Ukraine Endgame?

[Holy_Seduction]

The endgame abought which we ought most to be concerned: World War III ending inevitably with thermonuclear holocaust.

 

[Dribble]

Not me sadly.

Me either. But pure chobby...wow

 

[Dribble]

The endgame abought which we ought most to be concerned: World War III ending inevitably with thermonuclear holocaust.

If one is not willing to fight to remove such a threat...why should humans deserve to exist? Just to run every time you are attacked? Allow dictators to control the World?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Here in the states wannabe dictators just have to threaten to tank the economy if we don't give them what they want so just let them conquer the world is not beyond what I think many would risk.

 

[Chobham]

Me either. But pure chobby...wow

Me either drib.

We already know that the Russians can't fight a combined arms war so they're going back to 'human wave' and artillery strategy. The Russians are poorly led, poorly trained, and poorly equipped but the fact remains that quantity has a quality of its own. We learned that lesson from the Chinese in Korea (and the Germans from the Russians in WWII).

What's going to be interesting to see is how many of the new Russian conscripts defect/surrender en mass. Those numbers are the same as casualties, just as they would be if they were shot in the back by the Russian officer's as what happened in WWII. The problem with that strategy is that they have no where near the numbers they did back then. Obviously what the Ukrainian's report and what the Russian's report are going to be two vastly different numbers. Finding a reliable source to pierce that propaganda veil isn't going to be easy. Perhaps the best indicator is going to be a significant increase, or not, in the arms, and the quality thereof, that the NATO nations feeding into that maw.

The recent decision to provide the Ukrainians with 'new' main battle tanks is in anticipation of the upcoming Russian offensive. While certainly significant it is not a game changer, it's a defensive move intended to blunt, if not neutralize, the offensive.

The OP asked for an 'end game' scenario. I see no 'end game' in sight...................yet.

 

[Lazaran]

The recent decision to provide the Ukrainians with 'new' main battle tanks is in anticipation of the upcoming Russian offensive. While certainly significant it is not a game changer, it's a defensive move intended to blunt, if not neutralize, the offensive.

Quoted for posterity and stupidity.

Preparations are being made for an anticipated UKRAINIAN OFFENSIVE.

Tanks, armored vehicles, a ramping up of artillery shells production (500%), HIMARS production, Javelin production, etc, etc,.

Hope that ^ helps.

Back to the bottle Chobby.

Chobby

 

[Chobham]

Quoted for posterity and stupidity.

Preparations are being made for an anticipated UKRAINIAN OFFENSIVE.

Tanks, armored vehicles, a ramping up of artillery shells production (500%), HIMARS production, Javelin production, etc, etc,.

Hope that ^ helps.

Back to the bottle Chobby.

Chobby

Ramping up production in anticipation of delivery WHEN? *chuckle*

 

[Lazaran]

Chobby comes back with a weak ass deflection to distract from hir ignorance about the situation in Ukraine.

Chobby

Also: Ammunition is CURRENTLY / CONSTANTLY being delivered to Ukraine. The real obstacle to a significant INCREASE in artillery shells, etc, is the negotiations with all partners involved in the process.

Meetings are CURRENTLY/ CONSTANTLY being held to determine stockpile depletion comfort levels, restocking, and combined purchase discounts among allies. - And industry needs commitments on orders before going full bore.

That ^ is why the “republican’s” leg pissing on funding for Ukraine is having such an undermining effect.

SAD!!!

Chobby

 

[Chobham]

What a bunch of shit heads. Rather than address the question, or offer up rational reasons to disagree, they attack me on a personal level. Pretty much what you'd expect from your average fourth grader.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Ukraine has no chance of winning. None. Zilch. Nada.

The only chance Ukraine has of surviving as a nation, is with American troops.

 

[ll74]

Ukraine has no chance of winning. None. Zilch. Nada.

The only chance Ukraine has of surviving as a nation, is with American troops.

Bullshit

 

[Lazaran]

What a bunch of shit heads. Rather than address the question, or offer up rational reasons to disagree, they attack me on a personal level. Pretty much what you'd expect from your average fourth grader.

A “Time-Ly” article for all the RWCJ leg-pissers.

https://time.com/6264396/eu-ukraine-artillery-shells/

Hope that ^ helps.

RWCJ leg-pissers

 

[Holy_Seduction]

If one is not willing to fight to remove such a threat...why should humans deserve to exist? Just to run every time you are attacked? Allow dictators to control the World?

We are an integral part of this planetary system. No person or entity has the right or authority to gamble the existence of all humanity, or the right to construct a test or to dictate performative terms on which humanity’s existence stands or falls.

Moreover, humanity has neither need or obligation to justify its continued existence on Earth – to anyone or to anything.

The response contains several informal fallacies, including the Black or White Fallacy, and the Straw Man Fallacy.

The Black or White Fallacy presents a false dichotomy where only two extreme and opposing solutions are allowed to stand. As represented, 'either we risk thermonuclear holocaust or we must allow tyrants to run the world.'

The Straw Man Fallacy misrepresents the original position, which was simply a refusal to risk humanity’s survival. It is suggested that not risking annihilation means accepting tyrants and dictators. That wasn’t the original position.

Instead, we should acknowledge as unacceptable both nuclear eradication of humanity’s existence AND the rule of tyranny. We should instead apply solutions involving neither of those undesirable outcomes.

This requires the painful work of facing the real history BEHIND this conflict, and the role of material necessity IN this conflict. Only then can we assess this conflict not in terms of officially stated rationales and causes, but in light of actual conditions and political-economic necessities. Once the objective in this conflict is clarified, a solution will present itself.

 

[lazy_literotic]

after Helsinki - no one in their right mind would be anywhere near that sack of shit.

 

[Dribble]

We are an integral part of this planetary system. No person or entity has the right or authority to gamble the existence of all humanity, or the right to construct a test or to dictate performative terms on which humanity’s existence stands or falls.

Moreover, humanity has neither need or obligation to justify its continued existence on Earth – to anyone or to anything.

The response contains several informal fallacies, including the Black or White Fallacy, and the Straw Man Fallacy.

The Black or White Fallacy presents a false dichotomy where only two extreme and opposing solutions are allowed to stand. As represented, 'either we risk thermonuclear holocaust or we must allow tyrants to run the world.'

The Straw Man Fallacy misrepresents the original position, which was simply a refusal to risk humanity’s survival. It is suggested that not risking annihilation means accepting tyrants and dictators. That wasn’t the original position.

Instead, we should acknowledge as unacceptable both nuclear eradication of humanity’s existence AND the rule of tyranny. We should instead apply solutions involving neither of those undesirable outcomes.

This requires the painful work of facing the real history BEHIND this conflict, and the role of material necessity IN this conflict. Only then can we assess this conflict not in terms of officially stated rationales and causes, but in light of actual conditions and political-economic necessities. Once the objective in this conflict is clarified, a solution will present itself.

That's what people said about Hitler. Thank God....when shit hits the fan...we have people like me and we do the shit work so people like you can pretend all is good

 

[Lazaran]

We are an integral part of this planetary system. No person or entity has the right or authority to gamble the existence of all humanity, or the right to construct a test or to dictate performative terms on which humanity’s existence stands or falls.

Moreover, humanity has neither need or obligation to justify its continued existence on Earth – to anyone or to anything.

The response contains several informal fallacies, including the Black or White Fallacy, and the Straw Man Fallacy.

The Black or White Fallacy presents a false dichotomy where only two extreme and opposing solutions are allowed to stand. As represented, 'either we risk thermonuclear holocaust or we must allow tyrants to run the world.'

The Straw Man Fallacy misrepresents the original position, which was simply a refusal to risk humanity’s survival. It is suggested that not risking annihilation means accepting tyrants and dictators. That wasn’t the original position.

Instead, we should acknowledge as unacceptable both nuclear eradication of humanity’s existence AND the rule of tyranny. We should instead apply solutions involving neither of those undesirable outcomes.

This requires the painful work of facing the real history BEHIND this conflict, and the role of material necessity IN this conflict. Only then can we assess this conflict not in terms of officially stated rationales and causes, but in light of actual conditions and political-economic necessities. Once the objective in this conflict is clarified, a solution will present itself.

That ^ is willful ignorance/ naivety on a grand scale.

Everybody knows what’s up with the expansionist efforts from authoritarian regimes.

Actionable red lines exist for a reason.

And there are worse things than death.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

That's what people said about Hitler. Thank God....when shit hits the fan...we have people like me and we do the shit work so people like you can pretend all is good

Would you identify the specific antecedent of “that’s” in “That’s what people said?”

Could you provide one or two sources referring to what people actually said?

That statement is not sound. It implies that people who do “shit work” are solely responsible for preserving social good, while those who do not are somehow complicit in immoral behavior, which is not the case. It also equates critique your position with ineffective opposition to Hitler. This is neither logical nor appropriate.

 

[Dribble]

Would you identify the specific antecedent of “that’s” in “That’s what people said?”

Could you provide one or two sources referring to what people actually said?

That statement is not sound. It implies that people who do “shit work” are solely responsible for preserving social good, while those who do not are somehow complicit in immoral behavior, which is not the case. It also equates critique your position with ineffective opposition to Hitler. This is neither logical nor appropriate.

Bad people exist in the World. Putin is right up there in the list of the worst of the worst existing today. He was not satisfied stealing Crimea. He will not be satisfied with eastern Ukraine. He will not be satisfied with Moldovia. He will not stop until the World stops him. Being afraid of nuclear war is asinine. If he launches...he destroys his country too. That is the reality.

The World refused to check Hitler when they could have. They kept turning a blind eye. No different here. Anyone with a brain understands that

 

[Sean Renaud]

In fairness the world wasn't ready to check Hitler. Letting him bide his time annexing shit while the French, British and even Americans ramped up production was an important bit of time. I know we look back at it and say we made a near fatal mistake when the truth is closer to we needed that time.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

That ^ is willful ignorance/ naivety on a grand scale.

Everybody knows what’s up with the expansionist efforts from authoritarian regimes.

Actionable red lines exist for a reason.

And there are worse things than death.

Yes, yes, everyone knows the official narrative. How could any sane, rational individual possibly NOT fall down before the altar of Dagon-America?

You DID notice that I spoke of doing the painful work of facing the history BEHIND the conflict, and the role of material necessity IN this conflict, I take it?

Where understanding of the origins of the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is concerned, the real question is, ‘how far back do you want to go.’ Now, if you’re a ‘who fired the first shot, who crossed the first line’ guy, history means nothing. But I’m not that guy.

Five years after the October Revolution, the Soviet constitution was forged. At the insistence of Lenin and Trotsky, Ukrainian and Russian workers were put on identical footing in the new Republic as a matter of constitutional principle. As late as 1939, Trotsky defended powerfully the right of Ukrainians to withdraw from the Soviet Union. Stalin’s betrayal of Revolution notwithstanding, it was the 25 December dissolution of the USSR that culminated in these populations going for each other’s throats.

Throughout the 80s, the US sought to destabilize the Soviet Union with a massive military buildup [including ‘Star Wars’], and by fomenting a US-backed Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan. By the 90s, the bureaucracy had degenerated to the point that the US was able to invade Iraq with the support of the Soviet regime. It bears the responsible for the devastation wrought there. It is there that the 30 Years of War Timeline begins. I won’t hold anyone’s hand and walk them through what they’re capable of reading for themselves. But before censoring anyone for willful ignorance and/or naiveite, it behooves you at least to visit it.

But I will note that when the August ’91 Stalinist putsch failed, Trotskyists warned of the dangers of a restoration of Capitalism. David North stated:

‘Declaring “independence” from Moscow, the nationalists can do nothing more than place all the vital decisions relating to the future of their new states in the hands of Germany, Britain, France, Japan and the United States.’

That, the US and its allies were only too willing to do. Merely two months after the 25 December 1991 dissolution of the USSR, the US Department of Defense asserted the willingness of the United States to use military force to fill the vacuum and secure global economic hegemony:

‘There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.’ [p 4].

That document is revised periodically. Bill Van Auken records the words of historian Arthur L. Herman to the Wall Street Journal. He said that the 2017 version [under Trump] recalled a world which existed more than a century earlier.

“This is the world of Otto von Bismarck, who said in 1862: “The great questions of the time are not decided by speeches and majority decisions. .. but by iron and blood.”

For good reason, the German nobleman, Bismarck, was known as the ‘Iron Chancellor.’

In addition to many other strategic questions, such as the December’94, Budapest Memorandum which laid the basis for the surrender of nuclear weapons by Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the NATO alliance began expanding to Russia’s borders, contrary to assurances given to the Stalinist bureaucracy and the new ruling Capitalist oligarchy in Russia.

1999: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO.
2004: The Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania), Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia were admitted.
2009: Albania and Croatia were admitted.
2017: Montenegro was admitted.
2020: North Macedonia was admitted.

View attachment 2220497

The question to be asked and frankly faced is this: ‘at what point does simple honesty necessitate that the Russian General or politician recognize that with its allies secured throughout the region, the US seeks encirclement and full military domination, and that Russia and China must prepare for a ‘worst-case scenario,’ namely – world war.’

The issue is not ‘who fired the first shot.’ Our imperial aggressions are continual, and they put the lie to the noble rationales that are recited endlessly with every intervention. Our strategic doctrine which precludes the emergence of any potential future global competitor’ bars other nations the right of self-determination which we demand for ourselves.

Cavil as we may at others’ rule-breaking, no nation on earth can match our record of electoral interference, sponsoring insurrectionist movements, toppling elected leaders, assassinating elected leaders, currency attacks, low intensity warfare overt and clandestine occupations and on and on. Our crimes are legion. Our actions across generations put the lie to every rationale cited for justifying US interventions in global affairs.

The US government has published a list of rare, strategic minerals and metals deemed essential to industry and production; especially, many are deemed essential to the production of military materiel. THAT is the reason for this war. The US uses Ukraine as a platform for war on Russia, which will be reduced to defenseless statelets with semi-colonial status. They will then serve as a base for attacking China in the same way that Ukraine is the base for war on Russia.

It’s easy to say that President Putin is the worst. Perhaps. Yet our own Presidents, Republicans or Democrats – are right in there with him like so many dirty rags. The lot of them can go to the Hague.

So what will it be? Do we act like schoolboys who square off on ‘who crossed the line’ and ‘took the first swipe? OR, do we act like men, look at policies, and from that discern their strategic intent, and make ‘leaders’ answerable accordingly?

Edit: Syntax

 

[Holy_Seduction]

Bad people exist in the World. Putin is right up there in the list of the worst of the worst existing today. He was not satisfied stealing Crimea. He will not be satisfied with eastern Ukraine. He will not be satisfied with Moldovia. He will not stop until the World stops him. Being afraid of nuclear war is asinine. If he launches...he destroys his country too. That is the reality.

The World refused to check Hitler when they could have. They kept turning a blind eye. No different here. Anyone with a brain understands that

'If he launches...he destroys his country too.'

Perhaps the memo didn't reach you. MAD is no longer accepted in bourgeois society. And if you compare the number of bases maintained by Russia to the approximately 800 maintained by the US around the world -- well, it’s clear who it is that is serious about projecting imperial power.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

For over twenty years, Putin has been trying to keep the west's imperial fingers out of Russia's pockets, particularly now that Europe is moving towards Soviet socialism. He lived in it and saw that ends.

Several things:

First, as I see it, the post 1917 regime was never socialist, but a betrayal of socialism.

A strike wave is exploding in France, the UK, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and more. It involves millions of workers. It terrifies Europe’s ‘leaders’ who turn to more authoritarian forms of rule.

Putin does want to keep prying imperial fingers off Russia’s strategic resources. His imperial plans have more to do with developing Russia’s abundant critical resources on his own terms and schedule, and in the interests of Russia’s Capitalist oligarchy than Ukraine.

As global Capitalism hits the wall, the US cannot ditch imperial aims. It must seize Russia’s strategic metal supplies to make war on China. It must reduce Russia and China to plunder Eurasia’s vast riches. In that way alone can the US ruling classes hope to postpone its meeting with destiny.

But the global working class must also have it’s say. A strike wave is exploding in France, the UK, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and more. It involves millions of workers.

This terrifies Europe’s ‘leaders’ who turn to more authoritarian forms of rule in order to enforce their agenda of endless austerity, war and pandemic. As Rosa Luxembourg said more than a century ago:

‘It is socialism or barbarism.’

This strike wave, which is already a global phenomenon [to greater or lesser extent] is not yet sufficiently class conscious to embrace socialism. But that can happen very quickly. The key issue is that worker resistance NOT be channeled into safe ‘dead-end’ policies or factions.

 

[Rightguide]

What are America’s goals in Ukraine? It’s not totally clear​

It’s not actually clear whether the US wants Ukraine to defeat Russia.

BY JEFF SCHOGOL | PUBLISHED MAR 22, 2023 2:01 PM EDT

Retired Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who led NATO and U.S. European Command from 2013 to 2016, said the United States does not have a policy that supports Ukraine defeating Russia on the battlefield.

“We keep saying, ‘We’re going to give them everything it takes,’ – everything it takes to do what?” Breedlove told Task & Purpose. “We’re going to be there as long as it takes – as long as it takes to do what? As a military commander, if someone gave me those as directives, I would have no idea what they were asking me to do.”

Evelyn Farkas, former Obama Under defense Clown:

“I don’t think we should be talking in terms of winning and losing,” Farkas said. “We should be talking in terms of very clear objectives. What is winning and what is losing? Nobody knows how to define that. What we should define is the end state. The end state is that the Ukrainian government controls its legal territory and the political systems and economic systems on that territory – period. Victory and loss, those are just not terms that describe anything. You can ascribe whatever you want to those terms.”

retired Navy Capt. Steven Horrell, of the Center for European Policy Analysis think tank in Washington, D.C.:

“If we were to say, ‘We will do whatever it takes for Ukraine to win’ – boom; all of a sudden, you’re in a vulnerable spot domestically, because what’s that going to take?

More here: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/ukraine-victory-analysis/

So as to the original question about the endgame in Ukraine, it's as clear as mud, but it sounds like defeat. I think we can add another chapter of shit to Joe's resume.

 

[ll74]

What is Russia's endgame?

 

[Holy_Seduction]

What Are the US Goals Regarding China?They Seem only TOO Clear!

US congressmen game out war with China in 2025

Andre Damon@Andre__Damon
March 24, 2023

Last weekend, Republican members of Congress carried out a war game, led by a retired US general, envisioning a war with China by 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported.

At the Republican Party policy retreat in Orlando, Florida, retired US Navy Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery oversaw a simulated war with China that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and the potential sinking of US aircraft carriers.

While the exercise was presented as a defensive response on the part of the United States to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the US is systematically working to provoke a conflict with China by ending the one-China policy, arming Taiwan and expanding the presence of US troops on the island.

As the Wall Street Journal described the war game in an editorial, “The costs would be enormous and include Gold Stars in windows across America. Adm. Montgomery said casualties could range from about 15 to 50 in every Congressional district in the U.S.—or roughly 5,000 to 20,000 Americans.”

The far-right Washington Free Beacon, which also reported on the war game, wrote that “lawmakers huddled Sunday night to map out the biggest threat facing the American people: an all-out war with China.”

The Free Beacon wrote that “American casualties in a conflict involving the United States, Taiwan, and China could total in the tens of thousands in just a matter of days.” It wrote that, “In some of the more extreme cases, the United States would face up to 20,000 military casualties in a single week—the most seen since World War II.

Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon declared, “It’s going to be a bloody fight… If we have time to get some munitions and aircraft there, we’d come out on top, but it’d still be bloody.”

Rep. Michael Waltz told the Free Beacon, “Our timeline with China won’t be what we saw with Russia… We won’t have this long, slow buildup to figure out what we want to do, and debate what we’re going to do.”

The responses considered by the lawmakers included, according to the Free Beacon, “striking mainland China, attacking China’s ships, or overwhelming Chinese forces with a blockade of sorts and stopping ground troops from setting foot on Taiwan. All of those scenarios, according to members who attended, involved significant U.S. casualties.”

Increasingly, dominant sections of the US political and military establishment are seeing a potential US war with China as a matter not of decades, but of years.

In January, Air Force Gen. Michael Minihan told his command that he expects the US to be at war with China by 2025. “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025,” he said. He urged airmen under his command to get their “personal affairs” in order in preparation for war.

However disastrous the consequences of a US war with China, the US has taken a number of steps in recent weeks that are intended to prepare a direct confrontation.

On March 11, US Director of National Intelligence Avril Hanes stated that Biden’s assertion that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan was not just the president’s personal opinion, but actual US policy.

In September, Biden was asked during an interview, “so unlike Ukraine, US forces, US men and women, would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?” Biden replied, “Yes.”

Even as it moves to end the policy of “strategic ambiguity” and declares that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan, the US is shifting toward ending the “one-China policy,” according to which it is the US position that Taiwan is part of China.

On Tuesday, the US House of Representatives passed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act, which formally tasks the State Department to “identify opportunities to lift any remaining self-imposed limitations on U.S.-Taiwan engagement and articulate a plan to do so.”

The Chinese state newspaper Global Times cited Yang Xiyu, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, who pointed to the essential significance of the law: “The bill suggests that the US House intends to unilaterally change the status quo across the Straits… For the past 40 years, the US maintained only unofficial interactions with the island, but now they are looking to shift to an official one.”

The statement by the office of Republican Rep. Ann Wagner on the passage of the bill asserted that, “For decades, most senior U.S. executive branch officials, including high-ranking military officers, were banned from visiting Taiwan to appease China. Similarly, Taiwan’s top leadership could not travel to the United States.”

The act would move to overturn these restrictions. China, for its part, has repeatedly stated that the US’ formal recognition of Taiwan would lead to a reunification by force.

The passage of the bills takes place just one week before Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen is scheduled to visit the United States.

As the American ruling class is openly preparing and planning for a war with China, it is simultaneously working to ensure the total control of US corporations over the internet.

In a five-hour house hearing Thursday, US members of Congress demanded the “end” of TikTok, the social media network owned by Chinese company ByteDance.

Members of Congress claimed, without substantiation, that TikTok spies on its users in the United States on behalf of the Chinese government.

“TikTok surveils us all, and the Chinese Communist Party is able to use this as a tool to manipulate America as a whole,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state, ranted at TikTok CEO Shou Chew in a five-hour hearing. “Your platform should be banned. I expect today you will say anything to avoid this outcome. … We’re not buying it.”

Lawmakers from both parties openly demanded the banning of TikTok. “Shouldn’t a threat to U.S. security be banned?” asked Republican Rep. Ken Buck. “They do it to us. Why don’t we do it to them?”

Testifying before the committee, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that TikTok “should be ended one way or another, and there are different ways of doing that.”

The Biden administration has demanded that Chinese shareholders of ByteDance sell TikTok to a US corporation.

There are two overarching goals in the crackdown on TikTok. First, the US is determined to systematically destroy China’s high-technology sector as part of its trade war with Beijing. But, more ominously, the US government is seeking to consolidate under its control all aspects of mass communication.