Jump to content

Ukraine 15 - Si vis pacem, para bellum


Alarich II

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Has anything significantly changed in the past couple days or is it the same tug-of-war we’ve been following for months?

I haven’t heard of any major shift, though I’ve been consciously avoiding the topic so I may have missed it. Thanks in advance. 

The Russian offensive in the Eastern part of Ukraine has had greater successes in the past week than they have in the previous month.  This is because they are concentrating their forces on smaller objectives and bringing overwhelming firepower to bear.  But because these objectives are indeed small, they are unlikely to change the situation dramatically. 

On the whole, the war is grinding on, with terrible casualties on both sides.  It is likely that the Russians are losing too much of their best troops and best equipment in this offensive, and will have to stop in the next few weeks (possibly sooner).  At which point the Ukrainians will probably begin counterattacking.  It remains to be seen how big and how effective those counterattacks will be. 

Both sides believe they can achieve a stronger negotiating position via the battlefield.  That is unlikely to change in the next month and probably longer.  Until it does, the war will continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The Russian offensive in the Eastern part of Ukraine has had greater successes in the past week than they have in the previous month.  This is because they are concentrating their forces on smaller objectives and bringing overwhelming firepower to bear.  But because these objectives are indeed small, they are unlikely to change the situation dramatically. 

On the whole, the war is grinding on, with terrible casualties on both sides.  It is likely that the Russians are losing too much of their best troops and best equipment in this offensive, and will have to stop in the next few weeks (possibly sooner).  At which point the Ukrainians will probably begin counterattacking.  It remains to be seen how big and how effective those counterattacks will be. 

Both sides believe they can achieve a stronger negotiating position via the battlefield.  That is unlikely to change in the next month and probably longer.  Until it does, the war will continue. 

So no. The big picture war situation is much the same as it was two, four or six weeks ago. Thank you for your response <3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RhaenysBee said:

So no. The big picture war situation is much the same as it was two, four or six weeks ago.

Yes, I think that is fair.  If I were summarizing the war thus far:

Feb 2022:  Russian attempt to decapitate the Ukrainian political leadership fails. 

March 2022:  Russian attempt to overwhelm the Ukrainian military with superior firepower fails.  Russian lines are overextended.  Russia retreats out of Northern Ukraine, abandoning ~40% of the territory it had captured. 

April-May 2022:  Russia attempts to conquer eastern Ukraine in Donbas region.  Limited territorial gains are made at great cost.

June or July:  Expected Ukrainian counterattacks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

... the over-use of moral language in the US has led Americans to seek a Ukrainian victory.

 

:kiss:

That's the evolutionary imperative of language. To achieve effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Provided at least 64,5 billion euros to Ukraine (one of the latest numbers I've seen, from the German Kiel Institute).
I think many people will not perceive the magnitude of this number.

I have seen a focus on the topline number of US aid recently, and particularly comparing it to military budgets - which is of course incredibly lazy and misleading.  And hell, it's even inaccurate to say the money is only going to Ukraine or even NATO allies - about 10% of the recently passed $40 billion was allocated to fund our own troops that were sent to Europe.  This is all very clear if you just, ya know, read a three sentence summary of the bill:

Quote

The aid package provides $19 billion for immediate military support to Ukraine, continuing the effort that has been vital to sustaining Ukrainian resistance, and $3.9 billion to sustain U.S. forces deployed to Europe. The package also contains about $16 billion for economic support to Ukraine, global humanitarian relief, and a wide variety of international programs as well as $2 billion for long-term support to NATO allies and DOD modernization programs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another podcast from Michael Kofman on the progress of the war.  Takeaways:

 - Russians are playing more to their strengths in the Donbas offensive.  Many of the huge mistakes we saw in the opening weeks of the war are no longer occurring.

 - The Ukrainians are still conceding more ground than they'd like and are allowing the Russians to dig in elsewhere (such as around Kherson).  This is most likely because the Ukrainian military is exhausted.  We know that the replacements they've been training up since February are not yet available (or are not trained and only capable of rear guard/limited action).  While there's reason to think that Ukraine is building up reserve brigades and equipping them with NATO weapons, those units may be needed just as replacements of Ukrainian losses rather than as a large mobile striking force.  We'll see.  Regardless, Ukraine is giving Russia time to establish themselves in Ukrainian territory, which is something they would rather not do, and will make any counteroffensive later more difficult. 

 - The narrative that the Russian military is near collapse is probably overblown.  They have some real problems obviously, but Russia is still a large, powerful nation and they will make adjustments.

 - The war has the potential to go on for a long time.  There is still some reason for optimism for Ukraine, but perhaps less than there was a few weeks ago when the Kharkiv offensive looked to be potentially decisive in disrupting the Russian Donbas offensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

By that measure, Mexico (or Spain!) would be justified in annexing most of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and vast chunks of Texas tomorrow.

Or most of Ireland should welcome back its rightful British rulers (2% of the population live in prominently Irish speaking areas).  Using language as an argument for Russian rule over parts of Ukraine is truly facile.

Language does tell you something but certainly not what Rippounet thinks (or read).

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

If only because the Russians are completely unable to steamroll anything in the first place.

Steamroll or grind?  Does it truly matter to those that are ground down by Russia.  Russia is making progress.  This board is generally quite positive about how well the war is going for Ukraine but Russia is still seizing more territory.  It finally took Mariupol.  It nearly has all of the Luhansk region capture.  Sure, Ukraine may be able to counter attack in those areas eventually but counter attacks are more challenging.

And it is certainly outlandish to suggest that Ukraine is the threat to Russia, while Russia keeps seizing more territory.

One has to question when Russia will think it has seized enough and stop permanently.  Does anyone really think Russia doesn't want Odessa?  Connect to Transnistria?  Add tranches of land from Georgia and Kazakhastan?  Look westward at the Baltic States?  Sure, it isn't going to do all that this year or next.  But once you say borders don't matter (and the invasion of Ukraine proves Russia doesn't care) and there are no severe repercussions about ignoring borders, where is the line?  You have to ask that question or you are fooling yourself.

The answer certainly isn't this...

Quote

Of course it does. :rolleyes:

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think the reason why no discussion is possible in this case is that pacifists like Chomsky or myself see that conflict always ends through compromise, whereas many here think it is immoral to grant anything to an aggressor (if only because it might encourage future aggression).
The question then become what can push Russia to the negotiating table if not some form of compromise.

There may be a world in which Russia is ignored altogether and the objective is to turn the border (or a border) into some kind of Maginot-line, with low-intensity warfare continuing for the foreseeable future. There would be no actual peace, but the war would be limited to a specific area.
At this rate, this may be the best one can hope for.

If you listen to what Zelensky has said, he said there has to be a negotiated compromised solution but he has also said that it wouldn't be easy (because of how Russia has behaved).  But has Russia shown much interest in negotiating?  Limiting war crimes would help but that is certainly not a priority for Russia.

Russia thinks it can gain all the Donbas militarily.  Before this latest conflict, we already had a low-intensity war.  Ending up back there wouldn't be a major surprise.  Russia can then start preparing for its next invasion because there is no reason to suppose that Russia is going to stop there.  If you think there is a magic formula which will generate peace, you are again fooling yourself.

Edited to add: And Maithanet's last post underlies Ukraine's troubles.  But Rippounet will continue to focus on Ukraine's invasion of Russia I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's clear that the Russians are indeed playing to their strengths and achieving success, if painstakingly slowly, in the Donbas. It is clear that their equipment and manpower shortages have been causing problems, but they have overcome the former by focusing on artillery, artillery, artillery (so resorting to older tanks is not as much a problem since they are not engaging in long, drawn-out tank battles or sending tanks forwards unprotected) and they have overcome the latter by rotating units they retired in March/April back into the fight and sourcing fresh troops from various sources. Such scratch companies are normally not that effective in massed assaults, but for what they're doing at the moment, they're not too bad.

However, several major weaknesses remain, particularly the lack of overwhelming numerical superiority in attacking fixed points. That's costing them dear when the infantry do go in. The Ukrainians have problems of their own, particularly in that the urban areas they are defending in the east do not have Mariupol's insane advantages in defence. Ukraine is continuing to fight smart though, bedding down where it makes sense to do so and relinquishing territory to fight another day where that also makes sense. Ukraine is also not enjoying the advantage it had earlier on by forcing Russian air power to fly over Ukrainian air defences, resulting in punishing fixed-wing losses early in the conflict; in the Donbas, fixed-wing losses have been much lower, although Russian helicopter losses seem to have remained high.

As well as the T-62 situation, there's another odd sign of a possible manpower/equipment shortage, namely the Wagner Group seems to have set up a mini-air force of its own (!) with older jets donated by the Russian Air Force to fight in Ukraine. That hasn't worked so well, as apparently on their first flight they lost an Su-25 with the CO of their mini-air force flying it.

I think the overall strategic picture has shifted to favouring a localised Russian victory in the Donbas and the land corridor (unless Ukraine can snip off its head at Kherson). If the Russians are smart they will take that as a win and pivot hard to negotiations, so they can then colour any Ukrainian counter-attack as an aggression during peace talks. It leaves Ukraine and the west probably in the most awkward possible position, whilst simultaneously giving Putin a semi-credible political win. On the plus side, it ends the immediate killing of civilians.

Russia deciding to go for broke, either by attacking the rest of Ukraine or extending from Kherson to Odesa, without a further mobilisation, heightens the risk of a dramatic reversal of fortunes when Ukraine's mass mobilisation takes effect on the battlefield (likely over the next 4-6 weeks). That would also present Russia with absolutely huge cities to try to take - Dnipro and Odesa to start with - which do have a lot more heavy defences.

Some of Russia's African and Middle East allies, or at least business partners, are also now sounding alarm bells about the food situation and, at least behind the scenes, are making it clear that they are holding Russia responsible for the situation. Apparently Egypt has been talking to Ukraine and intermediaries about sending ships to pick up grain via Odesa if they can get Russia to agree not to attack the city. The Ukrainians are concerned about deactivating their mines and harbour defences, whilst I suspect the Russians will have concerns about weapons and materials being smuggled in on cargo ships. But if something can be worked out there, that could be a positive development.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides claim to want to negotiate and that negotiations are the only way this will end. I give them both the benefit of the doubt (to differing extents), at least as far as both sides feel there will have to be peace talks because no complete surrender can be expected or achieved.

As long as talks seemed to be ongoing, back in March, I thought it reasonable not to talk too much about what they were asking or ceding to each other, and quite respectful not to publicly reveal what the other side's position exactly was. But talks are quite stalled for now, so this is moot.

I'm beginning to think Zelensky should actually make public a starting offer, so that international community can see how reasonable it is. This would put the whole pressure on Putin to reveal his aims, so that others can see if he has realistic demands or if his counteroffer is totally ludicrous.

Ukrainian troops are slowly retreating from overexposed Donbas positions, under bombing and heavy pressure, but it looks like no solid counterattack is ready to help there. I usually tend to think it's better to offer negotiations when things aren't collapsing but are still looking OK for you, rather than when you're taking a beating; your position is stronger and you can expect a better outcome than if things take a very bad turn. Not that it's a given, but there's always a risk, even for Ukraine. Same goes for Russians of course - they expect to push Ukrainians back from Donbas, but without superior numbers, they can eventually experience a nasty lethal surprise and a regional crushing defeat here or there - better talk now that they still have some hope than when half their fronts cave in. But I fear I'm less boneheaded than some actors and advisersm who are way more ready to sacrifice tens of thousands more men on both sides for a somewhat possible victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Both sides claim to want to negotiate and that negotiations are the only way this will end. I give them both the benefit of the doubt (to differing extents), at least as far as both sides feel there will have to be peace talks because no complete surrender can be expected or achieved.

As long as talks seemed to be ongoing, back in March, I thought it reasonable not to talk too much about what they were asking or ceding to each other, and quite respectful not to publicly reveal what the other side's position exactly was. But talks are quite stalled for now, so this is moot.

I'm beginning to think Zelensky should actually make public a starting offer, so that international community can see how reasonable it is. This would put the whole pressure on Putin to reveal his aims, so that others can see if he has realistic demands or if his counteroffer is totally ludicrous.

Ukrainian troops are slowly retreating from overexposed Donbas positions, under bombing and heavy pressure, but it looks like no solid counterattack is ready to help there. I usually tend to think it's better to offer negotiations when things aren't collapsing but are still looking OK for you, rather than when you're taking a beating; your position is stronger and you can expect a better outcome than if things take a very bad turn. Not that it's a given, but there's always a risk, even for Ukraine. Same goes for Russians of course - they expect to push Ukrainians back from Donbas, but without superior numbers, they can eventually experience a nasty lethal surprise and a regional crushing defeat here or there - better talk now that they still have some hope than when half their fronts cave in. But I fear I'm less boneheaded than some actors and advisersm who are way more ready to sacrifice tens of thousands more men on both sides for a somewhat possible victory.

After Mariupol and Bucha I think retreating only when all civilians that want have been evacuated might be important to Ukraine. Any peace that leaves civilians behind russian lines might kill more people than fighting ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Luzifer&#x27;s right hand said:

After Mariupol and Bucha I think retreating only when all civilians that want have been evacuated might be important to Ukraine. Any peace that leaves civilians behind russian lines might kill more people than fighting ever could.

Ukraine has a problem here, and it's causing them massive headaches, in that a lot of civilians don't want to leave, even after Bucha and Mariupol. In fact, in recent weeks more people have been returning to Ukraine then leaving, and most of the recent evacuees from the Donbas have stayed in the country rather than leaving altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

Ukraine has a problem here, and it's causing them massive headaches, in that a lot of civilians don't want to leave, even after Bucha and Mariupol. In fact, in recent weeks more people have been returning to Ukraine then leaving, and most of the recent evacuees from the Donbas have stayed in the country rather than leaving altogether.

The drawback of positive news I guess and the fact that things tend to be far more difficult for refugees than official statements by EU leaders suggest.

A lot of refugees in Austria are running out of money for example because our bureaucracy has been optimised to make things as difficult as possible for refugees in the last two decades. Empty words by our leaders did not magically change that fact.

A lot of refugees that are not citizens of Ukraine face even bigger problems. I just saw a report about russian and belarusian women who fleed the country without their Ukrainian husbands not getting any support from the German gov because of sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interview with the governor of Luhansk. He says the rest of the oblast will fall, maybe next week or within two weeks, and Russia will switch to focus on Donetsk. However, Donetsk is much more heavily fortified. He also estimates that by the end of June or start of July, Ukrainian forces will be ready for larger-scaled offensives. Lack of AA remains a problem.

What is interesting is the relatively small number of Russian troops in Luhansk, and how their artillery and air cover is acting as a massive force multiplier despite fighting comparable or possibly even larger numbers of Ukrainians. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

The drawback of positive news I guess and the fact that things tend to be far more difficult for refugees than official statements by EU leaders suggest.

For many people is not easy to recieve help, kind of humiliation. State support for Ukrainian refugees in Poland exist (the special law) and is easily accessible, but is raher humble (Poland never was a welfare state). Many refugees want to work, but there's no work in most cases xept for shitty and badly paid jobs. Again... Poland is not employees market.

Sitting in a hall with 100 other families, well... how long can one take it? When you live in a single flat or with local family - language barrier and isolation it causes are depressing, even in Poland. Both sides need to try and communicate, not everyone finds it easy.

Husband / parents remain in Ukraine, it is really fretting.

And last but not least - everyone I spoke to had unwavering faith in victory, it is really striking and contagious. I know about many who were preparing to leave Ukraine but then changed their minds, like defiance and anger prevailed fear. My grandfather told me Ukrainians are proud and hard and from what I observe he was not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, broken one said:

And last but not least - everyone I spoke to had unwavering faith in victory, it is really striking and contagious. I know about many who were preparing to leave Ukraine but then changed their minds, like defiance and anger prevailed fear. My grandfather told me Ukrainians are proud and hard and from what I observe he was not wrong.

I have another friend (or at least an online contact I've spoken to semi-regularly for ~17 years) on another board who's from and remains in Ukraine. The attitude of defiance is impressive.

What was interesting was seeing their reaction to all the suggestions of the west pushing Ukraine into conflict etc. Ukrainians are not love with all aspects of the west (and they don't see the west as homogenous, as Russia sometimes does, with a difference in attitude towards the UK vs France vs Poland vs the USA) but see aligning with it as preferable to Russia, and that Ukrainians have a long, long history of Russian threats and how to deal with them and how to deal with Russia. They can handle the situation and will let everyone else know when they think Russia is really going to go off the deep end and start doing something irrational. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grrr, even in other forums the atmosphere has turned quite grim as to the chances of Ukraine now. Especially with the new rumors that NATO will never send heavy weapons for fear of Putin randomly deciding that this is a declaration of war then. Then there's the German perspective that three months in we still haven't sent anything heavy either with Scholz still daily coming up with new excuses or utter silence.

So the situation now is that the Russians are grinding on and on and on, despite all the horrific losses, while Ukrainian military looks spent. I'm now wondering, even if the conscript army is ready in July as announced, with what are they supposed to fight? Spears and stones? From the very beginning it was clear that Ukraine can only win in a war of attrition if the west keeps pumping weapons into them, but everything I read seems to indicate that this support is slowly fizzling down and Putin will be encouraged to keep on grinding until all of Ukraine is rubble.

Sorry, I'm just angry right now... it's all so disheartening that this is now turning exactly into what the radical pacifist crowd claims they want to prevent: An unnecessarily prolonged war with much more death and misery. And why? Not because we sent weapons to Ukraine instead of urging it to surrender, but because we water down our support out of fear and allow Ukraine to get pushed back inch by inch, with all the heavy fighting and bombing that entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Toth said:

Grrr, even in other forums the atmosphere has turned quite grim as to the chances of Ukraine now. Especially with the new rumors that NATO will never send heavy weapons for fear of Putin randomly deciding that this is a declaration of war then.

I've read about it this morning ("NATO will not send aircrafts nor tanks") but I do not get what it is supposed to mean.

Poland (NATO member) has already sent 232 T-72 tanks (in two versions), several dozens of 2S1 "Clovers" (old soviet howitzer) and Grad 21 rocket artillery vehicles.

France has sent some Caesar howitzers, USA sent artillery... are these heavy weapons or not? :wacko: May it be just (belated) smoke screen /  misinformation?

 

2 hours ago, Toth said:

So the situation now is that the Russians are grinding on and on and on, despite all the horrific losses, while Ukrainian military looks spent. I'm now wondering, even if the conscript army is ready in July as announced, with what are they supposed to fight? Spears and stones? From the very beginning it was clear that Ukraine can only win in a war of attrition if the west keeps pumping weapons into them, but everything I read seems to indicate that this support is slowly fizzling down and Putin will be encouraged to keep on grinding until all of Ukraine is rubble.

AFAIK they got reserves and weapons, but now they may be forced to use them to replace the losses in defending forces. From what I've read - even if Bachmut falls it will be only local success for Russians, nothing decisive. Ukrainians will be forced to straighten their defence line and prop it up on Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. I think in worst case Ukraine will be unable to mount general counter offensive. I believe without at least partial mobilisation Russians must stop soon. 

2 hours ago, Toth said:

Sorry, I'm just angry right now... it's all so disheartening that this is now turning exactly into what the radical pacifist crowd claims they want to prevent: An unnecessarily prolonged war with much more death and misery. And why? Not because we sent weapons to Ukraine instead of urging it to surrender, but because we water down our support out of fear and allow Ukraine to get pushed back inch by inch, with all the heavy fighting and bombing that entails.

Tides of war are changing, sometimes dramatically. In 1920 Poles reached Kiyev, then were pushed back to Warsaw and almost lost totally, and then won decisive battle and managed to push Bolsheviks far back East, finally winning the war (with help of Western weapons and ammunition). And how about war in Korea? There were some plot twist too. Lets not despond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this would be a good place to ask this question: has anyone wandered across some good and unbiased analysis in Ukraine war from military perspective? No heated language, no biases, no wishful thinking, just cold hard analysis written by someone with military expertise. It could be anything - website, blog, video etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...