How Will the War End?
WW2 (in Europe at least) was started by a joint attack on Poland by Germany and Soviet Union. A few years later, after the two aggressors parted company and some temporary setbacks, the 2nd aggressor expanded to most of Eastern Europe and a chunk of Central Europe. And its ambitions just don't seem to stop.
Last edited by balsa model; 18th Jul 2023 at 04:57.
Conventional wisdom (nothing to do with Sister Betrille) is to expect the worst excesses of greed and corruption, self interest and indifference, and ordinarily, that is a pretty save bet. In this case however, as Spock said to Kirk on saving the Romulans from discovering the inner secrets of Ms Margrette Silurian, AKA a red matter induced black hole.... with a mind described as a gnat trap or a singularity... but I digress.... oh, blah blah blah, EOTWAWKI, capitalist dogs gods, vented interest, Russia remediated under a good behaviour bond.... nah, "Not this time, Jim...". Putin has shown the propensity for corruption and violence, amounts those that he holds most dear, (Note to self: should Putin be renamed Khan? Can't be played by Bene Cumberpatch, too tall). Russia has shown that it is a recidivist criminal enterprise, and the rest of the world can go on about an almost civilised society and planet, with the strange, brooding, drunk uncle with pasty skin and bad teeth, that sits in the back muttering, nuke London, Nuke Poland, nukem all.The disinterest that has been shown by Russians in their own safety and that of their families is quite impressive, normally you have to search in the bottom of the cess pool for that level of odur.
If we normalise Russia without consequences, without accountability for their war crimes, then we deserve the next show that comes along. If Russia has an epiphany and wakes up sober, then the discussion can turn to the effective manners to rehabilititate the crazy uncle that sits in the corner menacing all and sundry. There are good people trying to change Russia, but fighting that level of corruption, vodka and PTSD from 1100 years of oppression... that isn't gonna cure itself overnight, not without Ritalin and ECT, the odd occasional silent treatment.
If we normalise Russia without consequences, without accountability for their war crimes, then we deserve the next show that comes along. If Russia has an epiphany and wakes up sober, then the discussion can turn to the effective manners to rehabilititate the crazy uncle that sits in the corner menacing all and sundry. There are good people trying to change Russia, but fighting that level of corruption, vodka and PTSD from 1100 years of oppression... that isn't gonna cure itself overnight, not without Ritalin and ECT, the odd occasional silent treatment.
The following 2 users liked this post by fdr:
Sure, you can pick holes in the detail, but are we heading in the general direction for recognition of the ineffectiveness of aggressive mass violence as a means of national policy? If so, has China got the memo?
While an interesting serving of word salad, if we get back to the topic at hand
How Will This War End
can you put a concise answer into play?
China's invasion of Tibet comes to mind.
China hasn't got the memo, and no, we are not heading in that direction. I'll suggest a review of all of the armed conflict in Africa as a good starting point.
Nice point. See also who now controls the Golan Heights...
While an interesting serving of word salad, if we get back to the topic at hand
How Will This War End
can you put a concise answer into play?
China hasn't got the memo, and no, we are not heading in that direction. I'll suggest a review of all of the armed conflict in Africa as a good starting point.
Nice point. See also who now controls the Golan Heights...
While an interesting serving of word salad, if we get back to the topic at hand
How Will This War End
can you put a concise answer into play?
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
A problem I foresee Is the supposed plans to divert the seized Russian assets and divert them to Ukraine. A lot of ii can foresee will be invested in shares, companies and other assets, not just cash, and to untwine that lot without crippling the western companies etc that it is invested in could be difficult.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Negotiated cease fire short of actual peace. Crimea stays in Russia, everywhere else back to the 1991 lines. Since there is not an actual peace treaty NATO uses that as an excuse to not allow Ukraine to join NATO. Russia re-arms and attacks again in about 5 years when the world's attention is focused on China's invasion of Taiwan.
Agree about the 5 year plan, that is why Ukraine needs to destroy Russia's capability in the short term, win the war, push them out of country, join NATO and invite Nato to station troops in Country.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
One of the sad things in all of this is, although we cheer at Ukraine destroying Russian equipment, Russian bases etc..... every part of that destruction is actually destroying parts of Ukraine time after time, the buildings you see Ukraine hit are Ukrainian family homes, Ukrainian businesses facilities, farms, fields, crops, the list goes on..........
..
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 19th Jul 2023 at 14:19.
The following 2 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Within the brutal pragmatism of conflict theory, it is more efficient to let Russia bleed slowly and burn out controlled over a long time, instead of a panic and escalation.
Nope, cannot see that first part happening, Crimea will never stay in Russia's hands for the simple reason it gives Russia the ability to strike from two directions, three if you count Belarus. Ukraine needs to take Crimea, then demolish every span and pier of the bridges in their territorial waters including those parts on the seafloor making it impossible to rebuild it.
Agree about the 5 year plan, that is why Ukraine needs to destroy Russia's capability in the short term, win the war, push them out of country, join NATO and invite Nato to station troops in Country.
Agree about the 5 year plan, that is why Ukraine needs to destroy Russia's capability in the short term, win the war, push them out of country, join NATO and invite Nato to station troops in Country.
Crimea has been historically Russian. It is a red line for Russia and so I don’t think there is any cessation of hostilities without it remaining under Russian control. The West will force Ukraine to give it up despite the fact that as you pointed out, it represents a 2 front danger to Ukraine.
Since the West won’t ultimately allow Ukraine to join NATO a second war is inevitable. The US and European leaders want out ASAP before the veneer of unity breaks down and don’t want to think long term because that’s too hard.
More importantly, I think this whole view may be resting on an exaggerated estimate of current and future exchange ratio - speaking the language of 'brutal pragmatism'. The ongoing damage to Ukraine - demographic (millions moved out of harms way + the young are fighting and dying instead of studying / building / reforming old ways), industrial (who's investing there?), and territorial loss - is way bigger than Russian. At this point in the game, this can easily be Kremlin's plan B: We will just destroy them - it will be enough for us to remain as the ones that you must fear. And fear = respect in Kremlin's mindset and the mindset of all their usual international partners, China included.
You could pin your hopes on internal changes in Russia - but this is (A) wishful thinking, (B) gambling. No matter what is your goal, this isn't a good strategy. And we have practically zero leverage on this matter.
I think that the final outcome will be decided by the exchange ratio of (attrition - resupply) and its ultimate realisation in Moscow. Right now, Russians still pin their hopes on their mythical ability to re-generate their losses, if only they chose to fully mobilize. This is why I think that escalating advanced weapons delivery is the best way to help. And, BTW, nobody knows the needs of Ukrainian front like Ukrainians themselves. So the specifics are probably on a list in the pocket of Mr. Wallace (whether he appreciates its meaning or not). Also, an announced sustained program of deliveries, rather than lump donations, is what is going to make the biggest impression on Moscow. IMHO.
And to answer OP: I don't know
I agree that panic is rarely useful.
Nothing is my own goal or strategy but just my observation.
Big Pistons Forever:
Oh dear, who has been reading Russian propaganda. Any Russian occupation from mediaeval times until the 20thC was the Kievan Rus. You might be familiar from recent news coverage where Kyev is, and which nation's capital city. The Ottoman Empire did displace them for a while, but were supplanted by the ethnic Tatars (no commonality with Muscovian Russians., However Stalin did an effective ethnic cleansing action to replant it as a Ukrainian/Russian area during the USSR, and it was returned to it's historic Kievan control after Stalin (but the Tatars weren't invited back).
Any claim to 'Putin's 'historic Russia' is another of his delusions.
Crimea has been historically Russian.
Any claim to 'Putin's 'historic Russia' is another of his delusions.
I should have been clearer. Russia considers Crimea a vital strategic asset due to its location and thus keeping control of it is considered critical to Russian national security interests. These geopolitical considerations are not new hence my comment about Crimea being historically Russian.
One thing is crystal clear. Europe and especially the US could have opened the taps wide open a year ago. The current offensive would look different if Ukraine could field a full complement of MBT, Long Range Missiles, Fast Air etc etc.
The West has clearly decided that it is not in their interests that Ukraine decisively defeat Russia. That is the basis of my belief that hostilities will end with a negotiated cease fire with Ukraine forced to accept the imposed terms which will have to include giving up any claim to Crimea. Putin has to get something or he will not negotiate no matter how bad the war is going.
The fact that this will ultimately be self defeating to long term Western interests doesn’t matter because the decision makers won’t be around for v2 of Russia invading Ukraine.
One thing is crystal clear. Europe and especially the US could have opened the taps wide open a year ago. The current offensive would look different if Ukraine could field a full complement of MBT, Long Range Missiles, Fast Air etc etc.
The West has clearly decided that it is not in their interests that Ukraine decisively defeat Russia. That is the basis of my belief that hostilities will end with a negotiated cease fire with Ukraine forced to accept the imposed terms which will have to include giving up any claim to Crimea. Putin has to get something or he will not negotiate no matter how bad the war is going.
The fact that this will ultimately be self defeating to long term Western interests doesn’t matter because the decision makers won’t be around for v2 of Russia invading Ukraine.
I should have been clearer. Russia considers Crimea a vital strategic asset due to its location and thus keeping control of it is considered critical to Russian national security interests. These geopolitical considerations are not new hence my comment about Crimea being historically Russian.
(...)
(...)
I hope that the final outcome will reflect most countries view that international borders are inviolable. Especially when the pretexts are of the kind:
- it's been historically ours (look, we just made another youtube to prove that),
- only our people live there (we told others to move),
- we really really want it
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
I was going to re-enter the discussion with a reminder about the thread title, but note that Lonewolf 50 did this yesterday:
"While an interesting serving of word salad, if we get back to the topic at hand
How Will This War End
can you put a concise answer into play?"
My intention when posing the question "How will the war end" was very much to link it specifically with NATO's bottom line (which of course we don't know) when considering Ukraine's membership request. I'd wondered whether, as BPF has implied above, without a peace treaty NATO will not allow Ukraine to join. This seems to me to expect too much; such a peace treaty would surely only be useful if Russia explicitly acknowledged Ukraine's right to NATO membership. Surely not in a thousand years.
NATO have made soothing noises to Zelensky about Membership, whilst not giving him a timescale. So I can't believe that Zelensky, probably behind closed doors, hasn't asked the question directly, eg "Well Mr Secretary General, what exactly ARE you offering me? What needs to be in place before I get Membership? Are you saying nothing less than a full peace treaty?"
So for me there has to be something less than signing a big document on USS Missouri that will suffice. After all, NATO membership pretty much guarantees peace for Ukraine, it's just a matter of getting it done. If Ukraine, with all the aid they need, can drive Russian forces out of their country such that a defacto peace exists, ie military action on both sides has ceased, would that be sufficient? Or would continuing Russian threats and provocations prevent NATO going ahead? Are there other scenarios?
"While an interesting serving of word salad, if we get back to the topic at hand
How Will This War End
can you put a concise answer into play?"
My intention when posing the question "How will the war end" was very much to link it specifically with NATO's bottom line (which of course we don't know) when considering Ukraine's membership request. I'd wondered whether, as BPF has implied above, without a peace treaty NATO will not allow Ukraine to join. This seems to me to expect too much; such a peace treaty would surely only be useful if Russia explicitly acknowledged Ukraine's right to NATO membership. Surely not in a thousand years.
NATO have made soothing noises to Zelensky about Membership, whilst not giving him a timescale. So I can't believe that Zelensky, probably behind closed doors, hasn't asked the question directly, eg "Well Mr Secretary General, what exactly ARE you offering me? What needs to be in place before I get Membership? Are you saying nothing less than a full peace treaty?"
So for me there has to be something less than signing a big document on USS Missouri that will suffice. After all, NATO membership pretty much guarantees peace for Ukraine, it's just a matter of getting it done. If Ukraine, with all the aid they need, can drive Russian forces out of their country such that a defacto peace exists, ie military action on both sides has ceased, would that be sufficient? Or would continuing Russian threats and provocations prevent NATO going ahead? Are there other scenarios?
With Russia's and Putin's record regarding treaties, why would NATO want a negotiated peace treaty?
The following users liked this post:
That's the point of a limited war.
Russia using significant amounts of Chemical or Biologic agents would be an interesting situation. The world let Saddam gas whole villages and did nothing, and the world let Assad gas whole villages and did nothing. The type of trench warfare we are seeing now would seem to invite a chemical attack, just like WWW 1. How would the US and Europe react to that ? Their form is not very encouraging....
The elephant in the room however is tactical nukes. I think this is a bridge too far for the West, and Putin knows that, but what about a miscalculation at Zaporizhia ? The place seems to be run on a wing and a prayer so what happens if there is a accident that creates a total melt down that sends a big radioactive plume over Europe ? What does the West do then ?
The elephant in the room however is tactical nukes. I think this is a bridge too far for the West, and Putin knows that, but what about a miscalculation at Zaporizhia ? The place seems to be run on a wing and a prayer so what happens if there is a accident that creates a total melt down that sends a big radioactive plume over Europe ? What does the West do then ?
Crimea is Russia's only warm water harbour. Nothwithstanding limitations of Bosphorus passage, it still remains the fact. Even though Russians weren't happy when Ukraine changes government, problems started when Ukraine announced that they don't plan to renew lease agreement on Crimea. I don't think Russia will give up on Crimea, but I have been wrong before.