Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Yeah, they're not giving Ukraine bombers. I just don't like certain people pretending to be surprised Ukraine hasn't punched to the coast yet, and talking about making deals. The Russians won't make a deal they'll keep. The US has dragged their feet with support, and it seems intentional and not due to fear of escalation. The US could get serious with Ukraine and make it work if they wanted to.



That's what Putin wants you to believe. It's all about perception. :)
My perception is that you have become rather too invested in the war
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I think it's like most things that most people want - that at some point a magic fairy will come along, wave a wand and turn a messy, difficult situation into one that's great, and doesn't have downsides.

I've genuinely not met, or heard of, any of the western supporters of Ukraine in Government who are wobbly on the restoration of Ukrainian territory under a democratic government that is free to choose it's affiliations. Everyone is solid on that - the problem is the potential consequences of the means of achieving that.

There are, in effect, three fears that hold people back from giving Ukraine the tools to accomplish a full-fat military victory through physical domination of the battlefield:

That Russian central state power/governance will collapse, and that Russia will become a giant failed state with 6,000 nukes and an endless supply of would-be former vassal states/territories looking to get out of its orbit.

That Grey-zone/conventional Putin would be replaced Putin would be replaced by nuclear Putin - whether it's him or the next guy is irrelevant.

That Russia will be so politically and economically defeated by such an outcome that it will become an outright vassal state of China. China on the Arctic Ocean and the Polish border does not appeal.

The fundamental problem is that there seems to be very little space between an outright Ukrainian victory with Russia expelled from all pre-2014 Ukrainian territory, and some degree or combination of the above happening.
Thanks. Better read than the poster I asked .

Realistically I don't think you won't meet or hear of any wobblers until if and when they wobble though, will you? In my experience of politics at a council and regional level everyone's on board until they aren't, then everybody pats themselves on the back saying that they played their part but claims hindsight. I'm not suggesting that there are wobbles. Both the Western and Russian economies are holding up, aside from the risk of Trump , which seems to be receding as the charges mount up, elections in the States, Europe, Russia and Ukraine in 2024 don't seem to pose any real risk to the war continuing.

Hard to disagree with the three examples that you give at this time about NATO/US dilemma, they are realistic and clearly in contrast to the nutty neo con wing that inhabits social media and NAFO who had plans for the division of Russia, regime change , cheering on Prigozhin or arguing that this war was a delayed part of WW2, or that 'nuclear bombs aren't that bad'.

The latter example you give nicely touches on the geo politics side and new fluid, more inclusive and more complex developments that are emerging which the conclusion of this FT article describes as 'The age of the western set menu is over. And the new menu, while heavily influenced by two lead chefs, is still being written."

 
The "risk of Russia as a failed state" thing, this seems to rely on the belief that Russia having absorbed a relatively small portion of Ukraine, the portion it's currently occupying, and no more, means a low likelihood of failed state outcome whereas having to revert to pre-existing borders means a significantly higher likelihood of failed state ourcome.

So what's this based on, is it based on face-saving, and whether the populace will see Putin as a failure?

Or is it based on the idea that the direct effects on Russia's military, that is, the damage it would sustain if a western-supported reclamation of the territory went ahead, that this in itself would "dangerously" weaken the government's hold on power? That once the military is weakened to some extent, this creates the conditions where the state starts to fall apart?
 
Yeah, they're not giving Ukraine bombers. I just don't like certain people pretending to be surprised Ukraine hasn't punched to the coast yet, and talking about making deals. The Russians won't make a deal they'll keep. The US has dragged their feet with support, and it seems intentional and not due to fear of escalation. The US could get serious with Ukraine and make it work if they wanted to.



That's what Putin wants you to believe. It's all about perception. :)
The Russians won’t make a deal they can keep? Even if true, the US certainly doesn't keep its word: eg on the Eastwards expansion of NATO
 
The Russians won’t make a deal they can keep? Even if true, the US certainly doesn't keep its word: eg on the Eastwards expansion of NATO
No-one actually promised that. In fact, Russia wanted to join NATO. Just on, you know, their own terms.
Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.


The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise Nato as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

As it is, Clinton tried to offer the Partnership For Peace to Warsaw Pact countries; every single one rejected NATO-decaf as thin gruel, especially Poland, who went apeshit between threatening to go nuclear and throwing grenades into the American political system through their diaspora. Within eight years of the fall of the Soviet Union, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary had clamored for, and eventually joined NATO. Should we be surprised that those three, in particular, wanted protection from Russia as fast as they ever could get it?
 
We are slowly watching WW3 unfolding in my very depressing opinion. The threat of someone using nukes are the only thing thats stopped it escalating as quickly as WW1 and WW2 did.

If Ukraine do manage to push them back to their legal borders (and get Crimea back), Putin will nuke Kiev and other Ukraine cities purely out of spite and revenge. If the Russian state collapses the next leader could be worse or theres a chance China's influence in Russia will become massive. Similar to how Russia feared NATO / US would surround them (a problem they've managed to actually make worse). We (NATO) could have china on our doorstep (in a military sense). But they are already surrounded by lots of US bases so who could blame them?

Someone putting a bullet in Putin's head and the next person being sane and pro democracy is a fantasy many of us probably share. But is unlikely.

But we have witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union who had been involved in major wars too that were proxy wars with the USA and they didn't descend into a nuclear apocalypse. So who fucking know.

Enjoy each day we get folks.
 
No-one actually promised that. In fact, Russia wanted to join NATO. Just on, you know, their own terms.


As it is, Clinton tried to offer the Partnership For Peace to Warsaw Pact countries; every single one rejected NATO-decaf as thin gruel, especially Poland, who went apeshit between threatening to go nuclear and throwing grenades into the American political system through their diaspora. Within eight years of the fall of the Soviet Union, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary had clamored for, and eventually joined NATO. Should we be surprised that those three, in particular, wanted protection from Russia as fast as they ever could get it?
by expanding nato the alliance made war more likely - don't just take my word for it, there's a book on the subject Escaping the Deadly Embrace by Andrea Bartoletti | Hardcover | Cornell University Press

while the author talks about the encirclement of china by russia and india, and although russia is not formally encircled the much greater part of its population lies west of the urals and from cape nordkinn down to the dardanelles russian access to the sea is through or past nato countries. for me the advance of nato increased the risk of war - we all know nato's always been an anti-russian alliance. earlier in the thread i posted about american overtures to ukraine in 2021, to join some sort of partnership or whatnot. i don't believe that nato necessarily caused the war but they certainly played a part in making it more likely.
 
We are slowly watching WW3 unfolding in my very depressing opinion. The threat of someone using nukes are the only thing thats stopped it escalating as quickly as WW1 and WW2 did.

If Ukraine do manage to push them back to their legal borders (and get Crimea back), Putin will nuke Kiev and other Ukraine cities purely out of spite and revenge. If the Russian state collapses the next leader could be worse or theres a chance China's influence in Russia will become massive. Similar to how Russia feared NATO / US would surround them (a problem they've managed to actually make worse). We (NATO) could have china on our doorstep (in a military sense). But they are already surrounded by lots of US bases so who could blame them?

Someone putting a bullet in Putin's head and the next person being sane and pro democracy is a fantasy many of us probably share. But is unlikely.

But we have witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union who had been involved in major wars too that were proxy wars with the USA and they didn't descend into a nuclear apocalypse. So who fucking know.

Enjoy each day we get folks.
we all know the second world war's traditional start date of 1939 is rather late. for china it started rather earlier, perhaps as far back as the mukden incident in 1931. it's not like a football match where all the players are on the pitch before the referee starts the game. maybe this started in 2014. maybe even earlier. but yeh it's going to get much worse than this
 
we all know the second world war's traditional start date of 1939 is rather late. for china it started rather earlier, perhaps as far back as the mukden incident in 1931. it's not like a football match where all the players are on the pitch before the referee starts the game. maybe this started in 2014. maybe even earlier. but yeh it's going to get much worse than this

Yeah fully aware of Japanese aggression and invasion of China. Have read a few books of the subject and WW2 generally and The Rape of Nanking was the only one I couldn't actually finish as found it so fucking disturbing and its very graphic. As are most books about war but this one is fucking grim.

You could argue WW1 never really finished. There was just a long break before the 2nd half. Needed time for the subs to become adults. The Germans / Nazi's used the time for a very long team talk.
 
Last edited:
Yeah fully aware of Japanese aggressive and invasion of China. Have read a few books of the subject and WW2 generally and The Rape of Nanking was the only one I couldn't actually finish as found it so fucking disturbing and its very graphic. As are most books about war but this one is fucking grim.

You could argue WW1 never really finished. There was just a long break before the 2nd half. Needed time for the subs to become adults.


Foch said that the armistice after WW1 was just a truce for the next 20 years and he was right
 
Re f16s, from what Ive read a little while back they are to play a defensive role rather than help recalim territory...this is to do with Russian ability to shoot them down. Even yesterday Ukrainian air force spokesperson Yuriy Ihnat said “We had big hopes for this plane, that it will become part of air defence, able to protect us from Russia’s missiles and drones terrorism"...not as part of the the counterattack

quick google
seems 'balanced'
The Irish Times - the paper which thinks of itself as the Le Monde or New York Times of Ireland, but which isn't like that at all - had a story a couple of weeks back arguing that the F16 is outclassed and outgunned by the Russian fighters it would be facing. The Sukhois and Migs will apparently be able to hit the F16 from three hundred miles away . . .
 
The "risk of Russia as a failed state" thing, this seems to rely on the belief that Russia having absorbed a relatively small portion of Ukraine, the portion it's currently occupying, and no more, means a low likelihood of failed state outcome whereas having to revert to pre-existing borders means a significantly higher likelihood of failed state ourcome.

So what's this based on, is it based on face-saving, and whether the populace will see Putin as a failure?

Or is it based on the idea that the direct effects on Russia's military, that is, the damage it would sustain if a western-supported reclamation of the territory went ahead, that this in itself would "dangerously" weaken the government's hold on power? That once the military is weakened to some extent, this creates the conditions where the state starts to fall apart?

You've noticed no one has even attempted to answer your post. :) Really good questions though.
 
we all know the second world war's traditional start date of 1939 is rather late. for china it started rather earlier, perhaps as far back as the mukden incident in 1931. it's not like a football match where all the players are on the pitch before the referee starts the game. maybe this started in 2014. maybe even earlier. but yeh it's going to get much worse than this

I wonder if Americans think WW2 was a 4 year gig from '41-'45.
 
The Irish Times - the paper which thinks of itself as the Le Monde or New York Times of Ireland, but which isn't like that at all - had a story a couple of weeks back arguing that the F16 is outclassed and outgunned by the Russian fighters it would be facing. The Sukhois and Migs will apparently be able to hit the F16 from three hundred miles away . . .
The Russians have a very limited number of those missiles, and they're far from 100% effective. As is evidenced by the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force still exists at all. Very long range air-to-air missiles are designed and built to pick off AWACS and bomber-sized targets, and while they can certainly kill smaller things they're notably less effective at it. I think Wikipedia is fairly spot on with this:
According to Ukrainian pilots the R-37M isn't achieving a lot of "hard kills", the destruction of actual Ukrainian aircraft. However their launch forces pilots to abandon their current missiles and take evasive action.[19] Ukrainian pilots believe that the only defence is for their allies to supply them with F-16 fighter jets and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. While it won't close the distance Ukrainian pilots hope that it will push back the effective range of missiles like the R-37.
 
Yeah fully aware of Japanese aggression and invasion of China. Have read a few books of the subject and WW2 generally and The Rape of Nanking was the only one I couldn't actually finish as found it so fucking disturbing and its very graphic. As are most books about war but this one is fucking grim.

You could argue WW1 never really finished. There was just a long break before the 2nd half. Needed time for the subs to become adults. The Germans / Nazi's used the time for a very long team talk.
was this the iris chang book about nanking? very sadly she killed herself in 2004, and i think the subjects she was researching and writing about, like the rape of nanking and the bataan death march, had a great - and understandable - impact on her mental health. her book on nanking excellent if harrowing.

as for ww1 not finishing, in many ways it didn't end in november 1918 - there's the tan war in ireland, the wars in the (former) ottoman empire, the fighting in the baltic states, not to mention the russian civil war and the soviet assault on poland - robert gerwarth has written a couple of very interesting books on the subject
 
The Irish Times - the paper which thinks of itself as the Le Monde or New York Times of Ireland, but which isn't like that at all - had a story a couple of weeks back arguing that the F16 is outclassed and outgunned by the Russian fighters it would be facing. The Sukhois and Migs will apparently be able to hit the F16 from three hundred miles away . . .

The tiny problem with that thesis is that the aircraft/systems/ordnance that Russia supposedly outguns the F-16's with is exactly the same aircraft/systems/ordnance that Russia hasn't outgunned Ukrainian Mig-29's and Su-27's with, and the Ukrainian jets are about 25 years behind the F-16's in terms of their radars, jamming gear, etc...

Now, obviously it depends on how Ukraine tries to use them, and it's certainly true that Ukraine has so far been relatively conservative in it's use of its jet fleets - it hasn't tried to assert air supremacy over a battlefield, or do deep pentration raids - it's doing 'sniping' raids, both into the battlefield and in the deep battle with air launched cruise missiles.

That, of course, may change with the F-16's, but the performance of the Russian air force against the Ukrainian air force of 2022 does not suggest they'll do any better when the Ukrainians get better gear.
 
The tiny problem with that thesis is that the aircraft/systems/ordnance that Russia supposedly outguns the F-16's with is exactly the same aircraft/systems/ordnance that Russia hasn't outgunned Ukrainian Mig-29's and Su-27's with, and the Ukrainian jets are about 25 years behind the F-16's in terms of their radars, jamming gear, etc...

Now, obviously it depends on how Ukraine tries to use them, and it's certainly true that Ukraine has so far been relatively conservative in it's use of its jet fleets - it hasn't tried to assert air supremacy over a battlefield, or do deep pentration raids - it's doing 'sniping' raids, both into the battlefield and in the deep battle with air launched cruise missiles.

That, of course, may change with the F-16's, but the performance of the Russian air force against the Ukrainian air force of 2022 does not suggest they'll do any better when the Ukrainians get better gear.
Well, here's the IT piece in full: Supply of F-16s to Ukraine a hugely expensive test for Kyiv’s allies

The author talks about the need for a perfect storm of successes: "while the doughty F-16 on its own may indeed not be a game-changer, military operations are sometimes described as coming together like “an orchestra of firepower”. Well, Ukraine deserves some good luck after all this.
 
was this the iris chang book about nanking? very sadly she killed herself in 2004, and i think the subjects she was researching and writing about, like the rape of nanking and the bataan death march, had a great - and understandable - impact on her mental health. her book on nanking excellent if harrowing.

as for ww1 not finishing, in many ways it didn't end in november 1918 - there's the tan war in ireland, the wars in the (former) ottoman empire, the fighting in the baltic states, not to mention the russian civil war and the soviet assault on poland - robert gerwarth has written a couple of very interesting books on the subject

it is indeed by iris chang (i had to check tbh) and that’s terrible to hear about her taking her own life. Her grandparents escaped the worst of it (Nanking).

and you are right. she killed herself when only 36. This is on Wiki. How sad.

Depression and death

Chang suffered a nervous breakdown in August 2004, which her family, friends, and doctors attributed in part to constant sleep deprivation, dozens of herbal supplements, and heavy doses of psychologically damaging prescription medication. At the time, she was several months into research for her fourth book, about the Bataan Death March. She was also promoting The Chinese in America. While en route to Harrodsburg, Kentucky, where she planned to gain access to a "time capsule" of audio recordings from servicemen, she suffered an extreme bout of depression that left her unable to leave her hotel room in Louisville. A local veteran, Arthur Kelly, who was assisting her research helped her check into Norton Psychiatric Hospital in Louisville, where she was diagnosed with reactive psychosis, placed on heavy medication for three days and then released to her parents. After the release from the hospital, she continued to suffer from depression and experienced the side effects of several medications she was taking. Chang was also reportedly deeply disturbed by much of the subject matter of her research.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Chz
Being reported that Russia is 'reopening' the northern front above Kharkiv...i would speculate its an attempt to distract ukraine from the southern offensive and create headaches rather than a genuine attempt to claim territory long term

"grim assessment" from US intelligence reported here
 
Lots of reports this week that Ukraine is struggling to replace dead and wounded soldiers. This brings me back to an earlier question I asked about other countries providing troops and the implications of such a move.

I have been avoiding this thread for a while as the death threats and general abuse were getting me down.

So either don’t respond or keep it civil eh? I am in no mood to have anyone threaten me or my family again.
 
This was a very good bit of journalism from the BBC I thought... Of course there is the Russian equivalent

Sounds like Ukraine are really pushing down on this right now


Almost certainly no other country will send troops, it would be too much a risk to escalate the war IMO. Hence the above...
 
Being reported that Russia is 'reopening' the northern front above Kharkiv...i would speculate its an attempt to distract ukraine from the southern offensive and create headaches rather than a genuine attempt to claim territory long term

"grim assessment" from US intelligence reported here

I believe you're correct. Russia's northern push has been going on for a long while.
 
The "risk of Russia as a failed state" thing, this seems to rely on the belief that Russia having absorbed a relatively small portion of Ukraine, the portion it's currently occupying, and no more, means a low likelihood of failed state outcome whereas having to revert to pre-existing borders means a significantly higher likelihood of failed state ourcome.

So what's this based on, is it based on face-saving, and whether the populace will see Putin as a failure?

Or is it based on the idea that the direct effects on Russia's military, that is, the damage it would sustain if a western-supported reclamation of the territory went ahead, that this in itself would "dangerously" weaken the government's hold on power? That once the military is weakened to some extent, this creates the conditions where the state starts to fall apart?
They're not good questions, dilute micro is just being nice.
 
This brings me back to an earlier question I asked about other countries providing troops and the implications of such a move.

Not sure that's actually been discussed anywhere though has it? The only hint of it I have seen was the suggestion repair teams could move close to the border (in Poland?) to fix damaged tanks etc.

The implications of it are obvious though aren't they; an increased risk of an escalation between Russia and NATO, even if by accident.
 
Back
Top Bottom