Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Kyriakos]

Further expanding the Eu can't happen, and isn't a popular will either. The previous massive expansion of the Eu (the one in 2004) was a mistake too, and created a nice east-west divide to go along with the existent north-south.

[Cyclops]

For Russia to seek peace not domination? This is the most basic part of this conflict

You're not supposed to answer rhetorical questions! Just nod and puff on a pipe.

I still take the view it's all a bloody shame, and peace, even a dishonorable peace is worth the price. That was the deal Ukraine and and the West accepted in 2014. Russia pissed all over it.

As you point out, its clear Russia is just cutting off slices and setting up positions for the Next War, the Endless War of "dont replace me, you need to keep me in charge because of all the enemies I've made".

Putin is attempting a Bonapartist play style, even a military genius couldn't make it work, what hope does a cancerous apparatchik have?

He's purged his marshals, no Davout or Ney types left.

[AqD]

Putin is attempting a Bonapartist play style, even a military genius couldn't make it work, what hope does a cancerous apparatchik have?

He's purged his marshals, no Davout or Ney types left.

Except western governments are not helping.


Why did we target their oligarchs, ban bank transfers and confiscate their properties? It's exactly this widespread corruption that brought Putin's military to this state, and now we're helping curb their corruption? What's a brilliant idea! Besides losing trust from all those in developing countries, which constitute the majority on earth. How are we even going to make money off them in future?


This war is a wrestle between two little boys, one with anger problem and the other with the IQ of a monkey.

Further expanding the Eu can't happen, and isn't a popular will either. The previous massive expansion of the Eu (the one in 2004) was a mistake too, and created a nice east-west divide to go along with the existent north-south.

If they can meet the requirements, why can't it happen?

[Kyriakos]

It has to be voted on, in (afaik) all parliaments of existing members. The decision simply isn't popular enough.

[Mithradates]

The European Council has decided to open accession negotiations with Ukraine & Moldova.

[conon394]

Note the Defense authorization bill passed easily and re upped Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Between that and draw down and more creative accounting US military also should military keep flowing to Ukraine, although obviously not on the scale it would like.

Interestingly the bill passed by basically Biden and Senate working out a bipartisan deal than dropping on the House leaving them little room to argue. Same seems to happening with the additional security bill (Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, Boarder) seeing as the senate delayed its vacation to keep working while the house left. They seem to walking into the fix a bipartisan bill done and waiting for them where I suspect Biden will have agreed to the boarder things thay have clamored for leaving the house republicans with little leverage.

A few other notes. Putin seems quite happy that for now the House fringe stymied Biden's larger aid package but it a bit to early to write off all of Ukraine's backers. Japan quietly keeps supplying robust amounts of aid.

https://apnews.com/article/japan-ukr...5fbfdfbf6c9da8

Reports are that North KOrean Ammo is at about 50% dud rate. That would be more the same thing observed in Yeonpyeong indecent back in 2020. Seeing as one way or another the ROK provided ~300,000 shells to Ukraine if this the North's action push to continue Russian may regret the it.

Ukraine seems to making progress getting its own amrs industry back on track

They would appear to have the own domestically produced 155mm Gun up and running serial production the 2S22 Bohdana

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...lery-vehicles/

It would appear the first link from mid year is conservative or that Ukraine really was on the cusp scaling up... this from this month.

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries...ssis-8849.html

Also of interest Ukraine seems to be expanding the functionality of the Neptune and apparently at least capacity to refurbish its old Tochka missiles and maybe build new ones

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=18eb54e71cd5
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=731c12787adb


One other point

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2023-12-13/

If the claim of Russia using an S-400 missile hold I find interesting. I can see using older S-300 missiles sure Russia has a lot (supposedly) its sort like Ukraine using what are probably nearly useless S-200 missiles in the same role. But Using their top tier air defense missiles in ground attack. Starts to call into question estimates and claims for Russia actual dedicated cruise and ballistic missiles.


-------------

@Ludicus

Let's say, Ukraine is definitely not winning the war and could start losing very soon. This is the best time to negotiate terms that satisfy both sides. What are they waiting for?

Umm they are not loosing that part I assume. Why do want Ukraine to capitulate so badly?

"...instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries""

Name them if not NATO... you keep pointing at this Ideal Ludicus so what is your list? Its got be nuclear power and nation capable of stopping the Russia army and that Ukraine would trust indeed - that list short Also of course you continue to ignore that vague non NATO security guarantees for giving up its nuclear weapons failed - fool me once... But I mean you cite this over and over again so magic up this list of credible security providing states and the nature of the said guratees

[conon394]

Further expanding the Eu can't happen, and isn't a popular will either. The previous massive expansion of the Eu (the one in 2004) was a mistake too, and created a nice east-west divide to go along with the existent north-south.

It does not have to be rapid or more than aspirational at the moment. The key point is its a political statement to Putin.

[conon394]

Well according to German reporting does not look like Putin is backing off fairly maximum objectives. So does not seem like a lot to negotiate about.

https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...cember-15-2023

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/...5518.bild.html

[Cyclops]

Well according to German reporting does not look like Putin is backing of fairly maximum objectives. SO does seem like a lot to negotiate about.

https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...cember-15-2023

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/...5518.bild.html

Thx again, very clear what Ukraine is up against here.

Your earlier point about Japanese aid makes it very clear there's a broad consensus Russia has gone rogue and disparate powers have a shared strategic focus to restrain them.

[Love Mountain]

Well according to German reporting does not look like Putin is backing off fairly maximum objectives. So does not seem like a lot to negotiate about.

https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...cember-15-2023

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/...5518.bild.html

ISW is and your other article is written by Julian Ropcke.

[conon394]

ISW is and your other article is written by Julian Ropcke.

Very deep and thoughtful provoking responce - deft use counter sources and analysis... Color me truly impressed/s


--------------


Other interesting news Talks seems to heating over releasing Russian frozen assets to Ukraine.

https://news.yahoo.com/g7-moves-clos...092800538.html


From Reuters a nice easy read on the impacts of the F-16

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKR...S/jnvwwqyylvw/

Critically not overstating anything and making twice the point that they are needed to simply keep a Ukrainian air force in the sky since the cup board of parts and planes of the pact era is small and Ukrainian air force is no doubt wearing out. Since its clear Russia is in for the long haull it can't say look forward no to the collapse of the Ukrainian air force in 2024 or later to wear an tear.

[Love Mountain]

Very deep and thoughtful provoking responce - deft use counter sources and analysis... Color me truly impressed/s

Here's what some journalists have to say about the Institute of War.



https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1653969926661742593



https://twitter.com/J_JHelin/status/1706747747003400236

And these are not "Pro-Russian" folks. Even some of the most toxic and anti-Russian followers of the war criticized the ISW for misleading and erroneous information. Personally, I don't consider ISW a credible source since they straight up lie when they can get away with it and you will find that sentiment common among Western analysts who will follow this war. Even if they don't make it public at every opportunity.

As for Julian Ropcke, he is a charlatan who editorializes every event for maximum emotional incitement. His articles will always play up the drama as if real life is a soap opera. I'm almost tempted to call him a grifter, but that would be generous.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but apparently people will literally eat up everything without question.

[conon394]

Here's what some journalists have to say about the Institute of War.



https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1653969926661742593



https://twitter.com/J_JHelin/status/1706747747003400236

And these are not "Pro-Russian" folks. Even some of the most toxic and anti-Russian followers of the war criticized the ISW for misleading and erroneous information. Personally, I don't consider ISW a credible source since they straight up lie when they can get away with it and you will find that sentiment common among Western analysts who will follow this war. Even if they don't make it public at every opportunity.

As for Julian Ropcke, he is a charlatan who editorializes every event for maximum emotional incitement. His articles will always play up the drama as if real life is a soap opera. I'm almost tempted to call him a grifter, but that would be generous.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but apparently people will literally eat up everything without question.

Err The mapping criticism does not particularity hold for the link I cited. so whatever

Second on the Bild link your claim might have validity if it was some bolt from the blue. But in fact it really says nothing new. It the same line talking heads on Russian state media have elaborate. It clearly the objectives Putin's invasion had planned at the start. Its in line with announced Annexations. It in Line with where Putin tried to provoke uprising similar to the ones successful in the Donbas back in 2014. That Putin intends a rump landlocked puppet Ukraine is redundantly obvious and that he is willing to fight a long war for is also again been made clear again and again

[Love Mountain]

Err The mapping criticism does not particularity hold for the link I cited. so whatever

The second image isn't about mapping, but whatever.

Second on the Bild link your claim might have validity if it was some bolt from the blue. But in fact it really says nothing new. It the same line talking heads on Russian state media have elaborate. It clearly the objectives Putin's invasion had planned at the start. Its in line with announced Annexations. It in Line with where Putin tried to provoke uprising similar to the ones successful in the Donbas back in 2014.

The "Maximalist" aim at the beginning of the war was clearly regime change. It wasn't until past March that Russians changed their goals to carving up Ukraine. This is obvious, and Russians were even willing to negotiate for a "merely" neutral Ukraine up until Ukraine was encouraged to stop negotiating by its "allies".

[conon394]

This is obvious, and Russians were even willing to negotiate for a "merely" neutral Ukraine up until Ukraine was encouraged to stop negotiating by its "allies".

Your humor is getting better.

[Love Mountain]

Your humor is getting better.

This isn't "humor". Ukraine's lead negotiator literally corroborated this in the most direct possible terms.

When asked why Ukraine didn’t agree to Russia’s terms, Arakhamia was resolute:

First of all, to agree to this point, we would have to change the [Ukrainian] Constitution. Our path to NATO is written into the Constitution. Second of all, we did not and still do not trust the Russians to keep their word. This would only have been possible if we had security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, walk away, everyone would breathe a sigh of relief, and then [Russia] would invade, only more prepared this time — because the first time they invaded, they were actually unprepared for us to resist so much. So we could only work [with them] if we were 100 percent confident that this wouldn’t happen a second time. And we don’t have that confidence.

Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we wouldn’t sign anything with them at all, and that we should just fight.

He added that the U.K. and Ukraine’s other Western partners were informed about the negotiations and the proposed agreements but that they didn’t make any decisions for Kyiv, giving only advice. “They actually advised us not to enter into any ephemeral security guarantees [with Russia], which were impossible [for Russia] to give at that time,” he explained.

Arakhamia also said that today, Ukraine’s political and military leadership remains in favor of continuing to fight. “Why? Because we can’t go to the negotiating table right now. We’re in a very weak negotiating position. Why would we sit down for talks right now? What, let’s just stay where we are? Do you think Ukrainian society would accept that?” he said.

[conon394]

Hmm I don't see a Russia offer to un recognize the independence of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic and I also imagine Ukraine would have to agree to Crimea as Annexed correct. . Neutrality is not the only thing mentioned . It also mention Russia would get to dictate Ukraine's military size. The negotiator makes it clear Ukraine did not trust the offer. And the security guarantee from whom exactly - don't make me laugh if you are going to claim it would be from Russia. Come on it was hardly a serious offer. SO to to extent to claim it was serious I find humorous.

[Love Mountain]

Hmm I don't see a Russia offer to un recognize the independence of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic and I also imagine Ukraine would have to agree to Crimea as Annexed correct. . Neutrality is not the only thing mentioned . It also mention Russia would get to dictate Ukraine's military size. The negotiator makes it clear Ukraine did not trust the offer. And the security guarantee from whom exactly - don't make me laugh if you are going to claim it would be from Russia. Come on it was hardly a serious offer. SO to to extent to claim it was serious I find humorous.

Diplomacy isn't based on what's "right" lol. And yes, it most likely was a serious offer that Ukraine seriously considered.

But funny, I bet if I asked you whether recognizing Taiwan's indepndence, you'd say No because China would likely retaliate.

Though the same thought is not afforded to Russia. What did you expect was going to happen? Russia was going to back down? Werejected Russia's red lines, and decided "to stand on principle" and are now reaping the rewards. This isn't a case of Russia not making a "serious offer". This is simply a case of United States and NATO making a deliberate calculation that Ukrainian lives are worth spending to weaken Russia. That in the long-term this benefits us, regardless of "right or wrong", "serious or unserious." It's the same logic that's behind the Taiwan Relations Act.

[fkizz]

This is simply a case of United States and NATO making a deliberate calculation that Ukrainian lives are worth spending to weaken Russia. That in the long-term this benefits us, regardless of "right or wrong", "serious or unserious."

Does your point show higher moral ground?
Let's not the pretend the other side of the coin doesn't exist, where it is Russia making a deliberate calculation of how many Ukranians (and Russian) lives are disposable to weaken NATO and the West in general.

[Cyclops]

Does your point show higher moral ground?
Let's not the pretend the other side of the coin doesn't exist, where it is Russia making a deliberate calculation of how many Ukranians (and Russian) lives are disposable to weaken NATO and the West in general.

Yes Russias position can't be sugar coated. The twin tracks of "it's immoral to help Ukraine because they are suffering" and Russia stronk" are the plainest gibberish.

It remains morally and pragmatically correct to support Ukraine. Ukraine us allowed to defend itself and the West is not obligated to rebuild the Romanov Empire: thus stupid blundering pillaging raid us delaying the next Russian pillaging raid by years.

The final piece if Russian sophistry is "you can't punish Putin because someone worse might replace him" is the cherry on top. He's a brigand and a dog. Lock him up. If someone worse takes over, lock them up too.