[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Eric the meek]

I didn't find Sean Bell's view unreasonable. He framed his reply with the potential of the West's reducing its supply of weapons because of economic issues (we'll see) and also the possibility that Ukraine loses too many troops to sustain a long term counteroffensive. So, he wasn't saying Ukraine would lose its desire to keep fighting a counteroffensive but possibly its ability to...at some point.

Indeed.

I do realise that a line on a map, or some kind of armistice, isn't what some of us (or many of us) want to hear. I would love to see Ukraine win a total victory, not least because of yourself, Peter Ward and your respective Ukrainian families.

But clinging resolutely on to the idea of regaining every square inch of territory may not be possible, or even desirable, if the trade off is for Ukraine gaining accession to the EU and securing its long term security under the NATO umbrella. Big picture and all that.

 

[raymondo]

Indeed.

I do realise that a line on a map, or some kind of armistice, isn't what some of us (or many of us) want to hear. I would love to see Ukraine win a total victory, not least because of yourself, Peter Ward and your respective Ukrainian families.

But clinging resolutely on to the idea of regaining every square inch of territory may not be possible, or even desirable, if the trade off is for Ukraine gaining accession to the EU and securing its long term security under the NATO umbrella. Big picture and all that.

Yes, and I think Bell was also fairly balanced about it. Yep, not what many of us want to hear or to transpire, but it's going to be talked about as a potential outcome...and journos will increasingly ask such questions.
And thanks for your consistent support - much appreciated (there are at least two others here with Ukrainian family members also).

 

[driddles]

Decent, basic, analysis of where Ukraine is in regards to behind or on schedule with their strategy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-04/war-russia-is-ukraine-military-strategy-on-track/102554712

 

[peterward]

He might be saying Crimea as meaning the whole lot. It was noticeable that the Donbas wasn't included though.

I don't know where he gets the information from. Perhaps he is speculating. I'm not sure he gets - or communicates - the idea that Ukraine will want to stop fighting.
What he does say, is he agrees with William Hague, when he says the longer the war goes on, the greater the risk to international peace.

I sense the mood is shifting.

He mentions repeatedly the 1991 borders which is everything.

On the other point though, I have sensed for a long while (and hope to be proven wrong) that for all their public backing and "with you for as long as it takes hubris" the US, whilst doing a lot is deliberately withholding what Ukraine needs to win.

Yes they've ensured that Russia doesn't win the lot, but imho they're merely giving Ukraine the capability not to be defeated, rather than to be decisively victorious.

Still after all the public proclamations over a month ago about training for Ukrainan pilots on F16, there's not even a single US course yet planned, never mind started. Ukraine badgers and gets nothing back, they've pleaded for ATACMS (see previous for acronym!) US has loads but won't give.

Yesterday Sholz was asked about giving German Taurus cruise missiles similar to the storm shadow we supply and he sounded like old Scholz again. "We won't supply anything that could be used to strike Russia to avoid escalation" even though Ukraine have storm shadow and haven't hit Russia.

I genuinely believe that Jake Sullivan whose a naturally self detering perssimist is running the show on US policy as Biden is away with the fairies, and even though its never said, theyre trying to engineer a stalemate where negotiated settlement is only option.

Zelensky wants Crimea back, Crimea means a lot to Russia and the US knows it, thus heel dragging and no ATACMS, which could hit all if Crimea and quickly change course of war.

I'm convinced they're shit sacred of a Russian collapse and the instability that may cause, with the question of control of nukes, which is a very real possibility if they armed Ukraine to win and they actually won. Then Russian implosion/collapse is a potential option. So to try and avoid it, they deliberately withhold what Ukraine needs to win and liberate its territory.


Right now with no air support, no advanced fighter jets, no long range command/control attack capability (all within US inventory) Ukraine is being asked to do what no other army has done and fight on offensive with one arm tied behind its back. NATO combined arms ops doctirine would never launch a counter offensive without long range strike and air support. Ukraine has been given no choice.

I hope to be proven wrong, but the politics isn't in alignment with rhetoric or battlefield needs.

 

[driddles]

A bit heavy of an analysis there PeterWard - without the US Ukraine would already be completely defeated.

The F16's can't just magically show up, they need pilots, they need support staff of around 100 people including maintenance crew per . Then they need parts and a safe place to store them. And ultimately we don't know if some of this training has already begun, and we don't need to know (many posts on Reddit have hinted training was underway, nothing reputable that I have found though). Why on earth would they give a heads up to russia that they are close to having them in the air?

Newsweek hinted that Ukraine needs 100 F16s to win the war, there's no way the US is just sending 100 F16's without taking the time to do it right. Ultimately they have to think about more than Ukraine, they need to think about how the US people will perceive the move, how will China look at it, etc.. We'd all love this to be over today, but it won't be.

 

[Triggaaar]

I reckon millions of Russians are unaware. Why would he bother otherwise?

Yes I'm sure it's not such common knowledge in Russia, but they're lied to about everything.

It's like that quote on everything else regarding Russia, that goes something like: They're lying. We know they're lying. They know we know they're lying. (a couple more of those later and...) yet still they lie.

I think it was assumed to be a double at the recent victory day parade.

 

[Triggaaar]

Indeed.

I do realise that a line on a map, or some kind of armistice, isn't what some of us (or many of us) want to hear. I would love to see Ukraine win a total victory, not least because of yourself, Peter Ward and your respective Ukrainian families.

Whilst I would want a total Ukrainian victory, it's obviously not about what I (or the rest of you) want, but about what Ukraine wants. And they want a total victory. But if they decide that they want peace, that's fine by me, it's their choice.

But it appears that Russia's main goal right now (given that they're not capable of beating Ukraine on the field) is to persuade the world that there's an alternative to a total victory for Ukraine. Which means that anyone suggesting that Western support could reduce, or that Ukraine could at some point negotiate to give away their land, is essentially doing Russia's job for them. Particularly given that we've seen absolutely no evidence to support either possibility. The West are still making new promises for training and equipment well into the future, and Ukraine are currently on the offensive.

 

[sparkie]

Indeed.

I do realise that a line on a map, or some kind of armistice, isn't what some of us (or many of us) want to hear. I would love to see Ukraine win a total victory, not least because of yourself, Peter Ward and your respective Ukrainian families.

But clinging resolutely on to the idea of regaining every square inch of territory may not be possible, or even desirable, if the trade off is for Ukraine gaining accession to the EU and securing its long term security under the NATO umbrella. Big picture and all that.

Indeed. My thoughts are that where the line on the map is finally drawn separating Russia from Ukraine in Donbas is probably less of a priority than recapturing all of Crimea.

Continuing to fight over where the line is drawn on the wasteland may have less and less appeal the more war weary the population gets. EU and NATO membership at the cost of a line 20km further east may be a trade off.

 

[peterward]

Whilst I would want a total Ukrainian victory, it's obviously not about what I (or the rest of you) want, but about what Ukraine wants. And they want a total victory. But if they decide that they want peace, that's fine by me, it's their choice.

But it appears that Russia's main goal right now (given that they're not capable of beating Ukraine on the field) is to persuade the world that there's an alternative to a total victory for Ukraine. Which means that anyone suggesting that Western support could reduce, or that Ukraine could at some point negotiate to give away their land, is essentially doing Russia's job for them. Particularly given that we've seen absolutely no evidence to support either possibility. The West are still making new promises for training and equipment well into the future, and Ukraine are currently on the offensive.

You're right, it is their decision alone

But personally knowing Ukrainians after all that's happened, I believe they'd sooner fight with sticks and stones if western support stopped rather than be subjugated by or give in to Russia.

There is simply no peace with Russians on Ukrainain soil in Ukrainian eyes.

 

[A1X]

A bit heavy of an analysis there PeterWard - without the US Ukraine would already be completely defeated.

The F16's can't just magically show up, they need pilots, they need support staff of around 100 people including maintenance crew per . Then they need parts and a safe place to store them. And ultimately we don't know if some of this training has already begun, and we don't need to know (many posts on Reddit have hinted training was underway, nothing reputable that I have found though). Why on earth would they give a heads up to russia that they are close to having them in the air?

Newsweek hinted that Ukraine needs 100 F16s to win the war, there's no way the US is just sending 100 F16's without taking the time to do it right. Ultimately they have to think about more than Ukraine, they need to think about how the US people will perceive the move, how will China look at it, etc.. We'd all love this to be over today, but it won't be.

I agree with this. I think a lot of people are guilty of thinking about it as if it were 1942. Put more guns, tanks and planes there and instant gratification occurs. But it’s not that simple, modern war technology is complicated with a long logistics tail.

 

[Triggaaar]

Indeed. My thoughts are that where the line on the map is finally drawn separating Russia from Ukraine in Donbas is probably less of a priority than recapturing all of Crimea.

Continuing to fight over where the line is drawn on the wasteland may have less and less appeal the more war weary the population gets. EU and NATO membership at the cost of a line 20km further east may be a trade off.

While fighting over 20km of wasteland may seem pointless, the same will be true from Russia's point of view. It's difficult to see them wanting to continue the war if that's where they get to.

 

[Eric the meek]

On the other point though, I have sensed for a long while (and hope to be proven wrong) that for all their public backing and "with you for as long as it takes hubris" the US, whilst doing a lot is deliberately withholding what Ukraine needs to win.

Yes they've ensured that Russia doesn't win the lot, but imho they're merely giving Ukraine the capability not to be defeated, rather than to be decisively victorious.

I think you are right.

I remember writing along similar lines much earlier in the war. Without finding the post, I wrote something like 'the Pentagon has got Russia right where it wants it - draining it of money, resources, troops, morale, friends, reputation, trading partners etc. All without putting boots on the ground.

The longer the war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.

 

[peterward]

A bit heavy of an analysis there PeterWard - without the US Ukraine would already be completely defeated.

The F16's can't just magically show up, they need pilots, they need support staff of around 100 people including maintenance crew per . Then they need parts and a safe place to store them. And ultimately we don't know if some of this training has already begun, and we don't need to know (many posts on Reddit have hinted training was underway, nothing reputable that I have found though). Why on earth would they give a heads up to russia that they are close to having them in the air?

Newsweek hinted that Ukraine needs 100 F16s to win the war, there's no way the US is just sending 100 F16's without taking the time to do it right. Ultimately they have to think about more than Ukraine, they need to think about how the US people will perceive the move, how will China look at it, etc.. We'd all love this to be over today, but it won't be.

 

[raymondo]

Decent, basic, analysis of where Ukraine is in regards to behind or on schedule with their strategy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-04/war-russia-is-ukraine-military-strategy-on-track/102554712

Interesting article, thanks

 

[raymondo]

Hmmm...ok, except he doesn't know the counteroffensive timeline (not sure anybody does).

 

[raymondo]

He mentions repeatedly the 1991 borders which is everything.

On the other point though, I have sensed for a long while (and hope to be proven wrong) that for all their public backing and "with you for as long as it takes hubris" the US, whilst doing a lot is deliberately withholding what Ukraine needs to win.

Yes they've ensured that Russia doesn't win the lot, but imho they're merely giving Ukraine the capability not to be defeated, rather than to be decisively victorious.

Still after all the public proclamations over a month ago about training for Ukrainan pilots on F16, there's not even a single US course yet planned, never mind started. Ukraine badgers and gets nothing back, they've pleaded for ATACMS (see previous for acronym!) US has loads but won't give.

Yesterday Sholz was asked about giving German Taurus cruise missiles similar to the storm shadow we supply and he sounded like old Scholz again. "We won't supply anything that could be used to strike Russia to avoid escalation" even though Ukraine have storm shadow and haven't hit Russia.

I genuinely believe that Jake Sullivan whose a naturally self detering perssimist is running the show on US policy as Biden is away with the fairies, and even though its never said, theyre trying to engineer a stalemate where negotiated settlement is only option.

Zelensky wants Crimea back, Crimea means a lot to Russia and the US knows it, thus heel dragging and no ATACMS, which could hit all if Crimea and quickly change course of war.

I'm convinced they're shit sacred of a Russian collapse and the instability that may cause, with the question of control of nukes, which is a very real possibility if they armed Ukraine to win and they actually won. Then Russian implosion/collapse is a potential option. So to try and avoid it, they deliberately withhold what Ukraine needs to win and liberate its territory.


Right now with no air support, no advanced fighter jets, no long range command/control attack capability (all within US inventory) Ukraine is being asked to do what no other army has done and fight on offensive with one arm tied behind its back. NATO combined arms ops doctirine would never launch a counter offensive without long range strike and air support. Ukraine has been given no choice.

I hope to be proven wrong, but the politics isn't in alignment with rhetoric or battlefield needs.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I also think the US is seriously concerned about an implosion of Russia (they are used to dealing with Russia as it currently is).

 

[peterward]

I agree with this. I think a lot of people are guilty of thinking about it as if it were 1942. Put more guns, tanks and planes there and instant gratification occurs. But it’s not that simple, modern war technology is complicated with a long logistics tail.

I don't disagree and logistics win wars, but also what's happening now is like a modern version of WW1 trench warfare and whilst I understand that F16s take time and logistical consequences, The US who promised training hasn't done a thing since that pledge 2 months ago (according to Zelensky), it's similar with US Abrahms tanks, pledged at same time as European Leopards which are there and nothing on Abrahms, and the biggest is the ATACMs, which is long range precision missile that could take out any command/control centre anywhere in 1991 Ukraine borders which is all of crimea.

They're fired from the short range HIMARS missile launch pads, that Ukraine already has, Ukraine has been begging for ATACMs for almost a year, US has loads of them, there's little logisital excuse, it's purely a case of political will.

And therein lies the original point.

Clearly Ukraine only wants victory which only comes by Russian defeat.
Clearly US doesn't want Ukraine defeat for Europe or its signal to China over Taiwan, but does US want the type of victory Ukraine seeks?

If the political will was there, we'd be a lot further down the road and it would happen. And whenever we talk of NATO, there's pretty much nothing they will do without tacit US support.

I'm no military expert, but spend hours every day reading all sorts of expert opinion on all sides, and reading between the lines, I've reasoned (maybe wrongly) that a US priority thats equally big, is also not seeing a Russia collapse/civil war and danger of nukes in wrong hands....... which a decisive Ukraine victory, Russian loss makes a distinct possibility (read history after Russia loses wars!), that's why we constantly hear of US statements of "trying to avoid escalation" rather than defeat of Russia or Ukraine victory and I assume why the heel dragging. Russia is escalating unrestrained.

Its the slow boiled frog approach of smaller incremental attritional russian losses in hope Putin withdraws or finally gets to point of Putin being willing to negotiate enough concessions that Ukraine could accept them.

The politics still doesn't yet seem in full alignment of decisive ukrainain victory?

 

[raymondo]

I don't disagree and logistics win wars, but also what's happening now is like a modern version of WW1 trench warfare and whilst I understand that F16s take time and logistical consequences, The US who promised training hasn't done a thing since that pledge 2 months ago (according to Zelensky), it's similar with US Abrahms tanks, pledged at same time as European Leopards which are there and nothing on Abrahms, and the biggest is the ATACMs, which is long range precision missile that could take out any command/control centre anywhere in 1991 Ukraine borders which is all of crimea.

They're fired from the short range HIMARS missile launch pads, that Ukraine already has, Ukraine has been begging for ATACMs for almost a year, US has loads of them, there's little logisital excuse, it's purely a case of political will.

And therein lies the original point.

Clearly Ukraine only wants victory which only comes by Russian defeat.
Clearly US doesn't want Ukraine defeat for Europe or its signal to China over Taiwan, but does US want the type of victory Ukraine seeks?

If the political will was there, we'd be a lot further down the road and it would happen. And whenever we talk of NATO, there's pretty much nothing they will do without tacit US support.

I'm no military expert, but spend hours every day reading all sorts of expert opinion on all sides, and reading between the lines, I've reasoned (maybe wrongly) that a US priority thats equally big, is also not seeing a Russia collapse/civil war and danger of nukes in wrong hands....... which a decisive Ukraine victory, Russian loss makes a distinct possibility (read history after Russia loses wars!), that's why we constantly hear of US statements of "trying to avoid escalation" rather than defeat of Russia or Ukraine victory and I assume why the heel dragging. Russia is escalating unrestrained.

Its the slow boiled frog approach of smaller incremental attritional russian losses in hope Putin withdraws or finally gets to point of Putin being willing to negotiate enough concessions that Ukraine could accept them.

The politics still doesn't yet seem in full alignment of decisive ukrainain victory?

I agree with you, in particular your penultimate para.
The US may hope for substantial success from Ukraine counteroffensive, so much so that Russia withdraws from many areas, and Putin finally proposes to negotiate but from a position of some weakness so that concessions are made.
This situation could be 4 months off, or more than a year.
I think it's unlikely the US will 100% support continuation until Crimea and Donbas are fully regained.

I also have a feeling there'll be another big action (like Prigozhin) to reshape the war situation: could be the nuclear power station; some incursion/situation from Belarus involving Wagner; Ukraine totally destroying the bridge to Crimea; an assassination of a top Russian military or close Putin advisor; Moldova; ... something will kick off, with unpredictable reactions.

 

[portslade seagull]

Sounds like Russia are planning a little explosion at the nuclear plant tonight as they've preemptively blamed Ukraine already. Ukraine advising citizens living nearby to be ready to leave at short notice.
Is there no end to the Russian madness

 

[raymondo]

Sounds like Russia are planning a little explosion at the nuclear plant tonight as they've preemptively blamed Ukraine already. Ukraine advising citizens living nearby to be ready to leave at short notice.
Is there no end to the Russian madness

It's been suggested they may detonate small devices on the roof of one or more reactor buildings (unlikely to cause serious damage) and then blame Ukraine for shelling. A stupid game, to entertain their home audience, and to set the scene for anything they do later on.