True, but that doesn’t alter my main point – that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of Ukraine
I think that's also true, but I think that there'll be a tipping point of some sort and the Russian Army will go. Whether that's a big change in the Kremlin or a simple collapse in morale due to poor logistics and targetted attacks behind the lines
timba
Free Member
True, but that doesn’t alter my main point – that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of UkraineI think that’s also true, but I think that there’ll be a tipping point of some sort and the Russian Army will go. Whether that’s a big change in the Kremlin or a simple collapse in morale due to poor logistics and targetted attacks behind the lines
Wishfully thinking doesn't win wars. I think this conflict will last decades tbh.
I think this conflict will last decades tbh
Optimistic. How long can we continue paying this much for gas?
If the government does what it should do and covers the war cost for us (It's a no brainer for the tories to freeze prices at april levels when they eventually anoint truss). Ages tbh, just stick it on the never never like everything else.
I don't see support collapsing over winter. Mind you is the tories we are talking about here!
How long can we continue paying this much for gas?
Decades. Energy used to be expensive but we just got used to historically low energy prices. Appeasing war criminals so we can save a bit on our heating bills is a tough policy to defend.
Appeasing war criminals so we can save a bit on our heating bills is a tough policy to defend.
If the tories don't do anything about it. It's not a tough policy to defend at all. Support for Ukraine will collapse(along with businesses and peoples personal finances) in this country if they don't mitigate it. But what happens in the UK is largely irrelevant to the war. The US will keep it going.
True, but that doesn’t alter my main point – that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of Ukraine
Which is a fair point. Albeit a fair point looking for an argument, as not many people have said that they are on the point of being kicked out. Far from it actually.
However, if we look at it dispassionately we can probably analyse the breakdown to the current situation as thus:
1. Russia invade Ukraine, launching lightning strike on Kiev, whilst also advancing into Southern and Eastern Ukraine with the aim of "liberating" the Donbas, creating a land bridge to Crimea and taking the whole of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast to link up with their enclave in Moldova.
2. The lightning strike fails and the attempt to take the seaboard fails when they are thwarted at Mykolaiv (to be fair, they probably thought the new puppet regime in Kiev would have granted them this territory by now)
3. They revise their war aims. The resistance in Melitopol sucks in resource and they are forced to halt attempts to take Mykolaiv. In the meantime they pull out of the North and declare their goal of creating a massive encirclement of the UA army in the SE.
4. They fail to take Kharkiv and the size/scale of their encirlement keeps reducing as they fail to make anything like the advances required on each flank
5. They revise their war goals again, now its merely about completing the 'liberation' of the Luhansk and then Donetsk
6. They've yet to fully take Luhansk and they're a ways off in Donetsk. In the meantime the UA are regrouping and starting to batter their already shoddy logistics. Morale is rock bottom and they're struggling to send anything other than cannon fodder to the frontlines. Slowly but surely the balance is shifting ( and will continue to shift) in Ukraine's favour. At some point they will launch a counter offensive and given the state of the RA from a morale, logistics and leadership Viewpoint, when that happens any collapse may well be sudden and protracted.
Point of all the above is to say that if their original goal had been to take and hold 20% of Ukrainian territory then we could declare them a success thus far. Fact I'd they have constantly been forced to rein in their ambitions and as their ability to advance continues to atrophy, the point will come when their ability to hold what they have (in what is now by all accounts overwhelmingly hostile territory) will be similarly compromised and they will be forced back.
When that time comes, nobody knows for sure. But this winter is going to very uncomfortable for the RA and I'd expect the UA to utilise the increasing number of high tech weapons systems to ensure that it is very difficult for the RA to support and supply their troops, whilst further denigrating both offensive and defensive capabilities. Next Spring might well be an interesting time..
Support for Ukraine will collapse(along with businesses and peoples personal finances) in this country if they don’t mitigate it.
Meaning what? Resumption of buying Russian gas?
slowoldman
Full Member
Support for Ukraine will collapse(along with businesses and peoples personal finances) in this country if they don’t mitigate it.Meaning what? Resumption of buying Russian gas?
No the government needs to socialise the extreme rise till prices come back down.
No the government needs to socialise the extreme rise till prices come back down.
This. We don’t actually buy any Russian gas so it’s the only way to reduce the burden on the ordinary person. Maybe we could flog off the Downing St wallpaper and subsidise gas bills that way.
funkrodent
Full Member
That's not really a dispassionate look at this, just a summary of the optimistic view.
Optimistic or pessimistic?
It is clear that new offensive attempts will be made and may even lead to new tactical successes, but on the whole, a balance has developed on the frontline. And the “scales” on the part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are now very slowly but steadily outweighing the Russian
Optimistic, it's expecting the scale to eventually tip in ukraines favour. Hope it's right.
That is Igor Girkin (allegedly) via War Translated
Nothing showing?
That’s not really a dispassionate look at this, just a summary of the optimistic view.
Well points 1-5 and the first sentence of point 6 are pretty widely accepted as de facto. And it's probably fair to say that the UA are battering their shoddy logistics.
Conjecture from there. But it seems to be reasonably well accepted that the sanctions are biting and impacting their ability to repair old, or build new, weapons systems. That their logistics are a disaster and that their soldiers are demoralised and badly trained. What they do have is manpower (if they declare war, which Putin is reluctant to do) and a shed load of soviet era artillery and munitions. Which may well be enough. Equally it may not.
It's far from a statement of fact, but the point I was making was that this far the Russian campaign has been one of failure, with goal after goal failing to be met and having to be revised.
In that case, presenting their occupation of 20% of Ukraine as evidence of success is somewhat disingenuous as it represents repeated failures when measured against both their initial and their revised goals.
Looking at the fact that they've largely failed thus far, it makes it easier to conclude that with the weight of economic and military challenges they face, they will continue to fail going forwards. And failure from this point means conceding land..
Hopefully, as I've said, land is the gold standard for me, when that happens I'll get excited. Till then I'm skeptical.
I agree with you on that. At the end of the day, for the Ukrainians to be winning, they have to push the Russians back. Anything less than that is failure on their part. As to your earlier question re what a counter offensive actually means in terms of goals. Zelenskiy has been pretty unequivocal about that. Ultimately its about all of Ukraine - including Crimea - returning to Ukraine. Though I do wonder if any future treaty might see Crimea sacrificed.
In terms of what is happening now - and given the earlier mention of him - a few quotes from the great Sun Tzu which seem to correlate to what the Ukrainians are doing at the moment (and also what the Russians have done):
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory is won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory
first lay plans which will ensure victory, and then lead your army to battle; if you will not begin with stratagem but rely on brute strength alone, victory will no longer be assured
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
So you could say that what the UA are doing now is preparing the ground. Weakening the enemy until the point whereby victory is as close to being assured as can be..
Smashing the Russki's moral seems to be the order of the day. They'll be acting like cattle in the field once they have no hope left. The Ukrainians hardly want to be taking any more losses than they need to. They understand the value of fighting for their lives better. That said, I've only met them outside of their country within my field of work, so it's a specific subset sample and might not be properly representative. And apart from rich Russkis in Dubai, I've only met 'them' on their own territory during USSR times. So doubt that's who they are today
I feel a bit unclean saying this, but I think there is some truth in what Peter Hitchens writes here:
https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1563791521811468288?s=20&t=wwkOweKctTeDi3DSeXfdwQ
I think that anything less than kicking Russia out with it's army in tatters will lead to death, poverty and ruin. Peace now will mean more war later.
It's the death of a way of life for Ukraine as county and it's people.
Peace talks with a country that is removing children to its own state is never going to happen with an open mind.
I cannot help but think Ukrainian people want their pound of flesh now rolling over is not an option histrionically against Russia.
Peace now will mean more war later.
Maybe, who can say, but (donning Devil's advocate hat) what we have now is economic collapse in Europe, starvation in Africa, and the prospect of a mushroom cloud over Zaporizhzhia.
And letting Vlad and co get their own way won't embolden China and other potential rogue states?
And letting Vlad and co get their own way won’t embolden China and other potential rogue states?
As I said, I don't know (and nor do you). I think the point is to be very clear what we're doing and why, and apart from providing Johnson with some photo opportunities to distract from the various disasters he's led us into, it's not clear what are the benefits of beggaring ourselves. Don't get me wrong, if Putin dropped dead tomorrow, along with every one of his vile barbarians, no-one would be happier than me, but realistically is that (or some acceptable approximation) a possibility?
Peter Hitchens seems to forget that this was an invasion by a force that was numerically and equipment-wise largely superior with a far bigger economy to support it. It became a war because of that action, not because of our promises of support
He needs to ask what Ukrainians want, what peace would look like for Ukrainians and the rest of Europe and the longer term implications of that peace
It isn't our war against evil, we're supporting the Ukraine to achieve its objectives for as long as it wants that support.
Given the chances for this war to slow down and flare up again as the years roll by and for the Russians to come back for more, which, no doubt they will. I'd personally think that support should be more geared towards fortifying unoccupied territory more than anything else, which in fairness does seems to be happening. I'd actually go further and declare it NATO territory to stop the long range bombing, but really that would mean Ukraine giving up aims of retaking territory, which looks highly unlikely. I doubt very much if I was in their position I would either, but I'm not so have a different view point.
It's really their choice in how to approach it, and while I'll give my opinions, I'm not for forcing it on them.
I think they'll be aware there's some kinda time limit, cause while support is strong and will be for the foreseeable, No-one is really going to fund a grinding war for the next 20 years.
Ultimately by next spring/summer we'll know what Ukraines offensive capabilities really are.
I’d personally think that support should be more geared towards fortifying unoccupied territory more than anything else, which in fairness does seems to be happening.
Maybe Finland and Karelia is a relevant historical parallel.
Maybe, who can say, but (donning Devil’s advocate hat) what we have now is economic collapse in Europe, starvation in Africa, and the prospect of a mushroom cloud over Zaporizhzhia.
Letting Russia achieve any advance in a peace deal will embolden them and others I the future, making it 10 times worse than what we have now.
Anything less than that is failure on their part.
Its not a zero sum game though, it is possible for both sides to lose, which looks a likely outcome.
DrJ
Free MemberMaybe Finland and Karelia is a relevant historical parallel.
not really up on the history there, so dunno.
donning Devil’s advocate hat
You're not being a Devil's advocate if you believe what you're saying.
The war will end when Russia stops attacking Ukraine. Ukraine have seen the horrendous war crimes that Russia has committed and know that surrender means death. They aren't going to surrender. The U.K., U.S., and other countries aren't combatants so can't end the war. That's up to Russia, all they need to do is withdraw from Ukrainian territory.
A possible third way out is China. If China withdraw support/non action over Russia putin may realise they have no way forward without compromise.
We could boycott Chinese products (probably impossible) A possible unintended consequence of messing with utility prices is that we can no longer afford to buy as many products from China. Losing custom could sway it for Chinas attitude more than playing politics.
You’re not being a Devil’s advocate if you believe what you’re saying.
"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Now, do you actually have a substantive point, or are you just following me around being a nuisance?
The war will end when Russia stops attacking Ukraine. Ukraine have seen the horrendous war crimes that Russia has committed and know that surrender means death. They aren’t going to surrender. The U.K., U.S., and other countries aren’t combatants so can’t end the war. That’s up to Russia, all they need to do is withdraw from Ukrainian territory.
If other countries stop arming Ukraine, the war will end quite quickly, but not in a very desirable way. Likewise if the Russians announce that they are happy to quit with (say) control over Donbas and Crimea. That is the exercise of naked power - the good guys don't always win.
not really up on the history there, so dunno.
Nor me really. I think the general picture is that the Russians attacked in a fairly half-assed way and got a good kicking. They came back mob-handed and ended up with a part of eastern Finland.
We could boycott Chinese products (probably impossible) A possible unintended consequence of messing with utility prices is that we can no longer afford to buy as many products from China
That's a really interesting point, ye old Law Of Unintended Consequences. Up until now China has (at least tacitly) supported Putin. Should they start to feel the squeeze more than they already are, it's possible to envision a scenario whereby they start to put pressure on Putin. Let's not forget that the two countries share a large land border in the East, and historically relations have been far from friendly..
If other countries stop arming Ukraine, the war will end quite quickly, but not in a very desirable way.
No. Ukraine isn't going to surrender and they have a well established arms industry. They won't surrender and Russia isn't capable of invading all of Ukraine. If NATO countries stopped sending weapons, Ukraine wouldn't capitulate, it would just make the war drag on longer and be more brutal. Other countries can't order Ukraine to stop fighting any more than they can order Russia to stop fighting. If you want this war and Russia's war crimes to stop, it's only going to happen when Ukraine defeats the Russian army.
thols2
Free Member
If NATO countries stopped sending weapons, Ukraine wouldn’t capitulate,
Militarily, Yes it would. The wouldn't be a war if they did, just occupation and underground resistance, which is fairly difficult to be successful at.
thols2
Free Member
If NATO countries stopped sending weapons, Ukraine wouldn’t capitulate,
seosamh77
Yes it would.
Have you asked Ukrainians about that? Ukrainians have seen what Russia has done and know that surrender means genocide. They aren't going to surrender.
Also, other East-European countries aren't going to stop sending weapons even if the U.K. did so it's a moot point anyway. The U.S. can't just snap it's finger and command the war to stop and other countries to do its bidding. The U.K. most definitely can't.
See edits above
I would suggest that anyone suggesting compromise and appeasement of Putin hasn’t been paying attention for the last 20 years 🤦🏻♂️🤷♂️
Who's suggesting appeasement?
No-one far as I can see, just there might well need to be another plan if the fabled Ukrainian counter doesn't work, or if the fabled Russian collapse doesn't happen.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-could-last-for-years-germanys-baerbock-says/
The war in Ukraine could last for years, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said, assuring the country’s continued support from Europe’s biggest economy.“We need to be prepared for the possibility that the war could last for years,” she told Germany’s Bild am Sonntag in an interview published on Sunday. This implies that Ukraine may still need to be provided with heavy weaponry next summer, she added.
“Ukraine is defending our freedom, security architecture too and we support Ukraine financially and militarily for as long as necessary,” she was quoted as saying.
The foreign minister also defended Ukraine’s claim to the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which was seized by Russia in 2014. “Crimea is also part of Ukraine. The world never recognized the illegal annexation of 2014,” she said.
The full article is really in the Bild, linked to by the above article but paywalled …
Who’s suggesting appeasement?
Anyone who supports a peace deal which allows Russia continued occupation or annexation of Ukrainian territory.
