World War Three?

[seanD]

As the Treehouse notes, with increasing public opposition to continuing funding for the war, Washington is trying to shift the narrative, and I suspect they are setting up to make the case that we have a vested interest in Ukraine, and that we owe it to them due to our long involvement in their politics.

They're definitely setting up the Reps as the scapegoats for an inevitable and embarrassing debacle, which is why I think the Reps should approve whatever funds they want. At this point, $100+ billion later, the debt and deficit doesn't matter.

[Mountain Man]

They're definitely setting up the Reps as the scapegoats for an inevitable and embarrassing debacle, which is why I think the Reps should approve whatever funds they want. At this point, $100+ billion later, the debt and deficit doesn't matter.

It's a Catch 22 for the Republicans. If they approve funding, it will put them on the outs with the voters, and if they don't approve, Democrats will blame them for Ukraine losing.

[seanD]

It's a Catch 22 for the Republicans. If they approve funding, it will put them on the outs with the voters, and if they don't approve, Democrats will blame them for Ukraine losing.

Personally, I prefer the former as the lesser of evils. I think the Reps should face some repercussions as well since most them initially backed all this funding. I don't want the Biden admin to get away with escaping this debacle with all their lying and deception about it. That would be a bigger travesty to me.

[Terraceth]

I said almost two years ago, there were only two possible outcomes to the Ukraine war:

- Ukraine will eventually surrender, which may or not occur after Russia marches on Kiev.
- NATO will intervene at some point when it's obvious Ukraine is losing, and it escalates to a full-blown world war between NATO and Russia.

This makes the latter scenario ever more plausible...

Neither is particularly plausible. I think it's hard (if not perhaps impossible) for Ukraine to win if by win we mean get all of its land back (even if we don't count Crimea), but if by win we mean "let Russia take little if any more land" then yes I think they can. Certainly if by win we mean "Ukraine doesn't have to surrender" then that's totally possible. Indeed, I see it as very unlikely Ukraine ever has to surrender, Russia's big attack at the start of the war collapsed in the face of a Ukraine that had less backing than it does now, I don't see how Russia can take the rest of the country, especially it's far easier to fight defensively than offensively (which is how Russia managed to limit Ukraine's counteroffensive).

[seanD]

Neither is particularly plausible. I think it's hard (if not perhaps impossible) for Ukraine to win if by win we mean get all of its land back (even if we don't count Crimea), but if by win we mean "let Russia take little if any more land" then yes I think they can. Certainly if by win we mean "Ukraine doesn't have to surrender" then that's totally possible. Indeed, I see it as very unlikely Ukraine ever has to surrender, Russia's big attack at the start of the war collapsed in the face of a Ukraine that had less backing than it does now, I don't see how Russia can take the rest of the country, especially it's far easier to fight defensively than offensively (which is how Russia managed to limit Ukraine's counteroffensive).

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but they're lying to you pretty badly.

During the summer, Ukraine launched an offensive, and it was pretty much aggrandized across MSM because they needed the western funds to keep flowing. Ukraine launched it, Russian forces dug in, and Ukraine miserably failed around the fall/winter last year, and that's about the time certain western news sources started sounding the alarm, like Times, who quoted a Ukrainian insider admitting they're losing and calling Zelensky "delusional."

Now Russia has begun their own offensive, and they've just defeated Ukraine at Adviika, and now moving on surrounding territories. You must be living under a rock because even the western MSM has reported on Ukraine's defeat at Adviika, which was a pretty major blow, probably even more than the loss of Bukhmut, strategically speaking. The only reason I think they reported on that is they're trying to set up the Reps to take the blame for their defeat.

In any event, personally, unless something happens to Zelensky or there's a coup against him (and this probably won't happen now that we know CIA has ground forces in Ukraine), I don't think Ukraine will surrender until Russia marches on Kiev, because Zelensky is pretty delusional and resolute in his insistence that they not back down.

Of course, all of this changes dramatically if NATO intervenes.

[Terraceth]

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but they're lying to you pretty badly.

During the summer, Ukraine launched an offensive, and it was pretty much aggrandized across MSM because they needed the western funds to keep flowing. Ukraine launched it, Russian forces dug in, and Ukraine miserably failed around the fall/winter last year, and that's about the time certain western news sources started sounding the alarm, like Times, who quoted a Ukrainian insider admitting they're losing and calling Zelensky "delusional."

I wouldn't say it "miserably failed" because they did get some territory, but it is true that it was a disappointment, no doubt.

But the reason Ukraine ran into difficulty is that Russia, as you say, dug in. Offensive war is almost always harder than defensive war. Which worked out fine for Russia during the counteroffensive, but if Russia tries to make a real attempt to move forward then the shoe is on the other foot.

Now Russia has begun their own offensive, and they've just defeated Ukraine at Adviika, and now moving on surrounding territories. You must be living under a rock because even the western MSM has reported on Ukraine's defeat at Adviika, which was a pretty major blow, probably even more than the loss of Bukhmut, strategically speaking. The only reason I think they reported on that is they're trying to set up the Reps to take the blame for their defeat.

I'm not living under a rock, I heard about it. But to hail Russia it as an indication that Ukraine is inevitably going to have to surrender does not make much sense to me. As I said, Russia's attempt to take Kiev at a point where Ukraine was in a worse position militarily than it is now didn't work, so how precisely are they going to manage it when dealing with a stronger foe? I'm not saying it's impossible for Russia to take a bit more territory, but I don't see it as much territory before they run into the exact problem Ukraine did and get stalled out themselves.

[seanD]

I wouldn't say it "miserably failed" because they did get some territory, but it is true that it was a disappointment, no doubt.

But the reason Ukraine ran into difficulty is that Russia, as you say, dug in. Offensive war is almost always harder than defensive war. Which worked out fine for Russia during the counteroffensive, but if Russia tries to make a real attempt to move forward then the shoe is on the other foot.


I'm not living under a rock, I heard about it. But to hail Russia it as an indication that Ukraine is inevitably going to have to surrender does not make much sense to me. As I said, Russia's attempt to take Kiev at a point where Ukraine was in a worse position militarily than it is now didn't work, so how precisely are they going to manage it when dealing with a stronger foe? I'm not saying it's impossible for Russia to take a bit more territory, but I don't see it as much territory before they run into the exact problem Ukraine did and get stalled out themselves.

I can't imagine how you think Ukraine is anywhere near as strong and in a better position now as they were two years ago. I don't even know where to go with that, other than to say -- keep the hope alive, brother.

[Mountain Man]

The exact state of the war between Russia and Ukraine is hard to determine because there is so much misinformation being spread by the US media, but by all accounts, it seems that things have gone better for Russia and worse for Ukraine than what we are being told. I also don't believe claims that Russia expected a swift and easy victory, largely because I am not aware of any official statement from Putin to that effect.

I suspect the primary reason Zelinsky has not been deposed is because of his iron fist policy towards dissension -- the Ukrainian government quickly seized all media outlets towards the start of the war so that only official Ukrainian propaganda would be disseminated, Zelinsky disbanded any opposition party that might seek to challenge him, and he has indefinitely suspended elections in Ukraine -- and the threat that NATO might put boots on the ground and turn this into a global conflict.

[seanD]

"Wars and rumors of wars"...

Most Americans in new survey say another world war likely in next 5-10 years

Most Americans say that there will be another world war in the next five to 10 years, according to a new YouGov survey.

Around 61 percent of Americans in the survey said it is either “[v]ery likely” or “[s]omewhat likely” that another world war will happen in the next five to 10 years. About 18 percent of Americans in the same survey said that they are “[n]ot sure” about the likelihood of another world war in the same amount of time.

The survey also found about 21 percent of Americans saying that another world war happening in the next five to 10 years is “[n]ot very likely” or “[n]ot at all likely.”

How interesting it would have been if a similar survey was taken in America before WW2 obviously before our communication technology, and then compare the results of the two surveys.

[rogue06]

"Wars and rumors of wars"...

Most Americans in new survey say another world war likely in next 5-10 years

Most Americans say that there will be another world war in the next five to 10 years, according to a new YouGov survey.

Around 61 percent of Americans in the survey said it is either “[v]ery likely” or “[s]omewhat likely” that another world war will happen in the next five to 10 years. About 18 percent of Americans in the same survey said that they are “[n]ot sure” about the likelihood of another world war in the same amount of time.

The survey also found about 21 percent of Americans saying that another world war happening in the next five to 10 years is “[n]ot very likely” or “[n]ot at all likely.”

How interesting it would have been if a similar survey was taken in America before WW2 obviously before our communication technology, and then compare the results of the two surveys.

Some experts say that we are already in the early days of one.

[Mountain Man]

Some experts say that we are already in the early days of one.

I don't think we've crossed the point of no return yet, but certainly things could spin out of control very quickly. The bad news is that unlike the first two World Wars, I don't think the US has the military strength or political will to stop it.

[rogue06]

I don't think we've crossed the point of no return yet, but certainly things could spin out of control very quickly. The bad news is that unlike the first two World Wars, I don't think the US has the military strength or political will to stop it.

We are bleeding out our resources in proxy wars and this generation needs safe spaces to cope with the mildest of issues so expecting them to fight a war is foolish at best.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't think we've crossed the point of no return yet, but certainly things could spin out of control very quickly. The bad news is that unlike the first two World Wars, I don't think the US has the military strength or political will to stop it.

I understood the Splendid Isolationism of the Right in the USA was quite popular.

[seanD]

Some experts say that we are already in the early days of one.

Macron won't stop saber-rattling about deploying troops in Ukraine (though we know western forces are already there). My feeling that NATO will intervene at some point that Ukraine starts showing obvious signs of defeat is getting stronger and stronger. I can't see Russia marching on Kiev without an irresistible impulse for the west to react. It would just be far too embarrassing and disastrous for them to let that happen.

[Ronson]

Macron won't stop saber-rattling about deploying troops in Ukraine (though we know western forces are already there). My feeling that NATO will intervene at some point that Ukraine starts showing obvious signs of defeat is getting stronger and stronger. I can't see Russia marching on Kiev without an irresistible impulse for the west to react. It would just be far too embarrassing and disastrous for them to let that happen.

I still believe Putin will be satisfied with a slice of eastern Ukraine. It's his land bridge to Crimea.