Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Dev]

"How many millions of lives are you willing to sacrifice, so that Crimea reverts to Ukrainian control? That's not a rhetorical question. "

As if the lives lost already aren't too many?

Sadly, history tells us that it is necessary to learn from the past. Failure to do so costs lives now and will do so again in future, as Russia has so determinedly shown in many locations over hundreds of years.

More lives will be lost as long as Russia exists in its' present style of leadership and attitude. Failure to deal with that will lead to lots more carnage in the times to come. Horrible, but it is necessary to learn from history.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Dev said:

"How many millions of lives are you willing to sacrifice, so that Crimea reverts to Ukrainian control? That's not a rhetorical question. "

As if the lives lost already aren't too many?

Sadly, history tells us that it is necessary to learn from the past. Failure to do so costs lives now and will do so again in future, as Russia has so determinedly shown in many locations over hundreds of years.

More lives will be lost as long as Russia exists in its' present style of leadership and attitude. Failure to deal with that will lead to lots more carnage in the times to come. Horrible, but it is necessary to learn from history.

You didn't answer the question, but it is an absolutely essential one to answer in order to make rational decisions about this (and any other) conflict. There is a certain number of casualties (not to mention economic losses) beyond which a purely territorial objective is simply not worth pursuing. Both sides understood this quite well during the Cold War - and it was only when they threw resources into a sunk-cost situation that the superpowers actually experienced costly defeats. 

Washington absolutely has its casualty limit for supporting a lapsed territorial claim to Crimea. Paris and Berlin ought to have the same. The only way that an end to the conflict can be achieved is by the same calculation being established in Kiev and above all in Moscow for its war objectives too - which is nowhere near close to happening yet. 

If we followed the simplistic 'Lessons From History' morality play set out on here, the world would have been incinerated in conflict every other year since 1945. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by vikingTON

[ICTChris]

There are a number of issues with the idea of “give Russia Crimea for peace”. Crimea is heavily militarised and even if Russia were to withdraw back to February 22 lines or were even pushed back to 1991 borders except in Crimea, continued occupation would give a continual platform for attacks on Ukraine. Many of the missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets have come from Russian naval forces.

The second difficulty is how would such a peace agreement be enforced. Russia has on several occasions signed international agreements respecting the borders of Ukraine and has broken them. There’s no indication that there’s any political appetite in Russia to change that so any peace agreement is likely to stand or fall on who enforces it. I honestly don’t think there is any way to realistically enforce something like that. Joint Chinese-US peacekeeping force in Crimea? Wouldn’t bet on it.

A third difficulty is political and it’s of Russia’s own making. The annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson have made a mockery of any attempt at legitimising the annexation of Crimea - if Ukraine agrees to hand over Crimea for peace then what’s the difference with that and Kherson or anywhere else? The annexations were, to use the parlance, a red line, how can Moscow row back from them? It would be seen as a huge defeat to say “yes these areas are all Russian heartlands, come to Moscow and hold hands and sing our praises and then a year later wave bye bye to them.  So it has hardened both sides positions in terms of any negotiations.

I doubt that the Ukrainian Army storming Crimea is going to happen. The best case scenario for a Ukraine would be a successful counter offensive which breaks the land link between Russia and Crimea and then puts into play a slow pushing out of the Russian military, via long range attacks and pressure on their ability to re supply - like Kherson Plus. It would be far more complicated and would take much longer. The worst case for Ukraine would be their counter offensive is beaten back which would make retaking Crimea a completely moot point. 

 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

The question of what is Ukraine willing to pay to defeat the invaders is one for the Ukrainians to decide.

Meanwhile NATO can continue to see the Russian military destroyed at minimal cost.

The decision today to send 4th generation aircraft will make the job much easier.

[vikingTON]

It's not about giving Crimea for peace, it's about establishing a ceasefire based on the status quo ante bellum - in which Crimea was de facto part of the RF. A frozen conflict would be the outcome. Unless there is a complete collapse on the Russian military side (not impossible but unlikely), the endgame involves deciding how many lives and how much resources would be spent - if needed - to assert a lapsed claim to territory. Ukraine cannot make that decision alone because its military effort and economy is being underwritten by other powers. 

After more than a year of fighting there is still no other basis to end the conflict that doesn't involve either a huge risk of escalation and/or a revolution in Moscow that somehow brings cuddly liberal internationalists to power (it will not). 

The quite straightforward and rational selling point for that outcome is that the RF is in inexorable long-term decline as a great power and the personal regime of Putin is not long for this world either. Whether they like it or not, the leaders of post-Putin Russia will then have to make hard choices between normalising relations with the West through improved behaviour and building goodwill, or a steeper decline into a satrapy of China which will assert its own unfinished business soon enough. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by vikingTON

[ICTChris]

Biden has said at the G7 that they won’t prevent any allies sending F-16s to Ukraine and that the US will assist in training Ukrainian pilots in Europe.

The whole thing sounds like it’s a medium term move rather than any immediate impact. Sounds like when main battle tanks were promised, although I assume it takes longer to be trained in flying a fighter jet than operating a tank. Willing to be corrected by P&B fighter jet pilots and tank commanders though.

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

The question of what is Ukraine willing to pay to defeat the invaders is one for the Ukrainians to decide.

No it really isn't so long as its economy and military effort is entirely underwritten by other states with their own geopolitical interests. In the same way that the leaders of South Vietnam did not in the end get to choose the price for the self-defence of its regime. 

A war of attrition until Sleepy Joe's utterly ludicrous re-election bid pans out is probably the Russians' best available hand right now. 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

Biden has said at the G7 that they won’t prevent any allies sending F-16s to Ukraine and that the US will assist in training Ukrainian pilots in Europe.

The whole thing sounds like it’s a medium term move rather than any immediate impact. Sounds like when main battle tanks were promised, although I assume it takes longer to be trained in flying a fighter jet than operating a tank. Willing to be corrected by P&B fighter jet pilots and tank commanders though.

They've already been training Ukrainian pilots on the F16. Note the announcement was for 4th generation jets. The UK has a lot of first generation Typhoons coming up for retiral anyway. 

 

What is said in public seems to lag behind what is done in private.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

No it really isn't so long as its economy and military effort is entirely underwritten by other states with their own geopolitical interests. In the same way that the leaders of South Vietnam did not in the end get to choose the price for the self-defence of its regime. 

A war of attrition until Sleepy Joe's utterly ludicrous re-election bid pans out is probably the Russians' best available hand right now. 

The difference with the Vietnam situation is the North winning didn't put them on American borders. Poland, Scandinavia and the Baltic States want Russia to be defeated on Ukrainian soil, not theirs.

[vikingTON]

51 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

The difference with the Vietnam situation is the North winning didn't put them on American borders. Poland, Scandinavia and the Baltic States want Russia to be defeated on Ukrainian soil, not theirs.

Poland and the Baltic States are no more the American borders than Indochina was in the 1960s and 1970s. That will prove the reality of the situation if (probably when) US policy shifts back to its perennial isolation and retrenchment mode, or when it pivots for purely geopolitical reasons to the real strategic threat posed to American dominance by China - as it was supposed to do a full decade ago. No amount of special pleading by Warsaw and Tallinn will change that. 

FWIW, the Russian threat does not really need to be contained by the US at all, but a foolish relic of the Cold War was kept and expanded on and so here we are.

[ICTChris]

Something went boom in Mariupol.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Give it to the Tatars till the end of the season.

[LongTimeLurker]

Vlad lets slip why Russian men prefer vodka:

 

 

[ICTChris]

Wagner forces have taken part of Western Bakhmut. The only area still held by Ukraine is a small section in the South west of the city. Ukraine is still pressing Russian forces on the north and south of the city, making things interesting.

The Russians targeted the bridges on the West of Bakhmut leading to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk this week, suggesting that they aren’t planning to use the capture of the city as a springboard to take more strategic targets further on from Bakhmut. Considering the losses sustained in the fight for the city that’s been pretty obvious for a while but targeting the bridges does add credence.

I saw something reporter that Ukraine is now pressing Wagner/Russian AF in Soledad, which was one of the main captures around Bakhmut by Wagner. Some analysis of satellite imagery shows that Russian forces have mined the area behind their lines, suggesting that it’s a either a blocking move to prevent further retreats or a precursor to a Russian withdrawal.

Its also worth noting that none of the fighting in Bakhmut had been done by any newly formed Ukrainian brigades.

[Sergeant Wilson]

12 hours ago, ICTChris said:

 Willing to be corrected by P&B fighter jet pilots and tank commanders though.

The tank is easier. At least I thought it was a tank. It had tracks and a big gun at the front.

[Zetterlund]

7 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

The tank is easier. At least I thought it was a tank. It had tracks and a big gun at the front.

If they're smart they'll recruit JCB drivers for this, then they only need to teach them the shooty bit.

[Dev]

17 hours ago, virginton said:

You didn't answer the question, but it is an absolutely essential one to answer in order to make rational decisions about this (and any other) conflict. There is a certain number of casualties (not to mention economic losses) beyond which a purely territorial objective is simply not worth pursuing. Both sides understood this quite well during the Cold War - and it was only when they threw resources into a sunk-cost situation that the superpowers actually experienced costly defeats. 

Washington absolutely has its casualty limit for supporting a lapsed territorial claim to Crimea. Paris and Berlin ought to have the same. The only way that an end to the conflict can be achieved is by the same calculation being established in Kiev and above all in Moscow for its war objectives too - which is nowhere near close to happening yet. 

If we followed the simplistic 'Lessons From History' morality play set out on here, the world would have been incinerated in conflict every other year since 1945. 

This conflict was started by Russia some years ago now and continued from Feb last year. They've caused hundreds of thousands of human beings to be killed, maimed and permanently disadvantaged. These human beings are not only Ukrainian but also other nationalities, including tens of thousands (or more) ethnic minorities from within current borders of Russia.

..... and why? The lust for land that you mention.

Yet you criticise Ukraine for doing all it can to defend itself. In my view that's some short-sighted individual thinking - don't you get that? How many more human beings need to die or much land needs to be grabbed by Russia before some are content?

[Dev]

4 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Wagner forces have taken part of Western Bakhmut. The only area still held by Ukraine is a small section in the South west of the city. Ukraine is still pressing Russian forces on the north and south of the city, making things interesting.

The Russians targeted the bridges on the West of Bakhmut leading to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk this week, suggesting that they aren’t planning to use the capture of the city as a springboard to take more strategic targets further on from Bakhmut. Considering the losses sustained in the fight for the city that’s been pretty obvious for a while but targeting the bridges does add credence.

I saw something reporter that Ukraine is now pressing Wagner/Russian AF in Soledad, which was one of the main captures around Bakhmut by Wagner. Some analysis of satellite imagery shows that Russian forces have mined the area behind their lines, suggesting that it’s a either a blocking move to prevent further retreats or a precursor to a Russian withdrawal.

Its also worth noting that none of the fighting in Bakhmut had been done by any newly formed Ukrainian brigades.

There are suggestions that the Wagner fighters are being drawn into positions in western Bakhmut so that they will be encircled by the Ukrainian forces and taken out of the War.

The Russian leadership won't be sad to see the Wagner forces disabled as they could be a future threat to them in a post-War situation.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

25 minutes ago, Dev said:

There are suggestions that the Wagner fighters are being drawn into positions in western Bakhmut so that they will be encircled by the Ukrainian forces and taken out of the War...

Think that's wishful thinking or maybe that should be copium in terms of internet lingo these days. Another way of looking at the advances the Ukrainians made on the flanks recently is that it limited any risk of having their remaining units in Bakhmut surrounded when the end approached in the outskirts of the city itself and it likely made it a lot easier for them to get equipment out. Soledar and Bakhmut isn't much to show for the big Russian mobilisation late last year but it's still a defeat for the Ukrainian side.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

5 hours ago, Zetterlund said:

If they're smart they'll recruit JCB drivers for this, then they only need to teach them the shooty bit.

I recall a tv show, Panorama or World in Action, were they stirred up shite about some building companies that had bought Russian tracked diggers or bulldozers.

The premise was about how easy they could be converted to tanks, people were so fucking gullible back in the 70's