Russia has invaded Ukraine

[pip08456]

A good in-depth analysys of Priozhin's video message.

http://zububrothers.com/2023/06/26/p...sts-the-truth/

[pip08456]

Ukraine hit the Crimea bridge overnight. A span has been badly damged.



The span on the other side has also been damaged.



The occupying authorities of Crimea report that nothing happened on the Crimean Bridge , but an "emergency event" occurred in the area of the 145th pillar from the Krasnodar region. Traffic on the bridge was stopped.

It’s becoming clear Russia can’t defend the Kerch bridge. It doesn’t matter now if they can repair it in 6 weeks - Ukraine can just keep hitting it over and over again.

[pip08456]

The Russians have now moved one of the Black Sea ships to patrol the area presumably to protect it from future Naval drone attacks. Shutting the door...

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s becoming clear Russia can’t defend the Kerch bridge. It doesn’t matter now if they can repair it in 6 weeks - Ukraine can just keep hitting it over and over again.

No sunflower oil or wheat for the starving countries.....

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

No sunflower oil or wheat for the starving countries.....

An unlikely outcome.

What we’re likely to see in the coming days is Türkiye doing what it has warned Putin it would do, and start convoying Ukrainian grain shipments with Turkish naval vessels in attendance. In pulling out of the grain deal (which it already said it was going to do today regardless of any incident on the Kerch bridge) Putin has overplayed an extremely weak hand. If he doesn’t back-track, he will have given a Nato country a solid reason to become actively involved in events in a way that seriously complicates Russian operations in the Black Sea.

In the longer run, Crimea back under Ukrainian control is the best thing for world food security, because once it’s denied access to the Sevastopol naval base, Russia will have a very hard time interfering with any shipping in the western Black Sea.

[Pierre]

Russia is not going to win their objective, similarly Ukraine seems unlikely to be able to repel Russia. This is just going to continue to cost money and lives.

Interestingly, Trump was interviewed recently. He famously said, previously, that he would stop this war in 24hrs.

He was asked how he would do this. I’m paraphrasing but it was basically this:

I know Zelenskyy and I know Putin even better. They need to stop fighting and talk.

I would say to Zelenskyy, you either talk or we will remove all support.

I would say to Putin, you either talk or I will give Zelenskyy everything he needs and more.

Seems, reasonable to me.

I know the stance has been total victory for Ukraine, return to pre-2014 borders, which has never been realistic.

The realistic solution is a win for both sides. Russia gets territory, to be negotiated.

In return for that, Ukraine gets NATO membership.

Russia sells the Win of re-Russianing the territory they get.

Ukraine gets the win of this not ever happening again, as a NATO member.

Trump at least has a plan that doesn’t involve Cluster Bombs. Perhaps others may consider it.

I’m curious - on what basis do you say it is unlikely Ukraine can repel Russia?

What happens if they can't come to an agreement? There is no point in them talking, there isn't a common ground, so Trump will have to decide which deal to force on them. Putin isn't going to accept NATO membership for Ukraine and Ukraine isn't going to give up on their land.

Since America is already giving Ukraine quite a lot the quickest thing from Trump's point of view would be to make Ukraine sign on Russian terms.

The cash value of US support for Ukraine is also being wildly overstated. It is derived from the notional value of old munitions and equipment that in many cases was reaching the end of its shelf life and would have to have been disassembled and disposed of before long. That’s not to say the US hasn’t sent a whole lot of stuff, it clearly has - but it is important to see that relatively, European support is at parity and could actually be greater. Trump simply can’t disarm Ukraine in the way he thinks he can. In fact, any American attempt to do so would be likely to result in an even more emphatic response from Eastern European states which have formerly been in the Russian sphere of influence, fully understand what a murderous place that is to be, and do not want any part of Ukraine left in it.

In fact, if Trump wants direct, boots-on-the-ground support for Ukraine by Poland and perhaps others, attempting to cut off US support is probably the likeliest way to achieve it.

Ukraine will settle for nothing less than complete restoration of its internationally recognised borders, as established in 1991, because it correctly sees Crimea and the Donbas as launch pads for future Russian interference.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Russia is not going to win their objective, similarly Ukraine seems unlikely to be able to repel Russia. This is just going to continue to cost money and lives.

Interestingly, Trump was interviewed recently. He famously said, previously, that he would stop this war in 24hrs.

He was asked how he would do this. I’m paraphrasing but it was basically this:

I know Zelenskyy and I know Putin even better. They need to stop fighting and talk.

I would say to Zelenskyy, you either talk or we will remove all support.

I would say to Putin, you either talk or I will give Zelenskyy everything he needs and more.

Seems, reasonable to me.

I know the stance has been total victory for Ukraine, return to pre-2014 borders, which has never been realistic.

The realistic solution is a win for both sides. Russia gets territory, to be negotiated.

In return for that, Ukraine gets NATO membership.

Russia sells the Win of re-Russianing the territory they get.

Ukraine gets the win of this not ever happening again, as a NATO member.

Trump at least has a plan that doesn’t involve Cluster Bombs. Perhaps others may consider it.

So, they talk…

Putin: We keep Crimea, you don’t join NATO.

Zelenskyy: We join NATO, we get Crimea back.

What does Trump do then?

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The cash value of US support for Ukraine is also being wildly overstated. It is derived from the notional value of old munitions and equipment that in many cases was reaching the end of its shelf life and would have to have been disassembled and disposed of before long. That’s not to say the US hasn’t sent a whole lot of stuff, it clearly has - but it is important to see that relatively, European support is at parity and could actually be greater. Trump simply can’t disarm Ukraine in the way he thinks he can. In fact, any American attempt to do so would be likely to result in an even more emphatic response from Eastern European states which have formerly been in the Russian sphere of influence, fully understand what a murderous place that is to be, and do not want any part of Ukraine left in it.

In fact, if Trump wants direct, boots-on-the-ground support for Ukraine by Poland and perhaps others, attempting to cut off US support is probably the likeliest way to achieve it.

Ukraine will settle for nothing less than complete restoration of its internationally recognised borders, as established in 1991, because it correctly sees Crimea and the Donbas as launch pads for future Russian interference.

As do all the other ex-Sov countries, who see themselves being next after Ukraine.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m curious - on what basis do you say it is unlikely Ukraine can repel Russia?

Only, empirical evidence so far.

Russia has not really advanced n the past several months, nor has Ukraine repelled significantly.

Armchair observation only.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

What happens if they can't come to an agreement?

I think the point is to force them to an agreement.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Russia is not going to win their objective, similarly Ukraine seems unlikely to be able to repel Russia. This is just going to continue to cost money and lives.

Interestingly, Trump was interviewed recently. He famously said, previously, that he would stop this war in 24hrs.

He was asked how he would do this. I’m paraphrasing but it was basically this:

I know Zelenskyy and I know Putin even better. They need to stop fighting and talk.

I would say to Zelenskyy, you either talk or we will remove all support.

I would say to Putin, you either talk or I will give Zelenskyy everything he needs and more.

Seems, reasonable to me.

I know the stance has been total victory for Ukraine, return to pre-2014 borders, which has never been realistic.

The realistic solution is a win for both sides. Russia gets territory, to be negotiated.

In return for that, Ukraine gets NATO membership.

Russia sells the Win of re-Russianing the territory they get.

Ukraine gets the win of this not ever happening again, as a NATO member.

Trump at least has a plan that doesn’t involve Cluster Bombs. Perhaps others may consider it.

If things continue as they are, Ukraine will regain its former territory and eventually get NATO and EU membership.

If the two sides don't agree in 24 hours/240 days what next? Trump would look foolish for over-promising so may try and force Ukraine to yield as he has more influence over Ukraine than Russia.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

The cash value of US support for Ukraine is also being wildly overstated.

It’s not just cash though is it? If the US support it means something, if they don’t that also means something.

I don’t think Putin gives a flying f. About Europe. Militarily. Only NATO.

Trump simply can’t disarm Ukraine in the way he thinks he can.

In regards to this thread, he hasn’t suggested that. Only to get a cease fire and talks.

In fact, if Trump wants direct, boots-on-the-ground support for Ukraine

Again, that was never suggested.

You’re coming up with answers to questions never asked.

Ukraine will settle for nothing less than complete restoration of its internationally recognised borders, as established in 1991,

You sure about that? I’m not sure you’re in charge!

because it correctly sees Crimea and the Donbas as launch pads for future Russian interference.

Which is the very reason that NATO membership would have to part of any agreement, to ensure future interference is negated.

---------- Post added at 23:20 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If things continue as they are, Ukraine will regain its former territory and eventually get NATO and EU membership.

No it won’t, but I’ll listen if you explain to me how that will happen.

If the two sides don't agree in 24 hours/240 days what next?

Be interesting.

Trump would look foolish for over-promising so may try and force Ukraine to yield as he has more influence over Ukraine than Russia.

Trump can’t force Ukraine to do nothing. Trump never mentioned force at all.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Only, empirical evidence so far.

Russia has not really advanced n the past several months, nor has Ukraine repelled significantly.

Armchair observation only.

Ukraine has taken more territory in 6 weeks than Russia did in as many months, and is presently destroying Russian hardware and personnel at a prodigious rate. They briefly attempted a rapid manoeuvre at the outset of their counter offensive, however as the US has denied them air power they actually can’t use much of the equipment or tactics they have been taught in Nato countries over the past several months. To draw a parallel, the US and allies air-raided Iraq for six weeks straight before invading. Ukraine rapidly realised it, too, would have to degrade Russian defences and without air power they have had to do that with stand-off weapons. These are principally US-suppled HIMARS artillery missiles, British Storm Shadow cruise missiles, and increasingly drone-spotted artillery and some of their own Soviet era air defence rockets repurposed for long range ground attack.

The modified S-200 missiles are an interesting point in their own right, as they have the range to hit targets inside Russia, and there is evidence they have been used to do that. Over the past 48 hours Ukraine have also assaulted both the Sevastopol naval base and the Kerch bridge using naval drones of their own design. The Ukrainians are using their own ingenuity to fill the capability gaps in their Nato weaponry (the gap mainly being long range strike capability). Some very clever people in Washington have been trying to deny Ukraine such ability because they feared escalation. All they have actually achieved is to prompt Ukraine to develop capabilities the US can’t control at all. Which further gives the lie to Trump’s fantasy that he could stop this by picking up the phone.

Ukraine (rightly) believes it is in an existential conflict and most East European states agree and see themselves under long-term threat, a sense that will only be heightened if any future American administration goes cool on supporting Ukraine. It has no motivation to fight for anything less than what international law says its territory is, and it is unlikely its European allies are going to stop helping it to achieve that.