War, what is it good for?

[Octavious]

Jamie, what did I say that you think is inaccurate? Your current mentality of disagreeing with everything the White House says because you think they're a bunch of wrong'uns is frankly moronic.

British, EU, Canada, Australia et al (New Zealand not mentioned as is the tradition) have relatively well trained and equipped armies, but they are painfully small and their tactics and strategy has been left behind. The Russians and Ukrainians have the advantage of numbers, have the advantage of experience, and have the advantage that they have invented modern infantry tactics and are the only people who have actually used them.

It's cute the way you have adopted a lot of Trump's most irritating habits like repeated telling childish low IQ lies, but we need fewer playground insults and more effort to grasp reality

[kingofthepirates]

British, EU, Canada, Australia et al (New Zealand not mentioned as is the tradition) have relatively well trained and equipped armies, but they are painfully small and their tactics and strategy has been left behind. The Russians and Ukrainians have the advantage of numbers, have the advantage of experience, and have the advantage that they have invented modern infantry tactics and are the only people who have actually used them.

Haven’t been following this thread really but imma jump in here and say this isn’t a full picture of war/advantage. Infantry wise, yeah, sure. They may well be superior (also, would it not be right to lump the US in here too then? Maybe not the numbers or vehicle disadvantage but certainly the tactical one) But in terms of navy and air force, Britain and France are hardly slouches (they crack top 10 navies and if you take out the other branches of the US military, both crack top 10 air forces too, source for both is the world directory of modern military warships/aircraft respectively).

[Octavious]

Quite so. I mentioned the RAF as one of our genuine advantages earlier, and I'd begrudgingly include the French in that. Whether we have enough air power to achieve air superiority is uncertain, but I wouldn't rule it out. And yes, we could likely successfully establish a naval blockade and fire a few missiles from boats every now and then. What remains of the Russian surface fleet is lacking, although I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss their submarine forces out of hand.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The truth of Vance's statement might matter less than it's intention.

"Our allies are pathetic and our adversary is all-powerful" is a bizarre thing for a VP to say while in active negotiations to end a war that our side has lost.

It's seemingly not good enough to end the war — the Trump admin is keen to see Russia win, Ukraine lose, and to alienate and denigrate its allies in the process.

None of what Oct is saying matters. If there is a shooting war between Russia and major European forces it's becoming a nuclear conflict rather quickly.

[Octavious]

Our allies are pathetic and our adversary is all-powerful" is a bizarre thing for a VP to say while in active negotiations to end a war that our side has lost.

It's not bizarre to acknowledge reality. It's not as if the Russians are under the delusion that the Danish army (with its 37 hour working week, weekends off, 6 weeks vacation, guaranteed parental leave, and maybe one 3/4 month deployment every 3 years or so) is a hardened team of veteran soldiers. They know exactly what they would be up against, and compared to the Ukrainian opposition they're used to it would be a walk in the park. British tanks are bloody good tanks, but once you've destroyed both of them they're not getting replaced (slight exaggeration, but depressingly not by much).

It's seemingly not good enough to end the war — the Trump admin is keen to see Russia win, Ukraine lose, and to alienate and denigrate its allies in the process.

Sorry, I know you have a bee in your bonnet about Trump because of his unpleasant approach to Canada, but this is just bollocks. Trump has zero interest in Russia winning and doesn't want Ukraine to lose.

None of what Oct is saying matters. If there is a shooting war between Russia and major European forces it's becoming a nuclear conflict rather quickly.

I suspect not, actually. It's not something I'm keen on testing, but Russia always had a conventional forces first approach. NATO was the side that was always more keen on promoting the idea of a first strike, because they always assumed they'd lose a conventional war. But if we're talking Europe rather than NATO, and asking if Britain or France would use nukes because Russia has started a new war in Ukraine... I'd put a strong bet on no. Hell, it's been so long since we've tested our nukes there has to be considerable doubt over whether they'd actually work at all. It was bad enough a few years ago when we made the mistake of testing our trident missiles and they didn't work.... twice . As long as we don't use them the Russians will probably be forced to assume they're in good working order.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oct, how would you explain the US cutting not only military funding for Ukraine, but also its provision of intelligence services? https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cuts-off-intelligence-sharing-with-ukraine-ft-reports-2025-03-05/

How would you explain the US blaming Ukraine for having started the war and Trump calling Zelensky a dictator, while refraining from saying the same about Putin?

What benefit does loudly and derisively stating the reality of European military weakness have at this juncture?

All these actions severely undercut Ukraine's negotiating position at precisely the time when they're likely to settle.

If the UK and France put troops in Ukraine they will be a tripwire for nuclear deterrence. I would not be so sanguine to think that British/French/German and Russian troops can kill each other in the field for very long without someone feeling compelled to escalate.

That is why I'm so distraught about how the war is "ending". A better outcome would have been to maximally support Ukraine such that Russia's offensive capacity was degraded without direct conflict between Russia and NATO - that opportunity has passed, and it is mostly Biden and the EU who are to blame for their unseriousness the past ~4 years. Instead, we're contemplating the terrible outcome of putting some sort of WW3 tripwire in Ukraine in a desperate attempt to deter Russian aggression.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

For the record I view the Ukraine settlement as vastly more important than the Canada-US tariff war.

They both speak, however, to Trump's disdain for allies and utter disregard for honouring agreements (including the trade deal he himself concluded with Canada and Mexico).

[Octavious]

Oct, how would you explain the US cutting not only military funding for Ukraine, but also its provision of intelligence services? https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cuts-off-intelligence-sharing-with-ukraine-ft-reports-2025-03-05/

It's far harder to help negotiate a peace when you're actively helping kill the other side's people. This is why France was pushing so hard for a ceasefire. It's also making it clear to Ukraine that its preferred option of receiving enough backing and resources to retake the east and Crimea simply will not be possible.

How would you explain the US blaming Ukraine for having started the war and Trump calling Zelensky a dictator, while refraining from saying the same about Putin?

Trump has clearly said he can't believe he'd call Zelensky a dictator. So what we have is Trump saying both things, and the idea is that you take the one you can live with. In the West Trump saying that he isn't a dictator combined with the fact that he isn't a dictator should be enough to convince us that Trump doesn't think he's a dictator. In Moscow Putin can point to Trump calling Zelensky a dictator as evidence that Russia has been listened to and it's point of view treated with respect.

What benefit does loudly and derisively stating the reality of European military weakness have at this juncture?

It shows that you have a firm grasp of reality. Far too many wars carried on or started because one or more sides had not grasped reality. You may think about the Japanese in WWII wanting to fight on long past the point that defeat was inevitable, or the belief (both by the West and apparently by Saddam Hussain himself) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

If the UK and France put troops in Ukraine they will be a tripwire for nuclear deterrence. I would not be so sanguine to think that British/French/German and Russian troops can kill each other in the field for very long without someone feeling compelled to escalate.

You reckon? Much like when Argentina invaded the Falklands and Britain threatened to use nuclear weapons unless they left their people in peace? And then dropped a tactical nuke on the Argentine flotilla when they refused?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Cutting aid and all other support before securing a deal weakens Ukraine’s hand and pressures them into a bad settlement. That’s not peacemaking, that’s surrender on Russia’s terms.

Trump’s contradictions don’t cancel each other out. When he calls Zelensky a dictator but not Putin, it feeds Russia’s narrative and undermines Ukraine’s legitimacy. For Moscow, hearing Trump call Zelensky a dictator adds legitimacy to Russia’s narrative that Ukraine is illegitimate and run by extremists. For Kyiv and its allies, it undermines confidence in U.S. support and suggests that Trump is at least rhetorically siding with Russia.

Stating Europe’s military weakness might be true, but loudly emphasizing it now serves no constructive purpose. It discourages allies, reassures Russia, and makes deterrence harder. Realism isn’t just about recognizing facts—it’s about using them strategically.

I think we both know the Falklands analogy is rather dumb. Argentina has no nukes. Russian state media talks about nuking the UK all the time. A NATO-ish force in Ukraine would be there to raise the stakes of further Russian aggression to a war between nuclear armed powers.

[Octavious]

For Moscow, hearing Trump call Zelensky a dictator adds legitimacy to Russia’s narrative

Yes, that is very much the point. We have not won the war, therefore we can't dictate the outcome. Neither has Russia. As such we need to find a peace that both sides can sell as a victory, and Russia can't claim a victory unless they can point to their narrative being accepted. With Trump being on record saying these things, even though he doesn't believe them and has blatantly contradicted them, Russia has enough "evidence" to show their people that they have won the argument as well as won the east, and they can walk away from their disastrous war with the veneer of victory.

If you prevent them from having this veneer of victory there will not be a peace, because Putin will have to accept that it's a defeat and he cannot afford to do that.

Good God, man. Didn't your parents tell you about Father Christmas when you were little? You have learn to accept the small lies so when you're an adult you can embrace the important ones, like honour and justice and the ones that make peace possible.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This lacks all nuance.

Neither side will win, that doesn't mean we should abandon Ukraine at the most critical point in negotiations.

Putin can spin his "win" however he likes. He does not need the literal endorsement of the US president at the UN to do so. These overtures are unnecessary and mistaken.

You're the one who thinks Trump's not-so-small lies are rather strategic. I think everyone except for his dumbest supporters can look at him talking out of both sides of his mouth on Ukraine and wonder how this benefits anyone except Trump himself.

I'm not fussed about honour or justice. I'm concerned about deterrence. Trump himself has said he loves "deterrence through strength", but in practice he is destroying his own side's bargaining position in the hope of achieve a quick "win" in the form of a devastating and unstable peace.

[Octavious]

Neither side will win, that doesn't mean we should abandon Ukraine at its most critical point in negotiations.

We should have never been involved with the corrupt ex-Soviet backwater with the comedian figurehead in the first place, and if we hadn't Ukrainian cities would be a lot less ruined and the Ukrainian people a lot less dead. But it is what it is, and we got very much involved, and we (including the USA) have very much not abandoned Ukraine.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm glad we finally got to the core of the issue.

Trump is indeed abandoning Ukraine, and you don't care because you thought their sovereignty was a Russian plaything to begin with.

That's a much more coherent stance than pretending that Trump is actually acting with Ukraine's interests in mind.

I don't see how you can say stopping all aid, all military support, and working against them diplomatically isn't the US abandoning Ukraine. What more could the US do to abandon Ukraine? Berate their leader on live TV (lol)?

[Octavious]

Trump is indeed abandoning Ukraine, and you don't care because you thought their sovereignty was a Russian plaything to begin with.

Clearly you have no interest in believing anything other than your preferred narrative. I dare say you will go on believing it even after Trump has achieved a stable peace.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Trump may indeed get something resembling peace soon and we won't know whether it was indeed a good peace for many years to come. I'm quite certain the current approach is not the best possible approach to minimize Ukrainian losses. I worry that inadequate deterrence will embolden Russia and worsen our collective security long term.

[Klaus klauts]

We should have never been involved with the corrupt ex-Soviet backwater with the comedian figurehead in the first place, and if we hadn't Ukrainian cities would be a lot less ruined and the Ukrainian people a lot less dead. But it is what it is, and we got very much involved, and we (including the USA) have very much not abandoned Ukraine.

And at last, Octavious is openly showing his true colours. If it wasn't obvious enough up until this point, now it definitively is. I think we can stop arguing with Octavious at this point, since it can not be expected to convince a person with this "interesting and mildly concerning view on the world" with arguments.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oct has applied this same strategy to Trump’s election denialism, trade policies, support for the AfD, and elevation of Musk. Rather than engaging with the ideas themselves, he rationalizes the administration’s choices after the fact - often at the expense of the conservative values he otherwise claims to support.

It's made these conversations unnecessarily frustrating. Even when Oct has good points (as he often does), they feel disingenuous, or like they're meant to obscure his actual view on the matter.

Unlike Jamie, I’m actually interested in hearing a well-argued case for opposing views—especially regarding Trump. Instead, we just get reflexive defenses of whatever Trump happens to do, no matter how contradictory.

[Octavious]

We should have never been involved with the corrupt ex-Soviet backwater with the comedian figurehead in the first place, and if we hadn't Ukrainian cities would be a lot less ruined and the Ukrainian people a lot less dead. But it is what it is, and we got very much involved, and we (including the USA) have very much not abandoned Ukraine.

And at last, Octavious is openly showing his true colours. If it wasn't obvious enough up until this point, now it definitively is. I think we can stop arguing with Octavious at this point, since it can not be expected to convince a person with this "interesting and mildly concerning view on the world" with arguments.

What the hell are you babbling about? Showing my true colours? My view on Ukraine hasn't changed since I started this thread before the war began. You are welcome to go back and read it if you like. I have been consistent in my opinion from the start. If you look back at the vast majority of Western media coverage of Ukraine before the war it is completely dominated by stories of Ukrainian Nazis (usually connected with football hooliganism) and political corruption (usually connected with stories about potential EU membership) . The reason for that being that Ukraine had a strong far right influence and it was politically corrupt. It is only since the war that these stories mostly disappeared and were replaced by the "plucky little Ukraine fighting off Russians" narrative.

And credit where credit's due they have done an amazing job. It has cost them dearly, it has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, destroyed countless homes, but they have become one of the most impressive warrior nations on Earth and achieved more than anyone had any right to expect. And it is extremely unfair that all that pain and sacrifice will get them is survival as a nation reduced in size. But the alternative is a lot more destruction, a lot more death, a lot more heartache, and a significant chance of defeat. So the compromise is that Ukraine lives to tell the tale of when it stood alone against the full might of Russia and held the line. They lose Crimea and a chunk of territory they're frankly better off without, and they gain stories of Ukraine's finest hour with a full compliment of national heroes and a fast tracked EU membership.

And they will try to be happy with that, because it's by far the least worst of their likely outcomes.

That is how this story ends, and whatever you think of Trump he has done more to get us there than any other politician.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oct, this is a nice bit of misdirection, but it doesn’t actually address what we were discussing. You were defending Trump’s actions as though they were about securing the best possible deal for Ukraine. Now, you've essentially admitted that you never thought Ukraine deserved real support to begin with. That’s the contradiction and you haven’t resolved it - you just tried to bury it under a long retrospective about Ukraine’s past corruption and resilience.

Your narrative about "how this story ends" is just that - a narrative. Ukraine’s future isn’t written in stone. The idea that they should be "grateful" for their survival, accept the loss of their territory, and call it a victory is easy to say when it’s not your country being carved up. And pretending that Trump is the one who got them to this point, when his administration has pulled support at Ukraine’s most vulnerable moment, is pure fantasy. Trump’s actions have made this "least-worst outcome" harder to achieve by actively weakening Ukraine’s position in negotiations.

They're better off because their rump of a state might get EU membership? Because they will sing songs about their war dead? Give me a break.

[Octavious]

. You were defending Trump’s actions as though they were about securing the best possible deal for Ukraine

They will secure the best deal for Ukraine

Now, you've essentially admitted that you never thought Ukraine deserved real support to begin with.

What Ukraine deserved is neither here nor there. They did not deserve to be invaded. That does not mean we should have had anything to do with it beyond giving Russia a slap on the wrist and a bunch of sanctions like we usually do.

I'm not sure why you are holding these perfectly consistent views as if they're some kind of smoking gun, rather than literally what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that they should be "grateful" for their survival, accept the loss of their territory, and call it a victory is easy to say when it’s not your country being carved up

For God's sake, man, learn to bloody read. They shouldn't be grateful. They should be bloody furious. They should be furious with the Russians and they should be furious with us because between us we have fucked them royally. But they should learn to lie to themselves and pretend to love it because it's the best they're going to get and they have to live with it.