A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[mkenny]

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

By all parameters the western aid to Ukraine is underwhelming to say the least, and I argue not at all with any intent to allow it to win. 

 

Only said after the failure of the latest western wunder-waffen. Prior to that it was promoted as a 'game changer'

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Your argument that the US intervened with the intent to drive Ukraine to victory, is therefore false.

Well you would (say that) wouldn't you. 

 

  AKA as 'MRD applies'

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, mkenny said:

I think the EU is setting itself up for a direct strike on  its forces if they enter Ukraine. Given there is no  longer any fear the US  will step in and protect its poodles what  are they going to do if it happens? 

Considering the Russian cruise missiles can hit London from their ships tied up in Kalingrad, there hardly seems to be much point to brining them all to Ukraine. They can hit most of Europe with their weapons sytems without creating a polygon for them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russia announces no peacekeepers from any NATO nations will be tolerated.

Well not to worry, I'm sure the guys from Bangladesh and Rwanda will do a Grand job.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

Only said after the failure of the latest western wunder-waffen. Prior to that it was promoted as a 'game changer'

No I said that much before. Before 2022 I criticized the lack of urgency in Ukraine regarding the Donbas war, and the lack of western support, in both war materiel to Ukraine and energy dependency on Russia.

During the war I criticized the drip feeding, suffocating restrictions, and Europe's donation of largely obsolete equipment, as well as the general act of donation of equipment outside of any relevant framework thus reducing severely the effectiveness of given aid. 

You remained blind to it for nearly 3 years. This isn't a good sign for your ability to assess the current situation.

[Stuart Galbraith]

We didnt. Short of Biden growing a spine or Europe turning into war industrialists overnight, there wasnt a lot that could be done about it.

[mkenny]

33 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You remained blind to it for nearly 3 years. This isn't a good sign for your ability to assess the current situation.

Still think the same today as I did 3 years ago. Ukraine was in a fight that, once Russia decided it would never allow it into NATO,  it could never win. It  became a country  entirely dependent on others  for her survival. This made her easy to manipulate and become  a NATO  proxy.  I also believed  that  this  total dependence on the goodwill of US Politicians was never going to end well for Ukraine. 

I still hold those views. 

We appear to be in the end-game now and in a few weeks we will see who was better able to predict the outcome.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

For the 10 millionth time, this is NOT about Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine was NEVER going to join NATO. It was not a prospect. Its not been a prospect till Russia decided to invade Ukraine and try to annex it. These were the same arguments for taking Crimea 11 years ago, and guess what? NATO didnt need sevastopol, because it had bloody Varna.

Again, stop repeating the Russian lies. They were stupid the first time, they have not improved with age.

[Mighty_Zuk]

26 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Still think the same today as I did 3 years ago. Ukraine was in a fight that, once Russia decided it would never allow it into NATO,  it could never win. It  became a country  entirely dependent on others  for her survival. This made her easy to manipulate and become  a NATO  proxy.  I also believed  that  this  total dependence on the goodwill of US Politicians was never going to end well for Ukraine. 

I still hold those views. 

We appear to be in the end-game now and in a few weeks we will see who was better able to predict the outcome.

 

I thought I met all the vatniks here but, well... there you are. What a pleasant surprise.

Vatniks cannot make assessments, so we certainly will NOT see anything of the sort in a few weeks. 

Vatnikism is never good for one's health. Just look what it did to @old_goat. Poor guy, worse condition than those people that can't discuss Russia-Ukraine without inserting Napoleon 3 times a sentence.

[ink]

43 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

For the 10 millionth time, this is NOT about Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine was NEVER going to join NATO.

Of course, that's just you saying that.

Here's what NATO's Secretary General said in December 2021:

Quote

Georgia and Ukraine are long-standing and close NATO partners.

Contributing to our missions and operations.

And aspiring for membership.

and

Quote

And we will also respect the decision of Ukraine, that they aspire for NATO membership. We have stated that they will become a member, but of course, it's up to us, 30 NATO Allies, to decide when Ukraine is ready for membership, when they meet the NATO standards. We help them on their way towards membership with reforms, with support, with fighting corruption, with building defence and security institutions. And the message is that it is only Ukraine and 30 NATO Allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control their neighbours.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_189152.htm

 

[seahawk]

I love how the US and Russia are ignoring the EU.. beautiful.

[bojan]

37 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...Vatnikism is never good for one's health. Just look what it did to @old_goat. Poor guy, worse condition than those people that can't discuss Russia-Ukraine without inserting Napoleon 3 times a sentence.

Are you a qualified doctor? No? Then leave other people's health out of discussion.

[Stefan Kotsch]

23 minutes ago, ink said:

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

For the 10 millionth time, this is NOT about Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine was NEVER going to join NATO.

... Here's what NATO's Secretary General said in December 202

In 2004 Putin did not consider NATO dangerous. Ultimately, it's not about NATO. It is about the fact that Ukraine is considered the property of Russia. Therefore, it must not drift away from the sphere of influence.

[alanch90]

32 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

In 2004 Putin did not consider NATO dangerous. Ultimately, it's not about NATO. It is about the fact that Ukraine is considered the property of Russia. Therefore, it must not drift away from the sphere of influence.

That "but" in the third line says it all. Russia willing to stop the war without having annexed the whole Ukraine but having it locked outside NATO is the 100th piece of evidence of what it was all about all along. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Of course, that's just you saying that.

Here's what NATO's Secretary General said in December 2021:

and

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_189152.htm

 

After Georgia, nobody was going to press for Ukraine to join. If it was ever going to happen it would have been in 2014, and it didnt, because nobody wanted to tweak Putin's nose.

People need to stop repeating this rubbish and engage their brains once in a a while. if it was going to happen, it would have happened in the 8 years after the Crimean invasion. If it didnt happen in those 8 years, it was never going to happen. End of.

[ink]

39 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

In 2004 Putin did not consider NATO dangerous.

For one, 2004 chronologically comes before 2008 (when the Bucharest summit took place). 

39 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Ultimately, it's not about NATO. 

Everyone keeps saying that, but the Russians keep saying it's about NATO.

I've heard that when someone tells you who they are, you should believe them.

[ink]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

After Georgia, nobody was going to press for Ukraine to join. If it was ever going to happen it would have been in 2014, and it didnt, because nobody wanted to tweak Putin's nose.

It's literally the Secretary General of NATO saying the exact opposite just there in the post you quoted.

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

People need to stop repeating this rubbish and engage their brains once in a a while.

Repeating the words of the actual literal Secretary General of NATO, just two months before the invasion? Well after Georgia (14 years after) and Crimea (8 years later).

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

if it was going to happen, it would have happened in the 8 years after the Crimean invasion. If it didnt happen in those 8 years, it was never going to happen. End of.

I mean, you can dismiss that as rubbish, but I do rather imagine that the Russians (and just about everyone else in the world) pays more attention to the words of the General Secretary of NATO during a full-blown international crisis, than they do some guy on an obscure forum saying "nah, that'll never happen".

Look, maybe they're wrong to do it that way round - I'm just saying where the attention happens to be directed.

[Roman Alymov]

44 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

In 2004 Putin did not consider NATO dangerous.

What a surprise, man selected and appointed by Yeltsin's "Family" with sole purpose of protecring their assets and their lifes from the anger of Russian people in 2000, four years later "did not consider NATO dangerous". Of course he didn't, as NATO were the alliance of his master's masters. It took decades of arrogance and incompetence of West politicians to transfor loyal servant into person who is forced to oppose them (of course he would like to return to 2000th, but now he can't do it without presenting surrender as sort of victory)

[glenn239]

4 minutes ago, ink said:

For one, 2004 chronologically comes before 2008 (when the Bucharest summit took place). 

In 2002 or 2003 Bush went to Moscow in order to get a Russian green light on his war of aggression in Iraq.  Relations between Russia and the US were good in 2004, a point in time when the Iraq war was starting to go pear shaped and any Russian support of Iraqi insurgents would be bad.    The US then bailed out of Iraq in 2011 and no longer required blowing sunshine up Russia's ass, and the coup in Kyiv followed a few years later.

[Olof Larsson]

8 hours ago, mkenny said:

I think the EU is setting itself up for a direct strike on  its forces if they enter Ukraine. Given there is no  longer any fear the US  will step in and protect its poodles what  are they going to do if it happens? 

Well, for one thing they can easily cut of all Russian export and imports via the Baltic sea and Black sea.

[Mighty_Zuk]

25 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

That "but" in the third line says it all. Russia willing to stop the war without having annexed the whole Ukraine but having it locked outside NATO is the 100th piece of evidence of what it was all about all along. 

Nah. First, Ukraine isn't locked out of NATO. For national leaders, rules are just a way to put interests into practice. Rules are too restricting? Just change them.

Second, NATO has no monopoly over the concept of an alliance. Alliances existed long before, and will succeed it too.

Third, if we assume NATO is rigid and won't change its acceptance rules, then Russia already blocked Ukraine back in 2014. It didn't need to invade again.

[Olof Larsson]

5 hours ago, mkenny said:

 

Only said after the failure of the latest western wunder-waffen. Prior to that it was promoted as a 'game changer'

It's a mixed bag. The HIMARS/MLRS was notably truly a game changer with western counter battery radars, wrecking compete havoc with Russian logistics and their artillery, and forcing them to completely change indirect fire doctrine. Massed fires was simply not possible, when they couldn't bring masses of munition forwards, and when they lost artillery pieces at a staggering rate. HIMARS/MLRS was also very useful in the SEAD role and they made the Russian logistics in Cherson untenable, resulting in what was arguably Ukraines most important territorial gain, after the russian rout in the spring of 2022. Patriot (and other western air defence systems) have also proven to be very, very capable, even against russian "wunderwaffen". The only failures have (AFAIK) been the Excalibur and GL-SDB, both with small warhead, reliance on GPS, and in the GL-SDB long exposure time at lower altitudes to jamming. SDB, JDAM and AASM seems to be doing fine, and the same with the SCALP/Storm Shadow. I haven't heard much about the Brimestone though.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I suspect Brimstone is hard to make out from the carnage of drones. Reportedly they had some success with it firing it from small boats at Crimea, bur I can't see them getting huge amounts of kills like that.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

That "but" in the third line says it all. Russia willing to stop the war without having annexed the whole Ukraine but having it locked outside NATO is the 100th piece of evidence of what it was all about all along. 

What does Putin say about it?

The only thing that is about keeping Ukraine in the area of influence in Russia. Because you do not allow sovereignty to be allowed to Ukraine. After all, according to the Kremlin, she is part of Russia. Membership in NATO would protect Ukraine from Russia's aging access.

Of course, Putin knows that NATO never attacks Russia. Because of its nuclear weapons.

[Olof Larsson]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I suspect Brimstone is hard to make out from the carnage of drones. Reportedly they had some success with it firing it from small boats at Crimea, bur I can't see them getting huge amounts of kills like that.

Yes, to get the most out of them, you need massed armour and the ability to operate with your own strike aircrafts close enough to the front line. Without full integration that is not going to happen. Not that Russia can mass armoured divisions eighter way, with their current ability seemingly limited to concentrate technical companies, dirtbikeplatoons, and crutchinfantrysquads at the same place. I could se the Brimstone being useful in the SEAD role, as well as engaging ships from USV's.

[Roman Alymov]

20 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

After all, according to the Kremlin, she is part of Russia.

The same Kremlin that directly banned RusArmy from removing yellow-blie flags from administrative buildings in citiers and removing pro-Ukr officials, as was willing to leave soon after negotiating more favorable surrender conditions?

23 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Of course, Putin knows that NATO never attacks Russia. Because of its nuclear weapons.

Oh come on, "collective Putin" are not the people who will authorise the use of nukes even when enemy tanks will be rolling into Moscow (as their families and assets will be in London by that moment). All our hopes are that some creative Majors and Captains would find the way to launch ICBMs without big red button pressed by somebody in Kremlin.