Colors of Blue and Gold

[Jon Banks]

Can Russia win this war? No they can't. We know that by now, so what's the best-case scenario for Russia?

I don’t think either side can outright win the war. At this point, a stalemate is the best-case scenario for both sides.

For Ukraine, the Zelensky government survives Putin’s attempt to break them. The cost of the war to Russia likely buys a few decades of peace between Russia and Ukraine once this war ends.

For Russia, Putin stays in power (assuming he’s still in power when the war ends) and Ukraine stays out of NATO.

There likely won’t be any clear winners when this war ends.

[Rick Plant]

Anyone attacking President Biden for helping Ukraine to stop a murderous dictator like Putin is anti American.

The majority of Americans support President Biden, NATO, and Ukraine as a new PEW poll indicates.


Americans Hold Positive Feelings Toward NATO and Ukraine, See Russia as an Enemy

Majorities of U.S. adults have favorable views of Ukraine itself, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and have confidence in Ukraine’s leader, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. At the same time, few have positive opinions of Russia or confidence in its ruler, President Vladimir Putin. And a 64% majority view Russia as an enemy to the United States, rather than as a competitor or partner.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/05/10/americans-hold-positive-feelings-toward-nato-and-ukraine-see-russia-as-an-enemy/

[Joe Elliott]

You need to stop them there - right?  Or they will overrun "Europe." 

Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;

I agree. Russia won't overrun Europe. But only because of the strong stand being taken by Ukraine, the U. S. and western Europe.

But if things change, this could happen.

If we withdraw our support of Ukraine, Ukraine could eventually fall to Russia.

If we continue to appear weak, the west pares it's armies, Russia could launch a sudden attack to occupy some or all of the Baltic states. And, before NATO launches a strong counter attack, Russia could draw a 'Red Line', declare the Baltics are sacred to Russia and will result in a Nuclear war if we attack Russia. That is, the part of 'Russia' that was just recently the Baltic States. And from time to time repeat this process every few years. With the West becoming more and more discouraged with each defeat and Russia becoming bolder and bolder. It's not any more implausable than a thoroughly defeated 1918 Germany occupying France in 1940.

But, for now, the only danger is to a part of Ukraine. Or, perhaps, all of Ukraine, if we withhold our support.

[Joe Elliott]

In 1994, the United States pressured Ukraine to give up the Nuclear Weapons it got from the break up of the Soviet Union.

In exchange, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine. And the U. S. promised that Russia will never attack Ukraine.

The aid we give to Ukraine is a great deal for us. It wrecks a great power that has been a menace to World Peace for decades. Being the principle reason for all the billions we have spent each year for many decades. Now, for a fraction of our yearly expenditures on defense, we are getting that menaced wrecked. If we could do the same with China, if a similar amount of aid to Taiwan could wreck the threat of China, our military expenditures could be greatly reduced in the coming years.

But over and above the practical considerations, there is the moral consideration. The promises of the United States should mean something. We made a promise to Ukraine that we have been unable to fulfil. The least we can do, in exchange of reducing Nuclear Proliferation, which was and is so important to us, is give full support to Ukraine. Much more than we have given so far. Let's make good our promise, that if we can't prevent a Russia attack, at least give Ukraine the tools that will enable Russia to totally fail. So that we will have at least partially keep our promises.

[Jon Banks]

In 1994, the United States pressured Ukraine to give up the Nuclear Weapons it got from the break up of the Soviet Union.

In exchange, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine. And the U. S. promised that Russia will never attack Ukraine.

Ukraine had nukes but they didn't have the launch codes. So the nukes were useless to them. Also, Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1991 so your first sentence is inaccurate.

As for Russia, they argue that the US didn't uphold its end of the deal because we expanded NATO up to Russia's doorstep after promises made to Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO.

The aid we give to Ukraine is a great deal for us.

It's a bad deal for Ukraine which was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the 2022 invasion and has lost millions of people since last year. It will take Ukraine decades to recover from this war. And the war was totally avoidable if less bellicose policies towards Russia were taken by the US and NATO.

Do you really care about Ukraine or are you suggesting that you support them being used as geopolitical pawns on a chessboard? Because that's the way it looks from my POV.

But over and above the practical considerations, there is the moral consideration. The promises of the United States should mean something.

Does that rationale apply to the promises the US made to Russia about not expanding NATO?

[Richard Smith]

There is no doubt that "Europe" has made some token donations, but the US is providing the vast majority of military support.  Hundreds of billions.

You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it will never become true. Get your facts straight and show us some actual evidence for the "hundreds of billions" that the US has provided.

You need to stop them there - right?  Or they will overrun "Europe." 

Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;

No one is saying Russia will overrun "Europe"?  HA HA HA.  That has been a cornerstone of the entire leftist propaganda machine promoting the war.  The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.   Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.  It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.  This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy.  Putin became the proxy target.  It would be humorous that a war has been fought on that basis if the consequences were not so tragic. 

[Jon Banks]

   [a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/ukraine-russia-south-korea-00097563"]Politico: Ukraine could become a 'Frozen Conflict', U.S. officials say[/a]

U.S. officials are planning for the growing possibility that the Russia-Ukraine war will turn into a frozen conflict that lasts many years — perhaps decades — and joins the ranks of similar lengthy face-offs in the Korean peninsula, South Asia and beyond.

The options discussed within the Biden administration for a long-term “freeze” include where to set potential lines that Ukraine and Russia would agree not to cross, but which would not have to be official borders. The discussions — while provisional — have taken place across various U.S. agencies and in the White House.

It’s a scenario that may prove the most realistic long-term outcome given that neither Kyiv nor Moscow appear inclined to ever admit defeat. It’s also becoming increasingly likely amid the growing sense within the administration that an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive won’t deal a mortal blow to Russia.

A frozen conflict — in which fighting pauses but neither side is declared the victor nor do they agree that the war is officially over — also could be a politically palatable long-term result for the United States and other countries backing Ukraine.

It would mean the number of military clashes would fall, the costs of supporting Kyiv also likely would drop, and public attention to the war would wane.

“We are planning for the long term, whether it looks frozen or thawed,” said a U.S. official familiar with the Biden administration’s discussions on Ukraine. The official said such planning is a growing focus of the administration, whereas in past months “it was all about the urgent and short-term.”

Two other U.S. officials and a former Biden administration official confirmed that an extended freeze in fighting is one possibility for which the U.S. is preparing. U.S. officials also are thinking through the long-term security ties Washington will have with Kyiv, as well as Ukraine’s relationship with the NATO military alliance.

“There’s a school of thought that says, ‘Oh, the Ukrainians have to have [the city of] Mariupol and Azov Sea access.’ There’s others less hung up about the placement of the lines as long as Ukraine is secure going into the future,” the former administration official said, describing the internal conversations.

Such discussions remain in early stages, with the U.S. officials stressing that the war will remain hot for quite some time and that the Biden administration is intent on providing Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs to push the Russians out of as much territory as possible.

Realism may ultimately win afterall but not before thousands more Ukrainians and Russians are killed.