The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Atunga

Member
I agree that an invasion of Ukraine is not what the Russians want, they invested heavily in denying that they want war, they have got almost all their top officials declaring that they are not going to attack Ukraine and today Lavrov said that, if it was just up to Russia, there won't be a war. He also says that Russia won't compromise on it's primary demands about NATO expansion, how they are going to achieve this remains to be seen. I think Russia is just trying to push for the Minsk agreement to be implemented, knowing that the implementation of the Minsk agreement means Ukraine will never be part of Nato
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #202
I agree it's more posturing at this point however the Russian opening gambit was so impossible for NATO, that it's difficult to see it as a basis for any sort of negotiation.

Feanor, what concessions do you think Mr Putin really expects? (I deliberately avoided the word 'wants')
I suspect he wants NATO non-expansion into Georgia and Ukraine as the top points, with everything else as a secondary consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to re-engage the US and NATO on general talks about mutual disarmament and observation protocols. Ukraine NATO membership is already highly unlikely, at least in the forseeable future, and he wants something binding to that extent.
 
Last edited:

Atunga

Member

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Belarus railway network just got hit by a cyber attack, the attackers are demanding that Lukashenko stop hosting the Russians. It's alarming that a Polish funded TV channel is providing a platform for the hackers to make demands
A taste of the same medicine for Moscow’s cyber team? I am sure Warsaw is pleased to play a small role in providing some facilities to front this move. Moscow itself has no immunity to such deniable cyber attacks, when the next phase begins.

I suspect that there is a cost to be paid and Moscow has to roll with it. Just as Putin may exercise his options, there is a reply to such hard nosed behaviour — as part of phase zero planning.
 
Last edited:

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
I suspect he wants NATO non-expansion into Georgia and Ukraine as the top points, with everything else as a secondary consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to re-engage the US and NATO on general talks about mutual disarmament and observation protocols. Ukraine NATO membership is already highly unlikely, at least in the forseeable future, and he wants something binding to that extent.
Thanks Feanor.
I'm not sure how one organises a binding 'never' arrangement? 'Never' is a long time, heck, in 15 years time Russia and NATO might be chums.
I can see that mutual disarmament would be of interest to both sides.
What about the DPR and LPR? Surely Mr Putin would be looking at some changes to their status?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #206
Thanks Feanor.
I'm not sure how one organises a binding 'never' arrangement? 'Never' is a long time, heck, in 15 years time Russia and NATO might be chums.
I think you know is is a fairly unlikely scenario. It would require a fundamental change either within NATO or within Russia. A binding never arrangement might be very simple. A document that simply says that the US promises to veto further NATO expansion into the former Soviet states. The question of course is what guarantees could be asked. Perhaps the implicit blank check on Russia's part to strike at Ukraine if the US violates the document can serve as the guarantee? It's one thing if the position of the US is "anyone can join NATO and we will support them". It's another thing if the position of the US "we promised not to do this but we're doing it anyway".

I can see that mutual disarmament would be of interest to both sides.
What about the DPR and LPR? Surely Mr Putin would be looking at some changes to their status?
Maybe. Personally I hope so. There's ~3.5 million people there who, for whatever reason, have made a choice to stay. They're serving the republican armed forces, they're choosing to live under the authoritarian (far more so then Russia's) government of the breakaway regions, under regular Ukrainian artillery shellings. They've more or less thrown their lot in with Russia. In my opinion Putin owes it to them to do something to correct their situation. And given the carnivorous nature of Ukrainian politician's statements regarding plans to "reintegrate" the Donbass, abandoning them isn't a good choice. But personally I'm not sure. Russia didn't want to take the Donbass in 2014 when it could have been done to any arbitrarily drawn boundary, be it the administrative border or a convenient geographic feature. If the purpose of the breakaway regions is to prevent NATO membership, they can do that just fine in their present state. And with binding guarantees of non-membership this would be even less likely. The one thing is that the front-line in these republics constantly eats resources, and the fact that the front line is so close to major urban centers creates problems for regular economic activity there.
 

denix56

Active Member
I strongly suspect this is untrue. Russia has drawn up troops and then drawn them back down many times in the past 8 years as a way of pressuring Ukraine. Russia is just as capable of backing off now as it has been at any point in the past and no imaginary embarrassment would prevent that, if that is what gets decided upon.

I think there are two key questions. Is Russian increase a response to their perception of a planned Ukrainian offensive? If yes, then a drawdown is practically inevitable once it becomes clear that no offensive is forthcoming (assuming no offensive is forthcoming). If no, then what is Russia's objective? I suspect that an invasion in and of itself is not the goal, otherwise there wouldn't be this giant diplomatic circus, and Ukraine wouldn't be given such a vast amount of advance warning (giving the west time to throw weapons into Ukraine and to coordinate a political response against the invasion). Russia has clearly shown in '08 and '14 that the government is willing to act rapidly and decisively, with international implications. This time the actions are very slow and deliberate. It's possible the objective is to get concessions on the points presented to the US. They can't reasonably expect to get all of what they asked for, so what is their realistic position that they're willing to settle for? And will they strike if they don't get an acceptable response?
I also suspect, that Ukraine and threat of invasion is just the way to start negotiations. The secondary things, stated in US and NATO letters are probably the main things that Russians want to discuss. As on one hand it will give them max output (ask maximum at the beginning) and will show globally and locally (mainly) that we have some muscles and Putin is a strong figure on the geopolitcal arena, Europe is weak, and on other hand it will give the room for US and NATO to agree to the proposal without looking like they lost (invasion prevented, everyone is happy).
 

Atunga

Member

Interesting articles on how the war propaganda is hurting Ukraine's economy to an extent that the Ukranian president is asking the west to stop. at this point it's becoming clear that if Russia doesn't invade Ukraine, main stream media will be disappointed. They have hyped the invasion story to an extent that the Ukranian economy has begun to bleed when Russia hasn't even fired a single shot, the Ukranians have had enough
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I also suspect, that Ukraine and threat of invasion is just the way to start negotiations.
Obviously... It's a tactic which has been practised for centuries. Putting pressure on an opponent [hoping it influences his behaviour] and demonstrating what will come next if talks fail.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Obviously... It's a tactic which has been practised for centuries. Putting pressure on an opponent [hoping it influences his behaviour] and demonstrating what will come next if talks fail.
Indeed.

But read western narratives, analysts and many seem to be unable to accept this point. They find it incredulous that Russia would mobilise a 100k troops, tanks and divisions as a mere negotiation tactic. Case in point, the news story about Russians moving blood supplies to the frontlines as a sign that war is imminent, but I see this as a piece of information (which can be true) deliberately leaked to keep up the pressure.

One does not go into negotiations with "reasonable requests"; that is not a negotiation, that is a meeting. The Russians wants to establish a position of strength, and making unreasonable demands, threats of war, just to test how the West and NATO reacts. If your threats are not real, it won't work. There are also pressures from internal factions that Putin wants to keep a lid on.
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
Obviously... It's a tactic which has been practised for centuries. Putting pressure on an opponent [hoping it influences his behaviour] and demonstrating what will come next if talks fail.
I have been listening and learning alot from here
My question is at what point can a middle nation like Ukraine and Australia stand up and say Fxxx off
To all areas, the poor bastar22 have had to be trampled on for centuries.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
My question is at what point can a middle nation like Ukraine and Australia stand up and say Fxxx off
Depends on the circumstances but in general smaller or less powerful countries have to form alliances/partnerships; have to acquire some level of deterrence;; have to engage in dialogue/diplomacy; have to avoid hubris and overconfidence and require a clear appraisal and understanding of what they can and can't achieve on their own.

On the current situation; an advantage the West, NATO and the Ukraine has is that it only has to deal with Russia and Russia alone. The Russians have to deal with the West, NATO and the Ukraine; whilst it can gain from the fact that there are differences of opinion within NATO itself and the U.S.; the fast remains that Russia needs a reach a deal with is acceptable to both NATO and the U.S' a deal which also has to be sold to the Ukraine.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
One does not go into negotiations with "reasonable requests"; that is not a negotiation, that is a meeting. The Russians wants to establish a position of strength, and making unreasonable demands, threats of war, just to test how the West and NATO reacts. If your threats are not real, it won't work. There are also pressures from internal factions that Putin wants to keep a lid on.
Well said.

It's a long established fact that as part of negotiations; one tries to negotiate from a position of strength and to present all his demands. During the course of negotiations it becomes clear as to how far the other side is willing to go in meeting the demands which then leads to compromises. Many however have assumed that because Russia has made certain demands which NATO will surely reject; that negotiations are just a facade; intended by the Russians to fail from the onset and give them the chance at a later date to say they tried diplomatic means but failed and were left no choice but to invade. I personally doubt this is the case but of course I could be wrong.
 

Atunga

Member
Interesting poll on the percentage of Ukranians ready to take up arms and fight should Russia invade. 33% of correspondence say they will take up arms to fight, while 21% say they will take other forms of resistance, like protests and other forms of civil disobedience, Crimea and the Donbass region were not polled, will this be enough to cause Russia major problems if they decide to launch an offensive?
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
It's a quick read from a few days ago.
I totally forgot about the nukes.
Perhaps Ukraine does have a bit of an argument in thinking that NATO and the west would assist in their defence if we asked them to / made them give up their ex USSR nuclear stockpile.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Perhaps Ukraine does have a bit of an argument in thinking that NATO and the west would assist in their defence if we asked them to / made them give up their ex USSR nuclear stockpile.
The West and NATO does not owe Ukraine anything, much less the post Cold War disarmament. Western support of Ukraine (i.e. the training, the flights carrying missiles) is one of expediency, which is countering Russia, not charity or some undeclared love for Ukraine.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Perhaps Ukraine does have a bit of an argument in thinking that NATO and the west would assist in their defence if we asked them to / made them give up their ex USSR nuclear stockpile.
That was in the 1990's and involved the cooperation of Russia [it had no major objections]; no way the NATO would have come reached such an agreement with the Ukraine. It would have been a political minefield given the geo strategic conditions during that period. Also. the potential for trouble with Russia was not something which was factored in by the Ukrainians in the mid to late 1990's.

What I'm really interested in is determining if indeed [as has been mentioned in various places] whether in the post Cold War period; to gain Russian cooperation in various areas [namely German reunification; disarmament, etc] and to provide it with the assurance it wanted; NATO promised never to expand NATO to Russia's border.


''Despite all the Maidan hopes for radical change and democratic transformation, it became apparent that the country was still ruled by the same clique of oligarchs, aided by networks of corrupt politicians and security agents, who ran the show before the revolution. Some new personalities emerged, but most remained in place, as did the nature of the political system. With a war in one corner of the country, powerful organised crime and way more political assassinations than Putin’s Russia saw during the same period, Ukraine came to remind Russians of the turbulent 1990s''.

''From the Russian perspective, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution has also revealed the hypocrisy of the West. Despite its persistent rhetoric on democratic values, Brussels and Washington have been turning a blind eye to a multitude of factors that prevented Ukraine from becoming a role model for Russians. These include discriminatory language laws, which severely restrict the use of the Russian language, the glorification of Nazi collaborators in street names and public celebrations, the apparent lack of desire by the government to investigate political assassinations and the fact that oligarchs are still running the show.''

''Russians have felt that the West betrayed them in the 1990s. After the Soviet Union collapsed and they emerged from the totalitarian regime, they hoped they would be offered full integration into the Western world, its military and political structures. Instead, the West invited everyone in the neighbourhood, except Russia, to join NATO and the European Union.''
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Well-Known Member
''From the Russian perspective, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution has also revealed the hypocrisy of the West. Despite its persistent rhetoric on democratic values, Brussels and Washington have been turning a blind eye to a multitude of factors that prevented Ukraine from becoming a role model for Russians.
This seems like mismatched expectations. The West is good on the rhetoric side of things, but have neither the interest or patience to guide any country to democracy, Ukraine or Russia.

Personally, I don't think NATO is interested in bringing Ukraine into the alliance, if they applied.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't think NATO is interested in bringing Ukraine into the alliance, if they applied.
Before all this unpleasantness started it was generally felt that Ukrainian membership was a matter of when; not if. As it stands however NATO has nothing to gain from granting Ukraine membership; it might even be seen by Russia a casus belli for war. If things get worse in the coming years it will also be interesting to see what Sweden and Finland do with regards to membership.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think Belarus getting involved in a Russian war would go down badly with the general public. They already want him out, so having Belarusians get involved in an invasion of Ukraine and all the sanctions that would come with it could trigger mass protests again.
He's got the KGB, the guns, the army, and Putin's support. He's quite capable of putting any protests or uprisings down. The only way he could be deposed is if the army turned on him and the KGB.
 
Top