I didn't realize the Russians had mobilized T-62's. How low on equipment are they that they're pulling 40 year old tanks out of mothballs?
I didn't realize the Russians had mobilized T-62's. How low on equipment are they that they're pulling 40 year old tanks out of mothballs?
well, now that Pootin has annexed Ukraine, he can set off a nuke there without it being an attack, yes?
aircooled said:I could easily see how Ukraine not taking back some of the territory is essentially good for Ukraine. Crimea and Donetsk and maybe part of Luhansk have already been very corrupted by Russia, and have had Russian leanings from way before this conflict (some of it very much created by Russia of course). The Russians have almost certainly "cleansed" most of the Ukrainian leaning citizens there by now. It could be a huge nightmare for Ukraine to administer there.
I would suggest that maybe they let Russia keep those areas, subject to some restrictions of course, but maintain mineral rights to at least the coastal regions of Crimea. Demilitarizing those areas also seems like a good idea.
And as O2 will certainly say, the end of the fighting has little to do with what Ukraine wants to do and very much what the Western powers (and mostly the US) are willing to do (or more to the point, spend).
Are they *that* russian? Having enough russians there to find people who are willing to kill people isn't the same as the actual majority of the population.
Especially when you take into account 1) the path that Ukraine and Russia were on prior to the war, and 2) the way vlad has run this war. russia seems to be in very deep do-do going forward in the economic sense for God knows how long- the EU is going to massively accelerate their reliance on HC, for instance. And other than a handful of companies- most of which are exporters instead of importers- who is going to want to do business with vlad and his cronies?
On the other hand, as bad as Ukraine is, it's still a lot better than russia WRT economics and opportunity. With the way most of the world sees this- all I can see is their opportunity growing- with a little investment, Ukraine can at least increase the amount of food they export- they are in a great growing area for some things. What about everything else?
So I would not jump on what a group of fighters wanted for an area prior to the conflict as the representation of the whole population.
Ukraine has also been "Ukraine" since 1992 and that only changed in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and Donbass. Heck, Ukraine even sold China it's current functional Aircraft carrier.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Technically yes? But I believe it still has to go though a chain of command his generals can stop.
So far it seems like NATO and the White House aren't worried and the annexation was more to vacuum up more Ukrainians as meatshields and to depopulate the countryside.
02Pilot said:The advantage to pushing for a deal now is that Ukraine has significant momentum and a solid supply of weapons from the West. I don't know that either of those is assured once we get to the 12-18 month mark and beyond.
So, what happens over the winter for the war front? Does everyone take a few months off while it's too cold to fight? I have spent a lot of years trying to just work outside at -10 deg. F and can't imagine trying to live outside and kill people under those conditions.
alfadriver said:..Are they *that* russian? Having enough russians there to find people who are willing to kill people isn't the same as the actual majority of the population. .
Russian has been "working" on these areas for quite a while now. I am sure there are some pro-Ukrainians in those areas, but they are likely to be a small minority, especially as the result of the last 10 years. The language map give you a good idea of the ethnic distributions, not that that defines a country, but it's certainly what Russia likes to think, and why they have been pushing Russian speaking people into these areas for a while now and what makes there messaging a lot more receptive.
In reply to aircooled :
Are the Russian speaking Ukrainians going to be that pro Russian after they are conscripted and forced to the front?
The general report seems to be that they are willing to fight for (defend) their area, but have no interest in fighting in other areas of Ukraine.
Winter isn't really that big of an issue for Russians or Ukrainians, they are quite used to that.
It's the in-between muddy / wet stuff that is an issue. You really want to control the critical roads at that point.
Another historical pic (this of course was when there where no paved roads):
alfadriver said:In reply to 02Pilot :
Do you really expect that Ukraine would accept a deal when they are currently pushing the russians out of their country?
I honestly don't get the suggestion to ask them to stop taking their land back when they are making progress to do that every single day.
Given the number of people in Ukraine that the russians have murdered, do you really expect them to care about russian soldier deaths? That's who is really losing out here.
If vlad was serious about the nuclear option, he would have let it fly a long time ago.
You point out that Ukraine has all of the momentum. What would a "deal" look like, then? What would make them stop taking their land back?
Fundamentally, it all comes down to interests and the ability to realize them. Ukraine wants to reclaim all of its territory, but it lacks the means to do so without Western support. The West wants...well, it's not clear what the West wants, but stability is near the top of the list, and the longer this conflict continues, the less likely that is. The difference is that the West does have the ability to realize, or at least influence the realization of, its objective. Put another way, the day the US or a combination of EU powers that includes Germany decides that they're tired of spending money on the Ukrainian effort to reclaim every square inch of their land, they can compel Ukraine to alter policy and work toward a deal to end the conflict. When the tap of free military aid gets turned off, no matter how much the Ukrainians hate it, they won't have a choice but to make a deal.
In reply to 02Pilot :
So we should abandon Ukraine like we did Afghanistan after helping them push out russians. That worked out so well. If we turn our backs on them now, they will hate the west as much as they hate russians. Sorry if that seems quite short sighted.
And all that does is let vlad go and take more land after he's recovered for a while and Ukraine can't keep up what they have.
I also think you are talking in terms of years, and the current support looks pretty darned strong in the next few months- especially when you see russia conscript cannon fodder like they are. I'm trying not to be optimistic, but the news on the ground right now is really bad for russia and vlad.
Fundamentally- Ukraine need big access to the Black Sea so that they can trade stuff they grow internationally. And the land where the growing takes place. I'm not up on their other resources, but Ukraine was a target in WWII for it's food potential. Both in access as well as damage during retreat.
aircooled said:alfadriver said:..Are they *that* russian? Having enough russians there to find people who are willing to kill people isn't the same as the actual majority of the population. .
Russian has been "working" on these areas for quite a while now. I am sure there are some pro-Ukrainians in those areas, but they are likely to be a small minority, especially as the result of the last 10 years. The language map give you a good idea of the ethnic distributions, not that that defines a country, but it's certainly what Russia likes to think, and why they have been pushing Russian speaking people into these areas for a while now and what makes there messaging a lot more receptive.
On that, why should Ukraine suffer because russians moved there when it was all the USSR? It's akin to Germany claiming the Studentenland or Alsace. russia has more than enough of a country to live in- go back there if it's that big of a deal. These lines were drawn in the '20s by the Soviet Union.
So, the Russians have apparently gone full-on WWII-Nazi-bad.
In Pisky-Radkivski, which was recently liberated, a torture room was found. Gold teeth that had been pulled from Ukrainian citizens were found.
Warning, the pics aren't nice to look at.
Google Translate version
alfadriver said:In reply to 02Pilot :
So we should abandon Ukraine like we did Afghanistan after helping them push out russians. That worked out so well. If we turn our backs on them now, they will hate the west as much as they hate russians. Sorry if that seems quite short sighted.
And all that does is let vlad go and take more land after he's recovered for a while and Ukraine can't keep up what they have.
I also think you are talking in terms of years, and the current support looks pretty darned strong in the next few months- especially when you see russia conscript cannon fodder like they are. I'm trying not to be optimistic, but the news on the ground right now is really bad for russia and vlad.
Fundamentally- Ukraine need big access to the Black Sea so that they can trade stuff they grow internationally. And the land where the growing takes place. I'm not up on their other resources, but Ukraine was a target in WWII for it's food potential. Both in access as well as damage during retreat.
Nowhere did I suggest abandonment of Ukraine. I've stated many times here before that a durable peace deal has to address security concerns of all parties, but also minimize or eliminate causes for revanchist movements. A Western-looking but officially neutral Ukraine, armed with modern equipment and with full access to world markets, is more sustainable more cost-effectively than one that the Russians see as a constant latent threat (this is the post-war Austrian model I've mentioned). I've recently started thinking about the idea of a demilitarized Black Sea as well, with full commercial access to all parties guaranteed - it would offer significant mutual security advantages, and also make the issue of Sevastopol as a naval base far less important.
In reply to 02Pilot :
How do you demilitarize the Black Sea? Sink Russia's 3 subs and 6 boats and make Turkey keep out any new warships?
alfadriver said:...On that, why should Ukraine suffer because russians moved there when it was all the USSR? It's akin to Germany claiming the Studentenland or Alsace. russia has more than enough of a country to live in- go back there if it's that big of a deal. These lines were drawn in the '20s by the Soviet Union.
The point is, there are very few "Ukrainians" there anymore.
I would love to see Russia loose that territory, but, as stated, they will only be trouble for Ukraine (and a huge target for Russia to just keep doing what they have been doing), unless they pull a "Russia" and boot all those people out, some of which have lived there for a very long time.
It would be far better to make those areas some sort of de-militarized area (similar to what o2 is saying), but I am not sure that is a deal that could be made.
In reply to 02Pilot :
You didn't say abandonment, but you did actually suggest it. If it's up to the West to keep this going, and if we decide to stop, then we will be abandoning them. They are clearly showing the ability to get the job done with the support we are sending them. So stopping them before they finish is abandoning them.
You really think vlad/russia will accept a west looking Ukraine? That's why they invaded in the first place- according to their and justifications posted here. And I honestly don't see Ukraine wanting to look west if we cut off their supplies.
If Ukraine wants to let go of part of their land to russia, let them decide if and what that is. They may be willing to, I don't know.
aircooled said:alfadriver said:...On that, why should Ukraine suffer because russians moved there when it was all the USSR? It's akin to Germany claiming the Studentenland or Alsace. russia has more than enough of a country to live in- go back there if it's that big of a deal. These lines were drawn in the '20s by the Soviet Union.
The point is, there are very few "Ukrainians" there anymore.
I would love to see Russia loose that territory, but, as stated, they will only be trouble for Ukraine (and a huge target for Russia to just keep doing what they have been doing), unless they pull a "Russia" and boot all those people out, some of which have lived there for a very long time.
It would be far better to make those areas some sort of de-militarized area (similar to what o2 is saying), but I am not sure that is a deal that could be made.
The only way they will be trouble is if they actually believe the economic situation in russia is better than Ukraine before the war.
I'll prefer to let Ukraine decide if they are significant or not, not me. So if they want that back, let them. If they think it's bad, and want vlad to deal with it- let them.
Unless they hold a russian passport, they are all Ukrainians.
There's also the matter of the Ukrainians from the occupied areas who have been deported to the hinterlands of Russia. I bet if they can make it home, they'll be inclined to continue being Ukrainian.
As for how far the west is going to push this, I think it comes down to, do we want the certainty of an increasingly paranoid Russia that is going to take as little time to lick its wounds as possible before pulling some stupid E36 M3 again (and will continue warfare by other means - social media campaigns, spycraft, blackmail, etc.), or do we want the uncertainty of a collapsed Russia that will likely break up into separate countries if they continue on their current path? I'm sure every nation supporting Ukraine in this is gaming this out right now.
There was a talking point that part of the reason for Russia wanting Ukraine back was that Ukraine was doing better then Russia and was making them look bad. I did a search the other day to try and find some stats to back that up. What I found is that while the per capita income of Ukraine is much less than that of Russia, the quality of life is better in Ukraine. Lower food costs, less societal ills such as crime, drug use, alcoholism and such. Interestingly, while both societies have very corrupt governance, in Ukraine there seemed to be the sense that they got more back from their corrupt government, whereas the Russians won't even give a reach-around. I also don't know to what extent the disparity in per capita is skewed by massive income inequality in Russia.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
I've been catching some comments from someone from Ukraine on another board, and they have mentioned that corruption has also been dropping in Ukraine significantly since 2014. One thing I found curious about it was that the increasingly automated services (licenses, passports, tax payments) have taken away a lot of opportunities for bureaucrats to solicit bribes.
alfadriver said:In reply to 02Pilot :
You didn't say abandonment, but you did actually suggest it. If it's up to the West to keep this going, and if we decide to stop, then we will be abandoning them. They are clearly showing the ability to get the job done with the support we are sending them. So stopping them before they finish is abandoning them.
You really think vlad/russia will accept a west looking Ukraine? That's why they invaded in the first place- according to their and justifications posted here. And I honestly don't see Ukraine wanting to look west if we cut off their supplies.
If Ukraine wants to let go of part of their land to russia, let them decide if and what that is. They may be willing to, I don't know.
No, I did not suggest it. Your approach operates on the premise that Ukraine has the ability to steer policy, which is only true with Western acquiescence. Ukraine wants to "get the job done", but that's their definition of conflict termination. My point it that it is not up to them to determine those conditions, as they lack the means to achieve them. As long as Ukraine and the West concur on policy, there's no issue, but once they diverge - and they will - the West holds most of the cards. If, and only if, Ukraine refuses to recognize this and defies the West's desire to end the fighting, should the West begin to taper supplies as a means to bring Ukrainian actions in line with Western interests.
Russia will have little choice but to accept a Western-oriented Ukraine; such is the cost of defeat, and it will surely be part of whatever formal settlement is reached. As far as where Ukraine looks for its economic orientation post-war, where else can it go but West?
VolvoHeretic said:In reply to 02Pilot :
How do you demilitarize the Black Sea? Sink Russia's 3 subs and 6 boats and make Turkey keep out any new warships?
By treaty. Give Russia the opportunity to move their remaining ships out, revise the Montreux Convention, and allow other Black Sea states to remove or decommission their vessels as appropriate. Violation could only come from new construction within the Black Sea, which is pretty easy to spot, and would be punishable by non-military means prior to launch of the hull(s). To get such a treaty, there would have to be significant incentives built in, but the long term cost savings would be considerable, as would the stability inherent in such a situation.
alfadriver said:....Unless they hold a russian passport, they are all Ukrainians.
Interesting you would say that because most of them do. One of the processes Russia had was to hand out Russian passports to anyone in the LNR and DNR that wanted one.
aircooled said:alfadriver said:....Unless they hold a russian passport, they are all Ukrainians.
Interesting you would say that because most of them do. One of the processes Russia had was to hand out Russian passports to anyone in the LNR and DNR that wanted one.
I read somewhere that people in the LNR and DNR are not allowed to go into Russia, even with Russian passports.
This does not look like a road map to victory for Russia.
02Pilot :
Your approach operates on the premise that Ukraine has the ability to steer policy, which is only true with Western acquiescence.
But Ukraine is steering western policy through victories in the battlefield and information space. Originally the western policy was to get Zelensky out of Kyiv when the bombs started falling. That policy changed rapidly when Ukraine showed it could fight and defend Kyiv, and again when they showed they could handle advanced weaponry.
I think Ukraine is slightly more of an equal in this relationship than you give them credit for. They're providing a once-in-a generation opportunity for the western world to deal some body blows to a dictator who has meddled extensively in our electoral process but has, until now, been mostly untouchable because of domestic politics.
You'll need to log in to post.
