Obviously I think he said it for 'I'm a strong man too' effect. Why do you think he said it and do you think it was even worth the paper it (wasn't) written on?
He believes it. He can twist any outcome as a win. If Ukraine won't settle, he pulls the plug. They're retreating anyway. But faster. If Russia won't settle, he'll give Ukraine more than they know what do do with. And they still retreat, slower. While degrading Russia. Which still advances. With the very effective bang-a-buck glide bombs and now scaled down, 36 munition, conventional ICBMs. Neither of which can be defended against. That's a win. For Trump. An actual best case real win. And there is every shade of grey in there. Meanwhile Russia will attack Britain by cyberwarfare, mercenaries, social media and all our undersea cables regardless. Not Trump's problem. He'll push for talks, ceasefire, on the terms above. And yeah, at the end of the day, it was just electioneering.
He's isolationist, protectionist, strong US tendencies historically, and does not see NATO as forward defence. Fractured Europe has to go it alone.
Great minds. It's a question of how badly Ukraine loses. Just 25%, or 100%. Supplied by the US, or not. In a matrix. American supplied they can still lose everything. They don't have the numbers and don't have the defender's advantage, even with low numbers, due to Russian firepower. Scarce (or why else is the Kerch Bridge still up?) ATACMs and Stormshadows just mean Russia has to double the length of its supply lines and flights to glide bomb launch. I can't see how any quantity of American supplies can stop that. They'll be lucky to hold a front half past one o'clock from Dnipro to the Pechenihy Resevoir in a year's time. With US backing.
So we must reconcile ourselves to Russian hegemony in Europe, and hope for the Last Trump? Our successive governments have blindly repeated the errors of the 1030s, assuming. in the absence of an Empire, that the USA will defend us, when, it seems. some at least of our weaponry cannot be used without American say-so.
Because it's very difficult to destroy a bridge, especially one that size. The best way is to send some blokes up there to strap on a whole load of explosives to the supports and blow the thing up. Second best, get some aircraft carrying some big bunker-buster laser guided bombs, and hope one, ideally more than one, of them hits the bridge supports (even with laser guided munitions, it's not easy to hit a target that's only a couple of square meters). Something like ATACM or Stormshadow is simply not big enough to bring down something the size of the Kerch Bridge, yes a direct hit will punch a hole in the deck of the bridge which will take a few days to fix up before traffic can move, but to actually demolish the bridge takes something much larger hitting one or more of the main supports (for each of the bridges - it's actually two parallel bridges).
So we must reconcile ourselves to Russian hegemony in Europe, and hope for the Last Trump? Our successive governments have blindly repeated the errors of the 1030s, assuming. in the absence of an Empire, that the USA will defend us, when, it seems. some at least of our weaponry cannot be used without American say-so.
There aren't enough US weapons to defend Ukraine no matter how far the reach. Because there aren't enough Ukrainians. Europe is a dog's breakfast where the strain of doubling defence expenditure will have catastrophic socio-political effects. Russia knows how to suffer. We don't.
The result of the second round could depend on how strong an "anyone but the fascist" movement there is to swing behind (probably) Lasconi, especially if such a movement can mobilise a significant proportion of the 50% who didn't vote in the first round to keep Georgescu out. The election isn't over, though the first round result is another example of the rise of the populist far-right across Europe and beyond that we should all be worried about and being active to counter in our own communities and nations.
Also, as the Romanian President is a largely symbolic position, even if Georgescu was to win it wouldn't make any real difference to Romanian policy re: Ukraine. If it's reflected in other elections in Romania which could result in significant shifts in policy then that's a different issue.
Because it's very difficult to destroy a bridge, especially one that size. The best way is to send some blokes up there to strap on a whole load of explosives to the supports and blow the thing up. Second best, get some aircraft carrying some big bunker-buster laser guided bombs, and hope one, ideally more than one, of them hits the bridge supports (even with laser guided munitions, it's not easy to hit a target that's only a couple of square meters). Something like ATACM or Stormshadow is simply not big enough to bring down something the size of the Kerch Bridge, yes a direct hit will punch a hole in the deck of the bridge which will take a few days to fix up before traffic can move, but to actually demolish the bridge takes something much larger hitting one or more of the main supports (for each of the bridges - it's actually two parallel bridges).
sOhhhhh. Just to critique, like. Do the ATACMs and Stormshadows 'go ballistic' in their final attack run? I recall seeing holes in the deck of the Kherson Bridge (from Himars?). Are they not capable of being targeted at vertical supports below the bridge? Due to their flight characteristics and/or inaccuracy? They must be powerful enough, the Stormshadow damage in Sevastopol was impressive.
I was interested in Putin's comments that he had been "shocked" by the assassination attempt on Trump, and that Trump should be "cautious" because "unfortunately in the history of the United States, various incidents have happened". The Guardian article spins this as Putin "sucking up" to Trump, but to me it sounds more like a threat!
There aren't enough US weapons to defend Ukraine no matter how far the reach. Because there aren't enough Ukrainians.
This misunderstands the situation. When the U.S. got into the Second World War the War Department estimated that it would take about 290 divisions to fight the kind of war anticipated. This was seen as a level of conscription and deployment that would not be acceptable domestically. The U.S. gambled that using various technological "force multipliers" (machine guns, tanks, aircraft carriers, etc.) would allow them to increase their effective manpower and win the war with fewer troops under arms. Since the U.S. was victorious with 91 divisions this strategy seems to have worked.
Advanced weapons not only compensate for manpower shortages, they help protect the manpower you do have.
It has happened. Contrary to your representations, Martin, Ukraine has used said missles and the Russian pace has been glacier-like as a result.
See the links above, just in case you missed them, and,
In October alone, Russia was able to occupy an estimated 500 sq km of Ukrainian territory, the most it’s taken since the early days of the full-scale invasion in 2022.
Right. From 6 weeks time there has to be an armistice. To stop Russia re-arming and coming back for another bite, British, French, German and above all American troops, and maybe a Canadian, will have to be stationed in Ukraine. Trump will go for tariffs and for Euro NATO to step up to 3% of GDP on defence, or no deal. If Europe cannot be arsed to defend itself, why should hard working American tariff payers? And if Europe wants to sell to America, it must have no barriers at all to American goods. What else must Europe do to appease Trump? Rather than Putin?
Right. From 6 weeks time there has to be an armistice. To stop Russia re-arming and coming back for another bite, British, French, German and above all American troops, and maybe a Canadian, will have to be stationed in Ukraine. Trump will go for tariffs and for Euro NATO to step up to 3% of GDP on defence, or no deal. If Europe cannot be arsed to defend itself, why should hard working American tariff payers? And if Europe wants to sell to America, it must have no barriers at all to American goods. What else must Europe do to appease Trump? Rather than Putin?
This is the opposite of true.
The longer Russia is engaged in Ukraine, the harder it is for them to rearm and come back for the next bite of Ukraine and whichever other neighbour they fancy a piece of.
We know objectively that Russia cannot maintain the current tempo beyond the next twelve months or so. (I linked to detailed analysis before). Russia needs a quick and dirty deal they sets up the next war.
This is the great myth of Trump's 'peace.' His version of forcing an end to the war means Russia's terms and another, bigger war by the end of the decade.
The tragedy for the US is that this delusion will cost them dearly in the end. So much cheaper in blood and treasure to fight now.
What Ukraine really wants is a return to pre-2014 borders. But they'd take something close to 2022 right now, I suspect. Not because it's a good deal but because with the US's foolishness is could be the least worst option.
But I think Ukraine will fight on for a while yet because the peace on offer is no peace at all. Both in terms of future threat and how Russian occupiers behave. This seems to have not been noticed by the West.
But I think Ukraine will fight on for a while yet because the peace on offer is no peace at all. Both in terms of future threat and how Russian occupiers behave. This seems to have not been noticed by the West.
Depends on how you define "the West". Poland and the Baltics seem to be very clear eyed on this. Probably because they know they're likely next on Russia's list.
But I think Ukraine will fight on for a while yet because the peace on offer is no peace at all. Both in terms of future threat and how Russian occupiers behave. This seems to have not been noticed by the West.
Depends on how you define "the West". Poland and the Baltics seem to be very clear eyed on this. Probably because they know they're likely next on Russia's list.
Being physically closer does focus the mind, does it not?
Short term? No. When the fighting stops there'll be some form of armistice line that will involve Ukraine pulling out of Kursk and (probably) Russian forces pulling back a bit. There will then be negotiations for a long term peace - territorially Ukraine will want to retain the internationally recognised borders but may end up ceding Crimea to Russia, it's unclear what territory Russia will ask for (though there will probably be Russian demands for Ukraine to not join NATO & EU, and other concessions). Those negotiations will last for years, probably won't actually be resolved (if at all) until after Putin has died of old age. In the interim I expect some form of "Russian Ukraine" state to be formed from the Donbas and possibly Crimea (Crimea may be ceded to Russia quite early in negotiations, maybe even as part of the armistice deal that stops the fighting), that would have some form of semi-independent status while a full resolution is found - which is what was agreed in Korea and 75 years later the North is an independent nation and the original intent of negotiated re-unification of Korea is further away than ever.
From the moment of the armistice, Russia will rearm. It will take 5 years to be overwhelmingly ready.
She doesn't have to maintain the current tempo beyond the next six weeks.
There's no way she'll concede one inch, let alone back to '22. (Agreed @Merry Vole).
No amount of American money can save Ukraine.
Only American BOTG can. That can only happen with an armistice. Which is still 'escalation'.
I was building this up, if you can call it that, when Alan (@Alan Cresswell) weighed in as consummately as ever, except for the omission of US BOTG.
I may be wrong but I don't think that Ukraine will accept a 'peace deal' just because Trump thinks it acceptable. My main quibble with you was the statement that there 'needs to be an armistice'
Needs to be?
For whom?
So, if we game this out? Ukraine's ability to maintain the fight falls in February due to the Americans. But does that give the massively weakened Russian forces a decisive advantage?
The key word being 'decisive.'
It might. But I am yet to see evidence it will. And if it doesn't, why on earth would Ukraine want an armistice?
Because she's losing. Momma bear is winning, 500 sq km a month, and wins more when the last $20bn runs out. A lot more. A lot faster. It's Russia that doesn't need an armistice. Just talked myself to that. I can't think how Trump can actually make one happen.
Because she's losing. Momma bear is winning, 500 sq km a month, and wins more when the last $20bn runs out. A lot more. A lot faster. It's Russia that doesn't need an armistice. Just talked myself to that. I can't think how Trump can actually make one happen.
RE: BOTG forces on a peacekeeping mission are from neutral countries. The US has largely avoided such assignments because our troops are easy targets. I think the only place where US forces are involved in a BOTG peacekeeping mission at this time is in South Korea.
Nevertheless, the United States has provided financial, logistical, and material support to many of the UN sanctioned peacekeeping missions.
Even though Trump has indicated such a force should be deployed to Ukraine, I doubt he will directly commit any troops to the force.
Because she's losing. Momma bear is winning, 500 sq km a month, and wins more when the last $20bn runs out. A lot more. A lot faster. It's Russia that doesn't need an armistice. Just talked myself to that. I can't think how Trump can actually make one happen.
Sorry, Russia not be able to lose, whatever goal she sets with regard to Ukraine, over the next 20 years at least, or 2 with Ukraine getting no US weapons, or 2 with them even with Ukrainian manpower losses, has what to do with your satire and that nice link? Whatever happens will be victory for Putin. And Trump of course.
Because she's losing. Momma bear is winning, 500 sq km a month, and wins more when the last $20bn runs out. A lot more. A lot faster. It's Russia that doesn't need an armistice. Just talked myself to that. I can't think how Trump can actually make one happen.
Sorry, Russia not be able to lose, whatever goal she sets with regard to Ukraine, over the next 20 years at least, or 2 with Ukraine getting no US weapons, or 2 with them even with Ukrainian manpower losses, has what to do with your satire and that nice link? Whatever happens will be victory for Putin. And Trump of course.
Because she's losing. Momma bear is winning, 500 sq km a month, and wins more when the last $20bn runs out. A lot more. A lot faster. It's Russia that doesn't need an armistice. Just talked myself to that. I can't think how Trump can actually make one happen.
Sorry, Russia not be able to lose, whatever goal she sets with regard to Ukraine, over the next 20 years at least, or 2 with Ukraine getting no US weapons, or 2 with them even with Ukrainian manpower losses, has what to do with your satire and that nice link? Whatever happens will be victory for Putin. And Trump of course.
You are not making sense.
Apart from the lack of an 'ing' after 'be'?
Russia . can . not . lose. There can be no American BOTG without an armistice, so why would Russia enter in to one? Ukraine . can . not . win. It's just a question of does she go the way of Georgia, Chechnya, Belarus and be totally assimilated. Moldova next of course. Then Armenia, Azerbaijan and all Soviet points east. And Iran. More so than ever before.
Iran is desperate now her proxies are in tatters. Her only powerful friend is Russia. A new axis of evil. They go way back. She will have to develop nuclear weapons. I can see Russia facilitating that at no risk. Even in West Asia alone, they are outnumbered by Sunni Arabs. Russia and Iran are all but co-dependent. Sacrificing their freedom in a world of non-entities for being rulers in hell together.
Iran is desperate now her proxies are in tatters. Her only powerful friend is Russia. A new axis of evil. They go way back. She will have to develop nuclear weapons. I can see Russia facilitating that at no risk. Even in West Asia alone, they are outnumbered by Sunni Arabs. Russia and Iran are all but co-dependent. Sacrificing their freedom in a world of non-entities for being rulers in hell together.
I certainly agree with your points, especially since the incoming Trump administration is threatening to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities--though Trump has not been known to carry out his threats very much,
Iran is desperate now her proxies are in tatters. Her only powerful friend is Russia. A new axis of evil. They go way back. She will have to develop nuclear weapons. I can see Russia facilitating that at no risk. Even in West Asia alone, they are outnumbered by Sunni Arabs. Russia and Iran are all but co-dependent. Sacrificing their freedom in a world of non-entities for being rulers in hell together.
I certainly agree with your points, especially since the incoming Trump administration is threatening to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities--though Trump has not been known to carry out his threats very much,
Realpolitik rules, as we know @Gramps49. And Trump cannot stop the Iranian nuke program. He can't bomb beneath the Zagros Mountains. Even nukes can't touch that.
I nuclear programme takes a lot of resources. It can't be hidden under a mountain, as much of the resources need to be on the surface. It needs universities training skilled scientists and engineers. It needs ships to bring in materials and equipment from around the world, and the docks and workers to unload them and transport them to the "mountain" (if that's where part if a nuclear programme is to be concealed).
Trump, of course, isn't going to stop any nuclear programme Iran may be engaged in. Especially when he went to the trouble to kick start the Iranian governments desire to develop a nuclear programme in his last term as President.
I realised that the supply chain is vulnerable, but that's not surgery, it's all but total war. What's stopped them all these years since Stuxnet? How come the DPRK got there? The Iranians started this in '57! America, France, Argentina, Sweden, Russia, Brazil, China; who hasn't facilitated it?!
Comments
He's isolationist, protectionist, strong US tendencies historically, and does not see NATO as forward defence. Fractured Europe has to go it alone.
There aren't enough US weapons to defend Ukraine no matter how far the reach. Because there aren't enough Ukrainians. Europe is a dog's breakfast where the strain of doubling defence expenditure will have catastrophic socio-political effects. Russia knows how to suffer. We don't.
There will be a second round of voting on December 8. It is not over until it is over.
Also, as the Romanian President is a largely symbolic position, even if Georgescu was to win it wouldn't make any real difference to Romanian policy re: Ukraine. If it's reflected in other elections in Romania which could result in significant shifts in policy then that's a different issue.
sOhhhhh. Just to critique, like. Do the ATACMs and Stormshadows 'go ballistic' in their final attack run? I recall seeing holes in the deck of the Kherson Bridge (from Himars?). Are they not capable of being targeted at vertical supports below the bridge? Due to their flight characteristics and/or inaccuracy? They must be powerful enough, the Stormshadow damage in Sevastopol was impressive.
This misunderstands the situation. When the U.S. got into the Second World War the War Department estimated that it would take about 290 divisions to fight the kind of war anticipated. This was seen as a level of conscription and deployment that would not be acceptable domestically. The U.S. gambled that using various technological "force multipliers" (machine guns, tanks, aircraft carriers, etc.) would allow them to increase their effective manpower and win the war with fewer troops under arms. Since the U.S. was victorious with 91 divisions this strategy seems to have worked.
Advanced weapons not only compensate for manpower shortages, they help protect the manpower you do have.
BBC
Where are yours for your sources?
This is the opposite of true.
The longer Russia is engaged in Ukraine, the harder it is for them to rearm and come back for the next bite of Ukraine and whichever other neighbour they fancy a piece of.
We know objectively that Russia cannot maintain the current tempo beyond the next twelve months or so. (I linked to detailed analysis before). Russia needs a quick and dirty deal they sets up the next war.
This is the great myth of Trump's 'peace.' His version of forcing an end to the war means Russia's terms and another, bigger war by the end of the decade.
The tragedy for the US is that this delusion will cost them dearly in the end. So much cheaper in blood and treasure to fight now.
What Ukraine really wants is a return to pre-2014 borders. But they'd take something close to 2022 right now, I suspect. Not because it's a good deal but because with the US's foolishness is could be the least worst option.
But I think Ukraine will fight on for a while yet because the peace on offer is no peace at all. Both in terms of future threat and how Russian occupiers behave. This seems to have not been noticed by the West.
AFZ
Depends on how you define "the West". Poland and the Baltics seem to be very clear eyed on this. Probably because they know they're likely next on Russia's list.
Being physically closer does focus the mind, does it not?
From the moment of the armistice, Russia will rearm. It will take 5 years to be overwhelmingly ready.
She doesn't have to maintain the current tempo beyond the next six weeks.
There's no way she'll concede one inch, let alone back to '22. (Agreed @Merry Vole).
No amount of American money can save Ukraine.
Only American BOTG can. That can only happen with an armistice. Which is still 'escalation'.
I was building this up, if you can call it that, when Alan (@Alan Cresswell) weighed in as consummately as ever, except for the omission of US BOTG.
I may be wrong but I don't think that Ukraine will accept a 'peace deal' just because Trump thinks it acceptable. My main quibble with you was the statement that there 'needs to be an armistice'
Needs to be?
For whom?
So, if we game this out? Ukraine's ability to maintain the fight falls in February due to the Americans. But does that give the massively weakened Russian forces a decisive advantage?
The key word being 'decisive.'
It might. But I am yet to see evidence it will. And if it doesn't, why on earth would Ukraine want an armistice?
Uh huh.
Russia is marching to a decisive victory....
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375
Nevertheless, the United States has provided financial, logistical, and material support to many of the UN sanctioned peacekeeping missions.
Even though Trump has indicated such a force should be deployed to Ukraine, I doubt he will directly commit any troops to the force.
Sorry, Russia not be able to lose, whatever goal she sets with regard to Ukraine, over the next 20 years at least, or 2 with Ukraine getting no US weapons, or 2 with them even with Ukrainian manpower losses, has what to do with your satire and that nice link? Whatever happens will be victory for Putin. And Trump of course.
You are not making sense.
Apart from the lack of an 'ing' after 'be'?
Russia . can . not . lose. There can be no American BOTG without an armistice, so why would Russia enter in to one? Ukraine . can . not . win. It's just a question of does she go the way of Georgia, Chechnya, Belarus and be totally assimilated. Moldova next of course. Then Armenia, Azerbaijan and all Soviet points east. And Iran. More so than ever before.
Interesting you would include Iran in the possible Russian expansion. Can you expand your thoughts a little more?
I certainly agree with your points, especially since the incoming Trump administration is threatening to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities--though Trump has not been known to carry out his threats very much,
Realpolitik rules, as we know @Gramps49. And Trump cannot stop the Iranian nuke program. He can't bomb beneath the Zagros Mountains. Even nukes can't touch that.
Trump, of course, isn't going to stop any nuclear programme Iran may be engaged in. Especially when he went to the trouble to kick start the Iranian governments desire to develop a nuclear programme in his last term as President.