Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Kaka Tim]

It all got rather unpleasant.

you cant fight in here - its the war thread!!! (sorry)

 

[Kaka Tim]

but yes - BIG was being an utter prick and deserved his banning.

 

[Mezzer]

S'funny, you know. You - and a couple of others - seem delightedly fond of trying to suggest that anyone who so much as shows an interest in what is actually going on (as opposed to politically-posturing handwavery, which probably belongs elsewhere in any case) is having some kind of quasi-sexual fantasy about this war. And yet, when challenged, by several different people, go all coy and bashful when it comes to actually fronting up actual, you know, examples of such things.

It's almost as if it's all only going on inside your head. Or maybe you just don't like people disagreeing with you?

I've had TopCat on Ignore for ages, as he's just a headfuck of a person. Every so often I have to check what he's said to make your responses make sense, but nothing changes...

 

[existentialist]

I've had TopCat on Ignore for ages, as he's just a headfuck of a person. Every so often I have to check what he's said to make your responses make sense, but nothing changes...

I generally keep him on ignore to avoid the threadclutter, too.

 

[Sweet FA]

.

 

[RedRedRose]

I'm not saying that NATO et al are going to stop Z. making peace: I'm saying that eventually the situation will (likely) develop to a point where they will impose a deeply flawed peace deal upon him.

Optimistic scenario: Russia is routed, or the Kremlin collapses under internal strife
Pessimistic scenario: Some Ukrainian lands are partitioned off to Russia or some demilitarisation project (a la Korea) or a protracted low-level conflict continues for the foreseeable

Although the threat of compromise is very real, I think the optimistic scenario is not out of reach. Ukraine showed a willingness to fight even before NATO countries started throwing cash around. The nearest equivalent I am reaching for would be the Soviet-Afghan war, in which attrition and internal factors of the occupiers ultimately drive them out. But the Soviet-Afghan war was a long war and had a one in a lifetime event taking place in the background.

 

[Pickman's model]

Optimistic scenario: Russia is routed, or the Kremlin collapses under internal strife
Pessimistic scenario: Some Ukrainian lands are partitioned off to Russia or some demilitarisation project (a la Korea) or a protracted low-level conflict continues for the foreseeable

Although the threat of compromise is very real, I think the optimistic scenario is not out of reach. Ukraine showed a willingness to fight even before NATO countries started throwing cash around. The nearest equivalent I am reaching for would be the Soviet-Afghan war, in which attrition and internal factors of the occupiers ultimately drive them out. But the Soviet-Afghan war was a long war and had a one in a lifetime event taking place in the background.

There are no optimistic outcomes. Russia routed leads to many possibilities, none of them good as what comes next likely sees the Arctic ignored. Russia and Ukraine kissing and making up is the ideal but impossible outcome. All the outcomes are very bad, not simply for Russia and Ukraine but for everyone with an interest in the stability necessary for the required attention being given to food security and mitigating climate change

 

[RedRedRose]

Some outcomes are objectionable better than others. It's in Russia's interests to drag this out as long as possible and Ukraine/NATO's to hasten the counteroffensive before elections and de-prioritisation of the conflict occurs.

You could ask, should Ukraine consider an early exit from this conflict, ceding territory in exchange for international assurances? Unless they are entirely secure with NATO membership, any agreement they make with Russia is practically worthless. However, that is for Ukrainians to decide.

The damage to the environment and the strain on food security is already a forgone conclusion. Its a question of its severity.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Yeah, an agreement with Russia is basically Russian toilet paper.

 

[ska invita]

They've (Ukraine) suffered terribly but currently they have the upper hand. The Russian regime, in contrast, is not in such a good place. They've lost territory and thousands of lives,

I see basically the exact opposite. Ukraine successfully repelled the Kiev offensive, but they lost their southern territories within the first month and it remains occupied to this day. Russia hasn't lost territory it has gained this new occupied land.

They've occupied it for coming up to a year and a half and are fully dug in. Current reports of the Ukraine offensive make grim reading as they hit these defences.

From where I'm sat it's clear that the US is not going to authorise the ridiculous levels of weaponry needed to truly push the Russians out. Ukraine is now heavily reliant on non professional soldier conscripts.

Level-headed reports about the US agreeing to jets suggest it was more diplomacy than meaningful escalation, the degree they will be used is limited, and then primarily more to hold the new occupied border than to test and regain occupied territory (due to Russian air defences).

By far the most likely outcome here, by my reckoning, is the counter offensive will make little headway. Peace is possible now and before, but it means Ukraine losing its southern territory to a lesser or greater extent.

That doesn't mean a pause in which Russia will rearm so as to reattack because at that point the border will become heavily militarised.

The above is just how it looks to me, looking at the cold reality.

 

[The39thStep]

Some outcomes are objectionable better than others. It's in Russia's interests to drag this out as long as possible and Ukraine/NATO's to hasten the counteroffensive before elections and de-prioritisation of the conflict occurs.

You could ask, should Ukraine consider an early exit from this conflict, ceding territory in exchange for international assurances? Unless they are entirely secure with NATO membership, any agreement they make with Russia is practically worthless. However, that is for Ukrainians to decide.

The damage to the environment and the strain on food security is already a forgone conclusion. Its a question of its severity.

Do you mean elections in Ukraine or elections in other countries ?

 

[strung out]

I see basically the exact opposite. Ukraine successfully repelled the Kiev offensive, but they lost their southern territories within the first month and it remains occupied to this day. Russia hasn't lost territory it has gained this new occupied land.

They've occupied it for coming up to a year and a half and are fully dug in. Current reports of the Ukraine offensive make grim reading as they hit these defences.

From where I'm sat it's clear that the US is not going to authorise the ridiculous levels of weaponry needed to truly push the Russians out. Ukraine is now heavily reliant on non professional soldier conscripts.

Level-headed reports about the US agreeing to jets suggest it was more diplomacy than meaningful escalation, the degree they will be used is limited, and then primarily more to hold the new occupied border than to test and regain occupied territory (due to Russian air defences).

By far the most likely outcome here, by my reckoning, is the counter offensive will make little headway. Peace is possible now and before, but it means Ukraine losing its southern territory to a lesser or greater extent.

That doesn't mean a pause in which Russia will rearm so as to reattack because at that point the border will become heavily militarised.

The above is just how it looks to me, looking at the cold reality.

Makes me wonder what sources you're reading because a lot of that doesn't match what a bunch of people close to the goings on in Ukraine are saying, from Ukrainian soldiers, to Russian mili bloggers, western journalists and military strategy academics/experts. Many of the above are all saying that Ukraine gains are not only possible, but likely. The only question is how much territory will be regained.

Clearly there's a possibility that Ukraine's counter offensive fails, but we've already seen Ukraine take more in a week than Russia has taken in months.

We've even had someone on here who definitely knows what they're talking about give their view and opinion on why Ukraine may well end up having retaken 50% of the currently occupied territory by the autumn, but you continue to offer your reckons based on 'cold reality'.

 

[Pickman's model]

Makes me wonder what sources you're reading because a lot of that doesn't match what a bunch of people close to the goings on in Ukraine are saying, from Ukrainian soldiers, to Russian mili bloggers, western journalists and military strategy academics/experts. Many of the above are all saying that Ukraine gains are not only possible, but likely. The only question is how much territory will be regained.

Clearly there's a possibility that Ukraine's counter offensive fails, but we've already seen Ukraine take more in a week than Russia has taken in months.

We've even had someone on here who definitely knows what they're talking about give their view and opinion on why Ukraine may well end up having retaken 50% of the currently occupied territory by the autumn, but you continue to offer your reckons based on 'cold reality'.

So much of what we're hearing comes through a range of prisms or filters, we're not hearing all the things we need to form a proper judgement. There's the auld adage, the first casualty of war is truth, which should be borne in mind

 

[The39thStep]

Makes me wonder what sources you're reading because a lot of that doesn't match what a bunch of people close to the goings on in Ukraine are saying, from Ukrainian soldiers, to Russian mili bloggers, western journalists and military strategy academics/experts. Many of the above are all saying that Ukraine gains are not only possible, but likely. The only question is how much territory will be regained.

Clearly there's a possibility that Ukraine's counter offensive fails, but we've already seen Ukraine take more in a week than Russia has taken in months.

We've even had someone on here who definitely knows what they're talking about give their view and opinion on why Ukraine may well end up having retaken 50% of the currently occupied territory by the autumn, but you continue to offer your reckons based on 'cold reality'.

I thought the AFU had a media blackout ?

 

[strung out]

I thought the AFU had a media blackout ?

A media blackout on upcoming/ongoing offensives doesn't mean people can't make educated predictions and surmisations based on available openly accessible evidence.

News of small but steady Ukrainian gains in the first week has already been released, before Ukraine has even committed its main force.

(cue accusations of being a war fan for paying attention to this stuff)

 

[The39thStep]

A media blackout on upcoming/ongoing offensives doesn't mean people can't make educated predictions and surmisations based on available openly accessible evidence.

News of small but steady Ukrainian gains in the first week has already been released, before Ukraine has even committed its main force.

(cue accusations of being a war fan for paying attention to this stuff)

Relax . No need to be defensive . I was just querying this source of Ukrainian soldiers not educated predictions etc etc

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Tbf I'm against the current and potential future gruesome outcomes of Russia succeeding in its invasion but that doesn't mean I support the West, there's no good guys involved.

This.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Magnus McGinty

Former German Chancellor Merkel admits the Minsk agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up

Merkel’s recent interview with <em>Die Zeit</em> confirms the view of the WSWS that NATO has wanted war from the start but needed time for its military preparations.

www.wsws.org

This is bs, but not for the usual tankie reasons. Merkel is trying to rewrite history because she and the west not just stood by while Crimea and the Donbas were annexed but actually did deals and built pipelines.

 

[strung out]

Relax . No need to be defensive . I was just querying this source of Ukrainian soldiers not educated predictions etc etc

Apologies if I came across that way, my last comment was supposed to be more general than being directed at you specifically.

This is an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. The guy is a Ukrainian reserve, and it's useful to take this kind of comment in combination with other stuff appearing through the fog of war.

 

[kabbes]

I see basically the exact opposite. Ukraine successfully repelled the Kiev offensive, but they lost their southern territories within the first month and it remains occupied to this day. Russia hasn't lost territory it has gained this new occupied land.

They've occupied it for coming up to a year and a half and are fully dug in. Current reports of the Ukraine offensive make grim reading as they hit these defences.

From where I'm sat it's clear that the US is not going to authorise the ridiculous levels of weaponry needed to truly push the Russians out. Ukraine is now heavily reliant on non professional soldier conscripts.

Level-headed reports about the US agreeing to jets suggest it was more diplomacy than meaningful escalation, the degree they will be used is limited, and then primarily more to hold the new occupied border than to test and regain occupied territory (due to Russian air defences).

By far the most likely outcome here, by my reckoning, is the counter offensive will make little headway. Peace is possible now and before, but it means Ukraine losing its southern territory to a lesser or greater extent.

That doesn't mean a pause in which Russia will rearm so as to reattack because at that point the border will become heavily militarised.

The above is just how it looks to me, looking at the cold reality.

What you say sounds convincing enough but I’m pretty sure you said similar things before Ukraine’s last counteroffensive last year. It all seems very uncertain and open to future events from where I’m sitting

 

[strung out]

What you say sounds convincing enough but I’m pretty sure you said similar things before Ukraine’s last counteroffensive last year. It all seems very uncertain and open to future events from where I’m sitting

It also makes the mistake of assuming that just because Russia has held the land bridge for over a year, that that's evidence that Ukraine is unlikely to make any progress in retaking it this year.

It completely ignores the fact that a) Ukraine hasn't attempted to retake any of that particular territory for the last year because they've lacked the western equipment, and b) they've been successful in both of their previous counter offensives last year, retaking territory that many people were telling them they should give up as lost forever.

 

[Idris2002]

Watching Deutsche Welle here. They just had Jens Stoltenberg on, saying the more territory Ukraine can liberate, "the stronger their hand will be at the negotiating table."

So - NATO expects a negotiated settlement, probably not resulting in the full expulsion of the occupier from the whole of Ukraine?

 

[kebabking]

One of things I would say is that it's far too easy to think 'Russia has had X time to do Y', but time doesn't dig anti-tank defences, engineers with earth moving equipment dig anti-tank defences, and Russia has a 600km front line to fortify. There are open source images of Ukrainian units going through previously Russian held areas that are allegedly fortified, but the fortifications are minimal to non-existant - and even where have been dug, anti-tank defences that aren't covered by artillery, ATGW, and air support are just obstacle courses that anyone with mine-clearing, earth moving and bridge-laying equipment can roll through in their own sweet time.

Russia has somewhere around 150-200k troops in/around Ukraine, but that's not 150-200k combat troops, possibly half that are combat troops who are trained and equipped (within Russia's definition of trained and equipped) to conduct anything more than the most basic self-defence, while the rest are the hugely manpower intensive logistics train - the Russian Army doesn't use pallets for things like, food, water, ammunition, propellant, fuel etc.. everything has to be moved one at a time between different forms of transport, into and out of holding areas - it's very reminiscent of the different manpower requirements of the pre and post containerised dockyards.

I don't believe Russia will be kicked out of Ukraine this year, I'm painfully aware that the Russians will put up some nasty surprises, and that the Ukrainians will suffer significant loses (I'll be astonished if half the western tanks they've received by August are still serviceable by October for example), and that there will be battles that the Russians will win - but I'm 80% sure that Russia will be out of 50% of the non-Crimea territory it currently holds by November.

There is, of course, a chance - a small one - but a chance nonetheless, that the Ukrainian offensive(s) will yield little at great cost, or even that they will achieve practically nothing. that's wars, and anyone who tells you they are a precise science is a fool. Stuff can go wrong for anyone, no matter how well trained, equipped and with high morale - and when they go wrong they tend to do so catastrophically, and very quickly. I hope that happens to the Russians, but given the nature of chance, it could happen to the Ukraians. Only time will tell.

 

[kebabking]

Watching Deutsche Welle here. They just had Jens Stoltenberg on, saying the more territory Ukraine can liberate, "the stronger their hand will be at the negotiating table."

So - NATO expects a negotiated settlement, probably not resulting in the full expulsion of the occupier from the whole of Ukraine?

Not necessarily - if Russia thinks it's going to lose, and do so quickly, it may take the view that it would be better to withdraw what remains of its army than leave it smoking on the battlefield. That would also be a negotiated settlement, but one that didn't necessarily see Russia retain lumps of Ukraine.

An army is an expensive asset, and one Moscow might well think it will need if it's to hold onto various bits of its federation/sphere of influence - retaining as much of it as possible is a political/strategic war aim in itself.

NATO is obviously aware that a negotiated compromise that involves Russia maintaining a hold of some Ukrainian territory is a possible outcome, so it makes sense to shape the battlefield so that if that is what happens, the result will be as advantageous to Ukraine as possible.

If you book an outdoor event in November, you make sure you've got some kind of shelter in case it rains.

 

[two sheds]

With reference to people on the thread being too interested in the weaponry, I think I read on MediaMatters years ago that people in the US (Fox News particularly) who knew most about what missiles the US was using in Iraq: range, power etc actually knew least about where Iraq was, why the war was being fought, the casualties and the like.

That doesn't seem to be true here

 

[RedRedRose]

Do you mean elections in Ukraine or elections in other countries ?

The key election is going to be the American election in 2024. The chances of a Republican anti-war candidate winning seems to be getting slimmer, but if they did, it would wholly undermine the Ukrainian effort.

I am also concerned how susceptible Europe and Britain is to disinformation campaigns from Russia and her allies. France yesterday exposed Russian disinformation, while it might not change election results, it could lead to a groundswell of people wanting to abandon support for Ukraine.

 

[emanymton]

The key election is going to be the American election in 2024. The chances of a Republican anti-war candidate winning seems to be getting slimmer, but if they did, it would wholly undermine the Ukrainian effort.

I am also concerned how susceptible Europe and Britain is to disinformation campaigns from Russia and her allies. France yesterday exposed Russian disinformation, while it might not change election results, it could lead to a groundswell of people wanting to abandon support for Ukraine.

Anti-war candidate? Think you mean pro Russian candidate.

 

[weltweit]

If Trump wins in 2024 I can see him spouting "America First" and cutting back support for Ukraine, and for that matter for NATO also. I think a Trump win could change the balance of support for Ukraine.

 

[tim]

If Trump wins in 2024 I can see him spouting "America First" and cutting back support for Ukraine, and for that matter for NATO also. I think a Trump win could change the balance of support for Ukraine.

When golden showers happen in presidential suites. They bring the blossoms that bloom in November.

 

[Flavour]

If Trump wins in 2024 I can see him spouting "America First" and cutting back support for Ukraine, and for that matter for NATO also. I think a Trump win could change the balance of support for Ukraine.

Trump will not be the Republican candidate.