles on ground

Socialists tone down attacks on conservatives and liberals in EU election manifesto

Dutch farmers back Wilders as centrist nightmares come true

Slovakian PM Fico’s plan to reduce corruption penalties suspended

Chad says opposition leader killed fighting security forces

Brazil's Lula urges swift action for crisis-torn Haiti

Libya: Russia's Wagner Group makes further inroads

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Spain opens terrorism probe into Puigdemont

If this isn't sorted out quickly the left wing administration is Spain will crash. Since it will lose it's majority in parliament.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Finland: Ukraine is free to strike Russian territory with weapons we provide

Macron stands by remarks about sending troops to Ukraine

‘Everything’ on table to help Ukraine beat Putin, Estonian PM says

 

[The Cat]

Finland: Ukraine is free to strike Russian territory with weapons we provide

Macron stands by remarks about sending troops to Ukraine

‘Everything’ on table to help Ukraine beat Putin, Estonian PM says

Its baffling this list isn't longer.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Its baffling this list isn't longer.

As I said a few posts back: they are testing how people will take it.
Since it is becoming evident that this situation wouldn't have pretty solution, especially if deadlock in US stays as it is.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I mean if Ukraine starts to loose due to insufficient weapons deliveries it is possible that Europe will have to send troops into Ukraine as some sort of human shield that Russians probably wouldn't dare to touch. Therefore on that line of contact new border will be made. Basically we already have new Iron curtain in Europe and actually the only place where the line still isn't defined is Ukraine (plus some unfinished stories in the Balkans that are being sorted out). Thus somewhere in the Ukraine will be new line and everything to the north of it is already under barbed wire and walls. This is exactly why there is battle of just about every village. Since every village that falls is quite likely to end up on the other side of new iron curtain and thus it is lost for decades to come.

In other word if collective west leaves Ukraine in military sense the odds are that it will get about 20-30 million refugees from the country. What will cause large problems on it's own. In comparison that "huge" migrant wave from 10 years ago was just about 1.5 million. What means that if Ukraine starts to implode Europe will probably have to go in regardless of what someone in US thinks about it.

 

[The Cat]

I mean if Ukraine starts to loose due to insufficient weapons deliveries it is possible that Europe will have to send troops into Ukraine as some sort of human shield that Russians probably wouldn't dare to touch. Therefore on that line of contact new border will be made. Basically we already have new Iron curtain in Europe and actually the only place where the line still isn't defined is Ukraine (plus some unfinished stories in the Balkans that are being sorted out). Thus somewhere in the Ukraine will be new line and everything to the north of it is already under barbed wire and walls. This is exactly why there is battle of just about every village. Since every village that falls is quite likely to end up on the other side of new iron curtain and thus it is lost for decades to come.

In other word if collective west leaves Ukraine in military sense the odds are that it will get about 20-30 million refugees from the country. What will cause large problems on it's own. In comparison that "huge" migrant wave from 10 years ago was just about 1.5 million. What means that if Ukraine starts to implode Europe will probably have to go in regardless of what someone in US thinks about it.

What gets me fired up on our end is Ukraine was doing just fine with support. these social media representatives keep talking about not wanting to be in endless wars while they prolong a war because for some reason they're carrying water for Russia in the party of paranoia about this very thing. It's just...quite literally retarded.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What gets me fired up on our end is Ukraine was doing just fine with support. these social media representatives keep talking about not wanting to be in endless wars while they prolong a war because for some reason they're carrying water for Russia in the party of paranoia about this very thing. It's just...quite literally retarded.

However I would dare to say that this is general problem with the west. The west start strongly and than everything gets watered down and thus it just last and lasts as it drain resources. Instead the plan should be to push through whatever the problem is and then you do something else in life. While currently everything gets lost in "philosophy of life" and there is never conclusion to the story. Thus 10 years down the road someone will just pulls the plug in order to win some cheap political points or that it can create it's own crisis with which they will deal with. However this is basically huge waste of time and resources. Since instead you should take the hill, make it fully stable and get resources out of it.

 

[SensEye]

I don't think boots on the ground are required in Ukraine. If other NATO countries ex US (UK, Germany, France) would just send air support, I think the Ukraine ground forces would have no problem driving out the Russians. I know everyone cowers in fear about a nuclear threat, but I don't see how foreign troops moving into Ukraine are any less provocative. And deaths from ground fighting would be unpopular back in whatever country is loosing troops. Russia's feeble air force might shoot down a few modern NATO aircraft, but deaths using this approach would be minimal.

Trump will for sure throw Ukraine under the bus. So if the EU doesn't get cracking before November it's probably all over.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't think boots on the ground are required in Ukraine. If other NATO countries ex US (UK, Germany, France) would just send air support, I think the Ukraine ground forces would have no problem driving out the Russians. I know everyone cowers in fear about a nuclear threat, but I don't see how foreign troops moving into Ukraine are any less provocative. And deaths from ground fighting would be unpopular back in whatever country is loosing troops. Russia's feeble air force might shoot down a few modern NATO aircraft, but deaths using this approach would be minimal.

Trump will for sure throw Ukraine under the bus. So if the EU doesn't get cracking before November it's probably all over.

The point of what I said is exactly in the fact that EU land troops should go into Ukraine in order to freeze the conflict. Russians probably wouldn't shoot at troops from EU and those would have orders not to shoot at Russians. What would just freeze the war in existing lines, however that would save 82% of Ukraine that still exists as independent country. What is much much better than complete implosion and massive refugee wave.

While if you have direct engagements that is basically a wheel of fortune and it is completely unclear what will come out of that. Especially if you put Trump into the picture.

 

[SensEye]

Oh I see. So you would just hope to freeze the conflict and wait for the US election outcome? And if Trump wins just concede the lost Ukraine territory to Russia? And if Biden wins hopefully the US would restart aid and then you pull the troops out? Or are you just writing off the lost territory for good at this point?

I'd still like to see Russia evicted from at least the 2018 on gains. Not sure about Crimea. But I'm willing to call the nuclear bluff. I seem to be in a minority on this front.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Were there any signs that tension in the region might be increasing prior to October 7th? Not just intelligence failures, but perhaps other things, as well.

I have a ridiculous theory about something that I'm wondering about here. It's not a conspiracy theory like "9/11 was an inside job", but rather about a seemingly unrelated topic.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh I see. So you would just hope to freeze the conflict and wait for the US election outcome? And if Trump wins just concede the lost Ukraine territory to Russia? And if Biden wins hopefully the US would restart aid and then you pull the troops out? Or are you just writing off the lost territory for good at this point?

I'd still like to see Russia evicted from at least the 2018 on gains. Not sure about Crimea. But I'm willing to call the nuclear bluff. I seem to be in a minority on this front.

You just don't seem to understand that if western forces start to destroy Russian forces the nukes will indeed start to fly. Maybe that will just be limited to the territory of Ukraine but the consequences could still be severe on the number of levels. Supplying Ukraine with guns isn't exactly the same thing as going there and shooting at the Russians. The key difference is that in the first scenario Russians would believe that they can win and that means that they wouldn't use the nukes. However if their troops start to evaporate in direct conflict with the west there will surely be mushroom clouds. What evidently complicates things. I would also like to see eviction of Russia from Ukraine but we have to be realistic. USA is losing interest and Europe has it's own divisions and it is still building the manufacture that should supply the Ukraine.


Also when I say freeze I mean freeze for the endless period time (something like what was done in Korea many decades ago). If US droops interest for Ukraine this freeze is quite possibly the best that Europe can get out of the situation. It would still save 80% of Ukraine and in a way it would end the war. However if Europe and Russia start to shoot at one another that is WW3 beyond any doubt. In other words I would take 80:20 freeze over WW3 and I don't think that is unreasonable (especially is US walks away for whatever the reason).



On the second though, I will even be a little bit politically incorrect and imaginative. If this whole Trump-Putin axis really become a thing that means that in Europe we basically have exactly what we had in 1940s (in strategic sense). The sandwich of Europe between US and Russia and there would even be active eastern front that would be war in Ukraine (not to mention mess in northern Africa and Brexit). What is basiaclly exactly how the things looked in 1940s. Therefore in that geopolitical situation I would prefer that Europe doesn't go into too much of military adventures. That didn't work in both world wars and there are decent odds that this wouldn't work now. Over the years Trump has over and over openly said stuff against NATO and Europe in general. Thus I am not sure he can be trusted even at the most basic level when it comes to this topic. Over his first term Russians through my local traitors have managed to take over a number of my local corporations, my "commie" major has gone pretty openly pro Russia, Russian magazines showed up at kiosks, they have even manged to penetrate retirement system ... etc. Plus China bought some of the infrastructure. Thus in the case that there was no EU in the mix I would be goner in the terms of democracy. I mean you weren't here when I was making posts about all of that years ago. In other words when you have these cards in hands and consider what Trump is saying lately then it really isn't that hard to picture where he would take things (and polls fairly convincingly say he will win).

Therefore in a sense it is enough that Trump starts "America first" economic decoupling with Europe, since that would severely undermine Europe's ability to do anything in Ukraine. Especially since Europe is already doing decoupling with both Russia and China, so there isn't enough room to do it even with US. Plus in the current situation Europe needs some of the energy from North America. Therefore based on how Trump's first term looked for me I want Europe to dig in as much as possible. All in all when you consider all possible paths and scenarios that 80:20 freeze in Ukraine doesn't sound so bad if we consider actual alternatives. There is much much more in play than just Ukraine.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Putin’s bluffing on nukes (for now), says top NATO official

 

[Virtual ghost]