The end?

Once Crimea is liberated and people who were forced out have been given the opportunity to return with the rightful leadership there it might not seem such a 'special case'
The priority must surely be to get all the dictator's army and it's minions out of ALL of Ukraine - then reparations can be demanded to rebuild all parts Ukraine damaged by the 2014-2022 invasion
 
If Russian army leaders are negotiating withdrawal why would UK and US Defence people both have warned about Russia still having capabilities and that outright defeat is not happening soon? Surely they would just keep quiet and let this apparent withdrawal unfold?
 
festa5 said:
While I don't disagree, do you not think the diplomats have been trying to do exactly that? They've been treading on egg shells around Putin for decades to try and avoid provoking him. They have literally let him get away with murder and pretended he was a legitimately elected leader.

All the while he's worked tirelessly behind the scenes to destabilise and weaken the west.

There's an argument that we've been too lenient with him and it emboldened him to take the action he did. But if we'd taken a harder line who's to say that wouldn't have ended in the same result? And in fact that might have provoked other countries (eg China) to be more involved and side with Russia. At least now it's clearly, to any reasonable observer, unprovoked. The likes of China seem content with just tutting from the sidelines and watching with interest.

The bloke is an unpredictable, delusional, psychopathic madman. I personally don't think it really mattered what stance the west took towards him, it was always likely to end like this. This (trying to rebuild the USSR) was always his endgame.

I suppose in hindsight what we perhaps should have been was better prepared for it.
Click to expand...
It's really difficult for me anyway to see how this could have been avoided without giving Putin a thin veil of an excuse.

If NATO forces had massed on the Ukraine border as Russia massed on their side then it could have been seen by China and India as provocation from NATO and the war may by now have escalated into a much worse situation.
 
TeessideCleveland said:
If Russian army leaders are negotiating withdrawal why would UK and US Defence people both have warned about Russia still having capabilities and that outright defeat is not happening soon? Surely they would just keep quiet and let this apparent withdrawal unfold?
Click to expand...
I think we should all be careful about what the truth actually is.

I keep reading stuff on here saying the Russians are just about on their backsides but the war map on twitter is not showing that and their missiles are still bombarding Ukrainian civilians.

Looks like there is some way to go yet.
 
HolgateCorner said:
I think we should all be careful about what the truth actually is.

I keep reading stuff on here saying the Russians are just about on their backsides but the war map on twitter is not showing that and their missiles are still bombarding Ukrainian civilians.

Looks like there is some way to go yet.
Click to expand...

Well, you are getting updates from the military intelligence analyst that advised the West's delegation at the G20 meeting with Lavrov to set out a roadmap for "surrender".

It's probably as good as you're gonna get and way more accurate than most twitter content.

Long range misiles are the one element that they still have a decent stock of. That's why you are still seeing that. And until the next meeting in 2 weeks, you'll likely see more ... as our man predicted days ago.

But you are right, there is some way to go.
 
Subbuteo_171 said:
There is some way to go however it is clear Russia cannot defeat and take the whole of Ukraine through conventional means / on their own. So what options do they have?

Convince others to join in allowing them to open new fronts - Belarus the obvious candidate, but why haven't they done so already.

Go nuclear. Still a possibility, but will tactical nukes provide an advantage? Warning shot then a threat to take out entire cities if the Ukrainians don't surrender in entirety.

Drop back to defensive positions and hold for a year, whilst rebuilding forces and equipment. But do they have enough to hold what they have, and where do they get moresoldiets and equipment from.

Try and freeze Ukraine out over the winter by attacking civilian infrastructure. Judging by what we've seen so far the Ukrainians have indomitable spirit, whilst if military equipment manufacture is impacted there is still significant
flow from Nato and the west.

Keep the whole thing going for years but at what cost to their country for decades.

In reality it looks there's only one thing they can do. Negotiate a ceasefire, they'll need to hold onto Crimea so they can somehow wrap this up as a victory (they invaded as they knew Ukraine was making plans to attack and needed to secure it), other areas of Ukraine will be returned with all Russian militia removed and UN peace keeping troops sent in.

And what do Ukraine want? Crimea, everything but Crimea, everything, a little bit of Russia, revenge?
Click to expand...

Russia is more worried now that Ukraine will take back Crimea by overwhelming force and they lose Sebastopol ... and they're clearly concerned that Ukraine will make inrods into Russia further North. And further, that they will have an army incapable of defending their borders. Which is why they want NATO to guarantee their borders if they surrender. They are in a real mess.
 
zzzzz said:
Crimea is not as straight forward as the West want to portray it.

Depending on who you believe the majority of their citizens want to to be part of Russia.

The 2014 referendum result is hotly contested however it is wrong to deny that Russia has huge support there.

I do think that, if they can, the Ukraine should take it (by force or negoatiation) and re-install the pre-invasion boundaries but an open and transparent election should be held, and this commitment should be made now.
Click to expand...
It's a slightly tongue in cheek answer, but If it causes that much of a fuss then kick the invaders out first as recommended, hold a transparent election and keep good to it, but divvy up the land area of Crimea proportionately between Russia and Ukraine based on the result. Ruskies move to one section, Ukrainians to the other.

That way no one can pi$s and moan.
 
I was doing some reading about the Crimea War (1853-56) and its parallels with the current war. Curiously, the "British" memory of this particular war is limited to The Charge of the Light Brigade (possibly also the charge of the Heavy Brigade) and Flo Nightingale. Yet, it was very much a big win for Britain and France and kept the Ottoman Empire from falling apart until the 1920s.

Basically, the Russian's started the Crimea War with an attack on the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) after a period of simmering tensions with Britain and France although the flashpoint was a disagreement between Orthodox and Catholic monks in Palestine! They started a war that it was almost impossible to win and ultimately, they lost, heavily. The Royal Navy really did "rule the waves" in that period and France had the best Army in the world. The technology available to the Russians was inferior to the Allies (rifled muskets vs smooth bore meant that in exchanges of fire the Russians were outranged by the western weaponry), similarly superior artillery and the British and French cavalry had superior (stronger/faster/better stamina) horses compared to the Russian cavalry. The British built a supply railway to move their ordnance to the front and their dominance of the sea allowed faster movement and full remote supply of ammunition and food for men and horse (better logistics). The tactical movement of the Allied troops was superior (better training and leadership). There were associated conflagrations in the Baltic which resulted in Sweden distancing themselves from Imperial Russia. Any of this sound familiar?

The port of Sevastopol was taken under siege and the Black Sea Fleet was utterly destroyed. After Crimea the Russians had no "blue ocean fleet" for forty years.

The fears of the Russians echo those from 170+ years ago, these are the fears that Putin has played on to launch his great gamble. Once again it is the poor ordinary Russians who are going to be paying for his folly for the next twenty plus years. Russia is rich in mineral wealth that should mean that they have no need to achieve influence through militarism. Yet here we are. And I stress again that when this ends, we need to help the Russians to throw off the shackles of their Oligarchs if the opportunity presents itself.
 
Last edited:
borolad259 said:
Russia is more worried now that Ukraine will take back Crimea by overwhelming force and they lose Sebastopol ... and they're clearly concerned that Ukraine will make inrods into Russia further North. And further, that they will have an army incapable of defending their borders. Which is why they want NATO to guarantee their borders if they surrender. They are in a real mess.
Click to expand...
Is Zelensky a bit out of control as well now?

I picked up in one or two commentaries that NATO weren’t happy he was contradicting their statement on the Poland missiles.
 
Ipad1977 said:
It's a slightly tongue in cheek answer, but If it causes that much of a fuss then kick the invaders out first as recommended, hold a transparent election and keep good to it, but divvy up the land area of Crimea proportionately between Russia and Ukraine based on the result. Ruskies move to one section, Ukrainians to the other.

That way no one can pi$s and moan.
Click to expand...
Yeah that'll work like Northern Ireland and Palestine and Kurdistan and... also tongue in cheek. But you're right there has to be a solution and imo crimea is the key to a negotiated settlement
 
HolgateCorner said:
Is Zelensky a bit out of control as well now?

I picked up in one or two commentaries that NATO weren’t happy he was contradicting their statement on the Poland missiles.
Click to expand...

It suits NATO far better for it to be an inadvertent Ukrainian missile than a Russian one.

NATO doesn't want to directly intervene in the war and it's far more convenient this way.

Wouldn't shock me if it's a there's pressure behind the scenes to get Ukraine to switch to the party line, whatever the origin of the missile.

Even if the final investigation of the site does decide that it was a Russian missile after all, I am very confident that NATO will just emphasise the fact that it was an accidental strike to avoid the predicament.
The fact it almost certainly was an accident either way probably helps in that regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hap
TeaCider said:
It suits NATO far better for it to be an inadvertent Ukrainian missile than a Russian one.

NATO doesn't want to directly intervene in the war and it's far more convenient this way.

Wouldn't shock me if it's a there's pressure behind the scenes to get Ukraine to switch to the party line, whatever the origin of the missile.

Even if the final investigation of the site does decide that it was a Russian missile after all, I am very confident that NATO will just emphasise the fact that it was an accidental strike to avoid the predicament.
The fact it almost certainly was an accident either way probably helps in that regard.
Click to expand...
I was really commenting on the comments made on Boro Lads post which mentioned Russia now ‘fearing‘ Ukraine making inroads into Russia itself as well as reclaiming Crimea.

Along with his provocative stance on the two missiles, if Zelensky became the invader then I think that would be an unexpected game changer for NATO.

UK and US tax payers money being used to help Ukraine increase its territory?
 
HolgateCorner said:
I was really commenting on the comments made on Boro Lads post which mentioned Russia now ‘fearing‘ Ukraine making inroads into Russia itself as well as reclaiming Crimea.

Along with his provocative stance on the two missiles, if Zelensky became the invader then I think that would be an unexpected game changer for NATO.

UK and US tax payers money being used to help Ukraine increase its territory?
Click to expand...
You are probably right to think about this. But I think that incursions into Russia will be the Ukrainian counterpoint to missile strikes in Ukraine. ie. It's maybe not so much about land grab as a "bargaining tool" at the negotiating table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top