I just watched a "Bottom line" article on Al Jazeera where it was claimed that not only has the Ukrainian summer offensive been a disaster for Ukraine, but the tide is turning against supporting Ukraine in Europe and even in the US.

The speaker knows more than I about the reality, but it would not surprise me if true.

However, the speaker does not hold out any hope for common sense to occur and negotiations to begin. He foresees a collapse in the Ukraine military and a victorious Russia if nothing changes.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just watched a "Bottom line" article on Al Jazeera where it was claimed that not only has the Ukrainian summer offensive been a disaster for Ukraine, but the tide is turning against supporting Ukraine in Europe and even in the US.

The speaker knows more than I about the reality, but it would not surprise me if true.

However, the speaker does not hold out any hope for common sense to occur and negotiations to begin. He foresees a collapse in the Ukraine military and a victorious Russia if nothing changes.

I assume that you are referring to the interview with Jeffrey Sachs?

 

According to recent polls, public support in the UK and EU for Ukraine has reduced since the outbreak of hostilities. I would suggest that this is unsurprising given the passing of time, however, this support still remains strong in most countries.

 

So far as the governments of EU member states and the UK are concerned, support appears to remain strong outside of a few States. Hungary and Slovakia have been lukewarm in their support from the outset. Poland is slightly different.

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer/public-opinion-on-the-war-in-ukraine

 

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/90686

 

I find the apparent decline in US political support for Ukraine worrying. I hope that a bill continuing funding at a necessary and sufficient level will eventually be passed by Congress.

 

If I understood him correctly, Dr. Sachs basically blames the US's desire for hegemony in Eastern Europe for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This desire has its' origins in the breakup of the Soviet Union and has been fuelled by US neo-cons. Nevertheless this aim been shared by every administration - whether Democrat or Republican - over the past 30 years. 

 

My interpretation of Dr. Sachs' comments was that a negotiated settlement was possible, but that this would involve Ukraine ceding territory. Somewhat bizarrely imo, he appears to cite the 'creation' of Kosovo from Serbia as a precedent. 

 

Imo his rationale seemed very disjointed and somewhat strange.

more good news, slowly but surely Ukrainians are pushing the ORcs back

 

Ukraine-Russia war – live: Putin’s ‘exhausted’ troops ‘suffer significant losses in key town Avdiivka’

 

https://au.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-live-ioc-042452594.html

13 hours ago, RayC said:

I assume that you are referring to the interview with Jeffrey Sachs?

 

According to recent polls, public support in the UK and EU for Ukraine has reduced since the outbreak of hostilities. I would suggest that this is unsurprising given the passing of time, however, this support still remains strong in most countries.

 

So far as the governments of EU member states and the UK are concerned, support appears to remain strong outside of a few States. Hungary and Slovakia have been lukewarm in their support from the outset. Poland is slightly different.

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer/public-opinion-on-the-war-in-ukraine

 

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/90686

 

I find the apparent decline in US political support for Ukraine worrying. I hope that a bill continuing funding at a necessary and sufficient level will eventually be passed by Congress.

 

If I understood him correctly, Dr. Sachs basically blames the US's desire for hegemony in Eastern Europe for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This desire has its' origins in the breakup of the Soviet Union and has been fuelled by US neo-cons. Nevertheless this aim been shared by every administration - whether Democrat or Republican - over the past 30 years. 

 

My interpretation of Dr. Sachs' comments was that a negotiated settlement was possible, but that this would involve Ukraine ceding territory. Somewhat bizarrely imo, he appears to cite the 'creation' of Kosovo from Serbia as a precedent. 

 

Imo his rationale seemed very disjointed and somewhat strange.

I missed the name, but agreed with what he had to say.

 

Given I'm opposed to the war since the beginning I want funding to end. I'd prefer there had been no money from start as much of Ukraine would not have been destroyed and many lives saved.

IMO it will end with land being ceded to Russia anyway, so all pointless.

 

It's hard to claim any success for the Ukrainian summer offensive- a few villages is not winning.

Now the Russians have all winter to prepare for next year's offensive.

"Given I'm opposed to the war since the beginning I want funding to end".

So Russia invades another country, starting a war, so you want to give in and let them have what they want.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I missed the name, but agreed with what he had to say.

 

Given I'm opposed to the war since the beginning I want funding to end. I'd prefer there had been no money from start as much of Ukraine would not have been destroyed and many lives saved.

IMO it will end with land being ceded to Russia anyway, so all pointless.

 

It's hard to claim any success for the Ukrainian summer offensive- a few villages is not winning.

Now the Russians have all winter to prepare for next year's offensive.

I would guess that the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to wars in general.

 

However, as Stevenl implies, in this instance what was the alternative? Passive acceptance that an aggressor can effectively take what it wants?

 

There are almost countless hypothesis and commentaries attempting to explain the background and rationale for Russia's actions in Ukraine. Imo Dr. Sachs' is among the least persuasive. A completely different take on matters can be seen here.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/08/russias-longstanding-problem-ukraines-borders

19 hours ago, stevenl said:

"Given I'm opposed to the war since the beginning I want funding to end".

So Russia invades another country, starting a war, so you want to give in and let them have what they want.

You are making it up now.

That's whatabouterism.

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I missed the name, but agreed with what he had to say.

 

Given I'm opposed to the war since the beginning I want funding to end. I'd prefer there had been no money from start as much of Ukraine would not have been destroyed and many lives saved.

IMO it will end with land being ceded to Russia anyway, so all pointless.

 

It's hard to claim any success for the Ukrainian summer offensive- a few villages is not winning.

Now the Russians have all winter to prepare for next year's offensive.

If nato didn’t help Ukraine therewouldn’t be anyone left there alive 

and Putin would move to the next country!

what a stupid comment!

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are making it up now.

That's whatabouterism.

Unfortunately no, not making it up. Just pointing out your reasoning. Glad you're seeing now it doesn't make sense at all.

If it's true that the US has diverted the artillery shells to israel, that's probably the end of any offensive right there, and they'll be lucky to keep what they took.

 

Link in my thread about missiles.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's true that the US has diverted the artillery shells to israel, that's probably the end of any offensive right there, and they'll be lucky to keep what they took.

 

Link in my thread about missiles.

 

Assuming this is correct, do you consider it to be a positive development?

17 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Assuming this is correct, do you consider it to be a positive development?

IMO anything that ends this IMO American proxy war is good for the people that won't die, but will if it continues.

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO anything that ends this IMO American proxy war is good for the people that won't die, but will if it continues.

You need to add a few more IMO's. 

 

IMO of course 

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO anything that ends this IMO American proxy war is good for the people that won't die, but will if it continues.

Easy, all that needs to happen is for Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory. Russia invading a neighbouring country does not make it a US proxy war.

Edited October 24, 20232 yr by stevenl

On 10/24/2023 at 2:14 PM, stevenl said:

Easy, all that needs to happen is for Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory. Russia invading a neighbouring country does not make it a US proxy war.

Russia IMO isn't going to withdraw ( bar another Gorbachev taking over ), but keep repeating the mantra if it makes you happy.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Russia IMO isn't going to withdraw ( bar another Gorbachev taking over ), but keep repeating the mantra if it makes you happy.

 

So Ukraine should just capitulate and give in to Russian demands?

 

It appears that acting as an apologist for an invading aggressor makes you happy.

 

As an (off-topic) aside, do you think that the UK should have just capitulated in 1940?

16 hours ago, RayC said:

 

So Ukraine should just capitulate and give in to Russian demands?

 

It appears that acting as an apologist for an invading aggressor makes you happy.

 

As an (off-topic) aside, do you think that the UK should have just capitulated in 1940?

I think they should have negotiated before it began. When faced with an IMO undefeatable opponent it is somewhat inevitable that a lot of destruction is going to happen and a lot of widows and fatherless children will be the result.

 

I assume you think that Ukraine can "win". I do not. It's even less likely now that America is concentrated on the Gaza conflict ( and apparently sending the munitions there instead of Ukraine ) and the EU citizens are staring to question if spending all the money on Ukraine is a good idea. 2 countries already refusing to support Ukraine and I doubt not that more will join them.

 

I try not to respond to obvious baiting questions.

16 hours ago, RayC said:

It appears that acting as an apologist for an invading aggressor makes you happy.

I thought you were better than that pathetic insult.

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

think they should have negotiated before it began

Negotiate what?

Russia;  Can I take over control of all of your country please!

Ukraine;  Er NO!

3 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Negotiate what?

Russia;  Can I take over control of all of your country please!

Ukraine;  Er NO!

Have you any actual idea of what Russia wanted? Do you even know about the Russian aligned Donbas region and a commitment not to join NATO.

Do you prefer to make it up?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have you any actual idea of what Russia wanted? Do you even know about the Russian aligned Donbas region and a commitment not to join NATO.

Do you prefer to make it up?

So what’s the Kremlin misinformation machine telling you Russia wanted?

On 10/24/2023 at 8:01 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO anything that ends this IMO American proxy war is good for the people that won't die, but will if it continues.

The ‘American Proxy War’ that Russia started all Putin’s volition.

 

How do square that ridiculous argument in your head?

On 10/13/2023 at 11:06 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I just watched a "Bottom line" article on Al Jazeera where it was claimed that not only has the Ukrainian summer offensive been a disaster for Ukraine, but the tide is turning against supporting Ukraine in Europe and even in the US.

The speaker knows more than I about the reality, but it would not surprise me if true.

However, the speaker does not hold out any hope for common sense to occur and negotiations to begin. He foresees a collapse in the Ukraine military and a victorious Russia if nothing changes.

Why would the west be lying to you? It's not like they ever lied to you before. 

Edited October 26, 20232 yr by sirineou

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think they should have negotiated before it began. When faced with an IMO undefeatable opponent it is somewhat inevitable that a lot of destruction is going to happen and a lot of widows and fatherless children will be the result.

 

Why would an "undefeatable opponent" need to negotiate? If Russia is undefeatable, why would she stop once Ukraine is conquered?

 

Unfortunately there are already a lot of widows and fatherless children. As others have pointed out, a simple way of avoiding adding to their numbers would be for Russia to cease hostilities and withdraw from Ukraine immediately. 

 

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

I assume you think that Ukraine can "win". I do not. It's even less likely now that America is concentrated on the Gaza conflict ( and apparently sending the munitions there instead of Ukraine )

 

The events in the Middle East and the political debacle that currently exists in the US certainly doesn't further the Ukrainian cause. Hopefully, Congress will soon be able to pass a bill approving ongoing assistance to Ukraine.

 

If the US, NATO and Europe stand together in support of Ukraine, then imo the conflict is unlikely to end any time soon as Ukraine is unlikely to back down. Sadly, there will more loss of life. The simple - and morally correct - solution  which I suggested above, is for Russia to withdraw. Unfortunately, I accept that this is also unlikely to happen.

 

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and the EU citizens are staring to question if spending all the money on Ukraine is a good idea. 2 countries already refusing to support Ukraine and I doubt not that more will join them.

 

You have raised this point before and I offered evidence to counter it. To repeat, Hungary has always been lukewarm in its' support. Polish support is more complex but, in any event, with the likely formation of a Tusk administration imo support from the Polish government will solidify: There is little evidence to suggest that the other EU states and the UK will withdraw support.

 

Public support from continuing aid to Ukraine still remains well above 50% in most EU states and in the UK.

 

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

I try not to respond to obvious baiting questions.

 

Not a baiting question at all; just an obvious comparison: You state here that Russia is undefeatable. Many in the UK political elite e.g. Halifax believed the same of Germany in 1940 and were in favour of a negotiated peace. If that had happened, I very much doubt that we would be engaging in this type of free speech now.

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I thought you were better than that pathetic insult.

 

Why do you consider it to be an insult?

 

Definition of an apologist: Someone who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. 

 

Seems pretty apt to me.

3 hours ago, RayC said:

Not a baiting question at all; just an obvious comparison: You state here that Russia is undefeatable. Many in the UK political elite e.g. Halifax believed the same of Germany in 1940 and were in favour of a negotiated peace. If that had happened, I very much doubt that we would be engaging in this type of free speech now.

If I were to address that it would be off topic, whataboutism and would just get deleted, so I won't.

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Why do you consider it to be an insult?

 

Definition of an apologist: Someone who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. 

 

Seems pretty apt to me.

Because you are trying to make me a Russian supporter, when I am not. I am trying to counter the propaganda with a recognition that Russia can not be defeated as it has the ultimate deterrent, and fighting them only results in death and destruction.

When faced with ultimate defeat is it better to die fighting an unwinnable war or give up some territory.

 

The Thai kings that gave up land to France and Britain to avoid invasion certainly thought so.

 

 

3 hours ago, RayC said:

The events in the Middle East and the political debacle that currently exists in the US certainly doesn't further the Ukrainian cause. Hopefully, Congress will soon be able to pass a bill approving ongoing assistance to Ukraine.

Even the US congress can't magic up enough bombs, shells and missiles to support 2 wars involving such weapons in large numbers, while keeping enough to attack Iran if they get involved. That is why they have sent 2 carrier groups to the area, isn't it?

3 hours ago, RayC said:

Unfortunately, I accept that this is also unlikely to happen.

Well, it's progress if you accept it's going to be a long war if the US and EU keep pouring the weapons in.

I seem to remember some posters claiming the valiant Ukrainians would soon be at the gates of Moscow, a couple of years ago.

Their much vaunted offensive, with those invincible Leopard tanks that were supposed to have routed the Russians doesn't seem to have achieved much, and winter is here.