The War in Ukraine

[Skysix]

Russian perspective may be way off base to us, but assuming they think like us will not lead to any kind of successful peace other than by a Russian unconditional surrender. Likely only possible after a coalition of the willing or NATO become involved.

Russia has, to them, many legit reasons to continue until Ukraine is ethnically cleansed and no longer sovereign. So a ceasefire or armistice will only allow resentment to fester and capabilities to rebuild. 'Normal Russians' need to internalise their folly and discard their current beliefs before any meaningful stability will occur.

But while Ukraine may compromise on temporary occupation of Russian controlled territory to be resolved through future negotiation it will only do so if it has substantial security guarantees that are legally bound by treaty - NATO ideally and immediately once the war is over (with the definition of 'over' included in the treaty) or a new coalition of western guarantors that cannot refuse to substantially and militarily respond (with a definition of what triggers a response and the minimum level and methods of response)

 

[Skysix]

Russia: " how can we negotiate with a country that does not exist?"

Ukraine: "how can we negotiate with a country that has no honor?"

Trump: "I will stop the war in 24 hours"

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ukraine feeling the pressure...

 

[GR66]

I always find the Michael Kofman Ukraine War updates on the "War on the Rocks" podcast well worth the listen. A dispassionate view based on multiple personal visits to Ukraine. He's not terribly hopeful for Ukraine at the moment. By his take both Russia and Ukraine are "losing"...but at the moment Ukraine is losing quicker. He doesn't think there will be any major Ukrainian collapse this year but that they will continue to be ground down and lose additional territory.

As much as I'd love Ukraine to drive the Russians out of their territory completely that simply doesn't appear to be possible given Ukraine's mobilization issues and the numerical superiority of Russia (short of direct military intervention by the West which I see as highly unlikely and probably dangerously escalatory).

While many people suggest that Trump may abandon Ukraine and force them to make a crappy deal to stop the fighting, Kofman thinks it may be possible that Trump will actually remove Ukraine's restrictions on targeting and deliver more precision strike weapons so that Russia isn't negotiating from a position of strength in any ceasefire talks.

Assuming that's the case it might be in Ukraine's best interest to make some sort of territorial concessions as right now they are steadily losing ground against the Russians in Donetsk (and Kofman suggests the rate of loss is increasing).

What kind of deal might be acceptable to both Ukraine and Russia (at least for the short term)? Russia's stated immediate goals are to take over all of Luhansk. They hold Luhansk currently and a big chunk of Donetsk. They obviously will want Ukraine out of Kursk as well.

Ukraine obviously would like to regain everything lost to Russia since 2014 but barring some sort of total Russian military collapse I don't think anyone believes that is achievable militarily by Ukraine as things stand. The pre-2022 areas in Luhansk and Donetsk (and Crimea) held by Russia would likely be difficult to re-integrate into Ukraine as most of the people still living there are primarily Russian-speakers that chose to remain in the pro-Russian territories after the 2014 invasion rather than flee to unoccupied Ukraine.

Maybe a deal could look something like this?

• Russia remains in control of Crimea
• Russia remains in Luhansk (they already control it)
• Russia remains in control of those portions of Donetsk that they currently control
• Ukraine pulls out of Kursk and in return Russia pulls out of the entirety of Kharkiv, Zaporizhia and Kherson Oblasts

Russia doesn't give up anything that it currently holds in Crimea or the two primary Oblasts that it claimed as its war objectives (Donetsk and Luhansk) and it also regains its lost territory in Kursk.

For Ukraine they'd get back large chunks of territory in Zaporizhia and Kherson (including control of the Dnipro river, access to the Sea of Azov, the city of Melitopol and the symbolic city of Mariupol. Crimea would remain in Russian hands but all of it including the port of Sevastopol and the Kerch Bridge would be well within range of Ukrainian missiles. Furthermore the front line that Ukraine would have to defend would be greatly reduced, lessening the strain on their manpower.

Ukrainian NATO membership could be taken off the table for a number of years (until after Putin is dead and buried) but a buffer zone between the two sides could be held by NATO troops giving Ukraine a de facto NATO security guarantee.

Both sides would probably hate the deal but Ukraine would get most of its pre-2022 territory back along with some sort of security guarantee in the form of a NATO buffer force. Russia would get most of what they claim to be their primary objectives (Donetsk and Luhansk, keep Crimea and no Ukraine in NATO) in addition to a way out of what's looking like a forever war that will eventually destroy their country.

The key would be to first give Ukraine the tools to give Russia a seriously bloody nose (oil infrastructure? deep strikes in Moscow and St. Petersburg?) so they no longer feel like they have the upper hand like they do currently so will be more willing to give some things up.

 

[quadrapiper]

Wonder how much Ukraine's mobilization effort would be helped if your recruit, conscript or volunteer, knew they were falling in on more gear than they could ever use, and that the tubes and launchers had more ammunition than they could fire in a year of constant bombardment?

 

[Czech_pivo]

I always find the Michael Kofman Ukraine War updates on the "War on the Rocks" podcast well worth the listen. A dispassionate view based on multiple personal visits to Ukraine. He's not terribly hopeful for Ukraine at the moment. By his take both Russia and Ukraine are "losing"...but at the moment Ukraine is losing quicker. He doesn't think there will be any major Ukrainian collapse this year but that they will continue to be ground down and lose additional territory.

As much as I'd love Ukraine to drive the Russians out of their territory completely that simply doesn't appear to be possible given Ukraine's mobilization issues and the numerical superiority of Russia (short of direct military intervention by the West which I see as highly unlikely and probably dangerously escalatory).

While many people suggest that Trump may abandon Ukraine and force them to make a crappy deal to stop the fighting, Kofman thinks it may be possible that Trump will actually remove Ukraine's restrictions on targeting and deliver more precision strike weapons so that Russia isn't negotiating from a position of strength in any ceasefire talks.

Assuming that's the case it might be in Ukraine's best interest to make some sort of territorial concessions as right now they are steadily losing ground against the Russians in Donetsk (and Kofman suggests the rate of loss is increasing).

What kind of deal might be acceptable to both Ukraine and Russia (at least for the short term)? Russia's stated immediate goals are to take over all of Luhansk. They hold Luhansk currently and a big chunk of Donetsk. They obviously will want Ukraine out of Kursk as well.

Ukraine obviously would like to regain everything lost to Russia since 2014 but barring some sort of total Russian military collapse I don't think anyone believes that is achievable militarily by Ukraine as things stand. The pre-2022 areas in Luhansk and Donetsk (and Crimea) held by Russia would likely be difficult to re-integrate into Ukraine as most of the people still living there are primarily Russian-speakers that chose to remain in the pro-Russian territories after the 2014 invasion rather than flee to unoccupied Ukraine.

Maybe a deal could look something like this?

• Russia remains in control of Crimea
• Russia remains in Luhansk (they already control it)
• Russia remains in control of those portions of Donetsk that they currently control
• Ukraine pulls out of Kursk and in return Russia pulls out of the entirety of Kharkiv, Zaporizhia and Kherson Oblasts

Russia doesn't give up anything that it currently holds in Crimea or the two primary Oblasts that it claimed as its war objectives (Donetsk and Luhansk) and it also regains its lost territory in Kursk.

For Ukraine they'd get back large chunks of territory in Zaporizhia and Kherson (including control of the Dnipro river, access to the Sea of Azov, the city of Melitopol and the symbolic city of Mariupol. Crimea would remain in Russian hands but all of it including the port of Sevastopol and the Kerch Bridge would be well within range of Ukrainian missiles. Furthermore the front line that Ukraine would have to defend would be greatly reduced, lessening the strain on their manpower.

Ukrainian NATO membership could be taken off the table for a number of years (until after Putin is dead and buried) but a buffer zone between the two sides could be held by NATO troops giving Ukraine a de facto NATO security guarantee.

Both sides would probably hate the deal but Ukraine would get most of its pre-2022 territory back along with some sort of security guarantee in the form of a NATO buffer force. Russia would get most of what they claim to be their primary objectives (Donetsk and Luhansk, keep Crimea and no Ukraine in NATO) in addition to a way out of what's looking like a forever war that will eventually destroy their country.

The key would be to first give Ukraine the tools to give Russia a seriously bloody nose (oil infrastructure? deep strikes in Moscow and St. Petersburg?) so they no longer feel like they have the upper hand like they do currently so will be more willing to give some things up.

1) A deal like that would force Ukraine to put membership into the EU on a long-term hold as well, a pill tougher to swallow than the NATO membership dream.
2) Would also need assurances that Russia is NOT able to reinforce in any way, shape or form its current positions/manpower/equipment/facilities within Transnistria as this could lead to a 'stab in the back' to Ukraine and the further destabilizing of Moldova and a point of concern for Romania.
3) The return of each and every single child taken by the Russians into Russia.
4) What about prosecution of Russian war crimes? Either its put on 'hold' into Putin is moldering in an unmarked grave or coal mine shaft or, (about as likely as us getting 12 new Subs and another pair of JSS built), the identified Russian soldiers/officers (including any Ukrainians) are turned over to Den Hague for trial

Those 4 items would need to be included in the process.

 

[YZT580]

1) A deal like that would force Ukraine to put membership into the EU on a long-term hold as well, a pill tougher to swallow than the NATO membership dream.
2) Would also need assurances that Russia is NOT able to reinforce in any way, shape or form its current positions/manpower/equipment/facilities within Transnistria as this could lead to a 'stab in the back' to Ukraine and the further destabilizing of Moldova and a point of concern for Romania.
3) The return of each and every single child taken by the Russians into Russia.
4) What about prosecution of Russian war crimes? Either its put on 'hold' into Putin is moldering in an unmarked grave or coal mine shaft or, (about as likely as us getting 12 new Subs and another pair of JSS built), the identified Russian soldiers/officers (including any Ukrainians) are turned over to Den Hague for trial

Those 4 items would need to be included in the process.

If you were in Ukraine, given the history with GB, U.S. and Russia would you trust anything they said

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you were in Ukraine, given the history with GB, U.S. and Russia would you trust anything they said

My 'call name' on here is 'Czech_Pivo' - I'm aware of 1938 and the phase, 'Peace in our time.'

Though in fairness to GB, they did honour their treaty with the Belgians in August of 1914 and the Poles in September of 1939. Has the US ever had to honour a treaty that they signed and come to the aid of the co-signee?

 

[Remius]

My 'call name' on here is 'Czech_Pivo' - I'm aware of 1938 and the phase, 'Peace in our time.'

Though in fairness to GB, they did honour their treaty with the Belgians in August of 1914 and the Poles in September of 1939. Has the US ever had to honour a treaty that they signed and come to the aid of the co-signee?

Nope. But they themselves did invoke article 5. I think they are the only ones to do so.

 

[GR66]

Meanwhile Russia is getting North Korean artillery systems...

North Korean long-range artillery systems spotted in Russia

Photos of North Korean long-range artillery systems arriving in Russia have emerged on Russian social media, sparking fresh discussions over recent military collaboration between Pyongyang and Moscow. The images reportedly show the 170-mm M1989 "Koksan" self-propelled artillery unit being...

defence-blog.com

...at the same time as they are stripping film studios of their old military vehicles...

Russian film studio donates combat vehicles to military

The Russian film company Mosfilm has handed over fifty units of military vehicles and tanks to Russian forces, according to a report by Militarnyi news outlet. The announcement was made by Mosfilm's General Director Karen Shakhnazarov during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the...

defence-blog.com

 

[Remius]

Meanwhile Russia is getting North Korean artillery systems...

North Korean long-range artillery systems spotted in Russia

Photos of North Korean long-range artillery systems arriving in Russia have emerged on Russian social media, sparking fresh discussions over recent military collaboration between Pyongyang and Moscow. The images reportedly show the 170-mm M1989 "Koksan" self-propelled artillery unit being...

defence-blog.com

...at the same time as they are stripping film studios of their old military vehicles...

Russian film studio donates combat vehicles to military

The Russian film company Mosfilm has handed over fifty units of military vehicles and tanks to Russian forces, according to a report by Militarnyi news outlet. The announcement was made by Mosfilm's General Director Karen Shakhnazarov during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the...

defence-blog.com

Russia just needs to hold on until Jan 6th then their US friends will save them.

 

[Skysix]

I always find the Michael Kofman Ukraine War updates on the "War on the Rocks" podcast well worth the listen. A dispassionate view based on multiple personal visits to Ukraine. He's not terribly hopeful for Ukraine at the moment. By his take both Russia and Ukraine are "losing"...but at the moment Ukraine is losing quicker. He doesn't think there will be any major Ukrainian collapse this year but that they will continue to be ground down and lose additional territory.

As much as I'd love Ukraine to drive the Russians out of their territory completely that simply doesn't appear to be possible given Ukraine's mobilization issues and the numerical superiority of Russia (short of direct military intervention by the West which I see as highly unlikely and probably dangerously escalatory).

While many people suggest that Trump may abandon Ukraine and force them to make a crappy deal to stop the fighting, Kofman thinks it may be possible that Trump will actually remove Ukraine's restrictions on targeting and deliver more precision strike weapons so that Russia isn't negotiating from a position of strength in any ceasefire talks.

Assuming that's the case it might be in Ukraine's best interest to make some sort of territorial concessions as right now they are steadily losing ground against the Russians in Donetsk (and Kofman suggests the rate of loss is increasing).

What kind of deal might be acceptable to both Ukraine and Russia (at least for the short term)? Russia's stated immediate goals are to take over all of Luhansk. They hold Luhansk currently and a big chunk of Donetsk. They obviously will want Ukraine out of Kursk as well.

Ukraine obviously would like to regain everything lost to Russia since 2014 but barring some sort of total Russian military collapse I don't think anyone believes that is achievable militarily by Ukraine as things stand. The pre-2022 areas in Luhansk and Donetsk (and Crimea) held by Russia would likely be difficult to re-integrate into Ukraine as most of the people still living there are primarily Russian-speakers that chose to remain in the pro-Russian territories after the 2014 invasion rather than flee to unoccupied Ukraine.

Maybe a deal could look something like this?

• Russia remains in control of Crimea
• Russia remains in Luhansk (they already control it)
• Russia remains in control of those portions of Donetsk that they currently control
• Ukraine pulls out of Kursk and in return Russia pulls out of the entirety of Kharkiv, Zaporizhia and Kherson Oblasts

Russia doesn't give up anything that it currently holds in Crimea or the two primary Oblasts that it claimed as its war objectives (Donetsk and Luhansk) and it also regains its lost territory in Kursk.

For Ukraine they'd get back large chunks of territory in Zaporizhia and Kherson (including control of the Dnipro river, access to the Sea of Azov, the city of Melitopol and the symbolic city of Mariupol. Crimea would remain in Russian hands but all of it including the port of Sevastopol and the Kerch Bridge would be well within range of Ukrainian missiles. Furthermore the front line that Ukraine would have to defend would be greatly reduced, lessening the strain on their manpower.

Ukrainian NATO membership could be taken off the table for a number of years (until after Putin is dead and buried) but a buffer zone between the two sides could be held by NATO troops giving Ukraine a de facto NATO security guarantee.

Both sides would probably hate the deal but Ukraine would get most of its pre-2022 territory back along with some sort of security guarantee in the form of a NATO buffer force. Russia would get most of what they claim to be their primary objectives (Donetsk and Luhansk, keep Crimea and no Ukraine in NATO) in addition to a way out of what's looking like a forever war that will eventually destroy their country.

The key would be to first give Ukraine the tools to give Russia a seriously bloody nose (oil infrastructure? deep strikes in Moscow and St. Petersburg?) so they no longer feel like they have the upper hand like they do currently so will be more willing to give some things up.

That all sounds eminently reasonable and logical, to us. And that is the primary problem with this, and any other logical solution. They make sense TO US but are so far outside both sides belief structures and the way that either side thinks that these sort of 'logical' solutions are nonsensical to them.

Several basic problems with this plan also exist. The foremost of those is that neither side will even entertain that level of concession without a significant change in their capabilities. Enough to substantially alter the calculus within the Ukrainian population and also Putin and his clique.

The level of damage, economic and infrastructure, that Russia would need to suffer is such that Ukraine would not stop fighting. Similarly the level of attrition that Ukraine would need to experience to convince the population to stop fighting for their freedom is such that Russia would just keep on grinding away.

The "mobilization" issue in Ukraine is a western media red herring. The manpower exists, the weapons and equipment they need to complete the new divisions etc do not. That said, there IS an issue that is similar: Upper level command.

Currently the thought process is NOT to blend the experience of the successful units with the newly constituted units (once properly armed and provisioned) and to reconstitute existing formations fully with fresh manpower and weapons/supplies also from newly trained personnel.

Instead existing units are fighting and being attritted with minimal replenishment while most of the newly trained are still sitting in barracks as virgin, unblooded troops and leaders. This is the same mistake that was made in 2023. Expecting even fully trained and equipped formations to perform as expected in their first combat. Combined with not enough experienced commanders (O7 and up) being utilised and the existing Soviet trained ones still in positions of effective power.

If the west wants the war to END (not just pause) the key is EFFECTIVE and BELIEVABLE guarantees that are formalised by treaty and with clearly defined triggers and responses. Another Minsk or Bucharest style word salad is worse than useless.

And such a security guarantee needs to NOT be part of the NATO or EU framework (at least as long as consensus is required to act) although the EU security wording, as I have pointed out before, is more robust and meaningful than Articles 5 and 6. And should include AT LEAST one nuclear power (F, UK, US)

As long as the west continues to fund the Russian war machine by selling into Russia items it needs to fight, and buying oil it needs to sell for revenue, the virtue signalling preferred by Snake Sullivan does far more harm than good.

One potential good thing recently is the official permission by various countries for their citizens to join the Ukrainian army and fight. Stand up 2 full squadrons of "Flying Tigers" complete with a full loadout of unrestricted western weapons and maintainers then the battlespace will drastically and rapidly change.

Similarly seizing, emptying then sending to the breakers the "grey fleet" as part of thorough secondary sanctions enforcement will damage the Russian economy and hasten its collapse.

But what virtually all the well meaning "negotiate and end the war" people get wrong is the fundamental cultural differences 'they' have from 'us'. Russia will not negotiate in good faith with what it views as treasonous serfs (and CANNOT lest it lose even more satellites) and Ukrainians, having seen what their future lives/deaths as Russian subjects (slaves) will be like prefer to die fighting and taking as many Orc's out as possible than to see their descendants become enslaved and their culture/language/nationhood be erased.

This is not a 3 year old war, or even 10 years old. It is the culmination of a struggle that is at least 300 years old. Where the offspring of the Rus empire (Muscovy) has turned on its parents and by being more virile and aggressive, is trying to kill its parents and steal their estate.

My 2 cents.

 

[Skysix]

Meanwhile Russia is getting North Korean artillery systems...

North Korean long-range artillery systems spotted in Russia

Photos of North Korean long-range artillery systems arriving in Russia have emerged on Russian social media, sparking fresh discussions over recent military collaboration between Pyongyang and Moscow. The images reportedly show the 170-mm M1989 "Koksan" self-propelled artillery unit being...

defence-blog.com

US planners need to start thinking of the Russo/Ukrainian war as the opening moves of WW3 with Taiwan being the prize. The Axis powers strategy is to replace the rules based order with a modern form of the 'Great Game' of the 18th through 20th centuries. Then to supplant the G7 powers and become the new leaders/enforcers/beneficiaries of the world economy. Taking the Taiwanese semiconductor industry before the west can replicate it 'onshore' is essential to that aim. And China's demographics leave a narrow window to do so (2027/8). Iran and North Korea are sideshows albeit they have an outsize effect on the current conflict.

So, recognizing that defeating Russia soundly will:
(1) weaken Iran and its dreams of middle eastern hegemony,
(2) remove Russia from the "GO" gameboard for a generation or two,
(3) discourage rather than encourage China from attempting to strike while the west is distracted and still in a peace economy with their magazines/manpower partially drained,
(4) bring what is now the most LSCO experienced and innovative army in the world on board (as opposed to them contributing to Russian strength) along with their rapidly developing arms industry,
(5) blunt Kim's dreams of retaking the peninsula as a sideshow during a major China -vs-AUKUS/Japan/Philippines/South Korea conflict and
(6) put doubt (strategic ambiguity) back on the table as currently the world writ large does not believe the US will, or even can, fight them all off at the same time in a conflict thousands of miles across an ocean with their limited sealift/power far away from home when it won't/can't even do so in Europe with lots of ground access and airbases nearby.

 

[Maxman1]

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1gs3v54/one_of_the_koreans_fired_a_grenade_launcher_at

 

[Retired AF Guy]

My 'call name' on here is 'Czech_Pivo' - I'm aware of 1938 and the phase, 'Peace in our time.'

Though in fairness to GB, they did honour their treaty with the Belgians in August of 1914 and the Poles in September of 1939. Has the US ever had to honour a treaty that they signed and come to the aid of the co-signee?

I think YZT580 is referring to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances where Russia, UK and the US guaranteed recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1gs3v54/one_of_the_koreans_fired_a_grenade_launcher_at

Likely not used to having live ammunition

 

[armrdsoul77]

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-lifts-ban-ukraine-using-us-arms-strike-inside-russia-2024-11-17/

 

[Remius]

Likely not used to having live ammunition

Or any type of ammunition

 

[brihard]

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-lifts-ban-ukraine-using-us-arms-strike-inside-russia-2024-11-17/

Good. Make it hurt.

 

[suffolkowner]

same old same old from Biden though isnt it? tells Russia about new rules. Russia moves assets out