Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-25

Putin isn't the only one in Russia who believes in solving their Ukraine problem. If this isn't settled during his tenure it will be by someone else. This war is only a debacle for Russia because of the condition of their military, not because of large, enthusiastic NATO support for Ukraine. A revamped Russia in 20 years could get what they want. What Kyiv has learned is they don't have NATO protection despite what they're told. It's NATO countries who have screwed them over since the 90s. The US and Europe have Ukraine treading water at the moment, not really guaranteed a bright future even as a member of NATO.
 
Putin isn't the only one in Russia who believes in solving their Ukraine problem. If this isn't settled during his tenure it will be by someone else. This war is only a debacle for Russia because of the condition of their military, not because of large, enthusiastic NATO support for Ukraine. A revamped Russia in 20 years could get what they want. What Kyiv has learned is they don't have NATO protection despite what they're told. It's NATO countries who have screwed them over since the 90s. The US and Europe have Ukraine treading water at the moment, not really guaranteed a bright future even as a member of NATO.
I think in 20 years time I'd be surprised if there is a Russia or a Ukraine and if there is we'll all have bigger things to worry about anyway. The shitty orange crop in the US for example a sign of things to come
 
"Ukraine approval" isn't all its cracked up to be....
If NATO countries want to wind down fighting they will do so...they are in power here. Many ways they can push this, not least by reducing supply of arms
If Ukraine wants long term protection from further Russian aggression it has to bow to NATO countries will.
Ukraine cannot decide to fight on its own if NATO decides enough is enough.

The messaging here is diplomatic - framing it publicly as "its their decision" is what a diplomat does - but the fact this very particular phrasing of "land for NATO protection" is being repeated suggests it is a very particular and planned outcome that is being discussed at different levels and now being floated in public.
It is "only one option", but the other option of total military victory is IMO clearly not being pursued by a US led NATO, and the counteroffensive is clearly not resulting in retaken territory .
The third option suggested by Arestovych of Putin being replaced by a future peacenik isnt worth talking about.

The key thing here is this NATO apparatchik is openly saying that "alliance members were discussing how the 18-month war might be brought to an end". There's not really many options of how that might look.

You must approve of NATO saying that then, don't you think the war should be negotiated to a end as soon as possible, giving up territory and making any compromises for peace?
 
You must approve of NATO saying that then, don't you think the war should be negotiated to a end as soon as possible, giving up territory and making any compromises for peace?
Pretty sure we've had this conversation - I don't believe in the play along Well What Would You Do Now game? I made the point as to why at length here
I don't 'approve' of the historic record of NATO, nor what NATO countries have lined up for Ukraine after the fighting stops, nor what they had lined up for Ukraine before the war....what they do at any particular snapshot in time doesn't change that. I don't approve when Jimmy Saville gave to charity, to use a crap analogy

But yes, there's basically been no southern /eastern territory won back in a year.....the policy appears for the longest time to be give Ukraine enough weapons to fight but not to actually force Russia back. I can see why NATO might have arrived at that position, but its a shit position that doesn't warrant dragging this war on forever for the sake of it. Ukrainian military seem rightly pissed off about that as much as anyone.
Since this has been the reality for many months now, and if the other option is just to keep on this murderous stalemate, then yes it should end.
 
Pretty sure we've had this conversation - I don't believe in the play along Well What Would You Do Now game? I made the point as to why at length here
I don't 'approve' of the historic record of NATO, nor what NATO countries have lined up for Ukraine after the fighting stops, nor what they had lined up for Ukraine before the war....what they do at any particular snapshot in time doesn't change that. I don't approve when Jimmy Saville gave to charity, to use a crap analogy

But yes, there's basically been no southern /eastern territory won back in a year.....the policy appears for the longest time to be give Ukraine enough weapons to fight but not to actually force Russia back. I can see why NATO might have arrived at that position, but its a shit position that doesn't warrant dragging this war on forever for the sake of it. Ukrainian military seem rightly pissed off about that as much as anyone.
Since this has been the reality for many months now, and if the other option is just to keep on this murderous stalemate, then yes it should end.
Enjoy the war for the peace will be bloody
 
Are there still a lot of people who feel it's premature to come to the conclusion that the "counteroffensive" has failed or is not going to / able to happen?
 
Pretty sure we've had this conversation - I don't believe in the play along Well What Would You Do Now game? I made the point as to why at length here
I don't 'approve' of the historic record of NATO, nor what NATO countries have lined up for Ukraine after the fighting stops, nor what they had lined up for Ukraine before the war....what they do at any particular snapshot in time doesn't change that. I don't approve when Jimmy Saville gave to charity, to use a crap analogy

But yes, there's basically been no southern /eastern territory won back in a year.....the policy appears for the longest time to be give Ukraine enough weapons to fight but not to actually force Russia back. I can see why NATO might have arrived at that position, but its a shit position that doesn't warrant dragging this war on forever for the sake of it. Ukrainian military seem rightly pissed off about that as much as anyone.
Since this has been the reality for many months now, and if the other option is just to keep on this murderous stalemate, then yes it should end.

I answered that post at length, disagreeing and explaining why.

With this post, for a start the bit I have bolded is just not true, there is no such policy. Again you have started with an ideological position and then make a reading of the situation to justify that. It makes much of the rest of what you say all built on shaky factual ground.
 
Right, I'll have a go at sticking some thoughts down about this, thanks ska invita for taking the time to write the above. A couple of things first though; I think some of the tension around this topic comes from misunderstandings and misreadings of what others write on here, for a bunch of reasons - our own histories and backgrounds, the fact it is a really emotional topic, and also that obviously the written word is sometimes just easy to misinterpret. So, if I do that with anything you wrote I apologise in advance. I also am just working this stuff out, reading and thinking on what people have posted here has shifted what I think, and even though it might come across that I have a very clear line that's not quite the case.

OK. I'm really surprised you think the "What would you do?" is not a valid question. People asking that question about any area of politics to us and people like us deserve a pretty fucking good answer, that surely is a huge and fundamental chunk of politics (of which this war is a part of); explaining what the problems are and why they're there and navigating ways out of them? It doesn't mean I'm suggesting you imagine you're PM or a General or part of the ruling class for a day, but rather what other options do you have now, either as theoretical ones, or as practical ideas. Because plenty of left wing/working class projects and people are doing stuff to support the fight against the Russian State invasion and occupation.

If you take the war out of the question and put in anything else (climate change, fascism, housing crisis, work based struggles, etc.) would you also say that the only question is 'how we understand this'? How we understand this is of course fundamental in guiding what we would then do or want, but would you also have said that's all we can do about '30s Spain, '40s France, or more recently in all the messy struggles in Syria, etc.?

To me that also smacks a bit of giving up on any semblance of international solidarity as well. Not to mention out own agency about what we can do, either individually or collectively. Would you be happy speaking to a bunch of Ukrainian lefties who were fighting and organising and saying all we can do is try to understand it?

You say it's been a long time in the making, but so's everything that's shit! Going on about chances to have avoided it might be interesting and might illuminate long terms ways of it re-occuring, but it's pretty much fuck all use to people in Ukraine now which is largely what we're talking about. We can and do plot the development of capitalism and patriarchy and it's very interesting and useful, but of little pragamatic value here and now in more immediate struggles.

To also just wash your hands of this topic with a blanket excuse of not being able to have the full picture and so we can't make any judgements is just nonsense and not something we say with any other issue either is it? TBH it's hard not see that your ideology comes before anything here, and you're coming to a position and then justifying it retrospectively. I mean it's also lazy and predictable (but also true) that you being able to have that position from living in the UK (assuming you do, or not in Ukraine at least...) is a position of detached privilege.

I largely agree we don't know how this will end, but that shouldn't stop us doing things in the present with the idea that (like most of life) we have ideal goals in mind, but we muddle through towards them, but often end up with something we didn't imagine at the start, but ideally a better option that what we would have had if we'd done nothing.

Just to add; I don't think it's contradictory to be against the war, to support Ukrainian workers in their struggles against the Ukrainian State imposing working restrictions on them, to support the Russian anti-war resistance, to support the Ukrainian armed forces fighting Russia, to be in favour of NATO supplied weapons to the Ukrainian forces, and to think that it's a total tragedy that thousands of (mostly poor) Russian soldiers are being killed, yet be on some level be also somewhat happy that they are.

Will try and add a bit more later.

This was my answer fyi, in case you missed it.
 
Pretty sure we've had this conversation - I don't believe in the play along Well What Would You Do Now game? I made the point as to why at length here
I don't 'approve' of the historic record of NATO, nor what NATO countries have lined up for Ukraine after the fighting stops, nor what they had lined up for Ukraine before the war....what they do at any particular snapshot in time doesn't change that. I don't approve when Jimmy Saville gave to charity, to use a crap analogy

But yes, there's basically been no southern /eastern territory won back in a year.....the policy appears for the longest time to be give Ukraine enough weapons to fight but not to actually force Russia back. I can see why NATO might have arrived at that position, but its a shit position that doesn't warrant dragging this war on forever for the sake of it. Ukrainian military seem rightly pissed off about that as much as anyone.
Since this has been the reality for many months now, and if the other option is just to keep on this murderous stalemate, then yes it should end.

That bit in bold is what you'd like to be the case so you can argue it all needs to stop, but it's also not a simple as that, and there's plenty of current analysis about now that things are shifting as well. Sure it'll be more uncertainty and difficulty, but you seem very sure that's it's all pretty much over in term of major gains (which are not only measured in territory).

You're obsessed with NATO to the point of comedy tbh, you barely ever mention Russia, it's all about NATO.
 
Pretty sure we've had this conversation - I don't believe in the play along Well What Would You Do Now game? I made the point as to why at length here
I don't 'approve' of the historic record of NATO, nor what NATO countries have lined up for Ukraine after the fighting stops, nor what they had lined up for Ukraine before the war....what they do at any particular snapshot in time doesn't change that. I don't approve when Jimmy Saville gave to charity, to use a crap analogy

But yes, there's basically been no southern /eastern territory won back in a year.....the policy appears for the longest time to be give Ukraine enough weapons to fight but not to actually force Russia back. I can see why NATO might have arrived at that position, but its a shit position that doesn't warrant dragging this war on forever for the sake of it. Ukrainian military seem rightly pissed off about that as much as anyone.
Since this has been the reality for many months now, and if the other option is just to keep on this murderous stalemate, then yes it should end.


Honestly I’m leaning towards this mostly being because the west simply doesn’t have that many weapons without ripping its own armies apart.

The main strength of nato is overwhelming force against shitty opponents and it is simply not prepared for this sort of long parity war between states. It’s main focus over the last twenty years especially been to blast the absolute shit out of the enemy via airpower.

The only marked improvement it could do to resolve the war quicker is to have got a fucking move on handing out choppers and planes but half of those would be dead to Russian air defence by now because it simply has much more than anyone else the west has fought in a very long time
 
Honestly I’m leaning towards this mostly being because the west simply doesn’t have that many weapons without ripping its own armies apart.

The main strength of nato is overwhelming force against shitty opponents and it is simply not prepared for this sort of long parity war between states. It’s main focus over the last twenty years especially been to blast the absolute shit out of the enemy via airpower.

The only marked improvement it could do to resolve the war quicker is to have got a fucking move on handing out choppers and planes but half of those would be dead to Russian air defence by now because it simply has much more than anyone else the west has fought in a very long time

Best tactic against that is to beat the xxxp out of the air defence units [radar & guns] which requires your pilots to be very experienced at low-flying and some fairly specific weapons [the RAF practice this a lot in an area not far from where I live !] or to have a very effective counter-battery set-up, again, you need the right kit and plenty of training ...

I noticed that livemap claimed that two russian Ka-52 helos were shot down this morning. The one splashed near Robotyne was the victim of a MANPAD.
 
Best tactic against that is to beat the xxxp out of the air defence units [radar & guns] which requires your pilots to be very experienced at low-flying and some fairly specific weapons [the RAF practice this a lot in an area not far from where I live !] or to have a very effective counter-battery set-up, again, you need the right kit and plenty of training ...

I noticed that livemap claimed that two russian Ka-52 helos were shot down this morning. The one splashed near Robotyne was the victim of a MANPAD.

Ukraine seems to be very much going for a focus on Russian artillery and AA as a result of the minefields hemming the advance down so i assume the hope is to eventually just be able to take advantage as a result

Problem is Russia for all its comedy errors has so much stuff…
 
Honestly I’m leaning towards this mostly being because the west simply doesn’t have that many weapons without ripping its own armies apart.

The main strength of nato is overwhelming force against shitty opponents and it is simply not prepared for this sort of long parity war between states. It’s main focus over the last twenty years especially been to blast the absolute shit out of the enemy via airpower.

The only marked improvement it could do to resolve the war quicker is to have got a fucking move on handing out choppers and planes but half of those would be dead to Russian air defence by now because it simply has much more than anyone else the west has fought in a very long time

I think they would need supply aircrew as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom