Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

dove said:
I think it should be quite clear that peace is the ultimate goal for us. But peace should not be solely based on the Russian terms, there will have to be compromises which Russians are obviously reluctant to do. Who is even talking about the defeat of Russia? Get the feck out of the lands you have no right to be in and the war (at least the military war) is over, it's as simple as that. Nobody is going to invade Russia to defeat them.
Click to expand...
a lot of people in high places spoke freely about it iirc. there was backlash over it.

i agree that ideally they should get out of ukraine but seeing as they're not going to my point is do you agree to a partition of the separatist part of the donbass? do you just keep fighting until you've driven russia out of it completely? does the population of donbass accept that even if it did happen? where does it end? that's why i think he had half a point. arming by itself isn't going to end it. you need to know what the longterm goal is when you're sending arms. it might be the longterm goal is to drive the russians out of the donbass. i don't know, i'm speculating, but it's important because we're talking about how the war ends not how it started.
 
neverdie said:
in the end, though, is it a peace settlement or a defeat of russia? i'd imagine there's some kind of longterm planning even if there are obvious shortterm goals like defending against the russian advance.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine at some point Putin decides it's not worth it and pulls out from most territories, remaining in places in Donbass but not in Kherson. Mariupol I am not sure, probably too close to the border. I think this is what a Russian defeat can realistically look. Some flimsy ceasefire deal signed as well, without any illusions it will be respected long term.
Russia then starts reorganizing , but so does Ukraine with even more and more advanced weapons, including western jets. Ideally, at this point Putin decides it will be even worse if he attacks again.
 
The Firestarter said:
I'd imagine at some point Putin decides it's not worth it and pulls out from most territories, remaining in places in Donbass but not in Kherson. Mariupol I am not sure, probably too close to the border. I think this is what a Russian defeat can realistically look. Some flimsy ceasefire deal signed as well, without any illusions it will be respected long term.
Russia then starts reorganizing , but so does Ukraine with even more and more advanced weapons, including western jets. Ideally, at this point Putin decides it will be even worse if he attacks again.
Click to expand...
basically a long war of attrition which we're already seeing. not unreasonable expectation.
 
neverdie said:
a lot of people in high places spoke freely about it iirc. there was backlash over it.

i agree that ideally they should get out of ukraine but seeing as they're not going to my point is do you agree to a partition of the separatist part of the donbass? do you just keep fighting until you've driven russia out of it completely? does the population of donbass accept that even if it did happen? where does it end? that's why i think he had half a point. arming by itself isn't going to end it. you need to know what the longterm goal is when you're sending arms. it might be the longterm goal is to drive the russians out of the donbass. i don't know, i'm speculating, but it's important because we're talking about how the war ends not how it started.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Ukrainians because I am not one of them but I think Ukraine would ultimately agree on giving away some parts of Donbass if it means "peace" (there will never be 100% peace having Russia on your border) with a condition of allowing people to freely choose sides. They are most likely not prepared to give away the currently occupied southern parts of the country around Kherson. In my opinion the current short term goal is to take back as much of the occupied areas in the south as possible to force Russians to sit down at the negotiating table. I am sure they know what the long term goal is. They publicly state that it's restoring borders pre 24th of Feb but I think they would settle for less, such as taking back the south and giving away some parts of Donbass.
 
dove said:
I can't speak for Ukrainians because I am not one of them but I think Ukraine would ultimately agree on giving away some parts of Donbass if it means "peace" (there will never be 100% peace having Russia on your border) with a condition of allowing people to freely choose sides. They are most likely not prepared to give away the currently occupied southern parts of the country around Kherson. In my opinion the current short term goal is to take back as much of the occupied areas in the south as possible to force Russians to sit down at the negotiating table. I am sure they know what the long term goal is. They publicly state that it's restoring borders pre 24th of Feb but I think they would settle for less, such as taking back the south and giving away some parts of Donbass.
Click to expand...
that seems possible. i don't know either. not expecting ukraine to say "we'll settle for pre-feb 24th positions minus the separatist regions" in public but privately i wonder if that isn't the only solution. do they want the separatist regions back? they've been fighting each other in a war. it would surely be a nightmare. a civil war of sorts. would have to assume reprisals in a scenario like that given how bitter this has all been. but the claimed separatist regions are not the entire donbass. so there's scope there for something that might work down the line.
 
dove said:
I can't speak for Ukrainians because I am not one of them but I think Ukraine would ultimately agree on giving away some parts of Donbass if it means "peace" (there will never be 100% peace having Russia on your border) with a condition of allowing people to freely choose sides. They are most likely not prepared to give away the currently occupied southern parts of the country around Kherson. In my opinion the current short term goal is to take back as much of the occupied areas in the south as possible to force Russians to sit down at the negotiating table. I am sure they know what the long term goal is. They publicly state that it's restoring borders pre 24th of Feb but I think they would settle for less, such as taking back the south and giving away some parts of Donbass.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will agree on any deal that gives Putin Ukrainian land. For one, any deal that Putin enters into is worthless since he is an untrustworthy liar who uses negotiations to create a facade of diplomacy, all the while continuing to rearm and prepare for the next invasion. This is why the Ukrainians will never agree to something like this.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think they will agree on any deal that gives Putin Ukrainian land. For one, any deal that Putin enters into is worthless since he is an untrustworthy liar who uses negotiations to create a facade of diplomacy, all the while continuing to rearm and prepare for the next invasion. This is why the Ukrainians will never agree to something like this.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree on that but I think there would be a lot of pressure from the west to take that deal if it was on the table and both sides would try their best to spin it as a win for them. I just can't see a scenario where Ukraine takes back everything because it would be a complete humiliation for Russia which Putin and his fellow criminals won't allow to happen.
 
dove said:
I definitely agree on that but I think there would be a lot of pressure from the west to take that deal if it was on the table and both sides would try their best to spin it as a win for them. I just can't see a scenario where Ukraine takes back everything because it would be a complete humiliation for Russia which Putin and his fellow criminals won't allow to happen.
Click to expand...

That is increasingly likely at this point. The Ukrainians are gradually making daily progress in the south and the Russians are running out of weapons, troops, and morale - while the Ukrainians are only beginning to leverage western weapons. If extrapolated over time, there will come a tipping point where the Russians get pushed back.
 
A situation in which both fronts collapse from Russia's perspective and then the Russians are driven all the way back to pre-2014 borders is not out of reach. We were mentioning the musical chair game with Russian troops between Eastern Ukraine and Southern Ukraine yesterday. At this rate, the attrition rate is likely to meet a breaking point in which holding onto annexed lands will be next to impossible while fresh recruits arriving from Russia would only be meat added in the grinder at best. And just like @Raoul mentioned already, we all know that Putin's word means next to nothing and thus Ukraine will not give him an inch anymore.

As for separatist parts of Ukraine, the puppet governments over there know that their own survival hinges on military success and protection from Russia. If a military collapse on the Russian side, it won't be long until separatists move en masse into Russia and leave the field wide open for the Kyiv government to regain control again. They are not different from the last Afghan government prior to the recent Taliban takeover.

The Soviet Union poured weapons to the Viet-Congs for a very long time until Saigon fell. The Soviets also supported movements and entities like the IRA, the PLO and Carlos the Jackal as means to disrupt the West during Détente. If you want to hurt a geopolitical opponent badly, arming that opponent's enemy for as long as it takes has always been the way to go when you want to go short of a direct confrontation.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
That is increasingly likely at this point. The Ukrainians are gradually making daily progress in the south and the Russians are running out of weapons, troops, and morale - while the Ukrainians are only beginning to leverage western weapons. If extrapolated over time, there will come a tipping point where the Russians get pushed back.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right of course and Ukrainians are slowly but surely making some progress in the south however Russians are making progress in the east which I think gets kind of ignored a bit too much.
 
dove said:
I hope you are right of course and Ukrainians are slowly but surely making some progress in the south however Russians are making progress in the east which I think gets kind of ignored a bit too much.
Click to expand...

Are they? Not sure the Russians have made much progress in the east since all their supply lines started getting blown up in the last couple of weeks.
 
TwoSheds said:
Are they? Not sure the Russians have made much progress in the east since all their supply lines started getting blown up in the last couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

They have made limited progress, as they are having to majorly concentrate combat power in order to drive the UA back. But that underscores their vulnerability. If they advance in the Donbass, they won't have much to hold on in the South.
 
dove said:
I hope you are right of course and Ukrainians are slowly but surely making some progress in the south however Russians are making progress in the east which I think gets kind of ignored a bit too much.
Click to expand...
TwoSheds said:
Are they? Not sure the Russians have made much progress in the east since all their supply lines started getting blown up in the last couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
For reference


Vs
 
neverdie said:
a lot of people in high places spoke freely about it iirc. there was backlash over it.

i agree that ideally they should get out of ukraine but seeing as they're not going to my point is do you agree to a partition of the separatist part of the donbass? do you just keep fighting until you've driven russia out of it completely? does the population of donbass accept that even if it did happen? where does it end? that's why i think he had half a point. arming by itself isn't going to end it. you need to know what the longterm goal is when you're sending arms. it might be the longterm goal is to drive the russians out of the donbass. i don't know, i'm speculating, but it's important because we're talking about how the war ends not how it started.
Click to expand...

So all a waste of everything for everyone? The war would not have started if The Minsk Agreement was implemented. At least the majority of the world would have probably sanctioned Russia if it was signed and they invaded Ukraine. Now the international community is sitting on the sidelines.
 
Frosty said:
Jeremy Corbyn urges west to stop arming Ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine

Ex-Labour leader also tells Beirut-based TV channel he was criticised over antisemitism because of stance on Palestine

Jeremy Corbyn has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine.

“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution, it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said. We might be in for years and years of a war in Ukraine.”

Corbyn gave the interview on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based TV channel that has carried pro-Russia reporting since Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

“What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine

Making the mistake of assuming Russia wants to negotiate I am sad to say.
Click to expand...
What a prick! :mad:
 
neverdie said:
it's news related. seems worthy of talking about. don't take logical reasoning personal.

also gets right to the heart of the "wedge" quality. what is the goal here? peace or defeat of russia?
Click to expand...

"Peace" would mean Ukraine being conquered by Russia and ceasing to exist as a nation. Then there would be peace briefly until they hit their next target. A peace where Russia just pulls out of Ukraine does not exist. So I say send all the Arms to Ukraine and let them defeat Russia. I think I just stated the obvious here, but it seems necessary for some people.
 
Sir Matt said:


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

laugh-cant-hold-it-in.gif
 
Anybody wise as to why during a massive grain crisis, the first shipment that leaves Ukraine contains corn?
 
Last edited:
neverdie said:
is that not right though? those who would argue in favour of sending arms would also mostly acknowledge that it will mean a prolonged war. i think he has half a valid argument. if he said "just pouring arms in" isn't a good idea, he'd be on to something. followed by "initially it made sense to give ukraine arms to defend itself and perhaps still does up to a point". problem with his statement is that not giving them arms would mean no ability for self-defense. other than that i agree with him about the lack of diplomatic overtures aside from the grain deal. i don't think ukraine can beat russia and don't think russia can beat ukraine so in for a long war without a settlement.

depends on goal. if it's peaceful settlement then sending arms only and no talk of peace is not smart. if it's military defeat of russia, which i don't think is possible, then sending arms only and no talk of peace makes sense but also doesn't seem smart.
Click to expand...

Prolonged war > Faster Genocide

I like Corbyn who I think is a genuine man but this is beyond a bad take.
 
The important bits in my opinion from Jomini’s last summary thread…he’s not optimistic of quick gains in Kherson by the UA counterattack there but the threat is still throwing Russia off-balance.

 
The Firestarter said:
Only explanation as why they are not winning.
Click to expand...

Its dumb thing for the Russians to say publicly as it will only incentivize the US to do more, since they know the Russians won't do anything about it other than try to take out the weapons as they see them. I can see NATO sponsored jets flown by recently trained Ukrainians soon.
 
Raoul said:
Its dumb thing for the Russians to say publicly as it will only incentivize the US to do more, since they know the Russians won't do anything about it other than try to take out the weapons as they see them. I can see NATO sponsored jets flown by recently trained Ukrainians soon.
Click to expand...
Good point, US involvement was supposed to be this red line, where were scared of Russia escalating. If they claim it’s happened and don’t respond proportionally, you’re giving your hand away.
 
Ex-Chancellor Schröder has apparently returned from meeting his mate MadVlad and brought home the message that Russia would like a negotiated settlement.
 
Dans said:
Ex-Chancellor Schröder has apparently returned from meeting his mate MadVlad and brought home the message that Russia would like a negotiated settlement.
Click to expand...
I cant convey in written words how much I despise this cnut.
 
Carolina Red said:
I guess he just ran into Vlad at his “vacation” spot.
Click to expand...
He has said what good does it bring if he keeps his distance from him - someone has to keep the communication channel open.

I think he went to see his mate rather than ran into him.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think they will agree on any deal that gives Putin Ukrainian land. For one, any deal that Putin enters into is worthless since he is an untrustworthy liar who uses negotiations to create a facade of diplomacy, all the while continuing to rearm and prepare for the next invasion. This is why the Ukrainians will never agree to something like this.
Click to expand...
serious question.

if the maps posted above two months apart, which look the same to me, are anything to go by, is it not a truism of modern war that the attacker loses 3 to 4 people more than the defender? point being, russia digs into the land they're occupying setting up broad spectrum defense networks which forces the ukrainians to attack. surely the rate of attrition must move the other way? if russia is only holding what it has anyway. if ukrainians don't have the defensive + on their side, is a war of attrition more conducive to ukraine or russia? in terms of population, weapons, defense networks, and everything else?
 
ThierryFabregas said:
Prolonged war > Faster Genocide

I like Corbyn who I think is a genuine man but this is beyond a bad take.
Click to expand...
i agree that saying the solution is not to send arms isn't right, by itself. he had half a good point and half a stupid one. if he'd coupled it with long term goals and the necessity of arming ukraine to avoid that state collapsing, he'd have been on solid ground but the man is and always has been an absolutist in pacifist terms. so expected.
 
neverdie said:
serious question.

if the maps posted above two months apart, which look the same to me, are anything to go by, is it not a truism of modern war that the attacker loses 3 to 4 people more than the defender? point being, russia digs into the land they're occupying setting up broad spectrum defense networks which forces the ukrainians to attack. surely the rate of attrition must move the other way? if russia is only holding what it has anyway. if ukrainians don't have the defensive + on their side, is a war of attrition more conducive to ukraine or russia? in terms of population, weapons, defense networks, and everything else?
Click to expand...

This would only be the case if both sides had equal resources. The Russians are running out of theirs, while the Ukrainians have access to a steady flow of weapons from the west that are more sophisticated that what the Russians have. So over time, the advantage will be in favor of Ukraine, particularly when you factor in the morale disparity of troops defending their own country vs those who don't want to be there.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
This would only be the case if both sides had equal resources. The Russians are running out of theirs, while the Ukrainians have access to a steady flow of weapons from the west that are more sophisticated that what the Russians have. So over time, the advantage will be in favor of Ukraine, particularly when you factor in the morale disparity of troops defending their own country vs those who don't want to be there.
Click to expand...
fair enough. haven't paid attention to daily updates but the complex foreign affairs write ups seemed to have stopped. so no real idea as to the state of war on either side or projections beyond periodical maps.
 
Dans said:
He has said what good does it bring if he keeps his distance from him - someone has to keep the communication channel open.

I think he went to see his mate rather than ran into him.
Click to expand...
Oh believe me, my comment was completely tongue in cheek towards Schroder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.