will putin go out with a bang or a whimper?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

i think it's clear putin is done. the only question now is how will he go out - OR more how will he be forced to go out. there is a difference. will he be forced or will putin run away with his tail between his legs. the end is near. myself, he will fold. the weak always take the weak option.

[Berzerker]

Wanna bet? He's holding the winning cards and we never thought otherwise, we just want to make Russia bleed so China will think twice about Taiwan et al. This is less about Russia and more about China.

[Dinner]

I see him dying of some disease.

[Geronimo]

I see him outlasting Biden, even if Biden wins another term

[PLATO]

As long as Russia has China's economic support then I don't see Putin going anywhere until health/old age forces him out. We like to talk alot about how Russia's army is getting its butt kicked, but they still occupy 20% of Ukraine and have a huge military/industrial complex to indefinitely feed the machine.

[Berzerker]

They're lying, Ukraine's losses are devastating but the west wont admit it to keep morale and support up.

[Geronimo]

As long as Russia has China's economic support then I don't see Putin going anywhere until health/old age forces him out. We like to talk alot about how Russia's army is getting its butt kicked, but they still occupy 20% of Ukraine and have a huge military/industrial complex to indefinitely feed the machine.

This is why Ukraine's allies need to focus on ramping up their military industrial output to dump a huge unstoppable stream of the full spectrum of military hardware into Ukraine to bring this costly war to a close. The only hope is to outproduce Russia so thoroughly that a Ukrainian offensive can punch through the Russian occupation lines and literally rout the occupation force completely out of Ukraine. Anything less will only serve to prolong the upcoming global recession even longer and definitely cost more than the go big up front approach.

[Geronimo]

Wanna bet? He's holding the winning cards and we never thought otherwise, we just want to make Russia bleed so China will think twice about Taiwan et al. This is less about Russia and more about China.

He started off holding the winning cards of nearly untouchable economic military output and enormous military material advantage but that's it really. Russian military mistakes have almost given Ukraine a chance to win. The problem for Ukraine is that Russia still has the economic card, China could give them back the military material card and nothing really prevents Russia from learning from and avoiding all of its mistakes.

If Ukraine loses to Russia, it won't matter how much Russia was "bled" by it beforehand. Russia will be in a stronger strategic situation long term than if they had lost. Any Neocons hoping to "bleed" Russia will be at least as concerned about Russia gaining strategic territorial advantage and damaging Neocon's states, particularly that of the US credibility as an ally. If they wanted to restrain Ukraine to "bleed" Russia before I'm sure that's no longer the case. Now the restraint on Ukraine's allies is likely to be financial concerns and fears of Russia escalating in a direct attack on NATO or a WMD attack (that they would have to react or not react to) in Ukraine.

Finally, it's really been Putin in the driver's seat all along and the neocons have been back seat driver's making a bit of noise but not much influence while their NATO decision maker audience keeps timidly reaching for the wheel. Ukraine is just lucky Putin's been having some car trouble.

[PLATO]

This is why Ukraine's allies need to focus on ramping up their military industrial output to dump a huge unstoppable stream of the full spectrum of military hardware into Ukraine to bring this costly war to a close. The only hope is to outproduce Russia so thoroughly that a Ukrainian offensive can punch through the Russian occupation lines and literally rout the occupation force completely out of Ukraine. Anything less will only serve to prolong the upcoming global recession even longer and definitely cost more than the go big up front approach.

I could not agree more. The time is now to be "all in" on arming Ukraine. Without China giving a green light to a much larger war, there is little chance that Russia will escalate to the point of involving NATO in a direct confrontation.

[Dinner]

This is why Ukraine's allies need to focus on ramping up their military industrial output to dump a huge unstoppable stream of the full spectrum of military hardware into Ukraine to bring this costly war to a close. The only hope is to outproduce Russia so thoroughly that a Ukrainian offensive can punch through the Russian occupation lines and literally rout the occupation force completely out of Ukraine. Anything less will only serve to prolong the upcoming global recession even longer and definitely cost more than the go big up front approach.

I certainly agree that Biden's half measures are brain dead and stupid. Either you are in it to win it or you are wasting your time. We need to say our goal is for Ukraine to win and force the invaders out of Ukraine. All of Ukraine. Yet Biden is still dithering, wlgiving some defensive but not offensive stuff, refusing to give what is needed to win because of some vague fear that Putin will escalate. Putin is already all in. He has no meaningful way to escalate further and, no, he can't go nuclear without destroying himself and his own society so a narcissist like Putin won't do that.

Given them ATCOMs, give them aircraft, 50 tanks are nice but we have 20,000 in storage so give them 1000 as lend lease. Aim to win.

[PLATO]

He started off holding the winning cards of nearly untouchable economic military output and enormous military material advantage but that's it really. Russian military mistakes have almost given Ukraine a chance to win. The problem for Ukraine is that Russia still has the economic card, China could give them back the military material card and nothing really prevents Russia from learning from and avoiding all of its mistakes.

If Ukraine loses to Russia, it won't matter how much Russia was "bled" by it beforehand. Russia will be in a stronger strategic situation long term than if they had lost. Any Neocons hoping to "bleed" Russia will be at least as concerned about Russia gaining strategic territorial advantage and damaging Neocon's states, particularly that of the US credibility as an ally. If they wanted to restrain Ukraine to "bleed" Russia before I'm sure that's no longer the case. Now the restraint on Ukraine's allies is likely to be financial concerns and fears of Russia escalating in a direct attack on NATO or a WMD attack (that they would have to react or not react to) in Ukraine.

Finally, it's really been Putin in the driver's seat all along and the neocons have been back seat driver's making a bit of noise but not much influence while their NATO decision maker audience keeps timidly reaching for the wheel. Ukraine is just lucky Putin's been having some car trouble.

Three things are on Russia's side:

1.) Manpower advantage
2.) Large store of equipment (Even 1950's tanks beat ill-equipped infantry)
3,) Time. This is the biggest advantage as we already see some signs of fatigue in the West.

Russia is still in the driver's seat until the West goes "all-in" on arming and supplying Ukraine for the duration. "Bleeding" Russia is a good consequence but not a good goal. The goal must be defeating aggression and denying Russia a strategic advantage. If this sends a message to China, then that is good too, but I think China has their own agenda and, in the end, couldn't care less about Russia's outcome in Ukraine.

[PLATO]

Just a small part of what sits in the high desert of California in storage. What a difference some of this could make to Ukraine...

[Geronimo]

Three things are on Russia's side:

1.) Manpower advantage
2.) Large store of equipment (Even 1950's tanks beat ill-equipped infantry)
3,) Time. This is the biggest advantage as we already see some signs of fatigue in the West.

Russia is still in the driver's seat until the West goes "all-in" on arming and supplying Ukraine for the duration. "Bleeding" Russia is a good consequence but not a good goal. The goal must be defeating aggression and denying Russia a strategic advantage. If this sends a message to China, then that is good too, but I think China has their own agenda and, in the end, couldn't care less about Russia's outcome in Ukraine.

I do also entertain one fringe alternative to Putin being in the driver's seat of this war. I certainly don't understand how Berz could think it's the Neocons, given how disastrously risky this war has been for US power and influence as perceived by Neocons. Instead I notice that the PRC is the only major power to purely benefit from the war and to have had almost no risk exposure from it. Is it possible that China plays both sides? Could China be delivering ultimatums to Ukraine's allies through unofficial channels to the effect that so long as Ukraine's allies clear every assistance they send to Ukraine through the PRC first, then the PRC will not lend military assistance to Russia, but that if the PRC judges Ukraine is receiving too much assistance they would have to send Russia enough military aid to offset it. in this way the PRC could throttle the duration of the conflict in a way that keeps Russia's increased volume of discounted exports to China and increased volume of price inflated imports from China flowing as long as the PRC wishes. I wonder how plausible that is? It does have the advantage of explaining the relative trickle of support to Ukraine when for several months it has been obvious that the cheapest way out for Ukraine's allies to to go all in with their aid to Ukraine.

[Berzerker]

I certainly agree that Biden's half measures are brain dead and stupid. Either you are in it to win it or you are wasting your time. We need to say our goal is for Ukraine to win and force the invaders out of Ukraine. All of Ukraine. Yet Biden is still dithering, wlgiving some defensive but not offensive stuff, refusing to give what is needed to win because of some vague fear that Putin will escalate. Putin is already all in. He has no meaningful way to escalate further and, no, he can't go nuclear without destroying himself and his own society so a narcissist like Putin won't do that.

Given them ATCOMs, give them aircraft, 50 tanks are nice but we have 20,000 in storage so give them 1000 as lend lease. Aim to win.

Eastern Ukraine doesn't want to be ruled by Kiev, they want autonomy, independence or joining Russia at this point. The reason why the war has taken this long is because Putin has been holding back to avoid civilian deaths. Ukraine is finished, they dont have the soldiers to replace their losses. Soon as the ground hardens the armor and artillery will roll in en masse. Just end the war and negotiate new borders, we're probably beyond Minsk now but the longer this goes on more people will die and Russia will take more territory. If you think Putin cant escalate short of nukes just wait 2-3 months.

[Geronimo]

Eastern Ukraine doesn't want to be ruled by Kiev, they want autonomy, independence or joining Russia at this point.

How do you know what eastern Ukraine wants at this point?

The reason why the war has taken this long is because Putin has been holding back to avoid civilian deaths. Ukraine is finished, they dont have the soldiers to replace their losses. Soon as the ground hardens the armor and artillery will roll in en masse. Just end the war and negotiate new borders, we're probably beyond Minsk now but the longer this goes on more people will die and Russia will take more territory. If you think Putin cant escalate short of nukes just wait 2-3 months.

If Russia were holding back to avoid civilian deaths why permanently destroy civilian energy infrastructure in the winter? Other than not using WMD, is there anything whatsoever Russia has done to avoid civilian deaths?

[Berzerker]

He started off holding the winning cards of nearly untouchable economic military output and enormous military material advantage but that's it really. Russian military mistakes have almost given Ukraine a chance to win. The problem for Ukraine is that Russia still has the economic card, China could give them back the military material card and nothing really prevents Russia from learning from and avoiding all of its mistakes.

If Ukraine loses to Russia, it won't matter how much Russia was "bled" by it beforehand. Russia will be in a stronger strategic situation long term than if they had lost. Any Neocons hoping to "bleed" Russia will be at least as concerned about Russia gaining strategic territorial advantage and damaging Neocon's states, particularly that of the US credibility as an ally. If they wanted to restrain Ukraine to "bleed" Russia before I'm sure that's no longer the case. Now the restraint on Ukraine's allies is likely to be financial concerns and fears of Russia escalating in a direct attack on NATO or a WMD attack (that they would have to react or not react to) in Ukraine.

Finally, it's really been Putin in the driver's seat all along and the neocons have been back seat driver's making a bit of noise but not much influence while their NATO decision maker audience keeps timidly reaching for the wheel. Ukraine is just lucky Putin's been having some car trouble.

Win what? Russia's mistake was assuming/hoping negotiations would end the war. That was the rationale for sending a force to Kiev, to convince Ukraine to deal. When it became obvious that wouldn't happen they withdrew and focused on the east. The west wanted to restrain Ukraine to avoid escalation with attacks into Russia. Putin wont be attacking Nato, all that nonsense about Hitler and taking Europe was western propaganda. The neocons would love an attack on a Nato country, but short of that driving a wedge between Russia and Europe is a temporary win for the USA. China wants land routes thru Asia to Europe because the USA/Nato controls sea trade routes. We dont want Europe buying Asian resources, that weakens US hegemony.