Ukraine

[kenny]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's possible that this is the limit of the strategic developments, but both parties don't appear to know or accept that yet. It's up to Ukraine to get whatever victories (PR or otherwise) that they can then take to the negotiating table.

I reckon the Kerch bridge will be gone soon.

 

 

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

That's possible that this is the limit of the strategic developments, but both parties don't appear to know or accept that yet. It's up to Ukraine to get whatever victories (PR or otherwise) that they can then take to the negotiating table.

It does feel like both sides haven’t grasped that the harder you push the other side, the more they dig in. Putin ain’t walking away and clearly judging by Kursk, Zelenskyy isn’t either. I think the only chance of an end is a genuine stalemate where both sides run each other into the ground. 

[Detroit Blues]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

It does feel like both sides haven’t grasped that the harder you push the other side, the more they dig in. Putin ain’t walking away and clearly judging by Kursk, Zelenskyy isn’t either. I think the only chance of an end is a genuine stalemate where both sides run each other into the ground. 

Either international aid will run out for Ukraine, or Domestic support of the war will end for Putin. Neither military is capable, on its own, of winning the war via military means. 

 

That said, this invasion into Kursk should pose problems for Putin, if he cannot quickly contain the breakthrough and push them out. 

[Lionator]

Interesting that all of this is coming out right now 

 

[Daggers]

On 14/08/2024 at 15:30, Izzy said:

I wonder if Ukraine would be better off using their resources to kick Russia out of the towns they currently occupy, rather than invade them back. I dunno.

I think the whole swapping countries thing might be a novel solution to a tricky problem.

[casablancas]

Nah. Ukraine have made the right call. Putin looks as weak as Tyson furies jaw. 

[Mike Oxlong]

We should sanction the use of western weapons on Russian territory now. Either go all in or not at all on enabling Ukraine to defend itself to its maximum ability 

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

We should sanction the use of western weapons on Russian territory now. Either go all in or not at all on enabling Ukraine to defend itself to its maximum ability 

I guess we already have. at least tacitly.  I read they are also developing their own weaponry, mainly attack drones.

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

We should sanction the use of western weapons on Russian territory now. Either go all in or not at all on enabling Ukraine to defend itself to its maximum ability 

I think some weapons have been restricted such as long range missiles 

however, if you sell weapons to ukraine then surely they’re able to do what they like with them? 

you can ask them nicely not to be careless re civilians/infrastructure but apart from that it’s their call?? 
 

if they do go strongly into Russian territory and Russia responds with larger attacks against Ukrainian targets in the west of the country then maybe that’s the cost - but it’s Ukraine’s decision.  What must be pointed out to them is that if they raise the stakes of the war away from just being mainly regionalised in the east by these attacks on and into Russia, then they cannot expect NATO countries to assist more than they already are doing by supplying weapons.  
it’s a difficult situation and we don’t want to end up in a place where Russia genuinely feels that its sovereignty is threatened. whilst that is clearly a hypocritical stance, we have to avoid tactical nuclear weapons being deployed. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I think some weapons have been restricted such as long range missiles 

however, if you sell weapons to ukraine then surely they’re able to do what they like with them? 

you can ask them nicely not to be careless re civilians/infrastructure but apart from that it’s their call?? 
 

if they do go strongly into Russian territory and Russia responds with larger attacks against Ukrainian targets in the west of the country then maybe that’s the cost - but it’s Ukraine’s decision.  What must be pointed out to them is that if they raise the stakes of the war away from just being mainly regionalised in the east by these attacks on and into Russia, then they cannot expect NATO countries to assist more than they already are doing by supplying weapons.  
it’s a difficult situation and we don’t want to end up in a place where Russia genuinely feels that its sovereignty is threatened. whilst that is clearly a hypocritical stance, we have to avoid tactical nuclear weapons being deployed. 

Absolutely right, especially about the difficult situation part.

 

NB. Purely to reiterate here, what has been publicly stated about Russian nuclear weapons use of any type  is "only when under nuclear attack or when under conventional attack and the existence of the state is threatened". Now, what defines the second part of that could (rather dangerously) be open to wide interpretation, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people would conclude that Ukraine do not have the capacity to threaten the existence of the Russian state. 

 

Of course, nuclear weaponry isn't the only WMD that Russia possess and should things escalate, they might decide instead to take a slightly smaller step up involving chemical or other disabling weaponry (targeting food and water and the means to distribute it?) on a big scale on a city. Here's hoping not.

Edited 27 August by leicsmac

[Zear0]

There was an interesting piece from the ISW a few weeks ago I was going to post. Specifically, they talk about one of Putin's greatest success during the war is how he's framed the Western narrative on what they can and cannot do to such an extent it's become defined as a rule of the war in people's minds.

 

I only post this now as the constant "don't do this or it'll become a nuclear war" are words that come right out of the mouth of Peskov. 

 

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/putin-vulnerable-western-policy-masks-russian-weakness

 

Above all, the Kremlin depends on the West’s accepting Russia’s fabricated assertions about reality, which often cause the West to reason to conclusions that advance Russia’s interests and not ours.[19] Key examples include the false assertion that Russia has the right to a self-defined sphere of influence, and, therefore, a right to do whatever it wants to those within this sphere — including invading — with no repercussions. Another example is a false assertion that any provision of advanced military capability to Ukraine is a red line that will result in a nuclear escalation, and therefore, the US should de facto grant a veto to any nuclear power over US national security policy. Kremlin’s strategy in Ukraine disproportionately depends on the West accepting these premises, making Russia vulnerable to changes in Western perceptions. Russian dependencies give the West opportunities to exploit or dismantle Russia’s capability to sustain the war against Ukraine.

[Lionator]

11 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

We should sanction the use of western weapons on Russian territory now. Either go all in or not at all on enabling Ukraine to defend itself to its maximum ability 

There was an article last week that essentially said that it won’t happen because a) Russia has moved most of their stuff out of range anyway, so it would be a waste. b) the Americans don’t trust the Ukrainians not to do something incredibly reckless, for example they already attacked Russia’s nuclear weapon early warning radars which is a big no-no for many reasons. 
 

Ukraine have also learnt from Israel where they don’t actually need US permission to escalate. 
 

Ps. Kursk I predict was still a suicidal move. 
 

*and before I get called a Russian apologist, this is what Michael Kofman believes who is probably the best source imo. 

Edited 27 August by Lionator

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

There was an interesting piece from the ISW a few weeks ago I was going to post. Specifically, they talk about one of Putin's greatest success during the war is how he's framed the Western narrative on what they can and cannot do to such an extent it's become defined as a rule of the war in people's minds.

 

I only post this now as the constant "don't do this or it'll become a nuclear war" are words that come right out of the mouth of Peskov. 

 

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/putin-vulnerable-western-policy-masks-russian-weakness

 

Above all, the Kremlin depends on the West’s accepting Russia’s fabricated assertions about reality, which often cause the West to reason to conclusions that advance Russia’s interests and not ours.[19] Key examples include the false assertion that Russia has the right to a self-defined sphere of influence, and, therefore, a right to do whatever it wants to those within this sphere — including invading — with no repercussions. Another example is a false assertion that any provision of advanced military capability to Ukraine is a red line that will result in a nuclear escalation, and therefore, the US should de facto grant a veto to any nuclear power over US national security policy. Kremlin’s strategy in Ukraine disproportionately depends on the West accepting these premises, making Russia vulnerable to changes in Western perceptions. Russian dependencies give the West opportunities to exploit or dismantle Russia’s capability to sustain the war against Ukraine.

OK... so given this is a proposed problem, what is the proposed solution? Assume all such threats are bluffs and act accordingly?

 

That only has to be wrong once.

 

Also, that this piece didn't mention the Monroe Doctrine is a little hypocritical, given that "allows" the US to do exactly what it says Russia is doing in the second paragraph here.

 

Very interesting analysis overall, though.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

There was an interesting piece from the ISW a few weeks ago I was going to post. Specifically, they talk about one of Putin's greatest success during the war is how he's framed the Western narrative on what they can and cannot do to such an extent it's become defined as a rule of the war in people's minds.

 

I only post this now as the constant "don't do this or it'll become a nuclear war" are words that come right out of the mouth of Peskov. 

 

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/putin-vulnerable-western-policy-masks-russian-weakness

 

Above all, the Kremlin depends on the West’s accepting Russia’s fabricated assertions about reality, which often cause the West to reason to conclusions that advance Russia’s interests and not ours.[19] Key examples include the false assertion that Russia has the right to a self-defined sphere of influence, and, therefore, a right to do whatever it wants to those within this sphere — including invading — with no repercussions. Another example is a false assertion that any provision of advanced military capability to Ukraine is a red line that will result in a nuclear escalation, and therefore, the US should de facto grant a veto to any nuclear power over US national security policy. Kremlin’s strategy in Ukraine disproportionately depends on the West accepting these premises, making Russia vulnerable to changes in Western perceptions. Russian dependencies give the West opportunities to exploit or dismantle Russia’s capability to sustain the war against Ukraine.

This doesn’t address actual ground invasion of Russian territory or heavy targeting of Russian assets inside the country.  Whilst the latter would be difficult to justify use of a TNW unless it was really large, the former is much easier to frame as such (irrespective of the small area entered). 
I don’t feel that the Russians arguing that believing that their territorial or sovereign integrity is under threat justifies use of a TNW  is unreasonable.  of course the actual level of belief is questionable 

[Lionator]

War is crazy, this is the most insane thing I’ve ever seen. 

[Daggers]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

War is crazy, this is the most insane thing I’ve ever seen. 

The fvck?

 

 

[casablancas]

David knowls has died. Extremely sudden  whilst in Gibraltar. For those that don’t know him, he ran the podcast on BBC - Ukraine the latest. Oh and I believe he’d also been sanctioned by Russia. I’ve listened to that chap for a very long time. Sad. 

[Collymore]

On 10/09/2024 at 00:49, casablancas said:

David knowls has died. Extremely sudden  whilst in Gibraltar. For those that don’t know him, he ran the podcast on BBC - Ukraine the latest. Oh and I believe he’d also been sanctioned by Russia. I’ve listened to that chap for a very long time. Sad. 

You mean the Telegraph?

 

Yeah very sad. Their most recent podcast is heart wrenching. 

 

Edited 11 September by Collymore

[MPH]

Bet the Ukrainians never saw this boat coming…

[Zear0]

Just now, MPH said:

Bet the Ukrainians never saw this boat coming…

So they actually have some left afloat? 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

Bet the Ukrainians never saw this boat coming…

What boat?

[casablancas]

23 hours ago, Collymore said:

You mean the Telegraph?

 

Yeah very sad. Their most recent podcast is heart wrenching. 

 

Yeah the telegraph. Apparently the government are sending experts over to look into forensics and pathology etc. rare for 30 odd year old to suffer cardiac arrest. 

[MPH]

3 hours ago, Daggers said:

What boat?

 

You must be Ukranian!

[Lionator]

Why are we so bellicose when it comes to Russia? It seems that we’re willing to do things that even the Americans don’t feel comfortable with. And it’s cross party too. Is it blowback from the Skripal poisonings? 
 

Either way, I’m not sure the British public is going to be too enthusiastic about us firing missiles into Russia but I suppose it’s ‘morally the right thing to do’. 

[Zear0]

11 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Why are we so bellicose when it comes to Russia? It seems that we’re willing to do things that even the Americans don’t feel comfortable with. And it’s cross party too. Is it blowback from the Skripal poisonings? 
 

Either way, I’m not sure the British public is going to be too enthusiastic about us firing missiles into Russia but I suppose it’s ‘morally the right thing to do’. 

They've been using Challenger 2's in the Kursk offensive (and remember us even providing heavy armour was a previous "red line") and slamming Storm Shadow into Navy HQ in Sevastopol, so not really sure letting them hit miliary targets in Russia is any worse than what's been happening already.  I'd hope the plan is to strike air fields, fuel storage etc. rather than dropping cruise miles onto Vlad during his morning ablutions.  Can't see the former of those being any more escalatory than what's happening already, the latter would, obviously, be daft.

 

*Edit*  The other thought could be if there's a risk of cruise missiles striking more valuable targets in the mainland, it could potentially require movement of air defence closer to Moscow and make targets in the occupied territories easier to destroy.

Edited 13 September by Zear0