Russia Invades Ukraine XVIII

[some_al_fan]

I've got good news.
Trump is already doing all of those.

I’ve got bad news for you - Trump is not doing that.
I wrote about that a few days ago: https://www.tidefans.com/forums/threads/russia-invades-ukraine-xviii.339188/post-4344604

Please research for yourself, that since Trump has become president:
- New military aid to Ukraine has been $0 (there are still deliveries going on from the past contracts signed under Biden that Trump periodically stops).
- Imports from Russia to the US have gone up 4-5 times.

 

[some_al_fan]

The Germans were fighting a multi front war. They were fighting in Africa, Western Europe, and Italy at different points along with smaller fronts. The USSR was superior in population and production as the war ramped up. This doesn't take into account the US and British production the Germans had to deal with as well. They also had the US and Brits pouring supplies and material into their war effort. The Russian army was driving America trucks and eating Spam. There is really no comparison to WW2 and the USSR's situation.

Russia now is fighting a one front war and a narrow one at that against a numerically inferior foe with a far smaller economy. The supplies and equipment they have been given or sold has kept them upright, but the numbers game over the long haul will crush them. I want Putin completely thrown out of Ukraine, but I don't see how without NATO and specifically US troops, air power and naval power intervening. That would end Russia in Ukraine in quick order, but do we really want nuclear powers at war even in Ukraine?

Let me ask you a question- Ukraine is defeated, Putin spends a couple of years rearming, then attacks Baltic countries that invoke NATO’s 5th article.
What are you proposing for the US to do?

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1957069147096977541

TAPPER: Is that the deal that's on the table? Ukraine has to agree to cede all of Donbas to Russia, including territory that isn't even currently occupied?

WITKOFF: You know, look, I don't know that we have the time now to go through all the different issues on these 5 regions

 

[JDCrimson]

I tell Zelensky to surrender all territories East of the Dipre and fastrack annex all the remaining Western Ukraine in NATO (and annex Moldova as well in the process). When there is a future conflict between Russia and NATO, strategic discussions can be had about retaking the lost provinces.

Its pretty obvious any unclaimed territory between Russia and NATO is open to conquest by Russia. Russia apparently wants a fortified NATO as its next door neighbor. Then by all means we give it to them.

For the sake of discussion, you are the President of the United States, what do you do about Ukraine?

 

[JDCrimson]

Go to war and wipe Russia off the map.

Let me ask you a question- Ukraine is defeated, Putin spends a couple of years rearming, then attacks Baltic countries that invoke NATO’s 5th article.
What are you proposing for the US to do?

 

[Bamaro]

Sadly, Putin won again and trump stumbled away empty handed. I lothe them both.

 

[92tide]

Sadly, Putin won again and trump stumbled away empty handed. I lothe them both.

so, it was a day ending in "y"

 

[Bamaro]

TACO

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1957085196693479553

European Commission Pres. U. von der Leyen puts forward Europe’s position before tomorrow’s USA-Ukraine-Europe meeting with Trump.
Key points:
- No de jure territorial changes
- USA + EU security guarantees
- Increased military production
- Sanctions
- No limitations on Ukraine’s military. Neither on their numbers, their own military production nor on weapons shipments from its Western allies

 

[Tidewater]

I tell Zelensky to surrender all territories East of the Dipre and fastrack annex all the remaining Western Ukraine in NATO (and annex Moldova as well in the process). When there is a future conflict between Russia and NATO, strategic discussions can be had about retaking the lost provinces.

Its pretty obvious any unclaimed territory between Russia and NATO is open to conquest by Russia. Russia apparently wants a fortified NATO as its next door neighbor. Then by all means we give it to them.

You may be right. NATO, however, does not "annex" territory, it agrees to the accession of applicant states (sometimes). Russia views the accession of any state as the US creating a satellite, like the Soviets did in the Cold War. Soviet satellite states have no agency in foreign policy decisions (and precious little choice on internal matters). Members of NATO, however, have complete agency.
I'm not sure every member state of NATO would agree to the accession of Ukraine, especially if Ukraine does not cede the occupied territories.
As I have pointed out before, NATO's policy is not to accept any state with an unresolved border dispute. The only way Ukraine can resolve its border dispute with Russia is to explicitly cede the currently occupied territory. That would be illegal under Ukrainian law.

 

[Tidewater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1957085196693479553

European Commission Pres. U. von der Leyen puts forward Europe’s position before tomorrow’s USA-Ukraine-Europe meeting with Trump.
Key points:
- No de jure territorial changes
- USA + EU security guarantees
- Increased military production
- Sanctions
- No limitations on Ukraine’s military. Neither on their numbers, their own military production nor on weapons shipments from its Western allies

I think van der Leyen is correct, on all of those.

 

[Tidewater]

Let me ask you a question- Ukraine is defeated, Putin spends a couple of years rearming, then attacks Baltic countries that invoke NATO’s 5th article.
What are you proposing for the US to do?

Good question.
Pretty much what you suggest, but I would also urge Ukraine to accept the de facto occupation of the territory Russia currently occupies in exchange for a cease-fire and the freezing of the front where it now is. Ukraine desperately needs a breather. (Russia does as well, but right now, time is not on Ukraine's side).
Advocates of the war continuing keep insisting that there is some deus ex machina that will reverse the trend lines, but I have yet to see it. It is possible but I cannot imagine what that might be.

On the other hand, if Putin gets all of Ukraine (because of some future Ukrainian collapse), I can easily see him gobbling up Moldova as well. The Baltic States are NATO members however, and thus an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[JDCrimson]

The law would be changed if that was offered to Ukraine. Based on what you and others have posited, its the only path to survival for Ukraine from what I can tell...

Giving up territory, even if temporarily, is the only path of survival for Ukraine. NATO membership for a smaller country would give Zelensky the tradeoff he needs with his populace to end the war.

You may be right. NATO, however, does not "annex" territory, it agrees to the accession of applicant states (sometimes). Russia views the accession of any state as the US creating a satellite, like the Soviets did in the Cold War. Soviet satellite states have no agency in foreign policy decisions (and precious little choice on internal matters). Members of NATO, however, have complete agency.
I'm not sure every member state of NATO would agree to the accession of Ukraine, especially if Ukraine does not cede the occupied territories.
As I have pointed out before, NATO's policy is not to accept any state with an unresolved border dispute. The only way Ukraine can resolve its border dispute with Russia is to explicitly cede the currently occupied territory. That would be illegal under Ukrainian law.

 

[Tidewater]

The law would be changed if that was offered to Ukraine. Based on what you and others have posited, its the only path to survival for Ukraine from what I can tell...

Giving up territory, even if temporarily, is the only path of survival for Ukraine. NATO membership for a smaller country would give Zelensky the tradeoff he needs with his populace to end the war.

Maybe. Giving up anything to Russia will be a tough sell for Zelensky. He will have to get the Rada to change the Uklrainian constitution, but you are right, if he were to get NATO membership in exchange for that, the Ukrainian people might buy it.
It would also be a tough sell within NATO. All it takes is one country vetoing for nothing to happen (Turkey refusing to approve Swedish accession was what kept Sweden out for months.)

Putin would absolutely freak out, but too bad for him

Sequencing the deals would be the difficult part.

 

[AWRTR]

Let me ask you a question- Ukraine is defeated, Putin spends a couple of years rearming, then attacks Baltic countries that invoke NATO’s 5th article.
What are you proposing for the US to do?

Defend the Baltic's. Article 5 is nonnegotiable for me. It's boots on the ground time as far as I'm concerned. Ukraine isn't NATO so the line is way more blurry as to what steps we can or should take.
Now I've been in favor of arming Ukraine and actually think Biden nor Trump has done enough.

 

[Tidewater]

Yet, this is the graph of Ukrainian territory losses over time:

View attachment 52219

Last spring I brought this up, so apologize up front to the others on the board. It bears repeating however.
Strategy, the way NATO teaches it, consists of ends (objectives), ways (concepts), and means (resources). George Marshall said, "If you get the ends right, a lieutenant can write the strategy."
If ends-ways-means is out of balance, then the strategy has risk. It might work anyway, but it might fail. The bigger the imbalance between ends-ways-means, the greater the chance of failure.
An example.
In 1941, the Germans asked Finland if they wanted to join their upcoming war against the Soviets. Finland wanted back Karelia (occupied by the Soviets after the Winter War). Finland joined.
By the summer of 1944, Finnish military strategists came to Mannerheim (head of state of Finland) and said, "The Germans are going to lose. We need to relook our strategy. There are no other means (e.g. diplomacy, propaganda, economic warfare). We are already at full mobilization. There are no other ways (concepts) to defeat the USSR. The only thing we can do is modify the ends and for that we need your approval."
"Go on," Mannerheim said.
"If we reduce our ends from 'liberate Soviet-occupied Karelia' to 'avoid post-war Soviet occupation of all of Finland.' We may be able to convince Stalin to agree, if, in exchange, we quit the alliance with Germany now, so Stalin can redeploy the forces fighting against us and use them against the Wehrmacht. If we wait, and go down with the Nazi ship, Stalin will occupy all of Finland and we will be screwed for decades. What do you say, Head of State?"
"So, if I ask Stalin for an armistice and agree to abandon Hitler, we cannot save Karelia, but we may be able to avoid a decades-long Soviet occupation?"
"Yes," the military strategists said, "That is why we need your approval, because abandoning the liberation of Karelia as a strategic objective is not for the military to say. That is a head of state decision."
"Do it," Mannerheim said. Finnish strategy was brought back into balance and the Finns avoided Soviet occupation.

A classic example of changing strategy by reducing the strategy objectives so that the strategy aligns ends, ways, and means. If you cannot find new ways (concepts) or scrounge up new means (resources), you can reduce the ends (objectives). That is statesmanship, the art of the possible.

My advice to Zelensky today would be to explain that story, and then tell him, "You cannot save Russian-occupied Donbas, but you can save the rest of Ukraine. Amputate the Donbas like a gangrenous limb before it kills the patient.
If Russia occupies the entire country, Bucha will play out again in thousands of cities and towns and Ukrainian kids will be taught (in the Russian language) that their defenders were rebels and fascists."
What do you say, Head of State?

 

[some_al_fan]

Last spring I brought this up, so apologize up front to the others on the board. It bears repeating however.
Strategy, the way NATO teaches it, consists of ends (objectives), ways (concepts), and means (resources). George Marshall said, "If you get the ends right, a lieutenant can write the strategy."
If ends-ways-means is out of balance, then the strategy has risk. It might work anyway, but it might fail. The bigger the imbalance between ends-ways-means, the greater the chance of failure.
An example.
In 1941, the Germans asked Finland if they wanted to join their upcoming war against the Soviets. Finland wanted back Karelia (occupied by the Soviets after the Winter War). Finland joined.
By the summer of 1944, Finnish military strategists came to Mannerheim (head of state of Finland) and said, "The Germans are going to lose. We need to relook our strategy. There are no other means (e.g. diplomacy, propaganda, economic warfare). We are already at full mobilization. There are no other ways (concepts) to defeat the USSR. The only thing we can do is modify the ends and for that we need your approval."
"Go on," Mannerheim said.
"If we reduce our ends from 'liberate Soviet-occupied Karelia' to 'avoid post-war Soviet occupation of all of Finland.' We may be able to convince Stalin to agree, if, in exchange, we quit the alliance with Germany now, so Stalin can redeploy the forces fighting against us and use them against the Wehrmacht. If we wait, and go down with the Nazi ship, Stalin will occupy all of Finland and we will be screwed for decades. What do you say, Head of State?"
"So, if I ask Stalin for an armistice and agree to abandon Hitler, we cannot save Karelia, but we may be able to avoid a decades-long Soviet occupation?"
"Yes," the military strategists said, "That is why we need your approval, because abandoning the liberation of Karelia as a strategic objective is not for the military to say. That is a head of state decision."
"Do it," Mannerheim said. Finnish strategy was brought back into balance and the Finns avoided Soviet occupation.

A classic example of changing strategy by reducing the strategy objectives so that the strategy aligns ends, ways, and means. If you cannot find new ways (concepts) or scrounge up new means (resources), you can reduce the ends (objectives). That is statesmanship, the art of the possible.

My advice to Zelensky today would be to explain that story, and then tell him, "You cannot save Russian-occupied Donbas, but you can save the rest of Ukraine. Amputate the Donbas like a gangrenous limb before it kills the patient.
If Russia occupies the entire country, Bucha will play out again in thousands of cities and towns and Ukrainian kids will be taught (in the Russian language) that their defenders were rebels and fascists."
What do you say, Head of State?

The difference between Mannerheim and you is that Mannerheim was aware about the state of Finnish military, while you are underestimating the strength of the Ukrainian military.

Let me remind you general Milley's estimates about Ukrainian military:

Gen. Milley says Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if Russia decides to invade Ukraine: sources

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine took place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News.

www.foxnews.com

 

[81usaf92]

Why not compare the other way, i.e., when everyone was giving up on the USSR when Guderian’s tanks were a few dozen miles from Moscow?
The problem with associations is that they can be twisted to fit your narrative.

Comparing WWII’s eastern front to the current Ukrainian War ignores alot of things. Mainly ideology and the fact it was a war between major world powers. The Eastern Front was very much so an ideological and racial war that really doesn’t compare with anything in the Ukrainian war currently.

TBH the German war machine is an overrated army when you consider that once it finally took a punch on the chin it never truly was the same. The Nazi ideology, it’s lack of military components, and lack of sustainable resources pretty much meant that Operation Typhoon had to be a success or they were cooked. Compare that to the German army in the First World War and you see a major difference in professionalism and capabilities. Alot of the Wehrmacht’s myth is based around the fact they conquered France… okay what else did they do? They got whipped in Africa, whipped in the English Channel, and outright decimated in Russia. Another thing is that WWII fans love to look at ridiculous Nazi mechanized weaponry such as the Tiger tanks and unrealized weapons. But what is forgotten or blatantly ignored is that 80% of the Nazi armor and artillery was horse drawn. When you are making a massive geographical invasion in a very cold place then you might not want to go in with horses… ask Napoleon. My point is that using a doomed army going against one with limitless manpower is probably not a good historical analogy.

If anything, this war resembles the Winter War in that Russia is going to be the one to ultimately claim what an end looks like. Whether that be a general peace or one last move and then peace is going to be the question. I would wager on the latter because Putin will undoubtedly want to claim some sort of victory in what has been a disastrous war for him.

 

[UAH]

I appreciate your posts,
There is no offer on the table from Putin to stop the war and allow him to keep "Russian-occupied Donbas”.
Putin’s offer is that Ukraine should retreat and give the “Russian-unoccupied areas of Donbass” (i.e., Ukrainian-controlled area) to Russia.
As I wrote above with the numbers, it is strategically stupid and a political suicide for Zelensky.

So far the Europeans have demonstrated how ineffective they have become over the years of them depending on the US defense umbrella. They need to step up and bring this to a better conclusion. Clearly Trump is a detriment to any reasonable conclusion to the war.

 

[JDCrimson]

I think it is more accurate that Milley underestimated Russia stupidity and incompetence than Ukraine military strength...

The difference between Mannerheim and you is that Mannerheim was aware about the state of Finnish military, while you are underestimating the strength of the Ukrainian military.

Let me remind you general Milley's estimates about Ukrainian military:

Gen. Milley says Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if Russia decides to invade Ukraine: sources

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine took place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News.

www.foxnews.com