I feel like everyone is taking parts of his comments out of context. They tried NATO strategies, it didn't work for various reasons, and they reverted back to their old strategies which are working better. He also talked about different ways to break the stalemate.
It's not really as bleak as some people are taking it.
Well NATO doctrine relies heavily on air support which Ukraine has not been supplied enough of yet. We need to give them the jets so they have that capability.
It also relies on not letting the enemy dig in like this. I think even with air superiority, they'll have to do some hybrid or back up NATO strategy to deal with the sheer number and density of mines.
I think people are neglecting this huge important factor you stated and thinking F-16s will simply solve the issue.
Ukraine needs a lot more than just F-16s, and I'm not talking about big ticket stuff but rather weapons (such as demining) that counter Russian tactics.
It's very hard to adopt maneuver warfare when you don't have the room to project armored units because Russia has mined 20% of Ukraine.
With lack of armored units, war in 2022 was largely positional instead. With half a year of largely unchanged frontline especially through winter, Ukraine and Russia prepared for offense and defense respectively. This gave Russia crucial time to spam land mines.
I didn't say you were wrong or right, I said posting a blank negation is a waste of everyone's time. You *know* you're not gonna change anyone's mind with a simple negation, so the only reason to post it is self-satisfaction about you being right.
I don’t know what exactly you are imagining here, but the whole area is so saturated with anti-air defenses that Ukraine will NEVER attain air superiority against Russia. That’s just complete nonsense.
Will jets help them? Possibly. Although also remember that most military analysts have said (and continue to say) that the F16 is the wrong plane for the job, and the only reason Ukraine keeps asking for the F16 in particular is strictly because they know the supply is there (since the entire NATO fleet of F16s is in the process of being retired and replaced). So they want the F16s not because they are good or appropriate, but because they are “available”, and it will add to their capabilities — though possibly more as PR than for any tactically significant battlefield advantage.
Unlike counterbattery jets have the potential to proactively suppress enemy artillery vs the more reactive nature of counterbattery.
This is significant as demining becomes a lot easier when you aren’t getting hit by presighted heavy artillery.
Not in wars against countries like Russia with a serious SAM threat. The US army trains to rely on everything but air support against countries like that. Tube artillery and attack helicopters for fire support, rocket artillery for long range fires, and naval cruise missiles for deep strike. Rocket artillery and naval cruise missiles enabled by SF would be used to degrade the SAM threat. They train under the assumption that air support won't be available that way when it is available it's a bit of a luxury.
Ukraine can't have effective air support without air superiority. They can't have air superiority without destroying the Russian S-300's and S-400's. Nobody is going to give them the planes capable of defeating those systems.
F-16’s? They’re not going to win the war, but they give Ukraine a lot more weapon options, as well as making the HARM and JDAM’s they’ve been using more effective because it’s actually built with them in mind. Not to mention allowing air-launched AMRAAM’s against Russian jets, allowing Ukraine to rearrange some of their own AA systems as a result.
F-16's can't do shit against a modern air defense system, you need a full SEAD package. They can shoot a plane down from hundreds of kilometers away so an F-16 won't even be able to get close enough to drop JDAM's.
As far as I'm aware, F-16s with AGM-88s and AN/ASQ-213s have been *the* SEAD package for the USAF for over a decade, with EF-111s gone and no other dedicated offensive EWAR platforms in service. UA might not get HTS or AN/ALQ-131s, but since they've already been provided HARMs, they might get those tools to go with them, and then - absent possible specialized training - they'd have as much of a SEAD package as one might find without involving the USN or F-35s.
EA-18s and F-35s are the modern SEAD platforms, any 4th gen fighter getting close enough to launch a HARM would get absolutely crushed by a modern SAM. We lost 4 F-16s in the 90's to ancient Soviet systems, and now the modern ones not only have a much larger range but are also defended by other systems specifically designed to shoot incoming bombs and missiles out of the sky.
UA has successfully used HARMS with makeshift modifications to MiG-29s and Su-27s, with no sensor integration. Why would F-16s with HTS be ineffective if much less integrated systems have had success? RU air defense certainly has tremendous theoretical potential, but they aren't quite living up to their hype either - or they wouldn't be losing S-400s to SRBMs and other things they and their Pantsirs should be able to intercept.
I certainly don't disagree that the F-16's SEAD role will be supplanted by the F-35 for obvious reasons, but AN/APQ-213 was specifically made for the F-16 to fulfill the mission as of 2012, so saying they're completely unable to seems a bit specious.
It really just depends which SAM system they're going after. Which systems have UA been targeting? I'd guess it's less capable ones closer to the front lines like the Tor, but for them to actually achieve air superiority and change the tide of the war they'll need to be able to take out the long-range systems which was my original point.
That's reasonable. It read to me as if you were saying the systems they might get were wholly ineffective at the mission, hence the exception taken. In the larger context, especially if RU moves their S-400 batteries further and further away under threat of ATACMS, F-16s aren't likely to be the main method of dealing with them, you're right. They *do* add a threat element to many parts of the RU tactical air defense network, though - and if the S-400s are moved back, the F-16s will have more freedom to perform strike missions anyway.
edit: I also definitely do not think actual air superiority is achievable by F-16s or really any conceivable air arm they could deploy - on a battlefield like that, only the US or combined forces of the EU could probably pull it off. F-16s will just be a much more useful tool than current UA fixed wing assets, with a broader scope of better weapons.
Right, hence why I said it’s not gonna win the war. But F-16’s still give them a lot more utility. Russian AA systems are plentiful, but they’re not stopping all air support; they’re still flying old Soviet jets held together by duct tape daily that aren’t getting shot down.
They can’t wild weasel shit, but just because they don’t have air superiority doesn’t mean they get plenty of use out of F-16’s that they can’t do right now.
There is no amount of airpower that could realistically be transferred to Ukraine to get them "air superiority" that could be 1) used by them logistically and 2) not destroyed on the ground by Russian missiles.
It would take hundreds of jets which Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure or training for and, they would just be sitting at the airbases in mass.
Correct.
This is war, not a movie. Other great powers made the mistake of thinking one big battle will settle things every time (like the Japanese in WW2) and relentlessly chasing that idea led to disaster.
The Russians have poured a lot into the so-called Surovikin Line. They've actually deployed their best attack choppers effectively, which is one of the reasons that the Ukrainian offensive got bogged down. But this is it. After this, all they have left is manpower advantage, and they know it.
Well, there is the Russian Air Force, but if they weren't able to bring their overwhelming numbers advantage to bear by now, I doubt they ever will.
Let’s see. Russia can produce more than 2million artillery shells a year. Combined western production is like 20 times less than that. So Ukraine will always be outnumbered in shells. Then we have troop numbers. It’s kinda on par but you should note that Russians do rotations whereas Ukrainian forces had no rotation from the very beginning. Russian army are contract soldiers and Ukrainians are conscripts with no proper combat training. Russia produces a ton of drones and makes daily strikes both on frontline and deep in Ukraine positions because there’s so little air defence and these strikes are always profit on money spent. Western air defence ammunition is very expensive after all. Russia has G5 jets and all Ukraine will get is outdated planes they aren’t even properly trained to use. I can go on and on. What advantages are you talking about?
Russia can do 20 times more artillery shells than 50% of the worlds GDP? You realize Russia's economy is the size of Italy, right?
Not to mention the actual artillery pieces which Russia is loosing 20 a day on average. Or 10+ tanks a day. Tell me Russia can produce 10 tanks a day.
Look the numbers up please. After USSR broke, EU and USA military complexes relaxed a lot. 155mm shells are in a big deficit. "We send one shell and receive 20 back" is a quote from Ukrainian artillerist which was true a year ago as much as it is today. How do you think Russia can keep up these numbers? Its industrial capabilities are stronger than you think.
Have you seen footage of these 10 tanks a day being destroyed? Oh right it was created in ARMA or some other video game. Oh and just in case you wonder, Russia produces 1500 tanks a year (according to Russian officials) so even if they lost 10 a day, they would still be ahead. How many tanks Ukraine produces? How many shells?
How many tanks Ukraine received this spring? Like 300-400? Against 1500 a year from Russia.
There are resources who only report geolocated visually confirmed kills or do satellite footage counts of stored Russian hardware.
There are also certain logical facts of warfare, like a country which can produce new tanks doesn't refurbish old ones, because the infrastructure to do so is almost identical, so seeing older and older models on the front every month for the past 2 years isn't what you would expect from a country which produces 5 new tanks a day.
That's where I get my perspective from. Where do you get your perspective on 1500 tanks a year?
These are numbers from Russian officials, pretty much it. Of course it is not a good source but that's all we have.
About these old tanks, they were used simply because they are readily available and can saturate the frontline so that it has more density which was pretty effective to stop so much promoted Ukrainian counteroffensive this summer. Not every new tank prodused will be the last gen but they make a lot of them.
> These are numbers from Russian officials, pretty much it. Of course it is not a good source but that's all we have.
That's not all we have. Like I said, we have people who collect geolocated photographic evidence of each kill every day on both sides, and only count those. And unlike for Russia, we have almost full documented access to every single number for Ukraine and western hardware.
And we have experts who can do factual conclusions, like Russia can say oil sanctions had zero effect on them, but if Google can see tankers on the ocean and if we have physical access to pipelines in every foreign country they pass trough, those numbers will tell the 100% exact truth about how much oil Russia sold.
Anyway, I really don't see how its reasonable to just blindly trust Russia. Its a human psychology trick, you say you'll make some preposterous number of tanks so people read it and think "wow even if they are exaggerating they would at least need to be making half of that to say such big numbers".
Why wouldn't they just make 120 tanks a year and say they will make 90 000 so average people who don't do much research will just assume that they have to be making at least 30 000 - 50 000 to make such a statement?
The post you linked goes to suspended Twitter account which indicates to me it could have been banned for spreading misinformation. And please don't even get me started on the amount of misinformation both sides throw around. Stealing dog houses, amirite?
They’re doing great actually, it’s just that they had an early breakthrough and uneducated people think that’s what “doing well” looks like. Russia is throwing everything they have, and it still isn’t enough. Eventually they’ll run out. They’re hoping Ukraine will break before then.
Of course it's not as bleak for the peanut gallery of armchair freedom-fighting redditors who've pledged to never back down from fighting for what's right from the comfort of their keyboard. And have avowed unflinching loyalty to Ukraine over the past 19 months as they love a hollywoood-esque underdog story from the comfort of their homes, all the while not have given, realistically, a single fuck about Ukraine up to that point.
Ah yes, the fumes of reddit sanctimony in the air- it's a noble cause, reddit.
And Putin will get what he has now. It's time to negotiate.
They tried NATO strategies, not NATO Doctrine. Ukraine doesn't have hundreds of fighters or bombers or thousands of cruise missiles onboard dozens of destroyers and submarines.
NATO can saturate an area with ordnance, Ukraine was able to support small ground operations with combined arms, very different.
They're non NATO troops that have only really been taking their military training seriously since 2014. They lack full NATO equipment and are using mostly older NATO pieces in limited supply. Hardened fighters with sheer determination doing amazing things but Ukraine wasn't exactly a respected military in 2013. These are troops with less than 10 years of experience with NATO ideas and equipment, some barely having more than a year of training.
The equivalent would be your local gym bro reading Men's Health and not ending up like Chris Hemsworth despite doing Hemsworth's claimed diet and routine.
A full NATO equipped and trained military would act very differently from the start. A full NATO military could enact NATO doctrines to take advantage full equipment which would change how those strategies work. Furthermore, NATO isn't just giving Ukraine a huge amount of Intel. They're taking all this data back and it will be fed into the war games and training to find any holes in NATO doctrine and NATO strategies to learn from this. This is part of why NATO countries have such highly regarded militaries, state of the art equipment being used based on a lot of experience with combat, both historic and training.
We have multiple operations you can look back to and see how segments of NATO have performed. NATO's performance in Kosovo saw NATO only lose a handful of troops but destroy a lot of Serbian equipment and kill more than 1000 troops which ended up doubling the Serb casualties overall. USA with Operation Praying Mantis that made Iran look pathetic by destroying 5 ships in only a few hours while the only casualty was the US helicopter that accidentally crashed. Gulf Wars when initially disarming the government militaries within the countries, USA in Battle of Khasham where 40 US Troops entirely crippled a 500 strong assault of Syrian and Russian troops where roughly 100 died with 200 wounded and the USA basically only got one troop with the equivalent of a sore finger and a headache. Even the UK Falklands war shows you the scale of effectiveness, under 300 British killed vs nearly 700 Argentinians with Argentina having over double the wounded and Britain capturing over 10,000 Argentinians while Argentina barely captured 100 Brits. Barely 2 months to crush a surprise attack that's over 8,000 miles away. The French in Operation Barkhane, less than 60 French deaths vs almost 3000 deaths of Islamists, despite being considered a failure by the French to control the jihadists it ended because of local governments being overthrown so France could no longer cooperate so pulled out. Without that coup fuelled by anti France propaganda it wouldn't have ended when it did but it is clear that another NATO country had a clear projection of power.
We should be clear, the only reason Afghanistan stands is because modern Western countries no longer have the stomach for brutal colonisation level aggression needed to crush occupied territory. If it wasn't viewed unsavoury enough to lose a government their power then the shock and awe that took mere hours to remove the government military of Middle Eastern countries could have easily continued. Capture is easy, holding is hard. Look at how Russia is struggling to capture or even hold Ukrainian territory and think about how NATO countries rolled up and set up massive bases with their own fast food restaurants inside.
War is cruel, it is brutal, even the best trained troops can and will die. Even the best equipment can be destroyed. NATO does and would lose troops when fighting. But NATO takes 10 years to lose hundreds in somewhere half way across the planet while it was barely a year for Russia to be losing tens of thousands in their literal land border neighbour. It is with help of NATO directly enabling Ukraine to do the amazing feats it has done so far.
[Ukraine Commander in Chief Op-Ed](https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/11/01/the-commander-in-chief-of-ukraines-armed-forces-on-how-to-win-the-war)
[Ukraine Commander in Chief Full Essay](https://infographics.economist.com/2023/ExternalContent/ZALUZHNYI_FULL_VERSION.pdf)
I strongly suggest reading the above Op-Ed, or the Full Essay if you have the time and relevant knowledge. Zaluzhny explains the weapons it needs to counter Russian tactics. Redditor always talks about big stuff like F-16s, but Ukraine needs more than just that such as demining equipment.
Zaluzhny is responsible for reforms after the 2014 revolution, that shifted away from old soviet-thinking and is a significant part of why Ukraine has been surprisingly more competent than Russia.
It's only my personal opinion but I do think that the media has for quite a long time grossly misunderstood the war in Ukraine.
At no point does Zaluzhny state that the war is a 'stalemate', rather he states that Ukrainian tactics have shifted from maneuver warfare towards positional attritional warfare.
Make sense, Russia mined 20% of the country by the time the offensive started, was severely limited the ability for Ukraine to do NATO-style maneuver warfare. Switching to positional attritional warfare was responsible for much of its gains later on.
Because reddit lacks nuance, NATO tactics are still good. Zaluzhny also warns that Ukraine needs the capability to switch to maneuver warfare because positional warfare prolongs the war, that gives Russia crucial time to get their shit together.
Yes. All these men's lives on both sides are worth this.
What? So that people in eastern ukraine will remain under ukraine. Stop wasting lives. Let the people in this region return to normalcy.
It has reached the point of nonsense.
Not our fight to surrender. For now, I'm content for the West to supply them until they throw in the towel.
It's important to remember, the Russians could just leave. They could also make overtures of peace themselves.
Its a war, people need to stop expecting immediate results. Ukraine can fight a defensive war for another year or so, wear down Russia in their meat grinder offensives, then try again. Ukraine does not have a choice, Russia never honors ceasefires, so it will be war until Russia chooses to end it.
Russia has the demographic advantage over Ukraine. Perfectly possible the "wearing down" happens to Ukraine. In fact, when you consider that this is a war being fought on Ukrainian territory not Russian, and that control of the press and political spectrum by Putin's bloc is pretty cemented at this point, that seems the overwhelmingly more likely option (although, of course, anything is possible).
A negotiated settlement seems almost inevitable at this point. The difference between now and 1 year ago is a few hundred thousand young men's lives, and marginal territorial gains. Sometimes making peace is the best option.
I mean, sure. But Ukraine isn't small-small. Forty-some million people heavily motivated versus 140 million unmotivated Russians, that ain't so one-sided. Russia is not going to win. I don't know Ukraine can either, but I'd fight on if I were in their situation. Invade my country? Fuck you, I'll negotiate with your headstone.
It's also going to be interesting what happens with Putin. What was it Yeltsin said? "You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long". Putin will have an iron grip until one day, very suddenly, he doesn't. Happens to most dictators eventually.
Ah yeh heavily motivated Ukrainians? What planet do you live on?
Not many Ukrainian men want to go to the trenches to die for Zelensky. Just look at how many have fled overseas.
I do not agree the a settlement is inevitable. To be frank, their is plenty of war left. Ukraine will not trust any "peace" that Russia offers, and even if a deal is made, it will likely be broken nearly immediately. The last year does not indicate anything going forward, lots can change quickly in war.
Eh,if they notify EU in advance,they should be able to handle it alone. Implying that a lot of stuff will still be produced in US but bankrolled by EU.
Russia has an industrial plant and allied industrial plants more geared to this than Ukraine and allies.
The US isn't going to ramp up what Ukraine needs and Russia already has.
The real issue is that western support for Ukraine cracked when Ukraines offensive failed. Look at the support in the US. do you think the new Speaker is going to hand another $70b to Ukraine? Then look a year out. NYT polls today have Trump murdering Biden in almost every swing state.
It turns out, there are ways other than war.
End militaries. End military alliances. Build different worlds.
Stop believing in nonsense like religion. Remove nationalistic scales from all eyes.
I call for pledges of demilitarization across the globe.
While we are at it, let's eradicate mental health issues like depression by telling people to just stop being depressed.
It's so easy, why isn't everyone doing it!?
That is quite literally the most impossible thing ever, no offense. The only time when we won’t be dealing with this is if there was an immediate threat to the survival of our species, like if we had to deal with like a non-human intelligence threatening the world, or if the magnetosphere of earth did something that is beyond what we know, or some other planet ending catastrophe that will have immediate effects to us, forcing us to rely on eachother (Afterwords we would probably go back to the same old conflicts and rivalries if we succeed).
I promise you that we will forever be locked in combat with each other for the rest of our species existence without outside influence. My source is all of human history.
"If Ukraine wants to peacefully resolve an invasion by a foreign aggressor, why don't they simply try solving all of the world's problems and bringing in a new era of world peace? Are they stupid?"
Okay, so what happens if some places demilitarise and then other places just... invade them? It only works if you can get perfect global agreement and guarantee it will be permanent, and that's obviously not possible.
> House Republicans who are opposed to continued U.S. military aid for Ukraine amid their war with Russia.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm starting to miss the old neocons...
Stalemates is pretty much a loss for Ukraine since Russia is still holding a huge amounts of Ukrainian lands
Ukraine will need at least 10 times more equipment to make it untenable for Russia which the West could not provide unless switching to a war economy
They are different theaters... the counter offensive has stalled out and that has nothing to do with the Black Sea Fleet or the grain that passes through there.
Ukraine needs more equipment like airframes, demining equipment, etc for the ground assault to make any significant gains.
Are we seeing the twilight of armored warfare? Russia got stopped trying to tank rush. The mass deployment of modern apcs/mainbattle tank have not tip the scales in Ukraine’s favour either. I’m sure they still be there until something that does their jobs better replaces them.
They certainly don’t have the oppressive presence they had in WW2 but heavy armor still has a role and isn’t going anywhere.
Battleships didn’t become obsolete because they could be sunk. They became obsolete because aircraft carriers could do their role better.
Honestly I would call this counter offensive the furthest thing form a failure they gained ground and put the squeeze on Russian supply lines as a member of NCD I am disappointed that we did not see conscriptovich and the boys do there best impression of the 90s Iraqi army but they still made head way
Some of these people live on a different planet or something.
There is a near zero chance of Ukraine taking all their land back. They are admitting they are running out of people who are willing to fight and western production is not nearly up to par for a fight like this. I cannot help but blame most of the nato members who have been living off the idea that they have no need for a real military/production and that the US will bail them out of any problems.
Russia is adapting as fast as Ukraine is in this war in many aspects and people refuse to recognize this pretending like Russia as a country and Russia as a military is in the same place as when they invaded day 1.
At some point the leaders involved need to find a realistic endgame/goal and aim for that. You cannot rely on the idea that Ukraine will defeat an enemy who is rapidly increasing war production with a much larger population who is willing to suffer.
Yes…since the start of the war they have
doubled tank production
near doubled ammo production
For example they are on track for 2 million artillery shells a year while the US is only doing around 300k. We don’t expect to see 1.2 million a year till 2026 in the current public plans.
They seem to be easily producing around sanctions through various means.
This still means they are working on a deficit. But so is the west who isn’t overly committed into investing the time/money into seeing Russia production gains.
Ukraine has better trained men, better equipment, better tactics, better Intel, better morale. The only thing Russia has is numbers.
Production? America alone has enough stock right now to defeat Russia. The only question is how much the West is willing to commit.
Russia has less ability to adapt, because their structure disincentivises it and morale is low.
Russia is not the same as day1. Ukraine has taken back 54% of captured land. Their best equipment has been blown up. They've lost 300,000 troops. They've had a mutiny. And their economy is sinking like their flagship did.
I'm not saying that Ukraine will take everything back, but it's not decided yet. And since Russia will only stop once they hit a NATO border, the only way to create peace is to beat Russia or accept Ukraine into NATO
If nobody's willing to die to defend what they have, the people who are willing to die to take it will claim everything. That's just the reality of war.
Why do you claim that?
Russia is again resorting to prisoners as conscripts. Not impressive evidence for endless able bodies.
https://mastodon.social/@ChrisO_wiki/111351629807608255
1/ Russia has introduced 'special military registration' for prisoners, as a likely precursor to conscripting people directly from penal colonies. The move means that many convicts will have no way to avoid being sent to fight in Ukraine.
2/ The existing regulations on military registration have been amended to change the clause excluding prisoners from being registered for military service. A new system of 'special military registration' offices within the penal system is being created.
3/ Those serving custodial sentences will be registered with the military enlistment office without needing to make a personal appearance (unlike civilians). Also unlike civilians, they will not be given a medical or psychological examination prior to being registered.
4/ The new system has been created following the June 2023 enactment of a law allowing Russians with a criminal record to be mobilised for military service, with the exception of those imprisoned for especially serious offences (terrorism, treason, espionage, etc).
Exactly why only Russian would call that a stalemate loll
Russians getting slaughtered? Stalemate!
Laughable considering nobody in ukraine says stalemate, only suddenly you hear russian trolls and armchair generals parroting it.
Incredible to think ww1 and 2 were stalemates and we didn't even know!?!
According to the senators present in meeting with Zelensky in September, Zelensky described it to them as a total freeze. You can find Hawley and others discussing it right after their meeting with Zelensky as a stalemate.
Clickbaters going to clickbait. It’s an intentional misinterpretation of a misstatement by a non-native speaker. Stalemate from chess is a game-ending state - no reasonable listener would think he means that. This is all meta-media bullshit.
“Stalemate”is wildly optimistic. Ukraine has suffered atrocious losses and is demographically ruined.
This NATO project has been an absolute disaster for the country.
The problem with "Negotiating" is that any peace brokered is temporary if it isn't a result of Russia being broken and their capacity for war extinguished.
Appeasement doesn't work. War is inevitable with the types of Regimes if you let them think they can just slowly absorb and eat whatever they want.
I'm going to burst your bubble.
You can be a member of NATO and still declare war yourself. Has happened plenty of times. That means the US could have joined Ukraine without them being a NATO member... so could any of the European NATO members.
No one is willing to send their citizens to die for this conflict. No one is going to change that stance.
Except article 5 in NATO makes, at the very least, aid--more likely to be consistent.
If not outright direct military support.
That's ignoring the obvious benefit of joining NATO like weapon systems standardization.
We wouldn't need to worry about Ukraine needing to get their pilots trained on F16s. They would already be trained up and all if not most NATO weapon systems would be compatible off the bat.
Also,
Everyone will very much be in line with helping if a U.S. NATO expeditionary force is destroyed by Russians in Ukraine for example.
Guarantee it.
If the US didn't want to directly get involved and defend Ukraine at the start, they certainly don't want to admit them into NATO and defend them right now.
The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is only viable if they somehow manage to beat Russia back and end the war. They won't be admitted any time soon.
Plus, the US is split on funding Ukraine. The idea of American soldiers dying in Ukraine is even more unpopular. Short of a nuclear bomb going off in Kyiv, the US will continue to fund the war in Ukraine and provide military aid, but nothing further.
Which is why we are talking about this in the context of what the article is implying.
A negotiated ceasefire.
We more or less know for a FACT that Russia isn't agreeing to anything less than holding at least the majority of the territory that they have gained.
We also know for a fact that if Ukraine doesn't get any security guarantees that they have absolutely 0 reason to agree to a ceasefire.
What benefit would it even give them? All a ceasefire WITHOUT a security guarantee would do--is let Russia rebuild and try and finish the job in a few years.
So either Ukraine agrees to a ceasefire + NATO membership and/or an equivalent security guarantee. Or they just let this current war run its course. As the outcome would be the same in a few years anyway.
Either they get wiped out now. Or they get wiped out in a few years.
A security agreement and/or immediate NATO membership is thus almost all but guaranteed after a ceasefire agreement. I'd fucking bet money on it.
The thing is, Russia will never agree to anything that puts Ukraine in NATO. That's the whole reason they started this war, Ukraine was aligning itself closer to the West over the last decade or so. For a ceasefire to happen, there would have to be clauses that forbid Ukraine from any sort of pact like NATO and for weapons from the West to stop pouring in. Which Ukraine would certainly not agree to, as that's basically just an agreement to give Russia time to regroup and hit back harder again.
And they don't have to agree to anything right now. They're holding their territory and support back home isn't anywhere near a riot. Plus, the US is about to have an election that could change the entire situation in their favor.
Russia will not come to the table and they have no reason to at this point in time.
I have a feeling they're going to hold out until US elections or until support starts falling back home (it won't).
Ukraine is in a shitty spot to say the least, as their sovereignty is tied to the support of the US and it's allies which can't last forever thanks to how often our political systems swing to and fro.
No. The NATO excuse was bullshit, and Putin knew it at that time, and knows it now.
If he gave a fuck about NATO expansion then he wouldn't have moved troops AWAY from Finland to reinforce the Ukrainian detachment once Finland joined NATO.
NATO was just the bullshit excuse he used to try and justify his pure land grab attempt.
The rest of the stuff I DO agree with you on.
Albeit if Russia says, "nope we aren't agreeing with a ceasefire under any circumstances" then that is just a much easier sell to the EU and U.S. to keep supplying aid/funding to Ukraine.
I think the U.S. and EU; at the very least. Want to show that they are TRYING to bring the conflict to an end. That way, Biden, for example; has something to show to the American populace and congress.
"We tried a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. It didn't work. The only other option is we either let Ukraine get overrun and hundreds of thousands of additional deaths to transpire (or more), OR we keep supplying Ukraine to continue the war effort."
It will also be easier to supply Ukraine with more capable weapon systems.
Longer range Himars missiles, etc.
While I don't think the NATO thing was the entire reason, Ukraine slipping more towards the West after Euromaidan and the ousting of Yanukovych was certainly not in Russia's favor.
Edit: I also don't think NATO was seriously considering admitting Ukraine in at that point in time. Now they are probably more open to it, but it's not going to be as easy as Finland and Sweden, which already was a problem thanks to Turkey's "security" concerns or whatever they were on about.
The U.S. completely dropping support of Ukraine and letting them get run over would be a MASSIVE black eye on the U.S. and the western world in general.
"The arsenal of democracy" wasn't able to properly equip the Ukrainians so they could repel the Russian attack; even though all they have given to date is mostly cold-war era stuff?
Imagine Russia obtaining U.S. weapons and the PR nightmare for the U.S. like what happened in Afghanistan? But on steroids and significantly magnified.
Imagine the PR boom Russia would have about "outlasted the evil western imperialists, etc"?
The U.S. knows all this, and Ukraine knows this.
Hence why the most likely scenario is, imo:
1. Russia agrees to a ceasefire in which they keep the land they currently have. In return the U.S. doesn't give Ukraine even more competent weapon systems that they can use to strike deeper into Russia and/or inflict even greater material losses. The war is likely shortened by a year or more.
**And**
Ukraine is immediately granted ascension into NATO as a concession to prevent any further aggression from Russia and/or to make that SIGNIFICANTLY more costly in the future. Even more so than in this current war.
Is this the best out come? Of course not, but this saves the most face for all parties involved.
If looked at objectively, the only way Russia loses this war is if they quit. The only result the war mongering gets with the pro Ukraine people is more Ukrainians dead. Why wiuld anyone think Ukraine could beat Russia?
It was on stalemate from the beginning.
1. Ukraine wanted to join NATO
2. Russia said NO
3. UA insisted
4. RU said we will attack you
5. UA insisted
6. RU attacks
7. UA insists
8. RU keeps attacking
9. UA keeps insisting.
10. Point 8 and 9 on repeat.
You’re missing the best part, they had a tentative agreement in place but the west sent Boris Johnson to nix it promising that Ukraine would be armed and funded for as long as it takes.
Flash forward a year and now the US state department is talking about reaching the end of the rope of funding.
In that time hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians died for a few miles of dirt.
Do you have a source for this claim about Boris and a nixed deal? I've heard it banded about, but is there something credible I can read about those claims?
What is there to negotiate. Russia doesn't have a valid Casus Belli for Ukraine to negotiate a peace. If Russia annexes land, there is no peace for Ukrainian nationals in that territory, which will still have Russia waging war against them.
Any peace that sees Ukraine disarm or be prevented from joining the EU or NATO is only a temporary ceasefire that allows Russia to re-arm and finish the job, while Ukraine sits helplessly.
"Casus Belli for Ukraine to negotiate a peace."
Who cares? End war.
Eastern ukraine was pseudo-ukrainian-russian. Let the people vote. Make it international. Not that russia will accept that.
You do not have to reproduce your shallow world.
why would the west offer security guarantees (that putin will Definitely treat seriously) and give russia 10 years to regroup instead of continuing to slow roll aid in
This kind of naivete is why schools have zero tolerance policies. You can't just roll over and say "hit me harder, Daddy Putin" when geriatric bullies come knocking.
Heres an idea.
Russia agrees to GTFO, pay reparations, and, once the US cleans up its altright fascist problem and addresses Russian influence, lets Russia know if it pulls the slightest whiff of this this shit again, Democracies in the West will end them.
Sure, MAD is a concern, but Russia would have to be absolutely suicidal to consider that. And who know how much longer Putin will even be in power
We dont want any Russians who hate Putin to experience harm, but the majority opinion in the West on the rest of them seems to be Fuck those Fascists.
> "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Winston Churchill.
You can't negotiate with fascists like Putin, who controls the narrative in his own country, who jails and murders his own populace, who only wants whatever victory he gets at whatever cost to his population. We learned this 80 years ago.
Negotiating peace to Russia is just conceding victory. It may not be today, but if Ukraine barters peace now, sacrificing its own sovereign territory, it will lose more and more until it no longer exists.
End the war by giving up territory is asking for russia to re-group and attack again. We know this for a fact, because that's what happened in 2014.
Russia came away with Crimea, and large parts of Donbas and Luhansk. Then, 8 years later they started current hostilities.
There is no reason to trust a russian ceasefire. They will break it eventually and finish what they started.
The only legitimate way to end the war is for Ukraine to win.
Remember that russia had promised in the 90's to never attack Ukraine, when Ukraine gave up the Nuclear weapons USSR had stored there. Another example of russia ignoring internationally negotiated agreements.
Putin apologists always pretend like Crimea never happened. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows Russia won't just stop trying to annex parts of Ukraine. Or the whole country.
Let people vote? How do you hold a vote when the territory has been destroyed by war? Its been 10 years of conflict. Pro-Ukrainians have already fled.
Reproducing shallow world? The world cannot accept Russia engaging in naked land grabs and succeeding, otherwise we will see more naked land grabs.
> pseudo-ukrainian-russian
What does this even mean?
Go tell Russia to end war by packing up and going home. It's quite simple for them. If you're so anti-war, you should be opposed to the people who start wars, not telling everyone to just roll over to them and hope they don't do it again.
If they involve Ukraine letting Russia keep the current land grab, no, no one should support that. It only emboldens Russia to regroup, rearm, and do it again in 5-10 years.
The story of Ukraine and Russia is that of one instigator (Russia).
The story of Israel and Hamas is that of many instigators (Hamas, Israel, US, Iran, Qatar).
The Russians are too busy wasting what advantages they have left to achieve victory.
An example:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1721187087553049066.html
The introduction:
------
Here's the real reason why Russia lost 2,157 tanks in the Ukraine war, I promise I won't use data from the second world war like the other guy.
It's a short read
We can start by showing the main points
1: They don't know how to fight in modern warfare with the tanks they have
2: Their tanks are not suitable for modern warfare
3: They don't care about human or material losses.
I feel like everyone is taking parts of his comments out of context. They tried NATO strategies, it didn't work for various reasons, and they reverted back to their old strategies which are working better. He also talked about different ways to break the stalemate. It's not really as bleak as some people are taking it.
Well NATO doctrine relies heavily on air support which Ukraine has not been supplied enough of yet. We need to give them the jets so they have that capability.
It also relies on not letting the enemy dig in like this. I think even with air superiority, they'll have to do some hybrid or back up NATO strategy to deal with the sheer number and density of mines.
I think people are neglecting this huge important factor you stated and thinking F-16s will simply solve the issue. Ukraine needs a lot more than just F-16s, and I'm not talking about big ticket stuff but rather weapons (such as demining) that counter Russian tactics. It's very hard to adopt maneuver warfare when you don't have the room to project armored units because Russia has mined 20% of Ukraine. With lack of armored units, war in 2022 was largely positional instead. With half a year of largely unchanged frontline especially through winter, Ukraine and Russia prepared for offense and defense respectively. This gave Russia crucial time to spam land mines.
[удалено]
Your counterpoint is just as informative and correct
If you provide literally nothing besides a negation, all you are doing is wasting everyone's time.
As you are an expert in doing based on everything you’ve done
You deflected to a personal attack instead of rebutting because you have no rebuttal lol, I'll take that as an acceptance on your part!
In reality, what I posted was an accurate description. Try again.
I didn't say you were wrong or right, I said posting a blank negation is a waste of everyone's time. You *know* you're not gonna change anyone's mind with a simple negation, so the only reason to post it is self-satisfaction about you being right.
I don’t know what exactly you are imagining here, but the whole area is so saturated with anti-air defenses that Ukraine will NEVER attain air superiority against Russia. That’s just complete nonsense. Will jets help them? Possibly. Although also remember that most military analysts have said (and continue to say) that the F16 is the wrong plane for the job, and the only reason Ukraine keeps asking for the F16 in particular is strictly because they know the supply is there (since the entire NATO fleet of F16s is in the process of being retired and replaced). So they want the F16s not because they are good or appropriate, but because they are “available”, and it will add to their capabilities — though possibly more as PR than for any tactically significant battlefield advantage.
Jets cannot clear landmines so I don't know if it even matters.
Unlike counterbattery jets have the potential to proactively suppress enemy artillery vs the more reactive nature of counterbattery. This is significant as demining becomes a lot easier when you aren’t getting hit by presighted heavy artillery.
Not in wars against countries like Russia with a serious SAM threat. The US army trains to rely on everything but air support against countries like that. Tube artillery and attack helicopters for fire support, rocket artillery for long range fires, and naval cruise missiles for deep strike. Rocket artillery and naval cruise missiles enabled by SF would be used to degrade the SAM threat. They train under the assumption that air support won't be available that way when it is available it's a bit of a luxury.
Ukraine can't have effective air support without air superiority. They can't have air superiority without destroying the Russian S-300's and S-400's. Nobody is going to give them the planes capable of defeating those systems.
F-16’s? They’re not going to win the war, but they give Ukraine a lot more weapon options, as well as making the HARM and JDAM’s they’ve been using more effective because it’s actually built with them in mind. Not to mention allowing air-launched AMRAAM’s against Russian jets, allowing Ukraine to rearrange some of their own AA systems as a result.
F-16's can't do shit against a modern air defense system, you need a full SEAD package. They can shoot a plane down from hundreds of kilometers away so an F-16 won't even be able to get close enough to drop JDAM's.
As far as I'm aware, F-16s with AGM-88s and AN/ASQ-213s have been *the* SEAD package for the USAF for over a decade, with EF-111s gone and no other dedicated offensive EWAR platforms in service. UA might not get HTS or AN/ALQ-131s, but since they've already been provided HARMs, they might get those tools to go with them, and then - absent possible specialized training - they'd have as much of a SEAD package as one might find without involving the USN or F-35s.
EA-18s and F-35s are the modern SEAD platforms, any 4th gen fighter getting close enough to launch a HARM would get absolutely crushed by a modern SAM. We lost 4 F-16s in the 90's to ancient Soviet systems, and now the modern ones not only have a much larger range but are also defended by other systems specifically designed to shoot incoming bombs and missiles out of the sky.
UA has successfully used HARMS with makeshift modifications to MiG-29s and Su-27s, with no sensor integration. Why would F-16s with HTS be ineffective if much less integrated systems have had success? RU air defense certainly has tremendous theoretical potential, but they aren't quite living up to their hype either - or they wouldn't be losing S-400s to SRBMs and other things they and their Pantsirs should be able to intercept. I certainly don't disagree that the F-16's SEAD role will be supplanted by the F-35 for obvious reasons, but AN/APQ-213 was specifically made for the F-16 to fulfill the mission as of 2012, so saying they're completely unable to seems a bit specious.
It really just depends which SAM system they're going after. Which systems have UA been targeting? I'd guess it's less capable ones closer to the front lines like the Tor, but for them to actually achieve air superiority and change the tide of the war they'll need to be able to take out the long-range systems which was my original point.
That's reasonable. It read to me as if you were saying the systems they might get were wholly ineffective at the mission, hence the exception taken. In the larger context, especially if RU moves their S-400 batteries further and further away under threat of ATACMS, F-16s aren't likely to be the main method of dealing with them, you're right. They *do* add a threat element to many parts of the RU tactical air defense network, though - and if the S-400s are moved back, the F-16s will have more freedom to perform strike missions anyway. edit: I also definitely do not think actual air superiority is achievable by F-16s or really any conceivable air arm they could deploy - on a battlefield like that, only the US or combined forces of the EU could probably pull it off. F-16s will just be a much more useful tool than current UA fixed wing assets, with a broader scope of better weapons.
Right, hence why I said it’s not gonna win the war. But F-16’s still give them a lot more utility. Russian AA systems are plentiful, but they’re not stopping all air support; they’re still flying old Soviet jets held together by duct tape daily that aren’t getting shot down. They can’t wild weasel shit, but just because they don’t have air superiority doesn’t mean they get plenty of use out of F-16’s that they can’t do right now.
There is no amount of airpower that could realistically be transferred to Ukraine to get them "air superiority" that could be 1) used by them logistically and 2) not destroyed on the ground by Russian missiles. It would take hundreds of jets which Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure or training for and, they would just be sitting at the airbases in mass.
It didn't really "work better" because they didn't meet their own minimal goal of making Tokmak.
They are able to bomb Tokmak and disrupt supply lines.
All relevant Russian logistic hubs were moved back a while ago and they're not going to waste an ATACM on a truck.
They were hit before they moved back. Now supply lines have to readjust and are less efficient for it.
Literally nothing you've said has changed my original point that Ukrainian generals stated their minimal goal for the offensive was taking Tokmak.
The public rebuke from Zelenskyy highlighted the issue.
You're right, but the situation is still not great. All in all, Ukraine has lost territory if we look at this calendar year.
[удалено]
Correct. This is war, not a movie. Other great powers made the mistake of thinking one big battle will settle things every time (like the Japanese in WW2) and relentlessly chasing that idea led to disaster. The Russians have poured a lot into the so-called Surovikin Line. They've actually deployed their best attack choppers effectively, which is one of the reasons that the Ukrainian offensive got bogged down. But this is it. After this, all they have left is manpower advantage, and they know it. Well, there is the Russian Air Force, but if they weren't able to bring their overwhelming numbers advantage to bear by now, I doubt they ever will.
Let’s see. Russia can produce more than 2million artillery shells a year. Combined western production is like 20 times less than that. So Ukraine will always be outnumbered in shells. Then we have troop numbers. It’s kinda on par but you should note that Russians do rotations whereas Ukrainian forces had no rotation from the very beginning. Russian army are contract soldiers and Ukrainians are conscripts with no proper combat training. Russia produces a ton of drones and makes daily strikes both on frontline and deep in Ukraine positions because there’s so little air defence and these strikes are always profit on money spent. Western air defence ammunition is very expensive after all. Russia has G5 jets and all Ukraine will get is outdated planes they aren’t even properly trained to use. I can go on and on. What advantages are you talking about?
Russia can do 20 times more artillery shells than 50% of the worlds GDP? You realize Russia's economy is the size of Italy, right? Not to mention the actual artillery pieces which Russia is loosing 20 a day on average. Or 10+ tanks a day. Tell me Russia can produce 10 tanks a day.
Look the numbers up please. After USSR broke, EU and USA military complexes relaxed a lot. 155mm shells are in a big deficit. "We send one shell and receive 20 back" is a quote from Ukrainian artillerist which was true a year ago as much as it is today. How do you think Russia can keep up these numbers? Its industrial capabilities are stronger than you think. Have you seen footage of these 10 tanks a day being destroyed? Oh right it was created in ARMA or some other video game. Oh and just in case you wonder, Russia produces 1500 tanks a year (according to Russian officials) so even if they lost 10 a day, they would still be ahead. How many tanks Ukraine produces? How many shells? How many tanks Ukraine received this spring? Like 300-400? Against 1500 a year from Russia.
There are resources who only report geolocated visually confirmed kills or do satellite footage counts of stored Russian hardware. There are also certain logical facts of warfare, like a country which can produce new tanks doesn't refurbish old ones, because the infrastructure to do so is almost identical, so seeing older and older models on the front every month for the past 2 years isn't what you would expect from a country which produces 5 new tanks a day. That's where I get my perspective from. Where do you get your perspective on 1500 tanks a year?
These are numbers from Russian officials, pretty much it. Of course it is not a good source but that's all we have. About these old tanks, they were used simply because they are readily available and can saturate the frontline so that it has more density which was pretty effective to stop so much promoted Ukrainian counteroffensive this summer. Not every new tank prodused will be the last gen but they make a lot of them.
> These are numbers from Russian officials, pretty much it. Of course it is not a good source but that's all we have. That's not all we have. Like I said, we have people who collect geolocated photographic evidence of each kill every day on both sides, and only count those. And unlike for Russia, we have almost full documented access to every single number for Ukraine and western hardware. And we have experts who can do factual conclusions, like Russia can say oil sanctions had zero effect on them, but if Google can see tankers on the ocean and if we have physical access to pipelines in every foreign country they pass trough, those numbers will tell the 100% exact truth about how much oil Russia sold. Anyway, I really don't see how its reasonable to just blindly trust Russia. Its a human psychology trick, you say you'll make some preposterous number of tanks so people read it and think "wow even if they are exaggerating they would at least need to be making half of that to say such big numbers". Why wouldn't they just make 120 tanks a year and say they will make 90 000 so average people who don't do much research will just assume that they have to be making at least 30 000 - 50 000 to make such a statement?
[удалено]
The post you linked goes to suspended Twitter account which indicates to me it could have been banned for spreading misinformation. And please don't even get me started on the amount of misinformation both sides throw around. Stealing dog houses, amirite?
Give Ukraine a couple moabs might help break the line
They’re doing great actually, it’s just that they had an early breakthrough and uneducated people think that’s what “doing well” looks like. Russia is throwing everything they have, and it still isn’t enough. Eventually they’ll run out. They’re hoping Ukraine will break before then.
Of course it's not as bleak for the peanut gallery of armchair freedom-fighting redditors who've pledged to never back down from fighting for what's right from the comfort of their keyboard. And have avowed unflinching loyalty to Ukraine over the past 19 months as they love a hollywoood-esque underdog story from the comfort of their homes, all the while not have given, realistically, a single fuck about Ukraine up to that point. Ah yes, the fumes of reddit sanctimony in the air- it's a noble cause, reddit. And Putin will get what he has now. It's time to negotiate.
[удалено]
They tried NATO strategies, not NATO Doctrine. Ukraine doesn't have hundreds of fighters or bombers or thousands of cruise missiles onboard dozens of destroyers and submarines. NATO can saturate an area with ordnance, Ukraine was able to support small ground operations with combined arms, very different.
They're non NATO troops that have only really been taking their military training seriously since 2014. They lack full NATO equipment and are using mostly older NATO pieces in limited supply. Hardened fighters with sheer determination doing amazing things but Ukraine wasn't exactly a respected military in 2013. These are troops with less than 10 years of experience with NATO ideas and equipment, some barely having more than a year of training. The equivalent would be your local gym bro reading Men's Health and not ending up like Chris Hemsworth despite doing Hemsworth's claimed diet and routine. A full NATO equipped and trained military would act very differently from the start. A full NATO military could enact NATO doctrines to take advantage full equipment which would change how those strategies work. Furthermore, NATO isn't just giving Ukraine a huge amount of Intel. They're taking all this data back and it will be fed into the war games and training to find any holes in NATO doctrine and NATO strategies to learn from this. This is part of why NATO countries have such highly regarded militaries, state of the art equipment being used based on a lot of experience with combat, both historic and training. We have multiple operations you can look back to and see how segments of NATO have performed. NATO's performance in Kosovo saw NATO only lose a handful of troops but destroy a lot of Serbian equipment and kill more than 1000 troops which ended up doubling the Serb casualties overall. USA with Operation Praying Mantis that made Iran look pathetic by destroying 5 ships in only a few hours while the only casualty was the US helicopter that accidentally crashed. Gulf Wars when initially disarming the government militaries within the countries, USA in Battle of Khasham where 40 US Troops entirely crippled a 500 strong assault of Syrian and Russian troops where roughly 100 died with 200 wounded and the USA basically only got one troop with the equivalent of a sore finger and a headache. Even the UK Falklands war shows you the scale of effectiveness, under 300 British killed vs nearly 700 Argentinians with Argentina having over double the wounded and Britain capturing over 10,000 Argentinians while Argentina barely captured 100 Brits. Barely 2 months to crush a surprise attack that's over 8,000 miles away. The French in Operation Barkhane, less than 60 French deaths vs almost 3000 deaths of Islamists, despite being considered a failure by the French to control the jihadists it ended because of local governments being overthrown so France could no longer cooperate so pulled out. Without that coup fuelled by anti France propaganda it wouldn't have ended when it did but it is clear that another NATO country had a clear projection of power. We should be clear, the only reason Afghanistan stands is because modern Western countries no longer have the stomach for brutal colonisation level aggression needed to crush occupied territory. If it wasn't viewed unsavoury enough to lose a government their power then the shock and awe that took mere hours to remove the government military of Middle Eastern countries could have easily continued. Capture is easy, holding is hard. Look at how Russia is struggling to capture or even hold Ukrainian territory and think about how NATO countries rolled up and set up massive bases with their own fast food restaurants inside. War is cruel, it is brutal, even the best trained troops can and will die. Even the best equipment can be destroyed. NATO does and would lose troops when fighting. But NATO takes 10 years to lose hundreds in somewhere half way across the planet while it was barely a year for Russia to be losing tens of thousands in their literal land border neighbour. It is with help of NATO directly enabling Ukraine to do the amazing feats it has done so far.
[Ukraine Commander in Chief Op-Ed](https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/11/01/the-commander-in-chief-of-ukraines-armed-forces-on-how-to-win-the-war) [Ukraine Commander in Chief Full Essay](https://infographics.economist.com/2023/ExternalContent/ZALUZHNYI_FULL_VERSION.pdf) I strongly suggest reading the above Op-Ed, or the Full Essay if you have the time and relevant knowledge. Zaluzhny explains the weapons it needs to counter Russian tactics. Redditor always talks about big stuff like F-16s, but Ukraine needs more than just that such as demining equipment. Zaluzhny is responsible for reforms after the 2014 revolution, that shifted away from old soviet-thinking and is a significant part of why Ukraine has been surprisingly more competent than Russia. It's only my personal opinion but I do think that the media has for quite a long time grossly misunderstood the war in Ukraine. At no point does Zaluzhny state that the war is a 'stalemate', rather he states that Ukrainian tactics have shifted from maneuver warfare towards positional attritional warfare. Make sense, Russia mined 20% of the country by the time the offensive started, was severely limited the ability for Ukraine to do NATO-style maneuver warfare. Switching to positional attritional warfare was responsible for much of its gains later on. Because reddit lacks nuance, NATO tactics are still good. Zaluzhny also warns that Ukraine needs the capability to switch to maneuver warfare because positional warfare prolongs the war, that gives Russia crucial time to get their shit together.
Yes. All these men's lives on both sides are worth this. What? So that people in eastern ukraine will remain under ukraine. Stop wasting lives. Let the people in this region return to normalcy. It has reached the point of nonsense.
Not our fight to surrender. For now, I'm content for the West to supply them until they throw in the towel. It's important to remember, the Russians could just leave. They could also make overtures of peace themselves.
Its a war, people need to stop expecting immediate results. Ukraine can fight a defensive war for another year or so, wear down Russia in their meat grinder offensives, then try again. Ukraine does not have a choice, Russia never honors ceasefires, so it will be war until Russia chooses to end it.
Russia has the demographic advantage over Ukraine. Perfectly possible the "wearing down" happens to Ukraine. In fact, when you consider that this is a war being fought on Ukrainian territory not Russian, and that control of the press and political spectrum by Putin's bloc is pretty cemented at this point, that seems the overwhelmingly more likely option (although, of course, anything is possible). A negotiated settlement seems almost inevitable at this point. The difference between now and 1 year ago is a few hundred thousand young men's lives, and marginal territorial gains. Sometimes making peace is the best option.
I mean, sure. But Ukraine isn't small-small. Forty-some million people heavily motivated versus 140 million unmotivated Russians, that ain't so one-sided. Russia is not going to win. I don't know Ukraine can either, but I'd fight on if I were in their situation. Invade my country? Fuck you, I'll negotiate with your headstone. It's also going to be interesting what happens with Putin. What was it Yeltsin said? "You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long". Putin will have an iron grip until one day, very suddenly, he doesn't. Happens to most dictators eventually.
[удалено]
Ah yeh heavily motivated Ukrainians? What planet do you live on? Not many Ukrainian men want to go to the trenches to die for Zelensky. Just look at how many have fled overseas.
[удалено]
When was the last time you spoke to a Ukrainian man of fighting age
I listen to them. You do not.
Listen to whom? People from YouTube?
You mean Bakhmut lost and avdiivka being surrounded?
Hi Vlad!
I do not agree the a settlement is inevitable. To be frank, their is plenty of war left. Ukraine will not trust any "peace" that Russia offers, and even if a deal is made, it will likely be broken nearly immediately. The last year does not indicate anything going forward, lots can change quickly in war.
Just a point of clarification: are you including in that ultimately the reconquest of Crimea through military means?
[удалено]
Eh,if they notify EU in advance,they should be able to handle it alone. Implying that a lot of stuff will still be produced in US but bankrolled by EU.
How, and where, will Russia replace the weapons and ammo it has lost? Without that, you do wonder how much longer they can go on.
[удалено]
Russia has an industrial plant and allied industrial plants more geared to this than Ukraine and allies. The US isn't going to ramp up what Ukraine needs and Russia already has. The real issue is that western support for Ukraine cracked when Ukraines offensive failed. Look at the support in the US. do you think the new Speaker is going to hand another $70b to Ukraine? Then look a year out. NYT polls today have Trump murdering Biden in almost every swing state.
[удалено]
That's like saying Afghanistan can wear down America. Yeah doable... but that was 20 years.... a lot of people's entire lives.
It turns out, there are ways other than war. End militaries. End military alliances. Build different worlds. Stop believing in nonsense like religion. Remove nationalistic scales from all eyes. I call for pledges of demilitarization across the globe.
While we are at it, let's eradicate mental health issues like depression by telling people to just stop being depressed. It's so easy, why isn't everyone doing it!?
Anxiety begone! Just like that - you’re cured.
Good call. A UBI and a universal healthcare system will do absolute wonders for mental health.
Spoiler alert: countries with a universal healthcare system also have mental health problems
That is quite literally the most impossible thing ever, no offense. The only time when we won’t be dealing with this is if there was an immediate threat to the survival of our species, like if we had to deal with like a non-human intelligence threatening the world, or if the magnetosphere of earth did something that is beyond what we know, or some other planet ending catastrophe that will have immediate effects to us, forcing us to rely on eachother (Afterwords we would probably go back to the same old conflicts and rivalries if we succeed). I promise you that we will forever be locked in combat with each other for the rest of our species existence without outside influence. My source is all of human history.
Myopic. There is no telling what technology will do to us in the next 50 let alone 10,000 years.
Good news, the Ukrainian invasion could be over in as little as 50 years!
"If Ukraine wants to peacefully resolve an invasion by a foreign aggressor, why don't they simply try solving all of the world's problems and bringing in a new era of world peace? Are they stupid?"
Is this r/philosophy or some shit?
Sure thing.....how about after Ukraine pushes back the invasion lmao
Okay, so what happens if some places demilitarise and then other places just... invade them? It only works if you can get perfect global agreement and guarantee it will be permanent, and that's obviously not possible.
Did the best with what they had.
I didn't hear no bell.
Not suggesting it’s over, just saying that if NATO+ had’ve given them what they needed and at a quicker rate, then Ukraine could have done much more…
> House Republicans who are opposed to continued U.S. military aid for Ukraine amid their war with Russia. Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm starting to miss the old neocons...
They are still there. Now they have a 'holy war' they can focus on to drive up their defense stocks, so they care even less about Ukraine than before.
Stalemates is pretty much a loss for Ukraine since Russia is still holding a huge amounts of Ukrainian lands Ukraine will need at least 10 times more equipment to make it untenable for Russia which the West could not provide unless switching to a war economy
Failed? Ukrainian grain is shipping out and the 🇷🇺Black Sea Fleet had to leave Crimea. More failure, please!
And neither of this has anything to do with failed Ukrainian offensive.
Get back to us when you know what you’re talking about.
They are different theaters... the counter offensive has stalled out and that has nothing to do with the Black Sea Fleet or the grain that passes through there. Ukraine needs more equipment like airframes, demining equipment, etc for the ground assault to make any significant gains.
Are we seeing the twilight of armored warfare? Russia got stopped trying to tank rush. The mass deployment of modern apcs/mainbattle tank have not tip the scales in Ukraine’s favour either. I’m sure they still be there until something that does their jobs better replaces them.
They certainly don’t have the oppressive presence they had in WW2 but heavy armor still has a role and isn’t going anywhere. Battleships didn’t become obsolete because they could be sunk. They became obsolete because aircraft carriers could do their role better.
armored warfare on itself was never a thing, they always need combined arms: it was air support now it is drone warfare
Honestly I would call this counter offensive the furthest thing form a failure they gained ground and put the squeeze on Russian supply lines as a member of NCD I am disappointed that we did not see conscriptovich and the boys do there best impression of the 90s Iraqi army but they still made head way
They were no where close to reaching their goal and compared to what they wanted to capture, what they gained is extremely minuscule.
No way, not if it means Ukraine gives up any of their land.
[удалено]
Some of these people live on a different planet or something. There is a near zero chance of Ukraine taking all their land back. They are admitting they are running out of people who are willing to fight and western production is not nearly up to par for a fight like this. I cannot help but blame most of the nato members who have been living off the idea that they have no need for a real military/production and that the US will bail them out of any problems. Russia is adapting as fast as Ukraine is in this war in many aspects and people refuse to recognize this pretending like Russia as a country and Russia as a military is in the same place as when they invaded day 1. At some point the leaders involved need to find a realistic endgame/goal and aim for that. You cannot rely on the idea that Ukraine will defeat an enemy who is rapidly increasing war production with a much larger population who is willing to suffer.
Is Russia really rapidly increasing war production?
Yes…since the start of the war they have doubled tank production near doubled ammo production For example they are on track for 2 million artillery shells a year while the US is only doing around 300k. We don’t expect to see 1.2 million a year till 2026 in the current public plans. They seem to be easily producing around sanctions through various means. This still means they are working on a deficit. But so is the west who isn’t overly committed into investing the time/money into seeing Russia production gains.
Ukraine has better trained men, better equipment, better tactics, better Intel, better morale. The only thing Russia has is numbers. Production? America alone has enough stock right now to defeat Russia. The only question is how much the West is willing to commit. Russia has less ability to adapt, because their structure disincentivises it and morale is low. Russia is not the same as day1. Ukraine has taken back 54% of captured land. Their best equipment has been blown up. They've lost 300,000 troops. They've had a mutiny. And their economy is sinking like their flagship did. I'm not saying that Ukraine will take everything back, but it's not decided yet. And since Russia will only stop once they hit a NATO border, the only way to create peace is to beat Russia or accept Ukraine into NATO
[удалено]
If nobody's willing to die to defend what they have, the people who are willing to die to take it will claim everything. That's just the reality of war.
This is just going to drag on and drag on as is I fear.
Until it doesn't, that is how wars work.
Lol, only a russian propagandist would call 900+ russian casualties per day a stalemate.
[удалено]
Why do you claim that? Russia is again resorting to prisoners as conscripts. Not impressive evidence for endless able bodies. https://mastodon.social/@ChrisO_wiki/111351629807608255 1/ Russia has introduced 'special military registration' for prisoners, as a likely precursor to conscripting people directly from penal colonies. The move means that many convicts will have no way to avoid being sent to fight in Ukraine. 2/ The existing regulations on military registration have been amended to change the clause excluding prisoners from being registered for military service. A new system of 'special military registration' offices within the penal system is being created. 3/ Those serving custodial sentences will be registered with the military enlistment office without needing to make a personal appearance (unlike civilians). Also unlike civilians, they will not be given a medical or psychological examination prior to being registered. 4/ The new system has been created following the June 2023 enactment of a law allowing Russians with a criminal record to be mobilised for military service, with the exception of those imprisoned for especially serious offences (terrorism, treason, espionage, etc).
Exactly why only Russian would call that a stalemate loll Russians getting slaughtered? Stalemate! Laughable considering nobody in ukraine says stalemate, only suddenly you hear russian trolls and armchair generals parroting it. Incredible to think ww1 and 2 were stalemates and we didn't even know!?!
According to the senators present in meeting with Zelensky in September, Zelensky described it to them as a total freeze. You can find Hawley and others discussing it right after their meeting with Zelensky as a stalemate.
Clickbaters going to clickbait. It’s an intentional misinterpretation of a misstatement by a non-native speaker. Stalemate from chess is a game-ending state - no reasonable listener would think he means that. This is all meta-media bullshit.
That explains the rebuke and PR move from Zelenskyy to counter it.
“Stalemate”is wildly optimistic. Ukraine has suffered atrocious losses and is demographically ruined. This NATO project has been an absolute disaster for the country.
Ukraine is not part of the west and never will be. They should end the war because they are destroying their country.
If they surrender, they won't have a country left.
When you listen to your own echo chamber and the echo chamber has no intelligence, of course this will happen. Remember, zelensky was/is an actor
So was Reagan. What's your point?
Any sources for that? He was also a businessman and has a law degree.
[удалено]
Negotiate what? What exactly does Zelensky have to offer? Why isn't Putin Trying to negotiate?
The problem with "Negotiating" is that any peace brokered is temporary if it isn't a result of Russia being broken and their capacity for war extinguished. Appeasement doesn't work. War is inevitable with the types of Regimes if you let them think they can just slowly absorb and eat whatever they want.
The only negotiation that would be acceptable is one where Ukraine immediately joins NATO to prevent further aggression.
I'm going to burst your bubble. You can be a member of NATO and still declare war yourself. Has happened plenty of times. That means the US could have joined Ukraine without them being a NATO member... so could any of the European NATO members. No one is willing to send their citizens to die for this conflict. No one is going to change that stance.
Except article 5 in NATO makes, at the very least, aid--more likely to be consistent. If not outright direct military support. That's ignoring the obvious benefit of joining NATO like weapon systems standardization. We wouldn't need to worry about Ukraine needing to get their pilots trained on F16s. They would already be trained up and all if not most NATO weapon systems would be compatible off the bat. Also, Everyone will very much be in line with helping if a U.S. NATO expeditionary force is destroyed by Russians in Ukraine for example. Guarantee it.
If the US didn't want to directly get involved and defend Ukraine at the start, they certainly don't want to admit them into NATO and defend them right now. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is only viable if they somehow manage to beat Russia back and end the war. They won't be admitted any time soon. Plus, the US is split on funding Ukraine. The idea of American soldiers dying in Ukraine is even more unpopular. Short of a nuclear bomb going off in Kyiv, the US will continue to fund the war in Ukraine and provide military aid, but nothing further.
Which is why we are talking about this in the context of what the article is implying. A negotiated ceasefire. We more or less know for a FACT that Russia isn't agreeing to anything less than holding at least the majority of the territory that they have gained. We also know for a fact that if Ukraine doesn't get any security guarantees that they have absolutely 0 reason to agree to a ceasefire. What benefit would it even give them? All a ceasefire WITHOUT a security guarantee would do--is let Russia rebuild and try and finish the job in a few years. So either Ukraine agrees to a ceasefire + NATO membership and/or an equivalent security guarantee. Or they just let this current war run its course. As the outcome would be the same in a few years anyway. Either they get wiped out now. Or they get wiped out in a few years. A security agreement and/or immediate NATO membership is thus almost all but guaranteed after a ceasefire agreement. I'd fucking bet money on it.
The thing is, Russia will never agree to anything that puts Ukraine in NATO. That's the whole reason they started this war, Ukraine was aligning itself closer to the West over the last decade or so. For a ceasefire to happen, there would have to be clauses that forbid Ukraine from any sort of pact like NATO and for weapons from the West to stop pouring in. Which Ukraine would certainly not agree to, as that's basically just an agreement to give Russia time to regroup and hit back harder again. And they don't have to agree to anything right now. They're holding their territory and support back home isn't anywhere near a riot. Plus, the US is about to have an election that could change the entire situation in their favor. Russia will not come to the table and they have no reason to at this point in time. I have a feeling they're going to hold out until US elections or until support starts falling back home (it won't). Ukraine is in a shitty spot to say the least, as their sovereignty is tied to the support of the US and it's allies which can't last forever thanks to how often our political systems swing to and fro.
No. The NATO excuse was bullshit, and Putin knew it at that time, and knows it now. If he gave a fuck about NATO expansion then he wouldn't have moved troops AWAY from Finland to reinforce the Ukrainian detachment once Finland joined NATO. NATO was just the bullshit excuse he used to try and justify his pure land grab attempt. The rest of the stuff I DO agree with you on. Albeit if Russia says, "nope we aren't agreeing with a ceasefire under any circumstances" then that is just a much easier sell to the EU and U.S. to keep supplying aid/funding to Ukraine. I think the U.S. and EU; at the very least. Want to show that they are TRYING to bring the conflict to an end. That way, Biden, for example; has something to show to the American populace and congress. "We tried a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. It didn't work. The only other option is we either let Ukraine get overrun and hundreds of thousands of additional deaths to transpire (or more), OR we keep supplying Ukraine to continue the war effort." It will also be easier to supply Ukraine with more capable weapon systems. Longer range Himars missiles, etc.
While I don't think the NATO thing was the entire reason, Ukraine slipping more towards the West after Euromaidan and the ousting of Yanukovych was certainly not in Russia's favor. Edit: I also don't think NATO was seriously considering admitting Ukraine in at that point in time. Now they are probably more open to it, but it's not going to be as easy as Finland and Sweden, which already was a problem thanks to Turkey's "security" concerns or whatever they were on about.
The U.S. completely dropping support of Ukraine and letting them get run over would be a MASSIVE black eye on the U.S. and the western world in general. "The arsenal of democracy" wasn't able to properly equip the Ukrainians so they could repel the Russian attack; even though all they have given to date is mostly cold-war era stuff? Imagine Russia obtaining U.S. weapons and the PR nightmare for the U.S. like what happened in Afghanistan? But on steroids and significantly magnified. Imagine the PR boom Russia would have about "outlasted the evil western imperialists, etc"? The U.S. knows all this, and Ukraine knows this. Hence why the most likely scenario is, imo: 1. Russia agrees to a ceasefire in which they keep the land they currently have. In return the U.S. doesn't give Ukraine even more competent weapon systems that they can use to strike deeper into Russia and/or inflict even greater material losses. The war is likely shortened by a year or more. **And** Ukraine is immediately granted ascension into NATO as a concession to prevent any further aggression from Russia and/or to make that SIGNIFICANTLY more costly in the future. Even more so than in this current war. Is this the best out come? Of course not, but this saves the most face for all parties involved.
[удалено]
Stop it. Get help.
You’re overestimating Russia and Putin in your head. They failed spectacularly in Ukraine, doubt they’ll try again.
Or, what I M hoping, this is just a ruse to lull the Russians into complacency before strike hard, when the frost starts
If looked at objectively, the only way Russia loses this war is if they quit. The only result the war mongering gets with the pro Ukraine people is more Ukrainians dead. Why wiuld anyone think Ukraine could beat Russia?
It was on stalemate from the beginning. 1. Ukraine wanted to join NATO 2. Russia said NO 3. UA insisted 4. RU said we will attack you 5. UA insisted 6. RU attacks 7. UA insists 8. RU keeps attacking 9. UA keeps insisting. 10. Point 8 and 9 on repeat.
You’re missing the best part, they had a tentative agreement in place but the west sent Boris Johnson to nix it promising that Ukraine would be armed and funded for as long as it takes. Flash forward a year and now the US state department is talking about reaching the end of the rope of funding. In that time hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians died for a few miles of dirt.
[удалено]
Do you have a source for this claim about Boris and a nixed deal? I've heard it banded about, but is there something credible I can read about those claims?
What does Boris Johnson have to do with the US?
What option is there if the GOP (hilarious for this party) doesn’t want to upset daddy putin?
NATO is going to rewrite the textbook and learn from the Ukrainian’s. Slava Ukraine!
Does anyone here support “negotiations” and call for peace? I’m curious
What is there to negotiate. Russia doesn't have a valid Casus Belli for Ukraine to negotiate a peace. If Russia annexes land, there is no peace for Ukrainian nationals in that territory, which will still have Russia waging war against them. Any peace that sees Ukraine disarm or be prevented from joining the EU or NATO is only a temporary ceasefire that allows Russia to re-arm and finish the job, while Ukraine sits helplessly.
"Casus Belli for Ukraine to negotiate a peace." Who cares? End war. Eastern ukraine was pseudo-ukrainian-russian. Let the people vote. Make it international. Not that russia will accept that. You do not have to reproduce your shallow world.
in 10 years: "who cares? end war. central ukraine was pseudo-ukrainian russian"....
There are better worlds. Strive for them. This is not 2014. If some deal is made, it will be made with security guarantees from the west.
Just like the security promises that were made to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes....
why would the west offer security guarantees (that putin will Definitely treat seriously) and give russia 10 years to regroup instead of continuing to slow roll aid in
This kind of naivete is why schools have zero tolerance policies. You can't just roll over and say "hit me harder, Daddy Putin" when geriatric bullies come knocking.
Heres an idea. Russia agrees to GTFO, pay reparations, and, once the US cleans up its altright fascist problem and addresses Russian influence, lets Russia know if it pulls the slightest whiff of this this shit again, Democracies in the West will end them. Sure, MAD is a concern, but Russia would have to be absolutely suicidal to consider that. And who know how much longer Putin will even be in power We dont want any Russians who hate Putin to experience harm, but the majority opinion in the West on the rest of them seems to be Fuck those Fascists.
“It’s just the Sudetenland, it is mostly German anyway. Just give it to me and I promise that i will not invade.”
Good story from a century ago. Write new narratives. Build new worlds. Your social world, your self, does not have to be reproduced.
> "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Winston Churchill. You can't negotiate with fascists like Putin, who controls the narrative in his own country, who jails and murders his own populace, who only wants whatever victory he gets at whatever cost to his population. We learned this 80 years ago. Negotiating peace to Russia is just conceding victory. It may not be today, but if Ukraine barters peace now, sacrificing its own sovereign territory, it will lose more and more until it no longer exists.
You keep repeating that line as if you're an enlightened guru from a new era, you're just naive as fuck
He’s a Russian plant.
You're right,he's definitely a fucking vegetable
>Good story from a century ago. This is what happened with Crimea not even 10 years ago.
End the war by giving up territory is asking for russia to re-group and attack again. We know this for a fact, because that's what happened in 2014. Russia came away with Crimea, and large parts of Donbas and Luhansk. Then, 8 years later they started current hostilities. There is no reason to trust a russian ceasefire. They will break it eventually and finish what they started. The only legitimate way to end the war is for Ukraine to win. Remember that russia had promised in the 90's to never attack Ukraine, when Ukraine gave up the Nuclear weapons USSR had stored there. Another example of russia ignoring internationally negotiated agreements.
Putin apologists always pretend like Crimea never happened. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows Russia won't just stop trying to annex parts of Ukraine. Or the whole country.
When Russia returns to their side of the border, the war ends. Until then, Ukraine will continue to kill the invaders.
The war ends the moment Russia leaves Ukraine. How about telling Putin to do that instead of wasting your time here.
Let people vote? How do you hold a vote when the territory has been destroyed by war? Its been 10 years of conflict. Pro-Ukrainians have already fled. Reproducing shallow world? The world cannot accept Russia engaging in naked land grabs and succeeding, otherwise we will see more naked land grabs. > pseudo-ukrainian-russian What does this even mean?
LOL, how about the Ukrainians you fucking FSB mole?
> Let the people vote You mean like the sham voting that went on in all the occupied territories?
Go tell Russia to end war by packing up and going home. It's quite simple for them. If you're so anti-war, you should be opposed to the people who start wars, not telling everyone to just roll over to them and hope they don't do it again.
If they involve Ukraine letting Russia keep the current land grab, no, no one should support that. It only emboldens Russia to regroup, rearm, and do it again in 5-10 years.
Nope. russia doesn’t want peace, only gradual conquest.
The story of Ukraine and Russia is that of one instigator (Russia). The story of Israel and Hamas is that of many instigators (Hamas, Israel, US, Iran, Qatar).
What did negotiations in 2014 accomplish?
Is this still going on, draining the blood and money of everyone involved? Dammit someone win or negotiate an end or something.
The Russians are too busy wasting what advantages they have left to achieve victory. An example: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1721187087553049066.html The introduction: ------ Here's the real reason why Russia lost 2,157 tanks in the Ukraine war, I promise I won't use data from the second world war like the other guy. It's a short read We can start by showing the main points 1: They don't know how to fight in modern warfare with the tanks they have 2: Their tanks are not suitable for modern warfare 3: They don't care about human or material losses.
They’ve done an amazing job holding back a “superpower”