Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by Pierre

The observations in that article are, I’m sure, accurate and I’ve heard similar observations and I totally accept the brutality of Russian atrocities and in no way have tried to brush over that.

My point, if you read the full exchange between myself and Chris, is that I don’t think a total win for Ukraine is achievable, not without foreign troops on the ground. That won’t happen. So how do you end this war?

At this point I’d like to challenge the idea that Ukraine needs foreign troops in theatre if it’s to push Russia entirely from its territory - why do you think this? Is it that Ukraine has too few, or that they’re too poorly trained, or something else? I’ll say from the outset I don’t agree that lack of manpower is Ukraine’s first or even second challenge; it may not even be its third. What it needs is ammunition, and advanced delivery systems that can hit Russia wherever it needs to be hit in order to degrade its ability to continue its war. It also needs financial support to keep its economy going and adequate defences to keep its national infrastructure intact.

[Julian]

It is, of course, entirely possible that we have forces on the ground in Ukraine

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The observations in that article are, I’m sure, accurate and I’ve heard similar observations and I totally accept the brutality of Russian atrocities and in no way have tried to brush over that.

My point, if you read the full exchange between myself and Chris, is that I don’t think a total win for Ukraine is achievable, not without foreign troops on the ground. That won’t happen. So how do you end this war?

I have read every exchange between you and Chris and can only assumes, due to your comment, you didn't read the full article it doesn't just refer to Russian brutality. I understand as it is a long read but well worth it.

"The West" has never understood the Russian mentality and that is the crux of the problem. You cannot negotiate with them. They take that as a sign of weakness.

Ukraine can win and are doing so at the moment, Russia is on the defencive and pouring untrained cannon fodder into the war. Russia cannot supply the troops with the supplies they need,food, water etc, ammunition depots, command posts and distrobution centres are regularly being taken out by the introduction of HIMARS.

Now look at Ukraine. They have stopped conscription, they believe they have enough troops to defeat Russia.There were no similar complaints about conscription, were suitably trained (many in the UK and elsewhere) before getting anywhere near the front. They are fighting against the geneside of their nation. They will not stop, nor do I blame them. Russia wants to wipe them out of existence.

Ukraine will win and when it does Russia will leave it alone and (in a few years) go on and try with another Baltic state. At least until they stand up to them.

Russia only responds to force. Show you have it and use it they will back down. That is how Ukraine will get Crimea back.

---------- Post added at 00:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Julian

It is, of course, entirely possible that we have forces on the ground in Ukraine

By "forces on the ground" what do you mean. It has never been denied that before the invasion our SF's and others NATO forces were there from 2014 training the Ukrainian army. We are still doing so but here in the UK.

There may well be military advisors still "in Country" but doubt boots on the ground troops.

I know of one UK military specialist who trained Ukrainian military in all infrantrary weopons they would likely meet and have to use but in Germany. He never went to Ukraine. Basically he trains the trainers just as he does with UK and NATO armies.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

At this point I’d like to challenge the idea that Ukraine needs foreign troops in theatre if it’s to push Russia entirely from its territory - why do you think this? Is it that Ukraine has too few, or that they’re too poorly trained, or something else? I’ll say from the outset I don’t agree that lack of manpower is Ukraine’s first or even second challenge; it may not even be its third. What it needs is ammunition, and advanced delivery systems that can hit Russia wherever it needs to be hit in order to degrade its ability to continue its war. It also needs financial support to keep its economy going and adequate defences to keep its national infrastructure intact.

I’m no expert, far from it, though I have studied both WW, WWII in particular and it comes down to money, it always does.

As you point out the West has to have appetite to fund his war and future defence. Russia is also not a basket case economy wise and will also have plenty of money to spend on equipment.

It will depend on which side can get re-equipped most effectively and efficiently to continue the fight. I don’t know who that is.

If Ukraine can mount a major offensive and sustain it, then I’ll think differently but I don’t see either moving very much.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m no expert, far from it, though I have studied both WW, WWII in particular and it comes down to money, it always does.

As you point out the West has to have appetite to fund his war and future defence. Russia is also not a basket case economy wise and will also have plenty of money to spend on equipment.

It will depend on which side can get re-equipped most effectively and efficiently to continue the fight. I don’t know who that is.

If Ukraine can mount a major offensive and sustain it, then I’ll think differently but I don’t see either moving very much.

I think you’ve answered your own question to an extent. If your assumptions hold true the war ends when it no longer meets US strategic objectives and they pull the funding for it. A negotiated settlement would quickly be found.

Originally Posted by jfman

I think you’ve answered your own question to an extent. If your assumptions hold true the war ends when it no longer meets US strategic objectives and they pull the funding for it. A negotiated settlement would quickly be found.

I don’t think you’re correct here. Leaving aside your obsession with casting everything as an extension of US foreign policy (which this is not; not when obvious genocide is being perpetrated and there is an extremely high level of commitment to resist, across the Ukrainian population), the Russian invasion has emboldened most of its former satellites in Eastern Europe and the baltics to support Ukraine well beyond the level of most others on per capita terms.

Ukraine faces an existential struggle now and others see themselves in the front line if Ukraine falls. If support in the US becomes lukewarm then there are plenty of other highly motivated donors in Europe and a highly motivated population in Ukraine that realises a ceasefire that leaves Russia in possession of any of Ukraine is simply a pause while Russia regains the means to start again.

With the support only of Eastern European countries the pace will slow but the war will not grind to a negotiated halt. What possible reason could Ukraine have to agree to leave its citizens in occupied territory, after the horrors of Bucha and with similar now coming to light in Lyman and elsewhere?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

I don’t think you’re correct here. Leaving aside your obsession with casting everything as an extension of US foreign policy (which this is not; not when obvious genocide is being perpetrated and there is an extremely high level of commitment to resist, across the Ukrainian population), the Russian invasion has emboldened most of its former satellites in Eastern Europe and the baltics to support Ukraine well beyond the level of most others on per capita terms.

Ukraine faces an existential struggle now and others see themselves in the front line if Ukraine falls. If support in the US becomes lukewarm then there are plenty of other highly motivated donors in Europe and a highly motivated population in Ukraine that realises a ceasefire that leaves Russia in possession of any of Ukraine is simply a pause while Russia regains the means to start again.

With the support only of Eastern European countries the pace will slow but the war will not grind to a negotiated halt. What possible reason could Ukraine have to agree to leave its citizens in occupied territory, after the horrors of Bucha and with similar now coming to light in Lyman and elsewhere?

As I emphasised in my post to Pierre my post was based on his assumptions holding true.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t think Ukraine, on their own, can take back all the territory taken by Russia in this offensive, let alone Crimea.

So, I say again, if only repelling Russia from all of Ukraine is acceptable. I.e. no negotiation at all, total removal of Russia only.

And Ukraine are incapable of achieving that, what happens?

Just keep the destruction and death, ticking over.

Your suggestion of a “frozen conflict” is not a cessation of war. Unless you mean an agreement is reached, or at least acknowledged, which is what I have suggested. A negotiated peace.

Other assumptions are available.

[richard-john56]

I would like it if they would stop using the term the West v Russia and use the World against Putin more often. jfman is wrong about the USA strategic objectives and they pull the funding for it they have stated as long as it takes many times. We must do much more on the properganda information war as well.

Now the Russians blame our Royal Navy for blowing the Nord Stream gas pipe supply up.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by richard-john56

jfman is wrong

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Ukraine are only still in this war because it suits American interests, if it doesn’t suit American interests they’ll quickly be out of it.

I think it’s equally an act of propaganda to describe it as the world vs Putin. Unless of course you don’t think China or India count as the “world”.

Originally Posted by richard-john56

I would like it if they would stop using the term the West v Russia and use the World against Putin more often. jfman is wrong about the USA strategic objectives and they pull the funding for it they have stated as long as it takes many times. We must do much more on the properganda information war as well.

Now the Russians blame our Royal Navy for blowing the Nord Stream gas pipe supply up.

The vast bulk of Russian propaganda is for domestic consumption and is designed to perpetuate Russia’s sense of victimhood (which is strong) and to ensure the Russian public continues to remain content to allow the elites to run the country. Russians often blame us for stuff, even more so than the USA, because we’re a real bogeyman to them. Probably goes back to the wars of the 19th century. Take it as a compliment.

As for the world v Putin, well unfortunately it really isn’t. Where Russia’s propaganda has found a receptive audience, there is far less willingness to openly condemn. Large parts of Africa are ambivalent if not outright supportive. In some cases, Russia looks a better bet to them that their former colonial masters. India is continuing to try to have its cake and eat it (it buys most of its arms from Russia), though it is seemingly more willing to quietly criticise Putin now than at the outset. China would have preferred Russia not to reawaken NATO’s sense of unity and purpose, or to behave in ways that have indirectly shone a light on its own designs on Taiwan, but nevertheless remans a firm ally to Russia. And Iran … well like it or not Iran is part of the world and Iran is selling Russia loitering munitions (aka kamikaze drones) by the bucketload.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

the Russian invasion has emboldened most of its former satellites in Eastern Europe and the baltics to support Ukraine well beyond the level of most others on per capita terms.

Ukraine faces an existential struggle now and others see themselves in the front line if Ukraine falls. If support in the US becomes lukewarm then there are plenty of other highly motivated donors in Europe and a highly motivated population in Ukraine that realises a ceasefire that leaves Russia in possession of any of Ukraine is simply a pause while Russia regains the means to start again.

With the support only of Eastern European countries the pace will slow but the war will not grind to a negotiated halt. What possible reason could Ukraine have to agree to leave its citizens in occupied territory, after the horrors of Bucha and with similar now coming to light in Lyman and elsewhere?

Without US dollars, this is a very precarious situation. The EU are very much in the “let’s negotiate” camp. That is a fact. Germany hopes this goes away asap.

I read, I’ll. find the link, that all told, up to now Ukraine have had 80Billion, so far. From all benefactors, Which is not massive by any means, but we are only just over 6 months in. Multiply that twice a year, as long as this carries on. It’s a big number, getting bigger.

https://www.devex.com/news/funding-t...ukraine-102887

I will challenge you on one point:

there are plenty of other highly motivated donors in Europe

Who exactly would that be? The EU, especially Germany, are well out of pocket. They’re paying Russia for gas they’re not getting. I haven’t seen anything at all from the EU or any other country about facing down Russia. Or financing Ukraine, indefinitely

Originally Posted by Pierre

Who exactly would that be? The EU, especially Germany, are well out of pocket. They’re paying Russia for gas they’re not getting. I haven’t seen anything at all from the EU or any other country about facing down Russia. Or financing Ukraine, indefinitely

This sort of thing is still happening:

https://kyivindependent.com/news-fee...nks-to-ukraine

Slovenia sends 28 M-55S tanks to Ukraine

Slovenia sent the tanks to Ukraine in exchange for equipment from Germany, an agreement concluded in September between Slovenia’s Prime Minister Robert Golob and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

In July, Slovenia had already sent 35 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle BVP M80A to Ukraine.

And bilateral aid by GDP:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-of-donor-gdp/

Note that the Baltics plus Poland occupy the top 4 places in the chart.

In geopolitical terms, I think it’s unwise also to underestimate the extent to which Western governments understand exactly how large a pile of excrement they will be storing up for themselves if the ultimate outcome of this conflict looks anything at all like a victory for Russia, which can be loosely taken to mean Russia extending its control of Ukrainian territory, with Putin still in control, but could as a minimum be merely the formal ceding of Crimea to Russia.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by jfman

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Ukraine are only still in this war because it suits American interests, if it doesn’t suit American interests they’ll quickly be out of it.

I think it’s equally an act of propaganda to describe it as the world vs Putin. Unless of course you don’t think China or India count as the “world”.

From what I hear if the republicans take control in the mid term elections the Ukraine could be short of weapons , will Europe step up to fill the gap , somehow I doubt it

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

This sort of thing is still happening:
.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of that is included in the 80 billion in my previous link.

Which, although impressive, is not definitive.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of that is included in the 80 billion in my previous link.

Which, although impressive, is not definitive.

It may well be, but you’re asking for evidence of motivation, and that is absolutely evidence of motivation. IIRC the arrangement was agreed last month and carried out this week.

I think the commitment and direction is evident.