Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

I agree timing is everything and Russia on full retreat would be the ideal prelude. However the winter may well slow down the Ukrainian momentum. Putin knows he cannot win a total conquest and will hardly even hold what he has 'annexed' which is why he is playing dirty and going after utilities to cripple the economy and bring down morale. It will be a long hard winter for both armies. Hence my prediction that we could be in negotiations before Xmas. I may well be utterly wrong which is why I asked for other endgame projections - objective ones ideally. Nobody seems to be volunteering any though. Russia cannot be trusted in any negotiations anyway so maybe total expulsion is the only outcome possible. That could take many years.

Good objective points and i won't argue with any of it.

So what is your endgame prediction and timeline? (this was my original Q but I offered my own guess knowing people would ask).

It sounds like you are suggesting total Russian expulsion by end of 2023? A complete Ukrainian victory on the battlefield?

Good article here from a historian on the endgame - I like historians because they tend to be more objective. And to be fair the endgame will not be black and white, it will probably be murkier.

Historian Timothy Snyder on how war ends in Ukraine | On Point (wbur.org)

"Putin began this war for basically political aims. He's not going to be able to achieve those aims. And at a certain point, the costs for him politically at home will become great enough that he will have to find a way to change the subject. He'll have to find some kind of a way to pivot. I think if he takes too long, what happens is that his popularity, which is going down, will be a problem. His rivals, who now have much more articulate voices, will feel like they can take even more public stands.

"The people who have made some kind of career fighting in Ukraine will also want to have a voice. And he's going to face a situation of a kind of growing, oligarchical pluralism around him. And as that struggle for power continues, and in my view, it's already begun. At a certain point, the people involved will not think it makes sense to have troops in Ukraine anymore when there's a struggle for power going on in Russia. That is a normal ... I admit not as exciting as nuclear war, but that's a normal way for the war to end. And I think that that's the track that we're on."

If Russia stays in possession of Crimea it should not get any rights to its territorial shelf \ waters etc etc

Its resources need to be reparations for Ukraine. Although Ukraine then would need to restore water access through the canal.

There needs to be limits on Russian military there except for protection of the existing naval base.

Prior to the 2022 invasion, Zelensky was tending towards (and was voted in on a mandate to) de-escalating the war with Russia. See this from 2019:

Arguably that was towards long term acknowledging the status quo as it then was.

The 2022 invasion changed that considerably from the perspective of the Ukrainian population.

Not sure where you got the notion I have swallowed Russian propaganda, there' some very intelligent, smart western experts who know a lot more about this situation than you or I or anybody else on boards, speaking in practical terms about what's going on. Plenty out there to research, and you do not need to look too hard. Also, when you critically look at the all the inputs into an issue, it should not be too taxing to form an intelligent enough opinion.

That being said, if it makes people feel safe within their blinkered vision to riddle and dismiss those with an alternate view, in other words, able to see the bigger picture, on the Ukraine situation, then so be it.

Exactly, you have validated my previous point.

I see you are unable to actually counter any of the points.

I couldn't;t be bothered as the predicable responses are boring.

It's because you can't.

You know it.

We know it.

The Ukrainians aren't people to you or Putin - just biomass to be consumed.

Are you being unfair to the Afghan army ?

Why did the US and its allies not stay the course?

Do we think that the population did not support the status quo?

It feels to me this was a simple case of "imperial" overreach where support for the Afghan mission had evaporated and the US felt that Afghanistan was a distraction.

As soon as the date for withdrawal was given in advance the game was up-there should have been notice of eventual withdrawal when conditions were acceptable.

As it was ,it turned out to be acceptable only to the Taliban.

I don't doubt the Afghans had the will to fight ,but they are not stupid either and knew that they were betrayed.

.

Go back in History, and aside from the Marshall Plan postww2, what "Invader" ever spent so much on the "Conquered Country" as America spent on Afghanistan? America tried to bring Afghanistan from the Middle Ages into the modern age. After 20 years and spending trillions of USD, Trump decided to call a halt, and withdraw. Trump did this to improve his election chances, and that was that, had he not been elected, maybe a different President would not have withdrawn. But just for arguments sake, just how long do you think that course (your description) should have been? Another 10, 20 or 30 years? And why?

As it was, Trump had been negotiating with the Taliban for 2+ years, before they signed a handover and withdrawal agreement. From this date, a gradual handover and incorporation of the Taliban into the existing elected Afghanistan government was to take place, and only after this was achieved, would the Americans start a gradual phased withdrawal, which would have taken anything from 6 mths to one year. But what actually happened? Despite all the training and preparation for the handover, the Afghan army (with few exceptions) surrendered to the Taliban. They handed power over to the Taliban within a few days, and they simply reverted to Afghan Tribal governance, the same system they had been using for centuries, IE Loya Jirga. But this collapse of the Afghan forces, meant that there could not be the orderly withdrawal that had been planned. With the Taliban in complete charge, and the Afghan Government fleeing, the US had to do an emergency evacuation. And that's how and why it was so disorganized, but don't blame that on the US, blame it on Afghan Tribal politics. And neither did the US betray the Afghans, as you suggest, that was also on Tribal Politics. The best 20 years Afghanistan ever had, was while the Americans were there. And if by some twist of fortune, if the US were to return to Afghanistan, they would be welcomed with open arms by the Afghans.

(1) " The US should have been negotiating with the elected government of Aghanistan and not with the Taliban."

The US had been negotiating with the democratically elected Afghan Government for the 20 years they were there. It was the US Govt who organized the first Loya Jirga so that Afghans could rule themselves. For 20 years, they financed the State of Afghanistan, everything, the civil service, the Military, the Health Service's, reconstruction of roads, bridges, airports, hospitals etc. Everything in fact. In 20 years, they completely transformed Afghanistan. Before they came, Afghanistan was a time machine, step into the countryside, and step back in time, hundreds of years, where cows were used to till the land, pulling wooden plows, and donkeys were used to carry sacks of wheat to the water wheel driven to be ground into flour. Most of the countryside did not even have proper roads, just semi-desert track's, in some cases, just dried up river beds. For any kind of road trip, you needed 4 Landcruisers,2 loaded with spare wheels and leaf springs, and lots of workshop equipment plus a team of mechanics.

(2) "If the US decided to cut and run it should have been done in public and the terms of US support should have been public and either approved in an Afghan general election or rejected."

Just who do you think were involved in the negotiations with the Taliban? Only the US? These talks went on for several years before they started to reach any kind of agreements that allow the Taliban back in Afghanistan. And the outcome of these talks were agreed with the Afghan Government. How else could they have been signed and passed? The amount of publicity was at the discretion of the Afghan Govt. To hold an election based on the agreement, was also at the discretion of the Afghans, not the US.

(3) "As for how long -as long as it would have taken and was possible.*

For 20 years, the US financed Afghanistan, from top to bottom. They spent that time and money, educating and training Afghans to run their own affairs, including security. For years they had been using Afghan military to secure the Cities, Towns and Villages, with less and less US presence. In the months before the handover, most US troops had left, with only a skeleton crew remaining. They were confident that the Afghan military were capable of securing the Country, after all they were equipped with the best weapons and vehicles. So according to the plan, in the time frame, an orderly planned withdrawal was possible. But in reality, the Govt and military collapsed, and aside from some isolated pockets of resistance by Afghan special forces, the Taliban got a walk over. The rest as they say, is history.

(4) Yes this is on Trump but Biden seems to have been happy with it and the policy was popular in the population.

You seem to forget that Trump signed this into Law, and that Law was binding on Biden. Just like Laws signed now by Biden will be binding on the next Govt as well.

Now, had the US stayed in Afghanistan for another 20 years, can you guarantee that there would have been a different outcome?