Ukraine

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

If it  happened in his private chambers as alleged  then most likely him.

 

However it’s totally Russia  for him to be in a coma and body doubles to be used.  There’s such sophisticated technology around that they’d  only be able to get away with that for so long, mind. 

 

 

You’re giving these idiots far too much credit. The Prighozin thunder run showed you how utterly incompetent they all are. The idea that they could pull off this kind of thing is beyond the realms of realism. 

[fuchsntf]

On 13/05/2023 at 23:17, MPH said:

 

Russia banished hundreds of thousands  of Crimean Tartas  loyal to their Ukranian identity from Crimea in the 1940s  under the guise of them being German sympathizers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars  Russia have been actively relocating Russian citizens into Crimea in the last 20 years https://jamestown.org/program/demographic-transformation-of-crimea-forced-migration-as-part-of-russias-hybrid-strategy/  As well as handing out Russian passports to anyone seeking financial gain  https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-passports-putins-secret-weapon-in-the-war-against-ukraine/( working for a Russian company in the area or abroad) and thus low and behold there’s a swell of ‘ Russian sympathy’ in the area.   So no, I don’t believe  it’s accurate to say Crimeans would vote to stay in Russia. Those that have been relocated by Russia to the area probably would but bare in mind those hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian Tartas removed from the land wouldn’t be able to vote.

 

 

Anything other than Full Ukranian Sovereignty in the area is unacceptable.

I reckon. Crazy Horse.Poncohuntas,  Saladin,& cousin Rasputins-Boney.Ms children

have just as much right for that Land-grab claim..Why even Ronald’s  brothers hold a better claim..

[MPH]

A lot seems to change in 20 years…

 

 

[Sly]

Russia holding nuclear weapons has basically the only thing that has stopped them being attacked by other countries after the invasion.

 

Interestingly, I did read a response yesterday stating that Russia would size assets of non friendly countries, is the EU tried to use the frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine. 

[st albans fox]

Not surprisingly this thread has been quiet - reflects how little progress has been made by either side ahead of the freezing winter now begun 

 

I think zelensky needs to accept realpolitik and make the best deal he can once the Americans have agreed the next tranche of funding 

 

he can’t do anything until then because putin knows he’s in a v weak position 

[Dunge]

Putin won’t do anything different until the next US election’s done. He’ll know he could have a Republican in the White House - Trump or otherwise - who doesn’t fancy it. If he gets that he’ll probably plough on. If not, there may at least be the opportunity for a deal: Russia gets to keep some or all of what they took, boundaries are redrawn and what remains of Ukraine joins NATO. It’s not ideal for anyone but barring an unexpected change of fortune I fear it’s the best Ukraine can get right now.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Putin won’t do anything different until the next US election’s done. He’ll know he could have a Republican in the White House - Trump or otherwise - who doesn’t fancy it. If he gets that he’ll probably plough on. If not, there may at least be the opportunity for a deal: Russia gets to keep some or all of what they took, boundaries are redrawn and what remains of Ukraine joins NATO. It’s not ideal for anyone but barring an unexpected change of fortune I fear it’s the best Ukraine can get right now.

Agreed.

 

Though I think that even if someone wins in the US in 2024 who will happily leave the Ukrainians to the tender mercies of Putin, that they can hold out enough defensively for some kind of deal to be made that favours them at least a little. Of course, if there's more aid because a Dem wins in 2024, then the better the holdout/counteroffensive and the better any deal would be. Either way, like you, I don't see Ukraine dislodging Russia from much of what they already have barring escalation that would lead to no good place for anyone, but I hope I'm wrong there,

[deep blue]

Awful situation for Ukraine is that any attempt to take back those towns & cities that the Russians have occupied will result in further devastation of those same places.  The total rebuild will be at an horrendous cost  (though nowhere near the scale in Gaza) when the dust settles.

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

Putin won’t do anything different until the next US election’s done. He’ll know he could have a Republican in the White House - Trump or otherwise - who doesn’t fancy it. If he gets that he’ll probably plough on. If not, there may at least be the opportunity for a deal: Russia gets to keep some or all of what they took, boundaries are redrawn and what remains of Ukraine joins NATO. It’s not ideal for anyone but barring an unexpected change of fortune I fear it’s the best Ukraine can get right now.

of course if the next tranche of us aid doesn’t get approved next couple weeks then all bets are off because zelensky will suddenly be in v weak position.  That’s why I think if it is approved , that Kiev will be very keen to try and get something done in the new year. Otherwise they risk losing a lot more and perhaps not having to wait for a republican win next autumn because the next aid package could easily be voted down.  As you say, putin can afford to play the longer game here. (Unless there is military stuff we aren’t aware of )

[MPH]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Not surprisingly this thread has been quiet - reflects how little progress has been made by either side ahead of the freezing winter now begun 

 

I think zelensky needs to accept realpolitik and make the best deal he can once the Americans have agreed the next tranche of funding 

 

he can’t do anything until then because putin knows he’s in a v weak position 

 

 

I just think it would be foolish of him to make a deal.  I mean, they already made a deal in 2004 and we can see how well that's being respected.. It would also be Naïve of us to think Russia will respect any deal, and will be ' content' with where  the line lies. I fully believe that Ukraine HAS to keep fighting to retain any Sovereign identity against Russia and Putin, who has gone on record as saying Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

I just think it would be foolish of him to make a deal.  I mean, they already made a deal in 2004 and we can see how well that's being respected.. It would also be Naïve of us to think Russia will respect any deal, and will be ' content' with where  the line lies. I fully believe that Ukraine HAS to keep fighting to retain any Sovereign identity against Russia and Putin, who has gone on record as saying Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation.

If that's the case, and the Russians won't consider any deal worth the ink its printed on... is there any possible outcome where Ukraine actually actually neutralises Russia as a military threat and so stops them attacking? Because that's the only other "good" way this ends. Personally, at the present time, I don't see one.

[MPH]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

If that's the case, and the Russians won't consider any deal worth the ink its printed on... is there any possible outcome where Ukraine actually actually neutralises Russia as a military threat and so stops them attacking? Because that's the only other "good" way this ends. Personally, at the present time, I don't see one.

 

So i really think Russia won't value any deal made, they would just see it as a doorway for further expansion.

 

The ( unrealistic) answer is that the world will come together and supply Ukraine with enough jets and missiles to drive Russia out of Ukraine. I say unrealistic , because a lot hinges on what the U.S wants to do as they are the major donor of equipment and money. It seems to be getting harder and harder for them to want to keep the funding going and to get it passed through congress. If the world came together they could easily supply the same amount of money that the U.S donates but support for a long drawn out protracted war seems to be waning. Realistically though They'll probably be supplied with just enough to keep this dragging on for a few more years. If Russia ever gets driven out of  Ukraine they'll probably do something quite reprehensible like destroy the Nuclear power plant or something. " if we cant have Ukraine, no one can" type of thing.. I will say though that the longer the war goes on and there appears to be some parity with regards to capability to attack/ defend, the worse it will be for the Russian economy. It DOES appear that Russia are sustaining the heavier losses and will they be able to keep doing that..

[st albans fox]

23 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

I just think it would be foolish of him to make a deal.  I mean, they already made a deal in 2004 and we can see how well that's being respected.. It would also be Naïve of us to think Russia will respect any deal, and will be ' content' with where  the line lies. I fully believe that Ukraine HAS to keep fighting to retain any Sovereign identity against Russia and Putin, who has gone on record as saying Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation.

He won’t have a choice in the end. The Americans aren’t going to continue to finance the war ad infinitum and putin is never going to leave without territorial gains.  I just think the pressure to do it sooner will be strong and the potential for ukraine to end up losing much more if they don’t make a deal is very real. 

 

It’s clear to Russia that theymade a huge error when they invaded ukraine - I doubt they’ll do it again in the future if they leave with crimea and a secure well buffered land bridge to the Black Sea ports 

 

 

 

[Dunge]

That’s why the only way I can see a deal is the rest of Ukraine joining NATO.

 

- Ukraine loses territory but (theoretically) gets security.

- NATO sees the war stopped but accepts Russia getting a land grab.

- Russia gets to proclaim a military victory but have NATO further at their doorstep.

 

It’s an imperfect proposal, but it’s the only deal I can see without either a capitulation or something globally horrific from one side. Its imperfection could even be a persuading factor as everyone knows that nobody has won completely.

 

There’s risk of course, of Russia either refusing to agree a new border for Ukraine and therefore preventing Ukraine’s joining. Or of Russia deciding to go on attacking anyway and causing a massive escalation. Which is why I could only see it working at a time when Putin sees a long a fruitless road ahead of him - after a Democrat win in 2024. A Republican win and it’s not worth offering any deal because he’ll believe the tide is turning toward him militarily.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

He won’t have a choice in the end. The Americans aren’t going to continue to finance the war ad infinitum and putin is never going to leave without territorial gains.  I just think the pressure to do it sooner will be strong and the potential for ukraine to end up losing much more if they don’t make a deal is very real. 

 

It’s clear to Russia that theymade a huge error when they invaded ukraine - I doubt they’ll do it again in the future if they leave with crimea and a secure well buffered land bridge to the Black Sea ports 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a few assumptions in this and that's fair enough as that's all we've really got to go on. I do wonder if a lot of the American funding will depend on how they do at the next election. If the Democrats can secure a majority in the senate and congress they will be able to fund this war for as long as they want to. 

 

Ukraine have long said that they will defend Ukraine with their last man and the only way Russia will be able to stop Ukraine is if they go for Kiev again. They failed miserably last time they tried that. So even if Russia do appear to gain the upper hand and get a clear foothold within Donetsk, they will face resistance for many years to come with targeted attacks against any new infrastructure or attempts to transport minerals and ores out of the area.

[MPH]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

That’s why the only way I can see a deal is the rest of Ukraine joining NATO.

 

- Ukraine loses territory but (theoretically) gets security.

- NATO sees the war stopped but accepts Russia getting a land grab.

- Russia gets to proclaim a military victory but have NATO further at their doorstep.

 

It’s an imperfect proposal, but it’s the only deal I can see without either a capitulation or something globally horrific from one side. Its imperfection could even be a persuading factor as everyone knows that nobody has won completely.

 

There’s risk of course, of Russia either refusing to agree a new border for Ukraine and therefore preventing Ukraine’s joining. Or of Russia deciding to go on attacking anyway and causing a massive escalation. Which is why I could only see it working at a time when Putin sees a long a fruitless road ahead of him - after a Democrat win in 2024. A Republican win and it’s not worth offering any deal because he’ll believe the tide is turning toward him militarily.

 

 

Personally id love to see Ukraine join NATO right now. That would give Russia the option of continuing to fight and be drawn into a war with all of NATO or retreat.

 

 

However i know the current rules would prevent that from happening as a nation at war can not join NATO. its a shame the rules cant be changed...

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

So i really think Russia won't value any deal made, they would just see it as a doorway for further expansion.

 

The ( unrealistic) answer is that the world will come together and supply Ukraine with enough jets and missiles to drive Russia out of Ukraine. I say unrealistic , because a lot hinges on what the U.S wants to do as they are the major donor of equipment and money. It seems to be getting harder and harder for them to want to keep the funding going and to get it passed through congress. If the world came together they could easily supply the same amount of money that the U.S donates but support for a long drawn out protracted war seems to be waning. Realistically though They'll probably be supplied with just enough to keep this dragging on for a few more years. If Russia ever gets driven out of  Ukraine they'll probably do something quite reprehensible like destroy the Nuclear power plant or something. " if we cant have Ukraine, no one can" type of thing.. I will say though that the longer the war goes on and there appears to be some parity with regards to capability to attack/ defend, the worse it will be for the Russian economy. It DOES appear that Russia are sustaining the heavier losses and will they be able to keep doing that..

Fair points.

 

I just wonder whether or not any amount of jets and missiles can drive the Russians out, seeing as the present efforts appear to be failing in that regard.

 

The only thing I can see rolling on is a continual meatgrinder with neither getting the upper hand until there is either a deal...or the Russians win. I do hope I'm wrong though.

 

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Personally id love to see Ukraine join NATO right now. That would give Russia the option of continuing to fight and be drawn into a war with all of NATO or retreat.

 

However i know the current rules would prevent that from happening as a nation at war can not join NATO. its a shame the rules cant be changed...

A direct engagement between NATO and Russian forces will escalate and only ends one way.

 

You're betting the future of human civilisation on the Russians backing down, and IMO that's too risky a bet considering the stakes.

[MPH]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair points.

 

I just wonder whether or not any amount of jets and missiles can drive the Russians out, seeing as the present efforts appear to be failing in that regard.

 

The only thing I can see rolling on is a continual meatgrinder with neither getting the upper hand until there is either a deal...or the Russians win. I do hope I'm wrong though.

 

A direct engagement between NATO and Russian forces will escalate and only ends one way.

 

You're betting the future of human civilisation on the Russians backing down, and IMO that's too risky a bet considering the stakes.

 

 

I wouldn't consider NATO troops piling into Ukraine ( and ONLY Ukraine) as betting the future of civilization, but i do understand everyone's concerns on that. i mean, if it was a cut and dry situation, it would have already been done.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

I wouldn't consider NATO troops piling into Ukraine ( and ONLY Ukraine) as betting the future of civilization, but i do understand everyone's concerns on that. i mean, if it was a cut and dry situation, it would have already been done.

I just don't see a situation where NATO and Russian troops exchange fire in a way that results in serious casualties that doesn't escalate to that eventually. Both sides would accept that from that point on that to be on the losing side would mean losing practically everything (especially Putin), and neither side would accept that loss when they have the ultimate option available to ensure everyone, not just they, lose.

 

(Barring some miracle of diplomacy that would mean not losing unacceptably and thus allow an off-ramp that either side would take, that is)

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I just don't see a situation where NATO and Russian troops exchange fire in a way that results in serious casualties that doesn't escalate to that eventually. Both sides would accept that from that point on that to be on the losing side would mean losing practically everything (especially Putin), and neither side would accept that loss when they have the ultimate option available to ensure everyone, not just they, lose.

 

(Barring some miracle of diplomacy that would mean not losing unacceptably and thus allow an off-ramp that either side would take, that is)

 

 

Yeah that's all fair enough really..

[Sly]

I’d assumed the coverage off this has slowed as we turned toward winter and it becoming more difficult to get territorial advancements. 
 

I don’t really see why either Ukraine or Russia would want a ceasefire at this point.

 

Ukraine won’t accept the paper it’s written on.

 

Russia wants to wipe out all of Ukraine. 
 

This will rumble on for years to come I’d imagine. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

I’d assumed the coverage off this has slowed as we turned toward winter and it becoming more difficult to get territorial advancements. 
 

I don’t really see why either Ukraine or Russia would want a ceasefire at this point.

 

Ukraine won’t accept the paper it’s written on.

 

Russia wants to wipe out all of Ukraine. 
 

This will rumble on for years to come I’d imagine. 

There are now more mines in Ukraine than in any other country in the world. These and the other defences that Russia have built are also the defences that will stop Russia advancing further into Ukraine.

 

I agree that this war will continue in some form probably forever.

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

There are now more mines in Ukraine than in any other country in the world. These and the other defences that Russia have built are also the defences that will stop Russia advancing further into Ukraine.

 

I agree that this war will continue in some form probably forever.

Have they essentially created themselves a physical border in the 4 annexed regions? 

 

If there was zero risk of Russia venturing further into Ukraine, then I don't think a frozen conflict is a terrible outcome for NATO allies. Russia has been exposed, it's not going to attack NATO in a premeditated way, 90% of Ukraine is still governed by the Zelensky regime. Putin will have failed in his war goals. It obviously sucks for the people of the 4 regions but the bigger picture is a Ukraine/NATO W. 

[kenny]

 

 

18 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Have they essentially created themselves a physical border in the 4 annexed regions? 

 

If there was zero risk of Russia venturing further into Ukraine, then I don't think a frozen conflict is a terrible outcome for NATO allies. Russia has been exposed, it's not going to attack NATO in a premeditated way, 90% of Ukraine is still governed by the Zelensky regime. Putin will have failed in his war goals. It obviously sucks for the people of the 4 regions but the bigger picture is a Ukraine/NATO W. 

I reckon that's the case.

 

If they are technically at war it would also mean Russia couldn't harvest the resources in the annexed regions as it the area would be too unsafe for that type of infrastructure.

 

The black sea naval base at svestipol is also useless to Russia now as anything they park there gets destroyed.

 

 

[Countryfox]

I think it may well drag on as ‘the west’ is really weakening Russia by keeping things ‘ticking over’. And that ultimately maybe what the West wants.  Someone mentioned missiles and Planes ..  they are in the pipeline (longer range HIMARS and ATACAMS)  ..  and they could make a massive difference ..   blowing the shit out of Crimea will really piss off the Russian populace ..  and who knows what that may lead to.  
 

With regards to the nuclear option that is extremely unlikely to happen ..  it doesn’t fit Putins agenda of going down in history as the best leader they ever had and reclaimed all that territory the nasty west stole. Nah you’ll be fine Mac so come out from under that bed and take that saucepan you’ve had on your head back to the kitchen ..