Ukraine

[SkidsFox]

19 hours ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11417563/Putin-offered-surrender-terms-West-loses-control-Kherson.html
 

I know it’s from the Mail but interesting. 
 

I know the west might lean on Ukraine to accept terms without takin back Crimea but I can’t see th being too accepting of that after all the loss and whilst having such momentum.  

Given the Russians haven't (YET) sent thousands of bombs or missiles into Kherson City, they may be considering this peace plan.

[ithuriel]

4 hours ago, SkidsFox said:

Given the Russians haven't (YET) sent thousands of bombs or missiles into Kherson City, they may be considering this peace plan.

 If you have a good hand and the other guy looks weak but there's peace on the table, sometimes it is better to take the pot rather than continue playing, especially if the other guy can throw the table over and  knock you out if things really go against them.

[MPH]

I Really hope any peace plan includes financial support from Russia to help Ukraine rebuild.

[Lionator]

On 11/11/2022 at 17:32, Ginger_Filbert said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11417563/Putin-offered-surrender-terms-West-loses-control-Kherson.html
 

I know it’s from the Mail but interesting. 
 

I know the west might lean on Ukraine to accept terms without takin back Crimea but I can’t see th being too accepting of that after all the loss and whilst having such momentum.  

Google the bloke who made this claim, then you’ll realise it’s pure unsubstantiated rubbish. 
 

Russia will reinforce on the eastern bank and it’ll turn into a slug fest for the next couple of months. What I would say though is that there’s noises from Washington which are starting to push Zelenskyy into re-entering negotiations. 

Edited 12 November 2022 by Lionator

[LiberalFox]

I don't think there will be peace until Ukraine is liberated. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

I don't think there will be peace until Ukraine is liberated. 

If that's the case, then I fear there may not be peace for a long time.

[kenny]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that's the case, then I fear there may not be peace for a long time.

Hard to say isn't it.

 

Ukraine's army is now (probably) bigger and better equipped. The Russians have lost most of their tanks, artillery, missiles and aircraft. I doubt they are equipping their troops properly for winter.

 

The Russians are fighting hard in the east but I doubt they can do that everywhere. I suspect the Crimea will be the next target.

 

 

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, kenny said:

Hard to say isn't it.

 

Ukraine's army is now (probably) bigger and better equipped. The Russians have lost most of their tanks, artillery, missiles and aircraft. I doubt they are equipping their troops properly for winter.

 

The Russians are fighting hard in the east but I doubt they can do that everywhere. I suspect the Crimea will be the next target.

 

 

It is tricky to say, there's so many unknown elements.

 

I really do hope that the Ukrainians can push the Russians back into the sea and over the borders. I just wonder if they truly have the capability and perhaps hold a little fear about what might be done from the Russian end if/when they do.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Hard to say isn't it.

 

Ukraine's army is now (probably) bigger and better equipped. The Russians have lost most of their tanks, artillery, missiles and aircraft. I doubt they are equipping their troops properly for winter.

 

The Russians are fighting hard in the east but I doubt they can do that everywhere. I suspect the Crimea will be the next target.

 

 

It appears to me that Russia didn’t actually expect Ukraine to fight back. It also seems that Russia has a vast arsenal of weapons that ain’t much use in Ukraine, I mean it’s all very good having a huge navy, but if your enemy hasn’t got a navy but can fire missiles from the land and hit you, and you’ve got hypersonic missiles that can hit New York in 20 seconds but your enemy is 500 meters away, what’s the point of that. The war will end up with Russia having to concede that attacking Ukraine was a mistake because it appears that the Ukrainians don’t want to be occupied and ruled by Moscow and Putin has fell victim to the Russian political pyramid where he has the final say on information that is basically lies all the way up through the system. What I’d be interested in though is, what’s become of Abramavic and will he eventually buy Chelsea back.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, kenny said:

Hard to say isn't it.

 

Ukraine's army is now (probably) bigger and better equipped. The Russians have lost most of their tanks, artillery, missiles and aircraft. I doubt they are equipping their troops properly for winter.

 

The Russians are fighting hard in the east but I doubt they can do that everywhere. I suspect the Crimea will be the next target.

 

 

I genuinely don’t think they’ll get anywhere near Crimea. It really depends how the Russian mobilisation goes. I suspect we’ll see Ukrainian cities destroyed in radioactive mushrooms if they do get close anyway. 

[kenny]

Just now, Lionator said:

I genuinely don’t think they’ll get anywhere near Crimea. It really depends how the Russian mobilisation goes. I suspect we’ll see Ukrainian cities destroyed in radioactive mushrooms if they do get close anyway. 

It depends what's in Crimea really, it seems to have been used as a holiday destination not a military installation by Russia.

 

They have had to move the navy out of the port as it was too vulnerable and Ukraine now control it's water. Since the bridge 'collapse/special operation' they will struggle to resupply what's there.

 

I suspect Crimea will be easier to take than Donbas.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I genuinely don’t think they’ll get anywhere near Crimea. It really depends how the Russian mobilisation goes. I suspect we’ll see Ukrainian cities destroyed in radioactive mushrooms if they do get close anyway. 

I'm not sure the Russians are ready to run the very substantial risk of losing everything by doing that, just for the sake of territory that probably doesn't have that much strategic value. They know such a thing would not, could not, go unanswered and would escalate.

 

Of course, it is still a scary possibility.

Edited 13 November 2022 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not sure the Russians are ready to run the very substantial risk of losing everything by doing that, just for the sake of territory that probably doesn't have that much strategic value. They know such a thing would not, could not, go unanswered and would escalate.

 

Of course, it is still a scary possibility.

Crimea is everything as long as the Black Sea is concerned. It would tick all the boxes for Russian nuclear use. At the very least it would be Cuba 1962 x1000. 

[westernpark]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

It appears to me that Russia didn’t actually expect Ukraine to fight back. It also seems that Russia has a vast arsenal of weapons that ain’t much use in Ukraine, I mean it’s all very good having a huge navy, but if your enemy hasn’t got a navy but can fire missiles from the land and hit you, and you’ve got hypersonic missiles that can hit New York in 20 seconds but your enemy is 500 meters away, what’s the point of that. The war will end up with Russia having to concede that attacking Ukraine was a mistake because it appears that the Ukrainians don’t want to be occupied and ruled by Moscow and Putin has fell victim to the Russian political pyramid where he has the final say on information that is basically lies all the way up through the system. What I’d be interested in though is, what’s become of Abramavic and will he eventually buy Chelsea back.

I agree with some of your analysis, but it’s quite funny that out of everything you find the ownership of Chelsea the most interesting thing!

[Countryfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not sure the Russians are ready to run the very substantial risk of losing everything by doing that, just for the sake of territory that probably doesn't have that much strategic value. They know such a thing would not, could not, go unanswered and would escalate.

 

Of course, it is still a scary possibility.

Blimey Mac are you calming down a bit ! ….  nice to see    ..    I would say that since we last mentioned it, it does seem (certainly from some of the comments coming from the Russian side) that the threat of using nuclear weapons has somewhat reduced.   
 

With regards Crimea it does seem to have a higher tariff to the Russians than the other newly acquired regions ….and they have that lovely bridge that Mad Vlad opened to make it easier for the tourists ….   we know how much they value that !   Imo it would be better to sweep further east along the coast and totally isolate it ..  with their long range weapons the Ukrainians could make it extremely difficult for the Russians to maintain a military presence there  ..  and obviously no one would go there for a holiday ! …. so in effect they would control it without having to set foot on it.  
 

And for what it’s worth I don’t believe for one minute there will be any talks for a long time and we will enter a very long period of stalemate but with both sides enduring heavy losses of military personnel  (and in the case of Ukraine, civilians too) before that option is considered.  It would sort of be like a modern version of WW1 trench warfare ….  a lot going on for little gain.  
 

 

Edited 13 November 2022 by Countryfox
Better grammar !

[LiberalFox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If that's the case, then I fear there may not be peace for a long time.

The sources I respect the most think Ukraine will win a bit quicker than some are predicting. They think we'll see a bit more territory gained over the winter even if there are no major offensives and that Ukraine will be able to exert a cost on Russia by the use of SOF and partisans behind Russian lines. They also think that Russia cannot solve the fact there is no popular reason for the war and the fact that the Russian armed forces have systemic issues and the war on the Russian side is going to be increasingly fought by conscripts that don't want to be there and contracted soldiers who are forced to stay in the army so not really voluntary. They think with current Western support the Ukrainian army will probably make major gains in the spring. The only way things might work out for Putin is if the West changes approach which is why Russia is attempting to prolong the war with defensive operations and hoping for a shift in Western opinion. 

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, westernpark said:

I agree with some of your analysis, but it’s quite funny that out of everything you find the ownership of Chelsea the most interesting thing!

Well, it is a football forum after all. Surely there cant be one person in the world sad enough to join a football forum without actually being interested in football

[Parafox]

36 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

The sources I respect the most think Ukraine will win a bit quicker than some are predicting. They think we'll see a bit more territory gained over the winter even if there are no major offensives and that Ukraine will be able to exert a cost on Russia by the use of SOF and partisans behind Russian lines. They also think that Russia cannot solve the fact there is no popular reason for the war and the fact that the Russian armed forces have systemic issues and the war on the Russian side is going to be increasingly fought by conscripts that don't want to be there and contracted soldiers who are forced to stay in the army so not really voluntary. They think with current Western support the Ukrainian army will probably make major gains in the spring. The only way things might work out for Putin is if the West changes approach which is why Russia is attempting to prolong the war with defensive operations and hoping for a shift in Western opinion. 

Who/what sources? MI5, MI6. Or would you prefer not to disclose their identities, Mr Bond? 

[MPH]

From what I understand  most of the peace deal talk mentioned  included Ukraine ceding land ( Crimea) to the Russians. This is something they have often said they will not do. It’s easy for NATO/ U.S  to give Russia Crimea when it’s not your land to give away.

 

 

and I don’t think it’s Just pride and sovereignty that troubles Ukraine about Crimea… they’ll be very mindful that Crimea was used as a massive base to load up troops and launch the invasion from.

 

Some people have mentioned That part of a peace deal would include a demilitarized Crimea, but there’s not a single thing about Russias behavior that would suggest they’d stick by any deal, plus they’d want sanctions dropped.

 

With no sanctions, they’d regroup, retrain and re-arm and use Crimea to attack again from a position of strength and newly  gained experience.

 

 

it’s worth pointing out that I think Had republicans regained the senate at the midterms it’s possible the Ukrainians would have been more willing to negotiate as the republicans seems to be less willing to financially support this war and they could have ran out of weapons and munitions very quickly without American support…

Edited 13 November 2022 by MPH

[WigstonWanderer]

5 minutes ago, MPH said:

From what I understand  most of the peace deal talk mentioned  included Ukraine ceding land ( Crimea) to the Russians. This is something they have often said they will not do. It’s easy for NATO/ U.S  to give Russia Crimea when it’s not your land to give away.

 

 

and I don’t think it’s Just pride and sovereignty that troubles Ukraine about Crimea… they’ll be very mindful that Crimea was used as a massive base to load up troops and launch the invasion from.

 

Some people have mentioned That part of a peace deal would include a demilitarized Crimea, but there’s not a single thing about Russias behavior that would suggest they’d stick by any deal, plus they’d want sanctions dropped.

 

With no sanctions, they’d regroup, retrain and re-arm and use Crimea to attack again from a position of strength and newly  gained experience.

 

 

it’s worth pointing out that I think Had republicans regained the senate at the midterms it’s possible the Ukrainians would have been more willing to negotiate as the republicans seems to be less willing to financially support this war and they could have ran out of weapons and munitions very quickly without American support…

But what if such a deal included Ukraine becoming part of NATO? Wouldn’t that address their future security concerns? Should then be as safe as, say, Poland.

 

As for sanctions, I’d expect that they’d be dropped as part of a deal, but the west is unlikely to want to suddenly become dependent on Russian oil and gas any time soon.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

But what if such a deal included Ukraine becoming part of NATO? Wouldn’t that address their future security concerns? Should then be as safe as, say, Poland.

 

As for sanctions, I’d expect that they’d be dropped as part of a deal, but the west is unlikely to want to suddenly become dependent on Russian oil and gas any time soon.

the part of the west becoming dependent on Russian gas and oil is irrelevant, unfortunately.. they have already found other consumers.

 

it has been mentioned that  part of the deal would mean Ukraine would postpone joining NATO for several years. Coincidentally, in my opinion, allowing Russia all the time they need to regroup and attack again.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

the part of the west becoming dependent on Russian gas and oil is irrelevant, unfortunately.. they have already found other consumers.

 

it has been mentioned that  part of the deal would mean Ukraine would postpone joining NATO for several years. Coincidentally, in my opinion, allowing Russia all the time they need to regroup and attack again.

Any deal has to have a cast iron guarantee against future aggression, so I’d have thought it unlikely unless they can join NATO as part of it.

Edited 13 November 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, Lionator said:

Crimea is everything as long as the Black Sea is concerned. It would tick all the boxes for Russian nuclear use. At the very least it would be Cuba 1962 x1000. 

It would certainly result in a serious game of brinksmanship, that's for sure.

 

However all parties involved know that the moment just one of them uses nuclear weaponry against another, no matter the "justification" for it, then all bets are off.

 

7 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

The sources I respect the most think Ukraine will win a bit quicker than some are predicting. They think we'll see a bit more territory gained over the winter even if there are no major offensives and that Ukraine will be able to exert a cost on Russia by the use of SOF and partisans behind Russian lines. They also think that Russia cannot solve the fact there is no popular reason for the war and the fact that the Russian armed forces have systemic issues and the war on the Russian side is going to be increasingly fought by conscripts that don't want to be there and contracted soldiers who are forced to stay in the army so not really voluntary. They think with current Western support the Ukrainian army will probably make major gains in the spring. The only way things might work out for Putin is if the West changes approach which is why Russia is attempting to prolong the war with defensive operations and hoping for a shift in Western opinion. 

As much as this may well be true, it relies on Russia sticking to conventional weaponry only when things get tough.

 

While one would hope that would be the case, it's by no means a guarantee, even with the dreadful consequences that would result.

 

[NasPb]

Only viable peace plan is actual respect for the treaties signed after dissolution of the soviet union. No nato presence in Ukraine and no Russian presence in any Ukrainian territory. Diplomacy, if it were actually tried well and used, could have prevented this massive loss of life on both sides 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Russian missile just landed in Poland and killed 2 people.