So has Ukraine's NATO membership always been contingent on them retaking the Crimea and other territories occupied by Russia and its proxies? This was never elucidated before the invasion.

Personally if a deal could be done along these lines I'd be tempted to encourage Ukraine to take it.

And I'm sure in 1938 you would have been happy for Adolf to occupy Czechoslovakia, to ensure peace in our time.

When Scotland was whipping up the SNP prior to the attempt to gain independence, one of the suggestions made made at the time was that if the UK were to pull the plug on trade and finance, and rebase in England. Scotland would then engage with Russia to restore their trade and finances, even to the extent of "friendly" basing.

Now tell me what the response of the general UK population and Government would be to such a strategy?

Tell them they could have East Lothian and Glasgow but not the rest?

I would suggest that bigger fish would sail,

IG

The problem with our Vlad is that he will never be satisfied. He invaded Ukraine with no compromise possible.

He is a visionary, so his minions on the ground feel forced to move things around in hopes of recreating what he sees in his head.

If we'd have had nukes and could have insisted that was it, then probably yes.

Don't forget we gave up half of Europe at the end of the war.

Dead_pan,

Has that always been NATO policy? In reality, yes. Accepted for future membership in principle…. But not yet….

https://warontherocks.com/2021/06/wh...-action-plans/

IIRC that was pretty much the half we didn't have at the start and why we entered the war. At the end* all we had achieved was swopping one murderous dictator for another. We utterly betrayed those in Europe that we had sought to free in the first place.

At the end * of the war, the west did have nukes, but the Americans did not want to threaten our former ally with them, to free Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, as we should have done.

end * You cant have an end to something that isn't finished yet.

Here is a nice pic of the crimean ammo dump from April.
Who knows what is there now, but the general area was devastated as seen by the larger explosions and amount of secondaries.

Reference reports unnamed senior people within the Kremlin want to negotiate a “deal” to end the war - doubtless the source of the suggestions of giving up Ukrainian territory for “peace” - and doubtless removal of sanctions…

The united allied position is that the decision is up to Ukraine and they will back their decision 100%. President Zelenskyy has replied…

@ZelenskyyUa

"For us, to live without freedom is not to live. To be dependent is not to be. Therefore, we will not give up until we drive the last occupier out of our home. And we will not stop until we liberate the last meter of Ukrainian land."

Interesting ORAC. Or is it just wishful thinking by some?

I read all the academic writings on this forum but I think that the best explanation is quite simple: Get out of the Ukraine completely and never come back. Replace Putin with someone who will bring honour back to the Russian population through cooperation and not confrontation. End of war and resumption of (near) normal life.

It’s nice to see that RUAF aircraft parking is reminiscent of the US aircraft at Pearl Harbor. Lessons of history?

FUMR,

Putin isn’t the problem, he’s a symptom. There is indeed great unrest with him in Russia, but even more so with the “elite” he represents and are seen as having been seduced by the West.

The article below is, I believe, pretty representative of those below the Kremlin who don’t want a coup, thry want a revolution…..

https://wartranslated.com/pro-soviet...or-the-regime/

Pro-Soviet, Russian author Maksim Kalashnikov on why declaring Russia a “terrorist state” is a bad omen for the regime

The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, the problem Putin has, is a lot of those in power supporting him who have had the life the west offers realise in their case, that is true.

The other problem he has is the next generations following on behind never suffered the culture and oppression that was the Soviet Union of old and have grown use to the" luxuries " the west brings to the party, from holidays abroad to simple things like a Big Mac, I Pads or an Ikea chair...

That is all slowly but surely going, something the likes of Putin and his cronies will still be able to access, but things that will become more difficult for the future generations... Putin is history, the youth of today is the future, a future being squandered on the fields of Ukraine.

..

As long as his friends in the West supply the means, he'll have the will and the fight will continue.
When someone in Moscow who has political influence agrees with you, then will come a change. Otherwise, you are preaching to the converted.
How soon before Maksim Kalashnikov gets tossed out of a window? The "as in 1915-1916" line is an obvious call for revolt.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/08...chinese-robot/


Is this one of the highly sophisticated weapons that Putin was boasting about yesterday ? Better than NLAW and Javelin ? :hmm:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0730ec565.jpeg

The ISW reports elements of the Luhansk People’s Republic militia have refused orders to fight in Donetsk and are complaining about the pace of offensives outside of Luhansk. Morale in RU proxy units is abysmal, and likely to worsen.

https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...ment-august-15

The Maksim Kalashnikov article referenced above is an interesting one but doesn't say too much that is new.
That a land so huge and rich in natural resources can be managed so incompetently is quite tragic (One wonders if the citizens of Moscow are really looking back on the USSR as the good old times). But in a sense it's not news to find that a land full of riches doesn't need a functional democracy or a civil service uncorrupt or even a military that operates within the terms of international law and doesn't use extreme abuse to maintain the authority of it's middle ranks.

Such niceties are not needed, nations based on fossil and mineral can make a living quite nicely without needing to equitably educate it's workforce, without the need for democratic checks and balances to, eventually, restore order and competence to the running of the nation.

But what the article misses is that Russia does retain a few competences even if these, like it's space launch technology are largely inherited of the Soviet era.

Russia's competence in the area of propaganda and news management remain high. It's been argued that such areas as Climate change denial and the Brexit argument were promoted by such Kremlin funded troll farms. With global warming and a weakened Europe both being positions that Russia welcomes.

So let's not be too cocky, the Kremlin does have the odd good card left. Even if, these days, it's largely used to convince its local population. Yet a far cry from the good old days I think.

Indeed it was. I for one would love Russia to be booted out of Ukraine however the realist in me believes this is unlikely to happen anytime soon and, even if it did, it would come at considerable (additional) human and material cost to Ukraine. Would it really be worth it, especially if the considerable prizes of EU and NATO membership could be realised much faster than it will otherwise be? IMO this would far outweigh the economic impact of its loss of territory.

There's been much discussion regarding the allegiances of those people living in the east of the country. Any who are pro-Russian or aren't that bothered can stay put and have a go at living in the newly diminished Russia. Those who'd prefer to remain Ukrainian could be resettled further west.

Russia's economy has been compared to those resource-rich nations in Africa. All that easy money tends to go to their heads.

Oops, it appears the rail lines in Russia are suffering due to the heat..