The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

What do you mean by "not improving its negotiating position"? Vis-a-vis who?

There is only one negotiation, Russia vs Ukraine. The nuance is that Ukraine is in the menu, not at the table; as I read somewhere.

Obviously, Ukraine will be at the table, if it's still in the fight, but, whatever Zelenski says, it will be completely irrelevant. If the EU is paying for 80% of Ukraine’s financial needs, what is the point of Ukraine sitting at the table?
I think that it is evident that if Ukraine cannot keep the country running, not just the war, Ukraine will not negotiate, it will simply accept whatever terms Russia wishes to dictate.
Running out of money this year, begging for a lot more to survive next year and... negotiating with what in 2028? I cannot see Russia running out of tanks or money in 2027. The Ukrainian position has been deteriorating since 2022 and its fall is accelerating now. 80%? There is no Ukrainian economy!
There is no negotiating position for Ukraine, that is what I mean.

It would be a strange coincidence, considering what may happen next year and if 80% is the real number, that, even if we want to keep Russia in the fight, France (Ukraine) gives up Indochina (the war).

Edit.
Not that bad. The EU is paying for 80% of Ukraine’s external financial needs. It is possible that Ukraine will be able to finance between 35% and 60% of its budget. Expectations are great for 2028, I guess Ukraine will be able to repair everything and it will suffer no further damages.

 

[personaldesas]

NATO trained troops, NATO shells, NATO weapons, NATO financed and planned in a NATO HQ.
Oh, yes... The cannon fodder was Ukrainian.

Ukrainian when you're counting the dead, NATO when you're naming the offensive. Convenient how the people doing the fighting only count when they serve your argument.

Anyway, onto my ignore list you go. If I ever want more of your arguments, I might as well cut out the middleman and go straight to Solovyov.

 

[rsemmes]

Ukrainian when you're counting the dead, NATO when you're naming the offensive. Convenient how the people doing the fighting only count when they serve your argument.

Anyway, onto my ignore list you go. If I ever want more of your arguments, I might as well cut out the middleman and go straight to Solovyov.

My argument was, as it has been posted repeatedly, that this has never been NATO's war, no matter what Zelenski has been begging, requesting or demanding; so, Robotine was never a NATO offensive.
At the same time, it is evident that Russia is fighting Ukraine and NATO and that NATO wants to keep Ukraine in the fight. Since the end of 2022, how many pensioneers would had starve to death, how many hospitals would be still functioning, how many soldiers paid, how many shells would had Ukraine been firing whithout NATO?
It was never a NATO offensive and it would had never been possible without NATO.

 

[Redshift]

No.
Before you asked I used Zelinki's “acknowledged the reality” to point out that, according to his own words (Zelinki's, not mine), Ukraine is not serious about peace.

If you want to go for History, a lot of people is, and has been, claiming a lot of things. Hitler didn't claim the Manifest Destiny, Hitler didn't claim the Monroe Doctrine. Israel is in Lebanon, S. Arabia in Yemen, the US is bombing Iran (not right now), any claims there?
Maybe you noticed that I didn't say that Russia is not a corrupt state; we all take that for granted. Maybe you noticed that I mentioned the UK joining the EU again.

"Ukraine is not serious about peace if it does not make significant territorial concessions." Where did you notice that, in "what a peace agreement would look like"? Ukraine is at the receiving end, Ukraine will make concessions, I see that as a logical conclusion. Looking at the situation today, and answering what I think, as I explained, was your question, that is, IMO, what a peace agreement would look like.
I also think that you misread or purposely misread my post.

You do realise that if Russia stopped attacking Ukraine, then Ukraine would almost certainly stop fighting back by attacking Russia? Chances are the Russian offensive and defensive war inside Ukraine would continue, but even that would stop if Russia ceased it's offensive there as well?

 

[Redshift]

My argument was, as it has been posted repeatedly, that this has never been NATO's war, no matter what Zelenski has been begging, requesting or demanding; so, Robotine was never a NATO offensive.
At the same time, it is evident that Russia is fighting Ukraine and NATO and that NATO wants to keep Ukraine in the fight. Since the end of 2022, how many pensioneers would had starve to death, how many hospitals would be still functioning, how many soldiers paid, how many shells would had Ukraine been firing whithout NATO?
It was never a NATO offensive and it would had never been possible without NATO.

The answer is none of Russia stopped attacking. No missiles if any sort would be fired by Ukraine if Russia stopped firing theirs first, very simple.

 

[rsemmes]

The answer is none of Russia stopped attacking. No missiles if any sort would be fired by Ukraine if Russia stopped firing theirs first, very simple.

It is so simple that Israel, S. Arabia and the US cannot understand it.
Yes, fairy tales are simple.

 

[rsemmes]

My take on theguardian, Tisdall, take on Trump on the Ukrainian War.

Donald Trump has sold out Ukraine. He makes appeaser Chamberlain look like a man of iron principle | Simon Tisdall

Europe’s leaders can no longer trust a word that comes out of Washington. No more slaps on the wrist – we need concrete steps to punish Trump, says Guardian foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall

www.theguardian.com

And a lesson on real politik and creative History, feel free to ignore it.

Tisdall call it betrayal because he doesn't like it, if he liked it, it could've been "a new phase of the relationship between two countries".
His betrayal of Ukraine is cynically self-interested.
-Any country doesn't strive to achieve its self interests? That government should be fired.
And force its de facto capitulation.
-When we have repeatedly said that it is in our best interests to it keep in the fight.
His shocking decision to fund Putin’s war machine by buying Russian diesel.
-We buy oil and gas. For some reason he forgot to mention that, selective facts?
His mysterious, lethal interruptions in US satellite and intelligence sharing with Kyiv.
-That's a gift, not a contract; that Zelenski takes it for granted is another one of his delusions. Providing missiles to Kiev is not "lethal"?
His renewed attempt to oust Ukraine’s president.
-We are especially fond of ousting presidents and organize/support coup d'état/dictators. He suffers faulty memory or selective History?
He likes the idea of a world dominated by three all-powerful blocs and authoritarian leaders.
-Of course he does! Did the British Empire disliked the idea? A lot of people likes that idea... As long as they are one of them.
The short-term consequences of his betrayal are potentially fatal for Ukraine’s bid to repel the Russian invaders and survive as a sovereign democratic state.
- No and no. Ukraine will not repel the invaders (maybe in the Middle Earth) and how democratic Ukraine will be does not depend on Russia; its survival/sovereignty has never been in question (maybe in Narnia).
For much of this year, Ukraine has been winning, or at least holding its own, in the contested lands of the Donbas and along the Black Sea littoral. More than that, by using homemade missiles and drones, it has taken the fight to Russia’s industrial heartlands and oil refineries, significantly undermining Putin’s ability to fund his war.
-Or losing ground slower and asking for even more money but, if you are selling a product, you don't have to be strictly accurate.
In Europe, which itself is under escalating Russian hybrid attack. As MI5 has warned, Britain and Europe are under daily attack from Russia.
-(Footnote)

+

 

[rsemmes]

+
European nations have taken the lead in supporting Kyiv militarily, financially and diplomatically.
-"Cynically self-interested", he said, while pointing his finger at someone else.
The fact that Russia, suffering unsustainable battlefield casualties, severe economic damage...
-How unsustainable are they? As much as we want them to be? So severe that Russia has increased its missile production? Considering that Russia is fighting Ukraine, how sustainable are Ukrainian casualties? How non-severe is the damage to Ukraine's economy? If you don't like reality, ignore it.
Trump’s perfidy is the shame of the world.
-I think that in Sbrenica they could say something about perfidy or in Derry; the Igbo too, I guess. BTW, the UN just gave two fingers to the Saharaui people.
As was the case with Czechoslovakia after 1938.
-And we don't mention Teschen.
Against eastern totalitarianism.
-What about totalitarianism in general?
Can now trust a word that comes out of Washington?
-The US spied on Airbus so that Boeing could win a contract. He is not implying that we could trust the US before, is he?
Would fatefully damage respect for international law and sovereign borders.
What respect?
Untold numbers of war crimes and crimes against humanity would go uninvestigated and unpunished.
-What about just "crimes", like in NI? Irak, Aghanistan, Aden... We love uninvestigated and unpunished crimes, when they are our crimes. He cannot see the difference or he doesn't want to see the difference?
For all these reasons, Britain and its European allies can no longer afford to hold back.
-We have a very long experience of holding back, Teschen, Hungary in 1956 (while we were busy in Egypt), Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen... Maybe he is suggesting that we should start WWIII or maybe that we should impose sanctions on the US?
And other like-minded countries.
-He obviously means every single country cynical and self-interested in its own business.
Healthy majorities of their citizens reject...
-Rejected the criminal an illegal invasion of Iraq, but there we, the UK, merrily went.
Burnham could start by ordering the closure of US military bases in Britain, offensive symbols of a hostile occupying power.
-He could even offer missiles to Iran so it can defend itself from bullies. Wait... by "hostile occupying power" he means the British Army in NI or its love story with the Catholic population?
At all costs, Trump’s treachery must not stand.
-"At all costs", he wanted to end his article with a joke.

The fall of the Spanish Republic was a betrayal to a western democracy, and the British Empire was quite happy with it.
The only thing that we don't betray is our (as decided by the government in power at any given moment) own interests.

…
Let's see, S. Arabia invaded and is bombing Yemen; the Houthis are bombing S. Arabia. Do we expect actions without consequences or do we expect our actions will not have consequences? Is a car bomb in Moscow hybrid warfare? Sinking the Rainbow warrior? Sinking a Russian ship off the coast of Murcia? Spying on Airbus? Blowing up the Nord Stream? Providing the targeting and the missile to kill Russian citizens/soldiers, is that hybrid warfare or business as usual?
We don't like what Russia is doing, Russia doesn't like what we are doing, that look a lot like business as usual to me; no matter what countries are interacting.
I am not defending hybrid warfare, I am just amazed that anyone could feel outraged by it.

 

[Feanor]

The answer is none of Russia stopped attacking. No missiles if any sort would be fired by Ukraine if Russia stopped firing theirs first, very simple.

Maybe, maybe not. Ukraine wants a ceasefire but it's unlikely they would take a permanent peace deal with a new international border along the current LOC. So it may be less of an end to the war and more of a pause. Frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet space have a habit of unfreezing themselves (S. Ossetia, Karabakh, Chechnya etc.) What we do know is that a ceasefire would take a lot of pressure off of Ukraine, and would let them reconstitute their armed forces, badly strained by the fighting, rebuild infrastructure, and receive deliveries of aid and arms without need to carefully squirrel them away from Russian strikes.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Upon a pause of the war, Ukraine would immediately redouble its efforts to rearm, would invite foreign troops for ... training, would invite foreign "advisors", would try to integrate its air defence into NATO, would stockpile millions of drones etc. With a constant revanchist attitude of the people against Russia, probably for centuries onwards.

Why would the russians allow that? The best course of action for the russians is to keep grinding Ukraine into nothingness. Until it becomes a permanently destroyed/failed country, forever isolated, with no future and with demographics even much worse than the current situation.

 

[KipPotapych]

A lot of talk about Starlink and Starshield. A lot of talk about “protecting civilian lives” and “Trump/Musk killing civilians because Ukrainians cannot defend against the Russian strikes”. I wonder… what is the difference in the interception rates and civilian casualties in this past week and an average more or less recent week otherwise. Does anyone track this data and can provide the stats? Not to sound incentive and brutal, but seems like a decent (though imperfect) small case study to validate the postulate “Russia wants to kill as many Ukrainians as possible”, no? I am assuming since I haven’t seen any “testing” and proclamations, the postulate is invalid or no one wants to do so (because it is invalid?)? A missed opportunity otherwise.

 

[KipPotapych]

The US is a net exporter of diesel, importing 10 days supply will not have any effect on prices at the pump in the USA, no matter where it is purchased from.

Reading back a little.

I had already explained it, I believe. Here is not me explaining it in bullet-point summaries, without a wall of text that some apparently find hard to follow:





I would add that, aside from some “sentimental value”, sending diesel to the US is ludicrous and counterproductive. Another add, as I had also discussed previously, the 1.5 mbpd loss only takes into account the most recent numbers prior to the Russian ban on exports.

Also of importance:



Before someone gets carried away with the lemming-like assumptions (as the individual cited below did):



To note, this is not strictly related to diesel production capacity (that one has never been below the internal demand in view of the Ukrainian strikes, as discussed previously).

 

[tonnyc]

Upon a pause of the war, Ukraine would immediately redouble its efforts to rearm, would invite foreign troops for ... training, would invite foreign "advisors", would try to integrate its air defence into NATO, would stockpile millions of drones etc. With a constant revanchist attitude of the people against Russia, probably for centuries onwards.

Why would the russians allow that? The best course of action for the russians is to keep grinding Ukraine into nothingness. Until it becomes a permanently destroyed/failed country, forever isolated, with no future and with demographics even much worse than the current situation.

Well, in a rational world where Russia isn't obsessed with annexing another country's land, Russia will allow it because it will cost them nothing. Meanwhile, continuing the attrition war will continue to cost them vast amount of lives and rubles. How's that demographic abyss going to look like next decade? Sure, Russia may even win insofar that it might annex Ukraine (or more likely, establish a puppet state as a buffer), but what will that get Russia really? Russia isn't going to become safer, it won't become richer, and it won't be happier.

Really, from this outsider's POV Russia is deep in the sunken cost trap. "We can't quit now or it will all be for nothing!" and yet continuing just gets them deeper into the hole even assuming total victory at the end.

 

[rsemmes]

Well, in a rational world where Russia isn't obsessed with annexing another country's land, Russia will allow it because it will cost them nothing. Meanwhile, continuing the attrition war will continue to cost them vast amount of lives and rubles. How's that demographic abyss going to look like next decade? Sure, Russia may even win insofar that it might annex Ukraine (or more likely, establish a puppet state as a buffer), but what will that get Russia really? Russia isn't going to become safer, it won't become richer, and it won't be happier.

Really, from this outsider's POV Russia is deep in the sunken cost trap. "We can't quit now or it will all be for nothing!" and yet continuing just gets them deeper into the hole even assuming total victory at the end.

First, where is that rational world, in Hormuz?

Then, I don't think that in 2022, before the invasion, Russia was that obsessed; is Israel that obsessed with annexations? I think that Deus was actually pointing out that it will cost a lot to Russia. On the other hand, "continuing the attrition war" will be cost free for Ukraine in lives and for NATO in money?
Just one little question, are we digging Ukraine's hole deeper and deeper or that doesn't count? As we have been stating repeatedly.

 

[tonnyc]

First, where is that rational world, in Hormuz?

Then, I don't think that in 2022, before the invasion, Russia was that obsessed; is Israel that obsessed with annexations? I think that Deus was actually pointing out that it will cost a lot to Russia. On the other hand, "continuing the attrition war" will be cost free for Ukraine in lives and for NATO in money?
Just one little question, are we digging Ukraine's hole deeper and deeper or that doesn't count? As we have been stating repeatedly.

Your whataboutism doesn't work on us. We are non-aligned and have always denounced Israel's occupation Palestine and the US support of Israel and we also denounce the US attack on Iran. So listen, your Russia is in the wrong here. You should stop trying to make excuses for them. And quit the whataboutism. It's tiresome.

Ukraine is the one being invaded and you keep expecting Ukraine to give up for the sake of peace. That might be how it was back in imperial days, but modern nationalism doesn't work that way. Practically all modern nations make it a core axiom that not one square centimeter of the motherland will be given up. Even if you manage to completely defeat the Ukrainian military, the situation will just devolve into endless guerilla war. It'll be like the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, except worse. You're the invader. You're the one who should pull back for the sake of peace.

 

[deyhere]

Your whataboutism doesn't work on us. We are non-aligned and have always denounced Israel's occupation Palestine and the US support of Israel and we also denounce the US attack on Iran. So listen, your Russia is in the wrong here. You should stop trying to make excuses for them. And quit the whataboutism. It's tiresome.

Ukraine is the one being invaded and you keep expecting Ukraine to give up for the sake of peace. That might be how it was back in imperial days, but modern nationalism doesn't work that way. Practically all modern nations make it a core axiom that not one square centimeter of the motherland will be given up. Even if you manage to completely defeat the Ukrainian military, the situation will just devolve into endless guerilla war. It'll be like the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, except worse. You're the invader. You're the one who should pull back for the sake of peace.

in a rational world, where the US and EU isn't obsessed with regime change, NATO expansion and colour revolutions. Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine. Ukraine isn't the one fighting, Russia is fighting all of NATO put together, without NATO this war would have been a walk in the garden for Russia, the whole operation would have resembled the Crimea take over.

You are fully aligned, how long will you dismiss valid arguments as whataboutism? we have US and EU toppling leaders of modern countries, kidnapping Presidents in modern times and you are trying to lecture us on modern nationalism. did you expect Russia to sit and watch it's friendly government being overthrown and all its assets and businesses in Ukraine taken over by the west?

 

[Redshift]

It is so simple that Israel, S. Arabia and the US cannot understand it.
Yes, fairy tales are simple.

How is that comment in any way relevant? Russia stop firing missiles at Ukraine, as you say a fairy tale.

 

[personaldesas]

in a rational world, where the US and EU isn't obsessed with regime change, NATO expansion and colour revolutions. Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine.

Yes, the EU really should stop being so obsessed with regime change and let Russia regime-change in Ukraine in peace.

https://tass.ru/politika/15297747

Ukraine isn't the one fighting, Russia is fighting all of NATO put together, without NATO this war would have been a walk in the garden for Russia, the whole operation would have resembled the Crimea take over.

 

[tonnyc]

in a rational world, where the US and EU isn't obsessed with regime change, NATO expansion and colour revolutions. Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine. Ukraine isn't the one fighting, Russia is fighting all of NATO put together, without NATO this war would have been a walk in the garden for Russia, the whole operation would have resembled the Crimea take over.

You are fully aligned, how long will you dismiss valid arguments as whataboutism? we have US and EU toppling leaders of modern countries, kidnapping Presidents in modern times and you are trying to lecture us on modern nationalism. did you expect Russia to sit and watch it's friendly government being overthrown and all its assets and businesses in Ukraine taken over by the west?

Look, I'm not some naive college boy. I am fully aware that nations try influence each other. I am fully aware that this include social media manipulation, bribery, funding politicians, etc. If you have been following this thread from the beginning I wrote a post where I thought that Russia could have enacted regime change peacefully by outright giving a billion dollar per year to Ukraine for a decade or so. That will be cheaper than this war. It would have been stark naked bribery and I would be fine with it and congratulated Russia for a diplomatic win had they done so. But no, you got greedy. You thought you could just grab everything with a three day blitzkrieg and not have to spend billions in bribing Ukraine. Well, guess what, it didn't work.

Ukraine would've lost without NATO? Of course. Which is why I say kudos to Ukrainian diplomats for asking and getting help. When my country was fighting our independence war, we asked everyone for help and took everything offered. American and Soviet both. Malaysian and Australian and Indian. Whatever was offered, from whoever offering. And now I'm seeing Ukraine do the same thing and well, I understand it completely. When people invade your land, you take whatever help you can get and if the other side doesn't like it too bad. If you don't like the fact that Ukraine is asking and getting help, just withdraw back to your 2014 border. Shit, make it 2021 border and you can probably get away with it.

If you call that fully aligned, whatever man. There are people here whose opinion I respect. You are not one of them.

 

[rsemmes]

In his "winning" it seems that Ukraine has lost Omelnik.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1V8NzjQkzMOhpuLhkktbiKgodOQ27X6IV&ll=47.598785537211484%2C35.83337452224791&z=12

And Russia is taking more chunks of Dobropillia.