Zodium posted:

they're not in a position to make any deals because they're not organized.

Majorian posted:

I'm sorry, but that's a delusional take. If Russia holds onto the Donbas the region's going to suffer a protracted insurgency funded by NATO for decades to come. There isn't going to be any stability for the Donbas anytime soon.

Ardennes posted:

So basically they lack agency until they are properly organized?

gradenko_2000 posted:

Old and busted: Russia is about to run out of shells

New hotness:

https://twitter.com/BuddyYakov/status/1680625891326693376?t=I4IFUlWeJ51tBUe-6RHVQA&s=19

Ardennes posted:

I agree unless the Ukrainian army is defeat and that is why it is the best thing for people in the region so that government doesn't keep on using cluster shells on them.

bedpan posted:

not quite sure when NATO is going to formally tire of supporting Ukraine but having watched the NATO summit, I think things are going to change sometime after the first of the year 2024

Zodium posted:

yep

V. Illych L. posted:

i don't think there's juice in the donbas for a protracted insurgency. the chechnya playbook of combining intense repression with serious funding for reconstruction and alliances with local grandees should work there

the big issue is if the russians try for something more ambitious in the face of a failing ukrainian military effort, like trying to annex odesa or something

Majorian posted:

The level of defeat needed to preclude any possibility of NATO using that army's remnant to gently caress with the region seems extremely unlikely to me.

Ardennes posted:

I agree unless the Ukrainian army is defeat and that is why it is the best thing for people in the region so that government doesn't keep on using cluster shells on them.

Starsfan posted:

I'm still holding out hope that Ukraine will see their way clear to surrendering at some point in the future (probably by running some sort of coup on the current pro-war faction and getting in new people who can credibly negotiate with Russia) but it's not exactly clear to me how this can happen without the blessing of the US.. so regrettably my opinion is still that most likely this will continue until American weapon manufacturers have made every last dollar of profit they can off this whole affair.

Ardennes posted:

It seems a viewpoint that it is implicitly hostile to the immediate interests of the working class.

VoicesCanBe posted:

I'm not yet convinced that the US (I realize NATO as an alliance is arming Ukraine, but let's be real - the US is the only country whose opinion matters wrt to NATO) is ready to give this up. Don't get me wrong, we have seen some evidence that factions in the foreign policy establishment are looking for an exit - the recent RAND reports are a major reflection of this. But there's a couple considerations:

1. This isn't really costing the US that much, beyond destroying their ammo reserves which they weren't planning on using anyway (since their doctrine is all about air power)*. The US economy is almost completely unaffected. Sure, the EU is skewering their economy for this, but from the US perspective that's a feature, not a bug.

2. They'll never admit it, but the Biden admin is no doubt taking the 2024 election into consideration. Biden became a pariah during the Afghanistan withdrawal with the immediate (and predictable, unless you had your head in the clouds) collapse of the US puppet state. That collapse is still on their minds, and they will not want a repeat during an election year. Or worse, right in the middle of campaign season.

So any exit will happen after 2025. What would it look like? Well, the US is not going to negotiate with Russia. First, because they would consider than an abject humiliation after going all-in (rhetorically, at least) for the past year and a half. And second, because not negotiating ensures that even if Russia eventually achieves its war goals, the process of achieving them will be as painful as possible (since they'll have to fight for them instead of receiving concessions).

I think the sudden, announced withdrawal is also unlikely, even after the election. If we assume Biden wins, I think what you'll get instead is the slow wind down - the Nixon in Vietnam strategy. Where you keep going long after a victory is realistic, not to win but to position your proxy in such a way that they don't immediately collapse once you finally pull the plug. Then, ideally there is enough time between the end of support and the collapse of the proxy that you can wash your hands clean of it. In this case, since the US doesn't officially have boots on the ground (in reality, they've got some special forces and officers deployed), the wind down can happen over the course of years. It can be gradual enough that the start of it isn't even noticeable until years afterward. For all we know it might've already happened. Maybe it'll start in 2024 like you alleged. Maybe not until 2025.

Zodium posted:

they're not in a position to make any deals because they're not organized.

Officer Sandvich posted:

An outcry happens every time a new class of weapons is sent to Ukraine: anti-tank weapons, tanks, long range rockets, artillery, aircraft, etc. There’s always a reason not to send weapons – those weapons kill people in any case. Ukrainians have lead the way in confidently pushing back against the criticism, in my view, have been right every time. Unfortunately, the back-and-forth has slowed Ukraine in getting the help they need. That is extremely unfortunate.

From the outside, it’s easy to be choosy. If there existed a wunderwaffe that made Russian soldiers happily dance back home, overthrow their dictator and discover democracy all without a single shot fired, yay let’s send it! Unfortunately, that wunderwaffe does not exist.

Let Ukrainian soldiers be the ones to have a choice how they defend their country. They have mothers, fathers, children, siblings. They’re fighting inch by inch in the trenches against something infinitely more dangerous than an unexploded munition in a field — they’re fighting against invaders actively trying to kill them. If cluster bombs make their mission safer or more successful, they should have them. If it means they can win the war faster and come back home to their families, send those weapons now. If it means they’ll need to clear more munitions from their land during and after the war — let them make that choice.

Nobody in Ukraine is ignorant about the dangers of having to clear out bombs in their country. Nobody in the west understands the problem better than they do. They’re living with that fact every. single. day. They get it — we’re not helping by lecturing them on what’s good for their children.

Zodium posted:

how so

Ardennes posted:

It is simply better for the working class there at that time materially to side with the Russians, and I don't think people in the West have any real say in that regard.

V. Illych L. posted:

i don't think there's juice in the donbas for a protracted insurgency. the chechnya playbook of combining intense repression with serious funding for reconstruction and alliances with local grandees should work there

the big issue is if the russians try for something more ambitious in the face of a failing ukrainian military effort, like trying to annex odesa or something

genericnick posted:

Nah. loving off is an option.

Nix Panicus posted:

I suppose NATO could just ferry in dissidents if there aren't enough home grown. It's what they've been accusing Russia of doing for nine years now.

Nonsense posted:

Russia shouldn't be allowed to have spheres of anything, Montana has a higher GDP

Buffer posted:

we haven't really seen a lot of insurgent style activity have we? you'd think if they could do it they'd be doing it but I am not a big war knower.

what changes to make stoking an insurgency easier after a loss in the field?

Ardennes posted:

Because all the workers uniting is never going to happen, so the interests of the working class will forever be subordinate to the powerful of the ruling elite (still anyway), the West. Better for the workers to make their own decisions as best as possible, and that very well may be siding with Beijing or Moscow.

Buffer posted:

we haven't really seen a lot of insurgent style activity have we? you'd think if they could do it they'd be doing it but I am not a big war knower.

what changes to make stoking an insurgency easier after a loss in the field?

Nonsense posted:

Russia shouldn't be allowed to have spheres of anything, Montana has a higher GDP

Officer Sandvich posted:

An outcry happens every time a new class of weapons is sent to Ukraine: anti-tank weapons, tanks, long range rockets, artillery, aircraft, etc. There’s always a reason not to send weapons – those weapons kill people in any case. Ukrainians have lead the way in confidently pushing back against the criticism, in my view, have been right every time. Unfortunately, the back-and-forth has slowed Ukraine in getting the help they need. That is extremely unfortunate.

From the outside, it’s easy to be choosy. If there existed a wunderwaffe that made Russian soldiers happily dance back home, overthrow their dictator and discover democracy all without a single shot fired, yay let’s send it! Unfortunately, that wunderwaffe does not exist.

Let Ukrainian soldiers be the ones to have a choice how they defend their country. They have mothers, fathers, children, siblings. They’re fighting inch by inch in the trenches against something infinitely more dangerous than an unexploded munition in a field — they’re fighting against invaders actively trying to kill them. If cluster bombs make their mission safer or more successful, they should have them. If it means they can win the war faster and come back home to their families, send those weapons now. If it means they’ll need to clear more munitions from their land during and after the war — let them make that choice.

Nobody in Ukraine is ignorant about the dangers of having to clear out bombs in their country. Nobody in the west understands the problem better than they do. They’re living with that fact every. single. day. They get it — we’re not helping by lecturing them on what’s good for their children.

Buffer posted:

we haven't really seen a lot of insurgent style activity have we? you'd think if they could do it they'd be doing it but I am not a big war knower.

what changes to make stoking an insurgency easier after a loss in the field?

Majorian posted:

I'm sorry, but that's a delusional take. If Russia holds onto the Donbas the region's going to suffer a protracted insurgency funded by NATO for decades to come. There isn't going to be any stability for the Donbas anytime soon.

It is, I'll give you that. It seems likely to me, however, that Moscow will be only too happy to pull the copper wiring out of the walls in the region themselves. They're getting economically plundered either way.

CongoJack posted:

well right now if you wanted to use violence against the others you can join the appropriate military. After the war when there are a bunch of bored, angry, trained soldiers with equipment still lying around that’s when the insurgency comes in.

Buffer posted:

we haven't really seen a lot of insurgent style activity have we? you'd think if they could do it they'd be doing it but I am not a big war knower.

what changes to make stoking an insurgency easier after a loss in the field?

CongoJack posted:

well right now if you wanted to use violence against the others you can join the appropriate military. After the war when there are a bunch of bored, angry, trained soldiers with equipment still lying around that’s when the insurgency comes in.

Ytlaya posted:

This is highly motivated reasoning, where you need to reach a conclusion that doesn't involve anything vaguely resembling "support/preference for the bad guys," and then reverse-engineer the reasons why that must be the case.

dk2m posted:

been away traveling for a bit, did ukraine win or what

dk2m posted:

been away traveling for a bit, did ukraine win or what

Zodium posted:

CongoJack posted:

well right now if you wanted to use violence against the others you can join the appropriate military. After the war when there are a bunch of bored, angry, trained soldiers with equipment still lying around that’s when the insurgency comes in.

Majorian posted:

Could you please knock off the armchair psychoanalysis? You've tried this with me multiple times in the past and it never manages to hit the mark. It's also really demeaning. Nothing in my analysis has anything to do with "good guys" or "bad guys," and everything to do with the understanding that the U.S. and its NATO allies are the pettiest of bitches with a long track record of loving with other countries' internal politics. We don't tend to leave countries alone when we've lost proxy wars; we double and triple down on making their lives miserable.