Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

Happy Independence Day, Ukraine.

No thanks to Donny and his attempts to make capitulation the overt policy of the US government though.

We haven’t really talked about this but I can’t help wondering what kompromat Vlad reminded him of in Alaska that made him come out of that meeting and announce to the world that Ukraine would have to surrender a load of land, including stuff Russia badly wants but hasn’t been able to capture in more than 3 years of fighting.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

This was/is never ending until Ukraine ceded territory. I think I was consistent in saying this from the start.

The only question has ever been how much

Those asserting that Russia could be pushed back to pre-2014 lines, that was never happening.

Russia does not have to give up any of the land they have taken, because no one can take it back from them.

Anyway, that said, if no one is happy they can just both carry on killing each other.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

Do you think Russia’s demand for Ukraine to cede the entire Donbas is reasonable?

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

That is a totally irrelevant question.

What is reasonable holds no water in this situation. What is reasonable suggests a proposition of “fair play”……..with Russia!

No, no fair play, no reasonableness

They want to keep what they have taken, and to stop fighting, most likely some more that they will advise…..how much more is up for negotiation. What they have isn’t.

Either agree, or…..

Don’t agree and keep fighting, those are your options….Ukraine will lose, in so far as they’ll generally keep the current lines and many more men will die.

Explain how I’m wrong.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

Ok … first of all, the question isn’t irrelevant, and by your earlier post you proved it - the question, from Russia’s perspective, is very much how much Putin can plausibly present to the Russian elites as ‘worth it’. He isn’t invulnerable and he has driven the economy over a cliff, as well as engineering a demographic time-bomb that will explode in slow motion over the next decade, thanks to around a million fighting (and breeding) age men being either dead or permanently incapacitated. He needs to keep the elites on-side or else it will be him drinking polonium tea or falling out of a 3rd floor window. So his demands are maximalist and, from Ukraine and Europe’s perspective, un-serious.

The Alaska summit gives the game away. Putin wants the entire Donbas, which he has always wanted, plus whatever he already holds. He may have thought it was worth a punt at getting Trump to strong-arm Ukraine and Europe into accepting that, or, perhaps more likely, he wanted Trump so pi55ed off with it all that he withdraw support and makes it somewhat easier for Putin to fight on until he takes it anyway. The switch in Trump’s rhetoric away from ceasefire talk and onto so-called direct peace treaty negotiations was fed to him by Putin in order to make peace talks less likely, not more so. Putin will not talk to Zelensky under any circumstances because he thinks Zelensky is an illegitimate leader of an illegitimate country.

Putin doesn’t intend to quit forever with Donbas-plus, but he needs to stop and regroup. Russia does not have limitless resources and its way of waging war is extremely inefficient. He needs a breather. If he can get the rest of the Donbas he will have secured an important symbolic win and he will also be the right side of the defensible territory to make another run at Kyiv in 5 or 10 years. Without it, Ukraine, with European help, will make the remainder of its territory a fortress Russia will be no more able to overrun in, say, 2032 than it was in 2022.

Ukraine on the other hand does not want to stop fighting because, first of all, it wants its territory back and knows its citizens in the occupied lands are subject to a kleptocratic regime that uses rape and torture as means of control. There’s nothing desperate or dishonourable in wanting to liberate your citizens from that.

But secondly, the reasons that don’t get broad press coverage: so far Ukraine’s deep strike strategy has destroyed about a third of Russia’s strategic bomber force, neutralised the Black Sea Fleet and has also destroyed more than 13% of Russia’s oil refining capacity, and that figure is increasing weekly. There is now petrol rationing across Russia. Ukraine has developed its own cruise missile with a 1,000km range that it will have hundreds of by year’s end. Unlike Russia, which is trying to bomb Ukrainian morale into dust by terror-bombing cities but is not destroying anything of military use, Ukraine is steadily degrading Russia’s ability to function as an industrial economy. At the moment it is this strategic campaign rather than any serious belief it can get the Donbas back any time soon, that is keeping Ukraine fighting.

For all of the above, and especially because Ukraine is increasingly able to take Russia on even in the face of US obstructionism, the war isn’t going to end this year, and when it does end, it won’t be on the basis of Russia keeping what it holds. If Ukraine can degrade Russia far enough, it will hope to be able to destabilise Russian society and government to the point where it comes to the table with concessions in mind.

We ought not to forget that the USSR could not sustain operations in Afghanistan more than 10 years, and the entire soviet government collapsed less than 2 years after its retreat, leaving Russia an impotent mafia state. It is to ignore the lesson of history to think similar can’t happen again.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

Jesus Chris, well I’ll do my best.

The only thing he has spent that is hurting him is “ men”.

Having to rope in very poor North Korean troops, is bad…..very bad. No question, and you could argue on an attrition basis, if Ukraine could gain an advantage or at least a negotiation platform………they won’t.

Putin will probably, in a negotiation, get the entire Donbas. Why wouldn’t he?

The problem is, and we have and can’t seem to get our heads around, is that Russia hold all the cards for this “negotiation”.

Russia has the land they have taken…….so not giving back and can’t be taken.

So any negotiation on territory will not involve that as they already have it, so negotiation involves land to be taken. How much and where tba.

Do we disagree here?

I think in a settlement he probably be offered it…..and take it.

What Ukraine wants and gets are poles apart. Ukraine will get what it gets given. Sad but true. They are in no position to dictate terms.

If you, and for that matter Ukraine, think they can win.

Well carry on then.

“Take Russia on” bollocks.

The question to you Chris is do you believe Ukraine can win this?

You know that is a false equivalence, and again an irrelevance.
.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

I’m going to spare us both a lengthy reply by focusing mostly on just this point. It seems you’re commenting without having taken much trouble to stay abreast of what’s actually happening here, which makes your confidence in making predictions and assuming events are bearing them out somewhat confusing.

Russia has not taken the part of the Donbas it still wants because it sits the other side of a network of built and natural obstacles that have made it impossible for them to do so. If Russia were simply given this territory, then Ukraine’s defence against a subsequent run on Kyiv goes with it.

It is, simply, strategic suicide for Ukraine to simply give it up. It would be an utterly bonkers concession to make, and it is not going to do so. That’s why Putin is not going to be given it, and also why he can’t take it by force (the UK’s security update last weekend estimated it would take Russia 4 years and another million casualties to do so - even Russia doesn’t have that much time, manpower or soviet-era tanks at its disposal. Also, incidentally, why it’s pretty clear to those paying attention that Putin is not looking for any kind of off-ramp here. He’s not stupid enough to think Ukraine will willingly give this up, even if some of his admirers think they will, or should.

In what way is it false equivalence? Afghanistan was a military adventure which on paper they should have walked all over, which instead attrited them over a decade, bequeathed them a generation of angry, highly trained mafia foot soldiers and de-legitimised the entire soviet system of government.

If its adventure goes on in Ukraine long enough, the Russian government will face all the same pressures, especially with Ukraine steadily taking millions of barrels of refining capacity offline. Russia is rapidly becoming a petro-state with no petrol.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

You say And? Not given, negotiated. It’s also completely hypothetical.

Which bit of “negotiation” don’t you understand?

Putin cannot take anything by force now. He is where he is.

But my point has always been ( fact check me), he doesn’t have to take anything more…..he just has to hold onto what he has.

Tell me…..who is going to take that from him?

Any negotiation will mean more for him, why wouldn’t it?


It was 40 years ago Chris and not relevant in any way this war.
Russia’s oil exports since the conflict began, and sanctions, have increased tenfold year on year.

The shadow fleet in the Baltic is drivng Russian oil exports, never been so high.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

https://energyandcleanair.org/june-2...and-sanctions/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1756162979

https://archive.ph/qPfcZ

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

https://energyandcleanair.org/july-2...25%20in%20June.

My point was that Russia continues to export oil via shadow tankers through the Baltic (which I take particular interest in) the usage of which has risen tenfold. Sanctions against Russian oil, have barely made any impact.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2025/08/1x.png

Russia's economy is not great, but they have a network of customers such as Nth Korea, Iran, China, India, (and cough, lets not forget the EU, happy enough to still buy Gas from Russia) to sustain the war effort.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

You said

Which would have been a thousandfold (10 x 10 x 10…

This is not an accurate reflection of actuality - according to the graphs above in your post, it is less now than January 2022.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

OK it was poorly put.

My point was The number of shadow fleet vessels transporting Russian oil has risen from 20% in 2022 to 80% in 2025.

The graph I posted, clearly shows that.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

So they’re working harder to smuggle their oil out. Fine, but besides the point.

What gets out, is sold at a discount. Less gets out overall. And Russia’s ability to process what it drills is being degraded on a near daily basis by Ukraine’s strategic strike campaign which is getting gradually more intense by the week, and which will really kick off when its domestically produced Flamingo cruise missile output gets from 1 unit per week to 1 per day, which it is slated to do before year end. Trump’s ban on ATACMS strikes inside Russia, and his effective veto on similar Scalp/Storm Shadow use (via denial of US supplied targeting data)* will have less and less influence on Ukraine as time passes.

The war will end at the negotiating table because wars almost invariably do. However, to imagine the only issue of substance at that table will be Putin holding a lot of land is a very 2 dimensional view of the situation.

*This is strategically bonkers from the US’s point of view as well - next-generation French and UK missiles will for certain no longer rely on American tech or data, and they are already losing orders for very expensive things like F-35s from nations that worry they may be told what they can and can’t do with them in the future.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

Chris & Pierre, I took an interest in your earlier discussion about ceding terrortory to Russia to stop the war.

The one thing both of you have missed is that neither Zelensky nor the Ukrainian Gorernment can do so, their constitution expressly forbids it.

To be able to cede any terrortory would need a reforendom to change the constitution, that would be impossible without a controlled genuine cease fire so that everyone can vote, just the same as an election. You cannot expect people to gather to vote for either to be hit by Russian missiles. Then there is the Ukrainiasn diaspora, do they get to vote ?

Chris was entirely correct when he said they would not give up Free Donbas, the most fortified both natural and constructed stronghold in the country.

BTW Chris, they have drones that can go 1000kms the new Cruise Missile named Flamingo (due to a manufacturing error in production of the first few turned out pink!) has a range of 3000km with a 11500kg warhead. (Edit) one per day to develop 7 per day by end of October.

Pierre, you obviously don't know otr understand the Ukrainian people, they will never surrender, never give terrortory to anyone. Either Russia is defeated (and they can do it) or they cease to exist. They are now developing and producing their own weapons to do it.

Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
 

While it’s true Ukraine’s territorial extent is specified in its constitution, I don’t mention it because it’s a red herring. A constitution can be changed. Yes, it would be fiendishly difficult in Ukraine’s case but the process is set out and can be made to work if there’s the will to do so. Russia itself is going to have to change its constitution at some point, because it changed it a couple of years ago in order to lay claim to swathes of south and east Ukraine, including land it has still failed to occupy and land which Ukraine recaptured in 2022 and 2023 that isn’t even up for debate at the pretend negotiations proposed at Alaska. You are absolutely right, though, there would have to be a ceasefire in order to conduct a referendum, which would require international involvement. And no ceasefire is on offer. A further indicator that the Alaska proposals are un-serious.

The major sticking point, aside from everything we’ve mentioned over the past 24 hours, is that territory changing hands by conquest is anathema in Europe, what with that unfortunate business we concluded in 1945. Europe is absolutely nowhere near backing a peace plan that rewards Putin for his aggression and incentivises him to come back for more later (which he always has done, and always will do). And while it may seem Europe is sidelined by Trump at the moment, the more erratic Trump is and the more explicitly he withdraws support and parrots Kremlin talking points, the clearer it becomes in European capitals that the days of US-backed security are gone. Defence spending and production is ramping up in Europe. It’s still too slow and it has come awfully late, but it’s happening.

We were treated last week to news footage of Admiral Tony Radakin, our chief of defence staff, heading to Washington to try to thrash out what post-Ukraine security architecture would look like and how the US or European armies would be deployed. Nobody need think that mission was conceived with any other intention but to demonstrate to the Trump White House what an insane idea it is and to bog it down in the detail. Notice how Trump shortly afterwards did his customary can-kicking (“I’ll decide in a couple of weeks”) and since then, it has all gone awfully quiet.