Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Sir Slash]

The Ukrainian Long Range Attack Beavers can MORE than handle any Russian donkey. Not even close. 

[Jarhead0331]

interesting story about a female Ukrainian weight-lifting champion arrested by Russia on charges of being an assassin.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14381213/Ukrainian-female-powerlifting-champion-Russia-assassin-kill-defence-official.html

[ArizonaTank]

interesting story about a female Ukrainian weight-lifting champion arrested by Russia on charges of being an assassin.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14381213/Ukrainian-female-powerlifting-champion-Russia-assassin-kill-defence-official.html

Interesting. Last week another of Putin's thugs (Armen Sarkisyan) was killed in an explosion in Moscow. Suspected Ukraine assassination. This guy apparently had his fingerprints all over some of the war crimes committed by Russia.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/founder-of-pro-russian-paramilitary-group-dies-in-explosion-in-moscow/ar-AA1yltfZ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Uberhaus]

The Ukrainian Long Range Attack Beavers can MORE than handle any Russian donkey. Not even close. 

Laugh now, just wait until the Russian tech tree advances far enough for them to field superior mules.  Then your beaver ...  Nevermind.

Was going to go with an innuendo about power lifting, but I shall refrain.

[JudgeDredd]

Well - I guess it was always going to happen.

The administration isn't exactly saying it - I'm reading between the lines - back down Ukraine or the funding will stop.

Obviously it's within their power to do so - and maybe Trump is right - maybe the American people don't want to support a sovereign nation outside of NATO against Russian advances. And yep - there's an ocean between Russia and the USA and there's nothing but the old Eastern Block countries between Russia and Europe - and Putin is already working on Hungary and Serbia. Why is this a US problem?

Regardless - I've always thought Europe needed to take this more seriously. Problem is - with European countries in NATO, they're hampered to do anything to assist Ukraine because the US obviously wouldn't want Europe to do anything that might trigger Article 5. This has been part (perhaps a small part) of the problem from the beginning with giving weapons to Ukraine...Biden was worried how that would be viewed, whether it would result in retaliation from the Russia and whether that would force Article 5.

Either way - one of Europe's hands is tied by it's NATO membership. I'm not saying that's what's holding Europe back on this - they aren't totally committed (we saw this with the Bosnian(?) conflict) - but if they did get their shit together and fully support Ukraine, I fell that's where NATO's membership would hamper it.

Maybe Europe and NATO could come to some arrangement where Europe was acting independently of NATO - allowing them to act accordingly. But then, NATO would have to want to act accordingly.

Either Europe picks up the pace to stand with Ukraine outside of NATO or Ukraine is going to lose land. Best case - absolute best case - is they don't get back Crimea - which the US Defence Secretary has already said. Worst case, they lose the Donbas and the in between - probably most likely - is neither Russia nor Ukraine get the Donbas and it becomes a "dead zone" - much like the Green Zone in Cyprus.

[Sir Slash]

I believe what the administration has said so far is, it is unrealistic for Ukraine to expect to regain the 2014 borders, Crimea and all of the Donbas Region, nor for Ukraine to expect to gain NATO membership under a current peace plan. They cannot retake the regions by military force so why would Putin just give it to them? In deed, the Ukrainians can barely contain further Russian advances as it is now. If this war continues at it's current trajectory, Russia can eventually take as much territory from Ukraine as it wants in time. The only question is at what price?

We really don't know what the Trump plan for peace is so it can't be dismissed as simple surrender or appeasement. But you do have to look at the problem realistically. Ukraine cannot win this war militarily by continuing to do what they are now. They have to have time to recover their strength, reorganize their military, maybe fire some old dinosaur-generals, and build their economy. That's how they win. Any deal that stops the killing will help them most. That's why you see Zelensky adjusting his stance on ending this war. My 2 cents. 

[undercovergeek]

That doesn't really sound like a deal though -

You've lost everything you wanted back

You'll lose more than you thought you would

You won't get what you wanted with nato

Let's face it - that's surrender

[Con]

For a deal to be made both sides need to honor it 
One thing Putin has proven is that anything signed by him is worthless
Any deal will be used to further his aims and not to provide a lasting peace

[Crossroads]

Well - I guess it was always going to happen.

The administration isn't exactly saying it - I'm reading between the lines - back down Ukraine or the funding will stop.

Obviously it's within their power to do so - and maybe Trump is right - maybe the American people don't want to support a sovereign nation outside of NATO against Russian advances. And yep - there's an ocean between Russia and the USA and there's nothing but the old Eastern Block countries between Russia and Europe - and Putin is already working on Hungary and Serbia. Why is this a US problem?

Regardless - I've always thought Europe needed to take this more seriously. Problem is - with European countries in NATO, they're hampered to do anything to assist Ukraine because the US obviously wouldn't want Europe to do anything that might trigger Article 5. This has been part (perhaps a small part) of the problem from the beginning with giving weapons to Ukraine...Biden was worried how that would be viewed, whether it would result in retaliation from the Russia and whether that would force Article 5.

Either way - one of Europe's hands is tied by it's NATO membership. I'm not saying that's what's holding Europe back on this - they aren't totally committed (we saw this with the Bosnian(?) conflict) - but if they did get their shit together and fully support Ukraine, I fell that's where NATO's membership would hamper it.

Maybe Europe and NATO could come to some arrangement where Europe was acting independently of NATO - allowing them to act accordingly. But then, NATO would have to want to act accordingly.

Either Europe picks up the pace to stand with Ukraine outside of NATO or Ukraine is going to lose land. Best case - absolute best case - is they don't get back Crimea - which the US Defence Secretary has already said. Worst case, they lose the Donbas and the in between - probably most likely - is neither Russia nor Ukraine get the Donbas and it becomes a "dead zone" - much like the Green Zone in Cyprus.

It is in Putin's interest to continue the war. Russia is in war economy, getting out of which even in a case of complete victory would be difficult. What exactly would be his motivation to a lasting peace, unless he is absolutely forced to it..

The past two days have certainly been most confusing. Maybe there is a strategy for peace negotiations hidden behind of it all. I am not sure though. Kremlin senses weakness, and it despises weakness.

At the moment it sure looks like this conflict will linger for years to come, with flashpoints outside Ukraine, too.

[Jarhead0331]

The past two days have certainly been most confusing. 

This is by design. It is Trump's MO. For better or for worse, he feels it keeps everybody...and I mean everybody...enemy and ally alike, off balance and wondering. He will signal one thing  one day that favors one side's position and something else favoring the other the next day. This is in order to achieve concessions from both sides, which will be necessary in order to have a deal.

In my business, they say you know it is a good settlement when both sides walk away pissed. 

This approach seemed effective during the first term.

[JudgeDredd]

It is in Putin's interest to continue the war. Russia is in war economy, getting out of which even in a case of complete victory would be difficult. What exactly would be his motivation to a lasting peace, unless he is absolutely forced to it..

The past two days have certainly been most confusing. Maybe there is a strategy for peace negotiations hidden behind of it all. I am not sure though. Kremlin senses weakness, and it despises weakness.

At the moment it sure looks like this conflict will linger for years to come, with flashpoints outside Ukraine, too.

Yeah - I did read/hear somewhere it's in Putin's interest to keep the war going because he's got so many people tied up in the military and the military economy "laying them off" would be disastrous for him and the economy.

I was giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that he'd get a deal - and the deal will be "Russia - keep the land and  Ukraine - stfu".

Additionally, personally I think the language used over the last day or two has shown that Article 5 isn't really worth the paper it's written on when push comes to shove - and NATO countries should be wary of that.

I will re-iterate what I've said before so I'm clear - Europe hasn't done enough, needed to do more and relied too much on the US.

I still smell appeasement. I guess time will tell.

[Jarhead0331]

Why do you think Article 5 isn't worth the paper its printed on? I just watched Hegseth speaking at NATO HQ saying that the US is committed to the alliance and its obligations, specifically under Articles 3 and 5. I think the US position is that it is actually the European members of NATO who are not honoring Article 3 due to their low financial commitments to defense. This, according to the current US administration is what is undermining the alliance and the deterrent effect it is intended to have.

Hegseth in the speech coined a new term..."Hard power." Strongly worded speeches don't shoot enemies. Waiving flags do not shoot enemies. Weapons and ammunition do the killing. Hard power.

[JudgeDredd]

I've clearly no proof. And sure...the opposite is being said.

I think the idea that European forces would be required to police Ukrainian security (which I'm fine with) but outside of NATO is saying you're on your own.

Why has the UN - which is a peace keeping force - not been mentioned? That way, the world's forces are showing up against Putin and with the apparent backing and security of those countries.

I just have a very uneasy feeling it.

[Jarhead0331]

I've clearly no proof. And sure...the opposite is being said.

I think the idea that European forces would be required to police Ukrainian security (which I'm fine with) but outside of NATO is saying you're on your own.

Why has the UN - which is a peace keeping force - not been mentioned? That way, the world's forces are showing up against Putin and with the apparent backing and security of those countries.

I just have a very uneasy feeling it.

UN hasn't played a role most likely because both the Russian Federation and China are members of the security Council with veto power.

[Tripoli]

I've clearly no proof. And sure...the opposite is being said.

I think the idea that European forces would be required to police Ukrainian security (which I'm fine with) but outside of NATO is saying you're on your own.

Why has the UN - which is a peace keeping force - not been mentioned? That way, the world's forces are showing up against Putin and with the apparent backing and security of those countries.

I just have a very uneasy feeling it.

UN hasn't played a role most likely because both the Russian Federation and China are members of the security Council with veto power.

Just to dovetail off of Jarhead's comment: Not only would the UN require the approval to deploy peacekeepers, but UN peacekeepers would be pretty worthless in the Ukraine situation.  If, as is hypothesized, that Russia doesn't want a peace, then having UN peacekeepers would be worse than having none at all.  UN peacekeepers are only of use when both sides want a peace.  As an aside, I was a UNMO with UNTAC in 1993.  That was considered a successful mission.  But its success was completely dependent on all the factions wanting peace, combined with throwing huge amounts of money/aid at the country and the various factions.  IMHO, the UN is completely unable to act in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine.  Whle the European militaries could, in theory, act as peacekeepers, there is no way they would be seen as neutral by Russia or by significant elements of the civil population in the Donbass.