The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Eyeball]

Putin of course says he was provoked into invading by the encroachment of perverse, corrupt, decadent NATO and sees himself as a "saviour", and maybe he's got a point..

 

[Eyeball]

...There were many historical wars where the smaller country beats the larger one..

Depends which war.
For example Uncle Ho won in Nam-



and Westmoreland pinpointed why-

 

[rsemmes]

Depends which war.
For example Uncle Ho won in Nam-

View attachment 52767

and Westmoreland pinpointed why-

View attachment 52768

More like a military fantasy writer.

You should have mentioned Israel.
Ho had already been relegated (apart from being dead), the Juntas in SVN were an important part of NVN victory and... A general providing excuses for his failures? It never happened before.
(Westmoreland was never in the defensive, it's just that he always wanted more.)

 

[KipPotapych]

or is an attempt to spin the topic to the point of misinformation.

Lol.

PS I swear we’ve already had a seventy-year old analyst gamer trophy winner, who moderated a military forum and was basically talking the same points.

Edit: Yes, yes we have: The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

 

[Feanor]

Here's how I see the Ukraine/ Russia conflict-
1- Zelensky can't possibly win against the much larger Russian Army, so he's going to run out of troops sooner or later.

True, but the question is in part, just how much sooner or later? Depending on how much later there are external and internal factors that could influence Russia's ability to continue the war. Russia's eventual conquest of Ukraine is a given if nothing major happens to interfere with it.

2- Therefore if western nations keep pumping weaponry into Ukraine it'll serve no useful purpose except to allow Zel to keep sticking pins in the Russian bear and provoking retaliation.

It can serve the purpose of weakening Russia, at the expense of Ukraine plus some old weapon stockpiles. It can also serve as a way to force Europeans to re-arm and prepare for their own defense in a way that a swift conclusion to this war would not. It can even serve the purpose of keeping Russia busy in Ukraine, so they don't have resources for other things.

3- Putin should openly declare to the world that he's content with the territory he now occupies and is willing to agree to a ceasefire.

But he isn't content and isn't willing. A ceasefire isn't a peace. Consider a situation where Ukraine agrees to the ceasefire, but refuses to acknowledge any loss of territory, and low-intensity fighting continues, including some Ukrainian UAV strikes against Russian oil refineries. Now what? How does that help? How do you make Ukraine stop, or get any recognition for your occupied areas. What about the giant pile of sanctions hurting the Russian economy and access to technology?

4- That'll put the onus squarely on Zel to write off the occupied territory and to agree to a ceasefire, or be seen as the aggressor..

Just, no. Zelensky has already agreed to a long ceasefire with no preconditions. It's pretty likely such a ceasefire will see the insertion of some sort of western fighting force to provide some air defense, training, logistics, and support to Ukraine. It's also highly likely that the ceasefire won't be permanent, as Ukraine is simply not willing to give up the territory. Instead what's likely is something along the lines of the Minsk Accords where low-intensity fighting continues, driven by Ukraine's unwillingness to accept any political settlement that recognizes their military defeat on pretty much any level. A ceasefire doesn't require Zelensky to write off the territory, it won't make him be perceived as the aggressor by his western supporters, and I think it won't even lead to any real lasting peace. It will simply enable Ukraine to take a break, re-arm, get more support, and then slowly push for a resumption of hostilities through various provocations, ideally meant to force Russia to be the one resume large scale combat as a way of preventing them from holding on to the territory.

 

[seaspear]

There was an interesting claim by one commentator that Russia,s production run of the new t-90m are not being sent to the front but held back ,this could make sense sending these new better protected tanks piecemeal into the front would be unlikely to lead to any breakthrough coming from a different direction might in large numbers?

 

[KipPotapych]

^ I have read similar reports and I think I mentioned it here and it has gotta be over a year ago now. I also saw similar claims when a few new T-90s appeared at the beginning of the Kursk offensive. While validity of such reports is questionable, I think it dies make some sense.

 

[Fredled]

I would go even further: Russia could have annexed or afiliated Crimea and the Donbas with democratic means..

No they couldn't have. There is no scenario where the Ukrainian government would agree to it.

Yes, there was: In 2014, when the Lugansk and the Donetsk province rebelled, were completely out of control, the Ukrainian government had no grip on them, completely lost access to these regions, with entire Ukrainian army brigades joining the independentist movement... it was decided with the OSCE (Europe + Russia) and Ukraine that the future of the two provinces would be decided with a referendum. And a referendum was held. Unfortunately, the Lugansk and Donetsk leaders didn't allow Ukrainian officials to take part in the organisation of the referendum. They invited a few foreign observers as agreed with the OSCE, but in too few numbers and with questionable credentials, and they wouldn't allow any other observer to come. On of these observer, Jacque Baud is now spreading Russia propaganda in western Europe.
Had this referendum be held according to the rules, and had the separatists won, Ukraine would have been compelled to agree with the secession. this was also valid for Crimea. But crimea was invaded by anothercountry which makes things more complicated. However, there is one condition for such peaceful settlement: That the separate entities and the foreign powers supporting them keep a friendly attitude toward Ukraine. At some point, and despite the failed referendum, Ukraine offered Lugansk and Donetsk to become semi-autonomous.

You are right that at this time, there were some right-wing nationalist elements in Ukraine who opposed a peaceful settlement. But it was not the majority. Today these right wing people have either died or been replaced by a new generation who rose in the war.

It sounds to me like you're envisioning a future where Ukraine signs a deal to buy time and reconquer the territory later but with more western support. You presumably assume Russia also wants a resumption of hostilities. I suspect that the side that will test the other and push things in that direction will be Ukraine, since they're already clearly not willing to sign a deal that acknowledges a loss of territory. Which is a great reason for Russia not to accept any treaty that doesn't involve Ukraine formally giving up the territory as lost for good. I think the best way to make the peace last is for Ukraine to officially give up the territory but for a coalition of European countries to make a binding defence treaty with Ukraine that precludes another Russian invasion.

My vision is that Ukraine will not necessarily try to reconquer the loss territories a few years after a peace deal was signed. And I don't think that the West will support another war to do that. They will do it only if the opportunity happens and only in a reasonable manner. For example, local rebellion, disengagement of Russian forces, something that would make recovering the territories easy and logical. It's unlikely but not impossible in a distant future. Think 10, 20 or 40 years.

Yes, I assume that Russia will not stop at the 75% of the Ukrainian provinces they hold today. They are in for a very long term war against the West. However, they may resume hostilities outside of Ukraine but that's only a detail. We have gotten to the point where giving anything to Putin in order to broker a negotiated peace won't be a guarantee whatsoever but only a temporary agreement until further notice.

Gotcha. Every single one is equally unrecoverable though recovering Zaporozhye is a geographic necessity to recovering Crimea. But equally...

You do realize this is nonsense?

LOL. Yes. I mean if Ukrainian can control the areas between the Dnipr and Crimea, Crimea will fall like a ripe fruit.

So far this is your view of it. As far as I can tell there is nothing being asked for by Russia that prevents Ukraine from getting binding security guarantees from Europe.

Russian official and Putin himself have repeatedly ruled out European military presence in Ukraine. Do you need a link?
________________________

As I understand it, the pro-Russian Crimean and Eastern Ukraine people voted in referendums to ally themselves with Russia, so why are Zelensky and our western media calling the Russian occupation of those areas "illegal"?

See the beginning of this reply above.
Also, language was not the reason. The reason is that the people in the Donbass felt more Russian than Ukrainian, thought that they would live better in Russia than in Ukraine, had many connection and family inside Russia and almost none inside western Europe.
It's impossible to divide Ukrainians as Russian speaking and Ukrainian speaking because many speaks a dialect or local variants which are in between. They speak with an accent, with idioms and words typical to the region. All these stories about language and ethnicity is pure invention to justify some sort of natural division.

Therefore if western nations keep pumping weaponry into Ukraine it'll serve no useful purpose except to allow Zel to keep sticking pins in the Russian bear and provoking retaliation.

Sure. We should let the Russians invade whatever country they want because any form of resistance would cause retaliation and suffering.
You know what? Those in Europe who remember Nazi Germany disagree.

Welcome to the forum...

 

[Fredled]

Earlier Tuesday, Putin had agreed to Trump's proposal for a month-long halt to strikes against energy infrastructure in Ukraine

That's BS. Trump didn't pull the Energy Ceasefire out of his hat. If Trump made this proposal, it's because Putin had asked it.

Yes because as long as the territory remains Ukrainian, Ukrainians will have the right to retake it.

Which is why your terms don’t make any sense to Russia.

We are not trying to find a solution that would make sens to Russia or that Russia would agree with. But a solution which would be the most just, thus the most favorable to Ukraine.

The goal of the peace agreement is that Russia stops attacking Ukraine.

Whose goals are you referring to? You clearly forget (all the time) that it takes two to tango.

Sorry: This is not a territorial dispute between two equally wrong parties. It's Russia trying to invade by force and and destroying cities and killing people.

It can’t be replaced. Even Starlink cannot be replaced, as was outlined here previously.

Non US satellite observation exists and the accuracy is good but the time coverage is reduced. The US has almost 24h a day coverage while others have only a few hours a day coverage.

There is an alternative to Starlink, but not as good. It's not like Ukrainians will be cut off from all means of communication or intelligence.

The other reality is that the Russian Navy is unable to sail west of the Crimean peninsula thanks to sea drones.

Do they need to?

No, they don't need to and they better not to. And if you ask me, they really shouldn't. But they will want to, because that would give them the possibility to attack Odessa from the sea, to attack the south west part of Ukraine and disrupt the Grain Corridor.

If the war stops due to some agreement, they would lose that right regardless because it would be considered to be a provocation or an act of war and hostilities would potentially resume in short order. Clearly, no?

In case of non recognition, it will depends on the specific terms of the agreement. For Ukraine it would be extremely important that the Russian fleet can't sail west of Crimea. In case of recognition, Russians will have this right, ipso factum.

Simple logic dictates that your proposal is complete nonsense that Russia will never agree to.

I didn't propose anything. I only provide my analysis of the situation. Zelensky is ready to stop fighting right now and start talking. As long as Russia doesn't apply the proposed ceasefire, talking about negotiation is pointless.

This is not “Trump’s logic”. This has been the logic of every POTUS since at least Obama.

It seems that you have been living in another world for a while. Or, maybe, haven’t followed the events prior to the 2022 invasion (and not exactly thoroughly since either, clearly).

Before 2022, Russia didn't make a full scale invasion, and it's only one year later that the size of this conflict grew to what it is now. Until 2022, Russia was not a threat to Europe and we were not on the brink of WW3.

Obama was completely uninterested to what happened in Ukraine and in Europe and Russia in general (and so is Kamala Harris). But that was logical at this time.

Australian MBTs: they are still in Australia, reportedly permission to export was still not granted by the US, they don’t know if Ukraine wants these tanks to begin with, and it might be inappropriate to ship these tanks during the peace talks to begin with.

Yes I have read that too. Shipping these tanks to Ukraine may not be a rational solution.

Export to Europe will not be banned, obviously. That’s crazy talk. Restricting exports to Ukraine makes perfect sense

You can't restrict exports to Ukraine without restricting to Europe. If components arrive in Europe, they will end up in Ukraine.

But my point is that if Trump doesn't show a minimum of support for Ukraine, Europeans will think that the US is not a reliable ally, see not an ally at all. Ans this has consequences and Trump knows it. A few weeks ago he didn't know it. Now, he does.

Expecting European troops in Eastern Ukraine is unreasonable.

Why? We already have NATO troops, in large quantities, within artillery range to the Russian positions all along the border with Russia and Belarussia. That Russians fire at them in the Donbass or somewhere in Estonia doesn't make any difference.

But you sure seem to know more than most of everyone else. Either you work for the intel services or should work for one with your inside knowledge.

It's a fact that the US hasn't removed or planned to remove a single soldier from Eastern Europe. I don't know if it requires special intel or knowledge to know that.

 

[Feanor]

Yes, there was: In 2014, when the Lugansk and the Donetsk province rebelled, were completely out of control, the Ukrainian government had no grip on them, completely lost access to these regions, with entire Ukrainian army brigades joining the independentist movement... it was decided with the OSCE (Europe + Russia) and Ukraine that the future of the two provinces would be decided with a referendum. And a referendum was held. Unfortunately, the Lugansk and Donetsk leaders didn't allow Ukrainian officials to take part in the organisation of the referendum. They invited a few foreign observers as agreed with the OSCE, but in too few numbers and with questionable credentials, and they wouldn't allow any other observer to come. On of these observer, Jacque Baud is now spreading Russia propaganda in western Europe.
Had this referendum be held according to the rules, and had the separatists won, Ukraine would have been compelled to agree with the secession. this was also valid for Crimea. But crimea was invaded by anothercountry which makes things more complicated. However, there is one condition for such peaceful settlement: That the separate entities and the foreign powers supporting them keep a friendly attitude toward Ukraine. At some point, and despite the failed referendum, Ukraine offered Lugansk and Donetsk to become semi-autonomous.

Complete fiction, with bits of reality mixed in for credibility. The rebellion was far too disorganized and wasn't demanding independence for a long time. At no point did any "entire Ukrainian army brigades" join any independence movement. By the time the independence referendum was in play, the war was in full swing. It wasn't a question of allowing Ukraine to organize a referendum. Ukraine considered the referendum illegal and was trying to wipe out the rebels. At no point was Ukraine willing to let these territories go, and at no point was the west willing to force them to.

You are right that at this time, there were some right-wing nationalist elements in Ukraine who opposed a peaceful settlement. But it was not the majority. Today these right wing people have either died or been replaced by a new generation who rose in the war.

Any reason to think they won't be a problem today? Any mechanism to ensure they can't sabotage a peace deal that involves recognizing territorial losses?

My vision is that Ukraine will not necessarily try to reconquer the loss territories a few years after a peace deal was signed. And I don't think that the West will support another war to do that. They will do it only if the opportunity happens and only in a reasonable manner. For example, local rebellion, disengagement of Russian forces, something that would make recovering the territories easy and logical. It's unlikely but not impossible in a distant future. Think 10, 20 or 40 years.

I suspect Ukraine will attempt to reconquer the territories a few weeks after a peace deal, just not with a full scale attack. I suspect Ukraine doesn't really want a ceasefire. They want a victory, they just know they aren't going to get one if things continue as they are. But a western force to guarantee Ukrainian survival, coupled with a safe rear area, and they would probably be up for continuing lower intensity hostilities to that end.

Yes, I assume that Russia will not stop at the 75% of the Ukrainian provinces they hold today. They are in for a very long term war against the West. However, they may resume hostilities outside of Ukraine but that's only a detail. We have gotten to the point where giving anything to Putin in order to broker a negotiated peace won't be a guarantee whatsoever but only a temporary agreement until further notice.

We will have to agree to disagree, time will tell what happens.

Russian official and Putin himself have repeatedly ruled out European military presence in Ukraine. Do you need a link?

I repeat, how does this prevent security guarantees? Any deal that excludes presence would immediately be scrapped if Russia invades again. If the political will is there, what prevents EU forces from entering? A lack of desire? Well... that's not up to Russia. And let's not forget, EU membership is open to Ukraine with all that it implies. The reason Ukraine wants a western presence and the reason some in western leadership are trying to push it through is because they know that the will isn't there, and want to put their forces in a position where they will get hit if Russia advances, to try and get the public support needed. But that's a problem of will within the EU, not of Russia.

 

[Eyeball]

Lol.

PS I swear we’ve already had a seventy-year old analyst gamer trophy winner, who moderated a military forum and was basically talking the same points.

Edit: Yes, yes we have: The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Aargh thanks, now I remember i've been in DT before with the screenname 'Mainframe', I can't remember why I left, it must have been because I didn't like some aspects of the website, perhaps I thought there were too many snowflakes in here, or too many anti-Trumpists.
Okay I'm hopping on my bike and leaving again; plenty more forums around, adios to you all..

 

[KipPotapych]

^ Haha.

PS on the next come back, at the very least, don’t mention the age, “trophies”, and forum moderation, in order to keep it on the down low.

 

[swerve]

Hi Eyeball. First off, welcome to the forum, consider introducing yourself in the Intros and Off Topic forum;

The new members introduction thread.

Fellow Brit here, living in London, 1960s vintage chap in middle youth, used to work in academic publishing but now a property manager. I’m a bit of a politics and current affairs junky, also have wide historical interests, interested in military affairs especially Army and Royal Navy and in...

www.defencetalk.com

Second off, please review the forum rules;

Forum Rules

Below is the current iteration of the DefenceTalk Forum Rules. Failure to abide by them may result in deletion of post content, posts, member banning, and/or a combination thereof. Do not use these forums for any commercial purpose - no solicitation of funds, no advertising, and no...

www.defencetalk.com

Third off, your question implies either a comical amount of naivete, or is an attempt to spin the topic to the point of misinformation. So let's start off with the sequence of events. When it comes to Crimea specifically this argument has some merit, emphasis on some. Legality and legitimacy are different things. However Russia has some legitimacy there, the referendum was conducted by Crimean authorities, and covered the entire population. This is not so for the referendums in Donetsk or Lugansk which were conducted by a dubious rebel leadership in the middle of a conflict, when they controlled less than half of their respective provinces. The referendums Russia conducted in Kherson and Zaporozhye were both rushed, and included only a portion of the region's territories, something that's especially silly in Zaporozhye where the capital of the region, and by far the largest urban area, was not included. In other words, even if we take the referendum results at face value, they certainly weren't conducted in a manner that would lend them legitimacy. They certainly weren't legal. And you're assuming that the results of the referendums can be trusted. Ordinary in principle multi-party peacetime elections in Russia are less than entirely trustworthy. Here we are talking about referendums conducted in an unstable time, that didn't generally provide opportunities for the entire populations to vote, and that produced results so comically lopsided that taking them seriously is just silly.

And he claims to be "a military writer and world affairs analyst".

 

[rsemmes]

If Trump made this proposal, it's because Putin had asked it.

Is that an article of faith?