what is the lefts plan to end the war in Ukraine ?

[Mac-7]

Obvious to whom. Not to anybody who can see a map and sees a nearly stagnant frontline. And no not stalemate.

A stagnant front line is a statemate

A point where the cost of maintaining the offensive breaks either the Ukranians or the Russians will too continue,

You mean where it exhausts the supply of Ukrainian military age men and Euro budgets

Frankly I dont see the EU cutting back its welfare programs to fund the war for 5 or 10 more years

 

[forkup]

Smaller population base, smaller industrial base, less materials.

Just giving Ukraine western equipment without providing the years of western training needed to use them properly is a small advantage over the Russians only.

I'll tell you the same as I did MAC. Deficiencies in man and material doesn't always make a loss inevitable. Ask the Afghans, Vietnamese... and because I've had this conversation 3 times now Belgium or Holland which are flat.

What determines who wins is tenacity and whether or not a party has defensive advantages. These advantages can be terrain but also technology. At the moment technology favors defense. As is shown by the simple fact that Ukraine has been holding on for 3 years now. And the Russian haven't broken through anywhere.

As for small advantages. If it was really so small. Puti would have long since been in Kyiv. It took the Germans a bit over 2 months to do in 1941 as a comparison.

 

[martybegan]

I'll tell you the same as I did MAC. Deficiencies in man and material doesn't always make a loss inevitable. Ask the Afghans, Vietnamese... and because I've had this conversation 3 times now Belgium or Holland which are flat.

What determines who wins is tenacity and whether or not a party has defensive advantages. These advantages can be terrain but also technology. At the moment technology favors defense. As is shown by the simple fact that Ukraine has been holding on for 3 years now. And the Russian haven't broken through anywhere.

As for small advantages. If it was really so small. Puti would have long since been in Kyiv. It took the Germans a bit over 2 months to do in 1941 as a comparison.

Afghanistan and Vietnam were pacification missions, same as Afghanistan with the Soviets.

Russia is trying to either conquer Ukraine or carve it up and keep the land it occupies. Different goals, different end results.

The problem for Ukraine is the second its lines break, it's over for them. And the longer it goes on, the longer the chance of their lines breaking increases.

 

[forkup]

A stagnant front line is a statemate

You mean where it exhausts the supply of Ukrainian military age men and Euro budgets

Frankly I dont see the EU cutting back its welfare programs to fund the war for 5 or 10 more years

The EU's GDP is 10 times that of Russia and all of them are increasing their expenditure. At the moment the forecast for 2025 is that Russia will spend 7,5 percent of gdp on defense. Crippling their economy in the process. Which means that if Europe spends half that they would outspend Russia about 5 times over.

It will hurt. But in the cold war Europe spend 4percent on defense while maintaining their welfare programs.

 

[forkup]

Afghanistan and Vietnam were pacification missions, same as Afghanistan with the Soviets.

Russia is trying to either conquer Ukraine or carve it up and keep the land it occupies. Different goals, different end results.

The problem for Ukraine is the second its lines break, it's over for them. And the longer it goes on, the longer the chance of their lines breaking increases.

It's a chance. A front collapsing is always a danger. On the other hand, so is public moral breaking for the attacker to. You act like it's a foregone conclusion.

 

[martybegan]

The EU's GDP is 10 times that of Russia and all of them are increasing their expenditure. At the moment the forecast for 2025 is that Russia will spend 7,5 percent of gdp on defense. Crippling their economy in the process. Which means that if Europe spends half that they would outspend Russia about 5 times over.

It will hurt. But in the cold war Europe spend 4percent on defense while maintaining their welfare programs.

In the cold war they weren't tanking their economies due to AGW bullshit, or losing their population increases through birth, or dealing with non-acclimating immigrants increasing crime.

They also had divisions of US troops there, as well as equipment for divisions more to be ready for the REFORGER troops to be sent over.

 

[forkup]

A stagnant front line is a statemate

You mean where it exhausts the supply of Ukrainian military age men and Euro budgets

Frankly I dont see the EU cutting back its welfare programs to fund the war for 5 or 10 more years

Oh, and by the way. Trump's actions will have lasting long-term consequences on European relation who see the US as an unreliable partner now.

 

[martybegan]

It's a chance. A front collapsing is always a danger. On the other hand, so is public moral breaking for the attacker to. You act like it's a foregone conclusion.

If Russia's will was going to break it would have been right after the war of movement ended with them being stopped in their tracks.

 

[forkup]

In the cold war they weren't tanking their economies due to AGW bullshit, or losing their population increases through birth, or dealing with non-acclimating immigrants increasing crime.

There was plenty of upheaval in Europe during the cold war.

 

[forkup]

If Russia's will was going to break it would have been right after the war of movement ended with them being stopped in their tracks.

If Ukraine's will to fight would break it could have happened at any point in the last three years. That's the nature of attritional warfare.

 

[Mac-7]

The EU's GDP is 10 times that of Russia and all of them are increasing their expenditure. At the moment the forecast for 2025 is that Russia will spend 7,5 percent of gdp on defense. Crippling their economy in the process. Which means that if Europe spends half that they would outspend Russia about 5 times over.

It will hurt. But in the cold war Europe spend 4percent on defense while maintaining their welfare programs.

Yes it is possible for the EU to win a economic war of attrition against russia

But russians are used to deprivation

Euros used to the soft life are not

 

[martybegan]

There was plenty of upheaval in Europe during the cold war.

They weren't sabotaging their economy or societies like they are now.

 

[Mac-7]

Oh, and by the way. Trump's actions will have lasting long-term consequences on European relation who see the US as an unreliable partner now.

Does it matter to you that we have long thought the same about the Euros?

Trump is brokering a cease-fire that will save lives and money

Lives and money that can be used to rebuild Ukraine

 

[martybegan]

If Ukraine's will to fight would break it could have happened at any point in the last three years. That's the nature of attritional warfare.

Will vs will goes to the bigger side as time goes on.

 

[forkup]

Yes it is possible for the EU to win a economic war of attrition against russia

But russians are used to deprivation

Euros used to the soft life are not

So you think that having to spend an extra 2 to 3 percent on defense would be insurmountable "deprivation", as I said Europe had its social security during the cold war. With a defense spending of 4 on defense.

 

[martybegan]

So you think that having to spend an extra 2 to 3 percent on defense would be insurmountable "deprivation", as I said Europe had its social security during the cold war. With a defense spending of 4 on defense.

The also all had conscripted militaries, which are far cheaper than volunteer ones.

They also had DIVISIONS of US troops stationed there, with DIVISIONS more of equipment ready for use by US troops returned during REFORGER if the Soviets got frisky.

 

[forkup]

Will vs will goes to the bigger side as time goes on.

Really. that wasn't true for the Afghans, who beat the Soviets and the US in something like 20 years in case of the US. Vietnam war about 10. WW1, four years and the Spanish Dutch war is called the "eighty years war". Doesn't seem like time favored the bigger side in any of these cases.

 

[martybegan]

Really. that wasn't true for the Afghans, who beat the Soviets and the US in something like 20 years in case of the US. Vietnam war about 10. WW1, four years and the Spanish Dutch war is called the "eighty years war". Doesn't seem like time favored the bigger side in any of these cases.

In those cases we lost our will.

 

[forkup]

The also all had conscripted militaries, which are far cheaper than volunteer ones.

They also had DIVISIONS of US troops stationed there, with DIVISIONS more of equipment ready for use by US troops returned during REFORGER if the Soviets got frisky.

There is already talk about bringing limited conscription back. Not only that but armies in general are smaller now and better equipped. It's a pure number's game. Every 1 percent of GDP the EU spends on defense Russia has to spend 10 to keep parity. That is not a winning game.

 

[forkup]

In those cases we lost our will.

My point. At some point the cost of maintaining an offensive reaches breaking point. I don't know if in this case the Ukranians or Russians will break first. But neither do you. So, I see no reason to pressure Ukraine to give up their fight for freedom until THEY decide they want to give up. At the moment the US is trying to force them.