Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything?
— Xtrix

That's because you are a coward. — M777

:roll:

Okay— bye.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/counter-attacks-and-can-kicking-in-the-russo-ukrainian-war/

So? — Isaac


The offer has been rejected by Ukraine. — Olivier5

So?

So what?

So what? — Olivier5

I don't see why you keep just saying obvious statements about the news. I have a newspaper.

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

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.

It is has to do with the Ukrainians being in a better position to judge what they ought to do than us. — Olivier5

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?

durable peace cannot be created by fiat, and that the genuine desire of the belligerents is key. — Olivier5

...and yet you advocate the wholesale destruction of the Russian attack. In what way is that ensuring the genuine desire of the belligerents? Sounds like you very much want to force one of the belligerents into a corner where they have no leeway to express any desires at all.

See, you seem to be think that military pressure is the only force in the world. That if they're winning, Ukraine are somehow miraculously 'free', ignoring the billions of dollars of debt attached to the virtually total control of their economy by foreign powers.

It's not our place to tell the Ukrainians what they should do. — Olivier5

We're not. 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. Or do we have no agency here? The alternative is just to blindly support whatever any nation asking for help asks us to do. Do you think that wise?

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'.

The Russians are not defending themselves. They are attacking. There is no comparison. Ethically we must condemn such an aggression. — Olivier5

That's begging the question. 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.

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. — Olivier5

That may be, but your criteria was not 'evening out'. 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?

I support the line of my own government so far. I have no major disagreement with the 'Macron doctrine'. — Olivier5

I thought it wasn't about you.

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. I'm asking if you're prepared to follow through. If Ukraine asked us to drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow should we do so on the grounds that it's not our business to judge what Ukraine thinks is best for its defense?

For me and @ssu it's a big thing at the moment since we've just got word from the Swedish government that we're applying for Nato. This means that if a speedy transition will happen, we will very rapidly be member states. Most important for us at the moment is that Russia will conduct different types of attacks outside of military ones, except maybe breaking airspace to "show muscles". Other than that we will have a lot of unstable infrastructure with hacking attempts. But it's still a sigh of relief that we're transitioning into real security instead of false promises and sham diplomacies and it's a big loss for Putin and his fuckers if any of their reasons for this invasion were to keep Nato away. Like, what the fuck did they think was gonna happen? Stupid asswipes :shade:

Finland’s border with Russia was drawn by Sweden and Russia, not by the Finns. — Apollodorus

Last three border drawings have been drawn by Finns and the Soviet Union.

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?

Looking good, but it's not over yet.

It's going to be an interesting summer. And the best thing is that both countries are doing this together. It might be even with some kind of joint declaration when President Niinistö visits Sweden next week, but basically this is already a dual application: both the Swedish and Finnish foreign ministers already informed jointly NATO leadership were the application was going in both countries, so it's already very coordinated. And of course, when applying to an alliance, it's good to show you can be a team player and coordinate your actions with others.

The likeliest response from Russia, that "military-technical response" it has promised, will be a restructuring of defensive and offensive assets inside Kaliningrad and Russia proper. Which actually is quite understandable and naturally Russia can do that. I'm not sure what some hybrid attack would do, actually. Already some assumptions have been proven false.

(Washington Post 15th May 2022) So great is the threat to Russia’s strategic interests that Moscow will be compelled to take some form of action against Finland, said Dmitry Suslov of National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow.

At a minimum, he said, Russia will need to fortify its military presence along the Finnish border because Finland will no longer be considered a “friendly” country. It will also have to step up its naval presence in the Baltic Sea which will become, he said, “a NATO lake.”

I think Turkey won't be a problem, Erdogan just wants to make a point as all foreign policy is in the end domestic policy. And of course when thirty different parliaments etc. have to agree on something, it does take time.

An interesting feature of Finland being outside of the Article 5 protection is that they can respond to any actual incursion from Russia without it being the NATO fight Putin is slavering for. Once Finland becomes a member, that freedom of movement will have conditions that will restrict Finland from counter attacking as they see fit. Neutrality has its benefits.

In some ways, Russia has been protected by NATO since collective war is always more lugubrious than unilateral action.

The likeliest response from Russia, that "military-technical response" it has promised, will be a restructuring of defensive and offensive assets inside Kaliningrad and Russia proper. Which actually is quite understandable and naturally Russia can do that. I'm not sure what some hybrid attack would do, actually. Already some assumptions have been proven false. — ssu

They will probably do something to show aggression in some way before the membership is finalized. Something that won't trigger any alliance response, like cyberattacks, border breaking, heavy military presence close to the border.

But at the moment they won't have any military strength to do so. Putting too much of the military close to Finland's border means a lot of staff away from Ukraine. Finland's border is huge and Russia can't really cover it without stretching its military thin.

So I doubt much will happen until they're done in Ukraine. Which is why now is the best time for us to join.

It's great that the guy who just murdered 10 black people in the US was inspired by the same Nazis that the US is handing a couple of billion dollars to in Ukraine. I'm sure this won't be a problem down the track at all.

Russian Tycoon Criticized Putin’s War. Retribution Was Swift.
The New York Times
May 2, 2022

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 14
Institute for the Study of War
May 14, 2022

Whatever NATO's decision, Sweden/Finland aren't threatening Russia. Putin's Russia is threatening...a few others. Going to be costly. Hopefully a nation of haters isn't in the making with Ukraine. Some progress seemed to be underway.

So it's not so okay to condemn a defender. Maybe the distinction is not clear enough for you? — Olivier5

So, if a defender commits genocide, its not OK to condemn them? Besides which, who mentioned condemnation? We were just talking about what they ought to do. I ought to pay my butcher's bill, that's hardly the same as condemnation if I don't.

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. — Olivier5

Barely a page or two back you said...

The problem then becomes the security and stability of Russia itself. This is why Macron and others are reminding us all that we need to keep channels of communication open with Russia, and to make sure Ukraine doesn't push its advantage beyond the liberation of Ukraine. A victorious Ukraine, armed to the teeth, could also become a destabilizing factor in the future. Zelenskyy won't be here forever. Wars often stroke extreme nationalism. — Olivier5

...so which is it? A Ukraine that's in the right frame of mind for peace, or one which might "push its advantage beyond the liberation of Ukraine"?

That is ridiculous. — Olivier5

It's your principle, not mine. Personally, I think governments ought to assess whether they ought to support some course of action for themselves, rather than just blindly doing whatever the defending nation ask for, but your counter argument was that it's not our business to judge what the best strategy is, so presumably, if Ukraine ask us to nuke Moscow, we nuke Moscow.

Alternatively, you could just realise you're talking shite, and actually it is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss whether Ukraine's strategy is a sound one since we're the ones supporting it with arms and loans...

...but that would mean you'd have to actually come to terms with the existence of a narrative other than the one your TV delivers you. I won't hold my breath.

It's your principle, not mine — Isaac

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

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.

Sweden shouldn't be a problem with their excellent weapons manufacturing. Not sure what the Fins bring. :razz:

Edit: BTW, I had some older friends over one of whom was a fighter pilot in the Dutch elite squadron and worked a lot with NATO. He still has contacts and it looks like a sure win for Ukraine now.

So I think the outstanding question is whether Ukraine should push to retake the Donbass region or not. Is that going to be a long separatist war? Crimea seems a step too far considering Russia's territorial claim to it and statements on use of nuclear weapons. What do you think, @ssu?

looks like a sure win for Ukraine now.

So I think the outstanding question is whether Ukraine should push to retake the Donbass region or not. Is that going to be a long separatist war? Crimea seems a step too far — Benkei

I'm confused here. You say 'win' and then ask if they ought push for Donbass and Crimea. How's that a win? Russia comes in wanting control over Donbass and Crimea, it gets control over Donbass and Crimea. That doesn't sound like a win. What am I missing?

By the way, why do you lie so much? — Olivier5

Micro-aggression.

Micro-aggression. — frank

Aka trolling

Aka trolling — Olivier5

Yep

Edit: BTW, I had some older friends over one of whom was a fighter pilot in the Dutch elite squadron and worked a lot with NATO. He still has contacts and it looks like a sure win for Ukraine now. — Benkei

I'm confused here. You say 'win' and then ask if they ought push for Donbass and Crimea. How's that a win? Russia comes in wanting control over Donbass and Crimea, it gets control over Donbass and Crimea. That doesn't sound like a win. What am I missing? — Isaac

Was about to post the same sentiment as @Isaac, just with also a map:



The black lines are what Russia controlled before the recent invasion, and Zelensky's own standard is removing Russia from all Urkainian pre-2014 territory, including Crimea, which no one seems to believe is going to happen (at least any time soon).

So ... where do these standards of Ukraine "winning" come from?

Now, jorndoe seems to believe the standard pro-diplomacy partisans such as my self have set for Russia is:

↪boethius, you continue to describe Putin's regime like an ("immune"/"untouchable") automaton bombing-machine, and, in that context, Ukrainians as meek humans (in contrast) that should just surrender. — jorndoe

And therefore anything less than this is Ukraine "winning" ... but, I have said repeatedly that Russians could have disastrous morale collapse any minute and be routed on all fronts, just as has been predicted since the start of the war by Western media.

It's still the case now, that Russians could be routed from all fronts.

However, as it stands, Russia has occupied and also passified a large chunk of territory; in particular, forming a land bridge to Crimea and also securing the water canal as Kehrson, which are pretty big strategic victories in the Ukraine theatre.

The only evidence for "strategic defeat" is simply ex-CIA type people saying so, in the context of current CIA people unironically saying Ukraine is "winning" the information war and the CIA is just an unbiased third party impartial investigative reporter of these events.

As for the actual strategic situation ... we still don't even know what the Kremlin is trying to accomplish strategically (other than, for sure, a land bridge and canal opening, which they's done).

For example, if the Russians wanted to bait Ukraine into a total war posture, that's happened.

Rather, seems the narrative is changing to Finland and Sweden joining NATO is strategic defeat of Russia, but if Russia wasn't planning to conquer Finland and Sweden then this doesn't really change much strategically, unless Finland and Sweden wanted to join NATO to then invade Russia ... but that seems unlikely.

What seems more likely, is that we are in a phase of the conflict where both NATO and Russia are convincing their respective audiences that their winning / have won.

This could be the prelude of de-escalation, which I would guess both NATO and Russia both want at this point ... or ... a lot more escalation, especially as it seems Ukraine--at least as represented by Zelensky--has no motivation to do.

However, it's unclear if Zelensky has any further escalation options, which would leave the conflict in a stalemate and not a "victory" for Ukraine.

The West portrays stalemate as a Russian "loss", but if the stalemate involves Russia sitting on the critical assets it wanted, the analysis doesn't make sense to me.

Currently, as the map above shows, there's only a small portion of the Dombas left in Ukrainian control, and the media has portrayed this small holdout as a Russian "loss" rather than conquering the rest of the Dombas as a Russian victory so far.

Of course, it would be a morale booster and show of strength for Russia to conquer that last piece of territory, but it hardly seems like a microcosm for the whole war.

Now, if Ukraine started to take strategically critical positions such as Kershon or then retake Mariupole (in particular when there were thousands of Ukrainian and Azov defenders), that would be one thing.

As it stands, considering the troop levels Russia committed to the conflict, the current results seem basically the maximum territory they could aim to conquer and passify ... and, just so happens, the "ambitious" side of the land-grabs experts were speculating before the war.

For, keep in mind, Russia has not mobilised to total war, which would vastly increase its war fighting capability but would have immense domestic political and economic consequences (Russians view conscription as solely for self-defence, and mobilising conscripts removes people from critical civilian roles that they were previously doing).

Which leaves a cost-benefit analysis of whether these Russian gains came at reasonable or unreasonable costs.

Ukraine, as immediately repeated by the Western press, claim that Russian losses have been excessive.

But we don't actually know.

Neither do we know Ukrainian losses.

Who is attritting who we don't actually know.

Sweden shouldn't be a problem with their excellent weapons manufacturing. Not sure what the Fins bring. :razz: — Benkei

Don't know what @ssu would strategize, but as a swede what I see Finland excelling at is being prepared for conflict. They have massive and well cared for underground shelters and a much larger part of the population enrolled as military reserves. Sweden's shelters are shit, we have a lot of them, around 60 000, but the tech is from the freakin 50s. It was even brought to attention recently in a Swedish TV show focusing on simulating a crisis; the reporter just picked up the phone supposed to be used by the leader in each bunker and it almost fell apart in her hands. So it's not very cared for. On top of that, my opinion about the Swedish population is that when it comes to national defense and the will to fight for our freedom, there are a lot of lazy people who just don't care. The greatest risk is that we don't have enough reserves and that people just don't give a fuck.

But combining Finland and Sweden's efforts it becomes a bit different. Finland will be much better at defending the actual border, they've done so before with a humiliating effect on the Soviet Union. Combining that strength with Sweden's speedy mechanical warfare (our mechanized strategies are many times faster than Russia, moving troops across terrain at high speed), as well as air and sea superiority (we beat both Nato and the US alone in Baltic exercises using only one of our u-boats), means that it would be impossible for Russia to gain presence at sea while being forced to focus on the borders to the Baltic nations and Finland. That's four Nato nations (five if counting in Poland) spreading their strength against invading troops and Finland also has such a harsh easter terrain that the pathetic Russian tank columns would get stuck before even entering the nation. All while Sweden totally blocks the baltic sea flank.

I think that if Russia would invade Nato in the north, that would lead to heavy counterattacks as well. Both Kaliningrad and St Petersburg can be cut off from Russia with heavy air attacks by the Swedish air force. Which would really tank the ability to hold the line for Russian ground troops. With Sweden and Finland part of Nato, it's basically game over in the north for Russia. The only way for them to expand anywhere would be east and southeast, but they might not be able to except by putting aged weapons in the hands of a large portion of their population. Hence why security increases so much for us being part of Nato, the collaboration for military defenses would be guaranteed, not just false promises that Ukraine experienced and had to overcome on their own.

And you were able to deduce all this from your armchair?

Impressive. Most impressive.

When do you expect Russia will be invading Sweden?

I think @Christoffer should write the next Star Wars. A++ imagination.

And you were able to deduce all this from your armchair? — boethius

No, I did not.

But you can believe whatever the fuck you want from your armchair.

When do you expect Russia will be invading Sweden? — boethius

Now they won't. Without Nato perhaps as a flank position for missile and weapon placement on Gotland when their military has been built up again, but now that we're about to join Nato they won't, which is the point.

I think Christoffer should write the next Star Wars. A++ imagination. — Streetlight

I think you should shut the fuck up. You're not even on the same side of the globe so you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to criticize alliances you should criticize your Aukus involvement more than commenting on us joining Nato.