Ukraine War... How much will S&P drop this week?

[bovie]

Yeah, wars are difficult. I'm sure we can look at nearly every war ever waged and find some discrepancy in publicly stated objectives. I'm definitely against getting into them, but sometimes you've got to do it. This is one of those times.

Iran and Afghanistan were poorly managed. That doesn't mean this one necessarily will be*. The decision makers are mostly different and they have that experience to draw upon. And even if it is, in this case, a suboptimally managed attempt is far better than the diplomacy-only approach that you seem to want to employ.

*This one also won't be perfectly managed. So rest assured when all is said and done, as I said before, with the benefit of hindsight you will be able to convince yourself that whatever was done was not done well and could have been done better if they had only done X.

You don’t need hindsight. You need foresight.

Anyone with any of that can see that this is absolutely not “one of those times.”

You seem to have either a uniquely poor understanding of the reasons why a stable and distant country should consider diving headfirst into an ongoing war in the first place, an exceptionally misplaced trust in the ability of the US government to identify when those few reasons exist, or an alarming amount of overconfidence in and strange affinity for the “credentials” of the average-at-best administration bureaucrats and their confuser-in-chief to successfully lead us into and out of a war with Russia.

[AR]

You don’t need hindsight. You need foresight.

Anyone with any of that can see that this is absolutely not “one of those times.”

You seem to have either a uniquely poor understanding of the reasons why a stable and distant country should consider diving headfirst into an ongoing war in the first place, an exceptionally misplaced trust in the ability of the US government to identify when those few reasons exist, or an alarming amount of overconfidence in and strange affinity for the “credentials” of the average-at-best administration bureaucrats and their confuser-in-chief to successfully lead us into and out of a war with Russia.

No it's absolutely one of those times we should do something. I think what we're doing now is just fine for now.

You seem to have either a uniquely poor understanding of the reasons why a stable and distant country should consider opposing a brutal autocrat that invades a sovereign neighbor, an exceptionally misplaced skepticism in the ability of the US government to identify when those few reasons exist, or an alarming amount of overconfidence in your ability to apply the results of different people involved in different conflicts to what is going on with Russia.

[fatlittlepig]

LOL you can count me also as someone with exceptionally well deserved skepticism in the US government with regards to this.

[fatlittlepig]

From nytimes today:
“Mr. Duda’s remarks came as the German, French and Italian governments have suggested a cease-fire, calls that Ukraine has rejected angrily as selfish and poorly timed.”

from the guardian:
“After calls for an immediate ceasefire from the US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the Italian prime minister, Mario Draghi, Podolyak made clear that Ukraine would not accept any deal with Russia that involved ceding territory, and that agreeing to a ceasefire now while making concessions to Russia would backfire on Ukraine”

I think our support may counterintuitively delay a diplomatic solution. I guess we’ll see how it plays out, I’m feeling increasingly gloomy by the day.

[AR]

From nytimes today:
“Mr. Duda’s remarks came as the German, French and Italian governments have suggested a cease-fire, calls that Ukraine has rejected angrily as selfish and poorly timed.”

from the guardian:
“After calls for an immediate ceasefire from the US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the Italian prime minister, Mario Draghi, Podolyak made clear that Ukraine would not accept any deal with Russia that involved ceding territory, and that agreeing to a ceasefire now while making concessions to Russia would backfire on Ukraine”

I think our support may counterintuitively delay a diplomatic solution. I guess we’ll see how it plays out, I’m feeling increasingly gloomy by the day.

Just so we're clear, when you say "diplomatic solution" does that involve giving Russia more of Ukraine than they had last year?

[AR]

LOL you can count me also as someone with exceptionally well deserved skepticism in the US government with regards to this.

But you trust these same incompetents to do diplomacy well?

Also, if it makes you feel better isn't not just "the US government". It's lots of governments. I guess they're all incompetent too.

[fatlittlepig]

Just so we're clear, when you say "diplomatic solution" does that involve giving Russia more of Ukraine than they had last year?

So the goal should be to restore Ukraine to prewar borders no matter how unrealistic that is and the cost on Ukrainian lives and cost to us. Nope, not going to happen. That’s naive.

[Tim]

But you trust these same incompetents to do diplomacy well?

Also, if it makes you feel better isn't not just "the US government". It's lots of governments. I guess they're all incompetent too.

Now this is beginning to make sense. Follow this train of thought. It will lead you to daylight. Do you think France, Italy and Germany political , diplomatic and military might are game changers and acted independently? What a coincidence, they all reached the same conclusion independently. I am sure that 9000 helmets Germany sent were a symbol of brilliance.
Talk is cheap.

[AR]

So the goal should be to restore Ukraine to prewar borders no matter how unrealistic that is and the cost on Ukrainian lives and cost to us. Nope, not going to happen. That’s naive.

So the diplomatic solution here is:

Step 1. Russia invades
Step 2. Ukraine cedes more land
Step 3. Russia halts invasion

Is that about right? Now lets keep going.

Step 4. Russia invades again

You wanna give me step 5? Let's keep in mind that even prior to this invasion, Ukraine already ceded land to Russia and they got invaded.


I'm not even entirely opposed to a solution Ukraine gives up some territory. But I certainly would not project a willingness to concede anything now. And if that happens Russia is gonna have to give up something valuable too for it to make sense. I'm having a hard time imagining what that is.

It's also not clear to me why you can't do the diplomacy while you are resisting. Ukraine's diplomacy position is certainly better now than it was a couple of months ago.

[fatlittlepig]

I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

[StarTrekDoc]

So the diplomatic solution here is:

Step 1. Russia invades
Step 2. Ukraine cedes more land
Step 3. Russia halts invasion

Is that about right? Now lets keep going.

Step 4. Russia invades again

Wait -- I've seen this play before---something called WWII I think.

Finland and Sweden have seen enough and put in their requests.

Ukraine clearly doesn't believe it'll lose at this time and the western states are increasingly bullish on Ukraine's ability to turn the tide to at least a stalemate and see if they can actually regain territory (whole different beast) as it enters month four of the conflict and reserves training coming online with western weaponry replenishment vs 1980s soviet equipment.

Would USA be ok to give up Texas if Mexico invaded and call it quits after fighting to a stalemate at OK border?

IMHO, US and UK are playing it out as best they can right now. degrade Russian capabilities while supporting a democracy AND playing domestically well for future defense spending/resupply for domestic industries. I can think of A LOT of worse foreign policy plays we've done during my lifetime.

[fatlittlepig]

So… why aren’t we supporting Ukraine joining NATO?

[AR]

I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

We will. And I'm sure when is all is said and done, you'll be here to tell us how it would have turned out even better if something else was done instead.

[AR]

So… why aren’t we supporting Ukraine joining NATO?

We probably should have before. Pretty sure (but not 100%) NATO charter more or less prevents any country in the the middle of any kind of conflict from joining until it is resolved. Even the conflict that was present immediately pre-invasion may have been disqualifying. So the time would have been long ago. Or after this is done, assuming Ukraine not joining is part of some negotiated end to all of this.

[fatlittlepig]

We probably should have before. Pretty sure (but not 100%) NATO charter more or less prevents any country in the the middle of any kind of conflict from joining until it is resolved. Even the conflict that was present immediately pre-invasion may have been disqualifying. So the time would have been long ago. Or after this is done, assuming Ukraine not joining is part of some negotiated end to all of this.

The answer is a bit more complicated and it preceded the current war.