Russia - General Discussion.

[Vivendi]

And I think Russia is ready to negotiate.

What do you mean when you say "Russia is ready to negotiate"? Looking at previous situations, many have suggested that if Russia say they are ready to negotiate, it would most likely be part of a stalling tactic -- to get a cease fire which will allow them to restock, recover, and re-attack. Perhaps you mean that they are truly sincerely ready to negotiate? If yes, have you seen any indications of this? I have searched and could not find any recent indications of Russian willingness to start negotiations. On the contrary, it seems they want to keep fighting: Ukraine updates: Biden calls on Russia to free WSJ reporter | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera (search for the word "truce").

Russia says a ceasefire in Ukraine right now would not help it achieve the goals of its “special military operation”.

The Kremlin responded to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who called for a truce “without preconditions” during an address to the nation.

What makes you think Russia is ready to negotiate?

 

[Feanor]

Negotiations are a market - but there is no requirement for both parties to give something meaningful to reach an agreement.

How much did the Taliban 'give in exchange' during negotiations for NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan? A five to one prisoner swap in their favour, and a paper promise to not harbour terrorists in their territory - in return for a NATO withdrawal from claimed territories.

I'm sure that Ukraine would be willing to entertain a similar level of give and take with Russia.

Sure. But the Taliban proved an extremely resourceful guerilla resistance movement for 20+ years. Ukraine is a nation state that's been at war for less then 2 years. Does Ukraine want to drag this out for many more years with all the damage that it will cause to Ukraine? If so, they might be able to achieve this kind of outcome. The Taliban didn't particularly care about how bad things for for regular Afghanis. And the negotiations about NATO withdrawal were of a kind where NATO indicated they were ready to withdraw. Russia clearly isn't ready to stop fighting and take whatever they can get to withdraw. Especially when you consider the fate of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk.

What do you mean when you say "Russia is ready to negotiate"? Looking at previous situations, many have suggested that if Russia say they are ready to negotiate, it would most likely be part of a stalling tactic -- to get a cease fire which will allow them to restock, recover, and re-attack. Perhaps you mean that they are truly sincerely ready to negotiate? If yes, have you seen any indications of this? I have searched and could not find any recent indications of Russian willingness to start negotiations. On the contrary, it seems they want to keep fighting: Ukraine updates: Biden calls on Russia to free WSJ reporter | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera (search for the word "truce").

What makes you think Russia is ready to negotiate?

I believe this is case on account of the complete lack of direction and purpose in Russia's war effort as well as the exhaustion of certain military stocks that make continued fighting increasingly problematic. I think Russia will definitely settle for a ceasefire to restock, but I believe they'd rather be done with it, if some sort of acceptable outcome can be negotiated. To me it doesn't look like Russia is fighting to win. It looks to me like Russia is fighting to get Ukraine to the point where they will settle for a peace under something closer to the current front line configuration.

 

[swerve]

... But Russia will not withdraw to the February 2022 border because they already annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Giving up on those would mean loss of legitimacy of the Russian government. It would mean they wasted a whole lot of lives and money for nothing. I don't think Putin's government can weather such a political blowback and thus they won't accept a return to the February 2022 border.

Russia hasn't annexed Kherson & Zaporizhzhia. Putin said he'd annexed them, but the Russian army didn't control all of them at the time (it didn't control the city of Zaporizhzhia, for example), & now it doesn't control the city of Kherson. An announcement of annexation without actual control is mere theatre.

 

[seaspear]

It might be that President Putin is fighting for his political survival if not his life for a favourable outcome in Ukraine ,the materials that Russia has lost is not so easily replaced as massed mobilisations .
Europe will have seen what President Putin has led Russia into doing in Ukraine with concern having been led to believe that Russia was a partner they could negotiate with in good faith funding infrastructure and entering into arrangements to purchase commodities at good terms for Russia , what Russia may want more than a ceasefire are for the sanctions to be lifted as there is research now showing this has started to seriously damage the economy both Ukraine and Russia before this war had demographic concerns with low birth rates it could be expected to become worse

 

[koxinga]

There is a difference between the "boots on the ground" beliefs " practices adopted by various countries in the past that were not in defence of their own sovereignty but pursuit of geo political interests assisting a country defend its rights has plenty of precedents even Russia assisted North Vietnam with weapons it could deploy against America and America in Afghanistan supplying Stinger missiles to Afghan forces fighting Russia the difference there is that annexation of those countries was not a goal by either country.

Indeed, the starting points are different. But my point is regardless of those starting points, the reality on the cost of the conflict will eventually tell. Even the "sacred goal" of the unification of Korea when Kim Il Sung/Soviets started the Korean War had to give way to an armistice after 3 years of fruitless war that ended where they started.

I'm not even sure there would be a resolution by the U.S since its likely to be vetoed by both Russia and China who are permanent members of the security council China in the past has shown its willing to ignore International court findings on its territorial claims in the Pacific ,the fact is most U.N countries don't recognise Taiwan

Well, the likelihood of being vetoed by Russia and China has not deterred the US and westen allies for raising resolutions against either countries in the past. The legal status of Taiwan is moot; a sovereignty country can commit acts of atrocities on its own "citizens" and terrorities and that can be a subject of a UN resolution. The intent of raising the resolution isn't as much as to get approval (they know as well as that it will fail at the UNSC) but to have an forum to make those views known.

strictly off topic and we can take this else where

 

[tonnyc]

Russia hasn't annexed Kherson & Zaporizhzhia. Putin said he'd annexed them, but the Russian army didn't control all of them at the time (it didn't control the city of Zaporizhzhia, for example), & now it doesn't control the city of Kherson. An announcement of annexation without actual control is mere theatre.

I do know that Russia does not fully control Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Heck they don't fully control Luhansk and Donetsk either. You can say it's theatre but theatre does affect emotion. Having announced their annexation, if Putin were to accept a deal where Russia gave the parts they do control up, he will be breaking the Russian constitution that maintains that the territorial integrity of Russia is sacrosanct. His rivals can then use that to claim that Putin is a traitor, that he is weak and unable to defend Russia, and so on.

Theatre is emotional but the people's belief in the legitimacy and power of their own government is partly emotional. Heck, it's mostly emotional. The average people don't bother examining economic data and military numbers nor do they examine legal arguments and historical precedents. Most people just go "does this guy feel okay enough?" If they feel Putin is unable to get things done, then the stability of Putin's government gets shaky.

 

[seaspear]

The difference between Russia and the majority of countries supporting Ukraine is a selection of free media and real democratic values and independent courts Russian people do not have the ability to access a media that is not state controlled if even calling it a war or voicing opposition can get you arrested and the only news/information fed to its citizens are what the government wants them to believe then they will believe it the Soviets did this, Nazi Germany did this its indoctrination , also consider in Russia a special military operation by law its casualty figures are a state secret if it was a declared war its not

 

[koxinga]

then the stability of Putin's government gets shaky.

The central point of your argument rests on active opposition to Putin that can use his failures to topple the government. It is debatable.

As @seaspear points out, we don't know fully the internal situation and how much control he has. He might well be able to survive with enough spin + iron fist control. Saddam survived invading and losing Kuwait for example and there are plenty of dictators that outlast in situations that would topple most democractically elected leaders.

 

[tonnyc]

@koxinga Indeed it is debatable, but as far as I can tell Putin doesn't want to find out. It seems to be the logical explanation to the half-hearted measures that Russia has taken so far. They pulled out from northern Ukraine, but not from eastern and southeastern Ukraine. They went with partial mobilization, but not willing to shift to full mobilization and war economy.

 

[Depot Dog]

This analysis totally fails to take into account the power that Russia (thought they) had over Europe by threatening to restrict and turn off the gas supply.

It was foolish in the extreme to allow Europe, and Germany in particular, to be almost totally dependent on Russia for its energy.

The blackmail factor had to be removed, regardless of the economic consequences.

Europe particularly Germany were warned about reliance on Russizn gas and oil. This was by President Trump in 2018. He did it at a NATO summit and UN General Assemly. He was met by laughter from world leaders. My personal thoughts on Trump he is erratic and well past retirement. He did get this one right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ndent-russian-energy-un-germans-just-smirked/
If Germany took heed and found another energy source. Maybe Russia wouldn't been cashed up to start this war.

Regards
DD

 

[seaspear]

This article provides some of the history on Germany and Russia re supplies of gas
‘We were all wrong’: how Germany got hooked on Russian energy | Germany | The Guardian

 

[Vivendi]

I believe this is case on account of the complete lack of direction and purpose in Russia's war effort as well as the exhaustion of certain military stocks that make continued fighting increasingly problematic. I think Russia will definitely settle for a ceasefire to restock, but I believe they'd rather be done with it, if some sort of acceptable outcome can be negotiated. To me it doesn't look like Russia is fighting to win. It looks to me like Russia is fighting to get Ukraine to the point where they will settle for a peace under something closer to the current front line configuration.

I am skeptical that Ukraine will be able to launch a highly successful counteroffensive this spring/summer (mainly based on the latest tweets from Mark Hertling, in particular this thread: MarkHertling on Twitter: "" / Twitter).

However I also think that they will be able to have some (limited) success, perhaps pushing Russia back in some areas.

EU has allocated 1 billion Euros to purchase ammo for Ukraine. Also, Ukraine still has not received things like GSLDB yet -- most likely they will receive a large number of those, starting this summer or fall. MiGs are starting to flow from Poland. Ukrainian soldiers are being trained in the UK, Poland, Norway, Germany and elsewhere. Etc.

It seems clear that the US and EU will continue to support Ukraine at least until the end of 2023. The US will probably be able to provide quite high levels of support until end of 2024. A new US president may do things differently but that is still quite some time into the future.

Will Russia be able to keep things going for such a long time?

Ukrainians are also becoming exhausted however they are fighting for their lives, not imperials dreams of an elite. So I am guessing that we will see limited success this spring/summer, but some major Ukrainian counteroffensives spring/summer 2024, when Russia is really start to feel the squeeze. Only China can change this dynamic favorably to Russia, but I don't think that will happen. China is not yet ready to go up against both the US and Europe.

 

[Dead Money]

Sure. But the Taliban proved an extremely resourceful guerilla resistance movement for 20+ years. Ukraine is a nation state that's been at war for less then 2 years. Does Ukraine want to drag this out for many more years with all the damage that it will cause to Ukraine? If so, they might be able to achieve this kind of outcome. The Taliban didn't particularly care about how bad things for for regular Afghanis. And the negotiations about NATO withdrawal were of a kind where NATO indicated they were ready to withdraw. Russia clearly isn't ready to stop fighting and take whatever they can get to withdraw. Especially when you consider the fate of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk.

I believe this is case on account of the complete lack of direction and purpose in Russia's war effort as well as the exhaustion of certain military stocks that make continued fighting increasingly problematic. I think Russia will definitely settle for a ceasefire to restock, but I believe they'd rather be done with it, if some sort of acceptable outcome can be negotiated. To me it doesn't look like Russia is fighting to win. It looks to me like Russia is fighting to get Ukraine to the point where they will settle for a peace under something closer to the current front line configuration.

Fair points, and I completely agree. On whether Ukraine is willing to stay at war for several more years trying to exhaust Russian will - that's a question for the people and government of Ukraine - as is the willingness to stick with the war on the Russian side for their people and leaders. The butcher's bill for Russia is higher than it ever was for the US and allies in Afghanistan, but the stakes and national interest are higher for Russia as well.

I think that both sides are fighting on and holding out - hoping that the opponent's willingness to continue will break first. As you say, with Russia hoping to keep some/most of what it's seized with some sense of legitimacy, versus Ukraine now seeking to restore 2014 territorial integrity.

I guess my claim is that rather than looking at whether one side or the other is 'willing to negotiate', my view is that both sides have their negotiation point informally known to the opponent, and each are seeking military advantage while waiting out political capitulation from the opponent as a prelude to negotiation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sure. But the Taliban proved an extremely resourceful guerilla resistance movement for 20+ years. Ukraine is a nation state that's been at war for less then 2 years. Does Ukraine want to drag this out for many more years with all the damage that it will cause to Ukraine? If so, they might be able to achieve this kind of outcome. The Taliban didn't particularly care about how bad things for for regular Afghanis. And the negotiations about NATO withdrawal were of a kind where NATO indicated they were ready to withdraw. Russia clearly isn't ready to stop fighting and take whatever they can get to withdraw. Especially when you consider the fate of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk.

A correction, the Russo Ukrainian War started in 2014 when Putin illegally annexed Crimea. He sent his "little green men" in and at same time stirred up the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist movements. Hells teeth two of the separatist leaders were Russian FSB operatives posing as Ukrainian ethnic Russian citizens.

I believe this is case on account of the complete lack of direction and purpose in Russia's war effort as well as the exhaustion of certain military stocks that make continued fighting increasingly problematic. I think Russia will definitely settle for a ceasefire to restock, but I believe they'd rather be done with it, if some sort of acceptable outcome can be negotiated. To me it doesn't look like Russia is fighting to win. It looks to me like Russia is fighting to get Ukraine to the point where they will settle for a peace under something closer to the current front line configuration.

The Russians may give reasons to negotiate but even if they have a break, they will return to undermining and eventually having another attempt to invade and subjugate Ukraine. Putin's made it into a national crusade and with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) fully supporting it, the war becomes a religious war. The Russian Orthodox Church is grinding its teeth and gnawing its entrails because the independent (from Russia) Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) was approved by the Greek Patriarch who is first amongst equals. The ROC had control of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and the OCU has upset that apple cart. Scuffles at Kyiv monastery as Church accused of Russia ties resists eviction

The UOC have been accused of supporting the Russian invasion and long suspected of harbouring Russian sympathies. That's why the UKR govt didn't extend the UOC lease of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, and in the process of evicting them. Church accused of Russia ties resists Kyiv monastery eviction. The UKR Govt considers the UOC a nest of vipers and a security threat. In wartime you take such threats seriously. The UKR Govt must have hit a nerve in Moscow because:

"Russia condemned Kyiv’s push against the UOC as an outrage and a crime. 'Such actions are increasingly plunging Ukraine into the Middle Ages in the very worst sense of the word,' foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on the Telegram app." Source: ibid.​

For the Russian Govt to respond in such a way indicates that the UKR is correct in regarding the UOC as a nest of vipers.

 

[swerve]

I do know that Russia does not fully control Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Heck they don't fully control Luhansk and Donetsk either. You can say it's theatre but theatre does affect emotion. Having announced their annexation, if Putin were to accept a deal where Russia gave the parts they do control up, he will be breaking the Russian constitution that maintains that the territorial integrity of Russia is sacrosanct. His rivals can then use that to claim that Putin is a traitor, that he is weak and unable to defend Russia, and so on.

Theatre is emotional but the people's belief in the legitimacy and power of their own government is partly emotional. Heck, it's mostly emotional. The average people don't bother examining economic data and military numbers nor do they examine legal arguments and historical precedents. Most people just go "does this guy feel okay enough?" If they feel Putin is unable to get things done, then the stability of Putin's government gets shaky.

Some good points there, though I think the constitutional issue could be got round by a new leader saying that they aren't Russian territory because the annexation wasn't legal, & getting the courts to agree.

 

[Feanor]

Some good points there, though I think the constitutional issue could be got round by a new leader saying that they aren't Russian territory because the annexation wasn't legal, & getting the courts to agree.

It's Putin. He can just say some generalized BS and get away with it. Call it a "difficult but necessary decision to resolve the conflict, and a gesture of good will". The reality is that the territories in question are mostly empty. There are no major cities in Russian-held Zaporozhye or Kherson regions. Much of the population has fled, and even those that haven't aren't thrilled with Russian presence. The economic value of the territory in question is negligible. The only real issue is the ability to strike the Crimean bridge. But on the flip side that's probably going to become a reality anyway as Ukraine receives longer and longer ranges weapons from the west.

A correction, the Russo Ukrainian War started in 2014 when Putin illegally annexed Crimea. He sent his "little green men" in and at same time stirred up the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist movements. Hells teeth two of the separatist leaders were Russian FSB operatives posing as Ukrainian ethnic Russian citizens.

I don't think this is accurate. Russian annexation of Crimea was done to cheering of the locals and to little to no resistance from the Ukrainian state entities operating inside Crimea including the military, most of which ended up staying and joining the Russian military. I don't think this counts as a war, unless you want to add some qualifier. The war in the Donbas was a war, but primarily an internal Ukrainian conflict with Russian involvement. Most of the fighters were locals. Russia certainly stirred the pot, and ensure the rebels could not be defeated by conventional means, going so far as to send BTGs into Ukraine, but they were a minority that got involved in key moments. I would classify that as an intervention into a Ukrainian internal conflict. Lastly the period from Minsk 2 to Feb. '22 wasn't really war. It was a "frozen" conflict with occasional flare ups. Remember, we are talking about this in the context of comparing this to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. Compared to the NATO and Taliban efforts there, I don't think we can say that Ukraine has been at war since '14 continuously and has shown a comparable situation vis-a-vis their resilience.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's Putin. He can just say some generalized BS and get away with it. Call it a "difficult but necessary decision to resolve the conflict, and a gesture of good will". The reality is that the territories in question are mostly empty. There are no major cities in Russian-held Zaporozhye or Kherson regions. Much of the population has fled, and even those that haven't aren't thrilled with Russian presence. The economic value of the territory in question is negligible. The only real issue is the ability to strike the Crimean bridge. But on the flip side that's probably going to become a reality anyway as Ukraine receives longer and longer ranges weapons from the west.

Putin thinks of himself as a modern Peter The Great and that delusion has lead to the current situation. He must be concerned though that the lack of Russian success on the battlefield has on his future health and wellbeing. If the military, oligarchs, or his mates in power with him, decide that they've had enough the Generals may decide that it's time for Putin to be replaced. I would suspect that would be a fatal result for Putin.

I don't think this is accurate. Russian annexation of Crimea was done to cheering of the locals and to little to no resistance from the Ukrainian state entities operating inside Crimea including the military, most of which ended up staying and joining the Russian military. I don't think this counts as a war, unless you want to add some qualifier. The war in the Donbas was a war, but primarily an internal Ukrainian conflict with Russian involvement. Most of the fighters were locals. Russia certainly stirred the pot, and ensure the rebels could not be defeated by conventional means, going so far as to send BTGs into Ukraine, but they were a minority that got involved in key moments. I would classify that as an intervention into a Ukrainian internal conflict. Lastly the period from Minsk 2 to Feb. '22 wasn't really war. It was a "frozen" conflict with occasional flare ups. Remember, we are talking about this in the context of comparing this to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. Compared to the NATO and Taliban efforts there, I don't think we can say that Ukraine has been at war since '14 continuously and has shown a comparable situation vis-a-vis their resilience.

So it was alleged, but the fact of the matter is that Russian forces, without provocation, attacked another country in 2014 and that is a wanton war of aggression, despite how you may want to project it. They crossed an internationally recognised border uninvited by the legitimate govt of Ukraine, with the intent of destabilisation and ultimately regime change. Ever since Ukraine declared its independence in 1991 Russia, under both Yeltsin and Putin, has interfered within Ukrainian internal affairs with the intention of retaining imperialistic control over Ukraine.

The pro Russian allegation that NATO is at fault, is total rubbish. Maybe people should reacquaint themselves with NATO membership criteria. Why do you think that the eastern European nations applied to join NATO? It was out of concern and fear of Russia with its imperialistic ambitions, because they've all had experience of Russian imperialism and its consequences. How many times has Russia invaded and occupied Poland, Finland, Roumania the Baltic States etc? It has being doing this for centuries and nobody sees it changing. Maybe it's the Viking genes in Russians, but then Ukraine has Viking genes but it doesn't go invading all of its neighbours every century.

 

[Vivendi]

It has being doing this for centuries and nobody sees it changing. Maybe it's the Viking genes in Russians, but then Ukraine has Viking genes but it doesn't go invading all of its neighbours every century.

Perhaps due to Mongol genes? Djenghis Khan himself have roughly 16 million male descendants and the "most attractive females" were reserved for him. No doubt his closest men got the "second most attractive females" and impregnated them, all over the Mongolian empire! Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies (nationalgeographic.com)

 

[Vivendi]

The war in Ukraine is finally starting to have an impact on arms production in Europe. Saab recently announced that by 2025 their production of "ground combat" units including NLAW, AT4, Carl Gustav, etc. will have the capacity to produce 400,000 units per year! Saab's 'huge ramp up' in anti-tank weapon, ammo production targets 400,000 units a year - Breaking Defense

This is something also China should pay attention to... European countries are not just about to restock supplies, but also expand stocks. I am guessing that by 2026-2027 the ammo situation in Europe will start to look much better than today. As mentioned previously, in a war between US and China, Europe will be able (and willing to) supply the US, if and when there is a need. The combined industrial output of US and Europe should not be underestimated.

 

[John Fedup]

The war in Ukraine is finally starting to have an impact on arms production in Europe. Saab recently announced that by 2025 their production of "ground combat" units including NLAW, AT4, Carl Gustav, etc. will have the capacity to produce 400,000 units per year! Saab's 'huge ramp up' in anti-tank weapon, ammo production targets 400,000 units a year - Breaking Defense

This is something also China should pay attention to... European countries are not just about to restock supplies, but also expand stocks. I am guessing that by 2026-2027 the ammo situation in Europe will start to look much better than today. As mentioned previously, in a war between US and China, Europe will be able (and willing to) supply the US, if and when there is a need. The combined industrial output of US and Europe should not be underestimated.

….as well as South Korea and Japan albeit both are vulnerable to massive missile strikes.