Jump to content
Bjornebye

Russia v Ukraine

Recommended Posts

Just now, Gnasher said:

 

You trust the Russians to treat them by the rules of warfare? They shoot their own generals in the back of the head. 

 

On a more general point.

 

I am trying to understand the reason for this surrender and overall, what has been hapenning there over the past almost 3 months. What I trust is that there was some kind of a deal. Which I understand less and less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I am trying to understand the reason for this surrender and overall, what has been hapenning there over the past almost 3 months. What I trust is that there was some kind of a deal. Which I understand less and less.

I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

NYT editorial board having doubts about what's going on now :

 

 

Can you post the actual text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SasaS said:

Can you post the actual text?

 

Quote

The Senate passed a $40 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine on Thursday, but with a small group of isolationist Republicans loudly criticizing the spending and the war entering a new and complicated phase, continued bipartisan support is not guaranteed.

Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee recently that the next few months may be volatile. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia could take “a more unpredictable and potentially escalatory trajectory,” she said, with the increased likelihood that Russia could threaten to use nuclear weapons.

These are extraordinary costs and serious dangers, and yet there are many questions that President Biden has yet to answer for the American public with regard to the continued involvement of the United States in this conflict.

In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist his revanchist ambitions.

That goal cannot shift, but in the end, it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions. And the U.S. aims and strategy in this war have become harder to discern, as the parameters of the mission appear to have changed.

Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Vladimir Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Mr. Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?

Without clarity on these questions, the White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in supporting Ukrainians — who continue to suffer the loss of lives and livelihoods —  but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.

Americans have been galvanized by Ukraine’s suffering, but popular support for a war far from U.S. shores will not continue indefinitely. Inflation is a much bigger issue for American voters than Ukraine, and the disruptions to global food and energy markets are likely to intensify.

The current moment is a messy one in this conflict, which may explain President Biden and his cabinet’s reluctance to put down clear goal posts. All the more reason, then, for Mr. Biden to make the case to American voters, well before November, that support for Ukraine means support for democratic values and the right of countries to defend themselves against aggression — while peace and security remain the ideal outcome in this war.

It is tempting to see Ukraine’s stunning successes against Russia’s aggression as a sign that with sufficient American and European help, Ukraine is close to pushing Russia back to its positions before the invasion. But that is a dangerous assumption.

A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal. Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down.

The United States and NATO are already deeply involved, militarily and economically. Unrealistic expectations could draw them ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war. Russia, however battered and inept, is still capable of inflicting untold destruction on Ukraine and is still a nuclear superpower with an aggrieved, volatile despot who has shown little inclination toward a negotiated settlement. Ukraine and Russia now “appear further apart than at any other point in the nearly three-month-long war,” as The Times reported.

Recent bellicose statements from Washington — President Biden’s assertion that Mr. Putin “cannot remain in power,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s comment that Russia must be “weakened” and the pledge by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that the United States would support Ukraine “until victory is won” — may be rousing proclamations of support, but they do not bring negotiations any closer.

In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: They are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like. If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.

The United States and NATO have demonstrated that they will support the Ukrainian fight with ample firepower and other means. And however the fighting ends, the United States and its allies must be prepared to help Ukraine rebuild.

But as the war continues, Mr. Biden should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain.

Confronting this reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is what governments are duty bound to do, not chase after an illusory “win.” Russia will be feeling the pain of isolation and debilitating economic sanctions for years to come, and Mr. Putin will go down in history as a butcher. The challenge now is to shake off the euphoria, stop the taunting and focus on defining and completing the mission. America’s support for Ukraine is a test of its place in the world in the 21st century, and Mr. Biden has an opportunity and an obligation to help define what that will be.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

 

Thanks, I've seen it commented on a lot but couldn't get beyond the paywall.

 

(Although I agree with the points about crowing and needless talk about weakening Russia and hints at desired regime change, the main argument is essentially horribly ill-thought out position, which signals Russia that if they can step up their murderous campaign and keep destroying Ukraine a bit longer, US will come under domestic pressure to cut it losses, because of prices, inflation etc. and push Ukraine towards eventually accepting defeat.)



***

 

Update from Tom Cooper. Only bad news. Russians using railway lines to support their blitzkrieg round Popasna.

 

https://medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x/ukraine-war-20-21-may-2022-9b21e72d911e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Thanks, I've seen it commented on a lot but couldn't get beyond the paywall.

 

(Although I agree with the points about crowing and needless talk about weakening Russia and hints at desired regime change, the main argument is essentially horribly ill-thought out position, which signals Russia that if they can step up their murderous campaign and keep destroying Ukraine a bit longer, US will come under domestic pressure to cut it losses, because of prices, inflation etc. and push Ukraine towards eventually accepting defeat.)

 

It's a weird site, sometimes I can read freely, other times I've used up my "free articles for the month" or whatever or I have to log in. Had no problem reading that more than once so far though.

 

I think domestic pressure will affect Biden too but obviously the US Gov has been invested in Ukraine for quite a while now so no idea how things will change or not. I'm trying to avoid giving my own views as much on this subject (as well as posting less generally) to avoid potential arguments too so will leave it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian Mediazona which does the count of Russian armed forces casualties in Ukraine for BBC Russia updated, they are now at 2622 confirmed KIA, according to publicly available media and social media info.

It is obviously not a definite number and excludes separatist forces, but I think it is indicative, with everybody else just throwing estimates around, without disclosing source or methodology.

https://zona.media/translate/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SasaS said:

Russian Mediazona which does the count of Russian armed forces casualties in Ukraine for BBC Russia updated, they are now at 2622 confirmed KIA, according to publicly available media and social media info.

It is obviously not a definite number and excludes separatist forces, but I think it is indicative, with everybody else just throwing estimates around, without disclosing source or methodology.

https://zona.media/translate/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

I don’t think that’s indicative at all (Russian losses are massive imo), but maybe time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Captain said:

I don’t think that’s indicative at all (Russian losses are massive imo), but maybe time will tell.

My usual question is, why? Based on what? Apart from what Ukrainians are saying, this is the only count that is actually based on something other than pure guesswork. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/05/2022 at 00:23, Red Phoenix said:

NYT editorial board having doubts about what's going on now :

 

 

Fucking pinko leftie commie rag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/05/2022 at 22:59, SasaS said:

I am trying to understand the reason for this surrender and overall, what has been hapenning there over the past almost 3 months. What I trust is that there was some kind of a deal. Which I understand less and less.

Maybe Hitchens is right in his column today and it was nothing more than a case of surrender by Azov fighters. Possibly a staight choice of surrender or die.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Maybe Hitchens is right in his column today and it was nothing more than a case of surrender by Azov fighters. Possibly a staight choice of surrender or die.

 

 

 

They were surrendering in stages, in an orderly manner, for days, after they were fairly obviously ordered to. It began with an earlier evacuation of civilians. They were not suddenly overpowered and then decided to surrender. Also, the government made all sort of noises that something was being arranged, maybe to cover themselves, maybe not, we shall see.

I must have watched a couple of hours of their surrender footage and I would say quite a few of them don't look like they wanted or needed or planned to ever surrender. I have not seen any of them paraded in front of TV later with scripted interviews, as they did with the marines surrendering in the Ilichstal. I have only seen the marines COm who answered just who he was, no Azov staff so far. Also, there was something to be gained by both sides by surrendering.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anubis said:

Borscht eating surrender monkeys.

 

Some looked pretty emaciated, but right when they were putting out appeals that they have no food or water left, they also put out a video of a guy with a visible beer gut making some sort of pancakes for the lads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Russian casualties. From Defensionem

 

The separatist Republic of Donetsk has published a list of its military losses: They amount to 1,821 dead and 7,586 wounded. That's a total of 9,407 casualties. Those losses are huge, considering that the separatist "Donbass Armed Forces" (Donetsk+Lughansk combined armed forces) amounted to roughly 40,000 men (+/- 20 BTGs) before the beginning of the war (and therefore before the local mobilisation and conscription). A rough estimate would put those losses at just below 50% of the peacetime military manpower fielded by the so-called Donetsk Republic before the war.

Those losses are not surprising: The bulk of the Russian Armed Forces deployed to Ukraine was largely "unblooded" prior to this conflict. The Russian command therefore heavily relied on experienced troops, mainly VDV, SFs and Naval Infantry, but also separatist forces which have seen combat non-stop for the past 8 years. Therefore, DPR and LPR units have been involved in the bulk of the fighting in the East, which has involved a lot of urban/street fighting. This obviously includes the battle for Mariupol.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/defensionem/posts/5028168870563540

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Maybe Hitchens is right in his column today and it was nothing more than a case of surrender by Azov fighters. Possibly a staight choice of surrender or die.

 

 

Why would anyone not take Ukraines side in the war given they were attacked by Russia? You would have to be a bit of a cunt to side with Russia. Oh....hang on.....

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SasaS said:

More on Russian casualties. From Defensionem

 

The separatist Republic of Donetsk has published a list of its military losses: They amount to 1,821 dead and 7,586 wounded. That's a total of 9,407 casualties. Those losses are huge, considering that the separatist "Donbass Armed Forces" (Donetsk+Lughansk combined armed forces) amounted to roughly 40,000 men (+/- 20 BTGs) before the beginning of the war (and therefore before the local mobilisation and conscription). A rough estimate would put those losses at just below 50% of the peacetime military manpower fielded by the so-called Donetsk Republic before the war.

Those losses are not surprising: The bulk of the Russian Armed Forces deployed to Ukraine was largely "unblooded" prior to this conflict. The Russian command therefore heavily relied on experienced troops, mainly VDV, SFs and Naval Infantry, but also separatist forces which have seen combat non-stop for the past 8 years. Therefore, DPR and LPR units have been involved in the bulk of the fighting in the East, which has involved a lot of urban/street fighting. This obviously includes the battle for Mariupol.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/defensionem/posts/5028168870563540

 

The saddest part of all of this is that the DNR army is basically forced service.

 

There were many, many stories of the DNR "government" going around before the war and immediately after it started and hunting for any young man and forcing them to the front. You can virtually guarantee that most of them do not want to be there at all, and they are suffering the worst of the casualties.

 

The Ukrainians have been releasing the recorded phone calls made in/out of their territories (remember, many soldiers are using their regular cell phones on regular Ukrainian networks) by these men, and it is very, very sad to listen to. One I heard yesterday was basically a man crying, talking with his wife - I hate it here, I don't want to be here, but what am I supposed to do? I would run away, but if I'm caught, they'll shoot me. I can't go to the Ukrainians, they'll see me as the enemy. I can't run to Russia, they'll send me back here. What am I supposed to do?

 

Depressing stuff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Maybe Hitchens is right in his column today and it was nothing more than a case of surrender by Azov fighters. Possibly a staight choice of surrender or die.

 

 

Hitchens is a Milky Way sized cunt

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×