Replies

I posted the below question on the last “update” thread, but that thread had pretty well run out of steam, so, here goes, again:

This thread seems as good a place as any to ask a question of various posters (does not include hateful posters on either side, because I already know what they would say.)

Would you object to the USA providing directly to Ukraine from here on out only physical (not money) humanitarian aid and older weapons we would otherwise scrap or replace in coming(5?) years? None to be provided that would be particularly needed in event of a war with China (given that said war would likely be an air / sea affair.) If needing refurbishment or upgrades, other parties will be responsible at their cost, but can purchase services and/or parts from the US. 200 mile maximum range for missiles. Ukraine must agree to no strikes more than 70 miles inside Russia’s 2013 borders, and they must be on military or relevant logistics targets.

In addition, excess newer production / weapons and excess weapons in general may be purchased by NATO allies as usual at present*, and may be transferred to Ukraine at said allies’ discretion.* Again, 200 mile maximum range for missiles if transferred to Ukraine. Ukraine must agree to no strikes more than 70 miles inside Russia’s 2013 borders, and they must be on military or relevant logistics targets.

The idea here would be to save the sometimes considerable scrapping costs of the 1st category. Money from weapons sales (yes, I realize $$ from sales of new production go mostly to the manufacturers) and taxes on those could help fund the adoption and stocking of newer, better weapons. There should also be savings through scale of production of the second category. Some of the money taken in could help fund the humanitarian aid. These sales would also benefit our trade balance and economy in general.

*All normal cautions & restrictions stay in place, such as the reasons (mostly technologies’ protection) we did not sell F-35’s to Turkey. The latest and greatest would be limited to only replace older systems our allies have, not be sent to Ukraine.

I realize that in practice our NATO allies would not be happy, but, A) The Euros have recently committed a large block of funds to aiding Ukraine in coming years, so monies from those funds should be available, and, B) We could offer easy financing to stable NATO allies. C) Europe bears considerable responsibility for not listening to Trump years ago!

One will note here that I am quite bullish on the power of potential profits to entice our MIC to produce sufficient weapons quantities, and I am quite bullish on the depth of US older weapons stockpiles in most categories and types. (I researched.) And finally, the forecasts of other allied countries weapons makers, even if whittled back for being too optimistic, indicate rapid production capacities increases (a double edge sword for sure.) So, this is not likely a program needed for an extended time unless Russia is stupid enough to significantly attack a NATO country and then THAT drags out, a possibility I regard as unlikely, but, yes, possible.

The above surely needs fine tuning, but that’s the gist of it.

I don’t think our gov’t is smart enough to do this, at least not until 2025, but that’s a different matter. The idea is to reduce costs to the US taxpayer during this war, without showing yet another instance of weakness our external enemies (not just Russia!!!) are sure to exploit in the future.

I am for private humanitarian aid only. I give to Samaritans purse for that.

As for the settlement of this conflict. Those regions taken are ethnic Russian primarily. Thing to do is get a cease fire, if that is possible anymore, and see if the present in line actual Tsar would become the head of those states that are split off. He rules as a constitutional monarch.
The trick is to get the cease fire. Then get him installed and then who the hell would become the military police to enforce the peace between these? Hungary? Austria?
The slavic peoples are incapable of an independent elected leader. They’ve never actually had one that can be claimed as a leader who is not corrupt.
The Tsar in waiting is supported and recognized by the Eastern Orthodox churches...Ukrainian and Russian especially.
The damage in the split off areas of the old Ukraine regions get paid for by Russia. The rest by European NATO countries.
Crimea stays with Russia.

END THIS WAR NOW.

My thoughts:

Takes a few moments to address accurately. I do believe we, as well as other NATO nations, are already providing humanitarian aid and re-furbished older weapons.

Your idea for production for future weaponry and taxes on these military supplies to help fund the adoption and stocking of newer, better weapons is excellent. However, only if money is delegated to military & kept out of the hands of politicians: thinking Social Security.

I agree, military supply sales would benefit our trade balance and economy in general.

I totally agree with this stimulus of potential profits to entice our MIC to produce & update weapons. Currently, some of your suggestions may be occurring to a lessor degree. I agree HOPEFULLY such a military program will not be needed for an extended time. But, strengthening our military does promote peace over having a degraded, weak military weaponry.

Thanks for asking civil questions.

Would you object to the USA providing directly to Ukraine from here on out only physical (not money) humanitarian aid and older weapons we would otherwise scrap or replace in coming(5?) years?

No, but I'd caution that doing it leaves a bunch of long term questions unresolved, and it'd cause the USA some reputational damage.

Ukraine didn't get "muscled" by Nuland and co. Poroshenko, then Zelensky, invoked the Budapest Memorandum. As much as the Russkies here don't like it pointed out to them, the Memorandum was signed by an independent Russia, an independent United Kingdom, and an independent USA. It's as close as the world could ever get to a binding non-aggression treaty... And Russia totally violated every clause except one by systematically trying to take Ukraine over - first by attempting an assassination on Yuschenko to get their puppet Yanukovych a win by default, then by blackmailing Ukraine from 2008 to Winter 2013, then by getting Yanukovych to violate his constitutional oath of office on December 17th 2013. And when ALL OF THAT FAILED, they resorted to military offensive.

If Britain and the USA didn't uphold their signatures on that bargain, after Russia totally violated their end, then the entire post-WW2 concept of collective defense goes the way of the dodo. The precedent would mean, China invading Taiwan would be without consequences, Russia invading the Baltic states would be without consequences.

Have you read Russia's demands to NATO from December 2021 that were repeated when the peace negotiations in 2022 NEARLY came to an agreement? What you're pitching is exactly what Putin and the Kremlin pitched. In effect, "NATO must let us invade anyone we like, and ask our permission before even doing training exercises, and if you don't agree to that then we'll invade Ukraine."

Ukraine must agree to no strikes more than 70 miles inside Russia’s 2013 borders, and they must be on military or relevant logistics targets.

They already are. Apart from the tiny fireworks that hit some apartment roofs in Moscow, and that very obviously staged one at the Kremlin, can you name a single incident of Ukraine bombing a theater full of sheltering kids? Or any maternity hospitals?

I've got friends and colleagues in Khmelnytskyi (which is hundreds of miles from the front lines), who've lost their homes due to Russian rockets.

The idea that Ukraine, while facing off a military invasion, needs to officiously avoid hitting a single civilian in the country that's invading it, EVEN INSIDE UKRAINE'S OWN BORDERS, while that country's spent almost eighteen months deliberately attacking civilian population centers, is just a ridiculous Revanchist troll position - especially because Ukraine's never done that before the SMO and even now still isn't doing it.

Ukraine has the moral and international legal right to wipe the Russian invaders off its internal map. That includes all of Donbas, the four fake annexations. The one concession I'd probably grant you is Crimea had too many ex-pat Russians living there before the SMO for Ukraine to reasonably accuse them all of being part of the invading force, but as far as I'm concerned Ukraine can run combine harvesters over every last frickin' Russkie in south Ukraine - they whole darned lot of them are complicit in the invasion and if they really do want to live under the Russia n yoke that much they can always piss off back over the 1991 border between Ukraine and Russia.

I realize that in practice our NATO allies would not be happy, but, A) The Euros have recently committed a large block of funds to aiding Ukraine in coming years, so monies from those funds should be available, and, B) We could offer easy financing to stable NATO allies. C) Europe bears considerable responsibility for not listening to Trump years ago!

I cannot disagree with a single word there, but you do need to distinguish between two things. EU-NATO needs to take the lead on this, absolutely - and the USA should step away from any conflicts between Europe and Russia. Ideally, demote itself to EU-NATO Partner. But, and here's the big but, as long as the USA has got NATO Article 5 security assurances AND the USA remains the only country that's ever invoked Article 5 AND you want the world to respect your signature on a treaty, you can't break the Budapest Memorandum on the basis of nickle-and-diming your way out of obligations you signed up to AND expect other countries to honor when it's YOU doing the asking.