ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

I would say restore the previous borders. There is a possibility they get Crimea back as well. Then a likely membership to Nato in the next 5-10 years.
Ukraine had massive recoveries of territory in 2022 from April to the end of the year, but from what I’ve seen they’ve actually lost ground on net in 2023.

So, if there is a ‘freezing’ of the conflict around the present lines, you would consider that a Ukrainian loss?
 

Most Americans support cease-fires in Middle East, Ukraine wars: Poll​


Majorities of Americans support cease-fires in the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, according to a new poll.

The new Economist/YouGov poll found that 68 percent of American respondents support a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine, while 8 percent said they would not. In addition, 65 percent of respondents said they would support a cease-fire between Israel and the militant group Hamas, which are nearing their two-month mark of fighting. Meanwhile, 16 percent said they are opposed to a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.



Why not a cease fire with Japan after Pearl Harbor?
I didn't see the exact wording of the questions, but I'd be all in favor of a cease fire if it meant Russia was pulling back from all Ukrainian territory.
 
Ukraine had massive recoveries of territory in 2022 from April to the end of the year, but from what I’ve seen they’ve actually lost ground on net in 2023.

So, if there is a ‘freezing’ of the conflict around the present lines, you would consider that a Ukrainian loss?
I don't care where the lines are, let alone how Russia expects to get through the winter with limited supplies. At some point Russia will throw in the towel, overthrow Putin, and basically give up the war. You don't see any russians defending the war anymore. No massive Z propaganda's going on. They know its a slaughter.
 
Sobering assessment, and makes many good points --- unless and until Europe and the U.S. FULLY commit to supporting Ukraine with a full-range of weapons and economic support, Putin has a path to victory.

Putin seems to be winning the war in Ukraine—for now​

His biggest asset is Europe’s lack of strategic vision​

20231202_LDD001.jpg
image: agnew/getty images/eyevine
Nov 30, 2023


For the first time since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022, he looks as if he could win.

Russia’s president has put his country on a war footing and strengthened his grip on power. He has procured military supplies abroad and is helping turn the global south against America. Crucially, he is undermining the conviction in the West that Ukraine can—and must—emerge from the war as a thriving European democracy.

The West could do a lot more to frustrate Mr Putin. If it chose, it could deploy industrial and financial resources that dwarf Russia’s. However, fatalism, complacency and a shocking lack of strategic vision are getting in the way, especially in Europe. For its own sake as well as Ukraine’s, the West urgently needs to shake off its lethargy.

The reason a Putin victory is possible is that winning is about endurance rather than capturing territory. Neither army is in a position to drive out the other from the land they currently control. Ukraine’s counter-offensive has stalled. Russia is losing over 900 men a day in the battle to take Avdiivka, a city in the Donbas region. This is a defenders’ war, and it could last many years.

However, the battlefield shapes politics. Momentum affects morale. If Ukraine retreats, dissent in Kyiv will grow louder. So will voices in the West saying that sending Ukraine money and weapons is a waste. In 2024 at least, Russia will be in a stronger position to fight, because it will have more drones and artillery shells, because its army has developed successful electronic-warfare tactics against some Ukrainian weapons and because Mr Putin will tolerate horrific casualties among his own men.

Increasing foreign support partly explains Russia’s edge on the battlefield. Mr Putin has obtained drones from Iran and shells from North Korea. He has worked to convince much of the global south that it has no great stake in what happens to Ukraine. Turkey and Kazakhstan have become channels for goods that feed the Russian war machine. A Western scheme to limit Russian oil revenues by capping the price for its crude at $60 a barrel has failed because a parallel trading structure has emerged beyond the reach of the West. The price of Urals crude from Russia is $64, up nearly 10% since the start of 2023.

Mr Putin is also winning because he has strengthened his position at home. He now tells Russians, absurdly, that they are locked in a struggle for survival against the West. Ordinary Russians may not like the war, but they have become used to it. The elite have tightened their grip on the economy and are making plenty of money. Mr Putin can afford to pay a lifetime’s wages to the families of those who fight and die.

Faced with all this, no wonder the mood in Kyiv is darker. Politics has returned, as people jostle for influence. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, and Valery Zaluzhny, its most senior general, have fallen out. Internal polling suggests that corruption scandals and worries about Ukraine’s future have dented Mr Zelensky’s standing with voters.

Western governments insist they are as committed to Ukraine as ever. But polls around the world suggest that many doubt it. In America the Biden administration is struggling to make Congress release funding worth over $60bn. Next year’s election campaign will soon get in the way. If Donald Trump is elected president, having promised peace in short order, America could suddenly stop supplying weapons altogether.

Europe should be preparing for that dire possibility—and for American help to slow, whoever is in the White House. Instead, European leaders are carrying on as if munificent Joe Biden will always be in charge. The European Union has promised Ukraine €50bn ($56bn), but the money is being held up by Hungary and, possibly, a budgetary mess in Germany. In December the eu should signal that it is ready to start talks for Ukraine’s membership. But many believe that the process will be intentionally strung out because enlargement is hard and threatens vested interests. Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, was recorded (during a prank call) saying that Europe is weary. You would think a Trump presidency would galvanise support for Ukraine, as Europe took responsibility for its own defence. One leader privately predicts that support will in fact fragment.
That would be a disaster. By 2025 the strain of running a war may start to catch up with Mr Putin. Russians may increasingly resent the forced mobilisations, inflation and diversion of social spending to the army. Yet simply hoping that his regime collapses makes no sense. He could remain in power for years and if he does, he will threaten war because that is his excuse for domestic repression and his own people’s suffering. He has blighted his country’s prospects by isolating it from Europe and driving its most enterprising people into exile. Without war, the hollowness of his rule would be on full display.

Europe must, therefore, plan for Mr Putin as the main long-term threat to its security. Russia will rearm. It will have combat experience. Planning for Europe’s defence should be designed to prevent Mr Putin from sensing weakness on its flank—especially if he doubts a President Trump’s willingness to fight should a nato country be attacked.

The best way to deter Mr Putin would be for Europe to demonstrate its resolve by showing right now that it is fully committed to a thriving, democratic, westward-looking Ukraine. Weapons matter, especially air defences and long-range missiles to strike at Russian supply lines, which is why it is crucial for America to approve the latest tranche of aid. Because arsenals are already depleted, more work needs to go into increasing the capacity of Western arms-makers. Sanctions could be targeted more effectively to split the regime from the elite.

Political action in Europe is essential, too (see Charlemagne). Mr Putin will attack Ukraine’s cities and subvert its society to sabotage the country’s transformation into a Western democracy. In response Europe should be redoubling its efforts to ensure that Ukraine progresses, with the promise of money and eu accession. European leaders have not acknowledged the size of the task—indeed, too many seem to shrink from it. That is folly. They should heed Leon Trotsky: they may not be interested in war, but war is interested in them.
 
I don't care where the lines are, let alone how Russia expects to get through the winter with limited supplies. At some point Russia will throw in the towel, overthrow Putin, and basically give up the war.
Your prediction is duly noted, and I’d love to see their entire front collapse like it did around Kharkiv last year, but you’re sidestepping the question.
If Ukraine accepts a ceasefire on the current frontline, would you consider that a loss?

I think Russia’s best case outcome (win) from this war is freezing line where they stand, getting Ukrainian neutrality, and international acceptance on Crimean annexation. That seems unlikely from where are now, and I’d still view it as almost entirely Pyrrhic.

Even with attaining that maximalist position (which is well short of the goal they had upon launching the invasion), this war is a huge loss to Russia. Their military has been demonstrated to be considerably inferior to the prior assessment (I’m speaking of the West here) behind initial reports that Ukraine would overrun in short order. And that military has been hammered to shit.

Putin simply didn't realize how relatively weak a hand he actually possessed.

That forum I mentioned over year ago on this thread at Battlefront.com is incredibly interesting not just because of the former military commentators, but the spectrum of nationalities present.

Completely unscientific, but the mood among the Europeans contributing has gone from optimistic this summer to resigned to stalemate this fall.

Do we expect to have pro war candidates on both sides of the ballot next November?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
Your prediction is duly noted, and I’d love to see their entire front collapse like it did around Kharkiv last year, but you’re sidestepping the question.
If Ukraine accepts a ceasefire on the current frontline, would you consider that a loss?

I think Russia’s best case outcome (win) from this war is freezing line where they stand, getting Ukrainian neutrality, and international acceptance on Crimean annexation. That seems unlikely from where are now, and I’d still view it as almost entirely Pyrrhic.

Even with attaining that maximalist position (which is well short of the goal they had upon launching the invasion), this war is a huge loss to Russia. Their military has been demonstrated to be considerably inferior to the prior assessment (I’m speaking of the West here) behind initial reports that Ukraine would overrun in short order. And that military has been hammered to shit.

Putin simply didn't realize how relatively weak a hand he actually possessed.

That forum I mentioned over year ago on this thread at Battlefront.com is incredibly interesting not just because of the former military commentators, but the spectrum of nationalities present.

Completely unscientific, but the mood among the Europeans contributing has gone from optimistic this summer to resigned to stalemate this fall.

Do we expect to have pro war candidates on both sides of the ballot next November?
I don't think Ukraine stops until the lines go back to prior to Russia's assault on Ukraine. I am not sidestepping it. I think you are completely wrong on what the best case outcome is. They broke through several lines earlier, and are gaining a hold on the other side of the river, they breakthrough and get behind the lines its game over.

What is Russia going to say, we gained some land and cleared out all the Nazi's, killing our economy and killing all our young men. this was a needed war. Hell no. They are not getting anything out of this war other than walking back home.
 
Why not a cease fire with Japan after Pearl Harbor?
I didn't see the exact wording of the questions, but I'd be all in favor of a cease fire if it meant Russia was pulling back from all Ukrainian territory.
Me too. Unfortunately the “cease fire” craze has crossed from Israel/Hamas to Russia/Ukraine. A cease fire in either case is a W for Hamas and Russia at this juncture.
 
I don't think Ukraine stops until the lines go back to prior to Russia's assault on Ukraine.

That’s assuredly their maximalist goals, ‘14 borders and NATO bid is their best possible outcome from here, it just has a terrible price attached from where they stood before American diplomats helped a violent mob overthrow the elected government.

I am not sidestepping it. I think you are completely wrong on what the best case outcome is. They broke through several lines earlier, and are gaining a hold on the other side of the river, they breakthrough and get behind the lines its game over.

I hear ya on best case scenario, and Ukraine’s gains on the left bank are good news that spreads Russia thinner. But the neck into Crimea is narrow, and will be easier to defend than the terrain the Ukrainians focused on trying to cut the land bridge. That’s swampier area that doesn’t hard freeze in winter like the steppe.
By holding the land bridge the Russians would threaten any rush into Crimea with being cut off. Think BEF and French moving into Low Countries, and getting cut off from behind and forced into Dunkirk. Ukraine I think will have to relatively cautious as well.
But the on the ground reality seems to be a primacy of defense, like 1915, and attempts to mass seem to get spotted and waxed. The Ukranians switched to small unit tactics to try and ‘bite and hold’ their way into Russian positions.

What is Russia going to say, we gained some land and cleared out all the Nazi's, killing our economy and killing all our young men. this was a needed war. Hell no. They are not getting anything out of this war other than walking back home.
I linked recently that Ukrainian confirmation that neutrality was in the agreement under consideration in Turkey March of ‘22.

I think some people struggle to look at the situation from the other viewpoint.
I think being able to see how the other side looks at an issue better informs how they’ll respond to a situation.
Doesn’t justify their view, just helps you better determine their response.

https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/do-russians-fear-west

  • Six in 10 Russians said they have reason to fear Western countries that are part of NATO.
  • Nearly half (48%) were concerned that the war in Ukraine could escalate into a Russian confrontation with NATO (48%).
  • Seven in 10 said NATO membership for Ukraine would be a threat to Russia (71%), and preventing Ukraine’s NATO membership is seen as a top benefit of the Russian military action in Ukraine.
  • At the same time, seven in 10 Russians do not fear an imminent attack from NATO (53% unlikely, 20% absolutely improbable).
  • More Russians said NATO has become weaker (37%) than stronger (14%) over the past year. By contrast, a majority say Russia has become stronger (60%).
  • A plurality of Russians did not believe their country’s actions are responsible for Finland and Sweden’s applications to join NATO (49%).
 
Why not a cease fire with Japan after Pearl Harbor?

What if that had happened?

What if we didn’t drop those nukes, and dig all those extra graves in Arlington, and across the country?

What is the world like if the U.S. didn’t fight in Korea or Vietnam, and instead it was the Japanese trying to hold together an empire against emerging nationalist forces?

How terrible would it have been for America?
 
Last edited:
Your prediction is duly noted, and I’d love to see their entire front collapse like it did around Kharkiv last year, but you’re sidestepping the question.
If Ukraine accepts a ceasefire on the current frontline, would you consider that a loss?

I think Russia’s best case outcome (win) from this war is freezing line where they stand, getting Ukrainian neutrality, and international acceptance on Crimean annexation. That seems unlikely from where are now, and I’d still view it as almost entirely Pyrrhic.

Even with attaining that maximalist position (which is well short of the goal they had upon launching the invasion), this war is a huge loss to Russia. Their military has been demonstrated to be considerably inferior to the prior assessment (I’m speaking of the West here) behind initial reports that Ukraine would overrun in short order. And that military has been hammered to shit.

Putin simply didn't realize how relatively weak a hand he actually possessed.

That forum I mentioned over year ago on this thread at Battlefront.com is incredibly interesting not just because of the former military commentators, but the spectrum of nationalities present.

Completely unscientific, but the mood among the Europeans contributing has gone from optimistic this summer to resigned to stalemate this fall.

Do we expect to have pro war candidates on both sides of the ballot next November?

I’m sure Ukraine would consider any land loss to be a loss but IMO anything that results in the nation standing as an entity mostky in tact is a win.

I’m all for a cease fire.
 
Sobering assessment, and makes many good points --- unless and until Europe and the U.S. FULLY commit to supporting Ukraine with a full-range of weapons and economic support, Putin has a path to victory.

Putin seems to be winning the war in Ukraine—for now​

His biggest asset is Europe’s lack of strategic vision​

20231202_LDD001.jpg
image: agnew/getty images/eyevine
Nov 30, 2023


For the first time since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022, he looks as if he could win.

Russia’s president has put his country on a war footing and strengthened his grip on power. He has procured military supplies abroad and is helping turn the global south against America. Crucially, he is undermining the conviction in the West that Ukraine can—and must—emerge from the war as a thriving European democracy.

The West could do a lot more to frustrate Mr Putin. If it chose, it could deploy industrial and financial resources that dwarf Russia’s. However, fatalism, complacency and a shocking lack of strategic vision are getting in the way, especially in Europe. For its own sake as well as Ukraine’s, the West urgently needs to shake off its lethargy.

The reason a Putin victory is possible is that winning is about endurance rather than capturing territory. Neither army is in a position to drive out the other from the land they currently control. Ukraine’s counter-offensive has stalled. Russia is losing over 900 men a day in the battle to take Avdiivka, a city in the Donbas region. This is a defenders’ war, and it could last many years.

However, the battlefield shapes politics. Momentum affects morale. If Ukraine retreats, dissent in Kyiv will grow louder. So will voices in the West saying that sending Ukraine money and weapons is a waste. In 2024 at least, Russia will be in a stronger position to fight, because it will have more drones and artillery shells, because its army has developed successful electronic-warfare tactics against some Ukrainian weapons and because Mr Putin will tolerate horrific casualties among his own men.

Increasing foreign support partly explains Russia’s edge on the battlefield. Mr Putin has obtained drones from Iran and shells from North Korea. He has worked to convince much of the global south that it has no great stake in what happens to Ukraine. Turkey and Kazakhstan have become channels for goods that feed the Russian war machine. A Western scheme to limit Russian oil revenues by capping the price for its crude at $60 a barrel has failed because a parallel trading structure has emerged beyond the reach of the West. The price of Urals crude from Russia is $64, up nearly 10% since the start of 2023.

Mr Putin is also winning because he has strengthened his position at home. He now tells Russians, absurdly, that they are locked in a struggle for survival against the West. Ordinary Russians may not like the war, but they have become used to it. The elite have tightened their grip on the economy and are making plenty of money. Mr Putin can afford to pay a lifetime’s wages to the families of those who fight and die.

Faced with all this, no wonder the mood in Kyiv is darker. Politics has returned, as people jostle for influence. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, and Valery Zaluzhny, its most senior general, have fallen out. Internal polling suggests that corruption scandals and worries about Ukraine’s future have dented Mr Zelensky’s standing with voters.

Western governments insist they are as committed to Ukraine as ever. But polls around the world suggest that many doubt it. In America the Biden administration is struggling to make Congress release funding worth over $60bn. Next year’s election campaign will soon get in the way. If Donald Trump is elected president, having promised peace in short order, America could suddenly stop supplying weapons altogether.

Europe should be preparing for that dire possibility—and for American help to slow, whoever is in the White House. Instead, European leaders are carrying on as if munificent Joe Biden will always be in charge. The European Union has promised Ukraine €50bn ($56bn), but the money is being held up by Hungary and, possibly, a budgetary mess in Germany. In December the eu should signal that it is ready to start talks for Ukraine’s membership. But many believe that the process will be intentionally strung out because enlargement is hard and threatens vested interests. Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, was recorded (during a prank call) saying that Europe is weary. You would think a Trump presidency would galvanise support for Ukraine, as Europe took responsibility for its own defence. One leader privately predicts that support will in fact fragment.
That would be a disaster. By 2025 the strain of running a war may start to catch up with Mr Putin. Russians may increasingly resent the forced mobilisations, inflation and diversion of social spending to the army. Yet simply hoping that his regime collapses makes no sense. He could remain in power for years and if he does, he will threaten war because that is his excuse for domestic repression and his own people’s suffering. He has blighted his country’s prospects by isolating it from Europe and driving its most enterprising people into exile. Without war, the hollowness of his rule would be on full display.

Europe must, therefore, plan for Mr Putin as the main long-term threat to its security. Russia will rearm. It will have combat experience. Planning for Europe’s defence should be designed to prevent Mr Putin from sensing weakness on its flank—especially if he doubts a President Trump’s willingness to fight should a nato country be attacked.

The best way to deter Mr Putin would be for Europe to demonstrate its resolve by showing right now that it is fully committed to a thriving, democratic, westward-looking Ukraine. Weapons matter, especially air defences and long-range missiles to strike at Russian supply lines, which is why it is crucial for America to approve the latest tranche of aid. Because arsenals are already depleted, more work needs to go into increasing the capacity of Western arms-makers. Sanctions could be targeted more effectively to split the regime from the elite.

Political action in Europe is essential, too (see Charlemagne). Mr Putin will attack Ukraine’s cities and subvert its society to sabotage the country’s transformation into a Western democracy. In response Europe should be redoubling its efforts to ensure that Ukraine progresses, with the promise of money and eu accession. European leaders have not acknowledged the size of the task—indeed, too many seem to shrink from it. That is folly. They should heed Leon Trotsky: they may not be interested in war, but war is interested in them.
Good read.
 
Sept 6th I asked about our strategy for getting out of ukraine and letting that side of the world start fighting its own battles. I was told to wait 3 months.


Doesn't seem like we have even thought about developing and exit plan yet.
 
Oh, who let the bloke in? It is as clueless as the last twenty Ryan creations.
The best part is that even if Russia “wins” through a stalemate, they have been militarily neutered for years (they are begging for decrepit weapons from North Korea for Chrissakes), their military hardware is a laughing stock, china must think long and hard about f$cking around and finding out, and hundreds of thousands of their war criminals have died or been maimed. Moreover, as long as the West keeps weapons coming, there isn’t a damn thing Russia can do as an aggressor elsewhere, because they are gushing blood in Ukraine.
 


From another forum:

First Leo1 loss? Is this krasnopol artillery
And why tanks in this war just wander alone until they get killed
Because if you bunch them up together they get killed faster. RA got tired of losing entire companies and started using them in 1s and 2s a while back. The UA appears to be going the same way. Now in UA case it may be force preservation but it also may be that RA C4ISR has finally started to catch up.


Edit: just rewatched that video. So that tank was spotted by the UAS probably 1-2 kms away. It looks like it took maybe 3-4 rounds to knock it out? That is crazy precision. When did the RA start hitting like that?

If they had sent 4 tanks into that field there would probably be 4 KO’d tanks.
With the aforementioned Russian improvement there just seems to be a multi-kilometer band on both sides of the line where vehicle movement is suicidal. My assumption, and it is an assumption, is that this band is defined by the sensor reach of medium altitude drones flying circuits far enough onto their own side to be mostly safe from SAM systems. Absent a better way to knock these drones down, or a truly massive superiority in the weight if effective fires, I just don't see how either side is doing much of anything in way of advancing.
It depends on how the ISR is fused. The UA is rumoured to have a JADC2 structure up. So this means that any sensor: Strat, Op or Tac is integrated into a network. So a satellite can pick up something, hand off to a med alt ISR drone, who then can hand off to a tac UAS system at Bn or below. Given that everything has a GPS and LRF pinning a target can happen pretty quick. One that is done it gets fed back to the fires complex where the best capability is cued and given the data. Shots fired, requesting sensor can send corrections, or even hand the target off for the finish.


What is surprising is to see possible evidence the RA has managed to pull this together. They had pieces of it back in ‘14 but have been woefully poor in linking sensor to shooters, particularly artillery. This is the working theory as to why they have relied so much on mass fires. This action possibly demonstrates that the RA ISR-targeting architectures are catching up. This definitely means there is a death-band along the frontline, likely wider than tank direct fire ranges. Add to this ATGMs etc and the situation gets worse.

The mainstream theory was/is that the RA and UA were pushing out tanks in penny packets due to training/experience failures. However, this phenomenon is simply too wide spread. I cannot believe that every armoured unit in both militaries are incapable of armor platoon or higher operations. We have not seen a full tank platoon in action for months - always 1 or 2 sniping or swooping in to provide direct fires. This trend, along with the reports of the RA using tanks primarily as “indirect fire” platforms 10+kms speak to something else going on. Same complaints have been aimed at the UA, and we trained them.

Most often we hear “why aren’t the infantry clearing for the tanks?” The amount of infantry needed to clear or screen at these ranges is prohibitive. And how do infantry screen layered ISR and artillery? They would need to screen out past artillery ranges.

My sense is that these tactics are happening for a reason. It could be to try and lure out RA artillery so they can CB it. Could be to go out and snipe but know they are likely going to lose the vehicles, so small packages. Either way it matches the trend towards “displace, disperse, dig, or die” which has been seen repeatedly in this war.


What is most disconcerting is that Ukraine had a significant C4ISR advantage. It is what made the difference in the first year. But now the RA is beginning to demonstrate similar capability - at least in this one isolated case. They do not need to match UA C4ISR. They just need enough to sustain denial.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT