The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
rsemmes
Member
"Reauthorizing" ... "without being used."
Those words are important too., I think.
In 2022, Congress passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act to facilitate the supply of materiel to Kyiv to fight Russia. The bill expired in September 2023 without being used.
However, amid speculation over Washington's military aid for Ukraine, the Trump administration intends to get allies in Europe to start buying American weapons for Ukraine, the news agency reported.
Details of the bill and whether it has the backing of other members of Congress remain unclear.
Ukraine could get "war-winning weapons" under new US proposal
U.S. Representative Joe Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, plans to introduce the Freedom First Lend-Lease Act to Congress.
www.newsweek.com
Are Mirage war-losing weapons?
I think Zelenski needs war-winning troops too, a lot of them.
Ukraine’s defence ministry launched a recruitment drive for young people on Tuesday, encouraging 18- to 24-year-olds to volunteer to serve in the military for a year for the equivalent of about $24,000 plus large bonuses and subsidised mortgages and rents. Ukrainians can be conscripted only once they turn 25. The under-25 volunteer contracts also offer a 12-month exemption from mobilisation when completed.
theguardian
Ukraine will do what Russia has been doing for a while, those pointing out that Russia was desperate have to conclude that Ukraine is desperate. I wonder how many of those not volunteering will volunteer; and not desert.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy will offer Vladimir Putin a swap of Ukrainian-occupied territory in Kursk for Russian-held land in Ukraine, if Donald Trump manages to bring them to the negotiating table, Shaun Walker reports. “We will swap one territory for another,” the Ukrainian president said in an exclusive interview, adding that he did not know which part of Russian-occupied land Ukraine would ask for in return. “I don’t know, we will see. But all our territories are important, there is no priority.”
Ukraine war briefing: Deadly Russian attack on Kyiv, Zelenskyy open to Kursk swap
Ukrainian president does not say which Russian-held territory he would want in return during any negotiations; Kyiv seeks recruits below draft age. What we know on day 1,085
www.theguardian.com
Well, he has a lot of territory to choose from. I wonder why Zelenski (seems to) thinks that he will decide what he is getting back. A least, now he acknowledges that, with Trump sitting by his side, whatever he gets, it's going to be through negotiations; even when he is in no hurry to start those negotiations.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Trump secretary of defense stated:
- War must ended,
- Independence of Ukraine must be guarantee but getting back to Pre 2014 border is unrealistic,
- No NATO membership to Ukraine,
- However the security of Ukraine must be guarantee, so the war will not happen again. This will not be Minsk 3.0
- The peace keeper will not be American boots, will not be NATO boots and operation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Clearly there can be no guarantee for peace without NATO boots on the ground. I seriously doubt there are any non-NATO troops willing to get caught up in this $hitshow. China is the only non-NATO country that can guarantee Russian compliance, but why would they?- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Trump secretary of defense stated:
Well this will be interesting development afterwards.
- War must ended,
- Independence of Ukraine must be guarantee but getting back to Pre 2014 border is unrealistic,
- No NATO membership to Ukraine,
- However the security of Ukraine must be guarantee, so the war will not happen again. This will not be Minsk 3.0
- The peace keeper will not be American boots, will not be NATO boots and operation.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,285
Except it's very likely that NATO forces in Ukraine are an absolute no-go for Russia. And looking at this from Russia's perspective, it's easy to see why. If there comes a moment down the line, 10-15-20 years later, when Russia is weak and/or busy elsewhere and Ukraine has rebuilt itself and re-armed, Ukraine could very well use that moment to make a play for recapturing their lost territories. There is almost 0 chance of NATO forces in Ukraine doing anything to prevent that. On the other hand if Russia wanted to re-open hostilities, NATO forces would be a potential tripwire preventing that. So these peacekeepers in reality would be a one-way shield for Ukraine rather than neutral third parties. It would also mean that if Ukraine violates some element of the peace treaty (for example the peace treaty might require certain protections for Russian language speakers) Russia would have no way to address that beyond words, which Ukraine could easily ignore. The experience of the Minsk Accords is very telling in this regard. Ukraine may take on obligations in the face of military defeat, but then simply refuse to follow through and nobody in the west will lift a finger to punish them or force them to comply with the treaty. In the face of the Minsk Accords not being followed Russia launched a full scale military invasion of Ukraine. What option does Russia have if the new treaty isn't being followed when there are NATO forces inside Ukraine? It in essence gives Ukraine a carte blanche to disregard any piece of the treaty that are internal to Ukraine itself, and creates a one-way strategic vulnerability to a Ukrainian attack at any point in the forseeable future.
It's easy to argue that Russia brought this upon themselves, and it's an argument I would make. I said this before, and I'll say it again, in many ways Russia has painted itself into a corner. But that doesn't change the calculus here. It's very likely Russia will simply reject any peace treaty that involves NATO forces inside Ukraine and instead opt to take their chances for a better future outcome on the battlefield.
The most curious question to me is one of territory. The current front line would make for a very problematic border. Presumably some territory swaps would take place. For example Russia holds ~1000 sq kms inside Kharkov region, most of it isn't the small foothold near Kharkov itself, but the much larger area along the Oskol east and north-east of Kupyansk. That territory could be traded for areas like the Seversk salient (the destruction there makes the actual town and villages practically worthless, but Russia would probably be very happy to push the border away from Lisichansk).- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Trump secretary of defense stated:
Well this will be interesting development afterwards.
- War must ended,
- Independence of Ukraine must be guarantee but getting back to Pre 2014 border is unrealistic,
- No NATO membership to Ukraine,
- However the security of Ukraine must be guarantee, so the war will not happen again. This will not be Minsk 3.0
- The peace keeper will not be American boots, will not be NATO boots and operation.
EDIT: As an afterthought, is there much willingness from NATO to put boots on the ground in Ukraine as peacekeepers? I know there were conversations but I also know a number of NATO members have openly stated they won't put their troops on the ground. This might dovetail neatly with Russia's refusal, to make the question a non-issue. It's one thing if Ukraine wants NATO forces, Russia doesn't, but NATO is willing. It's another issue if Ukraine wants NATO forces, Russia doesn't, but NATO countries also don't.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Realistically, there likely won't be any troops to keep things honest should an peace (truce) agreement happen. Aggression by either side just restarts the war.
Not all NATO countries would have an issue with having boots on the ground as part of any future peace deal. Also there is the possibility that some NATO countries might be willing to enter into separate security arrangements with Ukraine.
Poland for example would have a vested interest in preventing any future Russian incursion into Ukraine.
Obviously there might be issues with NATO countries choosing to be part of a seperate security pact but these could be thrashed out.
Poland for example would have a vested interest in preventing any future Russian incursion into Ukraine.
Obviously there might be issues with NATO countries choosing to be part of a seperate security pact but these could be thrashed out.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would say there would be huge issues with separate agreements. For instance, what would happen if Russia and a NATO member got into a military confrontation over Ukraine. Would other members be comfortable with this, I don't think so otherwise they would have joined the agreement.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
That's why Hegseth stated that the peace keepers will not part of NATO operation. It will consist of both Euro and Non Euro boots, but no US Boots. This legally means if any conflict happen between Ukraine or Russia against those peace keepers, it will not fall under NATO internal charter agreement. At least that's seems what Trump's administration idea on the peace keepers.
Wondering if the peace keepers come from East Euro like Poland or Baltic states on Ukraine side, and China or India on Russian side. Well Hegseth say both Euro and Non Euro.
Trump's defence chief lays down demands on Ukraine, NATO
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth laid out President Donald Trump's red lines and demands on Ukraine and NATO to Washington's allies on Wednesday, telling Europe it must step up on supporting
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,290
I believe Polish officials have spoke against having Polish forces in Ukraine. But of course much can change. I'm sure there are some NATO countries willing to do this.
I wonder though why a NATO country couldn't volunteer peace keepers. From my perspective Ukraine is not a NATO member so a future attack by Russia against Ukraine would not be against a NATO country. Peace keepers could therefore come from a NATO country. I believe Canada would be willing to be part of a peace keeping force as other than Russia I believe we have the largest Ukrainian diaspora. Mind you we'd have to give up the Latvia NATO contribution.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,292
I'm not sure that part is still true. With all the Ukrainians fleeing to places like Poland, they might have more than Canada now. Also Canada's diaspora is several generations removed, so how Ukrainian they still are is an open question. Assimilation is a real process.
rsemmes
Member
I was wrong. Zelenski will not have Trump sitting by his side, Zelenski will not be at the table; maybe in the menu.
Analysis: As Trump and Putin talk Ukraine, Zelensky is left in the cold
From CNN's Nick Paton Walsh
Not at the beginning, anyway. Meanwhile, EU/NATO countries unhappy for not joining (in the Rare Earths business?) the negotiations; not that unhappy for not having been able to start those negotiations.
European leaders scrambled on Thursday to try to get a seat at the table in Ukraine peace talks after US President Donald Trump announced the start of negotiations after speaking directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call.
Trump’s move sent shockwaves through European capitals, which want a central role in peace talks because any settlement in Ukraine, hit by a full-scale Russian invasion three years ago, will have ramifications for their own security.
www.france24.com
Analysis: As Trump and Putin talk Ukraine, Zelensky is left in the cold
From CNN's Nick Paton Walsh
Not at the beginning, anyway. Meanwhile, EU/NATO countries unhappy for not joining (in the Rare Earths business?) the negotiations; not that unhappy for not having been able to start those negotiations.
European leaders scrambled on Thursday to try to get a seat at the table in Ukraine peace talks after US President Donald Trump announced the start of negotiations after speaking directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call.
Trump’s move sent shockwaves through European capitals, which want a central role in peace talks because any settlement in Ukraine, hit by a full-scale Russian invasion three years ago, will have ramifications for their own security.
Guerre en Ukraine : l'Europe et Kiev redoutent les négociations de paix entre Trump et Poutine
Mis à l'écart et sous le choc des discussions entre Donald Trump et Vladimir Poutine sur l'Ukraine, les Européens ont averti jeudi que tout accord de paix négocié sans Bruxelles et Kiev serait voué à…
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,295
Except... Russia isn't the only one that can refuse the peace deal. If the deal looks too ugly, Ukraine could opt to keep fighting even if Trump threatens to pull all US support.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
The fact that Trump thinks he can just go to his friend Putin to make a peace deal, completely ignoring the EU (Ukraine's largest economic supporter by far) and Ukraine itself is simply unbelievable.
Is he going to pretend there arent half a billion people and two nuclear powers in Europe?
What's exactly his plan?
www.euractiv.com
Is he going to pretend there arent half a billion people and two nuclear powers in Europe?
What's exactly his plan?
No peace talks without us and Ukraine, Europe warns - Euractiv
NATO defence ministers, including the US's Pete Hegseth, meet in Brussels on Thursday.
www.euractiv.com
rsemmes
Member
Yes, of course. "Not at the beginning, anyway." Zelenski and EU/NATO countries will participate in the negotiations, but Trump got the scoop. The unwillingness of Zelenski (or whatever the reason) and the incapacity of Europe (or China, for that matter) to get Russia and Ukraine at the table (not Switzerland) is, hopefully, over.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com
Trump basically strengthen his administration on what Hegseth say with No NATO membership for Ukraine and the war must end. The way it's seems can be interpret; US will meet Russia and make a deal with them. Then tell Euro and Ukraine to take US lead deal or go fight Russia on your own.
Yes, because this so called peace agreement will be agreed under Russian blackmail, after hundred of thousands have died, and only to stop Putin killing even more people. It would be a just thing that Ukraine retakes territories stolen by Russia whenever it's possible.Feanor said:
It will be the same kind of agreement that France had with Germany in 1940, under the Vichy government. Did France do something wrong by retaking territories under German occupation despite the agreement made with Germany? Of course not.
Same situation here.
Anyway, it's not going to happen because Russia will rearm ASAP after the end of hostilities.
Russia is not going to collapse as Nazy Germany did. However, Russia may one day return territories to Ukraine voluntarily in exchange of normalised commercial relations, gas and oil transit, economic partnership, trade agreement with the EU,... after a change of regime, in a far future.
The Russians didn't respect the Misk agreement because they never let the Ukrainians hold the referendum in Lugansk and Donetsk. And also because the ceasefire was never respected by any party, because these agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
And it will be the same with Trump's song and dance: Putin and Zelensky will never agree to a ceasefire. It's not going to happen. They will fight until one or the other is completely exhausted and capitulates. Either Putin sees his troops advancing and has no reason to hurry up for a peace deal, or Zelensky sees his troops advancing and will not hurry neither. Actually the front line seems to have stalled, but it's only temporary. Both sides think that the other is on the verge of exhaustion. Zelensky may accept a bad deal in order to stop losing even more territories, but I don't think that Putin would if it's him who loses ground.
Ukrainians don't give a damn what Corn Flakes or Hoggseth is saying. As long as Putin is bombing Ukraine with Shaheds, cruise missiles and large callibre artillery, they have no choice but organise their defence, no matter what people in other countries are saying.Ananda said:
Did Putin stopped his night attacks on Ukrainian cities after talking with Trump on the telephone? No.
So what Trump's influence is on this matter? Zero.
Do you think that Putin will stop bombing Ukraine if Trump stops providing weapons to Zelensky? Of course not.
More over, Europeans also don't care about what the US may decide. And it seems that the idea of deployment of European NATO troops in Ukraine after the peace agreement is a higher and higher probability. It's even possible that they would deploy already after a ceasefire. In fact being or not being in NATO is irrelevant. What is relevant is the bilateral engagement from western partners to help Ukraine militarily. Putin doesn't want Ukraine in NATO? OK, he just forgets that bilateral defence agreements can be more biding than NATO. In fact the NATO's mutual assistance is very loosy. Putin, however, agrees that Ukraine joins the EU (because in his mind, the EU is ruled by degenerates who will only weaken Ukraine)? OK: He doesn't know that mutual military assitance in case of agression is much more biding among EU members than among NATO members. ==> Huh!!!
Good question: First of all, Nobody is going to ask Putin's opinion on the subject. There might be a promise that Ukraine won't join NATO, but that would be purely symbolical, only flattering Putin's ego.Feanor said:
In reality, no matter the peace deal, Ukraine will become fortress #1 and if some western countries want to deploy contingents in Ukraine, there will be nothing that Putin could do about that. There won't be any agreement of non-deployment.
The goal for Ukraine and Europe is to prevent any further Russian attack or invasion. To reach this goal, foreign deployment may be necessary. Maybe, maybe not, but if it's necessary they will.
Putin's goal is of course the opposite: To secure in the peace agreement all the conditions to allow one more invasion of Ukraine once he will be ready.
Secondly, as I said above already: An agreement with Putin will be just as valid as an agreement with Adolph Hitler in 1940.
Now about who would be willing to deploy in Ukraine: The US said no, at least as Trump is concerned. But I think that the US will never be crazy about deployment in Ukraine as their primary region of interest is the Asia Pacific (no matter who is president).
Poland said no. But the reason is different: Poland is already deploying considerable forces along the Belarussian border.
Same for all other EU states bordering Russia or Belorussia: It would be insane to remove troops from these countries to deploy them far away.
In fact, we should see the post peace deployment against Russia as a line of defence stretching continuously from the Arctic pole to the DonBass, including the Ukrainian army, with one centralised command, borderless manoeuvrability, multi-national and inter-compatible.
Some countries may want to participate, some not.
The second question is the material possibility of Europe to deploy significant forces. Eastern Europe yes, because there is a popular and political will to do so, and their economy is growing. Western Europe, less so because, despite political will, the economy and public finances are degrading.
France is the worse case of disastrous budget management, with a deficit dangerously growing and the new government doing nothing to counter that.
Other countries like Belgium, the UK, Italy and Spain are not better, al thought there are glimmer of hope, and in some case positive trends, but too far from enough to become power houses.
Germany and Nordic countries have their finances in order and are willing to help. But how far? And will they want to do it alone?
Nothing as long as the territory of the NATO member is not affected. If it happens in Ukraine, there is no consequences for NATO. It remains entirely a business between Russia and the said NATO member. However if Russia tries to invade or bomb a NATO member, all NATO members should provide assistance to the attacked nation.John Fedup said:
There won;t be such a thing as "Russian side". Russia has its own army for "peacekeeping". they can continue their partnership with DPRK if they wish so, thought. But that's theor problem.Ananda said:
All "peacekeeping forces will be there only to help Ukraine to counter or prevent further Russian invasion, aerial bombing or other forms of violence. Russia doesn't need the equivalent protection from Ukraine.
It won't be a force to watch if the cease fire or the peace agreement will be applied by both parties equally and according to the agreement. The only thing that will be watched will be Russian actions.
As I said above, if Ukrainians see an opportunity to retake stolen territories, nobody should oppose them since these territories are and will be legally Ukrainian, even if an agreement with Putin states that it's not.
So what? Trump has a phone call with Putin (which should be normal after an inauguration) and it sends shockwaves?rsemmes said:
LOL. As if Putin would change his mind after a phone call...
Worse case scenario, that's what will happen if Trump decides to completely pull out. But it's unlikely. Trump rather tries to get better terms for military aid he is willing to provide as long as Putin doesn't stop.Ananda said:
I mean, Europe and Ukraine will fight against Russia on their own. Unless Russia stops attacking.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well that's remain to be seen, Euro that symphetise and support Trump also increasing. Especially for those nationalist that want less EU power.
Then it is back to question if Ukraine sign agreement on teritorial concession, then they are the one later on broke it, will externalsupport still with them? Although I have big doubt they can have military resources to do it latter on if they don't have external support. Russia can do it by their own, different story on Ukraine.
Is this hope, or back on reality. Will all Euro really want to fight without US backing them ? I don't doubt Euro have capabilities to fight without US, the question remain how much Euro that wiling to fight and financing for Ukraine without US support. Euro can do it, but how big the portion of Euro thar want to do it without US support is the big question. It is back to the early point again.
Last edited: