All this talk worries me. The west is truly run by deranged people drunk on the kool-aid their predecessors crafted.
Indeed, while it would obviously be absolute insanity for the west to put boots on the ground, last two years have shown us that the people running western regimes are not rational. Now they're like rabid dogs backed into a corner.
Those people who spent billions buying up Ukrainian property want their money back. They didn't care how many Ukrainians had to die for them to buy the property in the first place. They won't care how many others are made to follow suit.
Here's hoping if they get it back, it comes in the form of the most fertile and recently-tilled graveyards west of the Dnieper 😂
It is 2026, and in a downbeat speech at the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin finally announces a withdrawal from Ukraine. Russian troops have done their best – or worst – but a fresh influx of well-trained Ukrainians have finally prevailed. The Donbas is now in Kyiv’s grip, Crimea’s fall only days away.
lol. lmao.
rather than heading straight to Bakhmut to scrap full-on with the Russians, the Euro-force would stay hundreds of miles back – most likely west of the River Dnipro, the waterway that that divides Ukraine in two.
We can win the war by not fighting it.
Their presence would, though, free up large numbers of Ukrainian troops to join the fray further east.
TO THE LAST UKRAINIAN!!
In the West’s Afghanistan campaign, for example, America, Britain and Canada bore the brunt of the 3,500 casualties, while most European participant nations lost 50 or less.
I see, I see, which side won that war again?
Holy shit this is like the most evil thing I've ever read. Not only does Ukraine not get the peace that they've needed for nine years now, but Europe is gonna literally stand behind them and drive every single able-bodied Ukrainian directly into the path of Russian artillery.
a fresh influx of well-trained Ukrainians have finally prevailed
FROM WHERE?
By 2026, they are just going to start mass issuing Ukrainian passports to foreign mercenaries. "Look, we aren't sending our troops, these are Ukrainians!"
From schools, prisons, hospitals, mental wards, care homes...
Technically they've started with prisons. The "Tornado battalion" got released by Zelensky at the start of the war. They got locked up by Poroshenko due to being too batshit even for that nazi loving regime.
In the West’s Afghanistan campaign, for example, America, Britain and Canada bore the brunt of the 3,500 casualties, while most European participant nations lost 50 or less.
I see, I see, which side won that war again?
And the Afghanistan campaign was against scattered goatherders. And if that's not the fairest comparison to the Taliban- true, and they deserve more credit for their effective anti-colonial effort; but compared to Russia on its home turf, it may as well have been hapless goatherders the west was up against in Afghanistan.
The Euros have another thing coming if they think they can waltz in with superiority in air, armor, munitions, tech, etc... Russia will bleed them dry and then finally discard the Europeans' pretensions of remaining great powers like a used condom in the dustbin of history.
Jesus fuck the copium. lol. This is pathetic levels of cope. Just fascists salvaging uncontrollably at the idea of throwing someone else's life away. Then painting this picture like "we can totally do this without causing a nuclear Armageddon, trust us. They just have to like, invade Russia without saying it's for NATO."
If they were right that sacrificing every able-bodied Ukrainian would grind down Russia, it would be barbaric and inhumane. (See: US senators crowing over how cheap they are inflicting losses on Russia, like non-Americans aren't people).
It's not even that though, they could throw troops at Russia until Ukraine is empty and they wouldn't have accomplished a whole lot. Even from the most cold and emotionless point of view, they're not accomplishing anything by doing this.
They're accomplishing one thing: they're emptying Ukraine ready for it's occupation more effectively than the first time round.
So what could possibly go wrong? Not much, according to the authors, who say ‘the risk that deploying European soldiers will escalate the conflict is overblown’. Indeed, their proposal gets enthusiastic backing from Glen Grant, a former UK defence attaché to the Baltics, and one-time adviser to Ukraine’s defence ministry.
lmao
‘It’s a very good idea, and the western nations would learn valuable lessons from it too, even it was just helping with logistics and maintenance,’ he told me. ‘If Ukraine starts to lose the war, we’re going to have to do this anyway, so we’re only bringing it forward.’
No, they don't actually have to do it. They want to do it.
The big question is this: what would happen when bodybags started coming home? Troops stationed in significant numbers would be an obvious target for Russian missiles, and with no Article 5 to protect them, the Kremlin would surely be tempted to attack. Mr Grant says that any contributing European government would have to accept possible loss of life. He believes, though, that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that shedding blood would show Europe’s commitment in a way that giving weapons or money never can.
Just sacrifice the poor bastards.
loss of life
ah woops clumsy me where did I put that pesky thing again? oh no mustve fell out of my pocket while sightseeing in Ukraine
Comes to mind "this time it's personnel" also works considering what they're proposing, and I love that fact.
So what could possibly go wrong? Not much, according to the authors, who say ‘the risk that deploying European soldiers will escalate the conflict is overblown’. Indeed, their proposal gets enthusiastic backing from Glen Grant, a former UK defence attaché to the Baltics, and one-time adviser to Ukraine’s defence ministry.
Yes, I am sure a UK defence attache is absolutely an unbiased authority on the subject and couldn't possibly have any other motives.
Did they interview the director of the CIA as to whether US interventionism is an issue in developing countries too?
Always wanted to have your name on a bridge/park bench/statue? Go die for us in Ukraine!
Sign up today for your chance to be named on the next participation award board.
Show
So what could possibly go wrong? Not much, according to the authors, who say ‘the risk that deploying European soldiers will escalate the conflict is overblown’.
Instance #5472944950 of liberals assuming that anyone other than themselves give one flying fuck about technicalities. Russia won't escalate if Europe sends troops? Maybe, but the decision will have literally nothing to do with whether or not the troops are sent "in the name of NATO" or "in the name of Europe".
Article 5 wouldn’t be triggered because the countries would be acting in Europe’s name, not Nato’s
In other words, there would be little reason not to clean them off the face of the map- they're valid targets and they wouldn't have any promises from big daddy AmeriKKKa. And Russia has already said western soldiers, there in an official capacity would be struck.
A part of me honestly hopes they try it- not sure if that's the greater or lesser part, at that. Because while time is on our- the global south and east's side, and the side of the true international community and overwhelming majority of humanity, if the neocons (or in the Eurocons' case, perhaps neocucks- they have nothing but Yankee-fueled cuckery and the racist impotence of lost empires to fuel their hateful little minds) try to push their luck I don't think Russia will flinch, and neither, I doubt, will China or Iran, even if they all would prefer peace- if peace is yet again clearly demonstrated as not an option, I expect they'll back whatever deterrence and punishment may be necessary to get the rabid western neocon dogs to heel.
My impression is that Russia's strategy is to apply pressure in a way that doesn't escalate to WW3. Everybody knows that US the only western power that really matters here, and they can't keep this going indefinitely. So, the goal is to drag this out to the point where US decides to cut the losses and move on. It seems like we're likely going to reach that point some time this year.
I'm also guessing that US will largely abandon Europe as a whole because they see China as the main threat. Now that US is depleted militarily, they have to start making hard choices about where to allocate their remaining resources. Russia demonstrated that it's willing and able to project power in its sphere of influence, so building up another Ukraine isn't in the cards. That said, I fully expect that American MIC will continue fleecing Europe by taking weapons orders for decades into the future.
they can’t keep this going indefinitely. So, the goal is to drag this out to the point where US decides to cut the losses and move on. It seems like we’re likely going to reach that point some time this year.
Historically the US takes a LONG time to learn its lessons and give up and only after a big healthy profit is earned and/or discontent and disenchantment with it at home is high enough. Look how long before they gave up in Vietnam despite not making headway and despite the massive protests against their involvement (something they've made sure won't happen here with propaganda). Or how long they stayed in Afghanistan or how they're still in Iraq. Or how they're still in Korea and only sued for peace because they were losing badly and would rather take half a country and play a waiting game than get their asses kicked more badly and ruin their post WW2 image.
So if the Russians are counting on the US to tire and get bored, they could be looking at another 7-10 years easily. And the thing is in all of those other instances their puppet regime crumbled and lost legitimacy some time before they gave up. I still think Zelensky has some years left in him at least. His biggest worry was that former head of the army doing a coup and he got rid of him fine.
Now probably the Ukrainian front lines will crumble much sooner like this year, it certainly seems plausible, but how far is Russia willing to push it? Because the Russians look like they're waiting for a diplomatic solution, they don't want fall of Berlin type total war and crushing and occupying the enemy because that's expensive, very costly in lives and will take a lot longer and lead to other issues like greater resentment among the population. They can't just settle for their cordone sanitaire and sit behind a river because the US is going to continue to supply the Kiev regime with long-range missiles, to encourage and give intelligence for terrorist attacks on civilians using both long-range weapons and deep penetration strike groups as well as cells even deeper into Russia that infiltrate from elsewhere or are recruited by SBU/CIA. So the violence for Russia won't stop, the peace won't come until they either totally route them and take most of the country or they get a signed peace treaty in their terms.
I do think they might see Ukraine as an alternative to the Taiwan issue as a way to encourage Europe to sanction and decouple from China, basically accuse various companies, state banks of helping Russia evade sanctions (the horror) and insist Europe to crush Russia has to join the US in sanctions on those unless they stop doing business with Russia. That creates a win-win situation for the US in their mind as either they drive a wedge between China and Russia OR they drive a wedge between China and Europe.
Because once the war ends their leverage over Europe on it begins to lessen a bit. Anti-war voices, mainly reactionaries who favor rapprochement with Russia appear and stop being suppressed as they are now.
But as Lenin said in some weeks decades happen so we'll really have to see how the west reacts if Ukraine's front lines break and Russia takes all the territory it wants for its security.
Ultimately, economics plays a significant role here. The US began winding down its involvement in Vietnam largely due to economic reasons. Incidentally, the war spending was a major factor that led to the country going off the gold standard. Today, the US is in a far worse financial situation than it was in the 1970s. Additionally, the dollar-based global economy is rapidly shrinking, which poses a huge problem for the US as its monetary policy relies on sustained demand for the currency. In particular, the petrodollar ensured that countries would need a constant supply of dollars to purchase oil; those days are over. The US is also ramping up tensions with China, which will have further significant negative impacts on the economy. China produces many essential goods and can easily put surgical tariffs on the United States that could cause massive damage.
All of this is leading to public unrest domestically as people begin to connect the cost of empire with their declining conditions at home, which parallels the end of the war in Vietnam where mass protests started across the country. Furthermore, the empire is starting to unravel with countries that used to be firmly under US control moving towards BRICS. This trend will continue accelerating, and this puts even more stress on the economy since it's cutting off access to cheap labor and resources that the US previously had. We are rapidly moving towards a G7 vs. the rest situation geopolitically, with the G7 already being smaller than BRICS economically.
Another huge factor is that the US has largely deindustrialized; Russia alone outproduces both the US and Europe in terms of military production combined. Meanwhile, the US is using up its existing stocks of weapons and ammunition. Once those are gone, there's no easy way to replace them. This will take many years because the US needs a trained workforce to build and operate factories that don't even exist yet.
Given all this, I really don't see how the United States can possibly drag this out for another two years let alone 7-10. When we look at historical context, it is essential to appreciate the differences from the current moment in history.
I definitely appreciate this response and these are very interesting thoughts though I think most of them are medium-term problems not necessarily near-term issues and that the US feels its back is against a wall, that it can avoid those issues, must avoid those issues through a decisive defeat of Russia and maybe this is a trap they can't get out of and I'd like that to be true but I'm skeptical. That is if this thing is still going in 8 years yes I think those pressures would definitely have come to bear as serious problems but I'm not sure how soon they'll come to bear.
I do agree we are in a new world, but I also think the west has the capacity to keep the Ukrainians in the game for another couple of years if they continue fighting a defensive war (with terror attacks and such) and just dumping bodies into the fray to absorb Russian missiles and bombs. I feel like there are plans within plans in play here, designs on Europe conditioned on not allowing Russia a victory but maybe it's just bullshit American politicking and Biden doesn't want an L before the election and after the election if he's re-elected the US will demand Zelensky wind things down. This is with the obvious caveat that Russia doesn't pull an offensive, if they do then Ukraine could straight up evaporate, but assuming they don't want to do that I think the US still has a little time though you're right likely not another full administration's length worth.
I actually think that it's highly likely we'll see a decisive victory by Russia this year. There are already signs that Ukrainian lines are in the process of collapse as we speak. Even western media is starting to report on this, here are a couple of examples
- https://www.newsweek.com/avdiivka-map-russia-advancing-frontline-breakthrough-donetsk-1893563
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/04/23/a-ukrainian-brigade-disappeared-and-a-russian-brigade-almost-broke-through-how-the-battle-for-ocheretyne-upended-the-war-in-ukraine-this-weekend/
Ukraine doesn't have defensive lines comparable to what Russia used to stop Ukrainian offensive last summer, and now that Russia broke through Avidievka, there appears to be a general collapse unfolding. This might be impossible to arrest regardless of what the west does.
The big problem Ukraine has lies in lack of trained and experienced soldiers. A lot of the ideologically committed people are now dead, and they're being replaced with fresh conscripts who are not interested in fighting, and don't have any combat skills. As the ratio of conscripts keeps growing, there's going to be an inflection point when there just won't be enough professional soldiers to keep the army together.
Another problem for the west is that Russia is massively outproducing the west industrially https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia enjoys something like 10x advantage in artillery fire. This translates into very lobsided ratio in terms of losses for Ukraine. Now, we're also seeing Russian aviation doing constant bombing which Ukraine has no defence against. This situation simply can't go on for years.
Finally, I highly recommend reading this analysis from RUSI which explains that the west simply isn't capable of fighting this sort of a war currently https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
they could be looking at another 7-10 years easily
Somehow I don't think the current ruling class in Russia would see it as an issue
What about the billions in US aid? months of delaying the inevitable at best?
That is going to US military industry, if you look at the breakdown of the 61 bln package, most of it is staying in US.
