The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[KipPotapych]

Of course Ukraine has compulsory enlistment now. What do you expect when it's fighting for its survival against an invader. If Russia is so good at volunteers enlistments, why did it have to draft 300,000 last year? Why did approximately 500,000 draft age individuals vote with their feet? Why did it recruit from prisons? Your claims that the Ukrainian population don't support the Zelenski govt war aims and would be willing to give up Ukrainian territory for peace ring hollow. If anything Russia's invasion, war crimes, and indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian civilians, have hardened the peoples attitude against Russia and they will not accept the giving of 1mm of Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia.

I feel like this part of your post is self contradictory though. If the latter was true, wouldn’t the former be a nonissue? Otherwise, it just says that while people aren’t willing to give up 1mm of their land, they, at the same time, aren’t willing to fight for it unless literally dragged by men dressed in camouflage/military clothing.

The F-16s will make a difference IF:

• There are enough provided.
• They aren't provided piecemeal.
• They are fully supported without any hesitation.

They should have been provided 18 months ago and without reservation but Macron, Biden, and Scholz were to hesitant. Of the three, Biden is still far to hesitant and continues to leave Ukraine fighting with one hand behind its back. If he and Obama had stood up to Putin in 2014 we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.

Well, those are all big “ifs” and unlikely to come true, which is mostly my point. And they surely aren’t going to be anything but piecemeal, like most of the rest of the stuff. The timeline indicated in the article I provided and quoted above suggests just that. Hence, my assumption that it is simply to keep this thing going. Though I did see some talk about the Gripen’s as well over the past two days.

I think Biden is hesitant for a reason and a legit one, in my opinion. It also now appears that no one (Ukraine aside) wants (neither it is necessarily possible) an actual defeat of Russia on this battlefield, thus the supplies are just enough to keep this going for the time being without any actual goal at this point (especially now that everyone seems to perceive the nuclear escalation to be not an issue). Or there isn’t much left to supply? I am also of the opinion that at this point most players involved would prefer this to stop, but no one knows how to stop it. In particular, how to stop it and save their own faces at the same time. Everyone, in my opinion, understands that, at the very least and most certainly, Crimea is not going to be part of Ukraine in any foreseeable (by any measure of time) future. Thus, the way it has been set up, there will be violation of international law and sovereign borders and everything that comes with it no matter what happens, basically. Here comes the part where I am sure at least some politicians wonder if it actually matters if more territory makes a difference or not in this context.

As for Obama in 2014… I posted his interview, where he touched on the subject, here not that long ago. I do agree with him. However, I would also propose that Putin/Russia could have done a lot more in 2014 taking over some good chunks of Ukraine (if not the entire country) and we also possibly would not be having this conversation right now.

 

[rsemmes]

Lots of variables that could alter the course of this war. Certainly a GOP election win in 2024 would be a big one, especially if Trump reclaimed the oval office, although his legal troubles are making this less likely. China would almost certainly provide military kit to Russia if their MIC faltered to an extent that causes significant Russian instability. This in turn might result in Western escalation followed possibly by a Chinese escalation by invading Taiwan to distract NATO (along with the desire to "reclaim" Taiwan). Hopefully some adults can prevent any of this actually occurring.

I wonder if the West would not de-escalate to avoid any "Russian instability", I think that is what adults would do.
I cannot see China starting a war to save Russia. On the other hand, China invading Taiwan because there is another war going on...

 

[swerve]

The main point, without US entrance to WW1, British and French will be in stalemate against German Empire. With Bolshevick revolution put death warrant for Russian Empire, without Russian Empire taking about half of German strength, German Empire still can force allies (especially French and UK) for negotiated settlement....

The German economy was failing. Germans were hungry & getting hungrier. The German army seized Ukraine in order to increase Germany's food supplies, but it didn't work. A huge army was needed to keep control of the vast newly occupied lands, & it could barely extract enough food to feed itself, let alone Germany.

Industrial production was falling, too - & Germany's allies were in an even worse state. Austria-Hungary had gone from a food exporter to unable to feed itself.

The 1918 Spring Offensive was an act of desperation, & when it failed, Germany had shot its bolt. German attacks often faltered after initial gains because hungry soldiers stopped to loot food from captured British & French trenches. Seeing the supplies the British & French had was deeply demoralising for the Germans. Well-fed, well-dressed, well-equipped with everything, while the Germans were short of everything . . . . What does that tell you about the condition of Germany?

By early 1918 the British & French were using their economic superiority (the UK was producing a lot more than pre-war, unlike Germany) & building up a huge material superiority (e.g. hundreds of tanks for every one the Germans had - & that isn't an exaggeration. It was thousands against tens), & even if the US army wasn't available, planned to use it to roll over the Germans in the spring of 1919.

By the time the US army engaged in major numbers, the war was won. Germany was beaten, just refusing to admit it. The Ottomans had lost Palestine after the British attacked in autumn 1917, despite transferring soldiers from the front with Russia.

The Italians were badly defeated & pushed back in autumn 1917, but that was essentially a rescue operation for Austria-Hungary, to maul the Italians so they couldn't continue grinding down the Austro-Hungarians. Emperor Karl asked for German help because his army was teetering on the brink of collapse. The Central Powers weren't able to exploit that victory: they didn't have the strength.

No, it wouldn't have ended in stalemate without the Americans. It would just have taken a bit longer.

 

[vikingatespam]

Are you a Russian troll, because you sure talk like one?

It would appear that Mainframe popped on only long enough to drop some St.Petersburg talking points before exiting.

 

[Stuart M]

Snip.



I think Biden is hesitant for a reason and a legit one, in my opinion. It also now appears that no one (Ukraine aside) wants (neither it is necessarily possible) an actual defeat of Russia on this battlefield, thus the supplies are just enough to keep this going for the time being without any actual goal at this point (especially now that everyone seems to perceive the nuclear escalation to be not an issue). Or there isn’t much left to supply? I am also of the opinion that at this point most players involved would prefer this to stop, but no one knows how to stop it. In particular, how to stop it and save their own faces at the same time. Everyone, in my opinion, understands that, at the very least and most certainly, Crimea is not going to be part of Ukraine in any foreseeable (by any measure of time) future. Thus, the way it has been set up, there will be violation of international law and sovereign borders and everything that comes with it no matter what happens, basically. Here comes the part where I am sure at least some politicians wonder if it actually matters if more territory makes a difference or not in this context.
Snip.

A good chunk of western hesitation has to do with production rates and the need to maintain stocks of munitions and equipment to account for any future fight we get into ourselves, say, with China. Simple fact is that 'the west' has drawn down to a massive degree its capacity to produce military 'stuff', and rebuilding that will take time.

While history doesn't repeat, it surely does ryme. This gives a indication of how these things work. And I really recommend percevering with the exchange I Hansard as it gives an idea of the complexities of building munitions industries and its operational impact.

The destruction of carriages by shell fire in the close and deadly fighting in the Paschendaele offensive, combined with the wear of the guns through continuous firing caused, especially in the field guns, some anxiety at one time. We were not able to fire last year the whole quantity of ammunition available, because of the decline in gun life. The troops were in many cases so closely engaged with the enemy that they could not pull out the worn-out guns as early as they promised to do to enable us to get our repair plant working. They only gave us about half the number they promised. On the top of this came the Italian defeat, and we had to hand over hundreds of guns unexpectedly to Italy

STATEMENT BY Mr. CHURCHILL. (Hansard, 25 April 1918)

STATEMENT BY Mr. CHURCHILL. (Hansard, 25 April 1918)

api.parliament.uk

This should sound familiar, as this sort of issue is one the Ukrainians are having right now.

Bear in mind that in 1915 there was what was known as the great shell shortage, and such shortages impacted on operations, timing, priorities success and failures of operations, just as they are now in Ukraine. This is not a short war, it's a long one, offensives will fail and others will succeed but it is the long term veiw that we must hold to; remember that despite many dark days, the Entente went from near defeat in 1914 to victory in 1918.
But more importantly If we allow the violation of international law to proceed on the basis of moral weakness, and swathes of Ukrainian land to be annexed to a rapacious Russia, then international law will be rightly seen to be worthless, protecting no one; and every nation with hostile ambition will predate upon the weaker, because they can.
So we must aid Ukraine, because if we conceed land to Russia taken at gun point, we conceed that war is an acceptable means of dispute settlement again, and that places everyone in danger.

 

[Ananda]

No, it wouldn't have ended in stalemate without the Americans. It would just have taken a bit longer.

Let's agree to disagree, in order to avoid distracting this thread on taking of WW1 issue. WW1 being talked as this war for some time shown pace of Western Front WW1. Thus shown resemblance as 21st century WW1 front.

However opinion of US as the breaker of stalemate in WW1 is not mine alone. Although I do sense different opinion from US sources and Euro ones. Still personally I agree with US as the one that break the stalemate for allies.

What If the United States Had Sat Out World War I? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

.

Whether through US Boots in the ground by 1918 or by US supplies before that, those are the opinions that I agree on. I don't see without US involvement, Allies can gain enough momentum toward Central Powers. Again that's base on historical assesment that I agree on.

This's the semblance related with this war more also. US bring more supplies then other Western powers, through not only direct US arms but also sourcing ex Soviet arms. That's matter on Ukrainian sides. While Russian ones either from their own productions or materials coming from China and Russian Allies.

Either way, just like in WW1, the level of supplies will determine whether you're going to have breakthrough or stalemate. What's not clear right now, which sides going to be exhausted first, or both will going to reach exhaustion in similar times. Which can happen to WW1 Euro players without US intervention.

When exhaustion reach by both sides on more or less similar timing, that's when this war turn into frozen conflict. If one sides able to get more continues supplies, then they will dictate the results. That's why this war already turn into war of attrition by mid last year.

 

[John Fedup]

Let's agree to disagree, in order to avoid distracting this thread on taking of WW1 issue. WW1 being talked as this war for some time shown pace of Western Front WW1. Thus shown resemblance as 21st century WW1 front.

However opinion of US as the breaker of stalemate in WW1 is not mine alone. Although I do sense different opinion from US sources and Euro ones. Still personally I agree with US as the one that break the stalemate for allies.

What If the United States Had Sat Out World War I? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

.

Whether through US Boots by 2018 or by US supplies before that, they are opinions that I agree on. This is related with this war more also. US bring more supplies then other Western powers, through not only direct US arms but also sourcing ex Soviet arms. That's matter on Ukrainian sides. While Russian ones either from their own productions or materials coming from China and Russian Allies.

Either way, just like in WW1, the level of supplies will determine whether you're going to have breakthrough or stalemate. What's not clear right now, which sides going to be exhausted first, or both will going to reach exhaustion in similar times. Which can happen to WW1 Euro players without US intervention.

When exhaustion reach by both sides on more or less similar timing, that's when this war turn into frozen conflict. If one sides able to get more continues supplies, then they will dictate the results. That's why this war already turn into war of attrition by mid last year.

Just one additional WW1 comment. I don't see any possibility of WW1 ending without full territory restoration for France and Belgium. Would Wilelmine Germany agree, I think not for the same reason Putin won't, regime survival hence the war continued on until surrender was the only option. I agree with Swerve, Germany would fall without US support, it would just take longer which would result in economic consequences for both victors and the vanquished.

 

[Feanor]

The possibility exists that Ukraine can successfully end the war in its favour. The possibility also exists that Russia will be victorious. Based upon the performance of the Russian military in the field, their senior political and military leadership, the probability of Ukraine successfully concluding the war in its favour is greater than a Russian victory.

Well... one side has clear and realistic objectives. The other side not so much. The problem is inherent to Russia's lack of direction.

The problem with Russia is that Putin thinks he's Stalin and he will only negotiate where he gives away nothing, but expects everything in return. Stalin he definitely isn't, and he wouldn't even make a wart on Stalin's bum. He isn't poltically, intellectually, or as brutal as Stalin and he doesn't have Stalins ruthlessness or vision. If Stalin, Kruschev et al., were in charge, any Russian invasion of Ukraine would be final and over in a very short time. They wouldn't have let the Russian miitary deteriorate to its current level and any incompetents would've been off to the gulags so fast, their feet wouldn't even touch the ground.

I think you're mistaken. Over the past ~20 years Russia has been willing to negotiate on a tit-for-tat basis with just about anyone. The problem is that neither Ukraine nor the US are willing to do that here, likely because they believe they can get a better starting point for negotiations, and not without reasons.

I have seen more than one commentator state that Russia no longer has an oerarching philosophy or national goal, and I tend to agree with them. This looks very similiar to the last alf of the Tsar Nicolas II reign where the imperial govt was incompetent and the Romanov dynasty self destructiong from within due to rot. There is nothing for the average Russian soldier to fight for apart for themselves and their mates; they have no overarching political belief or national goal, unlike the Ukrainians. Putin likes to compare the current war to the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 45, but there's no comparison because in that war, Russia was the victim and they were fighting for their families, the survival of Mother Russia. Stalin and the CPSU. What are they fighting for today?

This is called having an ideology. And yes, you're correct here. It's one of the major failures of modern day Russia.

Does Putin know this? I don't think he does at all and even if he did he would refuse to accept it. Putin's life literally depends upon Russia retaining the current Ukrainian teritry it holds. If / when it is forced back behind its pre 2013 borders, Putin is a dead man walking and he knows that. Best he avoid being near windows and drinking tea.

What makes you say this?

Of course Ukraine has compulsory enlistment now. What do you expect when it's fighting for its survival against an invader. If Russia is so good at volunteers enlistments, why did it have to draft 300,000 last year? Why did approximately 500,000 draft age individuals vote with their feet? Why did it recruit from prisons? Your claims that the Ukrainian population don't support the Zelenski govt war aims and would be willing to give up Ukrainian territory for peace ring hollow. If anything Russia's invasion, war crimes, and indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian civilians, have hardened the peoples attitude against Russia and they will not accept the giving of 1mm of Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia.

Russia didn't have 500 000 vote with their feet. It was more than that. On that subject though, how many Ukrainians voted with their feet? There is a difference between compulsory enlistment in the form of draft notices, and compulsory enlistment in the form of military commissariat patrols grabbing people off the street. I don't know whether the Ukrainian population supports the war aims, but based on what I've read and observed, I suspect they would be willing to accept peace at cost of some territory. This is just my opinion. Attitudes have certainly been hardened, but the casualties from the current war go beyond the war dead. The Ukrainian economy is in shambles and infrastructure has suffered greatly. This is disrupting the lives of nearly everyone.

There is also the political gains for Ukraine in this, because they are showing the Russian people and others that Putin and the Russian military cannot protect even Moscow from air attacks. This is the firts time that Moscow has suffered air attacks since 1943.

This is why the question of what targets they are striking is so important. There is a name for using violence against civilians for political gains.

 

[John Fedup]

Well... one side has clear and realistic objectives. The other side not so much. The problem is inherent to Russia's lack of direction.



I think you're mistaken. Over the past ~20 years Russia has been willing to negotiate on a tit-for-tat basis with just about anyone. The problem is that neither Ukraine nor the US are willing to do that here, likely because they believe they can get a better starting point for negotiations, and not without reasons.



This is called having an ideology. And yes, you're correct here. It's one of the major failures of modern day Russia.



What makes you say this?



Russia didn't have 500 000 vote with their feet. It was more than that. On that subject though, how many Ukrainians voted with their feet? There is a difference between compulsory enlistment in the form of draft notices, and compulsory enlistment in the form of military commissariat patrols grabbing people off the street. I don't know whether the Ukrainian population supports the war aims, but based on what I've read and observed, I suspect they would be willing to accept peace at cost of some territory. This is just my opinion. Attitudes have certainly been hardened, but the casualties from the current war go beyond the war dead. The Ukrainian economy is in shambles and infrastructure has suffered greatly. This is disrupting the lives of nearly everyone.



This is why the question of what targets they are striking is so important. There is a name for using violence against civilians for political gains.

History seems to indicate the name does not often apply to the victors.

 

[rsemmes]

A good chunk of western hesitation has to do with production rates and the need to maintain stocks of munitions and equipment to account for any future fight we get into ourselves, say, with China. Simple fact is that 'the west' has drawn down to a massive degree its capacity to produce military 'stuff', and rebuilding that will take time.

While history doesn't repeat, it surely does ryme. This gives a indication of how these things work. And I really recommend percevering with the exchange I Hansard as it gives an idea of the complexities of building munitions industries and its operational impact.

STATEMENT BY Mr. CHURCHILL. (Hansard, 25 April 1918)

STATEMENT BY Mr. CHURCHILL. (Hansard, 25 April 1918)

api.parliament.uk

This should sound familiar, as this sort of issue is one the Ukrainians are having right now.

Bear in mind that in 1915 there was what was known as the great shell shortage, and such shortages impacted on operations, timing, priorities success and failures of operations, just as they are now in Ukraine. This is not a short war, it's a long one, offensives will fail and others will succeed but it is the long term veiw that we must hold to; remember that despite many dark days, the Entente went from near defeat in 1914 to victory in 1918.
But more importantly If we allow the violation of international law to proceed on the basis of moral weakness, and swathes of Ukrainian land to be annexed to a rapacious Russia, then international law will be rightly seen to be worthless, protecting no one; and every nation with hostile ambition will predate upon the weaker, because they can.
So we must aid Ukraine, because if we conceed land to Russia taken at gun point, we conceed that war is an acceptable means of dispute settlement again, and that places everyone in danger.

Sorry, may I ask since when are we (the West) going to apply "international law" and against whom? Only after this war?
The Shah, for example, was our application of international law?
"Stop quoting the law, we carry weapons".

 

[rsemmes]

Sorry, may I ask since when are we (the West) going to apply "international law" and against whom? Only after this war?
The Shah, for example, was our application of international law?
"Stop quoting the law, we carry weapons".

War in Ukraine, not our interpretation of the law at selected points in History.

 

[Stuart M]

Sorry, may I ask since when are we (the West) going to apply "international law" and against whom? Only after this war?
The Shah, for example, was our application of international law?
"Stop quoting the law, we carry weapons".

What are you talking about and how does this address what I wrote? Or are you suggesting that warfare and territorial acquisition by force of arms is somehow a legitimate means of dispute settlement?

 

[Bob53]

This isn’t the case, as outlined above. But it is funny how various media reports shape our minds.

What the English bit or that Ukrainians are smart and educated?

 

[KipPotapych]

What the English bit or that Ukrainians are smart and educated?

As outlined in my post above, a few (?) others, as well as my other post earlier in regards to training, only 8 are currently suitable for training. Others need the English courses that will put us to at least the end of this year, I figure. The ones that are ready to start are basically as green as they come and will need a year to be able to do some things and 4-5 years to become proficient.

I never said anything about their education and smartness. That probably equals to an average person living elsewhere, they aren’t extraordinary.

 

[KipPotapych]

Also relevant, but for the life of me I cannot find the article (pretty sure it was at Reuters as well) that indicated that the donation was conditional on pilot training, as well preparation of infrastructure in Ukraine, among other things. The latter isn’t necessarily going to happen. So you may still be right in your first assessment.

I know I couldn’t find my source for this yesterday but part of it was mentioned at the Pentagon briefing today:

During a discussion today with the Pentagon press corps, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh clarified some of what would need to happen for that approval to come.

"In order for the third-party transfer to be completed, there are certain criteria that have to be met, including the English language training [and] other things like logistics on the ground," she said. "So once that criteria [are] met, we'll be in a position to authorize the transfer."

U.S. Open to Training Ukrainian F-16 Pilots if Needed

The U.S. would be willing to participate in the training of Ukrainian pilots, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said, if there were more Ukrainian pilots in need of training than what the

www.defense.gov

Also, in regards to English training:

The Ukrainian pilots will need to go though "significant English-language training," to be ready to fly the F-16, and that will take some time, Singh said.

She also mentioned that they’ll train the pilots in the US if the European reach the capacity.

 

[Bob53]

This is why the question of what targets they are striking is so important. There is a name for using violence against civilians for political gains.

Is it called Russians strategy? They seem to have hit a lot of Ukrainian civilian targets indiscriminately prior to the Ukraine being able to strike back.

 

[rsemmes]

What are you talking about and how does this address what I wrote? Or are you suggesting that warfare and territorial acquisition by force of arms is somehow a legitimate means of dispute settlement?

...If we allow the violation of international law to proceed on the basis of moral weakness, and swathes of Ukrainian land to be annexed to a rapacious Russia, then international law will be rightly seen to be worthless, protecting no one; and every nation with hostile ambition will predate upon the weaker, because they can.
Are we talking about legal terms?, not the right place.
"Moral weakness"? as... "high horse"? Are we talking about the Spanish Civil War or about NI and Ireland? (Mind, the British, not the Irish, coming from Britain, not from Ireland).
Do you mean we (I guess you mean the West, do we ask anyone else?) don't allow it to "proceed" in every single instance? Legal basis for organizing (the Shah) a coup d'état?
History says it is worthless, in some occasions, for national interests or under certain circumstances, with or without gunboats, it worked.
...if we conceed land to Russia taken at gun point, we conceed that war is an acceptable means of dispute settlement again, and that places everyone in danger.
It is, after the war. Prussia being Russia?, Poland moving into Germany? When we make the law, it is legal.
You read the word "alliance" before?, based on principles or interests? Yes, the weak are always in danger.
...are you suggesting that warfare and territorial acquisition by force of arms is somehow a legitimate means of dispute settlement?
"Legitimate"? I am not a lawyer, I know that after the fact it is; like, almost, every dictatorship
"Stop quoting the law, we carry weapons".
I am suggesting Human History.

 

[rsemmes]

...If we allow the violation of international law to proceed on the basis of moral weakness, and swathes of Ukrainian land to be annexed to a rapacious Russia, then international law will be rightly seen to be worthless, protecting no one; and every nation with hostile ambition will predate upon the weaker, because they can.
Are we talking about legal terms?, not the right place.
"Moral weakness"? as... "high horse"? Are we talking about the Spanish Civil War or about NI and Ireland? (Mind, the British, not the Irish, coming from Britain, not from Ireland).
Do you mean we (I guess you mean the West, do we ask anyone else?) don't allow it to "proceed" in every single instance? Legal basis for organizing (the Shah) a coup d'état?
History says it is worthless, in some occasions, for national interests or under certain circumstances, with or without gunboats, it worked.
...if we conceed land to Russia taken at gun point, we conceed that war is an acceptable means of dispute settlement again, and that places everyone in danger.
It is, after the war. Prussia being Russia?, Poland moving into Germany? When we make the law, it is legal.
You read the word "alliance" before?, based on principles or interests? Yes, the weak are always in danger.
...are you suggesting that warfare and territorial acquisition by force of arms is somehow a legitimate means of dispute settlement?
"Legitimate"? I am not a lawyer, I know that after the fact it is; like, almost, every dictatorship
"Stop quoting the law, we carry weapons".
I am suggesting Human History.

Again, off topic. (I am more interested in combat, but I dislike "versions" of History).

@rsemmes if you want to amend your post please use the edit function rather than responding to your own posts.

As a general comment, if any member of this forum wish to suggest that any country has a right to to use force against another then you had better have a pretty good arguement for it.

Quoting history is unhelpful noting the UN was established to 'try' to avoid such situations (noting it could be concluded that it has not been very successful in this recent times).

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You are using the present tense, I think the the trend is against UKR; except for tubes.
UKR is using a larger standing army.
What MIC?, you mean (the temporary use of) NATO MIC?
Technology and complexity.
Again, temporarily connected, like Afghanistan was; a very precarious position.

I indeed meant NATO (and other allies e.g. South Korea, Israel) industry. There are no countries today that supply their entire military needs, so it only makes sense to count one's available war industry as the combination of what's available to it, whether domestically or from abroad.

 

[Feanor]

I don't have time for a detailed update, but it seems Ukraine has contested Rabotino. This of course is no strategic breakthrough, and territorially Ukrainian gains on the Vremyevskiy bulge are far more significant, but this is the first notable gain on the Orekhov axis. With that in mind, it seems committing battle group Marun, including the elite 82nd Para-Assault has yielded results, though of course with significant losses (there appear to be 5-6 destroyed Strykers for example) as well as other vehicles. Russian forces remain inside the village, and Ukrainian forces appear to be on the northern outskirts. Again a Russian counter-attack is likely coming, Ukrainian forces were already repulsed recently from these outskirts. It remains to be seen how this develops.