Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-25

[Spymaster]

We could sponsor a Russian cluster bomb and have a message scrawled on it within a few hours via the Z telegram channels -- probably cost you less than a grand. We could write "TopCat says stop the war!"

I don’t believe he necessarily wants the war to stop. He just wants Russia to win.

 

[teuchter]

all your questions are answered in the preceding pages

Amazing that they could anticipate the arguments that would apply today, at this moment in time, as I specifically mentioned.

 

[Raheem]

Your TINA position is contradicted by the stance of other allies of Ukraine.

Only if you rule out hypocrisy on their part.

 

[teuchter]

*relatively quick pathway for Ukraine to join NATO thrashed out (not next week, or next month, but next year perhaps),

Would the assumption/implication be that if Ukraine is lined up to join NATO, then once it is, Russian forces would effectively be taking action against NATO by remaining in Ukraine and therefore they'd better withdraw or face consequences?

 

[kebabking]

Your TINA position is contradicted by the stance of other allies of Ukraine.

You think my views - or indeed Ukraines views - should be constrained by what Rishi Sunak thinks?

I hold a nuanced view on sub-munitions - that it's not about sub-munitions themselves, it's about failure rates, fail-safes, where they are used, who by, the resources set apart for clearing them - it won't surprise you that politicians don't really do nuance, or detail, they just spout slogans that either have no meaning, or they do, but those politicians either don't understand them, or don't mean them.

 

[JimW]

Have we had this Meduza/Mediazona number-crunching attempt to estimate Russian causalities? Bring out your dead A joint investigation by Meduza and Mediazona reveals the true number of Russian soldiers killed so far in the invasion of Ukraine — Meduza
AP report on it: How many Russians have died in Ukraine? Data shows what Moscow hides

 

[kebabking]

Only if you rule out hypocrisy on their part.

The UK is massively hypocritical on this issue - we don't use sub-munitions ourselves, but our Division and Corps warfare doctrine calls for US fires that do. All signed off by every government for donkeys years - which perhaps assumes that they could read, but...

 

[Crispy]

Would the assumption/implication be that if Ukraine is lined up to join NATO, then once it is, Russian forces would effectively be taking action against NATO by remaining in Ukraine and therefore they'd better withdraw or face consequences?

The war will have to end for Ukraine to join NATO. A nation can't have a territorial dispute or war ongoing in order to join, and there only needs to be one country that doesn't fancy immediate war with Russia in order for Ukraine's ascension to be vetoed.

The implication is that if Ukraine is lined up to join NATO, then as soon as the war is won (with NATO's help all the way up to, but not including, NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine) then Russia will be immediately prevented from ever trying it again.

 

[kebabking]

The war will have to end for Ukraine to join NATO. A nation can't have a territorial dispute or war ongoing in order to join, and there only needs to be one country that doesn't fancy immediate war with Russia in order for Ukraine's ascension to be vetoed.

The implication is that if Ukraine is lined up to join NATO, then as soon as the war is won (with NATO's help all the way up to, but not including, NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine) then Russia will be immediately prevented from ever trying it again.

See, (for me) yes and no.

NATO has rules about joining, but they aren't written in stone, merely on paper. Like all rules, they can be changed - it just depends on whether there's agreement to change them, and whether those who don't want to change the rules prefer the consequences of changing them, or not changing them.

For myself, I don't seen Ukraine getting membership before whatever end to the war happens - what I see as far more likely is more prevarication, and one/some NATO members becoming much more active participants, and then both Russia and NATO as a whole having to make difficult decisions about what happens next.

 

[Spymaster]

... politicians don't really do nuance, or detail, they just spout slogans that either have no meaning, or they do, but those politicians either don't understand them, or don't mean them.

Take a bow, Hun Sen of Cambodia.

 

[Raheem]

Think NATO doesn't actually have a strict rule saying that a country can't join while it is at war or while it's territory is disputed. The rules seem to say just that these things are "to be taken into account".

 

[Crispy]

That may be so, but I don't think eg. Erdogan would take anything but the strictest interpretation of the guideline

 

[kebabking]

That may be so, but I don't think eg. Erdogan would take anything but the strictest interpretation of the guideline

I'd trust him about as far as I could throw Istanbul, bit he's all over the place - Turkey has been a huge supplier to Ukraine, they released some Ukrainian POW's they had promised Russia they wouldn't, they've (apparently) commited to protecting Ukrainian grain ships in the Black Sea after the breakdown of the tripartite grain export agreement.

No idea what he'll do, but a rabbit out of the hat wouldn't surprise me...

 

[A380]

The answers given explained the thinking at the time they were given - for myself, my views have changed significantly over the last 18 months.

Personally * teuchter I think that if the NATO summit in Vilnius this week doesn't see a clear, *relatively quick pathway for Ukraine to join NATO thrashed out (not next week, or next month, but next year perhaps), then you might start to see individual member states looking at what they might do on an individual level - the most obvious one being Poland.

If Poland, already one of the most capable land powers on Europe, and one of the most hawkish on Ukraine, decided to use it's military power to create safe areas in Ukraine (Surface to Air missile batteries in Kyiv, Lviv, Odessa etc.. and fighters in the sky to the west of the Dnipro-Kharkiv line), would Russia seek to attack /shoot them down, or would they effectively accept that western Ukraine was now out of bounds, despite giving the Ukrainian military much respite and allowing it to concentrate it's forces

If Poland intervenes, would Russia attack Poland (where I sit, typing this out..) with missiles or air strikes how would NATO respond to air attacks on a NATO member state?

Lots of NATO states have gone to war whilst part of NATO, the UK in particular obvs. So presumably there are no NATO rules to stop this?

Presumably there would be some kind of ‘diplomatic’ discussions about what level of Russian action would provoke a NATO response.

Google has let me down but isn’t there a sub NATO organisation already comprised of the Scandi countries plus us and the Dutch to give a geared response to threats in the artic and North Sea? Could we something a bit like that in the East of Europe?

 

[The39thStep]

You think my views - or indeed Ukraines views - should be constrained by what Rishi Sunak thinks?

I hold a nuanced view on sub-munitions - that it's not about sub-munitions themselves, it's about failure rates, fail-safes, where they are used, who by, the resources set apart for clearing them - it won't surprise you that politicians don't really do nuance, or detail, they just spout slogans that either have no meaning, or they do, but those politicians either don't understand them, or don't mean them.

Didnt say anything of the sort. I did say your TINA position was contradicted by the view of allied states .

I’m for freedom of speech in the armed forces. The soldiers councils and forums in North Africa and elsewhere at the end of WW2 and during the Portuguese revolution were a great example of what can be achieved in that respect .

 

[JimW]

Opinion piece from an NGO type with much experience of cluster munitions and very much against sending them to Ukraine, bit that stood out to me is him saying the claims of a very low dud rate are wishful thinking enabled by testing under unrealistic conditions: I've Seen Cluster Bombs Maim Children. Why Is Biden Sending Them to Ukraine?

 

[kebabking]

Lots of NATO states have gone to war whilst part of NATO, the UK in particular obvs. So presumably there are no NATO rules to stop this?

Presumably there would be some kind of ‘diplomatic’ discussions about what level of Russian action would provoke a NATO response.

Google has let me down but isn’t there a sub NATO organisation already comprised of the Scandi countries plus us and the Dutch to give a geared response to threats in the artic and North Sea? Could we something a bit like that in the East of Europe?

It's Joint Expeditionary Force.

Apart from 9/11 (and Salisbury...) we've only seen two NATO states attacked in their homeland - so the question would be the degree to which other NATO states would feel obligated to defend/provide deterrence a NATO state that go involved in Ukraine.

And that's absolutely a political question, not one about rules.

If Poland (for example) started flying combat air patrols over Kyiv/whatever from Poland, and shot down the odd Sov that fancied their chances, and then Russia lobbed a few Iskander surface to surface ballistic missiles at Polish airbases (with perhaps the odd one landing in a Polish city), would NATO/some member states (and the UK has a SAM battery in Poland, and Typhoon fighters in Estonia) feel obliged to shoot down Russian intruders or even to go after the missile launchers?

 

[Artaxerxes]

Lots of NATO states have gone to war whilst part of NATO, the UK in particular obvs. So presumably there are no NATO rules to stop this?

Presumably there would be some kind of ‘diplomatic’ discussions about what level of Russian action would provoke a NATO response.

Google has let me down but isn’t there a sub NATO organisation already comprised of the Scandi countries plus us and the Dutch to give a geared response to threats in the artic and North Sea? Could we something a bit like that in the East of Europe?

I think article 5 is about a nation being attacked not ganging up on the local oil despot

 

[teuchter]

The implication is that if Ukraine is lined up to join NATO, then as soon as the war is won (with NATO's help all the way up to, but not including, NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine) then Russia will be immediately prevented from ever trying it again.

What if the war is never won though? It increasingly looks like there could just be a stalemate indefinitely, with folks throwing clusterbombs at each other, along a barely shifting frontline.

At whatever point in time it looks like that's going to be the medium or long term outcome, then I'd ask, what's the advantage of letting that continue rather than accepting a negotiated resolution where Ukraine loses some territory to Russia. Of course that's not a happy or "fair" outcome but if it means fewer people killing each other then isn't it the least bad option - unless serious, direct intervention by one or more third parties is an alternative.

Continuing the status quo, unless something changes fairly soon, starts to look like NATO/western nations prolonging a conflict that they aren't prepared to take action on if it actually presents them with direct risk. It's not entirely unreasonable to see something that looks a bit like Ukrainian soldiers being used as cannon fodder for wider procrastination.

 

[keybored]

That may be so, but I don't think eg. Erdogan would take anything but the strictest interpretation of the guideline

He actually seems keen recently (though that may change when the wind changes direction) https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/07/europe/turkey-ukraine-nato-membership-intl/index.html

 

[tim]

Always been one to grab an opportunity.

He hasn't grabbed an opportunity since 1985, when he first became Prime Minister, avoid de facto ruler of Cambodia. A role which in different guise his fingers have not been prised in the interim.

 

[Pickman's model]

What if the war is never won though? It increasingly looks like there could just be a stalemate indefinitely, with folks throwing clusterbombs at each other, along a barely shifting frontline.

At whatever point in time it looks like that's going to be the medium or long term outcome, then I'd ask, what's the advantage of letting that continue rather than accepting a negotiated resolution where Ukraine loses some territory to Russia. Of course that's not a happy or "fair" outcome but if it means fewer people killing each other then isn't it the least bad option - unless serious, direct intervention by one or more third parties is an alternative.

Continuing the status quo, unless something changes fairly soon, starts to look like NATO/western nations prolonging a conflict that they aren't prepared to take action on if it actually presents them with direct risk. It's not entirely unreasonable to see something that looks a bit like Ukrainian soldiers being used as cannon fodder for wider procrastination.

Even the hundred years war, the eighty years war and the thirty years war ended. So your notion of a never-ending war is about as likely to happen as a sensible, considered post from you on this or pretty much any other subject

 

[Artaxerxes]

Even the hundred years war, the eighty years war and the thirty years war ended. So your notion of a never-ending war is about as likely to happen as a sensible, considered post from you on this or pretty much any other subject

Are you telling me Rogue Trooper was just made up?

 

[strung out]

What if the war is never won though? It increasingly looks like there could just be a stalemate indefinitely, with folks throwing clusterbombs at each other, along a barely shifting frontline.

At whatever point in time it looks like that's going to be the medium or long term outcome, then I'd ask, what's the advantage of letting that continue rather than accepting a negotiated resolution where Ukraine loses some territory to Russia. Of course that's not a happy or "fair" outcome but if it means fewer people killing each other then isn't it the least bad option - unless serious, direct intervention by one or more third parties is an alternative.

Continuing the status quo, unless something changes fairly soon, starts to look like NATO/western nations prolonging a conflict that they aren't prepared to take action on if it actually presents them with direct risk. It's not entirely unreasonable to see something that looks a bit like Ukrainian soldiers being used as cannon fodder for wider procrastination.

I think much of this could be true eventually, but it seems rather unfair and hasty to start demanding Ukraine and its allies start talking about negotiation and formally giving up territory, when they're five weeks into a new counter offensive, when their previous counter offensives have been wildly successful, with much worse equipment (and yes, admittedly against worse defenses).

Maybe the time you describe could come at some point in the future, perhaps next year, but it's still way too early for anyone to be making judgements on the current counter offensive, or to already be encouraging Ukraine to cut unsavoury deals.

 

[Duncan2]

Even the hundred years war, the eighty years war and the thirty years war ended. So your notion of a never-ending war is about as likely to happen as a sensible, considered post from you on this or pretty much any other subject

It will end all right-and we just have to hope that it won't be an end of the nuclear variety

 

[Pickman's model]

It will end all right-and we just have to hope that it won't be an end of the nuclear variety

No, that's pencilled in for the big one in '25

 

[existentialist]

Ok did the verifying org define a chemical weapon?

Anyway I just expect the US to lie. A lot of form for it.

Wriggle, wriggle.

 

[LDC]

Opinion piece from an NGO type with much experience of cluster munitions and very much against sending them to Ukraine, bit that stood out to me is him saying the claims of a very low dud rate are wishful thinking enabled by testing under unrealistic conditions: I've Seen Cluster Bombs Maim Children. Why Is Biden Sending Them to Ukraine?

Do you then support the alternative to them that the article suggests: supply F-16s, ATACMs, etc. JimW?

 

[existentialist]

Can you lot sponsor cluster bombs? Have a message scrawled on one?

I'll tell you something we can do that you can't. Answer a reasonable question. Wriggle, wriggle.

 

[gosub]

Would the assumption/implication be that if Ukraine is lined up to join NATO, then once it is, Russian forces would effectively be taking action against NATO by remaining in Ukraine and therefore they'd better withdraw or face consequences?

That would be 31 counties effectivly unanimously voting to declare war on Russia. Can't see it happening