Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Raoul]

Perhaps, but what other outcome do you really see happening without Putin butchering thousands more in the meantime?

I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.

Beyond that, the trouble with this strategy is that simply agreeing to a ceasefire to appease Putin wouldn't guarantee him not breaking it by inventing some reason to do so 6 months or a year from now. He's a highly accomplished liar obsessed with invading and annexing all of Ukraine, so he isn't likely to abide by any agreement (see Budapest 94 and Minsk 2014). The only way to deal with him is through a language that he understands - coercion and power. Kasperov has been spot on about him from the beginning.

 

[Fearless]

I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.

Beyond that, the trouble with this strategy is that simply agreeing to a ceasefire to appease Putin wouldn't guarantee him not breaking it by inventing some reason 6 months or a year from now. He's a highly accomplished liar obsessed with invading and annexing all of Ukraine, so he isn't likely to abide by any agreement (see Budapest 94 and Minsk 2014). The only way to deal with him is through a language that he understands - coercion and power. Kasperov has been spot on about him from the beginning.

Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?

 

[Raoul]

Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?

He just tried to take Kyiv, murder the existing democratically elected Ukrainian leader and replace him with a Russian stooge only 3 months ago.

 

[Gehrman]

Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?

No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.

 

[Buster15]

Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.

And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.

You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.
And of course that has already affected the course of the war thus far.
But at some point, if Ukraine is to be successful, it is going to have to go on the offensive. Unless the so called West supplies significantly more support and military equipment, this invasion is only going to have 1 outcome... unfortunately.

 

[Buster15]

No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.

Not sure I agree with that.
Ukraine is by far the biggest of the former Soviet states. And it has significant resources.
So, whether you call what Putin is doing is to recreate the former Soviet Union, or Russia 2, Ukraine, all of Ukraine is his target. Either bit by bit. Or complete invasion.
It would not work out if he did not want all of Ukraine. Gets him nowhere to just take a bit.

 

[Raoul]

No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.

You could've made the above argument in 2015 and been proven wrong in the present. Let's say he took Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson, Zap, Dnipro (along with already having Dontesk, Luhansk, and Crimea). That's literally a vast majority of Ukraine and its economy.

That would leave only western Ukraine out of Russian control - until you realize that most of the pipeline infrastructure that transports gas to Europe goes through westerrn Ukraine. So that would mean Putin would not be able to wield any significant influence on European energy by only holding parts of Ukraine. He needs all of it - both for his predatory empire building legacy, as well as to leverage the land to wield power over Europe.

Now fast forward to 2025 to a world where Putin controls most of Ukraine and suddenly decides to concoct a grievance that western Ukrainian fascists in Lviv are sabotaging Russian interests in Russian controlled Ukraine, leading us back to where we were over the past few months, except this time, there is no Ukraine or Ukrainian military to fight off Russian invaders. This is why Putin has to be stopped now, not at some hypothetical later date when the resources to stop him no longer exist and the US is ruled by the next Donald Trump administration.

 

[GlastonSpur]

You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.
And of course that has already affected the course of the war thus far.
But at some point, if Ukraine is to be successful, it is going to have to go on the offensive. Unless the so called West supplies significantly more support and military equipment, this invasion is only going to have 1 outcome... unfortunately.

I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).

 

[Buster15]

I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).

Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.

 

[Cheimoon]

Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.

I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get the Donbas back.

Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.

 

[Gehrman]

Not sure I agree with that.
Ukraine is by far the biggest of the former Soviet states. And it has significant resources.
So, whether you call what Putin is doing is to recreate the former Soviet Union, or Russia 2, Ukraine, all of Ukraine is his target. Either bit by bit. Or complete invasion.
It would not work out if he did not want all of Ukraine. Gets him nowhere to just take a bit.

I obviously made a spelling error there. I meant you have to be an idiot not to see he wants all of Ukraine

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I think Russia is winning. Both sides are taking massive losses but from what I've seen, from both Western and Ukrainian and Russian and non-aligned sources, Russia is slowly taking the Donbas and encircling a large number of Ukrainian troops. They also seem to be consolidating the south. It might be that Ukraine counters but I doubt it. It's not popular but I've noticed a change in Western reporting lately to manage expectations. The best case scenario now is a prolonged Afghan conflict and I think both sides would want to avoid that but who knows. You have to question the narrative that's been spun by certain sources because it isn't holding up relative to the picture given by others. In particular, open source intelligence has been particularly crap so far.

I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get Donbas back.

Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.

Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea.

That would leave only western Ukraine out of Russian control - until you realize that most of the pipeline infrastructure that transports gas to Europe goes through westerrn Ukraine. So that would mean Putin would not be able to wield any significant influence on European energy by only holding parts of Ukraine. He needs all of it - both for his predatory empire building legacy, as well as to leverage the land to wield power over Europe.

On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.

 

[Buster15]

I obviously made a spelling error there. I meant you have to be an idiot not to see he wants all of Ukraine

That sounds more like it.

 

[Buster15]

I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get Donbas back.

Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.

That is what I meant by bit by bit.
And there would be one way of stopping that. NATO membership.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.

And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.

This is a truly bizarre take for a country who just signed a £40bn lend lease bill.

 

[Raoul]

On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.

No one said destroying their own pipeline infrastructure is a good idea, especially given they could resume using it once there's a change in government in Russia. The fact that Nord Stream has been curtailed means Putin will require existing infrastructure within Ukraine to sell to Europe. Although Europe would probably diversify away from Putin if he were to magically take control of all of Ukraine.

 

[Rajma]

Good luck Russia trying to hold the line after the gains have been made. Time is on Ukrainian side as long as heavy weapons will keep flowing from NATO. Russia doesn’t have the capacity to replace them with anything. The most famous igor strelkov have said as much a few weeks ago, where he predicted that Russia will eventually make gains in Donbass but it won’t be able to hold it, he’s been pretty spot on so far the cnut. I think for Ukraine it’s an existential war which they absolutely have to win it at all costs and they know it themselves as any peace deal at this stage will slowly destroy them.

 

[Cheimoon]

Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea.

It's not a done deal yet though. If NATO and the EU (or rather: just the US) decide that they don't want Russia to get a full hold on the Donbas, then they will have to ramp up their support for Ukraine - which may be why the US are now moving forward with providing even better equipment to Ukraine (if that's confirmed now).

More generally, I do think the US are happy with Russia getting into a prolonged war over the Donbas, as it would keep chipping away at Russia's military, economy, and internal public support. Russia conquering all of the Donbas and calling it quits (for now) would undo all three of those aspects, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they keep propping up Ukraine with additional materials. (But not necessarily to the point where it would actually defeat Russia, as that might actually also be less desirable than an ongoing war from a US viewpoint - even if these equipment transfers are costly to the US as well.)

It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.

That is what I meant by bit by bit.
And there would be one way of stopping that. NATO membership.

Isn't that impossible as long as Ukraine is involved in a war?

 

[Buster15]

It's not a done deal yet though. If NATO and the EU (or rather: just the US) decide that they don't want Russia to get a full hold on the Donbas, then they will have to ramp up their support for Ukraine - which may be why the US are now moving forward with providing even better equipment to Ukraine (if that's confirmed now).

More generally, I do think the US are happy with Russia getting into a prolonged war over the Donbas, as it would keep chipping away at Russia's military, economy, and internal public support. Russia conquering all of the Donbas and calling it quits (for now) would undo all three of those aspects, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they keep propping up Ukraine with additional materials. (But not necessarily to the point where it would actually defeat Russia, as that might actually also be less desirable than an ongoing war from a US viewpoint - even if these equipment transfers are costly to the US as well.)

It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.

Isn't that impossible as long as Ukraine is involved in a war?

Yes. But if Putin took part of Ukraine and then stopped for a period of time, that was the opportunity I was thinking of.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?

From the moment when Putin said that he does not recognize Ukraine as a country, all bets have been off since. The man and all of his followers have to be crushed at all costs.

Anyway, Kissinger is a clueless fool.

 

[Rajma]

We’re totally doing this, keep going lads:

(Minister of Defense).

 

[GlastonSpur]

I think Russia is winning. Both sides are taking massive losses but from what I've seen, from both Western and Ukrainian and Russian and non-aligned sources, Russia is slowly taking the Donbas and encircling a large number of Ukrainian troops. They also seem to be consolidating the south. It might be that Ukraine counters but I doubt it. It's not popular but I've noticed a change in Western reporting lately to manage expectations. The best case scenario now is a prolonged Afghan conflict and I think both sides would want to avoid that but who knows. You have to question the narrative that's been spun by certain sources because it isn't holding up relative to the picture given by others. In particular, open source intelligence has been particularly crap so far.


Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea. ...

I think your assessment is flawed. Where the Ukrainians are retreating, they do so in an orderly fashion, falling back to the next pre-prepared line of defence, having meanwhile inflicted further big losses on the Russians: defence vs attacks favours the defenders in terms of losses.

My prediction is that Russians will fail to encircle any substantial Ukrainian forces, fail to take the whole Donbas and then, during the summer leading into Autumn, will be driven back from what they do have via (a) use of the heavy weapons that are in the pipeline, especially long-range artillery and rockets; and (b) bringing their substantial reserves of troops to bear.

There will be no agreement to a ceasefire by Ukraine. They will keep on keeping on.

Russian TV pundits keep threatening nukes, almost on a daily basis. My guess is they've been told that it's essential to try and scare the West into stopping with arms supplies and forcing Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia .... because otherwise Russia will lose this war.

 

[Frosty]

 

[Krakenzero]

I think everyone is trying to call this a win or a loss for Ukraine/Russia too early in the game. Esentially we have seen three (or four) war fronts:

-Northern front: Ukraine secured Kyiv, thereby winning.
-Southern front: Russia occupied most of the coast and finally Mariupol. Odessa is left but it's difficult not to see it as a Russia win, however not definitive.
East (and maybe Northeast) front: Kind of a stalemate situation, where Ukraine is on its way to secure Kharkiv and Russia is slowly advancing through the Donbas. Evidently both are not definitive and a long attrition war is the likeliest outcome on this front, unless someone collapses abruptly.

However, so far geopolitically speaking this war has been a nightmare for Russia (getting increasingly sanctioned, isolated and less feared as a big power) and great PR for Ukraine (although at the cost of too many lives). Let's hope it ends soon, hopefully with a decisive Ukraine victory.

 

[GlastonSpur]

 

[DT12]

I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get the Donbas back.

The messaging here (Russia), albeit not stated so directly, is that Putin has to take all of Ukraine at this point. First Donbas (which will likely fall by the end of June), then the north, then Lviv, with the aim to have the entire country 'taken' by October. Putin (via Peskov) keeps saying that the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" given by Putin prior to the invasion (destruction of the Azov Batallion, demilitarisation of Ukraine, and Ukrainian neutrality) have not changed, and – this part matters most – he has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” (he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion). The Azov Batallion have already surrendered, neutrality is basically assured at this point, which leaves only the trickiest one: demilitarisation. Since the US are at least saying they're committed for the long term, that means Putin needs Kiev (although literally an hour ago John Kirby at the Pentagon gave a press conference in which he said they need to be realistic about sending heavy weapons to Ukraine because "time is not on our side" - in other words, this looks like being over sooner rather than later, but I'm going to write more on that when I reply to an earlier post that was addressed to me about why I believe Ukraine can't win this war from here).

I've already stated my belief that there isn't going to be a meaningful counter-offensive (there is a massive disconnect between what Zelenskiy and Kuleba say in their rallying calls when addressing the likes of Davos or the American Senate, and what the actual generals on the ground like Zaluzhnyi are saying). Nowhere was this disconnect more pronounced than with the Azovstal fiasco. For months the powers that be in Ukraine and the West were building the Azov Batallion up as the bravest warriors who ever fought in battle (this despite their English Wikipedia page still to this day describing them as “a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine”), issuing implacable assurances that they'll "never surrender" and would "only agree to an evacuation to a 3rd country".

There were some glaring problems with that narrative though, at least they were glaring to those of us who were closely observing the situation. While Zelenskiy and Kuleba were reassuring the Western democracies that their billions of dollars and euros were not being sent in vain, the "warriors" themselves and their families were criticising their own government...

https://censor.net/en/news/3339810/...t_watching_save_military_from_azovstal_marine

And begging (actually begging) everyone from Turkey's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/families-azov-fighters-ask-turkish-201138446.html

...to China's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/relatives-azovstal-works-defenders-ask-102818811.html

...to the Pope...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...appeal-pope-help-get-husbands-out-2022-05-11/

...to Elon frigging Musk...

https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-trapped-azovstal-begs-elon-musk-help-if-not-you-who-1705851

...to help "evacuate" them to safety.


That last plea, to Musk, was especially interesting because it was issued from the bowels of Azovstal by none other than Serhiy Volyna, commander of the much-feared 36th Marine Brigade, and he asked a very pertinent question to Elon Musk: "If not you, then who else can do it?" Excellent question Serhiy, and one that led us to a question that nobody in the Western media dared ask: why were these guys not begging the US government to help save them? Or the UK government? Or Zelenskiy himself? You know, people who claim to be ready to do whatever their "brave warriors" ask, and who actually COULD have saved them. These "heroes" (as Zelenskiy is keen to keep calling them) were reduced to begging the likes of Turkey, China and the Pope to save their lives and help them get to a 3rd country (instead, they've all been shipped off to Russian territory, which is exactly what they all - less than 3 weeks ago - vowed they'd never allow to happen).

That’s just one example from many I could give. Late last night Serhiy Haidai (governor of Luhansk) said the situation in the east is “dire” for Ukraine and said that they were outnumbered by 1 to 8 in terms of men and twice that in terms of equipment. Ukrainian commanders have also said that what they’ve been sent by the West is nowhere close to the kind of equipment they need to stand a chance of victory (this has been obvious from the beginning, the US and Europe is just sending them all the old crap they don't need anymore). Indeed earlier this month Zelenskiy issued an order that forbade the Ukrainian military from complaining on social media about the equipment they’re being given. And 2 days ago the BBC started noting that some people in Ukraine are starting to turn on Zelenskiy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61570444

President Zelensky says that only diplomacy can end the war, but he has said that Russia must return to the positions it held before the invasion.

His allies, led by the US and UK, want to weaken Putin's Russia permanently. They have said Russia must not win.

Their critics say they'll fight to the last Ukrainian.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.



And then of course you have the ludicrous spectacle of the EU bickering among themselves over how to legally circumvent their own sanctions so they can continue paying Russia for its oil and gas; the result of Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel being in the unfortunate habit of announcing grand plans without first taking 15 minutes to figure out how in the hell to make it all happen without crippling their own economies.

Long story short, there’s a growing sense in this part of the world that the war has reached a turning point (it happened around May 7th when the Russian army won the Battle of Popasna; things shifted after that and we started to hear desperation creeping into the words of the Ukrainian generals). I know there are still some folk here on this forum who believe the “40 billion to Ukraine” will be a game-changer, but it won’t be. Firstly, has anyone who thinks this money will make a significant difference actually read up on where exactly that 40 billion is being spent? Less than half of that sum (19 billion) is being spent on "military support for Ukraine" (the other 21 billion is for humanitarian relief, support for US forces in Europe, DOD modernization programmes, help for refugees, and so on). And even then the remaining 19 billion is carved up into smaller packages, such that ‘only’ 6 billion is for (I quote) “training, equipment, weapons, logistic support, supplies and services, salaries and stipends and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine”. That’s it. The rest is for stuff like US weapons manufacturers to replenish their stocks. As John Kirby just said – time is not on Ukraine’s side here, and there’s a feeling that by the time what’s left of the Ukrainian army has been sent the weapons and trained to use them, it’ll effectively be 6 billion dollars down the drain.

My general point is, what I wrote earlier this week is still, to my mind, the most balanced interpretation of events. Unless all the people of the US, the UK and Europe are prepared to start bankrolling Ukraine to the tune of at least 7 billion euros a month (Zelenskiy’s figure) in the (ridiculous) belief that Russia is going to run out of artillery before the “40 billion” kicks in, then Ukraine can’t win this war. 3 months ago people in this thread were posting that “by June there will be nothing left of the Russian economy”. Well guess what, it’s now almost June and there is almost nothing left of the Ukrainian economy, because Russia has taken over 80% of it. People (well, one person, but I made sure to note it) said that by the summer Russians would be starving to death. Here we now are and the West is pretending to panic because they think Russia is about to starve the developing world to death. They said back in March that the Russian army would fall “in 3 weeks”. Here we now are and not a day goes by without Zelenskiy saying Ukraine will fall imminently unless America finally sends it proper weapons (never going to happen). Yet despite all of this there are still people here who seriously believe Ukraine is "winning" this war.

That’s my take. And again, I am intending to reply to those who replied to my earlier post (thank you to those who did) but it’s been a busy week for me and trying to write properly sourced opinions - as opposed to indiscriminately spamming tweets from Twitter nobodies - takes time. Full disclosure for what it’s worth, I live in the town of Pushkin, near St Petersburg, which is a military town, and is part of the reason why what I see with my own eyes does not in any way correlate to the Western narrative that was given in March and April about this war, I mean for example about how Russia’s “only tank factory” (I still laugh my arse off at that) can’t supply any more parts and so the army will collapse by the start of April, or that Putin is gravely ill with a coсktail of blood, bone, bowel, brain and bollock cancer. Yes, Russia made enormous mistakes at the start of this war, and Putin went into it with very bad intel, but he’s nothing if not extremely adaptable, he’s adapted, and he’s almost certainly going to win. A fiercely unpopular viewpoint, I know, but nevertheless one that is based in reality rather than emotion. Emotion improves many things but decision making and critical thinking aren't among them.

 

[Balljy]

I think everyone is trying to call this a win or a loss for Ukraine/Russia too early in the game. Esentially we have seen three (or four) war fronts:

-Northern front: Ukraine secured Kyiv, thereby winning.
-Southern front: Russia occupied most of the coast and finally Mariupol. Odessa is left but it's difficult not to see it as a Russia win, however not definitive.
East (and maybe Northeast) front: Kind of a stalemate situation, where Ukraine is on its way to secure Kharkiv and Russia is slowly advancing through the Donbas. Evidently both are not definitive and a long attrition war is the likeliest outcome on this front, unless someone collapses abruptly.

However, so far geopolitically speaking this war has been a nightmare for Russia (getting increasingly sanctioned, isolated and less feared as a big power) and great PR for Ukraine (although at the cost of too many lives). Let's hope it ends soon, hopefully with a decisive Ukraine victory.

If Odessa falls that gives Russia the entire coastline. Ukraine would do everything to stop that as it makes their economy unsustainable as they wouldn't be able to export grain.

 

[DT12]

If Odessa falls that gives Russia the entire coastline. Ukraine would do everything to stop that as it makes their economy unsustainable as they wouldn't be able to export grain.

This is correct, if Odessa falls (along with Kharkiv, the other crucial city) then Ukraine no longer has an economy. Kiev, like most capitals, is an administrative centre, not an industrial one. They spend the country's money rather than make it. This is Putin's aim, to slowly squeeze the life out of the Ukrainian economy so that the country can't function anymore.

 

[TMDaines]

It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.

That’s been his modus operandi for three months: armchair geopoliticking.

 

[Simbo]

@DT12 Although I think some of your conclusions/opinions are a bit warped, your perspective is much appreciated from where you sit, thanks for taking the time.

 

[DT12]

@DT12 Although I think some of your conclusions/opinions are a bit warped, your perspective is much appreciated from where you sit, thanks for taking the time.

You're very welcome but out of interest which of my conclusions and opinions do you find "a bit warped", and why?

 

[GlastonSpur]

 

[Manchie]

The messaging here (Russia), albeit not stated so directly, is that Putin has to take all of Ukraine at this point. First Donbas (which will likely fall by the end of June), then the north, then Lviv, with the aim to have the entire country 'taken' by October. Putin (via Peskov) keeps saying that the 3 core aims of this "special military operation" given by Putin prior to the invasion (destruction of the Azov Batallion, demilitarisation of Ukraine, and Ukrainian neutrality) have not changed, and – this part matters most – he has “no doubts that they will be accomplished in full” (he doesn’t say stuff like this if he doesn’t strongly believe it’s a foregone conclusion). The Azov Batallion have already surrendered, neutrality is basically assured at this point, which leaves only the trickiest one: demilitarisation. Since the US are at least saying they're committed for the long term, that means Putin needs Kiev (although literally an hour ago John Kirby at the Pentagon gave a press conference in which he said they need to be realistic about sending heavy weapons to Ukraine because "time is not on our side" - in other words, this looks like being over sooner rather than later, but I'm going to write more on that when I reply to an earlier post that was addressed to me about why I believe Ukraine can't win this war from here).

I've already stated my belief that there isn't going to be a meaningful counter-offensive (there is a massive disconnect between what Zelenskiy and Kuleba say in their rallying calls when addressing the likes of Davos or the American Senate, and what the actual generals on the ground like Zaluzhnyi are saying). Nowhere was this disconnect more pronounced than with the Azovstal fiasco. For months the powers that be in Ukraine and the West were building the Azov Batallion up as the bravest warriors who ever fought in battle (this despite their English Wikipedia page still to this day describing them as “a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine”), issuing implacable assurances that they'll "never surrender" and would "only agree to an evacuation to a 3rd country".

There were some glaring problems with that narrative though, at least they were glaring to those of us who were closely observing the situation. While Zelenskiy and Kuleba were reassuring the Western democracies that their billions of dollars and euros were not being sent in vain, the "warriors" themselves and their families were criticising their own government...

https://censor.net/en/news/3339810/...t_watching_save_military_from_azovstal_marine

And begging (actually begging) everyone from Turkey's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/families-azov-fighters-ask-turkish-201138446.html

...to China's president...

https://news.yahoo.com/relatives-azovstal-works-defenders-ask-102818811.html

...to the Pope...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...appeal-pope-help-get-husbands-out-2022-05-11/

...to Elon frigging Musk...

https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-trapped-azovstal-begs-elon-musk-help-if-not-you-who-1705851

...to help "evacuate" them to safety.


That last plea, to Musk, was especially interesting because it was issued from the bowels of Azovstal by none other than Serhiy Volyna, commander of the much-feared 36th Marine Brigade, and he asked a very pertinent question to Elon Musk: "If not you, then who else can do it?" Excellent question Serhiy, and one that led us to a question that nobody in the Western media dared ask: why were these guys not begging the US government to help save them? Or the UK government? Or Zelenskiy himself? You know, people who claim to be ready to do whatever their "brave warriors" ask, and who actually COULD have saved them. These "heroes" (as Zelenskiy is keen to keep calling them) were reduced to begging the likes of Turkey, China and the Pope to save their lives and help them get to a 3rd country (instead, they've all been shipped off to Russian territory, which is exactly what they all - less than 3 weeks ago - vowed they'd never allow to happen).

That’s just one example from many I could give. Late last night Serhiy Haidai (governor of Luhansk) said the situation in the east is “dire” for Ukraine and said that they were outnumbered by 1 to 8 in terms of men and twice that in terms of equipment. Ukrainian commanders have also said that what they’ve been sent by the West is nowhere close to the kind of equipment they need to stand a chance of victory (this has been obvious from the beginning, the US and Europe is just sending them all the old crap they don't need anymore). Indeed earlier this month Zelenskiy issued an order that forbade the Ukrainian military from complaining on social media about the equipment they’re being given. And 2 days ago the BBC started noting that some people in Ukraine are starting to turn on Zelenskiy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61570444

President Zelensky says that only diplomacy can end the war, but he has said that Russia must return to the positions it held before the invasion.

His allies, led by the US and UK, want to weaken Putin's Russia permanently. They have said Russia must not win.

Their critics say they'll fight to the last Ukrainian.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.



And then of course you have the ludicrous spectacle of the EU bickering among themselves over how to legally circumvent their own sanctions so they can continue paying Russia for its oil and gas; the result of Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel being in the unfortunate habit of announcing grand plans without first taking 15 minutes to figure out how in the hell to make it all happen without crippling their own economies.

Long story short, there’s a growing sense in this part of the world that the war has reached a turning point (it happened around May 7th when the Russian army won the Battle of Popasna; things shifted after that and we started to hear desperation creeping into the words of the Ukrainian generals). I know there are still some folk here on this forum who believe the “40 billion to Ukraine” will be a game-changer, but it won’t be. Firstly, has anyone who thinks this money will make a significant difference actually read up on where exactly that 40 billion is being spent? Less than half of that sum (19 billion) is being spent on military support for Ukraine (the other 21 billion is for humanitarian relief, support for US forces in Europe, DOD modernization programmes, help for refugees, and so on). And even then the remaining 19 billion is carved up into smaller packages, such that ‘only’ 6 billion is for (I quote) “training, equipment, weapons, logistic support, supplies and services, salaries and stipends and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine”. That’s it. The rest is for stuff like US weapons manufacturers to replenish their stocks. As John Kirby just said – time is not on Ukraine’s side here, and there’s a feeling that by the time what’s left of the Ukrainian army has been sent the weapons and trained to use them, it’ll effectively be 6 billion dollars down the drain.

My general point is, what I wrote earlier this week is still, to my mind, the most balanced interpretation of events. Unless all the people of the US, the UK and Europe are prepared to start bankrolling Ukraine to the tune of at least 7 billion euros a month (Zelenskiy’s figure) in the (ridiculous) belief that Russia is going to run out of artillery before the “40 billion” kicks in, then Ukraine can’t win this war. 3 months ago people in this thread were posting that “by June there will be nothing left of the Russian economy”. Well guess what, it’s now almost June and there is almost nothing left of the Ukrainian economy, because Russia has taken over 80% of it. People (well, one person, but I made sure to note it) said that by the summer Russians would be starving to death. Here we now are and the West is pretending to panic because they think Russia is about to starve the developing world to death. They said back in March that the Russia army would fall “in 3 weeks”. Here we now are and not a day goes by without Zelenskiy saying Ukraine will fall imminently unless America finally sends it proper weapons (never going to happen). Yet despite all of this there are still people here who seriously believe Ukraine is "winning" this war.

That’s my take. And again, I am intending to reply to those who replied to my earlier post (thank you to those who did) but it’s been a busy week for me and trying to write properly sourced opinions - as opposed to indiscriminately spamming tweets from Twitter nobodies - takes time. Full disclosure for what it’s worth, I live in the town of Pushkin, near St Petersburg, which is a military town, and is part of the reason why what I see with my own eyes does not in any way correlate to the Western narrative that was given in March and April about this war, I mean for example about how Russia’s “only tank factory” (I still laugh my arse off at that) can’t supply any more parts and so the army will collapse by the start of April, or that Putin is gravely ill with a coсktail of blood, bone, bowel and brain cancer. Yes, Russia made enormous mistakes at the start of this war, and Putin went into it with very bad intel, but he’s nothing if not extremely adaptable, he’s adapted, and he’s almost certainly going to win. A fiercely unpopular viewpoint, I know, but nevertheless one that is based in reality rather than emotion. Emotion improves many things but decision making and critical thinking are not among them.

I follow Alexander Mercurius on Telegram and he was dead sure that the war would go in favor of Russia since the April.

 

[TMDaines]

@DT12 Although I think some of your conclusions/opinions are a bit warped, your perspective is much appreciated from where you sit, thanks for taking the time.

Understatement of the thread right here.

 

[DT12]

Understatement of the thread right here.

So then I'll ask you too, which of my conclusions and opinions do you find a bit warped, and why?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I don't know what the casualty ratio will be for the Russian Air Force by the end of the war, but accounts like this are similar to how the US Air Force and the US Navy encountered all kinds of trouble against the North Vietnamese Air Force during the Vietnam War.

 

[Simbo]

You're very welcome but out of interest which of my conclusions and opinions do you find "a bit warped", and why?

I've not the time to go through all that right now but I'll touch on the Azov point since you talked about that a fair bit.

Firstly the Azov batallion operates in more areas that Mariupol, it is not wiped out. It is still barely a fraction of Ukraine's armed forces even at full strength so largely irrelevent to this war but since Russia seems to have made it their #1 propaganda tool to justify their Nazi nonsense, we need to keep talking about them.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this article:
https://medium.com/the-ukrainian-vi...ism-answers-the-common-questions-7a48547b592b

With note to the author - A Russian (lives/work in Ukraine) that studies and works against far-right extremist groups, seems credible.

 

[GlastonSpur]

 

[Simbo]

@DT12 and if I was in that Azovstal situation I'd be begging everyone possible too, even if there was no hope anyone could help them out.

I don't find the Elon Musk plea interesting at all. They would see him as some sort of saviour because the only reason they could tweet at all is because of the Starlink system, so understandable. They probably wouldn't be aware those were purchased off Musk's company and delivered by the US government.

 

[DT12]

I've not the time to go through all that right now but I'll touch on the Azov point since you talked about that a fair bit.

Firstly the Azov batallion operates in more areas that Mariupol, it is not wiped out. It is still barely a fraction of Ukraine's armed forces even at full strength so largely irrelevent to this war but since Russia seems to have made it their #1 propaganda tool to justify their Nazi nonsense, we need to keep talking about them.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this article:
https://medium.com/the-ukrainian-vi...ism-answers-the-common-questions-7a48547b592b

With note to the author - A Russian (lives/work in Ukraine) that studies and works against far-right extremist groups, seems credible.

To be clear my mention of the Azovstal situation was to illustrate the disconnect between narrative and reality. The Russian army is depicted as exhausted, confused and low on morale whereas according to Zelenskiy's speeches to Western governments the Ukrainian army is ready to shed every last drop of blood for Western freedom so long as they get weapons. This is simply nowhere close to reality, and I offered the example of some of Ukraine's mostly fiercely nationalistic soldiers begging to be allowed to give up by way of example (it actually took several days before the Western media could bring themselves to use the 'S' word - surrender - rather than Zelenskiy's euphemism of "a heroic rescue operation").

I'll look at the article you've posted but right off the bat let me say I agree with you that it is ludicrous for Putin to claim Ukraine is being run by Nazis, or that the Ukrainian army consists of Nazis. I will never argue to the contrary, it's by far Putin's dumbest talking point in this war. However, it is a fact that the Azov Batallion (yes, a tiny faction of the whole) ARE neo-Nazi, and it is also a fact that they are an official part of the Ukrainian army. If tomorrow Joe Biden decided to make the KKK an official battalion of the American armed forces they would be an infinitesimal part of the American army. Nevertheless, it would be extremely weird if there were a KKK Batallion within the American army.