Ukraine

[El Guapo]

Of course, not sure that western troops getting deployed to Ukraine is much better from the Russian perspective

I feel certain Putin would consider that to be much worse.

Right and anyway it seems unlikely that we're going to agree as a condition of peace to perform actions we actively said we wouldn't do during the hot war. It still has all the same escalation risks yet we'll commit to them in some hypothetical future scenario? It is dubious.

IMO none of this is real. In the sense it'll lead to something sustainable. The Russians simply aren't trustworthy. Whatever agreement will last until they can abuse it. They are mafioso. And it looks more like they are trying to buy time to reposition. In that frame of course they'll be accommodating. The Russians will talk about agreeing to things in principle because they almost certainly have no intention of doing them. I don't know how it'll end but this seems like an unlikely path though stranger things have happened.

I guess the question is what does this mean in terms of next steps? This seems to suggest that only complete military victory or something close to that will do. Since we're unwilling to engage Russia directly, that seems to suggest that we should essentially give Ukraine every piece of military equipment that's not locked down, with the hope that either they'll be able to expel Russia entirely, OR at least fight enough to get maximum leverage for any type of agreement that they want to strike with Russia.

[Blackhawk]

The uncomfortable thing is that the longer this goes on, the worse things get for Russia, and the closer they (potentially) get to some sort of meaningful change. Wanting to see Russia finally have to clean up their act and stop causing misery at home and around the world, while at the same time wanting people to stop suffering in Ukraine leads to some unpleasant moral quandaries.

[LawBeefaroni]

We'd have to arm Ukraine to teh fuck while simultaneously conducting economic warfare on Russia to degrade their military and Putin's control, both of which are highly vulnerable to sanctions. Putin will never give up on Ukraine, we shouldn't give up on destroying him financially.

[YellowKing]

Yeah, I'm just being realistic here - what other options do we have that don't involve innocent people continuing to die? Either Ukraine stays in this meat grinder indefinitely, or Putin gets an out - even if we don't trust him as far as we can throw him.

[Carpet_pissr]

I will third that this smacks of time-buying on Putin's part.

[Isgrimnur]

About 15 years time

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelensky, said of the future of Crimea, whose annexation has never been accepted by either Ukraine or other Western countries: "It was agreed in bilateral format to take a pause for 15 years and conduct bilateral talks on the status of these territories.

"Separately we discussed that during the 15 years while the bilateral talks take place there will be no military hostilities," he told reporters.

[Alefroth]

I know how easy it is for me to feel like this from the comfort of my home, on the other side of the planet... But I really don't want anything short of Putin's removal. His reign has to end with this invasion, anything short of that is going to feel like a huge mistake to me.

To that, what criteria need to be met for sanctions to be lifted? I feel like they need to stay in place until Putin, et al. face accountability for war crimes.

[LawBeefaroni]

I know how easy it is for me to feel like this from the comfort of my home, on the other side of the planet... But I really don't want anything short of Putin's removal. His reign has to end with this invasion, anything short of that is going to feel like a huge mistake to me.

To that, what criteria need to be met for sanctions to be lifted? I feel like they need to stay in place until Putin, et al. face accountability for war crimes.

That would be de facto regime change.

[El Guapo]

I know how easy it is for me to feel like this from the comfort of my home, on the other side of the planet... But I really don't want anything short of Putin's removal. His reign has to end with this invasion, anything short of that is going to feel like a huge mistake to me.

To that, what criteria need to be met for sanctions to be lifted? I feel like they need to stay in place until Putin, et al. face accountability for war crimes.

That would be de facto regime change.

Yeah they should be lifted once Russian aggression in Ukraine ends, regardless of whether Putin stays in power. That was the justification for them being put in place to begin with, plus it's one of the 'carrots' we have to get Putin to behave.

The question is what we do if Russia finally gives up (at least temporarily) on conquering all of Ukraine but stays in the Donbas / separatist regions for the foreseeable future.

[malchior]

I know how easy it is for me to feel like this from the comfort of my home, on the other side of the planet... But I really don't want anything short of Putin's removal. His reign has to end with this invasion, anything short of that is going to feel like a huge mistake to me.

To that, what criteria need to be met for sanctions to be lifted? I feel like they need to stay in place until Putin, et al. face accountability for war crimes.

That would be de facto regime change.

Yeah they should be lifted once Russian aggression in Ukraine ends, regardless of whether Putin stays in power. That was the justification for them being put in place to begin with, plus it's one of the 'carrots' we have to get Putin to behave.

It's not just about aggression. Ideally it'd be conditioned on Putin achieving no benefit from the invasion. That doesn't mean we let him have some face saving BS excuse but he has to get nothing.

The question is what we do if Russia finally gives up (at least temporarily) on conquering all of Ukraine but stays in the Donbas / separatist regions for the foreseeable future.

Putin has to give up on conquering all of Ukraine for any foreseeable future. He can't regroup in time to get enough advantage to press an attack. He needs months at best to field another army which would be big enough to have a hint of a chance. And it'd be all raw recruits. *And* it'd probably need to be conditioned on an overhaul of their entire military doctrine. That "dream" is done.

There are assessments the Russian military as a cohesive force can't survive 6 months at the pace they're being whittled down. They've essentially lost entire BTGs worth of equipment and we're now finding out that Russian reserves are non-existent. They've pressed every mercenary who'll work for them into service. That is why this situation may be entering a dangerous phase where it's possible Putin gets more desperate.

[LawBeefaroni]

I know how easy it is for me to feel like this from the comfort of my home, on the other side of the planet... But I really don't want anything short of Putin's removal. His reign has to end with this invasion, anything short of that is going to feel like a huge mistake to me.

To that, what criteria need to be met for sanctions to be lifted? I feel like they need to stay in place until Putin, et al. face accountability for war crimes.

That would be de facto regime change.

Yeah they should be lifted once Russian aggression in Ukraine ends, regardless of whether Putin stays in power. That was the justification for them being put in place to begin with, plus it's one of the 'carrots' we have to get Putin to behave.

It's not just about aggression. Ideally it'd be conditioned on Putin achieving no benefit from the invasion. That doesn't mean we let him have some face saving BS excuse but he has to get nothing.

I'm talking about the war crimes. If sanctions are left in effect until he's in the dock at the Hague, that's regime change. Unless he can run Russia from prison.

Prosecution for war crimes are off the table until he's out of power.

[Holman]

Yeah they should be lifted once Russian aggression in Ukraine ends, regardless of whether Putin stays in power. That was the justification for them being put in place to begin with, plus it's one of the 'carrots' we have to get Putin to behave.

The question is what we do if Russia finally gives up (at least temporarily) on conquering all of Ukraine but stays in the Donbas / separatist regions for the foreseeable future.

Most of them should be lifted as a carrot, but there are still justifications (Crimea, Donbas, Polonium) for keeping in place sanctions targeting Russia's technology needs.

It's now looking like they've never completed even a single T-14 Armata tank. They're dependent on imported materials for those.

[Grifman]

Yeah they should be lifted once Russian aggression in Ukraine ends, regardless of whether Putin stays in power. That was the justification for them being put in place to begin with, plus it's one of the 'carrots' we have to get Putin to behave.

The question is what we do if Russia finally gives up (at least temporarily) on conquering all of Ukraine but stays in the Donbas / separatist regions for the foreseeable future.

Most of them should be lifted as a carrot, but there are still justifications (Crimea, Donbas, Polonium) for keeping in place sanctions targeting Russia's technology needs.

It's now looking like they've never completed even a single T-14 Armata tank. They're dependent on imported materials for those.

They are dependent upon American tech for virtually every high end military microprocessor. All is based upon US designs and software. Secondary sanctions, if enforced and effective will eviscerate the Russian military. Sanctions are going to drive their military back to analogue. No more missiles, tanks, submarines, jet aircraft, etc.

[Smoove_B]

Every day Republicans find new ways to make it as hard as possible for the United States to help Ukraine.

Senate Republicans just blocked the confirmation of Biden’s nominee to oversee DoD logistics - in other words, the transfer of weapons to Ukraine.

And FYI Republicans have no objection to the actual nominee. He’s a career civil servant who is non-controversial and unquestionably qualified. They are objecting just to make life as miserable as possible for Biden.

[Alefroth]

Time for some acting positions.

[Daehawk]

Im beyond where id pay for a ticket to watch GOP members spontaneously combust and scream to ashes.

[El Guapo]

There are assessments the Russian military as a cohesive force can't survive 6 months at the pace they're being whittled down. They've essentially lost entire BTGs worth of equipment and we're now finding out that Russian reserves are non-existent. They've pressed every mercenary who'll work for them into service. That is why this situation may be entering a dangerous phase where it's possible Putin gets more desperate.

Are things really that dire for Russia? And comparatively, are there estimates for how long Ukraine can keep fighting at the current pace - I assume more than 6 months? If so it seems like Ukraine doesn't have much incentive to cut a deal, as total victory would seem to be within reach.

Putting everything together it seems like Russia is probably giving up on complete regime change at least in the short to medium term. I also saw that the head of one of the separatist republics is saying that they're open (e.g., will definitely because they have to) to getting incorporated into Russia once they have total control of the province (I think Donetsk). Seems reasonably likely that the current plan for Russia is to get total control of the breakaway provinces, have them 'petition' for admittance into the Russian Federation, accept and then declare victory.

The question then is whether Ukraine would accept that. In a sense that would be a striking victory vs. how everyone expected this to go. But on the other hand Russia would still have succeeded in taking territory from Ukraine, and if the Russian military is falling apart right now then it seems like now's the time to fight for those provinces.

[Unagi]

Is this correct?
To summarize; given all we have seen of Russias capabilities and Ukraine’s resolve - why would they give Russia anything.
….cause that’s what I’m feeling.


And doesn’t giving Russia ‘anything’ after this, reward the behavior?

[El Guapo]

Is this correct?
To summarize; given all we have seen of Russias capabilities and Ukraine’s resolve - why would they give Russia anything.
….cause that’s what I’m feeling.


And doesn’t giving Russia ‘anything’ after this, reward the behavior?

Well, there are a few reasons why Ukraine might cut a deal that leaves Russia in control of the separatist provinces. First and foremost, they may be uncertain about whether they can militarily dislodge them from those provinces. Second they may be worried about whether Putin will use WMDs before accepting complete defeat. Third is to avoid all the deaths that will happen from bombardment and conflict from continued fighting.

If Russia's military is really going to completely collapse in 6 months or less then seems like it's hard to justify cutting a deal, but I'm not totally clear on what Ukraine's military prognosis is during that time.

[raydude]

Is this correct?
To summarize; given all we have seen of Russias capabilities and Ukraine’s resolve - why would they give Russia anything.
….cause that’s what I’m feeling.


And doesn’t giving Russia ‘anything’ after this, reward the behavior?

Well, there are a few reasons why Ukraine might cut a deal that leaves Russia in control of the separatist provinces. First and foremost, they may be uncertain about whether they can militarily dislodge them from those provinces. Second they may be worried about whether Putin will use WMDs before accepting complete defeat. Third is to avoid all the deaths that will happen from bombardment and conflict from continued fighting.

If Russia's military is really going to completely collapse in 6 months or less then seems like it's hard to justify cutting a deal, but I'm not totally clear on what Ukraine's military prognosis is during that time.

I'm gonna repost this Operational Attrition of the Russian Army Truck Fleet unrolled thread again. The hypothesis is that Russian trucks will attrit themselves into oblivion in 6-8 weeks. No Russian trucks, no Russian fuel, food, or ammo. We'll see if the Russian army is capable of launching offensives past the beginning of May. That's the first milestone I'd look for.

[Dogstar]

The other thing to keep in mind (if I'm remembering correctly) is that Zelensky said that any peace deal would have to be voted on by the Ukrainian public. So they have to accept the loss of territory, the removal of the desire to join NATO, etc.. I'm going to guess that, at this moment, there's not a lot of support for this in Ukraine without some incredible concessions by Russia.

[El Guapo]

Is this correct?
To summarize; given all we have seen of Russias capabilities and Ukraine’s resolve - why would they give Russia anything.
….cause that’s what I’m feeling.


And doesn’t giving Russia ‘anything’ after this, reward the behavior?

Well, there are a few reasons why Ukraine might cut a deal that leaves Russia in control of the separatist provinces. First and foremost, they may be uncertain about whether they can militarily dislodge them from those provinces. Second they may be worried about whether Putin will use WMDs before accepting complete defeat. Third is to avoid all the deaths that will happen from bombardment and conflict from continued fighting.

If Russia's military is really going to completely collapse in 6 months or less then seems like it's hard to justify cutting a deal, but I'm not totally clear on what Ukraine's military prognosis is during that time.

I'm gonna repost this Operational Attrition of the Russian Army Truck Fleet unrolled thread again. The hypothesis is that Russian trucks will attrit themselves into oblivion in 6-8 weeks. No Russian trucks, no Russian fuel, food, or ammo. We'll see if the Russian army is capable of launching offensives past the beginning of May. That's the first milestone I'd look for.

Are they going to be capable of defending Donetsk and Lukansk against Ukrainian offensives beyond that point? That's a key question if Russia's reoriented its goals around keeping those provinces.

[raydude]

Is this correct?
To summarize; given all we have seen of Russias capabilities and Ukraine’s resolve - why would they give Russia anything.
….cause that’s what I’m feeling.


And doesn’t giving Russia ‘anything’ after this, reward the behavior?

Well, there are a few reasons why Ukraine might cut a deal that leaves Russia in control of the separatist provinces. First and foremost, they may be uncertain about whether they can militarily dislodge them from those provinces. Second they may be worried about whether Putin will use WMDs before accepting complete defeat. Third is to avoid all the deaths that will happen from bombardment and conflict from continued fighting.

If Russia's military is really going to completely collapse in 6 months or less then seems like it's hard to justify cutting a deal, but I'm not totally clear on what Ukraine's military prognosis is during that time.

I'm gonna repost this Operational Attrition of the Russian Army Truck Fleet unrolled thread again. The hypothesis is that Russian trucks will attrit themselves into oblivion in 6-8 weeks. No Russian trucks, no Russian fuel, food, or ammo. We'll see if the Russian army is capable of launching offensives past the beginning of May. That's the first milestone I'd look for.

Are they going to be capable of defending Donetsk and Lukansk against Ukrainian offensives beyond that point? That's a key question if Russia's reoriented its goals around keeping those provinces.

From what I've been reading, Russia is great at train logistics. So any unit not over 20 miles(? spitballing here) from a train station should be fine. Donetsk and Lukansk may qualify. But what about the units digging in near Kyiv, Sumy, and elsewhere? Those guys may become sacrificial lambs if they're not pulled out.

[Daehawk]

I thought Ukraine already said they wont accept any deal that tells them what they can do about joining NATO or anything else.

[El Guapo]

I thought Ukraine already said they wont accept any deal that tells them what they can do about joining NATO or anything else.

They've said before and during the war that they're open a deal involving 'neutrality status', though obviously the terms of that would matter. I think the real non-starter would be a deal prohibiting them from joining the EU, rather than a deal preventing them from joining NATO.

[Unagi]

“Diplomacy frequently consists in soothingly saying, “Nice doggie,” until you have a chance to pick up a rock.”
—Walter Trumball.

[$iljanus]

I thought Ukraine already said they wont accept any deal that tells them what they can do about joining NATO or anything else.

They've said before and during the war that they're open a deal involving 'neutrality status', though obviously the terms of that would matter. I think the real non-starter would be a deal prohibiting them from joining the EU, rather than a deal preventing them from joining NATO.

EU membership which many Ukrainians wanted dating back to right before the Orange Revolution would be more lucrative for them economically. Having NATO troops on their soil isn't going to fly with Russia but I don't think Ukraine is going to forgo their right to buy up all the weapons they need to deter Russia from trying this again.

[Kraken]

I wonder if Putin would tolerate UN peacekeepers in Ukraine. Russia being on the Security Council would give them a say in the force. Granted, UN troops are usually more of a tripwire than an actual military power, but it seems like that might be acceptable to both parties.

[dbt1949]

I don't understand why the Ukraine and Russia are having talks. The Ukraine wants Russia out and after all the bloodshed is still pretty pissed about it. Russia has not reached its goals and indeed has been embarrassed. Macho Putin is pretty mad about this and has no intention of pulling back.
What are the goals of these two in the talks?

[raydude]

Regarding territorial grabs - the Russians retreating to Donetsk and Lukansk kind of leaves Crimea wide open - and it can only be resupplied from the sea if you cut off rail and road access from Donetsk to Crimea. That could be a bargaining chip for Ukraine. You want Crimea back? You gives us Donetsk and Lukansk.

[xwraith]

Imagine the traffic report…

Traffic slowed for a anti-tank land mine deployment, might want to seek an alternate route.

[El Guapo]

I don't understand why the Ukraine and Russia are having talks. The Ukraine wants Russia out and after all the bloodshed is still pretty pissed about it. Russia has not reached its goals and indeed has been embarrassed. Macho Putin is pretty mad about this and has no intention of pulling back.
What are the goals of these two in the talks?

Can't hurt. If you find that the other side is willing to make a deal that you can accept, great - if not, not much is lost. Plus for Russia being unwilling to even discuss peace would be a further blow to its already low international prestige.

[malchior]

Are they going to be capable of defending Donetsk and Lukansk against Ukrainian offensives beyond that point? That's a key question if Russia's reoriented its goals around keeping those provinces.

That's probably why they are focusing a defense there. It is a far more limited operation area where they can focus what's left of their capability and also tap into the local fighters. It also has the virtue of being very valuable (natural gas reserves) so it's still a prize worth winning. At this point the guess I'm seeing most often to Putin's current intentions are that he wants to make sure he gets the gas fields, keeps Crimea, and that land route to Crimea.

I sort of doubt Ukraine is going to take him up on that when his military is melting into slag. Still fighting against a dug in Russian army is very different then smashing their toys stuck in the mud. Unless they can push the Russians far enough away that the major cities aren't getting pummeled it is just a battle of wills at some level.

[Unagi]

I don't understand why the Ukraine and Russia are having talks. The Ukraine wants Russia out and after all the bloodshed is still pretty pissed about it. Russia has not reached its goals and indeed has been embarrassed. Macho Putin is pretty mad about this and has no intention of pulling back.
What are the goals of these two in the talks?

Can't hurt. If you find that the other side is willing to make a deal that you can accept, great - if not, not much is lost. Plus for Russia being unwilling to even discuss peace would be a further blow to its already low international prestige.

Well not much is lost but maybe a few layers of your skin will peel off…

[Daehawk]

They could always agree to a non NATO joining deal then right after all the Russians leave say screw you and join NATO. Aint like Putin could do anything.

[Alefroth]

You mean other than bomb their civilians?

[Unagi]

They could always agree to a non NATO joining deal then right after all the Russians leave say screw you and join NATO. Aint like Putin could do anything.

You make it sound as if joining NATO is like some climactic scene in an action movie.

[Drazzil]

I never thought I would see a world leader fuck up an invasion worse then Bush the lesser. I was wrong. I never in a million years thought Putin would be stupid enough to invade. Its like Putin thought Ukraine would be his personal glory hole, but then found himself in a in a sausage maker instead.

Now there would be some prime political cartooning.

[Drazzil]

Hey, no wait!



Putin as a flasher in a park, from behind exposes himself, trench coat open, his member a flaccid tiny tank barrel, the woman, a beauty, labelled Ukraine, points and laughs.

[Drazzil]

It is entirely possible, but not probable that we are witnessing the dissolution of Russia as a thing. Russia is a polyglot autocracy with many competing (sp?) interests ruled by one singular tyrant. The thing holding it all together goes weak then... well, woe is they.