Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Crossroads]

I am very optimistic. The way the war is going, Ukraine is slowly bleeding to death. She can hang-on and hope to bleed more slowly or try another direction. If the price of oil drops worldwide, Russia's cash cow dies and maybe her whole economy as well. She needs another direction too. Either, or both, could choose self-destruction for national honor but maybe they will choose peace instead.

I also think there is ground for optimism. I believe the sanctions are already having an effect, as it seems they have started printing money. And, as you mention, petrochemical prices are crucial to them. Trump could be a game-changer here, too, with his 'Drill, baby, drill' approach.

Just to clarify, my frustration is directed at European politics and politicians. This is a war in Europe, and the response here has been insufficient. At best, there have been small steps toward accelerating European arms production. This won't improve unless there are national orders for building up capabilities. Here too, I'm optimistic that the Disruptor-in-Chief will have a positive effect in this, too.

Germany is a curious case; on one hand, they've done a lot to aid Ukraine, yet they also project such weakness and appeasement that it must alsoencourages Putin to continue. Just before the invasion, Scholz traveled to Moscow, promising that NATO would not expand further (Sweden and Finland: "Oh, thank you, how jolly of you"). Now there's even talk of Finlandization, which essentially means leaving a country in a neutral status and wishing it good luck. Ukraine, and Finland before it, were neutral prior to their respective conflicts.

There's certainly risk in arming Ukraine; I won't disagree. But there's also risk in not arming Ukraine. Escalation has already occurred despite fears of escalation. The Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran are all active, China is watching, and North Korea seems somewhere in the mix.

Negotiating with any of them without projecting immense strength is a fool's task. Trump has that strength behind him, while Europe does not, and has been slow in rebuilding it. 'Build Back Better'? Biden stood strong by European standards, maybe retire as the new German councellor?

Lastly, about Ukraine aid: despite what I said about Germany, France — where are you? Still behind such military behemoths as Denmark and the Netherlands, that is where.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Clicksaver to our US friends: commitments included, Europe is supporting Ukraine in a 2:! ratio compared to US. In total aid that is. And it shoud be even more. But there's at least that. Military stocks start to look empty, there's been initiatives to procure armament internationally though, like 155mm shells.

[JudgeDredd]

As someone said recently - it's like France invading England and taking East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent and everyone telling the Brits to suck it up and just accept that that's not their land anymore.

Or to make it more applicable to the conversation in hand - like Florida being taken by "whomever" and America being expected to cede it and not give a shit.

It's easy on the outside to say "Why not just give th Donbas up". Well, for one - because the **** won't stop there. And for another - it's not your land. Make the argument about your land and all of a sudden, your view changes.

**** me - the state of the Donbas I wonder myself why the hell Ukraine would want it back - it's a ghost zone. But it's not my land right?

I saw an American guy on the TV today (can't recall his name) saying that Ukraine might have to cede the Donbas. Other people on the panel were against it and he said "Well that's the only way it's going to get resolved - either that or NATO getting involved".

There you go. That's the answer. NATO get's in there and kicks that **** out. **** his threats.

Talk about history repeating itself. I thought people were meant to learn from history.

The Sussex and Florida comparison is a fair one, with one exception. Ukraine is expecting the rest of the world to take risks and incur substantial costs in order to supply it with arms to fight its war. If Ukraine wants other nations to take risks so it can fight for its own land, then it should also expect those countries to not simply write a blank check. If some nation invaded Florida (note, many Americans would gladly cede Florida over to someone else) I wouldn't demand other countries to risk war over it without there being an expectation of a quid pro quo.

So, if Ukraine doesn't want to accept some conditions for aid, don't accept the aid.

That's fair 

But I'd argue that Ukraine IS paying a price for this - the blood of their people. As was borne out in the Second World War - this isn't simply about bailing out another country. This is about defending democracy against a dictator whose goal, it is suggested, is to reunite the Eastern Block.

One thing I don't know is - is this money "lent" or given. I know, for example, that in order to hold back Fascism during WWII, the UK only recently paid off it's lend lease bill to the US.

Can I ask if you have any idea what these potential conditions are? Please tell me it can't be "You need to lose the Donbas" - because I'm sorry - regardless of how much money we give them, that's just wrong.

Perhaps, if I was a Ukrainian, and as President of the most powerful country in the world, I'd suggest to Putin "I'll talk to Uk - I'll get them to give you the Donbas, but they then get security of the NATO blanket", then I'd put that to Uk (or vice versa would be a better idea - it shoul'd be their right to refuse) - I could imagine losing a small chunk of your desolate, war ridden land might be worth that. But to simply expect Ukraine to cede the Donbas is - well, it's basically Sudetenland.

I just hope if the US pull out, then Europe picks up the slack. But I have little faith they would.

Point received on Florida 

[undercovergeek]

As someone said recently - it's like France invading England and taking East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent and everyone telling the Brits to suck it up and just accept that that's not their land anymore.

Or to make it more applicable to the conversation in hand - like Florida being taken by "whomever" and America being expected to cede it and not give a shit.

It's easy on the outside to say "Why not just give th Donbas up". Well, for one - because the **** won't stop there. And for another - it's not your land. Make the argument about your land and all of a sudden, your view changes.

**** me - the state of the Donbas I wonder myself why the hell Ukraine would want it back - it's a ghost zone. But it's not my land right?

I saw an American guy on the TV today (can't recall his name) saying that Ukraine might have to cede the Donbas. Other people on the panel were against it and he said "Well that's the only way it's going to get resolved - either that or NATO getting involved".

There you go. That's the answer. NATO get's in there and kicks that **** out. **** his threats.

Talk about history repeating itself. I thought people were meant to learn from history.

The Sussex and Florida comparison is a fair one, with one exception. Ukraine is expecting the rest of the world to take risks and incur substantial costs in order to supply it with arms to fight its war. If Ukraine wants other nations to take risks so it can fight for its own land, then it should also expect those countries to not simply write a blank check. If some nation invaded Florida (note, many Americans would gladly cede Florida over to someone else) I wouldn't demand other countries to risk war over it without there being an expectation of a quid pro quo.

So, if Ukraine doesn't want to accept some conditions for aid, don't accept the aid.

That's fair 

But I'd argue that Ukraine IS paying a price for this - the blood of their people. As was borne out in the Second World War - this isn't simply about bailing out another country. This is about defending democracy against a dictator whose goal, it is suggested, is to reunite the Eastern Block.

One thing I don't know is - is this money "lent" or given. I know, for example, that in order to hold back Fascism during WWII, the UK only recently paid off it's lend lease bill to the US.

Can I ask if you have any idea what these potential conditions are? Please tell me it can't be "You need to lose the Donbas" - because I'm sorry - regardless of how much money we give them, that's just wrong.

Perhaps, if I was a Ukrainian, and as President of the most powerful country in the world, I'd suggest to Putin "I'll talk to Uk - I'll get them to give you the Donbas, but they then get security of the NATO blanket", then I'd put that to Uk (or vice versa would be a better idea - it shoul'd be their right to refuse) - I could imagine losing a small chunk of your desolate, war ridden land might be worth that. But to simply expect Ukraine to cede the Donbas is - well, it's basically Sudetenland.

I just hope if the US pull out, then Europe picks up the slack. But I have little faith they would.

Point received on Florida 

I'm guessing a good start is 'have your fucking donbas' leave it to the Russians - who wants that reconstruction bill? - and fold the Ukraine into nato instantly - one bullet, one trash can comes over this line Vladimir and your toast

[JudgeDredd]

I wonder if Zelensky would be willing to trade the Donbas for the safety of NATO? For outsiders it looks like a half decent end result. ..ultimately though, that's down to Ukraine. And I wonder how much of a fight he'd have selling that to the Ukrainian people given the number of people that have died trying to save the Donbas and keep it out of those grubby Russian thieving fucking hands?

And whilst JH is right - we're footing the bill - we are democratic countries that want to uphold democracy and if that means we have to pay for it - then we have to pay for it.

Also it's not like we're solely footing the bill. Ukraine is trying to produce it's own gear whilst fighting a war against multiple nations - and spilling it's blood to do so.

Personally I think a nice first step would be to let loose the dogs of war. Give them the weapons and lift the restraints. And we'll take whatever that throws our we.

Russia have been behaving abominably worldwide. As far as I gather them and their Wagner group have been institutions in multiple regions to spread destabilisation. Not to mention dropping Novichok in the UK.

But yeah. Lets close our eyes and let that crack on.

[Con]

What we have now is a war of 1917 with a political climate of Chamberlins 1934 appeasement policy

Let's see how it goes this time around but I will rely on history saying it's not negotiations that will prevail but either strength of arms or strength of will or economic collapse

All of these will have great but terrible consequences as the boulder of fate careens down the mountain of ineptitude into the valley of short term blindness

[undercovergeek]

What we have now is a war of 1917 with a political climate of Chamberlins 1934 appeasement policy

Let's see how it goes this time around but I will rely on history saying it's not negotiations that will prevail but either strength of arms or strength of will or economic collapse

All of these will have great but terrible consequences as the boulder of fate careens down the mountain of ineptitude into the valley of short term blindness

do you think in 40 years time youll be able to get a t shirt that says 'never forget, again, again'

[Sir Slash]

I understand the whole 'Florida' analogy thing but lets try a different one. We ALL have to stand-up to aggression by Russia right? What if tomorrow, the CCP invades Taiwan? Obviously the U.S. would stand by Taiwan and other local allies would too...probably. What would Europe do? Talk a good game? Lend some money or maybe send some supplies or weapons? How many European nations would send their sons and daughters to fight and die directly in a war in Asia? I'm thinking a lot of them would say, "What's this got to do with us"? Or say Israel instead of Taiwan? Or somewhere in the jungles of Africa?

Ukraine is primarily a European concern and while the U.S. can and should help, if the Europeans can't get their act together and deter this aggression in their own back yard now...when will they ever be able to?

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile, I suspect I should be watching this channel more often for the tactical reports (despite the channel being a little suss looking. I've posted them once or twice before.) Has a nice wargaming vibe.

And today's entry (from last night):

[Crossroads]

I understand the whole 'Florida' analogy thing but lets try a different one. We ALL have to stand-up to aggression by Russia right? What if tomorrow, the CCP invades Taiwan? Obviously the U.S. would stand by Taiwan and other local allies would too...probably. What would Europe do? Talk a good game? Lend some money or maybe send some supplies or weapons? How many European nations would send their sons and daughters to fight and die directly in a war in Asia? I'm thinking a lot of them would say, "What's this got to do with us"? Or say Israel instead of Taiwan? Or somewhere in the jungles of Africa?

Ukraine is primarily a European concern and while the U.S. can and should help, if the Europeans can't get their act together and deter this aggression in their own back yard now...when will they ever be able to?

With recent history in mind, the Multi-National Force in Iraq and the ISAF in Afganistan might give some answers?

[JudgeDredd]

I understand the whole 'Florida' analogy thing but lets try a different one. We ALL have to stand-up to aggression by Russia right? What if tomorrow, the CCP invades Taiwan? Obviously the U.S. would stand by Taiwan and other local allies would too...probably. What would Europe do? Talk a good game? Lend some money or maybe send some supplies or weapons? How many European nations would send their sons and daughters to fight and die directly in a war in Asia? I'm thinking a lot of them would say, "What's this got to do with us"? Or say Israel instead of Taiwan? Or somewhere in the jungles of Africa?

Ukraine is primarily a European concern and while the U.S. can and should help, if the Europeans can't get their act together and deter this aggression in their own back yard now...when will they ever be able to?

Well I don't know the answer and I suspect you don't either - and who would know prior to any conflict anywhere. As Crossroads pointed out, recent wars have shown support for other conflicts where destabalisation of the world order if you will has been given.

We can argue to what degree.

I feel for the US. As the world police, it costs you a fortune. The burden of world security falls on your shoulders. And it's a burden you've borne many times over the years (I remember Europe sitting on it's hands in one of the Yugoslav/Bosnian conflicts). And with that in mind, I would absolutely agree Europe needs to get their shit together and step up to the mark and face their responsibilities here. I'm on that train.

I was really pissed off when I heard Poland were preventing grain coming through from Ukraine because Ukraine had to move grain through land due to the (now defunct?) Black Sea Fleet. There's America throwing in billions of dollars and Poland were griping about the effect of Ukrainian grain...which was going to help keep them in the fight.

As for the Taiwan scenario - I'd like to think that if Taiwan asked the world for assistance, they would get it and that's all I can really say.

I simply believe - and it's an old fashioned view and I guess unpopular in certain arenas - that when a sovereign independent nation is invaded by a dictator (or otherwise) and asks for help, then I believe countries that view democracy as important and live by it should be doing everything they can possibly do to defend that democracy and absolutely should not be asking "what's in it for us" - we should just be giving as much assistance as is possible.

I also do agree that there needs to be a dramatic shift in the way this is being fought in order for Ukraine to stand a chance of breaking this deadlock. In my own tiny little head, that's more money and more weapons with absolutely no restrictions (well maybe some - not that I could think of any and there are bigger brains with bigger paypackets that can come up with those)

But the restriction on weapons not crossing the border should be one of those restrictions lifted. I still want either NATO in there, or Ukraine in NATO and then say "Right - stop".

Won't happen - so I'll just sit and watch with everyone else whilst Ukraine bleeds out

[Sir Slash]

I don't really buy the whole, 'Putin's marching on Berlin' idea but one thing for certain he would love to do above all others is to permanently divide Europe and the U.S. As long as that alliance remains, he can never really count on victory anywhere. European assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan was greatly needed and should be much appreciated. But those wars were begun quite a ways back. Both the U.S. and Europe have changed a lot since then. I wonder if either conflict would be considered too Imperialistic to be fought again today by some leaders in Europe or America?   

[Crossroads]

I wonder if either conflict would be considered too Imperialistic to be fought again today by some leaders in Europe or America?   

That is a good question. Maybe we can again look at the previous two examples. The premises for Iraq War were quite unpopular as many European nations did not feel the supposed existence of WMD would justify an invasion. Yet, many joined regardless. I think realpolitik still matters. Many nations participated as they believed in bilateral relations and that to expect help they would need to provide assistance as well.

In particular the new NATO members of the time and those aspiring to become one joined in. Ukrainians provided a brigade, lest we forget.

Then, what was widely felt as a justified war, in case of ISAF in Afganistan, almost everyone participated, including "pacifist" nations and leaders such as Germany.

Edit come to think of it, for the next year, the new president-elect is particularly known for having a transactional mindset. I have no doubt he would be able to negotiate a "deal" that would have a strong alliance behind him. Let us hope he is able to communicate that to China before they get any silly ideas. Regarding Judge's post below, I am not particularly a hawk, but believe in strong deterrence. Putin would not have acted like he did if not for two decades of having everyone bend to his will.

[JudgeDredd]

...I still want either NATO in there, or Ukraine in NATO and then say "Right - stop"

By the way - I may sound it - but I'm not a warhawk. And I really, really don't want the world to die in a firey ball of radioactive waste...if I did, wtf am I recycling my plastic and tins and bottles!!

But I just don't think the way to deal with a bully is to appease. And yeah - I use the bully analogy again because that's all dictators are. Well armed bullies - but bullies none the less.

The "democratic world" surely ****ed up when they didn't intervene in Crimea - shit probably even before that. It showed Russia just how uncommitted to protecting world peace the west was. Putin has been destabalising the west since he got in power - and western doctrine was to not really bother about it.

He needs put back in his box. The best way would be to piss off so many people around him that they take him out. Another way is to show him he's in a war he'll never win.

[JasonPratt]

I suspect part of the problem is that Putin doesn't currently care if he's in a war he can't win. If he himself is getting enough out of it to continue, he'll continue.

Meanwhile, if Russia intentionally targets an Estonian ambassadorial office in Kiev, does that count as a NATO / EU trigger?

https://x.com/KyivIndependent/status/1854872575026819184

https://x.com/KyivPost/status/1854885258031747455

De-escalation continues...?

Hat-tip to the Enforcer for providing the links. The Enforcer team comment on this near the start of their show last night, starting around 17:25. The forum engine doesn't accept time-stamp codes, but I've tested the time-stamp on the click-through. Otherwise randomly scroll for it in the window below.

https://youtu.be/Gc5T_Z3SPO8?t=1042

[JudgeDredd]

Well...don't they say that diplomatic areas are sovereign territory belonging to that nation? Maybe it only applies to official buildings and not residencies.