Ukraine Invasion: Part 31

[MagicFox]

31st thread, welcome all and thanks as usual.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's only just been brought up? I think the news section I read regarding this said that Moscow raised this issue back in August so I don't think the consideration on the talks is a new thing... And I also feel slightly reassured that it's been talked about by the Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman rather than straight out of Putin's mouth. I hate it when he says anything publicly.

FWIW this is a description of the treaty in question:

www.state.gov/new-start/

And as katem98 points out resumption (or not) of inspections has been in the news occasionally for quite some time, for example:

www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-09/news/russia-further-pauses-new-start-inspections

What would using nukes gain for Russia. If they were going to use them they would have done it earlier in the war to immediately put their dominance on the ground. Using it now in Ukraine will be the end of Putin 1 way or another. India and China would likely have to finally condemn them which would make Russia a complete pariah state (even more than now). This would politically be the end for him which he wouldn't want.

There was a report earlier can't remember who from who suggested the new 4 regions to be annexed may likely be used in the negotiating process that Russia can get what it does and has desperately wanted officially for years which is Crimea. He could likely spin this off as a win.

As much as people say no negotiating can happen until Russia leave. it's how the majority of wars end. It may sound stupid but there will be a price that zelenskey is willing to pay to end the war either now or at least have a cease fire during a negotiating phase. ( this would likely have to contain a drop in sanctions from the west) while the negotiating period was In place.

Neither the west nor Russia will want to start a nuclear war. What could anyone gain. The west would never fire first and as before if Putin did it would be the end for him. Putin was clever and never told anyone what he would class as a victory for this war. Heck he could go back now and say he rid the regions of the ""Nazis" and enough brainwashed Russians would believe him enough for him to claim a victory.

Before people start to panic too much I think there are still many more likely outcomes that nuclear weapons being used.

What is more worrying for me is that Russia is starting to divide the west which will be precisely what they want. Causing huge energy costs will eventually have countries wanting to stop supplying Ukraine with aid. Even hearing talk of the possibility of the UsA blowing holes in the gas pipes was crazy (not that we are in any doubt who did it really). Already we see the likes of Hungary say they will not endorse any more sanctions on energy for Russia. Its amazing how people's tones will change once it affects them directly. (Look at Russian conscrips attitude before the mobilisation compared to when they are called up to fight).

I honestly dont 'know how or when this ends but it's not sustainable for anyone right now. Something needs to give. Whether that's peace talks now or a cease fire agreement while negotiating happens who knows. to just push Russia all the way in the hope that someone would stop him hitting the nuke button seems an insane idea.

I think you have some really good points @Tuba437. I saw that same report about the annexation being a bargaining chip earlier and was going to post to see what others on this thread thought about it... I've copied and pasted below.

"A former British ambassador to Moscow says it is possible Russia's annexation of the four regions where referenda were held last weekend is a bargaining chip and they would be willing to give them up in a negotiation for peace.
Sir Tony Brenton says what Russia really wants is Crimea, and it is not particularly wedded to the four regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
Sir Tony told Sky News: "If we come to a peace negotiation, as I suspect we eventually will, the Russians will say to whoever they are negotiating with - the Ukrainians and probably the West as well - these places are part of Russia, you're going to have to pay a real price in order for us to surrender them back to Ukraine
"They might be willing to do that. They are not very closely attached to the Russians. What the Russians really care about is Crimea and a land bridge to Crimea, but this may well give them extra negotiating capital come the moment.
"They have had a bad couple of weeks, but things seem now to have settled back into stagnation. That could easily change very abruptly. We are heading towards winter when everything bogs down anyway so I suspect we are looking at the war running into spring next year.
"That slow down may give everyone a chance to reflect... 'we really need a way of settling that' and for peace moves to begin."
Earlier, it was announced that President Vladimir Putin would sign documents on Friday proclaiming Russia's annexation of the four Ukrainian regions, as Moscow rushes to lock in territorial claims that the Ukrainian army is threatening to reverse on the battlefield.
Moscow-backed leaders in the occupied regions have claimed that a clear majority of people voted to join Russia, but the votes were declared a sham by Western governments and several Russia allies says they will not recognise the annexed regions as Russian."

Ukraine, and NATO, simply won’t allow Putin to gain ground from this because they can’t. Any ceasefire and ‘negotiated deal’ would be nothing more than a curtain behind which Russia could requip and try again.

Getting ahead of myself here in even thinking of peace. But if a peace deal were agreed, how would we go back to trusting Russia? And yet if we treat Russians too harshly they we will be playing a part in strengthening Russia v western divide. I honest

Oops. Posted too soon. I honestly can't see how we stop the widening autocracy v democracy divide and that is scary. If not tomorrow then in a few years time.

I agree with Jelly, they won't allow him to partition Ukraine like that: it's a win, and he'll be back for more, this time more prepared. I have racked my brains wondering how this ends.

On that note, about to read this article: www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

"How the War in Ukraine Might End
In recent years, a small group of scholars has focussed on war-termination theory. They see reason to fear the possible outcomes in Ukraine."

Whilst I understand what your saying here. That essentially means it's fight until someone surrenders or does something stupid. Do people honestly think russia will surrender? I think the most likely scenario is going back to the status quo before the invasion with the caviat being a formal and internationally recognised referendum on Crimea.

We can all say how incredibly brave Ukraine are and how well they are fighting for their country. Without the west's aid and weapons they don't have a leg to stand on. Already seeing countries crack with sanctions etc how long until aid starts to dwindle. We can't do it forever without impacting our own stockpiles of weapons.

I am hoping that a poorly equipped Russian army fighting on empty stomachs, with no training and few weapons, getting their asses handed to them, in winter, will mean said troops turn on their leaders or surrender. I'm hoping for an en masse refusal to fight.

Am I being naive?

To be fair come winter there will be be very minimal fighting due to the terrain in Ukraine. It will likely be hunker down and hold positions until the spring time. Giving both sides time to regroup and re equipt. Any huge escalation I would imagine would happen after the winter.

I think you're being hopeful. I mean, it's not like it hasn't happened before but...seems too good to hope for

I am all for going back to the status quo before the invasion – but I mean the invasion on 20th February 2014, not the one on 24th February 2022. And I mean all Russians out of Crimea, and no referendum until there has been time for one to be organised properly and without armed men forcing the individuals' votes.

"Not having a leg to stand on" means not having justification for one's actions (Brewer's Phrase and Fable says "An excuse; a chance to get away with it. Used negatively, in phrases like 'not have a leg to stand on' and 'without a leg to stand on."). Russia hasn't got a leg to stand on, and has not had at any point during the past eight years and more; Ukraine on the other hand is absolutely justified in defending itself against unprovoked invasion by a despotic regime.

This is @MissConductUS territory, and also some of our posters from the frozen north, but I certainly know others with army experience posting on other places suspect that logic might not apply for both sides.

Ukrainian forces already have motivation, a good logistics chain and have got hold or are getting hold of good winter kit, (e.g. from Lithuania and elsewhere) both clothing and heavier stuff that can certainly operate in the cold/on frozen ground.

Give it a two or three months and the ground will freeze hard enough to take the weight of at least some armour and heavy vehicles.

If some reports are to be believed it looks as if the Russians won't be as well supported, so they'll end living in the field, possibly poorly fed and badly equipped. They could well really start to suffer (cold, disease, morale through the floor etc) and become combat ineffective in large numbers quite quickly.

The scene might be set for some major Ukraine advances....just my take on it from reading around, be interested in other views.

Ok minus the fighting (which must be absolutely horrific) they will still be freezing, hungry, far from home, exhausted, with no access to medical care. I'm sure the locals will still attempt to poison them with hot soup, blow up their trucks and slit their throats in the night. The Ukrainian soldiers will remain active for sure, I am especially sure the reconnaissance groups will.

Probably still wishful thinking. A girl (ok a middle aged woman) can dream.

@notimagain you put it a lot better thankyou and maybe I can keeping on hoping 🤞

>Getting ahead of myself here in even thinking of peace. But if a peace deal were agreed, how would we go back to trusting Russia?

Russia's done. Western countries are done with Russia.

De-link, contain, ignore.

For a generation? Make that two.

Meanwhile there's a war to press on with and Putin to be pretty much ignored.

Weather, like terrain, is considered a neutral factor in ground combat because both sides have to deal with it. I've heard reports that mud is already starting to be a problem in eastern Ukraine, where there has recently been quite a lot of rain. The Ukrainians will want to press their advantage as much as possible this fall.

Winter will slow the tempo of operations and hamper logistics for both sides, but I think that the Ukrainians will retain the upper hand because of better winter kit, stronger supply lines and better trained troops. The new conscripts will burden the Russians with more soldiers to feed, house and supply without adding much combat power. The Ukrainians have also consistently shown a greater ability to innovate and adapt than the Russians, which becomes even more important under challenging conditions.

Russian army units have shown themselves to be quite fragile, with very little ability to regain the initiative once they lose it. I think quite a lot could still be accomplished once the cold weather sets in.

@MissConductUS I couldn't agree more. Everyone talks of winter as some sort of deadline, but it doesn't mean everything has to stop. Ukraine will still have motivation to keep going. Russia? Not so much. Also, a lot of fighting happens along the roads. Tarmac doesn't get muddy. And it can get pretty damn cold in Ukraine, you could easily drive over a mud field if it's been consistently cold.

Also, and this is what Arestovych said as well, the more men on the front line isn't going to solve Russia's problems, it's going to compound them. It's going to weigh the more experienced ones down. Ever tried baking with a toddler? Takes twice as long.

Another thing that he said was very interesting and I had that question at the back of my mind, but couldn't quite express it. Has anyone thought why on earth Putin announced mobilisation without locking the borders?

He's letting the more wealthy (middle class) go. They are the ones who have the potential and ambition to fight for their lives and freedom. They are doing this by leaving. What would happen if this wasn't an option? They would fight, but not in Ukrainian trenches.

Then you have the less wealthy/less educated, who will go to war because they were told to. They could also rebel if pushed too far, except they're going to be dead now.

Putin is digging in for North Korea scenario. The recent explosions of gas pipelines are a testament to that. Because that's the only way he can keep the regime going.

OwlsDance · Yesterday 23:56

What you say about the borders not having been closed on purpose so as to let out the very people who would have fought against Putin makes sense.

Lukashenko seems to be saying this too when he tells Putin “Let them run.”
m.youtube.com/watch?v=FaddWqku8FY

Winter doesn't have to be a pause in the fighting, think of the Winter War.

It would be great - and this is probably wishful thinking - if a large group of pop and rock stars came together and put on a 'live aid' type of Christmas concert for Ukraine. It would be enormous and Elon Musk could stream it via Starlink to reach those places that are hard to reach.

Yes, anything that would show the Ukrainians they’re not forgotten and Putin that the West’s support is as strong as ever and not about to flag would be valuable.

I was also thinking about a different section of people. Those who are fed the Kremlin narrative. Ordinary people in Russia, those in neighbouring countries in Central Asia and even other places. Pop can project quite powerful messages and it is propaganda in all its forms that can affect morale and change behaviour.

No coffee yet, hence the grumpiness , but I'd rather any spare logistics capacity available, certainly in Europe, was used to shift ordnance and other fighty stuff in an eastwards direction, not moving speakers amps, lights etc around.

If the entertainers want to entertain (which if done properly can have value for the troops) they could go east themselves and contribute in the field, in the way ENSA used to do...

Last event of that sort I had to attend featured Jim Davidson as the star turn.....TBH I'm not sure whether that improved things or not...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainments_National_Service_Association