Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[KentVillan]

5 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

It’s worth drawing a distinction between humiliation on the battlefield and humiliation in a peace treaty. Germany’s humiliation after WW1 contributed to WW2.

Germany being humiliated in WW1 led to the Kaiser being overthrown and Germany (briefly) becoming a democracy. The humiliation worked fine in that regard, and this is what needs to happen in Russia - the outcome of the war needs to be enough of a humiliation that Putin is swept away, because there’s no chance of long term peace with him remaining in charge.

If that happens the sanctions can be steadily lifted provided Russia recognises it committed war crimes, etc. It doesn’t need to be permanent neutered provided it moves away from the current political setup.

Surely WW1 also provides a cautionary tale that if a strong and expansionistic defeated country wants to remain expansionistic, it shouldn’t be allowed to remain strong?

All fair points. I guess what differentiates this situation is that the total collapse of the Putin regime is probably not an option for Ukraine / NATO… at least, not one that can be driven by us. Because no matter how badly we defeat his conventional forces, Putin does have the nuclear option.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Because no matter how badly we defeat his conventional forces

There's not really much of a "we" is there?

It's Ukraine fighting vastly greater numbers Russian forces. I don't see either side "winning" or being "defeated". Russia will probably end up grabbing a big chunk of the south and east, or at least holding some sort of control over the pulverised ruins, corpses and UXO. At that point they may stop and declare "success", but then be subjected to sniping and attacks from UA forces for the next however long. That's not victory. Equally Ukraine can't defeat Russia, in terms of stopping them and turning them round to flee back and never shell or attack with missiles or artillery or tanks, even if UA gets hold of the ruins of Mariupol and the rest of the destroyed towns and cities.

So unless either the West joins in, or even less likely than that, Ukraine and Russia negotiate a genuine peace treaty, it's just a no win and no defeat situation as I see it.

The way out that ends all this is Putin going, and that's only gonna happen in a box I'd imagine. With Russian people being so oblivious as to what's being done, with various Generals and high up politicians being arrested or disappeared at the first hint of failure or dissent there seems little chance of a coup and replacement with someone willing to completely change the nature and direction of how the country is run and its approach to the rest of the world. For Russia's allies, China, Iran, Syria etc. there's no benefit in Putin going, he's useful for their needs and interests.

It's just horrible.

[PussEKatt]

Putin does not strike me as a person that will tolorate defeat.IMHO once he realises that the war is past winning he will definately use his nuclear weapons because that will be the last throw of the dice for him to win.He is the sort of person that if he goes down then the rest of the world will go with him.

[Genie]

Putin is close to claiming the East/South isn’t he? He’ll sell that as a win. Whether he can hold these positions long term is another question. 

[OutByEaster?]

12 minutes ago, Genie said:

Putin is close to claiming the East/South isn’t he? 

Well he's certainly got most of Kensington and Chelsea sewn up.

 

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

Putin is close to claiming the East/South isn’t he? He’ll sell that as a win.

The difficulty is he can't sell it as a win unless there is a settlement - for as long as Ukraine fights back and large numbers of people and kit are destroyed there's just no way. I guess that's why he's continuing to bombard other parts of Ukraine - to try to give himself leverage to negotiate a deal (as well as tie up UA forces away from the South and East). From Ukraine's point of view, more weaponry and help from outside gives them a better chance to push back Russian forces in the South & East and why they're desperately asking for more advanced and capable kit from NATO. What's been provided so far is not really of a sort to make a massive difference to the overall picture in terms of stopping Russia.

[foreveryoung]

24 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

Putin does not strike me as a person that will tolorate defeat.IMHO once he realises that the war is past winning he will definately use his nuclear weapons because that will be the last throw of the dice for him to win.He is the sort of person that if he goes down then the rest of the world will go with him.

Not a chance. He would then lose to Nato.

[limpid]

10 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

Putin does not strike me as a person that will tolorate defeat.IMHO once he realises that the war is past winning he will definately use his nuclear weapons because that will be the last throw of the dice for him to win.He is the sort of person that if he goes down then the rest of the world will go with him.

I doubt he's much like he's portrayed in the media. He's probably more competent than Johnson, but has completely isolated himself from anyone that disagrees with him leading to some of the (apparently) odd decision making.

Human nature would usually be to pin blame on underlings and make it their failure, not his. The concern then would be that the "Nazi" rhetoric will continue to be used to justify a recurrence in a few years when they need an internal political distraction.

[PussEKatt]

I think its ironic that Putin is trying to eradicate the Nazzies in Ukraine and the Germans keep buying Russian oil

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

There's not really much of a "we" is there?

It's Ukraine fighting vastly greater numbers Russian forces. I don't see either side "winning" or being "defeated". Russia will probably end up grabbing a big chunk of the south and east, or at least holding some sort of control over the pulverised ruins, corpses and UXO. At that point they may stop and declare "success", but then be subjected to sniping and attacks from UA forces for the next however long. That's not victory. Equally Ukraine can't defeat Russia, in terms of stopping them and turning them round to flee back and never shell or attack with missiles or artillery or tanks, even if UA gets hold of the ruins of Mariupol and the rest of the destroyed towns and cities.

So unless either the West joins in, or even less likely than that, Ukraine and Russia negotiate a genuine peace treaty, it's just a no win and no defeat situation as I see it.

The way out that ends all this is Putin going, and that's only gonna happen in a box I'd imagine. With Russian people being so oblivious as to what's being done, with various Generals and high up politicians being arrested or disappeared at the first hint of failure or dissent there seems little chance of a coup and replacement with someone willing to completely change the nature and direction of how the country is run and its approach to the rest of the world. For Russia's allies, China, Iran, Syria etc. there's no benefit in Putin going, he's useful for their needs and interests.

It's just horrible.

Is Ukraine really fighting a bigger force now though? Reportedly Russia is having issues getting enough troops, and Ukraine has trained and conscripted several hundred thousand soldiers since the start of the war.

Russians are fighting for nothing, Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland and vulnerable.

Russia may have equipment advantage if you count old soviet tanks and aircraft in storage, but experts seem to think that the manpower question is squarely in Ukraines court at the moment. The longer the war goes on the better for Ukraines soldier pool. Ukraine can rotate, feed and rest their best units while Russian troops are largely deployed in a country that is extremely hostile to them, getting harassed by territorial units and drones and having very few military trucks left.

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

The difficulty is he can't sell it as a win unless there is a settlement - for as long as Ukraine fights back and large numbers of people and kit are destroyed there's just no way. I guess that's why he's continuing to bombard other parts of Ukraine - to try to give himself leverage to negotiate a deal (as well as tie up UA forces away from the South and East). From Ukraine's point of view, more weaponry and help from outside gives them a better chance to push back Russian forces in the South & East and why they're desperately asking for more advanced and capable kit from NATO. What's been provided so far is not really of a sort to make a massive difference to the overall picture in terms of stopping Russia.

I’m not convinced that the Ukrainians won’t be able to roll back the Russians in the long term.

The Ukrainian soldiers seem much superior to the Russian ones, and I think even in a mass-mobilisation situation (which is still somewhat unlikely) then Russia is still going to run out of hardware sooner rather than later. They can’t build new tanks or precision munitions thanks to the sanctions and they have limited numbers of both remaining.

I think the aid to Ukraine is a mixed bag so far. The anti tank and anti air missiles and some of the recent drones I think are / were genuine game changers. Much less so the tanks / artillery / aircraft, or lack thereof.

Aside from a catastrophic defeat in the coming weeks, I think the main danger facing Ukraine is how they transition to Western stuff. They can’t easily replace the Soviet tech they’re using when destroyed/ consumed in combat and the West can’t resupply them long-term either.

Hopefully the US is working with Ukraine to slowly phase in Western tech so we can keep them supplied with artillery and long-range anti-air etc on an ongoing basis. The fact it’ll be more capable than what they currently have is a bonus too.

If we do that I can’t see Russia winning a war unless China starts supplying them military gear or the microchips they need to build it.

 

[LondonLax]

 

 

[bickster]

36 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

 

 

it's been prety much confirmed now that its definitely a Slava Class Cruiser and as only three were ever built, the other two are still intact it must be the Moskva.

[PussEKatt]

I notice,watching the news that Russia dont waste a lot of ammunition on military targets.

[Sam-AVFC]

1 hour ago, PussEKatt said:

I notice,watching the news that Russia dont waste a lot of ammunition on military targets.

Ukraine are always going to play their cards closer to their chest in terms of admitting damage to their military. I can't see a strategic reason not to flood the world with pictures/stories of dead civilians, in fact I'd suggest it has helped their global support immensely.

[PussEKatt]

Even the reporters on our TV ( who are actually in the Ukraine ) keep mentioning that the Russians are shelling civilian buildings.

[bickster]

It seems like Putin is changing the narrative for his home audience from sanctions won't affect us to sanctions from "Unfriendly Countries" are causing problems.

 

[Genie]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

It seems like Putin is changing the narrative for his home audience from sanctions won't affect us to sanctions from "Unfriendly Countries" are causing problems.

 

You have to think that slowly the Russian people will be coming round to the idea “they” are the bad guys.

[bickster]

Just now, Genie said:

You have to think that slowly the Russian people will be coming round to the idea “they” are the bad guys.

No, I don't think sanctions will have that effect. More likely that Russians blame The West / EU / NATO / USA for their current situation

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

No, I don't think sanctions will have that effect. More likely that Russians blame The West / EU / NATO / USA for their current situation

Yeah, the blaming is inevitable, but it must start to niggle in their minds “why is EVERYONE putting sanctions in against us?”.