Ukraine & Russia — just as an idea, maybe some 3rd party nation swings a face-saving deal ? ? [yes, distasteful but . . . ]

[Multicolored Lemur]

And yes, moral right is with the Ukraine and against Russia. And clearly so, I’d add.

But I ask people to think about 1965 when we in the United States thought war in Vietnam* was winnable. And it ended up lasting another 10 years and spilling over to Cambodia.

So with Ukraine . . .

And just guessing, but perhaps (?) Switzerland or (?) China or (?) Turkey or (?) Moldova or (?) Belarus [this last one is not so neutral, but still!]

——————————————

* and maybe we U.S. citizens who think the Vietnam War was a bad deal can cut some slack to our fellow citizens who supported it

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

$500 million in security assistance for Ukraine includes more armored vehicles

The Biden administration is committing another $500 million for a security assistance package that includes more than three dozen armored vehicles as the counteroffensive plods forward.

www.cbsnews.com

June 27, 2023:

“The Biden administration on Tuesday announced another $500 million drawdown package to Ukraine, which includes more than three dozen Bradley and Stryker armored vehicles.

“The drawdown package comes as Ukraine's armed forces are in roughly week three of their long-expected counteroffensive and are making slow progress against Russian troops. . . ”

****************

Money is a measure of trade-offs.

Here in the U.S. we also have issues of the long-term health of Social Security, infrastructure spending, energy grid, steady eddie year-in and year-out research into airborne and droplet infections so that we can respond to things like Covid quicker in the future, etc, etc, etc.

And yeah, maybe it is the case that a bad peace is better than a good war. Maybe even most of the time.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And yes, moral right is with the Ukraine and against Russia. And clearly so, I’d add.

But I ask people to think about 1965 when we in the United States thought war in Vietnam* was winnable. And it ended up lasting another 10 years and spilling over to Cambodia.

So with Ukraine . . .

And just guessing, but perhaps (?) Switzerland or (?) China or (?) Turkey or (?) Moldova or (?) Belarus [this last one is not so neutral, but still!]

——————————————

* and maybe we U.S. citizens who think the Vietnam War was a bad deal can cut some slack to our fellow citizens who supported it

Yes, a deal needs to be cut by nations that aren't too involve in the conflict. The US, Ukraine, and Russia have offered things that would seem to be deal breakers from the start, like Russia leaving all occupied territory. I do think a 3rd party nation(s) need to get involve like Africa, Brazil, France because these nations have been more neutral.

Eventhough, Russia was in the wrong here, but I don't foresee any future deal involving them having to withdraw from all occupied territories. I know that's not what Ukrainians want to hear, but I'm just thinking practically at this point.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

$500 million in security assistance for Ukraine includes more armored vehicles

The Biden administration is committing another $500 million for a security assistance package that includes more than three dozen armored vehicles as the counteroffensive plods forward.

www.cbsnews.com

June 27, 2023:

“The Biden administration on Tuesday announced another $500 million drawdown package to Ukraine, which includes more than three dozen Bradley and Stryker armored vehicles.

“The drawdown package comes as Ukraine's armed forces are in roughly week three of their long-expected counteroffensive and are making slow progress against Russian troops. . . ”

****************

Money is a measure of trade-offs.

Here in the U.S. we also have issues of the long-term health of Social Security, infrastructure spending, energy grid, steady eddie year-in and year-out research into airborne and droplet infections so that we can respond to things like Covid quicker in the future, etc, etc, etc.

And yeah, maybe it is the case that a bad peace is better than a good war. Maybe even most of the time.

To be honest, I would rather send equipment than money. It seems like it's too easy for money to be misused, whereas equipment can only be used for a specific purpose.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I know that's not what Ukrainians want to hear, but I'm just thinking practically at this point.

I know it’s distasteful, but yeah, maybe Russia pays cash money for a 20 year “lease” of the occupied territories.

For maybe a little bit of an improvement, people living in these territories have both Ukrainian and Russian citizenship?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I know it’s distasteful, but yeah, maybe Russia pays cash money for a 20 year “lease” of the occupied territories.

That would be good, but I'm a big skeptical of any side willing to work that type of deal. Of course, Russia underestimated Ukraine's ability to defend itself, but I also think the US and Ukraine are underestimating what Russia is willing to go through to get a significant win. Contrary to the US in Vietnam, I think president PUtin sees Ukraine aligning with the West as an existential threat. He'd rather a destroyed Ukraine if he can't take it over while it's intact.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Not only do I think a 3rd party country will be needed end this war, but it will have to be one nation that is a partner with Russia. Someone like China or Africa.

The alternative I believe will be very grim with either the use of nukes or the Zaporizhzhia power plant being sabotaged. I think this could happen because Russia has a red line and the West is pushing up against it. The US seems to care about that red line otherwise they'd be sending in US troops and giving all the military equipment that Ukraine could ever ask for but that isn't happening.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

The alternative I believe will be very grim with either the use of nukes or the Zaporizhzhia power plant being sabotaged. I think this could happen because Russia has a red line and the West is pushing up against it.

I myself would welcome a limp along.

As an example, all through the 1980s, the Soviets fought in Afghanistan. And we in the United States supported the Mujahideen against them.

It wasn’t good for any family, Soviet or Afghan, who lost a family member in this war.

Another example would be the Vietnam War, when the Soviets supported the North Vietnamese communists. And again, it was not good for any family, American or Vietnamese, who lost a family member in this war.

All I’ll say is that a limp along is better than a catastrophe.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

All I’ll say is that a limp along is better than a catastrophe.

That's true. It's better than just letting Russia have Ukraine without any repercussions.

My thinking here changes based on what the goal is. If the goal is to avoid catastrophe, then keep amping up the fight aint gonna help that eventhough it will weaken Russia. I honestly don't think Russia will give up on Ukraine like they did in Afghanistan unless Ukraine agrees to stay neutral by not aligning more with the US and UN. There could always be a wild card like Putin getting taken out.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There was the head of the UN guy, short guy, forgot his name. I liked the away he was talking, listening to both sides and all that. BUt I haven't heard from him since last year. He visited Ukraine last year. Not sure if he dodged a close Russian missel and and he was like I'm outta here. lol

Edit to add to the name of head person for UN: António Guterres