Yambo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:08 pm
I personally find it difficult to believe anything the Russians say.
1. Maybe you can tell me why a much publicised failed incursion towards Kyiv was launched if all they wanted was to set up an autonomous region in the Donbas. Maybe my geography fu is lacking.
2. Russia is currently using heavy artillery to drive the Ukrainians out of the Donbas. I struggle to see why, after they've flattened the place they'd want to occupy it. They may eventually take enough ground to be happy but it has already come at a huge cost. As a plan, it doesn't have a lot of merit.
3. They've persuaded Sweden and Finland to seek the security of NATO, they've isolated themselves from the West, their military has been shown up as mostly incompetent, their logistics are shite and I suspect they'll soon run out of serviceable artillery gun barrels. Corruption appears to be the only strong point.
4. Ukraine shouldn't give them an inch. That too will come at a huge cost but if the Ukrainians want to be an independent sovereign state, they're going to and will, I think have to accept that cost. Good luck and more HIMARS to them!
Of course, there are plenty of people who would want a second opinion if the Russians said it was raining and they were standing in the rain. But that's not the point. First casualty of war etc and don't kid yourself everything you read in the western press is gospel.
One point at a time though. Only as I see it, so YMMV. There have been some good analysis pieces written on this so I'd encourage you to read them if you are interested in the issues and motivations. I'll link to a couple at the end, it's up to you if you choose to believe those. I've taken the liberty of numbering your paragraphs so you can link to my answers.
1. Russia, I believe, was at the outset hoping for a quick blitzkrieg, overrunning Kiev and forcing them to negotiate, after which a sympathetic regime could maintain the neutrality that Russia saw as essential and suppressing the poisonous pro-nationalist sentiments that were moving it away from being a sister state, with long standing ethnic Russian Ukrainians being discriminated against. But with the quick victory not occurring thanks to western defensive weapons and battlefield intel they changed tactics, moving to a more concerted push to take the Donbas and secure a land corridor to Crimea, all of these strongly ethnically Russian. From a strong negotiating point I believe they hope to press their demands for Ukraine to renounce NATO membership - something that NATO won't give them anyway as long as they remain in a conflict.
2. Both sides are using artillery fairly extensively. The Ukrainians because they can't get through the Russian defensive lines (which were drawn up after the spring counteroffensive was telegraphed well in advance) and the Russians to hit anything that moves near the front line with Ukrainian markings on it. Military doctrine dictates that an attacker needs a force of arms roughly 3x that of the defenders if he is to succeed. That's why Ukraine gave Russia such a hard time while they were attacking, but short of men, machines and air support has made no dent on the main Russian lines. At this stage of the year it's unlikely they will be able to sustain any sort of offensive for much longer as the heavy western tanks will get bogged down in mud, meanwhile western allies despite professing undying support, are starting to run out of arms and ammo to feed Ukraine's bottomless appetite. Whether that continues into another spring and summer while the cost bites and ever more Ukrainians die is questionable.
3. One of the reasons Russia was reluctant to move against Ukraine is that they knew this would drive the Baltics (always de facto NATO allies anyway) formally into the group. As for the security of NATO, it's a fair bet that NATO acting jointly could swiftly drive Russia out of Ukraine, but they are unwilling to intervene as that could escalate into a nuclear situation. What benefit NATO at all then? Does anyone think Putin would blink first in a standoff? While the extent of the help from the west did take them off balance in the early days, and there were mistakes made (tanks outrunning logistics and infantry support etc) they have learned and if anything it's the Ukrainians who are performing poorly - NATO bosses are on record saying they are stretching themselves too thinly over too large a front, they are forgetting the combined arms training they were taught and they are reverting to Soviet tactics burning through barrels and ammo in a barrage not aimed at anything in particular. In a war of attrition I wouldn't bet on them. They are losing men (of whom they had fewer in the first place), they are totally dependent on the generosity of NATO, mainly the US, and goodwill is being eroded not only by their perceived lack of success but also recent corruption scandals - logistics, recruiting etc. Make no mistake it's a way of life over there.
4. There's nothing better than a nice little foreign war if you want to take the minds of people at home off your problems at home, particularly in an election year. It worked for Dubya - if you don't have a war to rely on, start your own. But with ever reducing prospects of achieving the bullish aims of driving Russia out of the pre-2014 Ukraine borders you have to wonder how long the US and its clients will be willing to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood. Because it's not only Ukraine's decision. If the US and others said "negotiate or we stop the supply of arms" they'd be at the table within a week, maybe a month. It would be a bitter pill, sure, and Zelenskiy's career wouldn't survive it, but avoiding thousands dying for the sake of rhetoric in a war they can't win might just be a better outcome. Will the US do it? Well, the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria didn't do much for freedom, democracy and the rules based international order. It's almost as if the rules don't apply if they're inconvenient to a certain country that's happy to strongarm its allies into complying with its will. Perhaps, in the end, the person who will bring peace to Ukraine is the splendidly isolationist and egotistical Donald Trump. Wouldn't that be a thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... on-ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... 022-russia
) and forcing them to negotiate . . . But with the quick victory not occurring thanks to western defensive weapons and battlefield intel they changed tactics