Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Bad situation in Bakhmut.

[ChairmanPoo]

They get funding from the Pentagon. I'm fairly sure any use (and non-use) of Starlink by the Ukrainian army (or others) is authorized (or not) by the US goverment, no matter what Elon Musk likes to pretend. I actually think Elon Musk is far more a figurehead than he likes to pretend, for institutions far more powerful than him (eg: the US goverment, his Saudi creditors. Maybe Putin?), and in the end, i f they say hop frog, he starts jumping.

Note how many of his enterprises are dependent on federal funds.

[Duuvian]

I believe that F-16 pilot training by the US should begin. This is in case Ukraine cannot find an agreement in the recent release of what was termed a position paper, which I would leave up to Ukraine rather than advisors who may stand to make a lot of money.

In addition

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2023

Spoiler: UK, French, and German officials are reportedly preparing a NATO-Ukraine pact that falls far short of the protections Ukraine would receive from NATO membership (click to show/hide)

UK, French, and German officials are reportedly preparing a NATO-Ukraine pact that falls far short of the protections Ukraine would receive from NATO membership and appears to reflect a desire to press Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on unfavorable terms.[1] The Wall Street Journal reported that the exact provisions of the pact are undecided, but the officials indicated that the pact will provide advanced military equipment, arms, and ammunition to Ukraine, but not Article V protection or a commitment to station NATO forces in Ukraine—falling short of Ukraine’s aspirations for full NATO membership. The officials stated that the pact aims to provision Ukraine so that Ukrainian forces can conduct a counteroffensive that brings Russia to the negotiating table and deter any future Russian aggression. The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported.[2]

Now now, no dirty documents. Far be it to tell you what to do of course; however I do advise that a dirty document is not in your long term interest. Skepticism is not your ally to be garnered. Fidelity is.

[King Zultan]

That seems like it's set up to get the war over quickly even if it fucks over Ukraine in the end.

[Duuvian]

Let's let Ukraine decide on that imo

[Lord Shonus]

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/natos-biggest-european-members-float-defense-pact-with-ukraine-38966950

The original WSJ article is more detailed, and paints things in a somewhat different light. This paints it as fundamentally a "what do we do if Ukraine runs out of steam" combined with "if Russia knows that there will be a Ukraine after the war, and they will have deep reserves of front-line NATO weapons, they'll back off". Nothing in the source article comes across as pressuring Ukraine to give up.

Full NATO membership takes time, is very tricky if there's any territorial disputes still in play (such as the potential future where Ukraine is unable (or unwilling to spend the necessary cost) to retake Crimea), and is subject to the whims of countries that really don't get along with the rest of NATO. The proposed "half-NATO" status is easier to get into place quickly.

[Duuvian]

Alrighty, thanks for the clarification

[jipehog]

Let's let Ukraine decide on that imo

 

[Strongpoint]

Let's let Ukraine decide on that imo

 

Not really the thread for emotional responses... but not a thread for smilies either.


Ukraine will decide. If someone thinks that the West can enforce surrender even with something like "do this or there will be no more military support" then this someone doesn't understand the mood of Ukrainian society. All that cutting off the support will change is methods of war, not make Ukrainians surrender.

Look at Syryans and how long they resist Assad. Ukraine is a way bigger country, with more defensible terrain, more people who posses adequate training and\or combat experience, and more weapons already present in the country.

Note that Ukraine IS NOT in yet in full war mode. There is no war rationing, forced labor, widespread conscription of everyone within the reach, etc. We can go there, we will go there if necessary. This war will either end quickly with Russian defeat or will last, long, long, long time.

[jipehog]

Any sovereign country determine its own future. Naturally it is Ukraine choice how to peruse its defensive war, just as it as everyone else choice whether to support them. (This true regardless that personally I believe that it is in west best interest to do so)

Western support is Ukraine's full war mode, without it its military demise is inevitable due to simple economic starting with ammunition, and all it could ever hope for would be guerilla resistance with Syria/Chechnya like devastation with Russia easily chocking every access point into the country. This reality affects available choices in the field, something that any Ukrainian military planner can not ignore.

Obviously during war time the messaging is that the west will support Ukraine no matter what, that it is Ukraine choice, that it will not compromise no matter what etc etc  which is great, it has its utility and should result in better terms for Ukraine, but media narratives aside that not how realpolitik works.

Not really your place for tone policing.

[Duuvian]

Ah, but that theory of what is realpolitik is turned on it's head by clever people. Putin decries his war as a response to Western and in particular US influence. It seems to me this necessitates a re-evaluation of what is realpolitik in such a situation. Thus, who is driving? Ukraine is driving.

[EuchreJack]

Any sovereign country determine its own future. Naturally it is Ukraine choice how to peruse its defensive war, just as it as everyone else choice whether to support them. (This true regardless that personally I believe that it is in west best interest to do so)

Western support is Ukraine's full war mode, without it its military demise is inevitable due to simple economic starting with ammunition, and all it could ever hope for would be guerilla resistance with Syria/Chechnya like devastation with Russia easily chocking every access point into the country. This reality affects available choices in the field, something that any Ukrainian military planner can not ignore.

Obviously during war time the messaging is that the west will support Ukraine no matter what, that it is Ukraine choice, that it will not compromise no matter what etc etc  which is great, it has its utility and should result in better terms for Ukraine, but media narratives aside that not how realpolitik works.

Not really your place for tone policing.

Wow, somebody never heard of Vietnam, nor Afghanistan_{(Russian invasion and American invasion, for the uninformed).}..

Ukrainians have the sort of hatred for their adversaries that allowed both those countries to punch above their weight limit.

The lesson from Vietnam & Afghanistan is this: The country that surrenders first loses.

[Strongpoint]

Western support is Ukraine's full war mode, without it its military demise is inevitable due to simple economic starting with ammunition, and all it could ever hope for would be guerilla resistance with Syria/Chechnya like devastation with Russia easily chocking every access point into the country.

You seem to underestimate how hard it is to take a single large fortified city, even when you have total air supremacy and are willing to reduce the city to rubble and the other side has only light infantry. And Ukraine is a quite urbanized country

Even if you cut off ALL new ammo and weapons tomorrow, Ukraine will have to forget about offensive operations and switch to very sporadic use of artillery combined with slow retreat all over the frontline, while fortifying everything to a ridiculous degree using available industrial and construction assets. It will take a lot of time till the defense collapses into a pure guerilla Chechnya-style war.

Again, look at the Syrian opposition, who had only a small chunk of Syrian army on the side of the rebels, who had no centralized command with warring factions, who had to oppose Syrian, Iranian, and later Russian armed forces, who had and very limited supply from outside and look how long they were able to effectively control huge chunks of the country.

And, at the very least, Poland and the Baltic States won't cut their support, no matter what.

[jipehog]

Ah, but that theory of what is realpolitik is turned on it's head by clever people. Putin decries his war as a response to Western and in particular US influence. It seems to me this necessitates a re-evaluation of what is realpolitik in such a situation. Thus, who is driving? Ukraine is driving.

Public narrative isn't policy. Realpolitik isn't one view but principles of how to view things, for perusing ones national interest at the expense of everything else, roughly put it is a Trump like transactional approach that looks at your bottom line vs more idealistic Biden approach that alienates the biggest oil supplier in the world due to its human rights abuses, you can see this in Russia approach as it works closely with Turkey despite Turkey supplying weapons to Ukraine against them.

Regardless, the point here is that war is about power (who has it, who doesn't, and who can effectively use it e.g. Putin's fuck up was due to over estimating his power believing the west can't effectively use their due to political and economical realities) and that without outside support Ukraine military will collapse, so while Ukraine is in the driving sit the reality is that it has to maintain a dialogue to avoid spinning out and crashing.

Western support is Ukraine's full war mode, without it its military demise is inevitable due to simple economic starting with ammunition, and all it could ever hope for would be guerilla resistance with Syria/Chechnya like devastation with Russia easily chocking every access point into the country.

You seem to underestimate how hard it is to take a single large fortified city, even when you have total air supremacy and are willing to reduce the city to rubble and the other side has only light infantry. And Ukraine is a quite urbanized country

I said that without western support Ukraine military demise is inventible (emphasize on military). Otherwise, you seem to underestimate how Ukraine war effort dependent on outside support, for example how long do you think that Ukraine AA can hope to last without expansive ammo, NATO early warning capabilities, fuel communication, etc.

Edit:

Wow, somebody never heard of Vietnam, nor Afghanistan_{(Russian invasion and American invasion, for the uninformed).}..

Great examples of wars pursued without outside support..  /s

[Great Order]

Wow, somebody never heard of Vietnam, nor Afghanistan_{(Russian invasion and American invasion, for the uninformed).}.

I will, however, point out that the terrain was *very* different in both. Afghanistan has shitloads of mountains, Vietnam was both distant overseas and has large swathes of jungle, especially in the north. Ukraine is half steppe steppe with forest across the north to the west. Much harder to run a guerilla war when you have large amounts of open land. At the very least, Russia could subjugate the south east half of the country with a lot more ease.

On top of that, in Vietnam at least, both sides had materiel support from both world powers of the time, without the West Ukraine loses that.