Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2
Discussion
pingu393 said:
CrutyRammers said:
The ukr government saying very clearly that their aim is a return of all their territory to how it was in 1991, and there is no negotiating with Russia while they still aim to take more territory. Obviously people take positions harder than they expect, but there is clearly no mood to compromise right now.
They forgot to mention..."and all our nuclear weapons returned"
NATO: okaaaaaaaaaaay.
Ridgemont said:
pingu393 said:
CrutyRammers said:
The ukr government saying very clearly that their aim is a return of all their territory to how it was in 1991, and there is no negotiating with Russia while they still aim to take more territory. Obviously people take positions harder than they expect, but there is clearly no mood to compromise right now.
They forgot to mention..."and all our nuclear weapons returned"
EddieSteadyGo said:
craigjm said:
jtremlett said:
hatever happens, Russia has laid waste to large parts of Ukraine and committed untold war crimes. There should be no question they should end up with a whole lot less than they started with.
I guess the problem is how does Russia sell that as a success. I’m not convinced they will be willing to be put into a position where they will basically have to admit they have been defeated. It’s hard to see a way out without Putin kicking the bucket. In terms of territory, whilst it isn't popular to say, I've posted previously I thought any agreement will eventually involve some concessions on the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. In reality, if Putin had narrowed his ambitions to just those two areas, there likely wouldn't even be a war right now.
But as it stands, with the lend lease programme now being approved, Zelensky is (rightly) likely to conclude now is a bad time to compromise. The relative strength of the UA should start to improve over the next few weeks, which should give a better negotiating position in the future, assuming it doesn't suffer any major defeats between now and then.
The problem for Putin is, if he was just fighting Ukraine, he might be inclined to just annex all of the territory they currently occupy (as per the ISW analysis from last week). However, that is likely to result in his foreign reserves being locked out of his reach in perpetuity and probably the most damaging sanctions remaining in place. Which means any eventual deal does need to take account of the US willingness to accept any deal, as Putin needs not just an agreement with Ukraine, but an agreement with the US to get their reserves back under Russian control, and some kind of agreement on the tapering of sanctions.
So in addition to the human tragedy of the war, Putin has got himself into an unwinnable game of 4d chess.
jtremlett said:
agree with what you say but isn't your second sentence the key? That since Putin controls the narrative in Russia, he can claim anything as a success. He appears to have got away with the withdrawal from Kiev by saying they didn't really mean to take it anyway. It is very to see the end game beyond the continuing death and destruction. Even if Russia takes more territory they would have to commit something near what they currently have in Ukraine to keep it going forward. That can't be sustainable can it?
If I was Putin (and bearing in mind I know nothing about military tactics), I would concentrate all my military efforts on the Donbas and very little else. I wouldn't bother trying to take ground, just holding it would be sufficient. And I would wait until winter and gamble that the pressure from fuel prices, inflation, cost of living, sanction fatigue and possibly some other world event which captures public attention, would weaken US resolve, to the extent that it would be far more than just NYT saying Ukraine should be "sensible".We also know France and Germany are already desperate for a deal, and they ultimately directly influence EU policy. So, by the winter, they will be clamouring for any kind of deal, regardless of principles of sovereignty and fairness.
So I think Putin needs to wait for the circumstances to change before he can find a way out.
I’m not sure Putin really wants the extra territory.
The Russians have essentially turned cities and towns and villages to total rubble. As we’ve seen in the press and from what we’re told is Hell it’s all gone.
Given that the (?) millions of people who lived there and own properties and land return to total destruction. Is Russia proposing to rebuild all those areas at the cost of the rest of Russia? Isn’t it also riddled with mines so until they cleared all of that the arable land is out of action.
Could Russia even be able to afford to rebuild these areas?
The Russians have essentially turned cities and towns and villages to total rubble. As we’ve seen in the press and from what we’re told is Hell it’s all gone.
Given that the (?) millions of people who lived there and own properties and land return to total destruction. Is Russia proposing to rebuild all those areas at the cost of the rest of Russia? Isn’t it also riddled with mines so until they cleared all of that the arable land is out of action.
Could Russia even be able to afford to rebuild these areas?
CrutyRammers said:
The ukr government saying very clearly that their aim is a return of all their territory to how it was in 1991, and there is no negotiating with Russia while they still aim to take more territory. Obviously people take positions harder than they expect, but there is clearly no mood to compromise right now.
Which is absolutely what they should say but that includes getting Crimea back which from what I have read would be extremely difficult. Ultimately Ukraine’s can say what it wants but if Zelensky gets told by the US and the other major countries supporting UKR that they will start reducing arms shipments he can’t really do anything except negotiate. The German’s intransigence is amazing to me. They of all countries want this conflict over….if they actually supplied meaningful weaponry then things might really tilt in UKR’s favour.
Welshbeef said:
saaby93 said:
Maybe Russia just wants a demarcation zone with nothing in it
You mean where the vast majority of the population was Russian people? Destroy all their houses lives and things they own? Dthat makes no sense. Or ukrainians that are russian speaking?
Ridgemont said:
Well it appears that someone in Washington (‘hello Mr Kissinger is that you?’) is pushing for a row back in terms of the strength of support for the Ukranians:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/05/22/...
It seems the NYT has an article in it from the paper’s editorial board arguing that Ukraine’s expectations about rolling back to 2014 and not conceding some sovereignty as per Minsk (ie the Donbas) is unreasonable and that the US gov ought to be pushing for Zelensky to get real…
I can’t see the article on their heavily paywalled site but apparently it has kicked off a real stink in Kyiv.
There was a similar one in the Atlantic, and it came across as being very patronising and Majpr Powers Sitting Around a Table handing out crumbs vibe, as if it was 1860 or something.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/05/22/...
It seems the NYT has an article in it from the paper’s editorial board arguing that Ukraine’s expectations about rolling back to 2014 and not conceding some sovereignty as per Minsk (ie the Donbas) is unreasonable and that the US gov ought to be pushing for Zelensky to get real…
I can’t see the article on their heavily paywalled site but apparently it has kicked off a real stink in Kyiv.
Not once did it bother to consider what Ukrainians want.
This is an interview with a guy who interacted with his Russian occupiers. They are genuinely 3rd world. The girl doing the interview is a local who has set up a youtube channel and is acting as a type of travel guide around the Irpin area.
I thought they just s
t in the houses as a "we were here" type statement, but it turns out that they really wanted to st outside and were scared of the locals. They have no understanding of how a toilet works.
EddieSteadyGo said:
jtremlett said:
agree with what you say but isn't your second sentence the key? That since Putin controls the narrative in Russia, he can claim anything as a success. He appears to have got away with the withdrawal from Kiev by saying they didn't really mean to take it anyway. It is very to see the end game beyond the continuing death and destruction. Even if Russia takes more territory they would have to commit something near what they currently have in Ukraine to keep it going forward. That can't be sustainable can it?
If I was Putin (and bearing in mind I know nothing about military tactics), I would concentrate all my military efforts on the Donbas and very little else. I wouldn't bother trying to take ground, just holding it would be sufficient. And I would wait until winter and gamble that the pressure from fuel prices, inflation, cost of living, sanction fatigue and possibly some other world event which captures public attention, would weaken US resolve, to the extent that it would be far more than just NYT saying Ukraine should be "sensible".We also know France and Germany are already desperate for a deal, and they ultimately directly influence EU policy. So, by the winter, they will be clamouring for any kind of deal, regardless of principles of sovereignty and fairness.
So I think Putin needs to wait for the circumstances to change before he can find a way out.
Cheib said:
The German’s intransigence is amazing to me. They of all countries want this conflict over….if they actually supplied meaningful weaponry then things might really tilt in UKR’s favour.
What do you think the germans have as 'meaningful weaponry' that could be supplied that would tilt things in Ukraine's favour that the US or even the UK that has had far greater military spending for years isn't already supplying or looking to be supplying?EddieSteadyGo said:
If I was Putin (and bearing in mind I know nothing about military tactics), I would concentrate all my military efforts on the Donbas and very little else. I wouldn't bother trying to take ground, just holding it would be sufficient. And I would wait until winter and gamble that the pressure from fuel prices, inflation, cost of living, sanction fatigue and possibly some other world event which captures public attention, would weaken US resolve, to the extent that it would be far more than just NYT saying Ukraine should be "sensible".
We also know France and Germany are already desperate for a deal, and they ultimately directly influence EU policy. So, by the winter, they will be clamouring for any kind of deal, regardless of principles of sovereignty and fairness.
So I think Putin needs to wait for the circumstances to change before he can find a way out.
They are already committing 50% of all the equipment into the east of Ukraine. The high water mark was in April because they did not need to ask someone else to move it. Meanwhile the Ukrainians were the ones waiting on their Amazon delivery. We also know France and Germany are already desperate for a deal, and they ultimately directly influence EU policy. So, by the winter, they will be clamouring for any kind of deal, regardless of principles of sovereignty and fairness.
So I think Putin needs to wait for the circumstances to change before he can find a way out.
The Ukrainians now have the equipment and will be compromised by having to advance. But they have a longer range artillery and as long as they can stop the drones of the Russians pin pointing their location they will be taking out the Russians systematically.
I expect they will maintain the heat in Donbas and then over the next few weeks seek to push the Southern flank towards Crimea as the Russians retreat to the natural border of the Deniper River.
At some point they should blow the Kersh Bridge which cuts off the supply to this southern coast. The Russians are then left deciding on reinforcing the southern coast/crimea or Donbas.
Germany and France are not going to be the ones deciding who goes what and where as they have tried the soft option and this has made it worse . Russia might have had traction if they had not committed the Bucha atrocities. They are getting a second chance with the Azov prisoners of war transfer as many will want to say that the Russians are playing by the rules. If they disappear then so will Russian chances of sympathy.
As for this Winter in Europe, that is for each country to resolve.
sisu said:
They are already committing 50% of all the equipment into the east of Ukraine. The high water mark was in April because they did not need to ask someone else to move it. Meanwhile the Ukrainians were the ones waiting on their Amazon delivery.
The Ukrainians now have the equipment and will be compromised by having to advance. But they have a longer range artillery and as long as they can stop the drones of the Russians pin pointing their location they will be taking out the Russians systematically.
I expect they will maintain the heat in Donbas and then over the next few weeks seek to push the Southern flank towards Crimea as the Russians retreat to the natural border of the Deniper River.
At some point they should blow the Kersh Bridge which cuts off the supply to this southern coast. The Russians are then left deciding on reinforcing the southern coast/crimea or Donbas.
Germany and France are not going to be the ones deciding who goes what and where as they have tried the soft option and this has made it worse . Russia might have had traction if they had not committed the Bucha atrocities. They are getting a second chance with the Azov prisoners of war transfer as many will want to say that the Russians are playing by the rules. If they disappear then so will Russian chances of sympathy.
As for this Winter in Europe, that is for each country to resolve.
....and Ukraine are going to have artillery shells that can penetrate bunkers from outside the range of Russia artillery.The Ukrainians now have the equipment and will be compromised by having to advance. But they have a longer range artillery and as long as they can stop the drones of the Russians pin pointing their location they will be taking out the Russians systematically.
I expect they will maintain the heat in Donbas and then over the next few weeks seek to push the Southern flank towards Crimea as the Russians retreat to the natural border of the Deniper River.
At some point they should blow the Kersh Bridge which cuts off the supply to this southern coast. The Russians are then left deciding on reinforcing the southern coast/crimea or Donbas.
Germany and France are not going to be the ones deciding who goes what and where as they have tried the soft option and this has made it worse . Russia might have had traction if they had not committed the Bucha atrocities. They are getting a second chance with the Azov prisoners of war transfer as many will want to say that the Russians are playing by the rules. If they disappear then so will Russian chances of sympathy.
As for this Winter in Europe, that is for each country to resolve.
Who knows, maybe Ukraine can make Russians flee from defensive positions without even risking a conventional attack. Also the Russian are going to have to use troops to manage the area they have taken, they can't commit everyone to the fight. It's entirely possible Russian simply can't hold the land they already have. ...are they going to commit billions to rebuilding land they tentatively hold?
We don't know how this will play out but Russia are in a precarious situation. The whole plan hinged on taking control of the government of Ukraine and they failed to do that.
Final thought, the USA might lose interest (although support from a less interested USA is still worth having) but Europe can't. If Ukraine falls, even the South of Ukraine, then what's next? Poland? Also Nukes. Can we allow a nation that threatens to use nukes on a whim any more resource and power? From a pure self interest POV Europe will reduce our dependency on Russian energy and continue to support Ukraine. The option of letting Putin have a win and hope everything goes back to normal isn't a viable one.
We give too much weight to the idea of Germany and France being slackers in all this. Short term they may be in a bind, long term they will be as committed as anyone to keeping themselves safe from Russia. (Perhaps more so since they're suffering most from reliance on Russian Energy.)
My 2p worth.
vonuber said:
Ridgemont said:
Well it appears that someone in Washington (‘hello Mr Kissinger is that you?’) is pushing for a row back in terms of the strength of support for the Ukranians:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/05/22/...
It seems the NYT has an article in it from the paper’s editorial board arguing that Ukraine’s expectations about rolling back to 2014 and not conceding some sovereignty as per Minsk (ie the Donbas) is unreasonable and that the US gov ought to be pushing for Zelensky to get real…
I can’t see the article on their heavily paywalled site but apparently it has kicked off a real stink in Kyiv.
There was a similar one in the Atlantic, and it came across as being very patronising and Majpr Powers Sitting Around a Table handing out crumbs vibe, as if it was 1860 or something.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/05/22/...
It seems the NYT has an article in it from the paper’s editorial board arguing that Ukraine’s expectations about rolling back to 2014 and not conceding some sovereignty as per Minsk (ie the Donbas) is unreasonable and that the US gov ought to be pushing for Zelensky to get real…
I can’t see the article on their heavily paywalled site but apparently it has kicked off a real stink in Kyiv.
Not once did it bother to consider what Ukrainians want.
Russia has been shown up as not Premier League, not even second division, more like Scottish Highland league hanger on, who have a signing of a has been star name supposedly once turned out for Real Madrid, but who is injured, probably. Rest are a motley crew of hung over plumbers and IT bods who turn out on a Saturday and regularly miss training.
Having said that it is reasonable to consider what if this just drags on, several years and is a stalemate grind.
EddieSteadyGo said:
jtremlett said:
agree with what you say but isn't your second sentence the key? That since Putin controls the narrative in Russia, he can claim anything as a success. He appears to have got away with the withdrawal from Kiev by saying they didn't really mean to take it anyway. It is very to see the end game beyond the continuing death and destruction. Even if Russia takes more territory they would have to commit something near what they currently have in Ukraine to keep it going forward. That can't be sustainable can it?
If I was Putin (and bearing in mind I know nothing about military tactics), I would concentrate all my military efforts on the Donbas and very little else. I wouldn't bother trying to take ground, just holding it would be sufficient. And I would wait until winter and gamble that the pressure from fuel prices, inflation, cost of living, sanction fatigue and possibly some other world event which captures public attention, would weaken US resolve, to the extent that it would be far more than just NYT saying Ukraine should be "sensible".We also know France and Germany are already desperate for a deal, and they ultimately directly influence EU policy. So, by the winter, they will be clamouring for any kind of deal, regardless of principles of sovereignty and fairness.
So I think Putin needs to wait for the circumstances to change before he can find a way out.
98elise said:
saaby93 said:
Maybe Russia just wants a demarcation zone with nothing in it
They can have that in Russia.He won't care a rats ass about the west.
We need to stop applying a western mindset to another culture/political system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff