Politics

[Rocked and Loaded]

The way how I see this:
Some territory is lost de facto. Not yet, de iure.

And there is no visible force to kick the Russians out, as of now. That is the fact.
That status can stay forever with "temporarily occupied territories" if they are not recognized.

On the other hand:
The long-term Ukrainian objective should be (and it actually is) to join the European Union.
A country CAN NOT join European Union if there is a territorial dispute.
Legally speaking, they are in a similar situation, as Serbia with Kosovo dispute. Not in EU so soon.

So, what is the long-term best interest for Ukraine?

Ukraine, territory-wise, has two options:
Keep stubborn, protest, complain, keep armed conflict, and stay out of EU.
Or, cut the losses, and move on, accept new borders, join EU.
Where is better? What is better? A country in the EU, or a country in the middle of nowhere (literally)

Now, as we can look at old media outlets with some distance, we can see the following.
- Invasion started 2022, with miscalculation on both sides. Russia expected a quick victory, and Ukraine expected endless Western support to kick the Russians out, which should be an easy win
- unprecedented military and financial aid followed.
- The Ukrainian summer offensive in 2023 failed in a fiasco
- Ukrainian offensive to Kursk, failed in FIasco
- F16's as last large material aid, so far has no significant impact, looks like more defensive roles in shooting down drones, a few f16 already lost
- Ukraine has no Navy (all gone).
- Tank brigades restructured to armored battalions, with other available armored vehicles. (Tanks gone?)
- Western material support and warehouses in EU are depleted after three years. (my country gave all its tanks T72 upgraded, to support Ukraine, and received nothing in return. This is a statement by our president. I can assume, similar situation elsewhere. With warehouses empty, Europe must first replenish, and then eventually give support, whereas the military support given so far was not sufficient. So how much more? Who will pay?

Which national parliament will vote to pay for the next brand new 100 tanks, 25 million each, to be sent to Ukraine? For rearmament of own country, yes, but a brand new 25 million dollar tank, to be sent to Ukraine with fresh paint? What about planes? Artillery? Patriots? Shells? Ammunitions? For a non-EU, and non-NATO Country? Hmmm... This is the dilemma?

If two major counteroffensives fully supported by the collective West that Ukraine could mount failed, what else can be mounted for future offensives? What else is needed? And of course, who will pay?

These share some of my thoughts.

I think we can make sober, realistic, assessments of the situation without it being an endorsement of anything Putin has done.

Politics aside, I think the war has reached a point where there will be no major shift unless there is a massive escalation of arms and manpower. A decision has to be made as to whether a long term stalemate is something the west wants to support and for how long? I suspect the public would support it for a time but not indefinitely and the longer the war continues, the more likely it is that a future presidency decides to pull out when it’s less popular with voters.

 

[mark-hunter]

A decision has to be made as to whether a long term stalemate is something the west wants to support and for how long?

The "west" is not an entirely defined term.

I think the US will be able to reposition itself and define its interests with emerging political challenges with its global influence.
At the same time, EU has a bit of lost its course. And whatever interest and future policy they take, it does not necessarily mean it will be aligned with US and Nato.

Lets not forget:
EU is an organisation of sovereign European countries that share common values.
The question is, what are the common values? (Lets call them interests)

There is one and only to my understanding: it is common economic prosperity as a common value.

It is not: war on the Eastern Front, and it is not economic decline, and the economy is closely related to cheap energy. Individual countries did not sign up for that.
In case of those options emerging, each EU member country will have its own strategic and economic interests articulated loudly.

I am not sure how much American media follows, but there have been several new military alliances signed under the radar of Nato.
Coalitian of the willing (UK, Germany, Poland, France)
A separate military cooperation agreement between Germany and the UK.
Then, a Balkan military cooperation agreement: Croatia, Kosovo, and Albania.
And most surprisingly, Hungary - Serbia signed, military cooperation agreement.
Now, what does Serbia (non-EU and non-NATO country) have to do with Hungary (Nato member, EU member)? The news came out shortly. Hungary and Serbia are building new oil pipeline to establish russian oil delivery to Hungary, and central Europe - bypassing all of EU sanctions and policies. To be operational by 2027.

How all of that is going to develop in EU is hard to say, but my impression is that some Nato members do not see Nato as a panacea, solution for all eventualities. What I see here are the cracks in relations which will have to be addressed and fixed, or further deteriorations are very possible.

 

[mark-hunter]

I think what you offer is a valid small nation perspective. But Ukraine actually is not one. Indeed, after three years of war and without offering the numerous caveats available with respect to weapons and losses, I would argue they currently represent the most powerful military purely in Europe.

Thanks for the comments red leg!
I think that the most capable armies today, with modern warfare experience, are Ukraine, America, Israel, and Russia.
And I sincerely hope America and Russia do not confront each other ever.
Now Ukraine is pushing for mobilisations: ages 20 and age 60 and over. This is not a good signal.
Manpower is depleted, as it seems. This reminds me of Germany 1945, I cannot think of any similar example after. So, who will drive the tanks?
25% of the population has already emigrated to other countries. Able-bodied manpower has been reduced. For how long is this effort feasible?

With defined trends, and if the war does not stop, what will develop in the next three years, in the same period as the war lasted till now? Say, till the end of President Trump's term? What possibly can?

I can see nothing but a further russian push westward (as slow as it is, being sufficient till now), and the possibility of losing Odessa. And in that eventuality, Ukraine becomes land locked country, on the borders of EU. No scenario is good for Ukraine.

All in all, peace deal, truce, cease fire, and let the politicians and diplomats do the best they can.
The present reality is grim.

 

[Levubu]

Trump and Putin, side by side.

 

[Wheels]

One perspective not really mentioned is what do the Ukrainian people want. With the 2024 election cancelled we really don’t know. On a smaller scale what do the Ukrainian people in the Donbas want. An area of both Ukrainian and Russian heritage was in a civil war for eight years prior to the 2022 Russian invasion.

 

[Altitude sickness]

One perspective not really mentioned is what do the Ukrainian people want. With the 2024 election cancelled we really don’t know. On a smaller scale what do the Ukrainian people in the Donbas want. An area of both Ukrainian and Russian heritage was in a civil war for eight years prior to the 2022 Russian invasion.

That’s a great question, and I agree that they should have a say. but the problem is you can’t run a country that way.

Pretty soon each region and ethnic group and language dialect would become their own country, or split off with the neighboring countries.

What would the U.S. feds do if Texas or Alaska wanted to become their own countries ? They would never allow it and it would eventually go to an armed conflict. Similar to the north and south in the Civil War.

DC would not let any state secede without military action.

OK, that’s not entirely true. Maybe they would allow California or Massachusetts joking, of course

 

[Wheels]

Definitely understand what you are saying. I mentioned Donbas since that is the area that seems to be negotiated over in this case. It would be interesting to know their thoughts regardless of how negotiations go.

I know nothing about this poll other than CNN is using it. It does seem telling as to the Ukrainian people’s thoughts however.

 

[Red Leg]

One perspective not really mentioned is what do the Ukrainian people want. With the 2024 election cancelled we really don’t know. On a smaller scale what do the Ukrainian people in the Donbas want. An area of both Ukrainian and Russian heritage was in a civil war for eight years prior to the 2022 Russian invasion.

I think the referendum of 1991, however long ago, still offers some meaningful clues. Voter turnout was 84.2% and 90.3% voted for independence from the Soviet Union. The only area that was close was Crimea where 54% supported independence and only 67.5% participated. In Donetsk, 83.9% supported independence and in 83.6% supported independence. Those numbers would obviously include a lot of Russian speakers.

Like the South Vietnam model, there was sufficient mass in the Donbass for the Kremlin to instigate a guerilla movement.

Most legitimate analysts would concur that a free repeat referendum would show similar results with respect to independence from Russia's boot heel. However, I have no doubt the country is weary of this war and recent surveys show a growing willingness to give up some territory for a secure peace. Edit: such as you just listed.

It is worth noting that wars for self-determination can be rather long things. Our own revolution is a good example. It went on for eight years and was as much civil war as a war with the British Empire.

 

[Wheels]

I think the referendum of 1991, however long ago, still offers some meaningful clues. Voter turnout was 84.2% and 90.3% voted for independence from the Soviet Union. The only area that was close was Crimea where 54% supported independence and only 67.5% participated. In Donetsk, 83.9% supported independence and in 83.6% supported independence. Those numbers would obviously include a lot of Russian speakers.

Like the South Vietnam model, there was sufficient mass in the Donbass for the Kremlin to instigate a guerilla movement.

Most legitimate analysts would concur that a free repeat referendum would show similar results with respect to independence from Russia's boot heel. However, I have no doubt the country is weary of this war and recent surveys show a growing willingness to give up some territory for a secure peace. Edit: such as you just listed.

It is worth noting that wars for self-determination can be rather long things. Our own revolution is a good example. It went on for eight years and was as much civil war as a war with the British Empire.

I agree with everything you said here.

Polls like the above change when a father, husband, son, brother are killed or maimed. When the farm or job to support the family is lost. It is definitely the job of the elected government to make decisions in war without relying on the feelings of the masses on a particular date.

There are times for Marshall law. Marshall law shutting down an election is not something I am in favor of however even when difficult to implement. America had two elections in the middle of war on the American continent as I recall, 1812 and 1864, so it can be done. Would Zelensky be President today and making the determination of how this war may or may not end if he had allowed elections. That is the issue I see in the current situation.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I don’t know squat. I just offer my opinions.

One thing I can safely say is the world should thank God I am not the US President or never made it to O10 or above.

After the Anchorage meeting, I would most likely have us in a hot war with Russia. At the very least I would be backing Ukraine hammering Moscow is into submission at this very minute.

I wouldn’t pick up the phone to negotiate for at least six months of pounding Russia. After six months, I would ask if they were ready to be serious.

I also most likely would not take any nuclear weapons as a real threat. They know we know most of their platforms don’t work and ours definitely work.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I don’t know squat. I just offer my opinions.

One thing I can safely say is the world should thank God I am not the US President or never made it to O10 or above.

After the Anchorage meeting, I would most likely have us in a hot war with Russia. At the very least I would be backing Ukraine hammering Moscow is into submission at this very minute.

I wouldn’t pick up the phone to negotiate for at least six months of pounding Russia. After six months, I would ask if they were ready to be serious.

I also most likely would not take any nuclear weapons as a real threat. They know we know most of their platforms don’t work and ours definitely work.

You just got my vote.

 

[Red Leg]

I agree with everything you said here.

Polls like the above change when a father, husband, son, brother are killed or maimed. When the farm or job to support the family is lost. It is definitely the job of the elected government to make decisions in war without relying on the feelings of the masses on a particular date.

There are times for Marshall law. Marshall law shutting down an election is not something I am in favor of however even when difficult to implement. America had two elections in the middle of war on the American continent as I recall, 1812 and 1864, so it can be done. Would Zelensky be President today and making the determination of how this war may or may not end if he had allowed elections. That is the issue I see in the current situation.

I really believe that is a red herring often raised by the anti-Zelensky crowd. With respect to Ukraine, the Rada, including the opposition parties, made, and have extended, the marshal law decision - not Zelensky alone. With respect to the US, it has not faced a situation like Ukraine during a presidential election.

During the War Between the States, the Southern states simply did not participate. Moreover, Democrat opposition to Lincoln was more symbolic than real - in spite of McClellan's sense of his own importance. During the War of 1812 there were limited incursions (i.e. Washington DC) but no swaths of the nation were ever occupied.

I am confident were we engaged in an analogous existential war with China in which they occupied a quarter of the country including all the west coast and Hawaii, and against which our total mobilized armed forces were engaged, we would not be conducting presidential elections as usual.

 

[Red Leg]

The generally universal non-triumphant assessments of Trump's "negotiations" with Putin seem to have stung a little.

 

[Red Leg]

And perhaps one of you can translate this for me. It is generally accepted that Russia started this war through an invasion. It could end it today by simply withdrawing. But if I read this correctly (there is some doubt), in Trump's twisted world view, it is the fault of Obama and Zelensky and Zelensky should end it by surrendering. Were this Biden writing this gibberish the right would howling with laughter. I am merely sick to my stomach.

The European leaders accompanying Zelensky today have to be rolling their collective eyes.

 

[steve white]

I really believe that is a red herring often raised by the anti-Zelensky crowd. With respect to Ukraine, Rada, including the opposition parties, made, and have extended, the marshal law decision - not Zelensky alone. With respect to the US, it has not faced a situation like Ukraine during a presidential election.

During the War Between the States, the Southern states simply did not participate. Moreover, Democrat opposition to Lincoln was more symbolic than real - in spite of McClellan's sense of his own importance. During the War of 1812 there were limited incursions (i.e. Washington DC) but no swaths of the nation were ever occupied.

I am confident were we engaged in an analogous existential war with China in which they occupied a quarter of the country including all the west coast and Hawaii, and against which our total mobilized armed forces were engaged, we would not be conducting presidential elections as usual.

"no swath of the nation was ever occupied" because of a line of accurate riflemen in New Orleans under command of Andrew Jackson...

 

[steve white]

I don’t know squat. I just offer my opinions.

One thing I can safely say is the world should thank God I am not the US President or never made it to O10 or above.

After the Anchorage meeting, I would most likely have us in a hot war with Russia. At the very least I would be backing Ukraine hammering Moscow is into submission at this very minute.

I wouldn’t pick up the phone to negotiate for at least six months of pounding Russia. After six months, I would ask if they were ready to be serious.

I also most likely would not take any nuclear weapons as a real threat. They know we know most of their platforms don’t work and ours definitely work.

"most of their platforms don't work, and ours definitely work". Are we 100% certain they will work after an EMP attack by EMP maximizing weapons?

Maybe OT, but despite the constant drumbeat of Sen. Hall in Texas, we cannot get EMP hardening of our essential electrical infrastructure hardened in our state alone, much less the nation. Before I yanked anyone's nuclear chain, I would take care of that ASAP. In fact, it could be argued that electrical hardening would be a deterence to anyone thinking of detonating such a weapon, knowing that we would not only be able to respond, but be able to overcome the effects on society as well. Right now? Let's be honest--that may be our biggest weakness...

 

[steve white]

I think what you offer is a valid small nation perspective. But Ukraine actually is not one. Indeed, after three years of war and without offering the numerous caveats available with respect to weapons and losses, I would argue they currently represent the most powerful military purely in Europe.

What they have accomplished logistically with a kaleidoscope of weaponry and munitions from Soviet stocks to current production from the West is something I would have predicted as impossible just a few years ago. Their drone innovation has changed warfare. Since the defeat of the initial Russian offensive, Russia has gained only an additional 1% of Ukrainian territory at the cost of a million casualties.

The F-16 is a fine 4th generation fighter. But it is not a penetrator acting on its own. In US hands, it would only be used over hostile territory once stealth aircraft and long range missile fires had neutralized enemy air defenses. Ukraine does not have that option. As a result, it is primarily being used as a cruise missile interceptor. I would note the Russian air force has proven itself totally ineffective following the first weeks of the conflict.

The 2023 offensive did indeed fail. NATO, to include US leadership, pushed Ukraine to attempt it with inadequate forces and training. I disagree with your assessment of the Kursk offensive. Its purpose was to relieve pressure on the Donetsk front as the current defensive belt was completed. In that it succeeded. It also represented a political and military embarrassment to Russian leadership. I suspect Ukraine was surprised by its initial success. Because of it they were able to tie down 70,000 Russian troops, force Putin on his knees to Pyongyang for more, and inflict over thirty thousand casualties.

Other than Russia, the only nation that has failed in this conflict has been the US. Unlike the rest of NATO, the US has vast stockpiles of modern armored vehicles that could have been provided to Ukraine in numbers that would have overwhelmed Russia's older and far less capable reserve weaponry. The Biden administration, in what is still an unfathomable set of decisions decided instead on a minimalist strategy that simply kept the UA in the fight.

3700 M1 Abrams tanks are currently sitting in storage. They will never again be used by American forces in combat. Yes, much of that inventory would take work to make combat ready, but even the oldest models are an overmatch for any T-72 or T64 that ever rolled of an assembly line. The Biden administration provided a grand total of 31. Those 3700 are still sitting there and represent an offensive capability for which Russia would have no meaningful answer - as do over 800 M2 Brads.

But to your primary point, yes, with the failure of the US to provide meaningful offensive military capability, Ukraine will have to cede territory to achieve "peace." (And no, the weaponry provided by the first Trump administration also was not of an offensive capability nature). I am absolutely certain that Russia could be forced to withdraw from the portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia they currently control for clear "title" to the Crimea and what they hold in the Donbas. Sadly, I see the Trump administration is as loathe to use diplomatic pressure as Biden was to provide meaningful military aid.

One would think that Trump would at least offer to SELL those Abrams to Ukraine.

 

[deewayne2003]

And perhaps one of you can translate this for me. It is generally accepted that Russia started this war through an invasion. It could end it today by simply withdrawing. But if I read this correctly (there is some doubt), in Trump's twisted world view, it is the fault of Obama and Zelensky and Zelensky should end it by surrendering. Were this Biden writing this gibberish the right would howling with laughter. I am merely sick to my stomach.

The European leaders accompanying Zelensky today have to be rolling their collective eyes.

View attachment 707664

@Red Leg - I honestly believe that Trump does not believe that Obama and Zelensky started this war, I believe he is trying to play to Putin's ego on this and give him semblance of being in the right an thus more likely to come to an agreement.

"It could end it today by simply withdrawing." - No truer words have been spoken about this situation from day one, but that would mean Putin loosing face; something he simply will not do no matter the cost of life.

I genuinely believe that Putin is the definition of a megalomaniac; at the very least he has to be seen as having achieved something meaningful from the invasion, anything less and he is more than willing to keep this going indefinitely.

The question being - What is Ukraine willing to give up (as unjust as it may be) to end the conflict that is costing them dearly by the day.

 

[The creed]

@Red Leg - I honestly believe that Trump does not believe that Obama and Zelensky started this war, I believe he is trying to play to Putin's ego on this and give him semblance of being in the right an thus more likely to come to an agreement.

"It could end it today by simply withdrawing." - No truer words have been spoken about this situation from day one, but that would mean Putin loosing face; something he simply will not do no matter the cost of life.

I genuinely believe that Putin is the definition of a megalomaniac; at the very least he has to be seen as having achieved something meaningful from the invasion, anything less and he is more than willing to keep this going indefinitely.

The question being - What is Ukraine willing to give up (as unjust as it may be) to end the conflict that is costing them dearly by the day.
View attachment 707665

this is a fair point. but to my assessment Zelensky is a leader that doesn't love his people. its well established he will lose more than he'll gain.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

The Cambridge Dictionary, definition of a Megalomaniac: someone who has an unnaturally strong wish for power and control, or thinks that they are much more important and powerful than they really are.

I genuinely believe that Putin is the definition of a megalomaniac.

You do realize there were two megalomaniacs in Alaska last Friday, right?