You are here: Home | Forum | Russia has invaded Ukraine
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 38,048
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
The major problem with this conflict as I understand, it is that there is no longer a willingness for a negotiated settlement. There was at the very beginning but now only victory for Ukraine and retaking of all Russian gains is acceptable. I assume excluding Crimea. Any talk of negotiation gets you branded a Putin apologist.
The issue being that Putin to lose is unacceptable to him.
So we have the issue of the irresistible force meets the immovable object, only the irresistible force has nukes.
Putin will not back down, and he will continue to destroy Ukraines power infrastructure as Winter approaches.
If you regained control of parts of your territory, and discovered mass graves and credible evidence of torture, rape and mass kidnap of children, what incentive would you have to negotiate a settlement that leaves any of your citizens under Russian control?
If you had accepted a prior ‘peace’ agreement that left parts of your territory under Russian control only to see Russia use that territory 8 years later as a marshalling ground for further invasion, what incentive would you have to negotiate a settlement that leaves Russia controlling territory significantly closer to your capital city?
The so-called pragmatic approach is well meaning, but it misreads Putin’s intentions. It assumes he sees the world and plans much as we do. He does not. If this war ends with him controlling an inch more than he did at the start of this year, he will spend the next 5 or 10 years regrouping and then he will try again.
He has to be stopped, as surely as Hitler had to be stopped. Obviously that’s not going to look like Germany 1945; Putin has a nuclear arsenal. But he must be pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, and yes, that does include Crimea, because at present Crimea has not been formally ceded by Ukraine nor recognised internationally as Russian. Even an outcome that achieves nothing more than the formalisation of Russian possession of Crimea would be spinnable in Moscow, shore up Putin’s reputation and set the scene for the next invasion.
He has to be stopped, as surely as Hitler had to be stopped. Obviously that’s not going to look like Germany 1945; Putin has a nuclear arsenal. But he must be pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, and yes, that does include Crimea, because at present Crimea has not been formally ceded by Ukraine nor recognised internationally as Russian. Even an outcome that achieves nothing more than the formalisation of Russian possession of Crimea would be spinnable in Moscow, shore up Putin’s reputation and set the scene for the next invasion.
How do you see that happening? Without Armageddon, and without NATO boots on the ground?
Ukraine is putting up a fantastic effort, but it’s unlikely they can take back everything Russia has taken in this offensive, let alone Crimea.
That would take foreign troops, or planes. It would need foreign direct action of some sort, which would end up in a potential nuclear exchange, that no one will risk.
The west is pumping billions into Ukraine, but Russia isn’t skint (thanks to Germany) and buying weapons from Iran and China.
I take everything on board about the war crimes but this conflict does not end with total victory for Ukraine or total victory for Russia.
In 1942, when Hitler was expecting a negotiated settlement, the allies could reject that for total surrender, Ukraine doesn’t have that luxury.
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 38,048
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
How do you see that happening? Without Armageddon, and without NATO boots on the ground?
Ukraine is putting up a fantastic effort, but it’s unlikely they can take back everything Russia has taken in this offensive, let alone Crimea.
That would take foreign troops, or planes. It would need foreign direct action of some sort, which would end up in a potential nuclear exchange, that no one will risk.
The west is pumping billions into Ukraine, but Russia isn’t skint (thanks to Germany) and buying weapons from Iran and China.
I take everything on board about the war crimes but this conflict does not end with total victory for Ukraine or total victory for Russia.
In 1942, when Hitler was expecting a negotiated settlement, the allies could reject that for total surrender, Ukraine doesn’t have that luxury.
Notably, you snipped out the first half of my post - the crucial part that explains why Ukraine will not - cannot - cede anything to Russia. And who, exactly, has the moral authority to tell them they cannot attempt to rescue citizens who are presently subject to the utter brutality of a genocidal occupying army?
Ukraine does not have the luxury of a negotiated settlement, because they know that a negotiation now merely delays the next war, it does not stop it. Western support is predicated on an understanding in Nato and other capitals of this very point, and while Western leaders prefer not to talk about Crimea directly, I think it’s fairly clear from listening to the comments made over many weeks that they understand Crimea will come into play sooner or later.
Notably, you snipped out the first half of my post - the crucial part that explains why Ukraine will not - cannot - cede anything to Russia. And who, exactly, has the moral authority to tell them they cannot attempt to rescue citizens who are presently subject to the utter brutality of a genocidal occupying army?
I snipped to get to what I thought the central point of the post, but I did refer back to your point of war crimes in your post.
Quote:
Ukraine does not have the luxury of a negotiated settlement, because they know that a negotiation now merely delays the next war, it does not stop it. Western support is predicated on an understanding in Nato and other capitals of this very point, and while Western leaders prefer not to talk about Crimea directly, I think it’s fairly clear from listening to the comments made over many weeks that they understand Crimea will come into play sooner or later.
Understood, but I don’t think it moves the discussion on.
If a negotiated settlement is categorically off the table, and always will be.
And if it is acknowledged that Ukraine by itself cannot retake Russian gains including Crimea
And if it is further acknowledged that only a total win for Ukraine, regaining all lost territory pre-2010 is acceptable, although also acknowledged Ukraine by itself is incapable of achieving this goal.
And if it is acknowledged that for Russia, keeping what they have gained is an absolute minimum acceptable result.
And it is also acknowledged that direct assistance of Ukraine by foreign ( probably NATO)
Powers would result in, or endanger the globe, to nuclear Armageddon and would therefore be avoided.
And it is also acknowledged that Russia is capable of holding this out For as long as they want.
If there is no negotiation, how do you see it being resolved?
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 38,048
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
I snipped to get to what I thought the central point of the post, but I did refer back to your point of war crimes in your post.
Understood, but I don’t think it moves the discussion on.
If a negotiated settlement is categorically off the table, and always will be.
And if it is acknowledged that Ukraine by itself cannot retake Russian gains including Crimea
And if it is further acknowledged that only a total win for Ukraine, regaining all lost territory pre-2010 is acceptable, although also acknowledged Ukraine by itself is incapable of achieving this goal.
And if it is acknowledged that for Russia, keeping what they have gained is an absolute minimum acceptable result.
And it is also acknowledged that direct assistance of Ukraine by foreign ( probably NATO)
Powers would result in, or endanger the globe, to nuclear Armageddon and would therefore be avoided.
And it is also acknowledged that Russia is capable of holding this out For as long as they want.
If there is no negotiation, how do you see it being resolved?
The argument against military support for Ukraine has since day one been predicated on some or all of the premises you have outlined.
Military support began flowing when it became clear Ukraine could avoid being overwhelmed. Military support ramped up when it became clear Ukraine might even be able to push Russia back, with the appropriate tools (HIMARS and similar long range precision munitions).
The Russian army has been broken on a Ukrainian anvil - Putin has made ever more bloodthirsty threats aimed at choking off Western support because that support has turned the tide in Ukraine’s favour.
It is notable that today Putin has begun explicitly rowing back on his leaden hints about using a nuclear weapon. The threats did not cause Western disengagement and in fact have most likely resulted in direct threats to Russia from China and India. That’s what the new narrative about a dirty bomb is all about - it’s nuclear blackmail 2.0. It, too, will not work.
The Russian army is broken, its precision weapon stocks are depleted and the national economy is on a precipice. The country relies on Western electronics to build its missiles and it is hard-to-impossible to source those components now. And there are signs amongst the Russian elite that the question of who comes after Putin is now a valid (albeit hushed) conversation point.
How does it end?
It ends with Russia expelled entirely from Ukraine, Putin taking the fall, to be replaced with someone willing to row back on his insane invasion, then a very long, very slow process of normalisation of Russian relations with the rest of the world. Based on my reading, Russia’s complete defeat in Ukraine may occur before this time next year. It is likely by the end of this year that they will control little more than they did at the beginning.
That is not the over-confident prediction you perhaps think it is - it simply gives due weight to what has actually happened so far this year (including the complete failure of all the received wisdom that confidently predicted Ukraine would be a Russian vassal by now).
The argument against military support for Ukraine has since day one been predicated on some or all of the premises you have outlined.
Military support began flowing when it became clear Ukraine could avoid being overwhelmed. Military support ramped up when it became clear Ukraine might even be able to push Russia back, with the appropriate tools (HIMARS and similar long range precision munitions).
The Russian army has been broken on a Ukrainian anvil - Putin has made ever more bloodthirsty threats aimed at choking off Western support because that support has turned the tide in Ukraine’s favour.
It is notable that today Putin has begun explicitly rowing back on his leaden hints about using a nuclear weapon. The threats did not cause Western disengagement and in fact have most likely resulted in direct threats to Russia from China and India. That’s what the new narrative about a dirty bomb is all about - it’s nuclear blackmail 2.0. It, too, will not work.
The Russian army is broken, its precision weapon stocks are depleted and the national economy is on a precipice. The country relies on Western electronics to build its missiles and it is hard-to-impossible to source those components now. And there are signs amongst the Russian elite that the question of who comes after Putin is now a valid (albeit hushed) conversation point.
How does it end?
It ends with Russia expelled entirely from Ukraine, Putin taking the fall, to be replaced with someone willing to row back on his insane invasion, then a very long, very slow process of normalisation of Russian relations with the rest of the world. Based on my reading, Russia’s complete defeat in Ukraine may occur before this time next year. It is likely by the end of this year that they will control little more than they did at the beginning.
That is not the over-confident prediction you perhaps think it is - it simply gives due weight to what has actually happened so far this year (including the complete failure of all the received wisdom that confidently predicted Ukraine would be a Russian vassal by now).
I hope so, I think winter will be decisive. If the Russian offensive is indeed beaten back and is a shadow of itself come February, you could be right. Personally I don’t think Crimea is on the table, it’s just too important strategically.
But if it isn’t over by this time next year, as you hope, all the questions in my post will remain a year on.
I think it’s hope for what you suggest, but any plan beyond that is very fluid.
Pleasure as always having the discussion with you.
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
I hope so, I think winter will be decisive. If the Russian offensive is indeed beaten back and is a shadow of itself come February, you could be right. Personally I don’t think Crimea is on the table, it’s just too important strategically.
But if it isn’t over by this time next year, as you hope, all the questions in my post will remain a year on.
I think it’s hope for what you suggest, but any plan beyond that is very fluid.
Pleasure as always having the discussion with you.
Crimea is dependent upon a water supply from the mainland so Ukraine holds the upper hand here. Provided the US doesn't fall prey to more extreme elements in the Democrat and Republican parties, Ukraine should be ok. But I agree mainland Europe especially Germany should step up more.
Pierre, if you think peace can be made between Ukraine and Russia I strongly suggest you read this report based on interviews with 3 Directors of other 3 Baltic states State Securuty Services. Admittedly it is a long read but explains why this "Special Operarion" is not just Putin's war but is also an very good insight to the Russian psyic. It also explains why there is no other option for Ukraine but to defeat the Russian agression.
Pierre, if you think peace can be made between Ukraine and Russia I strongly suggest you read this report based on interviews with 3 Directors of other 3 Baltic states State Securuty Services. Admittedly it is a long read but explains why this "Special Operarion" is not just Putin's war but is also an very good insight to the Russian psyic. It also explains why there is no other option for Ukraine but to defeat the Russian agression.
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?
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
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?
What's a 'total win'? I think it's possible Ukraine will get back the land lost this year. At that point then either something gives or, maybe, it becomes a frozen conflict with Russia still claiming that land but Ukraine and the international community operating as it being Ukrainian.
What's a 'total win'? I think it's possible Ukraine will get back the land lost this year. At that point then either something gives or, maybe, it becomes a frozen conflict with Russia still claiming that land but Ukraine and the international community operating as it being Ukrainian.
As I say, read the exchange between myself and Chris. A “total win” for Ukraine is pre- 2014 borders. i.e. Crimea.
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.
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
Join CF
You are here: 
Baby, I was born this way.
