Jump to content

#16 Ukraine the brave, the whole World is watching!


DireWolfSpirit

Recommended Posts

THREAD Let's start a long thread about how Russian book market prepared Russians for a full-scale war against Ukraine, NATO, the West, and promoted stalinism and nazism, and how this was ignored by the West. Keep seat belts fasten, you will see a lot of nasty things here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JGP said:

It feels like the West has accepted the rules of the game, which is something I don't like.

What really infuriates me is the West inventing boundaries for itself, something to be afraid of, like "we will not do this, this, this and that because Putin will throw nukes at us" (devil knows why, actually). Putin must be grateful, as he wouldn't have made up all this bullshit himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

But still, the Russians have 900 artillery pieces. They don't need to destroy 100% of them overnight and reducing that capability is going to have a positive impact even if it's by 20% or something. But that's a metric fuckton of hardware that needs to be seriously degraded to give Ukraine a viable chance of an overall victory and retaking its lost ground.

You see, this is where you lose the Americans and Tories.

If your not going to use Imperial fucktonnes, then at least have the decency to use something abstract, like 20 elephant dung's of hardware

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

You see, this is where you lose the Americans and Tories.

If your not going to use Imperial fucktonnes, then at least have the decency to use something abstract, like 20 elephant dung's of hardware

Difference between a metric and an imperial (aka long ton) is marginal. American ton like most American hardware is a short ton, which is smaller. (yes, it's penile joke inserted to keep ty interested in the thread)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, broken one said:

What really infuriates me is the West inventing boundaries for itself, something to be afraid of, like "we will not do this, this, this and that because Putin will throw nukes at us" (devil knows why, actually). Putin must be grateful, as he wouldn't have made up all this bullshit himself.

To be fair, there's a big difference to what has been said and done. So countries said they wouldn't send tanks and then sent loads of tanks (at least 300, I believe), and then they said they wouldn't send jets and then sent jets (though disassembled in crates, and it took a few weeks for the Ukrainians to put them back together again).

We've also seen Russia say several times they'd hit supplies on NATO territory in response and then pause and then try to hit supplies on Ukrainian territory because the political and military ramifications of engaging NATO now, when they are in no way prepared, would be extremely negative for Russia.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the 10% figure. That's probably including the $40 billion pledge from the United States, which dwarfs that of all other pledges many times over. Combined with help from other countries, that's probably $45-50 billion in total and Ukraine has maybe received ~$4 billion at most since the invasion day, which is understandable as the American pledge went through Congress only a couple of weeks ago.

It's also worth remembering that other countries are supplying Ukraine with an immense amount of nuts-and-bolts stuff (rifles, ammunition, body armour, mortars, rations) which are far superior to their Russian counterparts. The real weakness remains the lack of heavy artillery, which can't be shipped in, trained up and deployed on the battlefield overnight, although they are trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Werthead said:

To be fair, there's a big difference to what has been said and done. So countries said they wouldn't send tanks and then sent loads of tanks (at least 300, I believe), and then they said they wouldn't send jets and then sent jets (though disassembled in crates, and it took a few weeks for the Ukrainians to put them back together again).

I am aware of that, but it should be enough to keep ones mouth shut and send weapons. IMO it is also good to anounce the help ex post, details are not necessary, but let the world know (including the fucker in Kremlin). Stories on how he may get angry if we do this or that do not help.

I like to play with the thought that the "let's not escalate" song is just smoke screen and all the stuff is already carried on train but I think in some cases the above mentioned difference is not so big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how credible this account is, but what they're saying about the war around Kherson makes sense.  Basically that there are two bridges over the Dniper (a big river).  The one in Kherson could be destroyed by Ukraine, if they choose to.  The one in Nova Kakhovka is on a hydroelectric dam.  If it were to be destroyed, it would flood a bunch of the area south of the Dniper (where Russian troops are) and screw up water supplies in Crimea (one of Russia's key war aims).  Thus, it is unlikely that either side will destroy this bridge.  So if the Ukrainians are planning an offensive in the South, it is the key strategic point.  If the Ukrainians were to capture it, basically every Russian soldier north of the Dniper could be cut off (assuming Ukraine destroys the bridge in Kherson).  Thus, Russia will do everything it can to prevent that from happening.

But if Ukraine even gets close to capturing it, then Russia will face a crisis.  Do they stand and fight on the assumption they can hold Nova Kakhovka?  Or do they retreat across the Dniper to avoid being cut off?  Because once the Ukrainians get close to Nova Kakhovka, then an evacuation over that bridge, under Ukrainian guns would be extremely challenging and costly. 

I want to note that the Ukrainians are not there yet, but they are getting closer.  If they were to pull off such an offensive, it would really change the momentum of the war.  Russia would lose control of the largest city it has captured (Kherson) as well as something like 15-20% of the total land area it has captured in this war.  That's way more territory than they've taken in this "successful" Donbas offensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukrainian Kherson offensive is interesting, since according to reports, it is mostly done by nighttime infantry infiltrations. Ukrainians are playing to their advantages in night vision equipment and night combat training. However, it means that new territory is captured very slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Nova Kakhovka, looking at Google Earth there's a nuclear power plant further upriver, at Enerhodar. I assume it relies on the artificial lake created by the dam for cooling? So it'd be a really bad idea to futz with that dam for .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very heavy fighting the last few days. Online sources showing large numbers of Russian vehicles destroyed, including two top-of-the-line T-90s in one attack. Russia blew up the last bridge at Severodonetsk to stop the Ukrainians reinforcing the city, but are now facing a Mariupol-style siege in a very similar industrial area, which is causing them a lot of trouble. Apparently Russian soldiers in the city are furious, since now they'll have to risk a river crossing under very heavy fire to get into Lysychansk.

Ukraine has indicated that their losses are heavy but they are inflicting heavier losses in return, claiming a kill ratio of 1:2 or closer to 1:3 in Severodonetsk.

Some western analysts have said that Russian numbers in Ukraine are becoming alarmingly thin (for the Russians) in places. Some BTGs which are in place and apparently holding vital ground have been reduced to just 30-50 troops (roughly 10% strength) and Russian command is refusing to withdraw them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PMs of Italy, France and Germany are visiting Ukraine today.  Macron affirmed that France is seeking Ukrainian victory, which includes return of all 2014 territory (ie Crimea).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Crimea is the biggest bargaining chip in negotiations. Back when negotiations looked like they might be going somewhere (they probably weren't, but still), more than two months ago, the Russian negotiators were apparently so keen to get Ukrainian - and thus international - recognition of Crimea as Russian that they put some surprisingly big concessions on the table for withdrawals elsewhere. It does look like they were subsequently overruled by the Kremlin, but it's a sign of how big they view even symbolic concessions when it comes to Crimea (and the Ukrainian generals have said they have 0% chance of recapturing Crimea militarily, the Russians have reinforced it so heavily that it's basically impenetrable unless the entire Russian army, and probably state, collapses, and it's too easy for Russia to heavily reinforce unless Ukraine can collapse the Kerch Straits Bridge, which they have been unable or unwilling to do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Russia also have a somewhat stronger claim to Crimea than to any other part of Ukraine? If I understand correctly Crimea has been a part of Russia since the 18th century, and its transition to Ukrainian governance during the Soviet era meant it ended up under Ukrainian flag with its independence in 1991, but it always had a large majority of ethnic Russians*. Not that any of this excuses a war of aggression like Russia did in 2014, let alone in 2022.

The referendum held in 2014 was obviously bogus but I wonder what a real, fair referendum with international neutral observers would result in.
 

*Reading up on the subject, it’s a bit more complicated with Crimean Tatars and other groups and ethnic cleansings being committed after each new ruler took over, last one in WW2 by the Germans. I feel I need to refute my own argument made above. Looking at history to decide which area should belong to which country is a shitty practice and just results in more bloodshed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I think Crimea is the biggest bargaining chip in negotiations. Back when negotiations looked like they might be going somewhere (they probably weren't, but still), more than two months ago, the Russian negotiators were apparently so keen to get Ukrainian - and thus international - recognition of Crimea as Russian that they put some surprisingly big concessions on the table for withdrawals elsewhere. It does look like they were subsequently overruled by the Kremlin, but it's a sign of how big they view even symbolic concessions when it comes to Crimea (and the Ukrainian generals have said they have 0% chance of recapturing Crimea militarily, the Russians have reinforced it so heavily that it's basically impenetrable unless the entire Russian army, and probably state, collapses, and it's too easy for Russia to heavily reinforce unless Ukraine can collapse the Kerch Straits Bridge, which they have been unable or unwilling to do).

Yes, but it feels important to start the negotiations with Crimea being the major concession that Ukraine can make.  The other I guess being a timetable for lifting sanctions.  A peace where Russia gets those two things, but Ukraine gets all the rest of its territory back and Russia promises to return all of the children/young people they've abducted would be one that I could consider.  There's still the question of LPR/DPR, but I'm not even sure if they're going to be present at these negotiations. 

Ukraine would need to have a significant improvement in battlefield results in order to convince Russia to accept that.  If Russia can force the Ukrainians out of the Sevierodonetsk pocket, they might be ready to declare a ceasefire.  That might be a high water mark for what the Russia military can achieve in the short term.  After such a victory, it is pretty safe to assume that Russia would not be in the mood to be retreating back to Feb 2022 borders (even if the "win" was getting them officially recognized). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Russia also have a somewhat stronger claim to Crimea than to any other part of Ukraine? If I understand correctly Crimea has been a part of Russia since the 18th century, and its transition to Ukrainian governance during the Soviet era meant it ended up under Ukrainian flag with its independence in 1991, but it always had a large majority of ethnic Russians*. Not that any of this excuses a war of aggression like Russia did in 2014, let alone in 2022.

The referendum held in 2014 was obviously bogus but I wonder what a real, fair referendum with international neutral observers would result in.
 

*Reading up on the subject, it’s a bit more complicated with Crimean Tatars and other groups and ethnic cleansings being committed after each new ruler took over, last one in WW2 by the Germans. I feel I need to refute my own argument made above. Looking at history to decide which area should belong to which country is a shitty practice and just results in more bloodshed. 

The history is messy, but it would have been entirely plausible for Russia to maintain control over Crimea back in 1991.  Obviously there was a lot in flux at the time, but the area was pretty sparsely populated and they were almost entirely Russian speakers.  That's not what happened, and it isn't 1991 anymore, but at the same time 1991 isn't exactly ancient history either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

PMs of Italy, France and Germany are visiting Ukraine today.  Macron affirmed that France is seeking Ukrainian victory, which includes return of all 2014 territory (ie Crimea).

 

This is dificult/a bad idea. Ukraine doesn't meet the criteria for EU membership. To fast track them and put them at the top of the cue (ahead of likesay Serbia) is not gonna go down well. Certainly it's the feel good (about ourselves) decission, but it'd be still a bad one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

This is dificult/a bad idea. Ukraine doesn't meet the criteria for EU membership. To fast track them and put them at the top of the cue (ahead of likesay Serbia) is not gonna go down well. Certainly it's the feel good (about ourselves) decission, but it'd be still a bad one.

I think it's just candidate status, and is a balm to soothe Macron after his "greater EU" idea didn't gain a lot of traction.

Serbia was granted EU candidate status in 2012 and is currently on track to join the EU in three years. On that timetable Ukraine will not be able to join fully until the 2030s.

Bosnia I think is going to be more aggrieved because they've been a "potential candidate country" since 2003 but still don't have full candidate status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

This is dificult/a bad idea. Ukraine doesn't meet the criteria for EU membership. To fast track them and put them at the top of the cue (ahead of likesay Serbia) is not gonna go down well. Certainly it's the feel good (about ourselves) decission, but it'd be still a bad one.

Given how Serbia has positioned itself in this war, I'd say putting Ukraine ahead of them in the queue is something we should be able to shrug away. Also Turkey's chances to get in are effectively nil at this point as well.

Of course Ukraine doesn't meet the criteria right now, but I'd dare to say access to the rebuilding funds of the EU will be a great motivator to punch through the reforms that Ukraine needs to adhere to the criteria. And in the end: The actual membership process would be a topic for after the war anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Russia also have a somewhat stronger claim to Crimea than to any other part of Ukraine? If I understand correctly Crimea has been a part of Russia since the 18th century, and its transition to Ukrainian governance during the Soviet era meant it ended up under Ukrainian flag with its independence in 1991, but it always had a large majority of ethnic Russians*. Not that any of this excuses a war of aggression like Russia did in 2014, let alone in 2022.

All of that stopped being relevant when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belovezh accords in 1991, promising to respect each other's territorial integrity in the present Soviet Republic borders. This was confirmed by a bunch of other agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed in the 90's (CIS founding agreement, Black Sea Fleet partition agreement, Russian-Ukrainian Friendship agreement, 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...