Ananda said:
When Ukrainian themselves talk and pleading more for increase their defence, talking more on how to survive. White house then talk about Counter Offensive.
No. In the short term, there is an emergency as the Ukrainian defence is ready to collapse if nothing is done.
Whereas, in the mid or long term, the new weapons will enable Ukraine to launch a second counter-offensive (or the first real one should we say) in 2025. Notably because the bulk of the F16's will be there by the end of 2024, beginning of 2025.
The first ones
from Danmark in summer, the next ones from
Belgium and The Netherlands in autumn or later.
Other, not disclosed weapons may be in preparation for delivery.
They will also get massive amount of artillery shells, as production ramped up.
That's why there is currently talks about the survivability of the Ukrainian state. But Zelensky has always made clear that there won't be any peace as long as Ukraine has not recovered all their territories. They believe that as long as Russia can control parts of Ukraine, they will try get more of it.
Of course they are conscious that it won't be possible to recover 100% of all the territories. But at least Russia should be pushed back as far as possible, not be allowed to take more ground, and be defeated militarily.
The idea is that Ukraine should not hope for a lasting peace if they negotiate while Russia has the upper hand.
This position by the Ukrainian leadership has never changed.
koxinga said:
Winning is a different topic. If we accept the (debatable) notion of force ratios, UKR forces needs to be quantitatively and qualitatively superiority in specific theatre by a significant factor.
That's why I think that Ukrainian can win only if Russians decide to withdraw after a structural collapse of their military organisation and logistic and huge casualties.
Getting a 3:1 ratio for Ukraine on term of foot soldiers is impossible. They would need to mobilize 1.2 million men. And Putin is sure to win because of this.
Ukraine can't mobilize enough men, not because of political backlash, but because it's materially very difficult, almost impossible. and because the motivation to defend their country is weak. (See
@Feanor reply.)
Every young Ukrainian agree that Russians should be repeled. But none of them wants to go and fight. Failure on the battlfield has a snowball effect. The worse it is, the less people want to go. The danger now for Ukraine is a silent surrendering of the population. Ukraine urgently needs a symbolical victory to reverse the situation.
Ukraine can achieve victory, or partial victory, by disrupting the logistic. The Crimean Bridge is a
good example. Destroying roads, railways, boats, vehicles, warehouses...
Disrupting the chain of command. A lot of high ranking official died during the first year of the invasion. They should try to hit the headquarters again. They did something recently.
Causing huge casualties. This has already be done. But with Russians, you have to repeat several times to make them understand.
StingrayOZ said:
UN is only designed to solve problems all the major powers agree on. It is not the world police. It can't solve problems between major powers. It is the wrong forum for that kind of effort. UN troops are typically the lowest paid on the planet and supplied by countries like Pakistan or perhaps some force from Africa
Because, for the types of mission the UN has done, nobody wanted to pay expensive military forces. In the case of Ukraine, it would be funded more seriously.
The UN should be the place to solve the Ukrainian conflict. When there is serious business, they should be there. But they can come only when both parties agree to a ceasefire under the condition that it will be monitored by the UN. Unfortunately, in 2014, Russia rejected talks about UN observers in the Donbas and Ukraine was not hot at the idea neither.
The UN can take several resolutions. But with Russia sitting at the UNSC, it's impossible.
StingrayOZ said:
China isn't really interested in providing aid. They don't have that kind of relationship with the Russians. They get along enough these days they don't have to have a war with each other, but they don't share the same world view. Russia sees China as a potential threat, and China sees Russia has a naughty player who can't be trusted but who at times can be useful.
It's true. China doesn't commit to aiding Russia militarily. The first reason is that China doesn't want troubles with its customers, e.i. Europe and America. But China knows how to exploit the situation. They buy oil, and now gaz, from Russia at a bargain. They even pay part of this oil in Renminbi. And at the same time, China can sell Russia sanctioned dual-use goods at several times the normal price.
The Chinese also want to offer their support for Ukraine in exchange for getting Taiwan back under their control. But they know that's asking too much. The US made clear that they won't agree with such a deal.
Big_Zucchini said:
I actually do see a possibility for some Ukrainian counter-attacks. Ukraine's strategy of gradual slow withdrawal to keep Russians perpetually in a dangerous offensive - is working.
Yes, it's working. Currently Russian casualties are as high as during the assault on Avdiivka, Bahkmut and Sievirodonetsk.
Chasiv Yard may be their next graveyard.
This is because they lure Russians out of their fortifications. Problem is that Ukes also suffer great losses.
Vladb said:
First, both the UK and the French ambassador were summoned and got the message that the British and the French assets outside of Ukraine territory will be deemed free hunting grounds if their weapons are used to strike targets in Russian proper (as per Cameron, Macron etc.).
Problem is that per Russian law, voted by the Parliament (Duma) and signed by Putin, 25% of Ukraine is Russian territory. They legally consider Russian territory, even zones not yet under their control. They have even annexed these territories to the adjacent Kursk and Rostov provinces and integrated the administration in the Russia corresponding branches. They recently added all the lands and real estate to the cadastral data base of Russia.
So, they put themselves in an oxymoron. As per their own laws, it's been a while that Storm Shadows are used on
Russia proper. At the same time, by making this warning, they admit that all the land within the 1992 borders, including Crimea, is still Ukrainian.
Feanor said:
I'm not even sold that an actual deployment of small number of NATO troops would necessarily result in a tactical nuclear escalation. Nor would the appearance of a small NATO deployment change all that much. This war is being fought in a manner that is at odds with much of the military experience of the past three decades, and any forces that haven't gone through a specific robust training aimed at performing in this environment are going to have a painful time adapting. I think NATO declaring Ukraine a no-fly zone might take us towards that nuclear cliff's edge, but there's little reason to think Russia will go nuclear now, merely because some long ranged munitions will be able to hit some targets inside Russia.
I agree. Delivering the weapons that are in the process of being delivered cause many times more harms to Russian forces than a passive NATO deployement in western Ukraine. Putin hasn't even change his tune concerning the F16's. Maybe because he underestimates what the F16's will mean since, so far he sees progress on the battelfield and panic among Ukrainian ranks. As long as he is winning or get the apparence of winning, Putin is proud to claim victories without using a single nuclear weapon.
IMO, we should fear nukes when Russia will be defeated and forced to withdraw, and Putin blows a fuse. Medvediev has already said that they would have used nukes had the 2023 counter-offensive succeeded. I take his words seriously.
Feanor said:
During WWII the US and UK conducted carpet bombing campaigns and this was acceptable. Within that context, the atomic bombs weren't much of a departure. Today neither are acceptable in most societies.
Actually Russia is processing systematic carpet bombing of each city it plans to seize. Destruction are akind to small nuclear blasts, without the radiations.
But as you said, it's not accepted, at least by the West.
Feanor said:
Ukraine can sign peace with Russia, give up NATO aspirations, and surrender some territory. It wouldn't be a good outcome, but Ukraine would still exist as a country.
No, it can't. It was still possible two years ago, bit now, Putin has decided to eliminate the Ukrainian state all together and absorb it into existing members of the Russian Federation.
Feanor said:
And what does Russia do if they drop a couple of tactical nukes but don't get anything remotely resembling surrender?
In reality, tactical nukes would have no other effect than to create a worsened image of Russia and international condemnation. And certainly China dropping the little supports, aka
Unlimited Friendship, it gives to Russia.
Tactical nukes won't have much effect on Ukrainian forces. So if Putin wants to play the nuclear card, it should be shock and awe: Nuking big cities. Obviously ruled out as long as he he keeps a minimum of sanity.
www.politico.eu
www.bloomberg.com
