Current Affairs Ukraine

[PhilM]

There is a valid point there,but being realistic Ukraine can do no more than fight a battle of slow retreat. Which then involves more areas of higher civilian density. The last week has shown Russia going to a more long distance missile strike strategy which will no doubt involve more and more the areas away from the Donbass region. I know I'm being cynical but this war benefits the West post Covid economically and politically. See how Boris jetted off to Kiev to play make believe Churchill as the pressure on him built. The US economy is being boosted by the high oil prices and arms sales ( well lease loan) It's very easy to strategize from the comfort of our homes rather than cowering in an underground shelter. Time politicians stopped weighing their testicles and looked for a workable ceasefire.

You’re not. I said otherwise at the start of the war and here. It will be to the benefit of the west, but importantly it may (should) benefit Ukraine too.

That’s a difficult thing to say as well because there’ll be a serious cost in infrastructure, welfare and lives, but it’s balanced against the outcome.

If people could sign a peace deal right now that benefits Ukraine and curtails Russia, I suspect they would. But right now, I doubt if they can.

Russia can’t be allowed to be in a position where they move on to their next victim.

 

[davids]

You’re not. I said otherwise at the start of the war and here. It will be to the benefit of the west, but importantly it may (should) benefit Ukraine too.

That’s a difficult thing to say as well because there’ll be a serious cost in infrastructure, welfare and lives, but it’s balanced against the outcome.

If people could sign a peace deal right now that benefits Ukraine and curtails Russia, I suspect they would. But right now, I doubt if they can.

Russia can’t be allowed to be in a position where they move on to their next victim.

It's the split that always happens,what should benefit the most,the economic situation or the civilian population. In the short term its the civilians. I think the "move on to their next target" is western media rhetoric to justify Ukraine carry on with a war it can't win. The plane crash in Greece brings up some interesting questions.

 

[davids]

More random words

My point remains, it is, unfortunately inevitable, that we will see much more levelling of Ukraine by your boys.

Any peace deal seems so far away unless there is more going on behind the scenes as has been mooted

I'm Irish,they aren't "my boys" you really need to start posting like an adult. Remember you were going to "out me" post #14,462 is the one you want.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

I’m Irish,they aren't "my boys" you really need to start posting like an adult.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Enjoy your day

 

[davids]

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Enjoy your day

Too hot in mummy's basement ?

 

[davids]

Getting closer to home perhaps?

We must stop US nukes returning to the UK

Help us campaign against the return of US nuclear weapons to the UK with a massive nationwide billboard campaign.

www.crowdfunder.co.uk

 

[PhilM]

It's the split that always happens,what should benefit the most,the economic situation or the civilian population. In the short term its the civilians. I think the "move on to their next target" is western media rhetoric to justify Ukraine carry on with a war it can't win. The plane crash in Greece brings up some interesting questions.

It may be.

Or, it may be a reasonable prediction based on it's invasion of Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine coupled with its rhetoric to Moldova, The Baltic States et al.

Is that, really, a risk we're willing to take based on Putin being unhinged, as you put it. History shows that despots will continue if left unchecked.

Rightly or wrongly, a by-product of the current situation is that the Russian armed forces are being depleted in terms of leadership, men and equipment.

We could go into more detail about this - that's for another discussion - yet Russia doesn't have the backing of major countries like Ukraine has.

Yes they've got their fossil fuels and minerals, and yes there'll be some support from China and India, but Russia will end this war much, much weaker.

 

[davids]

It may be.

Or, it may be a reasonable prediction based on it's invasion of Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine coupled with its rhetoric to Moldova, The Baltic States et al.

Is that, really, a risk we're willing to take based on Putin being unhinged, as you put it. History shows that despots will continue if left unchecked.

Rightly or wrongly, a by-product of the current situation is that the Russian armed forces are being depleted in terms of leadership, men and equipment.

We could go into more detail about this - that's for another discussion - yet Russia doesn't have the backing of major countries like Ukraine has.

Yes they've got their fossil fuels and minerals, and yes there'll be some support from China and India, but Russia will end this war much, much weaker.

Think the last week has shown that Russia has entered a new phase of longer range strikes which will mean casualties will rise in the civilian population and fall on the battlefield. The Baltic States are under the protection of Nato so doubt strongly Putin would invade there. It aids the media narrative to stoke up the fear of Russian expansionism,while at the same time filling the newspapers and social media sites with reports of how poor the Russian armaments are and how badly trained and lacking in the will to fight their troops. Can both be true at the same time? It's interesting to debate on an internet forum but as I stated in an earlier post,we aren't cowering in an air raid shelter.

 

[davids]

Interesting take from a US military expert.
Stephen M. Twitty

President, Twitty and Associates, LLC; Principal Consultant, Deep Water Point; Former Deputy Commander, United States European Command (2018–2020)

TWITTY: "Well, as I take a look at this, you know, Secretary Austin came out that we’re going to weaken Russia. We have not really defined what weaken means, because if you take a look at the Ukrainians right now, I take a strong belief in Colin Powell’s doctrine—you overwhelm a particular enemy with force. And right now, when you take a look at Ukraine and you take a look at Russia, they’re about one to one. The only difference is Russia has a heck of a lot of combat power than the Ukrainians.

And so there’s no way that the Ukrainians will ever destroy or defeat the Russians, and so we got to really figure out what does weaken mean in the end state here. And I will also tell you, Richard, there’s no way that the Ukrainians will ever have enough combat power to kick the Russians out of Ukraine as well, and so what does that look like in the end game?"

 

[PhilM]

Think the last week has shown that Russia has entered a new phase of longer range strikes which will mean casualties will rise in the civilian population and fall on the battlefield. The Baltic States are under the protection of Nato so doubt strongly Putin would invade there. It aids the media narrative to stoke up the fear of Russian expansionism,while at the same time filling the newspapers and social media sites with reports of how poor the Russian armaments are and how badly trained and lacking in the will to fight their troops. Can both be true at the same time? It's interesting to debate on an internet forum but as I stated in an earlier post,we aren't cowering in an air raid shelter.

Yes, to some extent. Russian troops and armaments are comparatively poor, however they have enough of them and the capability to still cause damage.

In terms of weakening Russia, I'd guess that it's a four fold strategy: sanctions, isolation, sneaky beaky stuff and through a strong defensive front.

The UA may not have equality in resources, but they have manpower and a reason to fight - a force multiplier. With straining and equipment, they'll grow.

Will Russia have the will to continue a long drawn out war when faced with Ukraine being supported by the west? Will they be able to afford it? This is the crux of it.

 

[davids]

Yes, to some extent. Russian troops and armaments are comparatively poor, however they have enough of them and the capability to still cause damage.

In terms of weakening Russia, I'd guess that it's a four fold strategy: sanctions, isolation, sneaky beaky stuff and through a strong defensive front.

The UA may not have equality in resources, but they have manpower and a reason to fight - a force multiplier. With straining and equipment, they'll grow.

Will Russia have the will to continue a long drawn out war when faced with Ukraine being supported by the west? Will they be able to afford it? This is the crux of it.

And even if they win what cost to defend a Donbass border and the guerilla war the Ukraine would no doubt wage? My main point addressed the idea of expansionism,given that it's alleged their hardware is outdated and troops lack fighting spirit the idea that they would extend hostilities into the Baltic etc is a bit far fetched. I know propaganda from both sides is a large part of any war,but sometimes I read articles from the west and think they are trying to piss down my leg and telling me it's raining. Time will tell,but sadly time= innocent victims dying.

 

[PhilM]

And even if they win what cost to defend a Donbass border and the guerilla war the Ukraine would no doubt wage? My main point addressed the idea of expansionism,given that it's alleged their hardware is outdated and troops lack fighting spirit the idea that they would extend hostilities into the Baltic etc is a bit far fetched. I know propaganda from both sides is a large part of any war,but sometimes I read articles from the west and think they are trying to piss down my leg and telling me it's raining. Time will tell,but sadly time= innocent victims dying.

Now it is, but military planning isn't about the here and now. In an efficient military, plans should be drawn up a minimum of the next decade and beyond.

Yet, you're actually looking at a life cycle of at least twenty to thirty years, with a growing trend for a time-scale beyond that; R&D takes years to support this.

The West will be considering where Russia will be in five and ten years time; their equipment is shown to be relatively poor, so it's now about destabilisation.

How long will it take them to replenish their PGMs and at what cost? There's then their aircraft, tanks, IFVs, EW, SAMs... the list goes on.

With regards to the Baltic states, the more damage they do now to their economy and military the (likely) lesser of a threat they will be once this war is over.

In layman's terms, Russia isn't the power it (and perhaps NATO) believed it to be, but it isn't a walk over. What threat it will be in ten years, will be decided now.

Look at the Iraqi army in 2003 - although fairly comfortably beaten in '91, it was a pretty formidable fighting force, which never got back to strength for 2003.

Why? Their C&C was severely hit, their equipment and resources decimated, they became pariahs and their economy shackled through sanctions and whatnot.

The similarities are plain to see.

 

[tsubaki]

Yes, to some extent. Russian troops and armaments are comparatively poor, however they have enough of them and the capability to still cause damage.

In terms of weakening Russia, I'd guess that it's a four fold strategy: sanctions, isolation, sneaky beaky stuff and through a strong defensive front.

The UA may not have equality in resources, but they have manpower and a reason to fight - a force multiplier. With straining and equipment, they'll grow.

Will Russia have the will to continue a long drawn out war when faced with Ukraine being supported by the west? Will they be able to afford it? This is the crux of it.

A rather more pertinent question is whether we will, at least under the current sanctions.

In fact there is a very good argument to be made that removing sanctions now would actually do more to help Ukraine than keeping them up would, given that we are now supplying them with weapons in volume and it would cause all manner of prices to drop. It would be a help to the rest of the world, too.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

A rather more pertinent question is whether we will, at least under the current sanctions.

In fact there is a very good argument to be made that removing sanctions now would actually do more to help Ukraine than keeping them up would, given that we are now supplying them with weapons in volume and it would cause all manner of prices to drop. It would be a help to the rest of the world, too.

Would removing sanctions be a feather in putins cap though? Whilst it might help the people of Ukraine, it would also help the nation causing all the problems.
I just cannot see how peace can be achieved without zelenskiy ceding vast amounts of land and people to the invaders.

 

[davids]

Now it is, but military planning isn't about the here and now. In an efficient military, plans should be drawn up a minimum of the next decade and beyond.

Yet, you're actually looking at a life cycle of at least twenty to thirty years, with a growing trend for a time-scale beyond that; R&D takes years to support this.

The West will be considering where Russia will be in five and ten years time; their equipment is shown to be relatively poor, so it's now about destabilisation.

How long will it take them to replenish their PGMs and at what cost? There's then their aircraft, tanks, IFVs, EW, SAMs... the list goes on.

With regards to the Baltic states, the more damage they do now to their economy and military the (likely) lesser of a threat they will be once this war is over.

In layman's terms, Russia isn't the power it (and perhaps NATO) believed it to be, but it isn't a walk over. What threat it will be in ten years, will be decided now.

Look at the Iraqi army in 2003 - although fairly comfortably beaten in '91, it was a pretty formidable fighting force, which never got back to strength for 2003.

Why? Their C&C was severely hit, their equipment and resources decimated, they became pariahs and their economy shackled through sanctions and whatnot.

The similarities are plain to see.

And yet Russian oil and gas revenues higher than ever. And they are increasing trade with China and India and their influence in Africa has never been greater The US can indeed carry on trying to destabilise and drain the Russian resources,but then they won't have their gas supplies cut this Winter. It'll be interesting to see the European countries of Nato"s resolve to keep supporting the Ukraine at the end of January if it's a hard Winter.