Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
4,460
Location
The Pink Torpedo Club
Yes definitely.
Despite the huge assistance Ukraine has been given by many western countries, it is nothing like enough to stop the Russian invasion.
IMHO, it is now time for countries and NATO to ratchet up their equipment support to Ukraine. Especially in light of the most recent attacks in the Donbas region.
I am fearful that the west is taking its eye off Ukraine. And that will become more important as time moves on.
We need significantly better leadership against Putin.
Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.

And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,203
Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
Your joking right? Do I need to list the aid given/promised so far by the US? It far surpasses anything anyone expected.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,626
Kissinger's suggestion was met with pushback almost immediately. Hours after Kissinger spoke, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his government's position: there will be no peace talks until Moscow withdraws from every inch of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
17,136
Location
Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!

phelans shorts

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
27,217
Location
Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.
In the eyes of Zelenskyy/Ukraine, pre invasion is pre 2014.

I’d imagine they’re only doubling down on that now they’re in a strong position and growing ever stronger.
 

Simbo

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
5,203
When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.
From what I've heard from him from the start, his stance is very much never giving up on Crimea, but he see's that territory more of a diplomatic mission more than a military one. The situation is always changing though, if/when Russia retreats from post 24/2 borders, it may be because they has pretty much been a colapse of their armed forces, at which point a military option may be on the cards. We are a long way off knowing what that reality may look like however.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,998
How does Kasparov figure that 2 EU countries are rewarding Russia for its crimes?
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,297
Location
South Carolina
Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.

And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
I will happily threadban you for posting bullshit here.

The US is currently giving $135 million worth of support per day to the Ukrainian war effort.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,578
Location
Florida
The M270 MLRS has an operational range of 310 miles (500 km) for precision-guided missiles. If those are deployed from anywhere in the Kyiv Oblast, they can basically strike anywhere in Russian-occupied territories.
I had to stop on the highway while crossing White Sands while there was a live fire test of an MLRS. No clue how far away either the launcher or the target was, but the missiles were clearly audible when they passed overhead. It became like a block party for the thirty minutes before the test was started, it was just another day for the locals.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
129,968
Location
Hollywood CA
Perhaps, but what other outcome do you really see happening without Putin butchering thousands more in the meantime?
I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.

Beyond that, the trouble with this strategy is that simply agreeing to a ceasefire to appease Putin wouldn't guarantee him not breaking it by inventing some reason to do so 6 months or a year from now. He's a highly accomplished liar obsessed with invading and annexing all of Ukraine, so he isn't likely to abide by any agreement (see Budapest 94 and Minsk 2014). The only way to deal with him is through a language that he understands - coercion and power. Kasperov has been spot on about him from the beginning.
 
Last edited:

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
4,460
Location
The Pink Torpedo Club
I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.

Beyond that, the trouble with this strategy is that simply agreeing to a ceasefire to appease Putin wouldn't guarantee him not breaking it by inventing some reason 6 months or a year from now. He's a highly accomplished liar obsessed with invading and annexing all of Ukraine, so he isn't likely to abide by any agreement (see Budapest 94 and Minsk 2014). The only way to deal with him is through a language that he understands - coercion and power. Kasperov has been spot on about him from the beginning.
Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
129,968
Location
Hollywood CA
Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?
He just tried to take Kyiv, murder the existing democratically elected Ukrainian leader and replace him with a Russian stooge only 3 months ago.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,998
Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?
No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,307
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.

And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.
And of course that has already affected the course of the war thus far.
But at some point, if Ukraine is to be successful, it is going to have to go on the offensive. Unless the so called West supplies significantly more support and military equipment, this invasion is only going to have 1 outcome... unfortunately.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,307
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.
Not sure I agree with that.
Ukraine is by far the biggest of the former Soviet states. And it has significant resources.
So, whether you call what Putin is doing is to recreate the former Soviet Union, or Russia 2, Ukraine, all of Ukraine is his target. Either bit by bit. Or complete invasion.
It would not work out if he did not want all of Ukraine. Gets him nowhere to just take a bit.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
129,968
Location
Hollywood CA
No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.
You could've made the above argument in 2015 and been proven wrong in the present. Let's say he took Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson, Zap, Dnipro (along with already having Dontesk, Luhansk, and Crimea). That's literally a vast majority of Ukraine and its economy.

That would leave only western Ukraine out of Russian control - until you realize that most of the pipeline infrastructure that transports gas to Europe goes through westerrn Ukraine. So that would mean Putin would not be able to wield any significant influence on European energy by only holding parts of Ukraine. He needs all of it - both for his predatory empire building legacy, as well as to leverage the land to wield power over Europe.



Now fast forward to 2025 to a world where Putin controls most of Ukraine and suddenly decides to concoct a grievance that western Ukrainian fascists in Lviv are sabotaging Russian interests in Russian controlled Ukraine, leading us back to where we were over the past few months, except this time, there is no Ukraine or Ukrainian military to fight off Russian invaders. This is why Putin has to be stopped now, not at some hypothetical later date when the resources to stop him no longer exist and the US is ruled by the next Donald Trump administration.
 
Last edited:

GlastonSpur

Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
17,716
Supports
Spurs
You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.
And of course that has already affected the course of the war thus far.
But at some point, if Ukraine is to be successful, it is going to have to go on the offensive. Unless the so called West supplies significantly more support and military equipment, this invasion is only going to have 1 outcome... unfortunately.
I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,307
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).
Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,328
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.
I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get the Donbas back.

Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.
 
Last edited:

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,998
Not sure I agree with that.
Ukraine is by far the biggest of the former Soviet states. And it has significant resources.
So, whether you call what Putin is doing is to recreate the former Soviet Union, or Russia 2, Ukraine, all of Ukraine is his target. Either bit by bit. Or complete invasion.
It would not work out if he did not want all of Ukraine. Gets him nowhere to just take a bit.
I obviously made a spelling error there. I meant you have to be an idiot not to see he wants all of Ukraine
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,017
I think Russia is winning. Both sides are taking massive losses but from what I've seen, from both Western and Ukrainian and Russian and non-aligned sources, Russia is slowly taking the Donbas and encircling a large number of Ukrainian troops. They also seem to be consolidating the south. It might be that Ukraine counters but I doubt it. It's not popular but I've noticed a change in Western reporting lately to manage expectations. The best case scenario now is a prolonged Afghan conflict and I think both sides would want to avoid that but who knows. You have to question the narrative that's been spun by certain sources because it isn't holding up relative to the picture given by others. In particular, open source intelligence has been particularly crap so far.

I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get Donbas back.

Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.
Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea.

That would leave only western Ukraine out of Russian control - until you realize that most of the pipeline infrastructure that transports gas to Europe goes through westerrn Ukraine. So that would mean Putin would not be able to wield any significant influence on European energy by only holding parts of Ukraine. He needs all of it - both for his predatory empire building legacy, as well as to leverage the land to wield power over Europe.
On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.
 
Last edited:

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,307
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.

And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get Donbas back.

Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.
That is what I meant by bit by bit.
And there would be one way of stopping that. NATO membership.
 

NicolaSacco

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
2,168
Supports
Ipswich
Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.

And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
This is a truly bizarre take for a country who just signed a £40bn lend lease bill.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
129,968
Location
Hollywood CA
On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.
No one said destroying their own pipeline infrastructure is a good idea, especially given they could resume using it once there's a change in government in Russia. The fact that Nord Stream has been curtailed means Putin will require existing infrastructure within Ukraine to sell to Europe. Although Europe would probably diversify away from Putin if he were to magically take control of all of Ukraine.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,571
Location
Lithuania
Good luck Russia trying to hold the line after the gains have been made. Time is on Ukrainian side as long as heavy weapons will keep flowing from NATO. Russia doesn’t have the capacity to replace them with anything. The most famous igor strelkov have said as much a few weeks ago, where he predicted that Russia will eventually make gains in Donbass but it won’t be able to hold it, he’s been pretty spot on so far the cnut. I think for Ukraine it’s an existential war which they absolutely have to win it at all costs and they know it themselves as any peace deal at this stage will slowly destroy them.