Sohhhhh. That mile is still there isn't it. Nine days later. At least they haven't thrown away two thousand men trying to take it. Or even any armour. And the armoured vehicles don't have or come with artillery. Obviously.
There are reports that the Black Sea Fleet has been partially dispersed, with the number of ships in Sevastopol at any one time greatly reduced. Sevastopol has been subject to too many precision drone strikes to consider it secure. Much of the fleet is now based in Russian ports further east (principally Novorossiysk), greatly reducing the control the fleet has over the Black Sea - Sevastopol has long been the key to control of the Black Sea, founded in 1784 as a naval base specifically for that purpose (almost as soon as Russia had annexed Crimea), subject to two major sieges in 1854/55 and 1941/42 because of the strategic importance of the port, concerns about maintaining the agreement to base the Russian Black Sea Fleet there has been credited as the primary reason for the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
Also, Ukrainian control of several islands and oil rigs in the western Black Sea has allowed monitoring of Russian naval activity, probably aiding targeting drone strikes. The result has been that Russian naval activity in the western part of the Black Sea has reduced significantly. A small number of ships have managed to exit Odessa and other Ukrainian ports staying close to the coast until reaching Romanian waters - there are still risks of air strikes and mines, but the naval blockade is partially broken. It must be quite an embarrassment for Russia that their second most powerful naval force isn't dominating the whole Black Sea when Ukraine has no navy to speak of.
The US is releasing the Abrams tank to Ukraine. The delay was because of the training needed to operate it. Ukrainian troops had been trained in other NATO countries. That is now complete.
If they can get to Tokmak by November or December, then that fits my prediction. Yes, we will be getting into the rainy season shortly, but then comes the end of November, when winter hits and the ground will be frozen for several weeks.
How's your prediction going?
Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, General Valery Zaluzhny, says the battlefield reminds him of the great conflict of a century ago. “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,”
With 30% of Ukrainians wanting negotiations, American support becoming partisan with a year to go to the second Trump presidency and his ending the war a day or so after inauguration.
Zelenski has invited Trump to come visit Ukraine and has stated Trump will not be able to stop the war.
Nevertheless, I concede the war has entered a winter stalemate. Both are pounding each other mercilessly, but Ukraine seems to be hitting its targets more accurately.
Zelenski has invited Trump to come visit Ukraine and has stated Trump will not be able to stop the war.
Nevertheless, I concede the war has entered a winter stalemate. Both are pounding each other mercilessly, but Ukraine seems to be hitting its targets more accurately.
Trump's plan can't fail. And the stalemate is nothing to do with winter.
Former President Donald Trump has reportedly declined Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's offer to visit Ukraine over concerns that it could "create a conflict of interest" with President Joe Biden.
That is, of course, a completely bullshit explanation. Trump is an abject coward and the thought of visiting an active war zone is no doubt terrifying to him, despite the fact that his physical risk would be minimal in Kyiv.
Also from Newsweek:
Trump has repeatedly claimed that his negotiation skills would successfully put an end to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war within "24 hours." Zelensky has expressed skepticism about the claim on more than one occasion, while also arguing that the former president had done little to quell Ukrainian-Russian tensions during his time in the White House.
What exactly do you think Trump's plan is here? My guess is that there's a lot of self-serving bloviation with no more substance than Trump's "plan" to replace the Affordable Care Act, which has been perpetually two weeks away from being unveiled since he first made the claim on the campaign trail in 2015.
At this point claiming that Trump has a secret plan that "can't fail" is akin to believing that your certificate from Trump University is going to make you rich. So how about some details on Trump's plan and why you, @Martin54, are so confident that it's completely foolproof.
If Russia engages in talks, success, if it doesn't, you know full well what he said he'll do. Success. Ukraine would have to agree. And they would. Or get nothing from the US.
If Russia engages in talks, success, if it doesn't, you know full well what he said he'll do. Success. Ukraine would have to agree. And they would. Or get nothing from the US.
I'm pretty sure Ukraine would be even less willing to be strongarmed by the U.S. in 2025 than it was in 2019, when they weren't yet engaged in a (full scale) shooting war. While Ukraine is heavily dependent on Western aid for their war effort, in this case "Western" does not necessarily mean "American". A lot of European powers have decided that it's in their interest for Russia to be checked here, rather than having to check Russia later at some other border. Poland, in particular, seems to consider this a top priority and probably wouldn't stop providing aid to Ukraine even if the U.S. joined the war on the Russian side.
It's disappointing that you're once again adopting the official Kremlin position that the Ukrainians are nothing more than puppets of the American government who will do whatever their Yankee masters tell them to do. Disappointing, but not surprising.
It's disappointing that your analysis of American aid only goes as far as it does. Even with US aid Ukraine is making no progress. Europe cannot possibly - i.e. politically - provide Ukraine with the means to defeat Russia. It's questionable whether it can provide the means for Ukraine to hold the 80% of its former 2014 self. The actual position is of course that the Trump's GOP is the puppet of Russia. But I'm sure he means what he says if Russia won't talk.
And how long would Poland supplied Ukraine last against a US-Russia axis? And Poland itself? And Germany? European NATO as a whole? Would the UK and France use the threat of nuclear deterrent against the US? What do you think? Or is that all just tooooooooo silly?
And how long would Poland supplied Ukraine last against a US-Russia axis? And Poland itself? And Germany? European NATO as a whole?
According to you, less than 24 hours (which is Trump's stated timeline that you endorsed). This is a very remarkable prediction, and seems akin to Russia's claim that the "special military operation" would only take three days. You may recall (or maybe you don't) that offensive ground to a halt well short of Kyiv well before any significant increase in Western military aid hit the ground. We're now on day 621 of that 3 day operation, so you'll understand if I'm skeptical of the timeline you and Donald Trump have laid out with no explanation.
And how long would Poland supplied Ukraine last against a US-Russia axis? And Poland itself? And Germany? European NATO as a whole?
According to you, less than 24 hours (which is Trump's stated timeline that you endorsed). This is a very remarkable prediction, and seems akin to Russia's claim that the "special military operation" would only take three days. You may recall (or maybe you don't) that offensive ground to a halt well short of Kyiv well before any significant increase in Western military aid hit the ground. We're now on day 621 of that 3 day operation, so you'll understand if I'm skeptical of the timeline you and Donald Trump have laid out with no explanation.
According to Jens Stoltenberg a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would result in the total destruction of all Russian armed forces. implicitly in Ukraine, in three days. I remember that. How does Trump's timeline apply to your just tooooooooo silly scenario?
Trump almost certainly does not have a plan and therefore his plan cannot fail.
He has this, "I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day". Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" July 16, 2023
The implication to Zelenskyy is zilch, nada, bupkiss. $0. If he doesn't deal. If he doesn't accept just having 80% of his country. Euro-NATO cannot step up. War goes on. Russia gets to keep its prisons empty. Not Trump's problem. If Ukraine won't deal. If it will, Russia either will, or it won't. If Russia won't, Ukraine gets 'more than they ever got', in materiel, not sure how that could help, as its men are decimated and exhausted now, enough to besiege Crimea? Not without an offensive and BOTG in late spring. 2025. At the earliest. Only with overwhelming firepower that they may not be able to man. For another year. Again, not Trump's problem. Far from it. The best result as it keeps Russia on the back foot at least. If the Russians are smart, they'll deal immediately on Tuesday January 21st 2025, Ukraine gets 'aid', but no more ATACMS, no MICLICS. The deal is done. Russia gets to keep 20% of Ukraine in a frozen Korean ceasefire.
A stupid, unenlightened Machiavellian deal, with only 1 in 4 possibilities of Ukraine, the world, including America most of all, actually benefitting, but that's part of the deal he's easily selling to America first.
The past being the key to the future, nothing much has changed on the ground for 12 months and therefore won't for 14. Even if the GoP Congress funds Ukraine by the sound investment in its own defence by a mere $60bn by Xmas. American 'aid', of about $50bn a year, $4 going to $5bn a month, to Ukraine is the soundest, cheapest, most money saving possible, economic policy for America of course, even over a presidential term or two.
But human nature being what it is, Trump would rather rule in hell for four years. And 'hard working' Americans would rather he did than their 'hard earned' dollars go in tax to losers.
I think there are around 3-4 million people in the Donbas? Most of them Russian speaking I think. How many of them have any hope of ever being part of Ukraine again? How many of them are just resigned to being effectively Russian for the foreseeable future and just want to get on with their lives without a war going on. Does anyone know?
I think there are around 3-4 million people in the Donbas? Most of them Russian speaking I think. How many of them have any hope of ever being part of Ukraine again? How many of them are just resigned to being effectively Russian for the foreseeable future and just want to get on with their lives without a war going on. Does anyone know?
It's very hard to get anyone's honest opinion when under military occupation by a murderous kleptocracy.
The implication to Zelenskyy is zilch, nada, bupkiss. $0. If he doesn't deal. If he doesn't accept just having 80% of his country. Euro-NATO cannot step up. War goes on. Russia gets to keep its prisons empty. Not Trump's problem. If Ukraine won't deal.
Again, I'm not sure how this translates to Ukraine capitulating within 24 hours of American aid being cut off. That seems to be contrary to everything we've seen of their actions since the start of the Russian re-invasion and seems like an awfully compressed timeline.
If it will, Russia either will, or it won't. If Russia won't, Ukraine gets 'more than they ever got', in materiel, not sure how that could help, as its men are decimated and exhausted now, enough to besiege Crimea? Not without an offensive and BOTG in late spring. 2025. At the earliest. Only with overwhelming firepower that they may not be able to man. For another year.
So again, not a scenario where the war ends within 24 hours of Trump doing his magic.
Again, not Trump's problem. Far from it. The best result as it keeps Russia on the back foot at least. If the Russians are smart, they'll deal immediately on Tuesday January 21st 2025, Ukraine gets 'aid', but no more ATACMS, no MICLICS. The deal is done. Russia gets to keep 20% of Ukraine in a frozen Korean ceasefire.
I'm not sure Russia will accept the idea of having a Kherson Oblast without Kherson in it or a Zaporizhzhia Oblast that doesn't contain Zaporizhzhia. Putin seems to believe that losing the war would be an existential threat to his regime, but one advantage he has as a dictator is that he doesn't have to mark the success of the war to market (to borrow an economic term) until the war ends. As such, continuing the war indefinitely would seem like the better option to him than accepting a result his ultra-nationalist supporters would regard as a loss. So once again not a scenario where the war ends within 24 hours of Trump trying to make a deal.
I'll stick to what I said above. I don't think Trump has a plan; I think he plays almost everything by ear. I think he would be negotiating with two men who both regard him as a fool, and he would accomplish nothing.
I think there are around 3-4 million people in the Donbas? Most of them Russian speaking I think. How many of them have any hope of ever being part of Ukraine again? How many of them are just resigned to being effectively Russian for the foreseeable future and just want to get on with their lives without a war going on. Does anyone know?
Ukrainians being people like anyone else, the majority would just want the fighting to stop and being free to get on with their lives. The question is, given recent events how many would consider being part of Russia compatible with freedom to get on with their lives?
My recollection is that before 2014 there was a small minority within the Donbas who were so determined to be Russian that they would take up arms to support that, with some significant support from those who wanted to be part of Russia but not willing to go as far as fighting for that (maybe 10%?). There was also a large minority of the population who spoke Ukrainian and considered themselves Ukrainian - almost all of whom have fled further west with the outbreak of fighting. The majority would have been ethnically/linguistically Russian and either considered themselves Ukrainian or didn't much care which country they were part of.
The contemporary population of Donbas isn't the pre-2014 population. Many have fled, and are refugees within Ukraine or (to a lesser extent) Russia. There are also reports of people from Russia settling in the area (also in Crimea) who would presumably consider Donbas as part of Russia.
Elsewhere in Ukraine, the vast majority of the ethnic/linguistic Russian population have strongly aligned themselves with the Ukrainian government, joining the Ukrainian army to fight the Russian invaders. It would be an extrapolation, but possibly not unwarranted, to consider that the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas would also include many with similar convictions - though, again, the population changes in Donbas would complicate things if those less inclined to be Russian have left.
I think there are around 3-4 million people in the Donbas? Most of them Russian speaking I think. How many of them have any hope of ever being part of Ukraine again? How many of them are just resigned to being effectively Russian for the foreseeable future and just want to get on with their lives without a war going on. Does anyone know?
If you define "the Donbas" as Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (the most common definition), then the total population at the beginning of 2022 was about 6.16 million, at least according to Wikipedia. That number has no doubt declined since then, but at the time the estimated proportion of ethnic Russians living in those two Oblasts was about 38.6%. Ethnic Ukrainians made up a majority of both Oblasts at the start of the war, but given that ethnic non-Russians were probably more likely to flee the Donbas since February 2022 it's distinctly possible that there is an ethnic Russian majority there now.
I'm not sure that we want to reward a precedent that if you get rid of enough "undesirables" it retroactively legitimizes the violence you used to accomplish this.
I'm not sure that we want to reward a precedent that if you get rid of enough "undesirables" it retroactively legitimizes the violence you used to accomplish this.
Now there's a statement relevant to another current news story.
The implication to Zelenskyy is zilch, nada, bupkiss. $0. If he doesn't deal. If he doesn't accept just having 80% of his country. Euro-NATO cannot step up. War goes on. Russia gets to keep its prisons empty. Not Trump's problem. If Ukraine won't deal.
Again, I'm not sure how this translates to Ukraine capitulating within 24 hours of American aid being cut off. That seems to be contrary to everything we've seen of their actions since the start of the Russian re-invasion and seems like an awfully compressed timeline.
If it will, Russia either will, or it won't. If Russia won't, Ukraine gets 'more than they ever got', in materiel, not sure how that could help, as its men are decimated and exhausted now, enough to besiege Crimea? Not without an offensive and BOTG in late spring. 2025. At the earliest. Only with overwhelming firepower that they may not be able to man. For another year.
So again, not a scenario where the war ends within 24 hours of Trump doing his magic.
Again, not Trump's problem. Far from it. The best result as it keeps Russia on the back foot at least. If the Russians are smart, they'll deal immediately on Tuesday January 21st 2025, Ukraine gets 'aid', but no more ATACMS, no MICLICS. The deal is done. Russia gets to keep 20% of Ukraine in a frozen Korean ceasefire.
I'm not sure Russia will accept the idea of having a Kherson Oblast without Kherson in it or a Zaporizhzhia Oblast that doesn't contain Zaporizhzhia. Putin seems to believe that losing the war would be an existential threat to his regime, but one advantage he has as a dictator is that he doesn't have to mark the success of the war to market (to borrow an economic term) until the war ends. As such, continuing the war indefinitely would seem like the better option to him than accepting a result his ultra-nationalist supporters would regard as a loss. So once again not a scenario where the war ends within 24 hours of Trump trying to make a deal.
If either side doesn't agree to deal, no Trump brokered deal has failed. If they both agree to deal on 21/01/25, then that can be achieved that day. In fact, if talks commence, they will with a ceasefire. Deal done. How can Trump possibly fail? He controls the narrative. If they parlay, he's won the deal immediately. If they don't, he hasn't lost.
To your 1st para above, nothing in mine implies Ukraine's capitulation within 24 hours of aid being cut off. How could that... absurdity enter my mind? Might one ask how it entered yours?
To your 2nd single sentence one, that's not a dealbreaker. The war goes on in another dimension, axis of Trump's dealing. He supplies Ukraine. That contingent deal facet too is instantaneous on 21/01/23. Ukraine agrees to deal, Russia does not; the deal is done that day, to Russia's disadvantage. It doesn't matter whether the war ends or not. Trump wins. He's the dealer. The house always wins.
To your 3rd para. Putin 'reasons' like Trump. He's already won. Already a success. As I read you signalling. There is no risk of him losing his 20% and launching a nuke for Crimea's existential threat sake. Risk that by trying to re-cross the Dnipro? Again another pretty... absurd scenario.
Even though Biden took the hit for the collapse of the Western government in Afghanistan, it was Trump who negotiated our withdrawal. Biden tried to extend the withdrawal, but the Taliban refused to renegotiate the deal.
At one time we had a strong presence along the Syrian/Turkish border as a way of protecting the Kurds. Trump simply handed that all over to the Russians.
All Western, and for that matter Eastern, non-indigenous government has collapsed in Afghanistan since Alexander the Great and before.
The Trump administration withdrawal was agreed 14 months prior. Biden had supported a full withdrawal 6 years prior. At inauguration there were only 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan to get out in 4 months. That was extended by another 4. That number dropped to 650 with a month to go and went up to 7,000 in two weeks. War and plans are a tad oxymoronic.
There were some disturbing scenes and a catastrophic US intel failure. End of. Don't start what you can't possibly finish, i.e. the longest foreign war in American history.
It was Biden's watch.
I don't remember American foreign policy aimed at protecting the Kurds from anyone but ISIL primarily and Assad secondarily. The Syrian civil war was caused by global warming of course. There are nearly a thousand US troops in Syria.
To your 1st para above, nothing in mine implies Ukraine's capitulation within 24 hours of aid being cut off. How could that... absurdity enter my mind? Might one ask how it entered yours?
Because Trump has repeatedly claimed that he can end the war within 24 hours and you have claimed there is no way Trump could fail to do this. You alsoelaborated that this involved either cutting off American aid to Ukraine or threatening to do so. So yes, that's a pretty straightforward claim that either cutting off or threatening to cut off American aid to Ukraine will end the war within 24 hours.
As for how you decided that Trump's self-serving claims in this area were a plan that cannot fail, that's a question only you can answer.
I don't remember American foreign policy aimed at protecting the Kurds from anyone but ISIL primarily and Assad secondarily. The Syrian civil war was caused by global warming of course. There are nearly a thousand US troops in Syria.
BTW, did you see the Russian clip of one of their new Lancet drones hitting a Bradley tank and the Bradley keeps going? Doesn't appear the Abrams tank will have any difficulty in Ukraine.
And, while we are at it, how long do you think the Taliban will continue to rule Afghanistan before it too will collapse?
Behind a pay wall. But I did notice '30 years ago'. 1993. I remember it well. It has nothing to do with what you were talking about. So what is this Bradley tank?
And the Taliban - the Students - are indigenous Pashtun. Admittedly their ideology is C19th Indian Muslim: Deobandi. That's their choice. Or rather self determination. There's no reason why that will 'collapse' any more than Mexican, Chinese, American, Russian, South African etc, etc... etc political culture would.
Basically, the Washington Post discusses how President Bush set up a no-fly zone in Iraq to protect the Kurds to the North and to the South in Iraq. It says, in part:
Using that resolution as a basis for action, the United States created safe havens and no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Twenty-thousand troops from the United States and 12 coalition countries deployed to Iraq to implement “Operation Provide Comfort,” which was the first military humanitarian effort of the post-Cold War era.
After bungling the situation initially, Bush finally acted by using American military power and diplomatic influence to bring humanitarian relief and protect the Kurds. And while these events show how much the world had changed in the past 30 years, there are several lessons from his response to the crisis in northern Iraq that are relevant now.
The Bradly Fighting Vehicle is basically a light tank in my book. Regardless, if the Lancet cannot stop a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, I seriously doubt it will have any impact on a heavy tank like the Abrams.
So why aren't they in offense? Why haven't they broken out of the three month old Robotyne salient through the Surovikin line? Apart from the fact that you wouldn't without air cover: it doesn't look like Abrams and Lancets will come in to contact any time soon.
Because the Lancet isn't the only weapon in the Russian arsenal, and they have proper anti-tank weapons to use. Not least the simplest - extensive depths of mine fields and concrete blocks that prevent tank movement without clearing a pathway through, clearance that requires engineers operating in the open (and, hence, at risk from Lancet and other weapons systems).
Basically, the Washington Post discusses how President Bush set up a no-fly zone in Iraq to protect the Kurds to the North and to the South in Iraq. It says, in part:
Using that resolution as a basis for action, the United States created safe havens and no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Twenty-thousand troops from the United States and 12 coalition countries deployed to Iraq to implement “Operation Provide Comfort,” which was the first military humanitarian effort of the post-Cold War era.
After bungling the situation initially, Bush finally acted by using American military power and diplomatic influence to bring humanitarian relief and protect the Kurds. And while these events show how much the world had changed in the past 30 years, there are several lessons from his response to the crisis in northern Iraq that are relevant now.
The Bradly Fighting Vehicle is basically a light tank in my book. Regardless, if the Lancet cannot stop a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, I seriously doubt it will have any impact on a heavy tank like the Abrams.
True. If the Lancet can't stop a Bradley it will have no meaningful effect against an Abrams
Because the Lancet isn't the only weapon in the Russian arsenal, and they have proper anti-tank weapons to use. Not least the simplest - extensive depths of mine fields and concrete blocks that prevent tank movement without clearing a pathway through, clearance that requires engineers operating in the open (and, hence, at risk from Lancet and other weapons systems).
Plus it is now clearly winter.
I don't pretend to know how it will turn out but Russian forces are clearly going nowhere. Conquest of Ukraine looks further away than ever. Whether Ukraine can push them further back come the spring remains unknown but two things remain true;
1. More (and more sophisticated) weapons are being provided to Ukraine as time goes on,
2. Stalemate (however costly) remains a better outcome for Ukraine than defeat.
Point 2 is key here. The horrendous, criminal, inhumane and clearly evil way Russia has behaved in areas they have controlled means there is no reason for Ukraine to surrender. Fighting on even at the high costs it entails remains massively preferable for them.
I understand and agree with this rationale. But even if I didn't, it's Ukraine's choice to make, not mine.
AFZ
P.S. I recently heard an excellent presentation from an army surgeon who is part of the MOD's strategic planning unit. They believe a near-peer conflict is a realistic possibility for UK's forces and the sort of medical response this will need is very different to what was needed in Afghanistan. They are studying this very closely and what an expanded war would look like. That's the medical planning - I am sure the rest of the MOD is working on a similar basis.
Stalemate is what we have. Because the Ukrainians are going nowhere either. If Ukraine decides to throw away its growing defensive advantage in a futile all out attack, it could lose. As in everything. Not just a few Abrams and F16s. And ten thousand men. ATACMs and MICLICs and 155s and other wonder weapons aren't working.
Basically, the Washington Post discusses how President Bush set up a no-fly zone in Iraq to protect the Kurds to the North and to the South in Iraq. It says, in part:
Using that resolution as a basis for action, the United States created safe havens and no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Twenty-thousand troops from the United States and 12 coalition countries deployed to Iraq to implement “Operation Provide Comfort,” which was the first military humanitarian effort of the post-Cold War era.
After bungling the situation initially, Bush finally acted by using American military power and diplomatic influence to bring humanitarian relief and protect the Kurds. And while these events show how much the world had changed in the past 30 years, there are several lessons from his response to the crisis in northern Iraq that are relevant now.
The Bradly Fighting Vehicle is basically a light tank in my book. Regardless, if the Lancet cannot stop a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, I seriously doubt it will have any impact on a heavy tank like the Abrams.
True. If the Lancet can't stop a Bradley it will have no meaningful effect against an Abrams
Because the Lancet isn't the only weapon in the Russian arsenal, and they have proper anti-tank weapons to use. Not least the simplest - extensive depths of mine fields and concrete blocks that prevent tank movement without clearing a pathway through, clearance that requires engineers operating in the open (and, hence, at risk from Lancet and other weapons systems).
Plus it is now clearly winter.
I don't pretend to know how it will turn out but Russian forces are clearly going nowhere. Conquest of Ukraine looks further away than ever. Whether Ukraine can push them further back come the spring remains unknown but two things remain true;
1. More (and more sophisticated) weapons are being provided to Ukraine as time goes on,
2. Stalemate (however costly) remains a better outcome for Ukraine than defeat.
Point 2 is key here. The horrendous, criminal, inhumane and clearly evil way Russia has behaved in areas they have controlled means there is no reason for Ukraine to surrender. Fighting on even at the high costs it entails remains massively preferable for them.
I understand and agree with this rationale. But even if I didn't, it's Ukraine's choice to make, not mine.
AFZ
P.S. I recently heard an excellent presentation from an army surgeon who is part of the MOD's strategic planning unit. They believe a near-peer conflict is a realistic possibility for UK's forces and the sort of medical response this will need is very different to what was needed in Afghanistan. They are studying this very closely and what an expanded war would look like. That's the medical planning - I am sure the rest of the MOD is working on a similar basis.
Bloody hell!
Surely an extended war could go nuclear very quickly. I'm sure the MoD are looking into all possible scenarios and then some but puh-leese ... WW3 isn't going to brighten anybody's day.
Comments
Yeah but what do your tea leaves or corns tell you?
Normally, I would expect a counter punch by the Russians, but I do not think they have enough Reserves to execute it.
Not up to me to deploy Abrams tanks.
Crossing the mile beyond to Verbove will be much worse. There is no cover at all. They're losing hundreds of men a day. And Ukraine agrees re tanks.
It was engaged by the French and de Clisson's flagship sunk.
Also, Ukrainian control of several islands and oil rigs in the western Black Sea has allowed monitoring of Russian naval activity, probably aiding targeting drone strikes. The result has been that Russian naval activity in the western part of the Black Sea has reduced significantly. A small number of ships have managed to exit Odessa and other Ukrainian ports staying close to the coast until reaching Romanian waters - there are still risks of air strikes and mines, but the naval blockade is partially broken. It must be quite an embarrassment for Russia that their second most powerful naval force isn't dominating the whole Black Sea when Ukraine has no navy to speak of.
How's your prediction going?
Source.
Does he know what he's talking about?
With 30% of Ukrainians wanting negotiations, American support becoming partisan with a year to go to the second Trump presidency and his ending the war a day or so after inauguration.
The lines are drawn.
Nevertheless, I concede the war has entered a winter stalemate. Both are pounding each other mercilessly, but Ukraine seems to be hitting its targets more accurately.
Trump's plan can't fail. And the stalemate is nothing to do with winter.
Donald Trump will not be accepting that invitation.
That is, of course, a completely bullshit explanation. Trump is an abject coward and the thought of visiting an active war zone is no doubt terrifying to him, despite the fact that his physical risk would be minimal in Kyiv.
Also from Newsweek:
What exactly do you think Trump's plan is here? My guess is that there's a lot of self-serving bloviation with no more substance than Trump's "plan" to replace the Affordable Care Act, which has been perpetually two weeks away from being unveiled since he first made the claim on the campaign trail in 2015.
At this point claiming that Trump has a secret plan that "can't fail" is akin to believing that your certificate from Trump University is going to make you rich. So how about some details on Trump's plan and why you, @Martin54, are so confident that it's completely foolproof.
I'm pretty sure Ukraine would be even less willing to be strongarmed by the U.S. in 2025 than it was in 2019, when they weren't yet engaged in a (full scale) shooting war. While Ukraine is heavily dependent on Western aid for their war effort, in this case "Western" does not necessarily mean "American". A lot of European powers have decided that it's in their interest for Russia to be checked here, rather than having to check Russia later at some other border. Poland, in particular, seems to consider this a top priority and probably wouldn't stop providing aid to Ukraine even if the U.S. joined the war on the Russian side.
It's disappointing that you're once again adopting the official Kremlin position that the Ukrainians are nothing more than puppets of the American government who will do whatever their Yankee masters tell them to do. Disappointing, but not surprising.
And how long would Poland supplied Ukraine last against a US-Russia axis? And Poland itself? And Germany? European NATO as a whole? Would the UK and France use the threat of nuclear deterrent against the US? What do you think? Or is that all just tooooooooo silly?
According to you, less than 24 hours (which is Trump's stated timeline that you endorsed). This is a very remarkable prediction, and seems akin to Russia's claim that the "special military operation" would only take three days. You may recall (or maybe you don't) that offensive ground to a halt well short of Kyiv well before any significant increase in Western military aid hit the ground. We're now on day 621 of that 3 day operation, so you'll understand if I'm skeptical of the timeline you and Donald Trump have laid out with no explanation.
According to Jens Stoltenberg a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would result in the total destruction of all Russian armed forces. implicitly in Ukraine, in three days. I remember that. How does Trump's timeline apply to your just tooooooooo silly scenario?
Don't you know, HE can fix everything.
He has this, "I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day". Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" July 16, 2023
The implication to Zelenskyy is zilch, nada, bupkiss. $0. If he doesn't deal. If he doesn't accept just having 80% of his country. Euro-NATO cannot step up. War goes on. Russia gets to keep its prisons empty. Not Trump's problem. If Ukraine won't deal. If it will, Russia either will, or it won't. If Russia won't, Ukraine gets 'more than they ever got', in materiel, not sure how that could help, as its men are decimated and exhausted now, enough to besiege Crimea? Not without an offensive and BOTG in late spring. 2025. At the earliest. Only with overwhelming firepower that they may not be able to man. For another year. Again, not Trump's problem. Far from it. The best result as it keeps Russia on the back foot at least. If the Russians are smart, they'll deal immediately on Tuesday January 21st 2025, Ukraine gets 'aid', but no more ATACMS, no MICLICS. The deal is done. Russia gets to keep 20% of Ukraine in a frozen Korean ceasefire.
A stupid, unenlightened Machiavellian deal, with only 1 in 4 possibilities of Ukraine, the world, including America most of all, actually benefitting, but that's part of the deal he's easily selling to America first.
The past being the key to the future, nothing much has changed on the ground for 12 months and therefore won't for 14. Even if the GoP Congress funds Ukraine by the sound investment in its own defence by a mere $60bn by Xmas. American 'aid', of about $50bn a year, $4 going to $5bn a month, to Ukraine is the soundest, cheapest, most money saving possible, economic policy for America of course, even over a presidential term or two.
Just what Moscow wants, eh @Crœsos?
But human nature being what it is, Trump would rather rule in hell for four years. And 'hard working' Americans would rather he did than their 'hard earned' dollars go in tax to losers.
I'm choosing to read this as High Explosives, which can at least fix more things than Trump.
It's very hard to get anyone's honest opinion when under military occupation by a murderous kleptocracy.
Again, I'm not sure how this translates to Ukraine capitulating within 24 hours of American aid being cut off. That seems to be contrary to everything we've seen of their actions since the start of the Russian re-invasion and seems like an awfully compressed timeline.
So again, not a scenario where the war ends within 24 hours of Trump doing his magic.
I'm not sure Russia will accept the idea of having a Kherson Oblast without Kherson in it or a Zaporizhzhia Oblast that doesn't contain Zaporizhzhia. Putin seems to believe that losing the war would be an existential threat to his regime, but one advantage he has as a dictator is that he doesn't have to mark the success of the war to market (to borrow an economic term) until the war ends. As such, continuing the war indefinitely would seem like the better option to him than accepting a result his ultra-nationalist supporters would regard as a loss. So once again not a scenario where the war ends within 24 hours of Trump trying to make a deal.
My recollection is that before 2014 there was a small minority within the Donbas who were so determined to be Russian that they would take up arms to support that, with some significant support from those who wanted to be part of Russia but not willing to go as far as fighting for that (maybe 10%?). There was also a large minority of the population who spoke Ukrainian and considered themselves Ukrainian - almost all of whom have fled further west with the outbreak of fighting. The majority would have been ethnically/linguistically Russian and either considered themselves Ukrainian or didn't much care which country they were part of.
The contemporary population of Donbas isn't the pre-2014 population. Many have fled, and are refugees within Ukraine or (to a lesser extent) Russia. There are also reports of people from Russia settling in the area (also in Crimea) who would presumably consider Donbas as part of Russia.
Elsewhere in Ukraine, the vast majority of the ethnic/linguistic Russian population have strongly aligned themselves with the Ukrainian government, joining the Ukrainian army to fight the Russian invaders. It would be an extrapolation, but possibly not unwarranted, to consider that the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas would also include many with similar convictions - though, again, the population changes in Donbas would complicate things if those less inclined to be Russian have left.
If you define "the Donbas" as Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (the most common definition), then the total population at the beginning of 2022 was about 6.16 million, at least according to Wikipedia. That number has no doubt declined since then, but at the time the estimated proportion of ethnic Russians living in those two Oblasts was about 38.6%. Ethnic Ukrainians made up a majority of both Oblasts at the start of the war, but given that ethnic non-Russians were probably more likely to flee the Donbas since February 2022 it's distinctly possible that there is an ethnic Russian majority there now.
I'm not sure that we want to reward a precedent that if you get rid of enough "undesirables" it retroactively legitimizes the violence you used to accomplish this.
Now there's a statement relevant to another current news story.
If either side doesn't agree to deal, no Trump brokered deal has failed. If they both agree to deal on 21/01/25, then that can be achieved that day. In fact, if talks commence, they will with a ceasefire. Deal done. How can Trump possibly fail? He controls the narrative. If they parlay, he's won the deal immediately. If they don't, he hasn't lost.
To your 1st para above, nothing in mine implies Ukraine's capitulation within 24 hours of aid being cut off. How could that... absurdity enter my mind? Might one ask how it entered yours?
To your 2nd single sentence one, that's not a dealbreaker. The war goes on in another dimension, axis of Trump's dealing. He supplies Ukraine. That contingent deal facet too is instantaneous on 21/01/23. Ukraine agrees to deal, Russia does not; the deal is done that day, to Russia's disadvantage. It doesn't matter whether the war ends or not. Trump wins. He's the dealer. The house always wins.
To your 3rd para. Putin 'reasons' like Trump. He's already won. Already a success. As I read you signalling. There is no risk of him losing his 20% and launching a nuke for Crimea's existential threat sake. Risk that by trying to re-cross the Dnipro? Again another pretty... absurd scenario.
The deal is as good as done.
At one time we had a strong presence along the Syrian/Turkish border as a way of protecting the Kurds. Trump simply handed that all over to the Russians.
Yep, he is a great negotiator.
The Trump administration withdrawal was agreed 14 months prior. Biden had supported a full withdrawal 6 years prior. At inauguration there were only 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan to get out in 4 months. That was extended by another 4. That number dropped to 650 with a month to go and went up to 7,000 in two weeks. War and plans are a tad oxymoronic.
There were some disturbing scenes and a catastrophic US intel failure. End of. Don't start what you can't possibly finish, i.e. the longest foreign war in American history.
It was Biden's watch.
I don't remember American foreign policy aimed at protecting the Kurds from anyone but ISIL primarily and Assad secondarily. The Syrian civil war was caused by global warming of course. There are nearly a thousand US troops in Syria.
I'm not sure "all governments prior to the current one have collapsed" is the brilliant insight you seem to think it is.
Because Trump has repeatedly claimed that he can end the war within 24 hours and you have claimed there is no way Trump could fail to do this. You also elaborated that this involved either cutting off American aid to Ukraine or threatening to do so. So yes, that's a pretty straightforward claim that either cutting off or threatening to cut off American aid to Ukraine will end the war within 24 hours.
As for how you decided that Trump's self-serving claims in this area were a plan that cannot fail, that's a question only you can answer.
What makes you think that?
Must have been before your time.
BTW, did you see the Russian clip of one of their new Lancet drones hitting a Bradley tank and the Bradley keeps going? Doesn't appear the Abrams tank will have any difficulty in Ukraine.
And, while we are at it, how long do you think the Taliban will continue to rule Afghanistan before it too will collapse?
The Bradly Fighting Vehicle is basically a light tank in my book. Regardless, if the Lancet cannot stop a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, I seriously doubt it will have any impact on a heavy tank like the Abrams.
What do you think?
They should cut their losses.
Ukraine is under attack. How can they cut their losses? The Allies tried this when they gave Crimea and the Donbas to the Bear, Did not work, did it?
The Bear will continue to gobble up real estate and people until someone defeats it.
True. If the Lancet can't stop a Bradley it will have no meaningful effect against an Abrams
Plus it is now clearly winter.
I don't pretend to know how it will turn out but Russian forces are clearly going nowhere. Conquest of Ukraine looks further away than ever. Whether Ukraine can push them further back come the spring remains unknown but two things remain true;
1. More (and more sophisticated) weapons are being provided to Ukraine as time goes on,
2. Stalemate (however costly) remains a better outcome for Ukraine than defeat.
Point 2 is key here. The horrendous, criminal, inhumane and clearly evil way Russia has behaved in areas they have controlled means there is no reason for Ukraine to surrender. Fighting on even at the high costs it entails remains massively preferable for them.
I understand and agree with this rationale. But even if I didn't, it's Ukraine's choice to make, not mine.
AFZ
P.S. I recently heard an excellent presentation from an army surgeon who is part of the MOD's strategic planning unit. They believe a near-peer conflict is a realistic possibility for UK's forces and the sort of medical response this will need is very different to what was needed in Afghanistan. They are studying this very closely and what an expanded war would look like. That's the medical planning - I am sure the rest of the MOD is working on a similar basis.
Bloody hell!
Surely an extended war could go nuclear very quickly. I'm sure the MoD are looking into all possible scenarios and then some but puh-leese ... WW3 isn't going to brighten anybody's day.