Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[gosub]

I dunno though on that last suspicion, I think that by the point that they have started blaming Boris Johnson for frustrating a peace deal, they’ve pretty visibly gone down the rabbit hole and started on the bottle labelled “drink me”.

bbbbut that's what that nice history teacher who just got re-elected in Russia told Tucker Carlson

 

[The39thStep]

tbf, it wasn't totally unsubstantiated.

The39thStep posted loads of links about the spring 2022 peace negotiations, which I did go through and read.

Having read them, my understanding is that:

As the initial invasion faltered, Kiev didn't fall as expected and Russian troops retreated, Russia did offer a peace deal.

The main points of the peace offer was that Russian troops would retreat to their positions before the Feb 2022 invasion (so keeping the post-2014 areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions); Ukraine would agree not to join NATO, would limit the size of its military and a few other things, like giving Russian and Ukrainian languages equal footing.

The negotiators and others quoted in the links (except Gerhard Schroeder, with his business links to Russia) felt that the offer was mainly to buy time for the Russian military to regroup before relaunching the invasion, so this meant the guarantees mattered, especially as with a newly limited military, Ukraine would be less able to defend itself.

Under the offer all guarantor states of the peace deal would have to unanimously agree to act. Russia wanted Belarus as their guarantor, who just might have caused problems for a unanimous agreement. Ukraine specified Turkey as a guarantor. The US didn't want to be a guarantor as if, as expected, Russia did relaunch the invasion they would be expected to send US troops to directly fight Russian troops, something Biden wants to avoid.

After reaching this position, details of the Bucha massacre emerged, hardening Ukrainian attitudes, Western Governments offered support to Ukraine to enable them to fight (including Johnson bumbling into Kiev shouting Fight! Feck! Gurls!, or whatever he said) and then Russia relaunched the invasion with more success in the south east and at that point the offer was dead on both sides.

It was an interesting delve into the peace negotiations, but there was nothing to suggest that it was a genuine attempt to end the war by Russia that was thrown in their face because of Western intervention.

So how did it come to be characterised as Russia offered peace, but Johnson made them fight on?

I find it interesting how, from time to time, a new angle on How The West Are To Blame will surface. I previously had a dig into the 2021 US Ukraine Strategic Partnership, when that was supposed to be the cause of the war.

As with this, selective quoting, careful wording and a few missing key pieces of information did create the impression of something untoward, but a close look revealed it to be just a thing that happened rather than evidence of the West looking to make the war happen.

So how does this esoterica get turned into suggestions the West caused the war/wants it to continue? Where do those heavily edited videos in Tweets and specifically spun details come from? My suspicion is Russia.

'Russian Troll Farms' are so discussed they almost seem ridiculous, but they're real, most famously the Internet Research Agency, which ran between 2013 and 2023 (when it's founder Prigozhin had his unfortunate accident), which employed over 1000 people. They weren't the only one and the fake video of Danilov from last week shows there's still people out there doing the work.

It's completely sensible to try to look beyond the pro-Ukrainian view in the western media to gain a critical view of what's happening, but as soon as you look away from mainstream Western sources you find yourself presented with a pro-Russian version of events pumped out of Russia, looking to sow doubt, confusion and present a version of the world that is much more to the Russian state's taste. For those who are (quite rightly) critical of Western foreign policy it can be tempting to get sucked in. But its as important to look past the pro-Russian version of events as it is a simplistic pro-Ukrainian one, to try not to take sides, and just to try to understand what's going on.

I'd love to see peace as much as everyone else, but once war is unleashed it takes on its own logic and, whatever anyone wants, finding a way to make it stop is not easy. That's why starting wars is always a bad idea, whoever does it.

I think that the Ukraine Pravda link was quite explicit about Johnson saying he wouldn't sign any security guarantee however I can't see any point in reopening this up unless there are any new sources tbh

 

[emanymton]

Honestly not a lot a think. If you have the time to spare these 2 episodes of the war on the rocks podcast touch on the issue as part of an overall sober assessment of the current situation.

The second one also seems to be arguing that manpower may in fact be a bigger issue for Ukraine.

Generally an interesting podcast, juat got to keep in mind the perspective they are comming from is very much pro American military.

The Russo-Ukrainian War at Two - War on the Rocks

On the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Ryan and Mike Kofman sit down to chat about where the war stands today and where

warontherocks.com

Fortifications, Manpower, and Munitions in Ukraine's Daunting Year Ahead - War on the Rocks

Mike Kofman, fresh back from a research trip to Ukraine, spoke with Ryan about Ukraine's main challenges in facing down Russia this year.

warontherocks.com

Interestingly another point made in the second podcast is that Ukraine was currently undertaking an audit of their forces. Apparently following that they have decided they don't need to recruit as much as they thought. Got to say I'm somewhat sceptical of this.

Loading…

www.reuters.com

 

[TopCat]

Interestingly another point made in the second podcast is that Ukraine was currently undertaking an audit of their forces. Apparently following that they have decided they don't need to recruit as much as they thought. Got to say I'm somewhat sceptical of this.

Loading…

www.reuters.com

The proposed mobilisation was never going to work politically and practically.

 

[spitfire]

Not gonna lie, although myself and TC are diametrically opposed on this, that was the first thing I thought as well.

 

[Ax^]

The proposed mobilisation was never going to work politically and practically.

same can be said about the Russian mobilisation

jesus they started this war as a scary superpower with a efficient military who could take on the west

lost all the credibility to a bunch of farmers

 

[discokermit]

same can be said about the Russian mobilisation

jesus they started this war as a scary superpower with a efficient military who could take on the west

lost all the credibility to a bunch of farmers

they've took on the west and are winning.

as for credibility,

UK military ‘couldn’t fight Russia for longer than two months’

Failure to secure more funding for Armed Forces puts us at a disadvantage, warns Deputy Chief of Defence Staff

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Ax^]

i'm not english dude so that means nothing to me..

also i'm not looking for a clash of nations like some war loving fuck gobshite

Russia invaded Ukraine btw

last 2 years have clearly displayed that the Russia military as some world beating force is a footnote in history
they have the MAD protocols as always but its not winning a ground war

the below link highlights problem " we beat an american tank yay!!"


The loss of the first Abrams » Wavell Room.

 

[The39thStep]

Not gonna lie, although myself and TC are diametrically opposed on this, that was the first thing I thought as well.

Well done for saying. In the real world, it's often a common everyday thing to have different opinions on issues but also to agree on some aspects of those issues.

 

[TopCat]

TopCat discokermit

Seeing as Elpenor doesn't seem interested in answering this question, feel free to field this one.

I don’t think the current front line will be set in stone as the defacto border. I think the West will supply more long range weapons which will be used to attack Russia and that Russia will push West, maybe to Odessa.

I think the Ukrainians will deplete their air defence missile stocks and will get pounded as a result. I think Zelensky may get toppled by someone more Nationalistic but who will do worse.

Will pressure be applied to either or both sides to come to an agreement? It could happen. I can’t see it happening yet as the West is so fixed on ending Putins leadership and I suspect, breaking up Russia and allowing capital a free hand there.

 

[Pickman's model]

same can be said about the Russian mobilisation

jesus they started this war as a scary superpower with a efficient military who could take on the west

lost all the credibility to a bunch of farmers

You don't think much of the Ukrainians. 15% of Ukrainians were employed in agriculture in 2021, meaning 85% weren't. But farmers aren't to be denigrated, sure you've heard of the time farmers inflicted a great series of defeats on the British in South Africa. Not to mention the French in Vietnam.

As for the russians starting the war with an efficient army, there's been much chat about corruption in the Russian forces. And many people were surprised by their use of conscripts in the fighting as combat was supposed to be the sphere of contract soldiers and not callow conscripts who were officially assigned other roles. As I said the other day, the Russian plan to seize kyiv in a special op failed, and much of what followed has come from that initial failure.

 

[discokermit]

You don't think much of the Ukrainians.

thats why their deaths mean nothing to these people. expendable.

 

[Ax^]

You don't think much of the Ukrainians. 15% of Ukrainians were employed in agriculture in 2021, meaning 85% weren't. But farmers aren't to be denigrated, sure you've heard of the time farmers inflicted a great series of defeats on the British in South Africa. Not to mention the French in Vietnam.

don't be a twat Pickmans regardless of the profession of most Ukrainian at the start of the invasion ,
was the Ukraine listed as world super power with one of the largest standing army in the world with some of the most modern technology

quite a sobering reality for the russian militarily after their bluster before the invasion

 

[sleaterkinney]

I dunno though on that last suspicion, I think that by the point that they have started blaming Boris Johnson for frustrating a peace deal, they’ve pretty visibly gone down the rabbit hole and started on the bottle labelled “drink me”.

I think it’s a mixture of still having a hard-on for the USSR and also being unable to perceive anything as not being the Wests fault.

 

[Chz]

don't be a twat Pickmans regardless of the profession of most Ukrainian at the start of the invasion ,
was the Ukraine listed as world super power with one of the largest standing army in the world with some of the most modern technology

quite a sobering reality for the russian militarily after their bluster before the invasion

Ukraine did actually have quite a large military. They had more artillery pieces than the whole of western Europe put together. Not much of an air force or navy, but a considerable ground force. Not up to Russian standards, of course, but certainly no pushover and would give most nations pause for thought.

 

[The39thStep]

Returning to the subject of EU arms funding , this short article in Politico describes what it calls 'creative accounting'

The truth behind the EU’s new €5B weapons fund for Kyiv

EU leaders agreed on the new fund after weeks of talks, but it’s less about money than “creative accounting.”

www.politico.eu

 

[Ax^]

Ukraine did actually have quite a large military. They had more artillery pieces than the whole of western Europe put together. Not much of an air force or navy, but a considerable ground force. Not up to Russian standards, of course, but certainly no pushover and would give most nations pause for thought.

right so you agree with me that the Ukraine's is not a superpower

now sir why that confirmation took a whole paragraph but some people will try to argue whilst confirming you initial statement but

 

[Silas Loom]

Returning to the subject of EU arms funding , this short article in Politico describes what it calls 'creative accounting'

The truth behind the EU’s new €5B weapons fund for Kyiv

EU leaders agreed on the new fund after weeks of talks, but it’s less about money than “creative accounting.”

www.politico.eu

The EU doesn’t seem to be adding much value to the whip-round process and I doubt it does to procurement, either.

 

[The39thStep]

The EU doesn’t seem to be adding much value to the whip-round process and I doubt it does to procurement, either.

Big ship , slow turning point I suppose which was exposed during covid although they seem to have learnt some lessons. The EU is prohibited, at the moment anyway, from using its regular budget to finance military operations so they set up an extra-budgetary source, the “European Peace Facility.” (EFP) as mentioned in the Politico article which is funded by member state contributions . Read somewhere that accounted for around 375 billion euros of aid , both military and humanitarian and refugee programmes up until March.

I think we touched some of the issues re ammunition on here last month or so?

 

[Pickman's model]

don't be a fucking twat Pickmans regardless of the profession of most Ukrainian at the start of the invasion ,
was the Ukraine listed as world super power with one of the largest standing army in the world with some of the most modern technology

quite a sobering reality for the russian militarily after their bluster before the invasion

It's like you look at the words rather than reading them. You're acting the twat here: you're a one point pony and it's not even that good a point.

 

[Ax^]

hmm saying ukraines army was smaller and less well funded that russia at the start of the war = not think much of the Ukrainians.

what was your point again

 

[Pickman's model]

hmm saying ukraines army was smaller and less well funded that russia at the start of the war = not think much of the Ukrainians.

what was your point again

That's an utterly mischaracterisation of what I've said and ignores what you were saying about Ukrainians but a few posts up.

 

[Yossarian]

I think it’s a mixture of still having a hard-on for the USSR

Yep, apparently capitalists are plotting to break up Putin's glorious socialist state

 

[Ax^]

That's an utterly mischaracterisation of what I've said and ignores what you were saying about Ukrainians but a few posts up.

again what did i say about ukraine.. calling them farmers?

what's their main export again?
does their flag not symbolise a wheat field

fuck me what slander

 

[Pickman's model]

again what did i say about ukraine.. calling them farmers?

whats their main export again?

fuck me what slander

You made out they were a nation of farmers. And you've been slinging your toys out the pram ever since it was pointed out you were wrong.

 

[Ax^]

hmm what do you have against farmers Pickman's?

it was not a slur against the Ukraine which has long history of agriculture and tone of the main consequences of this russian war is an increase in food price across the global

 

[The39thStep]

hmm what do you have against farmers Pickman's?

it was not a slur against the Ukraine which has long history of agriculture and tone of the main consequences of this russian war is an increase in food price across the global

I would like to believe that the phrase describing Ukraine as 'a bunch of farmers' is in fact a tribute to 'Ukraine which has long history of agriculture and tone of the main consequences of this russian war is an increase in food price across the global'.

 

[Ax^]

hmm people who want to leave Ukraine to it own devises or tell them to just give into beibg a vessel state to Russia are now giving me shite for calling a country which is referred to as the bread basket of Europe .. farmers

I want to believe you getting involved to defend to honour of Ukraine

 

[Rimbaud]

I don’t think the current front line will be set in stone as the defacto border. I think the West will supply more long range weapons which will be used to attack Russia and that Russia will push West, maybe to Odessa.

I think the Ukrainians will deplete their air defence missile stocks and will get pounded as a result. I think Zelensky may get toppled by someone more Nationalistic but who will do worse.

Will pressure be applied to either or both sides to come to an agreement? It could happen. I can’t see it happening yet as the West is so fixed on ending Putins leadership and I suspect, breaking up Russia and allowing capital a free hand there.

You're still avoiding answering the question - I'm sure you would probably say you support a peace deal rather than support Russia. In which case surely that means you think the border should be frozen as it is under a ceasefire agreement? And if so, what guarantee could Ukraine have that Russia won't take another bite later after recovering their strength?

You haven't said what you think should happen, just what you think will happen. That isn't what I was asking.

What I think is that you are not remotely interested in peace but you are having an emotional anti-west kneejerk reaction and are cheering for Russia because you will get some emotional satisfaction from seeing Russia beat "the west" by subjugating their former colony. This is why you can't answer the question because logically you know that Russia's invasion of Ukraine isn't justified so won't openly say that you want to see Russia move on to Odessa and Kyiv so you claim to be anti-war and say you support a peace treaty as a fig leaf, but an actual functioning peace deal short of outright Russian victory would necessarily involve some security guarantees for rump Ukraine, which you can't accept because that means NATO expansion.

So evasion is the name of the game, for you and several other posters with a similar mindset; it is frankly a disgrace to claim to be "anti-war" because you support the colonised surrendering to the coloniser. That is a pro-war position, in fact even worse than that, it is a slimy and dishonest pro-war position.

 

[discokermit]

You're still avoiding answering the question - I'm sure you would probably say you support a peace deal rather than support Russia. In which case surely that means you think the border should be frozen as it is under a ceasefire agreement? And if so, what guarantee could Ukraine have that Russia won't take another bite later after recovering their strength?

You haven't said what you think should happen, just what you think will happen. That isn't what I was asking.

What I think is that you are not remotely interested in peace but you are having an emotional anti-west kneejerk reaction and are cheering for Russia because you will get some emotional satisfaction from seeing Russia beat "the west" by subjugating their former colony. This is why you can't answer the question because logically you know that Russia's invasion of Ukraine isn't justified so won't openly say that you want to see Russia move on to Odessa and Kyiv so you claim to be anti-war and say you support a peace treaty as a fig leaf, but an actual functioning peace deal short of outright Russian victory would necessarily involve some security guarantees for rump Ukraine, which you can't accept because that means NATO expansion.

So evasion is the name of the game, for you and several other posters with a similar mindset; it is frankly a disgrace to claim to be "anti-war" because you support the colonised surrendering to the coloniser. That is a pro-war position, in fact even worse than that, it is a slimy and dishonest pro-war position.

im not evading you. im ignoring you.