Russia has invaded Ukraine

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m curious to hear your evidential basis for this. I ask because it’s frequently offered as a truism. I’m not sure actual history backs this up.

America bailing on Afghanistan not enough evidence they’re not a long term ally for their short term partners?

The NATO border can more readily be defended by actual member states should that be required in the “forever war of Russian expansion” that Hugh assures us will happen if Russia didn’t stick to any agreements on a settlement in Ukraine. At some point they’ll just accept the sunk costs and move on. Russia won’t be pushed back to 2022 borders without assistance that won’t come.

These are all reasonable beliefs to hold despite the slurs that will inevitably come my way.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m curious to hear your evidential basis for this. I ask because it’s frequently offered as a truism. I’m not sure actual history backs this up.

Purely on size.

Russia needs no support from 3rd parties. Given time, short time in the great scheme of things, Russia has enough resources and manpower to take on anything.

Ukraine is not blessed with that. Without unwavering support from many countries Ukraine will struggle…….long term.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Purely on size.

Russia needs no support from 3rd parties. Given time, short time in the great scheme of things, Russia has enough resources and manpower to take on anything.

Ukraine is not blessed with that. Without unwavering support from many countries Ukraine will struggle…….long term.

And yet Russia is sending older and older equipment from storage to the front (tanks made in the 1970s and earlier) and buying drones and ammunition from Iran and North Korea because it doesn’t have the resources to replace what it’s using just to remain largely static in Ukraine.

Your argument doesn’t support your conclusion that a negotiated peace on the present lines is Ukraine’s best outcome. On the evidence of what Russia is able to deploy, use and replenish, Ukraine’s best strategy is an attritional one.

[jfman]

And without NATO hand me downs and American guided missile attacks Ukraine can deploy… nothing.

The attritional approach relies on a belief the generosity of the West will be unwavering, and that a return to 2022 borders is realistic. If neither of these are achievable it’s just sacrificing Ukrainians to keep Russia further from Poland.

If that’s the objective to which they are resourced then absolutely Ukraine should have a) elections to give a mandate for it and b) a volunteer army.

Does anyone seriously believe America/NATO will resource a return to 2022 borders? If so, I’d love to see the working behind it.

If neither of these are achievable it’s just sacrificing Ukrainians to keep Russia further from Poland.

Strange, I thought it was to stop Russia stealing more of Ukraine’s territory…

And re your previous point

the “forever war of Russian expansion” that Hugh assures us will happen if Russia didn’t stick to any agreements on a settlement in Ukraine

I didn’t "assure" anyone if this - I pointed out the facts that in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, Russia keeps coming back for more territory, and if we don’t learn from Russia’s previous behaviours, history will repeat itself. Are you stating that if a peace deal happens with Russia keeping the stolen Ukrainian territories, there won’t be a further recurrence of a "Limited Military Action" in the medium-term?

[jfman]

I’m not particularly a fan of my posts being selectively quoted to remove context. The attritional war that can never succeed without significant and uncertain NATO/US support (significantly more than is currently being offered) isn’t the only way to stop Russia at the current position.

Nobody can predict the future for Ukraine if it took a peace deal at roughly the current position. Whether there would be Russian appetite to continue, at some cost, in the future would be unclear. Putin can’t last forever.

I’ve also already pointed out above how Ukraine’s allies could - if there was political will - leave it better equipped for that eventuality, should it happen. I certainly think it’s much more desirable than sacrificing Ukrainians under the pretence of a return to 2022 borders while resourcing the status quo. Something America cannot commit to longer term - especially with rising tensions in the Middle East. Formalising the status quo, and going back to the drawing board, buys time to strategise.

The contention will no doubt be it also buys Russia time. It may well do, but you’d certainly hope NATO hand me downs would be better than what Russia can muster from North Korea and Iran.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

And yet Russia is sending older and older equipment from storage to the front (tanks made in the 1970s and earlier) and buying drones and ammunition from Iran and North Korea because it doesn’t have the resources to replace what it’s using just to remain largely static in Ukraine.

Your argument doesn’t support your conclusion that a negotiated peace on the present lines is Ukraine’s best outcome. On the evidence of what Russia is able to deploy, use and replenish, Ukraine’s best strategy is an attritional one.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/14...-intelligence/

But as the war enters its third year, Putin is looking increasingly confident. His main political rival, Alexei Navalny, is dead; vital U.S. military aid to Ukraine is stalled in Congress; and Russia has shifted its economy to a war footing, fueling defense production and economic growth in defiance of international sanctions.

Russia doesn't need nervous or hesitant allies to fund them or re-supply them.

“The Russians, according to our understanding, have always fixed their issues or problems through mass. And this has worked out for them throughout history,” said Rosin, adding that reforms to the Russian armed forces were likely to result in a low-tech, Soviet-style army with “a lot of firepower and artillery.”

Russia have the resources, the money and the manpower to re-arm. This current lull suits them perfectly.

As I have said previously, they don't need to advance, they can quite simply hold the territory they have. The front is no longer very mobile, Russian troops will be dug in and will be very difficult to remove and, attritionally, they outnumber Ukraine around 3-1.

Ukraine have done very well by stopping Russia, I don't see how they can push them back.

If they want to fight to the last man, then that's there decision, but fighting to the last man will mean they lose, as Russia has at least 3x as many men.

And if Trump gets in, he will force Ukraine to make a deal.

[jfman]

Putin mouthpiece The Guardian at it again. Sticking up for Farage of all people.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...leaders-reform

The west’s urgent task must be to get Putin off his self-impaled hook, to stop the bombing and killing. Those now mooting a settlement seem to agree that this will involve the partial division of Ukraine along a ceasefire line and some redefinition of its eastern regions.

This cannot be helped by British politicians seeking votes by demanding “total victory” on headline-hunting trips to Kyiv. Nor is it helped by heaping insults on anyone who, like Farage in his other remarks, is clearly arguing for peace.

The game is up.

Tempted to stick neo-realist under my user name.

If "neo-realist’" is agreeing with someone who wanted to give up the Falkland Islands, cut the U.K. Defence Budget to zero because, with the end of the Cold War, there wasn’t a threat from Russia any more, and who claimed that being a white man in the 21st century is the same as being a black man 30 or 40 years ago - go for it…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If "neo-realist’" is agreeing with someone who wanted to give up the Falkland Islands, cut the U.K. Defence Budget to zero because, with the end of the Cold War, there wasn’t a threat from Russia any more, and who claimed that being a white man in the 21st century is the same as being a black man 30 or 40 years ago - go for it…

Not sure the definition in the article is that exhaustive tbh, or that someone’s flawed social views (the white man reference) renders their views all of their views as irrelevant or without merit.

Such an absolutist view would however certainly explain how everyone who even countenances the notion of anything less than 2022 borders, Crimea and Putin at The Hague is a Putin sympathiser.

The definition alluded to in the article merely cites objective facts.

In fact, he was merely joining the school of “neo-realists” who have emerged in response to a sequence of inept western interventions in conflicts across the continent of Asia.

Haphazard adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya might be good for shareholders of the military industrial complex - a bit like a forever war at the Russia/Ukraine border - it certainly left global security no better off.

Fundamentally the fact the Guardian are printing this at all, at the same time the BBC are encouraging sympathy for the poor reluctant conscripts. This isn’t chance. The 2022 flag wavers are being prepared to be let down gently. The next phase will be promoting the voices of Ukrainian refugees wanting to go home, living in turmoil in the west. Women and children isolated from their family. Puff pieces that tug at the heartstrings.

Those stuck in the Cold War narratives will be apoplectic at the concession to Putin but everyone else will just move on to the next big thing.

Busy day today so a very brief observation - advocating for Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders (that’s 1991 borders, not 2022, which would exclude Crimea and the Donbas, neither of which are recognised at the UN as anything other than Ukrainian) is about recognising Russia’s belief in its sphere of influence doesn’t go away just because you persuade them to down tools for a few years. And holding that position doesn’t necessitate believing those who don’t share it are Putin apologists, though some doubtless are. There are are, however, plenty holding ‘ceasefire now’ positions who are unaware of just how hard Russian asymmetric ops are working to nurture that view in the western information space. I.e. many of the people who think they are advocating for peace are being played by Russia which doesn’t want peace, but simply enough time to regroup and rearm.

[jfman]

Not having the “Russia are playing you” narrative any more than the USA/military industrial complex are playing everyone on the other side.

It serves only to dismiss - out of hand and without evidence - uncomfortable truths and objective reality. I’m sure there’s plenty of disinformation coming from both sides.

Russia seem more than capable of regrouping and rearming inside the conflict (Pierre’s analysis on the numbers is helpful). Ukraine could similarly regroup and rearm. It’s not the zero sum game it is presented as and relies on the assumption that a future conflict is inevitable.