The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Feanor]

This is why you don’t try to appease despots like Putin. The only way Trump doesn’t lose face is to double down on his support for Ukraine and give them whatever they need.

I'm not sure that's the takeaway. We still can't tell what Trump thinks the diplomatic solution is. Russia isn't going to give up on their core position because Trump says a few kind words. Russia repeatedly indicated they want a permanent peace. Instead Trump trots out a ceasefire, and Europe is openly preparing to insert forces into Ukraine. Obviously Russia isn't going to go for it. But they don't want to completely reject it either, since they do want to negotiate. So they "hit the ball back" with the part about stopping mobilization and aid to Ukraine. There's still no clarity on what the proposal that both sides could theoretically agree to would be. And I think the key issue here is Ukraine admitting permanent loss of territory. If Ukraine doesn't accept this, Russia won't sign any deal, and this makes any ceasefire counter-productive from Russia's point of view. Perhaps the west in general, and Trump specifically aren't willing to have any deal where Ukraine officially recognizes loss of territory. If so, it's an impasse and this war will have to continue until positions shift. But I think the takeaway is that anyone proposing a negotiated end to the conflict needs to have some sort of clear path to what they envision that solution to be and a way to get both sides to accept it. Trump entered the conversation acting like his intent is to simply get Ukraine to accept Russia's core demands. Then he walks that back and proposes a strange ceasefire. It really seems like he doesn't know what he's doing.

 

[KipPotapych]

On the “unconditional ceasefire”. Those who think that this is a reasonable and fully acceptable proposal, can you provide some historic examples where this has been done, accepted by both sides, stopped the hostilities, and, ideally, led to peace? This is a serious question as I would appreciate some historic perspective this can worked around. I can’t think of any relevant examples, but this may very well be my lack of knowledge. To me, the entire proposal seems to be completely absurd, as I discussed previously.

On the “nobody cares what Russians think, we will just put the troops on ground”. To me, this idea is just as much absurd. First of all, if this is a peacekeeping force we are talking about, both sides have to agree to it (unless imposed by the UN) and both sides are to be monitored and be discouraged from the hostile actions. Second, we are clearly talking about a force whose main premise is to deter the potential future Russian aggression, a tripwire force, not some peacekeeping mission. So what’s on the other side of the wire? How many countries do fully accept the reality of going to war with Russia without the American support (or even with)? The whole idea is built around the fact that something bad is going to happen to the side that decides to resume the hostilities. In this case, it is only one side’s hostilities the tripwire force is concerned with; at least from the presentation we have seen so far. In fact, the other side’s goals are supported and encouraged by this force - that is, restoration of the 2014 border, etc. So in this context, what are the consequences Russia is threatened with? What is going to happen when a member of this force gets killed due to the Russian activities? A dozen gets killed? A hundred? More? Is the European society ready to go to war with Russia over Ukriane? Is Europe prepared to do so? Because this is what the proposal really entails. There needs to be a honest discussion about this, beyond political statements intended for the speaker to look good. I understand the lemmings being completely ok with it, even encouraging it, but the European leaders fully supporting the idea should (and do, no question) fully realize what the idea entails and should be able to have an honest discussion about it. Ideally, see where their general population stands on the issue, perhaps.

I'm not sure how President Trump will react to this but certainly President Putin is here telling the audience that President Trump can wait by the phone and he is certainly in no hurry for this arranged call

But is it what actually happened?

Imagine a situation, where Trump is sitting by the phone waiting for Putin to connect or call back, as the guy in the video insists to be the case. Imagine, at the same time, Putin is sitting and laughing about it on video, making him wait for an hour.

Lately (few years now, about when covid began, I would say) I am really… not even sure what the word is. Amazed? No, that’s not it. More of the opposite… Anyway, the point is no matter how unreasonable the proposal may seem to be, otherwise very reasonable people take it at face value instead of for what it is. I guess “reasonable” is, perhaps, relative, but my point remains. It’s like the world had gone mad and dragged people along with it. Maybe we have had it “good” for too long or something. I really don’t know what it is and have given it some thought. Perhaps, it is always like this, but it really comes to the surface in the extreme circumstances?

 

[KipPotapych]

^ What does it mean?

 

[KipPotapych]

Well, thanks. That cleared it all right up. You are one of the insane types.

 

[crest]

I'm not sure that's the takeaway. We still can't tell what Trump thinks the diplomatic solution is. Russia isn't going to give up on their core position because Trump says a few kind words. Russia repeatedly indicated they want a permanent peace. Instead Trump trots out a ceasefire, and Europe is openly preparing to insert forces into Ukraine. Obviously Russia isn't going to go for it. But they don't want to completely reject it either, since they do want to negotiate. So they "hit the ball back" with the part about stopping mobilization and aid to Ukraine. There's still no clarity on what the proposal that both sides could theoretically agree to would be. And I think the key issue here is Ukraine admitting permanent loss of territory. If Ukraine doesn't accept this, Russia won't sign any deal, and this makes any ceasefire counter-productive from Russia's point of view. Perhaps the west in general, and Trump specifically aren't willing to have any deal where Ukraine officially recognizes loss of territory. If so, it's an impasse and this war will have to continue until positions shift. But I think the takeaway is that anyone proposing a negotiated end to the conflict needs to have some sort of clear path to what they envision that solution to be and a way to get both sides to accept it. Trump entered the conversation acting like his intent is to simply get Ukraine to accept Russia's core demands. Then he walks that back and proposes a strange ceasefire. It really seems like he doesn't know what he's doing.

Agree for the most part tho I think the key issue for Russia is less territorial then the state of ukrain after the war, no NATO no NATO troops (in any guises). And critically a small armed force with a mechanism for Russia to monitor and therefore prevent rearmament or NATO countries armed forces from coming in country. Complete political and military if not domination then neutrality/irrevelace . That is I believe Russians (security concerns). That was I believe the cause of the war the oblasts are to some degree the mechanic to keep Ukraine from possing that threat, to some degree a actual issue of reuniting culturally Russian people back into Russia proper and partly a response to NATO growth and pointedly the colour revolution the west backed. Which brings it back to security concerns for Russia and the whole reason for the war in the first place. At least in my opinion.
i also agree I don't think trump knows what he's doing. he acts like Russia and Ukraine should be thinking about American priorities and dosnt understand this is a war of choice for America, one of national security (from the Russian view) and for Ukraine it a bit harder of position I don't think they had much choice in it at least if they continue to think that Russia is somehow not serious about there security concerns when it comes to western military forces or alinces on in Ukraine. As far as Putin is concerned if trump doesn't like funding the Ukraine war he can stop, if he doesn't stop well nothing really changes from were it's at. He's also correct in pointing out the u.s is asking for a cease fire well resuming arms shipments the idea Russia would agree to that is quite frankly absurd. It's also not likely to Garner any trust or goodwill from Russia. Just blows my mind how dumb it is to restart arms shipments and then ask Russia for a ceasefire not after they refuse but before......

Why the hell would he agree to give up on the goals he started a war prevent happing. He did don't do it in 2023 when Russia was on the back foot he won't do it now that the UAF is in a bad spot. He's also unlikely to forget the lack of peace talk coming from the u.s then. As back then it was all about giving Russia a strategic defeat and the beach party in Crimea/ war reparations and war crime trial talks coming from the u.s.
That's why I said it looks like trolling. There is no way Russia gives up its goals or its gains barring a change in the battlefield conditions, there is also no way Russia changes strategic partners from China to the u.s. trump doesn't seem to recognize this or more accurately he can't accept that it matters to anybody else since it doesn't matter to him or something I honestly just don't get it. It's a tire fire whatever this policy of Trump's is it's either 5d chess or a tire fire.

 

[crest]

On the “unconditional ceasefire”. Those who think that this is a reasonable and fully acceptable proposal, can you provide some historic examples where this has been done, accepted by both sides, stopped the hostilities, and, ideally, led to peace? This is a serious question as I would appreciate some historic perspective this can worked around. I can’t think of any relevant examples, but this may very well be my lack of knowledge. To me, the entire proposal seems to be completely absurd, as I discussed previously.

Well one relivent to this situation as it is right now. I would say the Korean war it's a cease fire and a "peace" I also think if this ceasefire was accepted and extended it's what things would look like ultimately. At least as things stand right now
Beyond that lots of cease fire have lead to peace not every war is a unconditional surrender. China and India is a good example of a cease fire not really a war but could have easily been one if not for one. the i.r.a and the British is a good example of a ceasefire that lead to talks that lead to peace

 

[Fredled]

Ukraine struck the Engels air base. They claim to have hit a missile storage, causing big detonations.
The attack seems significant because it's reported by various news channels, including Reuters and BBC Russian Service.
Unfortunately Reuters is not free any more but we can read the headline.

it is crucial for the United Kingdom and its allies to be able to react immediately if a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is struck.

link (Reuter$)
He means probably some form of air and sea cover. I think that a land deployment "immediately after the ceasefire" is unlikely but this comment make it a little bit more likely.

Trump and Zelenski discussed restoring the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). link (Reuters) and link (Ukrinform)
Beyond the anecdotical fact that Trump already forgot about rare earths and is being distracted by the ZNPP, it's a very important piece of detail. It suggests that Russians will have to withdraw from the ZNPP in the future peace deal.

According to Pro-Ukrainian Youtube milblogger Denys Davidov, the incursion into the Belgorod Oblast, south of Sudzha, is confirmed, albeit it appears to be limited. Ukrainians have already lost at least one T64 and some engineering vehicle under Lancet strikes.
Note that the area in yellow is considered a "grey zone" not under Ukrainian control as the colour may suggest.

 

[KipPotapych]

Fredled, here is a freshly posted Sudzha victory assessment by a Ukrainian (Tatarigami):

Kursk Offensive - A Preliminary Assessment

Operational Assessment: Successes, Setbacks, and Battlefield Attrition

frontelligence.substack.com

Here is a post by Mike Kofman regarding your claim related to the source of most losses:



Oh, look, Ukrainians are using the same tactics as Russians:



Zelensky pulling Zelensky, lecturing EU on how they should be conducting business. The guy never learns. Some are probably imaging how it would be having Ukriane as a member in the Union.



People with a good clue dismantling British MoD’s propaganda:

 

[KipPotapych]

To add to the last part, a full post by Mark:



And the post by the UK MoD’s:

 

[crest]

A very neutral source tho the man is himself pro Ukrainian he does great work in putting bias aside. Anyways it's him and a economist talking about Russia's economy and ability to continue the war. A good and accurate watch in my opinion for anyone interested.

Of note is few ways in which Russian economic structure differs from ours and how just monthly numbers have to be looked at differently. Such as how it pays it's military industrial complex, it pays for the years production upfront so if one is to take the numbers from the first few months and then project it as unsustainable it would be incorrect. Same as if you just looked at the last few months and said Russia Has gone broke.
the short version if you don't want to watch is well Russia does have some serious problems it's currently a sustainable war at least for a few more years barring something unforeseen. And several indicators show alot more strength then you would think

 

[KipPotapych]

Well one relivent to this situation as it is right now. I would say the Korean war it's a cease fire and a "peace" I also think if this ceasefire was accepted and extended it's what things would look like ultimately. At least as things stand right now
Beyond that lots of cease fire have lead to peace not every war is a unconditional surrender. China and India is a good example of a cease fire not really a war but could have easily been one if not for one. the i.r.a and the British is a good example of a ceasefire that lead to talks that lead to peace

While similarities exist, there are sufficient and substantial differences. The biggest similarity is, perhaps, Zelensky and Rhee, their delusional demands, to be more accurate.

I will try to reply in more detail later. One thing to note, however, the ceasefire surely wasn’t unconditional and negotiations lasted twice as long as the war prior.

“Unconditional ceasefire” is about as rare as white rhinos. Throw in one side having a clear advantage in about everything and the “unconditional ceasefire” rarity level is raised to unicorns. It simply doesn’t exist. Regardless of the “ball possession”.


The idea of the boots on the ground from the so-called coalition of the willing seems to be falling apart, very not unexpectedly I should say. UK is turning to the “air and sea support” (which is not feasible either, has an even less chance of happening, in my opinion), while Macron is now throwing the idea of UN peacekeeping mission (a turn towards reality).

Mr Macron raised the subject of the UN alternative at Thursday’s European Council summit with Antonio Guterres, the UN security general, who was a guest of the gathered EU leaders.

It comes as the Prime Minister is showing signs of shifting his focus away from European “boots on the ground” to secure a peace deal with Russia, and is turning instead towards air and sea support to defend Ukraine.

Macron exploring UN alternative to Starmer’s Ukraine plan

French president and Prime Minister have been leading push to form a ‘coalition of the willing’

www.telegraph.co.uk

But no one is going to ask the Russians, only the “sovereign Ukriane”, right Fredled?

Ok, I apologize for the humour. Seriously though, the “coalition of the willing” thing may still happen, however unlikely, we really do not know at this point. We will have to wait and see.


In the meantime, the €40B military aid plan fell flat in the EU as well.

Kallas had previously proposed a pledge up of to 40 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine in 2025, with each country contributing according to its economic size, but that hit resistance from some countries, particularly in southern Europe.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-leaders-stress-defence-economic-strength-amid-growing-uncertainty-2025-03-20/

And it was not just Hungary or Slovakia that were strongly against and more members “sceptical”.

European Union leaders said on Thursday that they will continue to support Ukraine, but they did not immediately endorse a call by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to provide at least 5 billion euros for artillery ammunition purchases.

"We need funds for artillery shells and would really appreciate Europe's support with at least five billion euros ($5.42 billion) as soon as possible," Zelenskiy told the EU leaders meeting in Brussels via video link.

“Would really appreciate at least €5B” is a bit of a different tone from his usual addresses, no?

 

[crest]

While similarities exist, there are sufficient and substantial differences. The biggest similarity is, perhaps, Zelensky and Rhee, their delusional demands, to be more accurate.

I will try to reply in more detail later. One thing to note, however, the ceasefire surely wasn’t unconditional and negotiations lasted twice as long as the war prior.

“Unconditional ceasefire” is about as rare as white rhinos. Throw in one side having a clear advantage in about everything and the “unconditional ceasefire” rarity level is raised to unicorns. It simply doesn’t exist. Regardless of the “ball possession”.


The idea of the boots on the ground from the so-called coalition of the willing seems to be falling apart, very not unexpectedly I should say. UK is turning to the “air and sea support” (which is not feasible either, has an even less chance of happening, in my opinion), while Macron is now throwing the idea of UN peacekeeping mission (a turn towards reality).

Mr Macron raised the subject of the UN alternative at Thursday’s European Council summit with Antonio Guterres, the UN security general, who was a guest of the gathered EU leaders.

It comes as the Prime Minister is showing signs of shifting his focus away from European “boots on the ground” to secure a peace deal with Russia, and is turning instead towards air and sea support to defend Ukraine.


And it was not just Hungary or Slovakia that were strongly against and more members “sceptical”.

European Union leaders said on Thursday that they will continue to support Ukraine, but they did not immediately endorse a call by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to provide at least 5 billion euros for artillery ammunition purchases.

"We need funds for artillery shells and would really appreciate Europe's support with at least five billion euros ($5.42 billion) as soon as possible," Zelenskiy told the EU leaders meeting in Brussels via video link.

“Would really appreciate at least €5B” is a bit of a different tone from his usual addresses, no?

Well to be fair the Korean war is still technically a cease fire, and very few wars are completely comparable. I think it can serve as a example of how a cease fire can lead to a end of shooting even if the nation's remain hostile. Infact two belligerent states ending a shooting war but not hostility is imop the biggest similarity.
If the shooting were to stop today is I suspect that outcome. If it held that is, But better odds of a hostile stand off then a real peace I think. Greatest chance the shooting starts back up shortly perhaps expanded

The bigger point about true cease fires being rare I agree most true cease fires are infact surrenders of one degree or another. Then again we don't really have a cease fire here and unless it's explicitly stated that it's going to come with major Ukrainian consesion I doubt we will at least not with Russia's current position millitaraly, economically and politically (both domestic and abroad). None of those factors are negative enough at this point for Russia to back away from and in the case of domestic politics it's actually a counterweight. at least as far as I can see.

Tho I guess trump could have some secret tool at his disposal that changes the equation for Russia I mean honestly his actions don't make much sense looked at objectively and one should assume there is a reason for things done at this level. Tho that can be said for more then just this policy (whatever it is). But that is it's own rant in and if itself (I'm Canadian and have some opinions about being a "valid country" keeping trade deals you and I mean deals trump himself made in his first term made aswell as what side of the boarder the drugs are really coming from)