Or just post interesting material... :-)


Ukraine's triumphant rhetoric faces limits on the ground
According to experts, foreign weapons deliveries are not enough to sustainably push back Russian forces in the Donbas and Southern Ukraine.

By Emmanuel Grynszpan, Le Monde
Published on May 17, 2022

Ukraine dreams of a total liberation of its territory, not only of the areas occupied since February 24, but also of the "separatist" Donbas and Crimea, annexed in 2014. Successive Russian tactical setbacks, and the stalemate in the battle for Donbas over the past month and a half are the source of a triumphant discourse in Kyiv. Top Ukrainian military intelligence official, general Kyrylo Budanov, told Sky News on Saturday, May 14, "the breaking point will be in the second part of August", and "most of the active combat actions will have finished by the end of this year (...) As a result, we will renew Ukrainian power in all our territories that we have lost including Donbas and Crimea."

Last week, Defense minister Oleksiy Reznikov declared the war was "entering a new long-term phase," in which Russian forces will take a defensive posture to hold captured territory. Moscow first failed to storm Kyiv in early March, and to surround the bulk of Ukrainian troops in Donbas in April.

The influx of Western military could encourage or accelerate a shift in favor of Ukrainian forces. U.S. President Joe Biden signed a $40 billion Ukraine aid package on May 9. Ukraine's Western allies have provided around 120 long-range guns, which are technically capable of attacking Russian positions beyond the front lines.

'Going on the offensive is expensive'

For Alexander Musienko, Ukrainian military expert, there is no doubt a major Ukrainian counterattack will take place. "This counter-attack will depend on the weapons that will be supplied by the West, this is a key point. We are talking about Caesar guns, which are of excellent quality; it is very important for us to be able to use them. We will also have the Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzer and the American Himars and M270 multiple rocket launchers which have a greater range than Russian artillery. It's just an extra three to five kilometers, but it makes a big difference. It's enough for Ukrainian forces to hold secure positions while hitting the opponent's firing positions."Mr. Musienko also emphasized the key role that "weapons more specifically intended for the offensive, such as attack drones, armored vehicles and tanks of Soviet design that will be provided by the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland would play."

Other observers are more cautious in their predictions. "Weapon deliveries are crucial for rebuilding the Ukrainian defense of tomorrow. On the other hand, I doubt that they will have a significant influence on the battlefield" said military expert specializing in Russian defense Pierre Grasser. "Overall, I think it is a bit too late to influence the battle of Donbas that is taking shape: I can see Severodonetsk being surrounded in the next few days. Moscow is pushing forward now and will slow down in the summer. On the other hand, the arrival of new Ukrainian units will take place in the summer. In the meantime, the troops locked in combat since the beginning are holding the line and, for the last few weeks, it has been difficult. And even if this Russian offensive were to get bogged down, the Ukrainian equipment would hardly allow for serious counterattacks. Going on the offensive is expensive, because the losses would be very difficult to replace."

Or just go somewhere else. :up: — frank

:up:

There's another solution: fight with the proverbial pig in the proverbial mud.

I used to be good at that. :-)

If someone argues for several pages that Russia invaded Ukraine to control Nazis, we know that poster is a troll. Couldn't we at least identify them as such? Like with a T over their avatar? — frank

But then, if we already know who's trolling, do we need some infamous mark? Can't we just not feed them, as @SophistiCat is saying?

The discussion died down a long time ago, in any case. Now it's a zombie thread. It's not like we're going anywhere engaging the "peace lovers".

There are so few participating on this forum, that single opinions effect where the discussion goes and what points are made. — ssu

They are also extremely toxic and disgusting, openly wishing the death of folks, calling you a Nazi, me a rapist... I understand their nervousness. They chose the wrong camp and are panicking now.

Somalia does not actually exist. As a nation, it's been a fiction since 1992. I know, i've been there. Somaliland does exist, and so does Puntland. And then there's this unruled area in the South which folks call South-Central.

That wasn't what happened. A revolution happened. — ssu

Not immediately successful, but yes.

I agree that it is also a question of holding on to outdated worldviews. The Belarusian president said a few days ago that "By definition, Russia cannot lose this war." That made me laugh. "By definition" stands for: "In my fossilized world view".

we should kill all Nazis everywhere — Streetlight

And rape their women. Like that we shall be Nazi too.

@Streetlight Propagandized fucking morons in March 2022: "Go Putin! Kill all the Nazis in Ukraine!"

Jim Henson is like Jesus in the the states — Merkwurdichliebe

I had to look him up, and yet I owe him hours of laughter. Genius.

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St. — frank

Sesame Street is the best thing to come out of America, ever.

need to understand the Mathusalem angle. Like who is he? — frank

:-)

Apologies, it's 'Methuselah' in English. According to the Book of Genesis, Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah. He had the longest lifespan any human ever reached, dying at 969 years old....

Exactly. Therefore the discussion must move on. I'm not interested in some archeological discussion on how the war in Ukraine goes back to Methuselah.

At the beginning there was a sort of battle for public opinion going on, with well funded efforts on both sides of the propaganda war doing their best through traditional and social media to push their narrative, so there was some sense in this thread echoing that battle for public opinion.

This battle has been won by Ukraine. At least for the moment, at least in 'the West'. Look at the Eurovision vote. Look at the Finnish parliament vote for NATO accession.

Billions of equipment and ammunition later, and with Finland + Sweden now on their way to joining NATO, I personally feel less urge to fight it off here.

The most argumentative 'peace lovers' -- they are argumentative aren't they? -- here make a lot of noise but they represent 5% of public opinion in Europe.

The issue of NATO's role was well summarized (for many of us anyway) by @Hanover. Now it's water under the bridge, in any case. It would be better to focus on the way forward.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Putin is a good guy or is in the right. — Xtrix

Give them some time.

Marteen Wolterink, from the Netherlands
Source: Cartooning for Peace

You couldn't recognize a fact if it bit your ass, and you can't read.

Learn some English, maybe?

a barely significant improvement in government — Isaac

Significance is highly subjective. Some people like slavery, others don't.

This from the guy who until the end didn't believe that Russia would attack, that it all was just hype from the US. — ssu

Don't be naïve. Russia did not actually attack. It's all fake news from NATO. @Streetlight was right.

He usually knows best, especially when it comes to the sexual life of marsupials but also Russia, this land of milk and honey.

it seems like from a humanitarian perspective, it would have been better if Russian won after a couple of days. Am I wrong? — ASmallTalentForWar

This assumes that a victorious Russia would not have jailed, tortured, rapped and assassinated the civilians under their control.

There is a reason why Ukrainians don't want to live under Putin's boot.

I think Ukraine has a good chance to halt the assault in Donbas and push back as they have done in Kyiv and Kharkov. They surely can stop the attack on Odessa and even limit the "landbridge" to Crimea. But Crimea is going to be the really tough issue. That will be viewed by Putin as Russia proper, so I would think twice before pushing the luck to go there. — ssu

Agreed. Supposedly, it would also be viewed negatively by many inhabitants of Crimea.

Boris Vian - The Deserter

The Little Trade - Boris Vian

I used to sell chickweed but it didn't work
I sold ties, but people were broke
I sold scissors and razor blades
Corozo combs, files and choppers
I tried strawberries, I dabbled in lilies
I repaired chairs, fixed bidets
I was pulling my cart over the wrong pavement
I was about to lose my mind, but finally made it!

I ride a Cadillac through the streets of Paris
Now I understand life
I've got a mansion, three servants and a driver
And the cops greet me like one of them
I sell cannons, short and long
Big ones and small ones, in all sizes and prices
There's always a buyer for these delicate instruments
I'm a cannon dealer, come see me for your children!

Cannons for sale!

With your scrap metal we forge these devices
That will make a mess of the neighbors
It gives work to all the laborers
And everyone plans to start a new home
They make money, they make kids
They get the insurance and the child benefits
It doesn't matter because when they grow up
They'll go out in a dizzy to die for a few francs!

I used to sell cannons in the streets of the earth
But my business was too successful
I've made all the cemetery makers rich
But now I'm travelling on foot
All my good customers have died, singing
And all alone I go without a care
At the corner of old streets, the heart happy, the foot light
I dance the Carmagnole, there's no one left on the pavement!

Cannons on sale!

Micro-aggression. — frank

Aka trolling

By the way, why do you lie so much? What's the point of lying on a message board? You think people won't notice? You're wrong.

It's your principle, not mine — Isaac

It's just one of your many lies. You can't deal with the truth.

You first decide if an action is right or wrong, then if its right you say "it's not our business to judge", but you just judged. — Isaac

One can condemn an attacker, that's fine, but it's usually believed that people have a right to defend themselves. So it's not so okay to condemn a defender. Maybe the distinction is not clear enough for you?

Your criteria was that each party had a "genuine desire" for peace. If it's our business to put Russia in "the right frame of mind" then why is it disallowed for us to encourage Ukraine into any particular frame of mind? — Isaac

Because they didn't start the war and are already in the right frame of mind. They don't want an endless war. They want peace.

Your argument is that governments ought to help Ukraine in whatever way they ask, it's not our business to judge the rights or wrongs of that request — Isaac

That is ridiculous. You can't help yourself but misunderstand others. All. The. Time. What the hell is wrong with you?

So we shouldn't be discussing what the Russians ought to do either then? If they see fit to flatten Bucha, that's not for us to judge, they know best? — Isaac

The Russians are not defending themselves. They are attacking. There is no comparison. Ethically we must condemn such an aggression.

yet you advocate the wholesale destruction of the Russian attack. In what way is that ensuring the genuine desire of the belligerents? — Isaac

It would even out the negotiating positions of each, and ensure that the Russians get interested in making real concessions to secure peace. It'd put them in the right frame of mind.

We (Europe, America) are working out what we think they ought to do so that we can decide what options to support and what options to not support. — Isaac

I support the line of my own government so far. I have no major disagreement with the 'Macron doctrine'.

What has Ukraine's rejection of the offer got to do with a discussion about whether they ought to take the offer? — Isaac

It is has to do with the Ukrainians being in a better position to judge what they ought to do than us. Both Draghi and Macron insisted, rightly so IMO, on the fact that durable peace cannot be created by fiat, and that the genuine desire of the belligerents is key. No peace deal should be imposed on Ukraine against its will, they said. It's not our place to tell the Ukrainians what they should do. Not at this stage when they are fighting for survival.

So what?

Of course it's about you. The only matter of possible interest here is our reasons. Yours, mine, everyone else's. — Isaac

Thanks for your interest but that's not what I am looking for here. I already have a fan club.

So? — Isaac

The offer has been rejected by Ukraine.

These are results of the war. The question was what would a peace agreement look like. — Benkei

A peace agreement with a totally defeated Russia would be relatively easy to arrive at and to enforce through whatever international mechanism à la blue helmet they would agree on for Crimea and Dombas. But if Russia is not soundly defeated military, then the question becomes: Can Ukraine trust any deal signed with Putin and his generals?

Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.

So remind me again why you want the war to continue? — Isaac

I don't want the war to continue. This is not about me.

This offer you mentioned dates from early March and was the basis for the talks in Antalya, Turkey during the month of March, talks during which some progress was reportedly achieved. Then the Bucha massacre came to light and the Ukrainian position stiffened while the Russians were denying it all.

what would that possibly look like. — Benkei

What it may look like now is this: either they stop pushing back the Russians at the pre-24 Feb border and allow Putin for some face saving way out, or they keep on pushing until they reconquer Crimea and Dombas.

In the latter case, Putin is left no face saving way out. He might do something nuclear, or opt to get reunited with Stalin, or both... Beside, the Ukrainian forces are likely to be perceived as invaders rather than liberators by a majority of the local population in Dombas and Crimea. So the latter option is possibly too risky, but it would secure the territorial integrity of Ukraine, a paramount national security goal.

Neither politician even referenced the idea of peace negotiations only following a Ukrainian win. — Isaac

I think Macron did:

the French president continues to plead, in the long term, for a "negotiated peace" with Moscow. This would follow a ceasefire that is still unattainable at this stage, with fighting still raging in the Donbas. For him, despite the delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv, there is no question of allowing the conflict to drag on with the idea of weakening Russia. The priority remains, if possible, to re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders, or at least within those of before February 24, the date of the Russian invasion. (Le Monde) — Olivier5

The "delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv" is meant to help fight off the invasion, and thus "re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders". However, "in the long term", a peace deal will need to be found.

I listened carefully to Draghi's Washington press conference when he speaks of "David and Goliath" not being the case anymore (around mn 9, in Italian). What he is saying is also about "the kind of peace Ukraine wants", long term, and whether it stops here or there. That he has some long term idea in mind is evidenced by his language: "we need to start to think about peace"; "to construct a path towards peace negotiations"; etc.

In my understanding, Draghi is saying: the tide of the war, the mid game, has turned. Now is the time to start strategize the end game. What type of end game are we trying to land on? A draw, an endless bloodbath, a resounding Ukrainian victory all the way to Moscow, or something in between?

These calls can be interpreted in the context of US pronouncements in favor of "bleeding Russia". For the French and Italians, this would indeed constitute war mongering. There needs to be some end to this. Draghi is an economist and stressed heavily the economic consequences of a long war.

you were only too happy to mention Western leaders urging peace. Did they do so because they think it's pie in sky according to you or because they see a realistic road to peace? I assume it's the latter and I'm challenging you to think about what that would look like but as usual thinking beyond your pre-conceived opinions is beyond you. — Benkei

Why, I'm challenging you to read and try and understand what those leaders I quoted have actually said. They didn't say: "peace now and no matter what". They said 1) Ukraine decides when and what they want to negotiate; 2) Restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity ought to be the primary goal now; 3) but ultimately, once this is achieved (if possible) then a peace deal will need to be found -- the goal is not to bleed Russia forever.

What Draghi and Macron don't want is a never ending proxy war. They want to be clear about the end game. They are not saying, like a facile little internet troll would: "Let's have peace now by being creative and thinking out of the box -- hey why not hostages?"

you're neither interested in peace nor analysis. — Benkei

I'm not interested in pie-in-the-sky analysis, you got that right. It's facile to go around an internet board yelling "Peace!" It's harder to face reality, which is what I am trying to do.

There's a multitude of avenues to explore that can give us an idea of solutions. — Benkei

Okay then, go and speak to Putin and Zelenskyy about your non-descript 'avenues'... Don't waste my time if you don't have the slightest idea.

It was thoroughly discussed. You and the other warmongers dismissed it as 'giving in'. — Isaac

There's no peace offer on the table from Putin that I am aware of. If you want to make one up because you want to argue, go right ahead: tell us what a good peace deal would look like.

The rest of your post is equally false, invented.

Putin is not (yet) demanding anything which was not de facto the case already — Isaac

When did Putin make any precise demand, and what are these terms, pray tell?

We ought lobby our governments to take negotiations seriously, reduce the rhetorical force of Putin's propaganda, and invest in grass roots development in both Ukraine and Russia to tackle the root causes of the extremism on both sides which have opened the door to this conflict. — Isaac

That's what I am saying too.