Russia

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

You can respond to that with small scale retaliation, without escalation. I don’t think it’d ever come to that, you’re underestimating how big of a stretch it would be for Russia to launch an unprovoked attack on a NATO position.

Just seems like a pointless risk to take, it’s tough on Ukraine in the current situation but by keeping it as a proxy war we are killing Russians and depleting their military without putting ourselves in the firing line. Russia are taking massive losses and getting next to nowhere, time is on our side.

[Weston Super Saint]

34 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I dunno, it would make WW3 a lot more likely. What happens when a Russian missile takes out a load of NATO troops?

You seem to have missed that when Russia aim for troops, they generally just hit kids and churches and hospitals.

The troops will be fine.

[skintsaint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who said it was OK?

i'm sure Putin thinks it would OK.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Just seems like a pointless risk to take, it’s tough on Ukraine in the current situation but by keeping it as a proxy war we are killing Russians and depleting their military without putting ourselves in the firing line. Russia are taking massive losses and getting next to nowhere, time is on our side.

Time isn't on the side of the Ukrainians who are all dying. 

[egg]

55 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Ukraine aren’t asking for other country’s soldiers to defend them, they’re asking for as much help as possible to defend themselves.

Despite days like today, Russia’s ability to wage war is slowly being degraded. The fact that Russia is even talking about negotiations demonstrates that. (As well as several indications on the ground, not least Russia’s dwindling tank reserve stockpiles, the severe degradation of their anti-air capability ahead of the imminent introduction of F16s, and the increasing reports of Ukraine holding the advantage in drone warfare.)

As far as I’m concerned, I’m all for giving Ukraine all the help that it’s possible to give.

You and others on here have being saying that for ages. I think that's because you hope that to be the case. The reality is that they have more troops than Ukraine, and more weapons. The west have depleted their stocks to supply Ukraine, whereas Iran, North Korea, probably South Africa, and goodness knows who else are supplying Russia with what it needs. 

This is not a war that Ukraine can win on the battlefield. It'll only end by negotiation, it always does. 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Time isn't on the side of the Ukrainians who are all dying. 

Sadly they won’t stop dying until Russia is no longer able to attack them. That’s the problem really.

[egg]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

Sadly they won’t stop dying until Russia is no longer able to attack them. That’s the problem really.

Yep. And Russia won't reach that stage, hence the need for a diplomatic solution or a long term, and very deadly, war of attrition. Or the nuclear option. Literally. 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

You and others on here have being saying that for ages. I think that's because you hope that to be the case. The reality is that they have more troops than Ukraine, and more weapons. The west have depleted their stocks to supply Ukraine, whereas Iran, North Korea, probably South Africa, and goodness knows who else are supplying Russia with what it needs. 

This is not a war that Ukraine can win on the battlefield. It'll only end by negotiation, it always does. 

The west haven’t depleted their supplies at all, that’s nonsense. Western supplies are limited by how much money our leaders are willing to spare on this war, which is a politically sensitive issue. Hence why Russian stooges are trying to control the narrative abroad and turn people against the idea of supporting Ukraine. SA is a complete guess on your part.

There is no diplomatic solution, they tried that in 2015 with the Minsk agreements. There is nothing Ukraine can, would or should agree to in all of this and even if they did, it would just be a useful convenience for Russia. All they’ll do is regroup, resupply, then tell their own citizens Ukraine is attacking them and attack again in self defence.

This war ends when someone loses. We need to make sure it’s Russia.

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Sadly they won’t stop dying until Russia is no longer able to attack them. That’s the problem really.

Or until Russia stop attacking them. Because there is some form of agreement. 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Or until Russia stop attacking them. Because there is some form of agreement. 

Which wont be worth the paper it's written on, see my reply to egg, above.

[egg]

22 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

The west haven’t depleted their supplies at all, that’s nonsense. Western supplies are limited by how much money our leaders are willing to spare on this war, which is a politically sensitive issue. Hence why Russian stooges are trying to control the narrative abroad and turn people against the idea of supporting Ukraine. SA is a complete guess on your part.

There is no diplomatic solution, they tried that in 2015 with the Minsk agreements. There is nothing Ukraine can, would or should agree to in all of this and even if they did, it would just be a useful convenience for Russia. All they’ll do is regroup, resupply, then tell their own citizens Ukraine is attacking them and attack again in self defence.

This war ends when someone loses. We need to make sure it’s Russia.

Have a read:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231114-germany-says-eu-won-t-reach-ammo-target-for-ukraine

We cannot produce what Ukraine we need. It's a fact. We've given what we can spare, and can't give more. It's a fact. Russia are getting shit loads, it's a fact. I appreciate that you don't what that to be the case, and I wish it wasn't, but you can't say that something is so and it be so. That's not real life. Or the reality. 

Ukraine will not defeat Russia. They are losing ground, albeit slowly, but they are not gaining anything other than dead bodies and damaged infrastructure. That's the reality. 

How do you think this will go when / if Trump is elected? On the battlefield, or the negotiating table?

 

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Have a read:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231114-germany-says-eu-won-t-reach-ammo-target-for-ukraine

We cannot produce what Ukraine we need. It's a fact. We've given what we can spare, and can't give more. It's a fact. Russia are getting shit loads, it's a fact. I appreciate that you don't what that to be the case, and I wish it wasn't, but you can't say that something is so and it be so. That's not real life. Or the reality. 

Ukraine will not defeat Russia. They are losing ground, albeit slowly, but they are not gaining anything other than dead bodies and damaged infrastructure. That's the reality. 

How do you think this will go when / if Trump is elected? On the battlefield, or the negotiating table?

Russia has gone cap in hand to Kim Jong Un, that's not the action of a nation flush with abundant military supplies. Who is WILLING to supply who with how much of what is all a matter of political sensitivity. If you think NK and Iran are CAPABLE of out supplying the combined US and EU arms industries, you're on a different planet. They're both under massive sanctionsto the point that they have 50 year old commercial airliners held together with gaffer tape.

If Trump is elected, thousands of Ukrainians will pay for it with their lives. It's a grim outcome I've got everything crossed doesn't happen.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Russia has gone cap in hand to Kim Jong Un, that's not the action of a nation flush with abundant military supplies. Who is WILLING to supply who with how much of what is all a matter of political sensitivity. If you think NK and Iran are CAPABLE of out supplying the combined US and EU arms industries, you're on a different planet. They're both under massive sanctionsto the point that they have 50 year old commercial airliners held together with gaffer tape.

If Trump is elected, thousands of Ukrainians will pay for it with their lives. It's a grim outcome I've got everything crossed doesn't happen.

And Ukraine have gone cap on hand to the west. The difference is that Russia are getting the ammo that Ukraine can't. Re the sanctions, North Korea are known to be manufacturing weapons using US chips! The sanctions aren't stopping the North Koreans knocking out more ammo than the EU can. 

If Trump is elected there'll be a diplomatic solution. The EU won't stand against Russia without his support, and as per that article I've linked, they've shown an inability to supply enough ammo. It'll end in a deal. It shouldn't, but it will. 

[Jimmy_D]

28 minutes ago, egg said:

Have a read:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231114-germany-says-eu-won-t-reach-ammo-target-for-ukraine

We cannot produce what Ukraine we need. It's a fact. We've given what we can spare, and can't give more. It's a fact. Russia are getting shit loads, it's a fact. I appreciate that you don't what that to be the case, and I wish it wasn't, but you can't say that something is so and it be so. That's not real life. Or the reality. 

Ukraine will not defeat Russia. They are losing ground, albeit slowly, but they are not gaining anything other than dead bodies and damaged infrastructure. That's the reality. 

How do you think this will go when / if Trump is elected? On the battlefield, or the negotiating table?

 

I read that at the time. It’s out of date now, the EU have been putting a massive amount of money into ramping up production since then, and Ukraine’s shell hunger isn’t an issue now.

Russia have been making small gains in some areas, and are being pushed back in others. Between Ukraine now having authority to hit military logistics and materiel in Russia, the quality of North Korea’s supplies being sub standard, and Russia sending over 10000 troops to their death each week just to maintain their lines where they are, it’s no wonder that Putin is trying to get Ukraine to concede on the negotiating table.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

I read that at the time. It’s out of date now, the EU have been putting a massive amount of money into ramping up production since then, and Ukraine’s shell hunger isn’t an issue now.

Russia have been making small gains in some areas, and are being pushed back in others. Between Ukraine now having authority to hit military logistics and materiel in Russia, the quality of North Korea’s supplies being sub standard, and Russia sending over 10000 troops to their death each week just to maintain their lines where they are, it’s no wonder that Putin is trying to get Ukraine to concede on the negotiating table.

There's a lot of belief in the spin in there. If there really are 10k troops being put to the slaughter weekly I'd be staggered, but if so, Russia are able to put kit on their back and weapons in their hands. What's more relevant for the Ukrainian defence is it's ability to keep supplying the troops it needs, and we know from Ukraine themselves, that they're struggling on that side.

Got a link re the EU supply issue being remedied please? I'm sure I'd seen another saying that Germany supplies were held up until December 24, not solved, but hopefully that's wrong. 

Imo the negotiating table push will come if we get a Trump government. The push will be US led, not Russian. 

Edited July 8 by egg

[skintsaint]

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/east-asia/nroth-korea-army-training-russia-b2576401.html

NK training Russian troops. Russia must have lost a lot of skilled soldiers to not be able to train their own rookies.

[sadoldgit]

Whilst I agree that it will end (for now) around a table, I don’t think that Putin should get to keep his land grab territory. Perhaps an agreement on neutrality for Ukraine with no NATO membership? Not sure about EU membership though. Putin won’t like it but I don’t see why Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed to join. Feel gutted for Ukraine. It can’t be a great feeling knowing that other nations have a say in your own nation’s destiny - especially if Donald Trump is involved.

[Lighthouse]

Similar sentiments were mooted with ISIS ten years ago. As it was then, nobody can actually propose any kind of agreement that both Russia and Ukraine would agree to. That’s why there hasn’t been one and why there isn’t going to be one, at least one that’s in any way robust.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Similar sentiments were mooted with ISIS ten years ago. As it was then, nobody can actually propose any kind of agreement that both Russia and Ukraine would agree to. That’s why there hasn’t been one and why there isn’t going to be one, at least one that’s in any way robust.

I'll wager you that this will end around the negotiating table not on the battle field. There's zero chance of the latter. 

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'll wager you that this will end around the negotiating table not on the battle field. There's zero chance of the latter. 

And your (rough) proposed agreement is…

[egg]

15 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

And your (rough) proposed agreement is…

No idea. How do think it'll end on the battlefield? 

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

No idea. How do think it'll end on the battlefield? 

1. An indefinite stalemate. North and South Korea are still technically at war, the front line just ground to a halt at the current demilitarised zone.
2. The west stops backing Ukraine, they run out of weapons and Russia occupies the whole country.
3. The west keeps helping Ukraine, Russia eventually runs out of weapons from its allies and gets pushed back to their own borders. NATO/EU membership is then pursued with more rigour.

Which of these outcomes transpires will mostly be a question of western appetite to support Ukraine.

[egg]

21 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

1. An indefinite stalemate. North and South Korea are still technically at war, the front line just ground to a halt at the current demilitarised zone.
2. The west stops backing Ukraine, they run out of weapons and Russia occupies the whole country.
3. The west keeps helping Ukraine, Russia eventually runs out of weapons from its allies and gets pushed back to their own borders. NATO/EU membership is then pursued with more rigour.

Which of these outcomes transpires will mostly be a question of western appetite to support Ukraine.

1. Isn't that another way of saying a negotiated settlement with the land laying as it is at that time? 

2. That's a possibility if Trump is elected. 

3. I don't see that as credible. 

The big risk is 2 which is why I think there'll be pressure for a solution, and an incentive to Ukraine to agree one. As to outcome, if I was a betting ban, Russia to keep Crimea which lets face it Ukraine ain't winning back, and the remainder of the deal is that else is negotiated that Russia keeps of the land it's occupying. It's not a fair or just solution, but I think it more likely than 2 or 3 on your list. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Similar sentiments were mooted with ISIS ten years ago. As it was then, nobody can actually propose any kind of agreement that both Russia and Ukraine would agree to. That’s why there hasn’t been one and why there isn’t going to be one, at least one that’s in any way robust.

Difference being, the US was prepared to flatten swathes of the Middle East to defeat ISIS (not hard to find how many kids/schools/weddings were hit, just like what Russia did).

Not so quick to throw US/NATO boys at this one though.

If Ukraine cannot (or will not) agree to a settlement, how much more tax are we happy to pay to fund it all.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Similar sentiments were mooted with ISIS ten years ago. As it was then, nobody can actually propose any kind of agreement that both Russia and Ukraine would agree to. That’s why there hasn’t been one and why there isn’t going to be one, at least one that’s in any way robust.

Who was mooting negotiation with ISIS? I remember soggy suggesting it on here and how ludicrous it was at the time because he was roundly mocked. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I'll wager you that this will end around the negotiating table not on the battle field. There's zero chance of the latter. 

Agreed. That is almost certainly how it will end. Happy to revisit this thread in a year or two to see what the outcome was. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed. That is almost certainly how it will end. Happy to revisit this thread in a year or two to see what the outcome was. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/china-belarus-military-exercises-ukraine-poland-b2576381.html

Just to sharpen the minds a bit more

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who was mooting negotiation with ISIS? I remember soggy suggesting it on here and how ludicrous it was at the time because he was roundly mocked. 

George Galloway maybe?

[Lighthouse]

46 minutes ago, egg said:

1. Isn't that another way of saying a negotiated settlement with the land laying as it is at that time? 

2. That's a possibility if Trump is elected. 

3. I don't see that as credible. 

The big risk is 2 which is why I think there'll be pressure for a solution, and an incentive to Ukraine to agree one. As to outcome, if I was a betting ban, Russia to keep Crimea which lets face it Ukraine ain't winning back, and the remainder of the deal is that else is negotiated that Russia keeps of the land it's occupying. It's not a fair or just solution, but I think it more likely than 2 or 3 on your list. 

So your solution is basically that Russia gets everything that it’s taken so far, Ukraine gets nothing any Russia just gets to attack all over again when they’ve spent a couple of years reorganising. I can’t for the life of me see Ukraine agreeing to that.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So your solution is basically that Russia gets everything that it’s taken so far, Ukraine gets nothing any Russia just gets to attack all over again when they’ve spent a couple of years reorganising. I can’t for the life of me see Ukraine agreeing to that.

Let's see what happens. I bet you that a negotiated settlement is way more likely than your perpetual war scenario. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

So your solution is basically that Russia gets everything that it’s taken so far, Ukraine gets nothing any Russia just gets to attack all over again when they’ve spent a couple of years reorganising. I can’t for the life of me see Ukraine agreeing to that.

It's not my solution. I've said it's not a fair or just one. It's what I see as more realistic than a battlefield solution. 

Ukraine will possibly be faced with Trump in the midst of a harsh winter. What's the lesser of two evils, Trump leaving them as lambs to the literal slaughter and takeover, or salvaging what they can? 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not my solution. I've said it's not a fair or just one. It's what I see as more realistic than a battlefield solution. 

Ukraine will possibly be faced with Trump in the midst of a harsh winter. What's the lesser of two evils, Trump leaving them as lambs to the literal slaughter and takeover, or salvaging what they can? 

Exactly. No one sane wants Russia to get anything, it's just the most likely scenario. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Exactly. No one sane wants Russia to get anything, it's just the most likely scenario. 

Trump is the key player in this, but even if he doesn't get in or does and surprises us with his benevolence, the west won't sponsor an indefinite war of attrition, but Russia won't walk with nothing. Something will give. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Trump is the key player in this, but even if he doesn't get in or does and surprises us with his benevolence, the west won't sponsor an indefinite war of attrition, but Russia won't walk with nothing. Something will give. 

It's a balancing act. The least worst scenario is that Russia has somethibg to be able to sell to their people that the special operation to denazify an area was worth something. That would probably be the area like Crimea which they've had for a while anyway. Following that you'd do everything that can be done to secure the remainder of Ukraine (maybe that would be a good time to station NATO troops at a fortified border) with one eye on Russia lest they contemplate trying anything further. 

That is far more likely imo then a neverending war of attrition or Russian defeat. The only way it could end with some dramatic Russian collapse is if someone managed to assassinate Putin. 

[whelk]

Fuck me this thread. We’d have never won WW2 with the mentality of some of these posters.

[Weston Super Saint]

25 minutes ago, whelk said:

Fuck me this thread. We’d have never won WW2 with the mentality of some of these posters.

We'd have never won WW2 without the intervention of the US.

[whelk]

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We'd have never won WW2 without the intervention of the US.

Go you

[Sheaf Saint]

19 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We'd have never won WW2 without the intervention of the US.

Or, indeed, the Russians.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Who was mooting negotiation with ISIS? I remember soggy suggesting it on here and how ludicrous it was at the time because he was roundly mocked. 

I said that peace would only be reached in the end through negotiations. It all ends with negotiations. The issue is at what point do get to the position where an agreement can possibly be reached. We are nowhere near that yet and I can’t see Ukraine wanting to give Putin anything without pressure from the West. I just hope the West doesn’t bottle it.  Putin needs to be kept in his box.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

It's a balancing act. The least worst scenario is that Russia has somethibg to be able to sell to their people that the special operation to denazify an area was worth something. That would probably be the area like Crimea which they've had for a while anyway. Following that you'd do everything that can be done to secure the remainder of Ukraine (maybe that would be a good time to station NATO troops at a fortified border) with one eye on Russia lest they contemplate trying anything further. 

That is far more likely imo then a neverending war of attrition or Russian defeat. The only way it could end with some dramatic Russian collapse is if someone managed to assassinate Putin. 

Neither side would agree to anything remotely close to that. Ukraine won’t concede any territory as being legally Russian and Russia wouldn’t give the rest of it back and allow a stack of NATO troops to occupy it.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

I said that peace would only be reached in the end through negotiations. It all ends with negotiations. The issue is at what point do get to the position where an agreement can possibly be reached. We are nowhere near that yet and I can’t see Ukraine wanting to give Putin anything without pressure from the West. I just hope the West doesn’t bottle it.  Putin needs to be kept in his box.

No you said that there should be no bombing and we should try to get ISIS round the table to talk as if you could negotiate with a medieval death cult. There was no negotiation, they were largely just destroyed. By force. 

This situation is very different of course because ISIS is not a country. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Neither side would agree to anything remotely close to that. Ukraine won’t concede any territory as being legally Russian and Russia wouldn’t give the rest of it back and allow a stack of NATO troops to occupy it.

Like I said let's see in a couple of years. There won't be perpetual war for eternity. My bet is that my scenario will be a lot closer to what happens than what you've described. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Fuck me this thread. We’d have never won WW2 with the mentality of some of these posters.

What we didn't have in WW2 was loads of countries with nukes, and a possible new US president who loved Hitler and didn't give a fuck about the rest of the world. How do you see this playing out? 

[egg]

32 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Neither side would agree to anything remotely close to that. Ukraine won’t concede any territory as being legally Russian and Russia wouldn’t give the rest of it back and allow a stack of NATO troops to occupy it.

You're not facing the reality of western money and support waning, and the prospect of Trump. 

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

You're not facing the reality of western money and support waning, and the prospect of Trump. 

Trump doesn’t lead to a negotiated settlement. Trump leads to a weaker Ukraine and Russian success on the battlefield.

[egg]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Trump doesn’t lead to a negotiated settlement. Trump leads to a weaker Ukraine and Russian success on the battlefield.

In your view, yes. In reality, it won't get that far. US abandoning Ukraine leaves the European element facing up to Russia alone, and essentially ends NATO as we know it. That creates all manner of issues. If Biden runs, Trump wins imo. We have a small window to resolve this, and I think we will notwithstanding the rhetoric we heard last night. 

Edited July 10 by egg

[whelk]

14 hours ago, egg said:

What we didn't have in WW2 was loads of countries with nukes, and a possible new US president who loved Hitler and didn't give a fuck about the rest of the world. How do you see this playing out? 

I don’t think we appease Putin in any form. The cunt only did this as he viewed the West as fragmented and weak.

Yes Batman wants his tax cut but principles are at stake here. I am more Churchill and not Chamberlain. You don’t give in to bullies even if the consequences are tough

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

I don’t think we appease Putin in any form. The cunt only did this as he viewed the West as fragmented and weak.

Yes Batman wants his tax cut but principles are at stake here. I am more Churchill and not Chamberlain. You don’t give in to bullies even if the consequences are tough

Things is, even Chamberlain who was widely derided as weak and appeasing raised defence expenditure to 9% in 1938 and ordered thousands of hurricanes and spitfires and other military material. I dont see us doing even a tiny fraction of that.  

Edited July 10 by buctootim

[AlexLaw76]

On 08/07/2024 at 22:04, Lighthouse said:

The west haven’t depleted their supplies at all, that’s nonsense. 

This has been contradicted (from a UK perspective) today by one of the new Defence Ministers on Sky News.

 

[badgerx16]

 

Edited July 10 by badgerx16