How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

Let's get a one thing clear about Russia's end here insofar as the West is concerned.

 

It is very much within the West's interests to basically kill as many Russians as physically possible and make the war as costly as possible for two obvious purposes: one is to ensure that Russia doesn't have incentive to do it again, and the other is to show China what's up if it keeps eyeballing Taiwan. Believe it or not, this is actually diplomacy of another kind in action. However, this objective eventually has to meet with reality and that reality is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons (on both sides). At some point you talk. Push comes to shove, I doubt any person in this thread would actually allow their families to be incinerated by nuclear war on account of Ukraine and Russia. That's the West's starting point. Russia's starting point is they want those territories. You meet somewhere in between. Or you take the casino option and roll the dice on continuing the war. That's obviously Ukraine's option. I split those up because if Ukraine dives in the deep end, I don't think the West will follow. If they can get OPEC, India, and China to play ball? Yes. But right now... no.

The problem is that Putins demands are beyond unreasonable. The West can't give into nuclear blackmail on this or it never ends. If a whole lot of Russians have to die before Russia sees sense on that. Well it sucks to be a Russian peasant, and ALWAYS has. 1905 and 1917 imply there is some limit to what even they can stand though.

[Huba]

12 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Push comes to shove, I doubt any person in this thread would actually allow their families to be incinerated by nuclear war on account of Ukraine and Russia. That's the West's starting point. Russia's starting point is they want those territories.

Why would you assume that Russian are willing to die in nuclear Armageddon more than me or you? IMO these boundary conditions are the same for everyone. We crossed every "red line" imaginable up to this point, and they didn't even move a finger towards nuclear escalation. Not one bit, except Solovyov's TV madness. Unless they at least set foot on the first step of the nuclear escalation ladder, say make a straightforward threat, back away from test ban treaty or something along these lines I don't see why should the West worry about it more than it does at the moment. Being paralyzed by the bomb merely existing does't make sense.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Huba

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/scholz-complains-about-pressure-to-supply-tanks-to-ukraine-says-he-wont-rush-with-decisions

 

It is just terrible that the burden of leadership weighs on him so. He really needs to retire somewhere quiet with no internet. How dare these people rush him over the biggest war in Europe since 1945.

[FlemFire]

Just now, Huba said:

Why would you assume that Russian are willing to die in nuclear Armageddon more than me or you? IMO these boundary conditions are the same for everyone. 

 

So they're uncivilized barbarians but nuclear warfare is off the table? Right. We already have the Cold War to study. The fact it didn't happen already is in some parts accountable to luck. Every time the West and Russia interact in a military sense, there is a presage of nuclear annihilation. That is a flat out FACT. People are way too certain that the thousands of operational nuclear warheads and the multitude of live delivery systems carrying them will just never, ever be used when, last I checked, it was still a bunch of humans with human impulses and human vices and human minds standing at those buttons. Our countries' leaders and powerbrokers and wealthy fat cats all have vast bunker systems they can all go scurry off to in these events. You and me get the fire. It isn't for ****s and giggles and I'm terrified at how few people seem to understand this. And nevermind there are third parties who would probably love nothing more than to watch it happen. I've already brought up the rest of the planet, but apparently not a single other person thinks the world exists outside of the battlefields of Ukraine and the military industrial complexes of those involved.

 

[Kraft]

56 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

However, this objective eventually has to meet with reality and that reality is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons (on both sides). At some point you talk. Push comes to shove, I doubt any person in this thread would actually allow their families to be incinerated by nuclear war on account of Ukraine and Russia. That's the West's starting point. Russia's starting point is they want those territories. You meet somewhere in between.

Well, if it is that simple we should tell Putin we'll nuke him in 2 weeks, but gesture that we are willing to settle on him leaving Ukraine as a compromise.

Has someone nuked Korea, or Vietnam? Are the Taliban a heap of ash because of the USSR or the US? Nukes arent a win button, unless you fall victim to nuclear blackmail (good luck trying to prevent future blackmail and conflict).

Besides, what should he nuke first to aquire Ukraine? The Black Sea to test the water? Start immediately with London and Washington? Or choose the conservative option and nuke Zelensky? That will surely give him what he wants.. unless some world power already made some conventional promises about the fate of the Russian Armed forces should even a tactical nuke be deployed. It also somehow does not solve the issue of the UA military still standing in his way, or does he intend to nuke the frontlines as well? It would solve none of his issues but create a thousand more.

And when push comes to shove, as you say, I have high hopes that random Russian officer #13 wants to live more than Putin does.

Quote

I've already brought up the rest of the planet, but apparently not a single other person thinks the world exists outside of the battlefields of Ukraine and the military industrial complexes of those involved.

Since you brought this up, nuclear Holocaust involves the whole world dying, so I somewhat assume it is not in Chinas & Indias best interest if the biggest and wealthiest markets seized to exist, not to mention the Ice Age that would wipe them out a little later. If you also include them profiting from the war in general, yeah they already do, but a recession in Europe hits China harder than if Russia, its xx-th most important trade partner buys more military boots. The oil/... profits for Russia will also be abysmal, as the new pipes will have massive costs and Russia has no leverage than to ship it and hope someone buys it at whatever price below market value to customers that originally didnt seem as attractive as the EU.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Kraft

[FlemFire]

23 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Well, if it is that simple we should tell Putin we'll nuke him in 2 weeks, but gesture that we are willing to settle on him leaving Ukraine as a compromise.

Has someone nuked Korea, or Vietnam? Are the Taliban a heap of ash because of the USSR or the US? Nukes arent a win button, unless you fall victim to nuclear blackmail (good luck trying to prevent future blackmail and conflict).

Besides, what should he nuke first to aquire Ukraine? The Black Sea to test the water? Start immediately with London and Washington? Or choose the conservative option and nuke Zelensky? That will surely give him what he wants.. unless some world power already made some conventional promises about the fate of the Russian Armed forces should even a tactical nuke be deployed. It also somehow does not solve the issue of the UA military still standing in his way, or does he intend to nuke the frontlines as well? 

And when push comes to shove, as you say, I have high hopes that random Russian officer #13 wants to live more than Putin does.

 

 

This war has considerably more at stake than just territories and nationalistic rises and falls. I mean, I don't have the time to go over this, but it's pointless anyway. Not that diplomatic history matters much once the war has started, only to say that the diplomatic choices taken were godawful and history will absolutely see that through. So you have the war now, and the war now is just kill everyone and take territories and ostensibly ignore everything in the peripheral from nuclear capabilities to reserves to global oil market shifts to China to India to OPEC and so on and so forth. By all means, I hope you're right and we see Ukraine put an offensive down and drive the Russians out and Putin just eats the L. I think my opinions clear and it's going in circles. I'd love nothing more than to see Ukraine drive the Russians out. The wargamer in me (as this is that type of forum) would actually quite enjoy watching Challengers and Leopards meet Russian armor and put it on them. Perhaps I'm wrong and Russia has nothing left in the, if I may, tank.

  

 

25 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Since you brought this up, nuclear Holocaust somehow involves the whole world dying, so I somewhat assume it is not in Chinas & Indias best interest if the biggest and wealthiest markets seized to exist, not to mention the annoying Ice Age that would wipe them out a little later. If you also include them profiting from the war in general, yeah but a recession in Europe hits China harder than if Russia, its xxth most important trade partner buys more military boots.

 

It doesn't involve the whole world dying, actually. It could just involve a section of it. We, naturally, do not know. For all we know, India and China would call an emergency meeting and let each other know that they are standing pat while the West melts itself into a fat-filled plastic puddle. It is no secret that these countries seek primacy. The West rose to prominence on the backs of much of the rest of the world who were, at the time, undeveloped. I don't see how the East doing this exact same thing would be any different. At that point, they'll be dictating everything. I feel like this notion that things will simply remain the same in perpetuity is more or less hubris. Things can and do change. You don't think some Roman in the old days thought his empire would never end? All around him were glistening ivories, giant buildings, running water, magnificent constructs, war booty from corners of the world he'd never even heard of. How could he possibly imagine that would ever end, right? I don't like narrow perspectives. With the scope of history on hand, which includes the rise and fall of entire civilizations, I would like my leaders to operate with a little caution. That's all.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Khalerick
chyna lol

[Huba]

25 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

So they're uncivilized barbarians but nuclear warfare is off the table?

So says Vladimir Vladimirovich:

Quote

"Such a threat is growing, it would be wrong to hide it," Putin warned while talking about the prospect of nuclear war via video link from Moscow.

But he asserted that Russia would "under no circumstances" use the weapons first, and would not threaten anyone with its nuclear arsenal.

"We have not gone mad, we are aware of what nuclear weapons are," he said, adding: "We aren't about to run around the world brandishing this weapon like a razor."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63893316

[FlemFire]

Didn't they also say they wouldn't invade Ukraine literally days before doing exactly that 

Seem trustworthy enough.

Real talk though, when it comes to nuclear holocaust the main concern is misunderstandings and misinterpretations of information leading to it. 

[sburke]

16 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

It doesn't involve the whole world dying, actually. It could just involve a section of it. We, naturally, do not know. For all we know, India and China would call an emergency meeting and let each other know that they are standing pat while the West melts itself into a fat-filled plastic puddle. It is no secret that these countries seek primacy. 

Primacy wouldn't mean much in the world that would be left.  Think China wouldn't suffer from a catastrophe in the west?  Assuming they wouldn't feel direct environmental impact, the economic fallout would be disastrous.

[danfrodo]

24 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Didn't they also say they wouldn't invade Ukraine literally days before doing exactly that 

Seem trustworthy enough.

Real talk though, when it comes to nuclear holocaust the main concern is misunderstandings and misinterpretations of information leading to it. 

So what is the executive summary of what you are saying?  Succinctly, what do you think UKR & it's allies should do?  Like in a few sentences.  Your overarching thesis is lost, for me, in between all the other stuff. 

I get that your biggest concern in Putin unleashing nukes, either through misunderstanding or brinksmanship or spite.  But what is it you want to do?

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

So what is the executive summary of what you are saying?  Succinctly, what do you think UKR & it's allies should do?  Like in a few sentences.  Your overarching thesis is lost, for me, in between all the other stuff. 

I get that your biggest concern in Putin unleashing nukes, either through misunderstanding or brinksmanship or spite.  But what is it you want to do?

I thought I made it quite clear but I can try to summarize as we are far away from those points:

Putin wants the eastern territories.

The West wants to make it as costly as possible to remove incentive for this sort of action; in the peripheral of this, they also need to show certain other 3rd parties the cost of taking aggressive military action. 

Ukraine wants Russia out and its territories back.

 

 

Somewhere in between, you negotiate. Jingoists and nationalists are not a part of this conversation. They can't be. It's like Orwell's essays on ideological groups, the basic reality is there are certain compromises certain groups will never make. I 100% believe there are Russians and Ukrainians alike that would literally rather grind their nations into ash than see the other guy win a 60/40 cut of the peace deal. You have to understand this, alright? And you have to understand why these conversations are difficult when people like that exist. It gets a little scarier when there are powerful people who are more than willing to oblige these thoughts. Such people also exist so those fears are not unjustified.

 

Now outside those barriers are very different results. Ukraine stands to lose a lot more than just two territories and the West stands to lose a lot of prestige and standing in the world, just saying it rather plainly. Russia also stands to do this just as well if Ukraine is able to push them out and/or the West rallies global markets against Russia. Again, I just want to point out that the depth into which Russia is willing to dig to not be humiliated is fairly deep, so this route is extremely costly and dangerous. Typically, the West suffers war exhaustion at a much faster rate, even when they're not taking part.

 

As far as negotiations go, it's all about putting yourself at advantage. There's a reason why the U.S. General Milley said Ukraine should go to the table in November (he also said there was no military offramp, by the way). Ukraine had taken back some territories and looked competent enough to make this a long war. Russia at the time was drawing up reserves. It was a position of strength vs. uncertainty on the part of the Russians. Now that time has passed. Now everybody is sitting around wondering if Russia is going to go on another offensive, or if Ukraine can breakthrough after Russia has spent 9+ months building static defenses. Every single time you push off negotiations, you run the risk of things escalating in the wrong direction.

 

I mentioned, though, that I truly don't think the military side of this is the big bargaining chip. IMO, Ukraine fights and holds on while Western intelligence and weaponry pours in. The West meanwhile has a main objective that is totally outside of Ukraine: they have to get other global markets onboard. Truly, that's it. Russia would fall apart very, very quickly. Problem is that those economic and political bullets are missing right now. And those are the ones we need to land. I don't know how people assess Russia's situation as precarious. As George Kennan said, it's impossible to fully understand the inner workings of a foreign country. Most anything you hear about another nation's innerworkings is going to be propaganda or disinfo. Example, I personally think the notion of Russia running out of missiles was disinfo - spread by Russia themselves. But my thinking on the whole is that Russia learned from 2014's sanctions and have successfully shifted trade east to prepare for the economic contractions the West would be belting across their backs. I have contacts all over the world, just as well, and I do not hear this anti-Russian fervor at all from those places. Also, again just plainly speaking, I don't know how seriously I can take Europe's war effort when they're still trading with Russia. Talking about sending Ukraine tanks with one hand while the other helps build the ATGM's to destroy them. I'm sorry but even this incongruity has to make a few people twitch.

 

My personal hope is that Ukraine comes out of this as a member of NATO. If that doesn't happen then this entire affair has been a tremendous failing. There are ways to do that which are fairly realistic, but will require compromise. There are ways to do it that are tremendously risky and require no compromise. Measuring which route you go is something you take day by day.

 

[kevinkin]

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/01/13/did-anyone-say-war-fatigue-about-ukraine/

Russia has fallen back to more defensive positions, recruited fresh troops through mass conscription, returned to frenetic industrial production (40 to 50 heavy armored vehicles per month) and is crowding its best tanks, the T-90, in eastern Ukraine.

Is this true? And what freaking quality are they spitting out if so?

Here is one line summary of the "agreement":

There is at least one thing on which Russia and NATO agree: Neither want the alliance directly dragged into the war. The rules to prevent such an event were set early on and they still hold. They are that NATO nations shall not find themselves as co-belligerents in Ukraine and that Russia shall not attack NATO territory. It implies that the weapons delivered from abroad are in Ukrainian hands, and that their ammunitions do not fall on Russian territory. In this regard, the new military aid does not change the rules of the game as long as Ukrainians respect these rules of engagement.

On the nuclear equation, the only escalation that the new deliveries might incur would be related to Moscow’s rhetoric. Russia is all too aware that nuclear threats have no impact on Ukrainian resolve. The main objective of Moscow’s nuclear saber-rattling is therefore to scare the West so that it restrains its support to Ukraine. This, too, seems to have failed.

So the gloves are coming off. No war fatigue. But don't back Putin and the likes of Prigozhin into a corner. Only then might the nukes fly. (?) Can Russia withdraw in the face of a deadly stream of western weapons and just live to fight another day? Internally, "Hey it was us against NATO and the west; we did our best for mother Russia. Next time will be different. And the time after that, even more different." What an uneasy peace this may become.

 

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

It doesn't involve the whole world dying, actually. It could just involve a section of it. We, naturally, do not know. For all we know, India and China would call an emergency meeting and let each other know that they are standing pat while the West melts itself into a fat-filled plastic puddle.

Im not talking about the economic impact and trade route implications of an RS-28 Sarmat.

If the west is 'melting into a fat-filled plastic puddle' because of atomic weapons impacting we will have a world wide nuclear winter after the world wide atomic fallout. Both will kill off the vast majority of the worlds population, the climate nosedives and crop harvests fail around the globe for a decade or so.

Heres the latest from wikipedia

Quote

According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[139] a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.[140][141]

I personally have already stocked up on Merino Wool socks.

Also keep in mind, it only takes about 100 global firestorms for the cooling effect to induce an Ice age (based on empirical data from Dresden and Hiroshima), Russia is really overkilling it with their 6000 nuclear warheads.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Kraft

[kevinkin]

13 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Again, I just want to point out that the depth into which Russia is willing to dig to not be humiliated is fairly deep, so this route is extremely costly and dangerous.

All Russia has left is nuclear blackmail at this point. Now is not the time to kick the can down the road. They, or some other two bit so-called nation will do the same in the future. All the west and Ukraine are asking is a return to the pre 2014 borders. Then they will talk. Otherwise they will have to be forced out. And that is not a nuclear trigger in itself. I am starting to think that the west sees UA casualties mount and is now slowly replacing bodies with high tech bullets calculating that if P has not gone nuclear by now, its time to titrate more offensive ground taking equipment into the theater. You can't negotiate from strength with Russia occupying Ukrainian soil. 

[LongLeftFlank]

51 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

I thought I made it quite clear but I can try to summarize as we are far away from those points:

.... I don't know, so few seem genuinely concerned about where this is going while people post tactical vids of guys getting blown up to Tiktok music

Hey Khalerick, welcome to the thread, and it's always good to have a team B / devil's advocate view here.... I and others have played that role on occasion over the last 2000 pages.

But you have now left us about a dozen wordy posts over the last 2 pages in which you have laid out some *extremely* confident statements as to facts, only some of which may in fact be true.   A bit of a Gish Gallop debating strategy.

....And now you seem to be saying 'take it or leave it' on your thesis.  

I'm not tone policing -- we have some *very* cranky regular posters here, some of them in the emerging Western democracy that is fighting for its life. But nobody is going to make it their business to parse and debate each one of your assertions. Especially if your response to being challenged is simply to double down and say 'I thought I made myself clear.'

And then seem to suggest that the people posting on this thread are more preoccupied with confirmation bias via Tweet or giggling over war porn than understanding the ramifications of the struggle.

Because if that's really your impression of this community, you might want to take your opinions elsewhere.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Khalerick said:

This war has considerably more at stake than just territories and nationalistic rises and falls. I mean, I don't have the time to go over this, but it's pointless anyway.

We've covered this topic, in depth, probably two or three dozen times since February.  You bring up no angles that haven't been covered before.  The consensus here is that we have to be careful with Russia, especially after the war is over, but he's not crazy and he won't nuke.  He doesn't even seem willing to risk a conventional war with the West (we'll have to see about the pipeline that just blew up, of course).

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

I thought I made it quite clear but I can try to summarize as we are far away from those points:

Putin wants the eastern territories.

Here's where you are wrong.  Putin wants:

1. Ukraine destroyed as a viable nation state, forever
2. Ukraine "demilitarized" without any NATO forces on its soil *EVER*
3. permanent and total control of all Ukrainian territory anywhere near the Black Sea coast and the Donbas
4. formal recognition of all annexed territory by Ukraine (with the rest of the world to follow), especially Crimea
5. lifting of all sanctions against Russia and normalizing trade relations with the rest of the world
6. Europe to return to being dependent upon Russian energy
7. no expansion of NATO
8. no accountability for its crimes

That's what Putin wanted going into this war in February and, by all accounts, it is still what he says is the minimum for starting negotiations.

In addition to these openly stated goals (yes, Putin has explicitly stated these), he has two more:

1. restore the Soviet empire (this was a goal before the war, but oh boy has he made this a bigger problem as it's collapsed a LOT more since February 2022)
2. a divided Europe

Of course this war screwed up both of those big time, but to be clear he still wants them.

And I could go on, because there is more as part of Russia's bigger beef with NATO, Europe, and the US.

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

The West wants to make it as costly as possible to remove incentive for this sort of action; in the peripheral of this, they also need to show certain other 3rd parties the cost of taking aggressive military action. 

The West also finally has decided they have had enough of Russia being a perpetual "bad actor", so they want Russia's long term ability be one significantly curtailed.

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

Ukraine wants Russia out and its territories back.

And Russia to be held accountable for its crimes with some sort of security guarrantees that it won't happen again.

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

As far as negotiations go, it's all about putting yourself at advantage. There's a reason why the U.S. General Milley said Ukraine should go to the table in November (he also said there was no military offramp, by the way). Ukraine had taken back some territories and looked competent enough to make this a long war. Russia at the time was drawing up reserves. It was a position of strength vs. uncertainty on the part of the Russians. Now that time has passed. Now everybody is sitting around wondering if Russia is going to go on another offensive, or if Ukraine can breakthrough after Russia has spent 9+ months building static defenses. Every single time you push off negotiations, you run the risk of things escalating in the wrong direction.

Tell that to Putin, because he is absolutely the one that refuses to negotiate.  Which indicates that Russia needs further defeats on the battlefield before Putin will start to be serious about negotiations.

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

My personal hope is that Ukraine comes out of this as a member of NATO. If that doesn't happen then this entire affair has been a tremendous failing. There are ways to do that which are fairly realistic, but will require compromise.

Correct.  But until there is even the remotest signs of willingness on Russia's part to compromise, then there are no realistic options for a diplomatic settlement UNLESS it means Ukraine surrendering.  That's up to Ukraine and not the West.

Steve

[dan/california]

17 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Hey Khalerick, welcome to the thread, and it's always good to have a team B / devil's advocate view here.... I and others have played that role on occasion over the last 2000 pages.

But you have now left us about a dozen wordy posts over the last 2 pages in which you have laid out some *extremely* confident statements as to facts, only some of which may in fact be true.   A bit of a Gish Gallop debating strategy.

....And now you seem to be saying 'take it or leave it' on your thesis.  

I'm not tone policing -- we have some *very* cranky regular posters here, some of them in the emerging Western democracy that is fighting for its life. But nobody is going to make it their business to parse and debate each one of your assertions. Especially if your response to being challenged is simply to double down and say 'I thought I made myself clear.'

And then seem to suggest that the people posting on this thread are more preoccupied with confirmation bias via Tweet or giggling over war porn than understanding the ramifications of the struggle.

Because if that's really your impression of this community, you might want to take your opinions elsewhere.

When LLF tells us we are full of it he brings receipts! Boxes of them...

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

When LLF tells us we are full of it he brings receipts! Boxes of them...

Haha, no, others on this board are a lot better informed tbh. That's why I'm here personally (besides being a 23 year CMer, when work allows).

But I do try to document when I make an assertion and it is always with the expectation that I could be mistaken, or overgeneralising.

And I don't want this to put Khalerick off; I am very interested in his views, and sources. But he may need to talk TO us a little more, not past us.

Edited January 14, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But I do try to document when I make an assertion and it is always with the expectation that I could be mistaken, or overgeneralising.

You were not doing that in this case.

I find it annoying to go through a very detailed discussion, full of debate and conceding points here and there, to arrive at a sound conclusion only to have someone say it was arrived at through confirmation bias.  That's rather belittling.  Sometimes people who are making an argument for something have it confirmed by reality, not by bias.  Otherwise all opinions would be confirmation bias by definition.

Steve

[FlemFire]

19 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Hey Khalerick, welcome to the thread, and it's always good to have a team B / devil's advocate view here.... I and others have played that role on occasion over the last 2000 pages.

But you have now left us about a dozen wordy posts over the last 2 pages in which you have laid out some *extremely* confident statements as to facts, only some of which may in fact be true.   A bit of a Gish Gallop debating strategy.

....And now you seem to be saying 'take it or leave it' on your thesis.  

I'm not tone policing -- we have some *very* cranky regular posters here, some of them in the emerging Western democracy that is fighting for its life. But nobody is going to make it their business to parse and debate each one of your assertions. Especially if your response to being challenged is simply to double down and say 'I thought I made myself clear.'

And then seem to suggest that the people posting on this thread are more preoccupied with confirmation bias via Tweet or giggling over war porn than understanding the ramifications of the struggle.

Because if that's really your impression of this community, you might want to take your opinions elsewhere.

 

I've been quite polite considering some of the rhetoric I'm reading. Why is this directed toward me? All I did was ask a very simple question of how does Ukraine militarily win this war. My belief is there is no such conclusion. The highest ranking officer in the entire U.S. military has said there is no military offramp so this is not a niche observation. My conclusion is that the West needs to get the global markets in line otherwise Russia will gladly oblige a long war. I don't understand how this is controversial.

 

Going by the Military Times at the outset of the war, backed by IISS yearly report, this is what Russia had:

900,000 active personnel with 2,000,000 in reserve.

40,000ish fighters from Dontesk and Luhansk.

18,500+ AFVs. 5,500+ pieces of artillery.

 

Taken as read, people in this thread seem weirdly certain all of this manpower and material has vanished, though, and of that I'm not so certain. The Joint Chief of Staffs of the United States military doesn't seem so certain. I don't wish to argue from authority, but that is some rather supreme authority. You say I gish gallop while I'm trying to illuminate the wider picture? My entire point is that the solution is a diplomatic/economic one and that statements like General Milley's are correct. OPEC, India, and China are not helping. That's basically the other half of the planet. We need them to cooperate to dry out Russia's oil receipts and force them to the table at a weakened position. There is nothing complicated or conspiratorial or contrived about this argument.

 

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We've covered this topic, in depth, probably two or three dozen times since February.  You bring up no angles that haven't been covered before.  The consensus here is that we have to be careful with Russia, especially after the war is over, but he's not crazy and he won't nuke.  He doesn't even seem willing to risk a conventional war with the West (we'll have to see about the pipeline that just blew up, of course).

Here's where you are wrong.  Putin wants:

1. Ukraine destroyed as a viable nation state, forever
2. Ukraine "demilitarized" without any NATO forces on its soil *EVER*
3. permanent and total control of all Ukrainian territory anywhere near the Black Sea coast and the Donbas
4. formal recognition of #2 by the rest of the world, especially Crimea
5. lifting of all sanctions against Russia
6. normalizing trade relations with the rest of the world
7. no accountability for its crimes
8. Europe to return to being dependent upon Russian energy
9. no expansion of NATO

That's what Putin wanted going into this war in February and, by all accounts, it is still what he says is the minimum for starting negotiations.

In addition to these openly stated goals (yes, Putin has explicitly stated these), he has two more:

1. restore the Soviet empire (this was a goal before the war, but oh boy has he made this a bigger problem as it's collapsed a LOT more since February 2022)
2. a divided Europe

Of course this war screwed up both of those big time, but to be clear he still wants them.

And I could go on, because there is more as part of Russia's bigger beef with NATO, Europe, and the US.

The West also finally has decided they have had enough of Russia being a perpetual "bad actor", so they want Russia's long term ability be one significantly curtailed.

And Russia to be held accountable for its crimes. 

Tell that to Putin, because he is absolutely the one that refuses to negotiate.  Which indicates that Russia needs further defeats on the battlefield before Putin will start to be serious about negotiations.

Correct.  But until there is even the remotest signs of willingness on Russia's part to compromise, then there are no realistic options for a diplomatic settlement UNLESS it means Ukraine surrendering.  That's up to Ukraine and not the West.

Steve

 

Putin is a tyrant. News at 9. The guy can still be negotiated with. Despite your assertions here that he refuses to negotiate, there have been efforts by both sides now and again. As for demands... this is something you can learn at a used car lot, but typically when you come to negotiations you do so with the extremes and then walk it back from there. Unfortunately, the demands are turning into stone right in public limelights. I'm fully in support of the theater of Zelensky and co. coming to America and letting people understand the situation. I'm not nearly in as much support of him locking Ukraine into a deathmatch with a former superpower run by a dictator when we already know dictators can make their own countries suffer as much as they want to get what they want.

 

Basic rule of thumb is to always leave yourself an out. Again, I don't think this should be controversial. Like I'm not trying to rile people up. You can leave yourself an out while at the same time pursuing the war goals of driving Russia out of eastern Ukraine. You can't just assume your war goals will come to reality, though. I'm sorry, but that is bad statesmanship. There is a strong argument made by Hans Morgenthau, the father of political realism, that public diplomacy is necessarily self-destructing. Neither side is going to have an easy time compromising when they're screaming to the world that they want XYZ and nothing less. It's also why platforms like the U.N. turn into useless soapboxes. I think this mistake has been made here and it makes me worried about the war escalating into something worse because we're edging toward the territory of, well, as some in this thread stated, things just not escalating because they won't. Tautologies like that work until they don't.

[FlemFire]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

All Russia has left is nuclear blackmail at this point. Now is not the time to kick the can down the road. They, or some other two bit so-called nation will do the same in the future. All the west and Ukraine are asking is a return to the pre 2014 borders. Then they will talk. Otherwise they will have to be forced out. And that is not a nuclear trigger in itself. I am starting to think that the west sees UA casualties mount and is now slowly replacing bodies with high tech bullets calculating that if P has not gone nuclear by now, its time to titrate more offensive ground taking equipment into the theater. You can't negotiate from strength with Russia occupying Ukrainian soil. 

You can, actually, if Russia has no oil receipts and Muscovites start feeling the effects of their leader's decisions.

What would Putin's response be if you cut these resource revenues in half? Throw more men into Ukraine? With what money? It's the same basic objective and conclusion, just a different route. A route I personally think is far more realistic and far safer. When I see Putin threatened militarily, I just see a different response mechanism activated: putting more men in the grinder. And he can do that all damn day if the oil is flowing.

[dan/california]

This has been discussed in a great deal of detail. About 200 pages worth to be precise. Below is s small sampling of facts I can comfortably state most of the board mostly agrees with. First of all there is rock solid photographic evidence that Russia has lost about as many tanks as they started the war with in operational service. This represents the absolute minimum of Russian losses since it doesn't include anything they managed to limp or haul off of the field. 

The majority Russias mothballed fleet has been stored out doors in places where it snows all winter and given little or no ongoing maintenance, they are little more than scrap metal. So much so there is at least one incident of the officer charge of one of these glorified scrap metal operations killing himself when the MOD rang him up told him to get running tanks on trains to Ukraine.

If you look at the video below of the Russian tank restoration facility you will find a segment of a tank engine on a work stand. It is about as much rust as metal. I would bet my car the pistons are seized solid, among many, many other joys. We are talking about a hundred hours or more of skilled labor to get that apart, re-machine large parts of it, and put it back together so that actually runs for more than five minutes. This is one they put in their propaganda video. 

I could go on, and on, and on...

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

I've been quite polite considering some of the rhetoric I'm reading. Why is this directed toward me? All I did was ask a very simple question of how does Ukraine militarily win this war. My belief is there is no such conclusion. The highest ranking officer in the entire U.S. military has said there is no military offramp so this is not a niche observation. My conclusion is that the West needs to get the global markets in line otherwise Russia will gladly oblige a long war. I don't understand how this is controversial.

 

Going by the Military Times at the outset of the war, backed by IISS yearly report, this is what Russia had:

900,000 active personnel with 2,000,000 in reserve.

40,000ish fighters from Dontesk and Luhansk.

18,500+ AFVs. 5,500+ pieces of artillery.

 

Taken as read, people in this thread seem weirdly certain all of this manpower and material has vanished, though, and of that I'm not so certain. The Joint Chief of Staffs of the United States military doesn't seem so certain. I don't wish to argue from authority, but that is some rather supreme authority. You say I gish gallop while I'm trying to illuminate the wider picture? My entire point is that the solution is a diplomatic/economic one and that statements like General Milley's are correct. OPEC, India, and China are not helping. That's basically the other half of the planet. We need them to cooperate to dry out Russia's oil receipts and force them to the table at a weakened position. There is nothing complicated or conspiratorial or contrived about this argument.

 

 

Putin is a tyrant. News at 9. The guy can still be negotiated with. Despite your assertions here that he refuses to negotiate, there have been efforts by both sides now and again. As for demands... this is something you can learn at a used car lot, but typically when you come to negotiations you do so with the extremes and then walk it back from there. Unfortunately, the demands are turning into stone right in public limelights. I'm fully in support of the theater of Zelensky and co. coming to America and letting people understand the situation. I'm not nearly in as much support of him locking Ukraine into a deathmatch with a former superpower run by a dictator when we already know dictators can make their own countries suffer as much as they want to get what they want.

 

Basic rule of thumb is to always leave yourself an out. Again, I don't think this should be controversial. Like I'm not trying to rile people up. You can leave yourself an out while at the same time pursuing the war goals of driving Russia out of eastern Ukraine. You can't just assume your war goals will come to reality, though. I'm sorry, but that is bad statesmanship. There is a strong argument made by Hans Morgenthau, the father of political realism, that public diplomacy is necessarily self-destructing. Neither side is going to have an easy time compromising when they're screaming to the world that they want XYZ and nothing less. It's also why platforms like the U.N. turn into useless soapboxes. I think this mistake has been made here and it makes me worried about the war escalating into something worse because we're edging toward the territory of, well, as some in this thread stated, things just not escalating because they won't. Tautologies like that work until they don't.

Quote

https://nypost.com/2022/03/29/russia-commander-kills-himself-after-units-tanks-dismantled-ukraine/

 

 

Quote

 

The Russian Army’s operational tank fleet

Soviet tank production – a legacy of WW2 (‘the Great Patriotic War’) – was undertaken at vast plants in Kharkov, Nizhny Tagil, Omsk and Chelyabinsk. As many as 3,000 tanks were churned out annually. Due to sanctions and other factors, tank production has collapsed (it is believed two company batches of T-90M have been delivered since February, but these would have been vehicles in assembly with available parts). The operational tank fleet consists of various modifications of the three main types: T-72, T-80 and T-90.  At the end of 2021, there were in the order of 2.600 operational tanks, with another 400-odd mainly T-72 variants used as range tanks.

T-72B	T-72BA	T-72B3	T-72B3M	T-80U	T-80BV	T-80BVM	T-90A
1,135	93	558	248	186	248	31	186

 

 

 

Quote

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-to-modernize-800-vintage-t-62-tanks-due-to-ukraine-losses-report

 

Quote

 

Russian tank losses per Oryx, which reperesents an absolute minimum, since each loss requires a picture they inspect carefully

Tanks (1626, of which destroyed: 956, damaged: 73, abandoned: 60, captured: 537)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by dan/california

[kevinkin]

13 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

OPEC, India, and China are not helping. That's basically the other half of the planet. We need them to cooperate to dry out Russia's oil receipts and force them to the table at a weakened position. There is nothing complicated or conspiratorial or contrived about this argument.

 

No they are not and may never. If they do cooperate and take less oil, it will be at their own pace. Not the West's. And in the case of China, nothing they do will be in the West's interest. It's silly to think otherwise. Meanwhile Ukraine, a nation unjustly attacked, it being bleed white but still stands. The status quo as it exists at the front is untenable and not in the interest of NATO or the US. The status quo must be upended in the Ukraine's favor or we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Some here are more worried than others about the correlation of forces moving forward. Miley is concerned. That's why he threw Putin a bone. But he also knows the RA is a collection of Rock 'Em Sock Em Robots. The little guy didn't or couldn't take the bone. So now starts the transfer of more modern western equipment. We also have discussed the proper pace of such transfers. No one here wants a nuclear war and nothing proposed would instigate one. 

PS: somewhere I read the official channels between the US and Russia have never been so busy. I will try to find the source again. 

[Battlefront.com]

36 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

I've been quite polite considering some of the rhetoric I'm reading. Why is this directed toward me?

Because you are dismissive of the depth of discussion that goes on here.  We do not just take a quote from one guy and say that is sufficient to prove everything else said as wrong.

36 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Taken as read, people in this thread seem weirdly certain all of this manpower and material has vanished, though, and of that I'm not so certain.

Not at vanished, not relevant.  Again, this is a discussion that has been had many times before and with greater nuance than bean counting.  Which is the exact sort of thing that underlies the horrific predictions made by "experts" on Russia before and during this war.

Numbers are only a part of the story.  The other part is that Russia can't access the reserves without a declaration of war.  Therefore, that large number that's been so often quoted is meaningless unless there is a massive shift in how Russia is manning its armed forces.  A shift that Putin is overtly afraid of doing.  The partial mobilization was a long delayed compromise measure and was very poorly executed.  It was supposed to go after reserves first, but in effect was grabbing people off the street (literally in many cases) because it was the easiest thing to do.

36 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Putin is a tyrant. News at 9. The guy can still be negotiated with. Despite your assertions here that he refuses to negotiate, there have been efforts by both sides now and again.

You need to do better research.  Putin is not negotiating.  He says he will, even so far as saying with no preconditions, then lists off all the same BS he started the war with.  There are efforts from time to time to test the waters, and each time it's come back with Putin being unwilling to abandon any of the things I enumerated.

If you think this is wrong, please cite a source.

36 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

As for demands... this is something you can learn at a used car lot, but typically when you come to negotiations you do so with the extremes and then walk it back from there.

At some point Putin might conform to what you described, but so far there's been no signs of this.  Again, if you disagree then you need to provide proof or you should adjust your concept of what is going on in this war.

36 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Basic rule of thumb is to always leave yourself an out.

Yes, and as we've discussed maybe 1000 times (as recently as a few pages ago) this is exactly what Putin did not do. 

You really should go back and read more of what is discussed here instead of insisting this is all novel.

Steve

[dan/california]

33 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

You can, actually, if Russia has no oil receipts and Muscovites start feeling the effects of their leader's decisions.

What would Putin's response be if you cut these resource revenues in half? Throw more men into Ukraine? With what money? It's the same basic objective and conclusion, just a different route. A route I personally think is far more realistic and far safer. When I see Putin threatened militarily, I just see a different response mechanism activated: putting more men in the grinder. And he can do that all damn day if the oil is flowing.

 

Quote

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/urals-oil

 

Urals oil is currently being priced about thirty dollars per barrel below Brent Crude. That is actually a devastatingly effective sanctions program in the medium to long term. Brent at ~$85 per barrel is well within historical norms. And Russian oil is expensive to extract. At $55 per barrel Russia is not making a lot of money. Certainly not relative to the vast expenses of the war.

Edited January 14, 2023 by dan/california