How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

OK, time for me to (quickly) jump in here.

I really do appreciate that this Forum is quick to jump on disinformation, no matter where it comes from or how it might get here (innocently or deliberate).  I also appreciate that there's an understanding of how deliberate disinformation works, in particular the Trojan Horses that feed disinformation in selectively while, generally, seeming to be in agreement with reality.

Where we get into a bit of a challenge is when someone posts "bad news".  We should always be open to this without screaming about agendas and motivations.  Personally, from where I sit, I think we as a group do an excellent job absorbing "bad news" without resorting to defensive "fake news" labeling.

The problem we face is when there's information that appears to be factually based but questionably presented (by the poster, by the source, or both).  How many times have we had go-arounds about Nordstream?  Or why Scholz did or didn't do something?  Lots of speculation, some of it unfounded or unfair.  As long as the discussion is centered on the facts then it's OK.

The big issue is when someone repeatedly posts things which are in the latter category.  Especially when the repeated topic is aimed at sowing doubts and disunity.  This is harder to identify, but experience helps a lot.  Patterns matter.

The reason we're having this discussion now is that Eug85 is sometimes crossing the line of putting out information that is repeatedly slanted in a way that is designed to cause disunity.  Or at the very least push an agenda.  It is correct to call posters out for this, but it's tricky to ascribe motivation.  Be careful to not confuse behavior and motivation.

Steve

[Baneman]

9 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I'm a big believer in hiding where one is from myself...

Although, full disclosure, thanks to my Aspergers, for years I thought of you as "Bill-binned-see".
I only twigged about 6 months ago. 

( bit of record speed really - I worked out an Asterix pun the other day ... only 45 years late ...  )

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, Yet said:

I'd be stoked to have (ex)Russians here to show a pure Russian view without government agenda sauce.

Which is why I always cheer a bit when Grigb comes back to this thread.  He is the only Russian (ex-pat in his case) that we've had making positive contributions.  Well, there's one other who tried but the FSB called in in to answer some questions, so understandably his posting stopped.

Steve

[Vet 0369]

23 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Again, while I am no fan of the Kambot either, it gives me NO pleasure to say any of this, so take a hard pass on the ad homs. You should know better by now, in any case.

This! The Pope himself that this election is unfortunately about electing the Lesser of two Evils.

[Vacillator]

5 minutes ago, Baneman said:

I only twigged about 6 months ago

Location - the clue was in the name for @billbindc .

[A Canadian Cat]

24 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Hmmm, I don't worry about him - it's that other guy - A Canadian Cat - where's he from I wonder 

Not Canada - I swear

But I am really a cat - I walk across my servant's keyboard and I allow him to press the "Submit Reply" button once I am done.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Eug85 said:

I thought that my opinion about Russia was clear from my posts, where I, for example, accused a Russian film of propaganda. I, like you, dream of Ukraine's victory and Russia's fall.

As for my opinion about the problems of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the successes of the Russians, this does not indicate that I am a supporter of Putin. In 2022, everyone ridiculed the Russians for their failures in the war, and praised the Ukrainian Army. It seems that the Russians drew a number of conclusions from this criticism. While the praise did not benefit Ukraine in any way. What is the failed offensive in the Zaporizhia region worth, for example, where the Ukrainians underestimated the enemy's strength and overestimated their own. So I do not think that by criticizing the Ukrainian Army we make it weaker, but on the contrary, we help it, making it stronger and pointing out its weaknesses. Among Ukrainian observers, in connection with the current events on the front, there is a real hurricane of criticism towards the Ukrainian leadership. And I think that this is good, this is right

Thanks for that Eug85.  Just wondering where you stood overall, there was so much noise & such in the thread I couldn't get it straight.  I suspect if you were paid by Putin you would've just lost your bonus for saying you dream of RU's fall.  The RU trolls we've had would've never actually answered the simple question as you did.  'course maybe you are just fooling me, some here would say, but I'll go with your answer unless some evidence shows otherwise.  So again, thanks for that.

[sburke]

35 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Hmmm, I don't worry about him - it's that other guy - A Canadian Cat - where's he from I wonder  ? 

I would have posted a link to Frank Zappa's Magdalena on youtube, but I've done enough exposing the foul Canadian members on this forum.

[Vacillator]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

I've done enough exposing the foul Canadian members on this forum

I should perhaps confess.  I've been to Canada.  Twice.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

I would have posted a link to Frank Zappa's Magdalena on youtube, but I've done enough exposing the foul Canadian members on this forum.

You didn’t do a damned thing. We exposed ourselves (oh ya baby). You just pointed in awe at the glory of the reveal. And yes, we do have extra syrup….you know you want to ask.

[Billy Ringo]

Stumbled across this on another site, much longer part of the NYT interview with Zelensky.  I don't have a subscription so I cannot attach a link, but would like to assume it is completely legit. (And assumption that could obviously be wrong.)

Taken as a whole, a little softer Zelensky stance than what I originally read in the shortened version.  Especially when he mentions his prior direct conversation with Trump.  (highlighted in italics below.)

 

And what would you say, maybe not even to Biden but to the American public, many of whom feel that we cannot raise our engagement and support for Ukraine any further than we already have?

I would tell them that Ukraine has done everything possible to keep America out of this war, actually. Putin counted on defeating Ukraine in a quick campaign and, had Ukraine not stood its ground, Putin would have marched on. Let's consider what the consequences would have been. Number one, you would have some forty million immigrants coming to Europe, America, and Canada. Second, you would lose the largest country in Europe a huge blow to America's influence on the Continent. Russia would now have total influence there. You would lose everyone Poland, Germany and your influence would be zero.

The American public should realize that the fact of Ukraine still standing is not the problem. Yes, war brings difficulties, but Ukraine's resilience has allowed America to solve many other challenges. Let's say Russia attacked Poland next what then? In Ukraine, Russia has found fake legal ground for its actions, saying that it's protecting Russian-speaking people, but it could have been Poland or it could have been the Baltic states, which are all NATO members. This would have been a disaster, a gut punch for the United States, because then you're definitely involved full scale with troops on the ground, funding, investment, and with the American economy going to a wartime footing. So saying that you have been in this war for a long time is just not true. Quite the contrary: I believe that we have shielded America from total war.

Here's another crucial element: this is a war of postponement for the United States. It's a way to buy time. As far as Russia is concerned, Ukraine does not even need to lose outright for Russia to win. Russia understands that Ukraine is struggling as it is; it already stands excluded from the European Union and NATO, with nearly a third of its territory occupied. Russia might decide that's enough, so it might strike Poland just the same in response to some provocation from Belarus, for example. And so, after two and a half years of your support and investment for which we are very grateful you can multiply them all by zero. America would have to start investing from scratch, and in a war of a totally different calibre. American soldiers would fight in it. Which would all benefit Russia tremendously, I should add.

During the Presidential debate, moderators asked Trump whether he wanted Ukraine to win against Russia, and he sidestepped the question. He just said, "I want the war to stop." It must have troubled you to hear his answer and to consider the prospect of his winning.

Trump makes political statements in his election campaign. He says he wants the war to stop. Well, we do, too. This phrase and desire, they unite the world; everyone shares them. But here's the scary question: Who will shoulder the costs of stopping the war? Some might say that the Minsk Agreements either stopped or froze the fighting at some point. But they also gave the Russians a chance to arm themselves even better, and to strengthen their fake claim over our territories they occupied.

But isn't that yet more cause for alarm?

My feeling is that Trump doesn't really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how. With this war, oftentimes, the deeper you look at it the less you understand. I've seen many leaders who were convinced they knew how to end it tomorrow, and as they waded deeper into it, they realized it's not that simple.

Apart from Trump's own reluctance to talk about Ukrainian victory, he has chosen J. D. Vance as his Vice-Presidential candidate.

He is too radical.

Vance has come out with a more precise plan to

To give up our territories.

Your words, not mine. But, yes, that's the gist of it.

His message seems to be that Ukraine must make a sacrifice. This brings us back to the question of the cost and who shoulders it. The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine's expense is unacceptable. But I do not consider this concept of his a plan, in any formal sense. This would be an awful idea, if a person were actually going to carry it out, to make Ukraine shoulder the costs of stopping the war by giving up its territories. But there's certainly no way this could ever happen. This kind of scenario would have no basis in international norms, in U.N. statute, in justice. And it wouldn't necessarily end the war, either. It's just sloganeering.

What does it mean for Ukraine that people with such ideas and slogans are rising to power?

For us, these are dangerous signals, coming as they do from a potential Vice-President. I should say that it hasn't been like this with Trump. He and I talked on the phone, and his message was as positive as it could be, from my point of view. "I understand," "I will lend support," and so on.

[Vance and others who share his views] should clearly understand that the moment they start trading on our territory is the moment they start pawning America's interests elsewhere: the Middle East, for example, as well as Taiwan and the U.S. relations with China. Whichever President or Vice-President raises this prospect that ending the war hinges on cementing the status quo, with Ukraine simply giving up its land should be held responsible for potentially starting a global war. Because such a person would be implying that this kind of behavior is acceptable.

I don't take Vance's words seriously, because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict. It will involve Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Taiwan, China, as well as many African countries. That approach would broadcast to the world the following implicit rule: I came, I conquered, now this is mine. It will apply everywhere: land claims and mineral rights and borders between nations. It would imply that whoever asserts control over territory not the rightful owner but whoever came in a month or a week ago, with a machine gun in hand is the one who's in charge. We'll end up in a world where might is right. And it will be a completely different world, a global showdown.

Let Mr. Vance read up on the history of the Second World War, when a country was forced to give part of its territory to one particular person. What did that man do? Was he appeased or did he deal a devastating blow to the continent of Europe to many nations, broadly, and to the Jewish nation in particular? Let him do some reading. The Jewish people are a strong power base in the United States, so let them conduct a public-education campaign and explain why millions perished thanks to the fact that someone offered to give up a sliver of territory.

When we last spoke, in 2019, Ukraine was caught in the middle of an American political scandal. There was the question of your phone call with Trump, an implicit threat to curtail U.S. aid, and the subsequent impeachment hearings against a U.S. President. I recently reread our interview, and you told me at the time, "In this political chess match, I will not let Ukraine be a pawn." Do you worry that Ukraine has now ended up in a similar situation, used by various political actors to push their own agenda or advantage in the U.S. political context?

To be honest, the incident you mention no longer feels as relevant. That was a long time ago. And since then, many things have changed.

Nonetheless, you must have drawn some conclusions from this experience.

I think Ukraine has demonstrated the wisdom of not becoming captured by American domestic politics. We have always tried to avoid influencing the choices of the American people that would simply be wrong. But, in that incident and elsewhere, I believe we have always demonstrated that Ukraine is definitely not a pawn, and that our interests have to be taken into account.

You have to work to maintain that every day, though. Because the second you relax, that's exactly what will happen. A lot of world leaders want to have some sort of dealings with Putin, to reach agreements, to conduct some business with him. I look at such leaders and realize that they are very interested in playing this game and for them, unfortunately, it really is a game. But what makes a real leader? A leader is someone whom Putin needs for something, not a person who needs Putin. Flirting with him is not a sign of strength. Sitting across the table from him might make you believe you're making important decisions about the world. But what are those decisions really about? Has the war ended? No. Has it produced the outcome you wanted? Not yet. Is Putin still in power? Yes.

Ukraine is a very painful topic for Putin he wanted to defeat us and couldn't which means that it offers a way to build a bond with him. But the truth is that you can only develop relations with Putin on his terms. That means, for instance, proposing that Ukraine should give up some of its territory. This, in a way, is the easiest thing to call for. It is very concrete. And for Putin, it's a morsel that he doesn't even have to cut in order to eat you have already chewed it for him and placed it right in his mouth. When you give it to him, you think you're so smart and cunning, that after such a gesture Putin will listen to you and support your positions. Well, tell me, when did Putin respect those who come to him from a position of weakness?

[...]

A last question about how war changes a person. It's hard to imagine an experience with a more profound effect on the human psyche.

I'm still holding it together, if it's me you're talking about.

But I wonder if there are moments when you catch yourself reacting to things differently than you might have before. Do you notice you've changed at all?

Perhaps I've become less emotional. There's simply no time for that. Just like there's no time for reasoned discourse and arguments. I only have the opportunity to think aloud in that way during interviews. I don't do this with my subordinates and colleagues in the government. If I were to sit down and ruminate on every decision for an hour, I would be able to make only two or three decisions a day. But I have to make twenty or thirty.

[JonS]

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

Well on the plus side, the rest of that operation ended with Russia needing a whole new navy.

[stage whisper] that's the joke ...

[FancyCat]

drawing away from the current discussion, Clarkson brings up a good point, Russia is attempting to switch gears on the escalation ladder (tho i am unsure if one could believe nukes would be more used in a civil war vs external enemies tho isn't that what the worry of civil war involving loose nukes comes down to?), mindful of overusing the nuclear response and knowing its losing its potency to more mundane proxy arming in Yemen.  

Quote

Putin wants to become a figure of history. Like Peter the Great. In a sense he wants to live forever. That kind of excludes nuclear war. Because you can’t just strike once and call it even

He said the same thing three days into the war he started. Since then, Lavrov, Medvedev, Putin and everyone in between has said at least 100 times. They won't do it. They just hope we believe it. Don't give them that win.

Quote

A conceptual problem with much scholarship and analysis of nuclear deterrence is a tendency to assume that autocrats view nukes as a strategic means through which to protect wider national interests when in reality they are primarily tools of narrow regime preservation

I'd go so far as to say that Ukraine could fully conquer Bryansk, Kursk or Belgorod oblasts and not incur the risk of Russian nuclear retaliation as long as the fate of such peripheral border regions remains of marginal importance to the survival of the Putin regime

The Putin regime is more likely to nuke major urban centres in Russia under control of a rival armed Russian faction with viable chances of seizing power in Moscow than any Ukrainian or other external force that seizes control of some peripheral Russian regions with no oil or gas

Quote

"Iran has brokered ongoing secret talks between Russia and Yemen's Houthi rebels to transfer anti-ship missiles to the militant group, three Western and regional sources said, a development that highlights Tehran's deepening ties to Moscow. Seven sources said that Russia has yet to decide to transfer the Yakhont missiles – also known as P-800 Oniks - which experts said would allow the militant group to more accurately strike commercial vessels in the Red Sea and increase the threat to the U.S. and European warships defending them."

@JonathanLanday @PHREUTERS @IrishJReuters

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-brokering-talks-send-advanced-russian-missiles-yemens-houthis-sources-say-2024-09-24/

 

[Carolus]

42 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Negotiations for Russian anti-ship missiles in Houthi hands.

In case anyone has not gotten the memo yet that this is a global frontline that spans from the Barents Sea to the Red Sea, in which the West is still supplying the enemy of itself. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Carolus

[poesel]

2 hours ago, Baneman said:

( bit of record speed really - I worked out an Asterix pun the other day ... only 45 years late ...  )

I'm sorry, but I can't let that pass. Happened to me, too. In my case only 40 years.

In the German version of Asterix, the name of the chief of the Britains is 'Seebigboss'. 'See' meaning 'lake' in German, and so I didn't think about it.

A few years ago I was working in Italy and one of the guys said in a heavy Italian accent: 'se big boss is coming'. That's when my penny dropped. I laughed so hard to the complete puzzlement of the Italians around me.

Aaaand to get back on topic: has Asterix already been to Ukraine?

[Ultradave]

I have a NYT subscription so here's the full article of the NYT interview with Zelensky "gifted" You should be able to read it without a subscription. If it doesn't work, let me know - means I must have done something wrong:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/world/europe/zelensky-interview-times-transcript.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NU4.Pzye.0bzA5kUc4ArI&smid=url-share

Dave

[Maciej Zwolinski]

34 minutes ago, poesel said:

Aaaand to get back on topic: has Asterix already been to Ukraine?

That would be Asterix in Sarmatia. I don't think there was such an episode 

[sburke]

I think this speaks to what the Capt said earlier about Russia's willingness to accept horrendous losses is a message to Ukraine and the West.  Losing thousands without having a strategic direction can't be just being stupid.  Lack of any other alternatives maybe, but when going on the defensive is an option and yet.....  

 

Soldier on Pokrovsk direction: Losing three battalions is no problem for Russia (msn.com)

The Russian forces have an advantage in manpower, so they don't feel sorry for losing even a brigade to capture a village, stated Ukrainian Armed Forces soldier Serhii Volkov in a comment to the RBC-Ukraine YouTube channel.

"They (the Russians - ed.) still have an advantage in manpower, they keep sending these small infantry groups. Losing a brigade of three battalions to capture a village in the suburbs is no problem for them... And battalions consist of 300-400 people, depending on their composition..." Volkov explained.

He noted that brigade after brigade, Russian troops are dying on the approaches. Volkov emphasized that increasing enemy losses is essential because only that can halt their plan to advance further.
When asked by RBC-Ukraine about a report from Bild suggesting that only 10% of Russian forces survive certain assaults, Volkov confirmed that it's true.

"This is visible from drones. It’s not a secret. When it comes to ‘meat grinder’ and so on, it’s a reality. For them, losing 1,000 men to capture a village is no problem at all. Our task is to ensure that they are worn down 100%," the soldier explained.

It should be noted that for several months, the Pokrovsk direction has remained one of the hottest spots on the front.

Today, in the Donetsk region, another Russian military intelligence agent was detained. According to the Security Service of Ukraine, the traitor was spying on the Defense Forces in the Pokrovsk direction.

[Holien]

Poland laying out red lines...

Quote

"If Russia attacks Ukrainian nuclear power plants, it will be necessary to intervene immediately", - Duda

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1839006181286883454

Edited 21 minutes ago by Holien