Things people say and forget:

A sign of a "winning" army would be taking Kherson — boethius

taking Kherson would be a turning point. — boethius

Losing Kherson would be both bad militarily (likely thousands, if not tens of thousands, stuck and captured troops) as well as intensely embarrassing. — boethius

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period. — Tzeentch

The Russians surely didn't give ground for free. They avoided a possible encirclement of their forces. There's nothing odd at that. Remember that the fighting at Kherson has gone since the summer in earnest. So holding the defensive line for months isn't "giving up ground for free".

Those forces are simply crucial for it because the Russian ground forces, which never were so large to begin with, and Russia has taken serious losses. Ukraine has more men now on the field than Russia basically. Russia had tried to create a small professional army and wasn't thinking mobilizing a far larger force, hence all the confusion in Putin's mobilization, which had to be ended because there simply weren't the resources.
Ukraine on the other hand had used the last eight years to fight this kind of war.

Russians need that artillery firepower, which itself needs a huge logistical tail. If those supply lines are cut, there's no firepower once the rounds you have next to the gun or rocket launcher have been fired.

Besides, notice how cautiously Ukrainian forces closed into Kherson, you didn't see columns of Ukrainian tanks rumbling into the city. Those would be a lucrative target for Russian artillery.

:up: :100:

Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be, — Tzeentch

What makes you think so?

US and the Soviets never trusted each other, but entered into all sorts of agreements — boethius

US and Soviets had also deterrence means that Ukraine doesn't have though.

:up: :100:

Zelenskyy outlines Ukraine’s 10-point "formula for peace" at G20 summit

Details: Ukraine has outlined the following 10 propositions:

• Radiation and nuclear safety.
• Food security.
• Energy security.
• Release of all prisoners and deportees.
• Implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the world order.
• Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities.
• Justice.
• Immediate protection of the environment from ecocide.
• Preventing escalation.
• Confirmation of the end of the war.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/11/15/7376378/

What makes you think so? — neomac

Russia is escalating this war however much it needs, and will continue to do so up until the point of nuclear war. There's no country in the West that is willing to go that far in their support of Ukraine.

However unjust it might be, Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process.

Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

Does Russia want Kherson?

It's unlikely Kherson has large strategic value to the Russians, since for Russia this war is about securing land access to Crimea, and Kherson is located on the west bank of the Dnieper.

for Russia this war is about securing land access to Crimea — Tzeentch

Maybe Kherson is not as high priority as land access to Crimea, yet it has its strategic importance (i.e. securing freshwater canals to Crimea).
Nevertheless there are demographic and economic reasons why giving up on those areas would hurt Ukraine badly:

Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be,
— Tzeentch

What makes you think so? — neomac

@Tzeentch is unable to imagine a world where brutal dictators don't win.

Russia is escalating this war however much it needs, and will continue to do so up until the point of nuclear war. — Tzeentch

Xi nixed the nuclear option.

Xi nixed the nuclear option. — frank

Such a statement is meaningless, because Russia isn't seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons yet. If, after further escalation / mobilization by Russia NATO chooses to intervene with boots on the ground, nuclear weapons use will definitely be on the table, and what China thinks of it won't play a role anymore at that point.

Tzeentch is unable to imagine a world where brutal dictators don't win. — Olivier5

I just don't look at the world with rose-tinted glasses where the "good guys" always win. That's not how the world works, and no amount of cheerleading and/or copium in this thread is going to change that.

:up:

Still, the Chinese leader, who before the war referred to Putin as his best friend, notably stopped short of asking Russia to withdraw, a key demand for Ukraine and its Western backers. — China’s Xi warns Putin not to use nuclear arms in Ukraine · Stuart Lau · POLITICO · Nov 4, 2022

I'm guessing the Taiwan situation plays a role.

We cannot afford any further escalation — Li Keqiang

We have agreed that threatening nuclear attacks is irresponsible and dangerous. I have told President Xi the importance for China to exert its influence on Russia. — Olaf Scholz

Yaay :up:

Rumors on the street will have it that Melitopol is sort of being turned into a (Russian) military base. I suppose there is a strategic importance here.

Russia launches heavy air strikes across Ukraine as G20 leaders meet
^{— Wilhelmine Preussen; POLITICO; Nov 15, 2022}

On and on they go, bombing destroying ... Apparently, they're not expecting to pay repairs. I'd hold them to that, though. The latest conditions from the Ukrainians ( :up:, Nov 15, 2022) don't mention that, not directly anyway.

I just don't look at the world with rose-tinted glasses where the "good guys" always win. — Tzeentch

Of course you do. It's just that your rose-tinted glasses are Russian made, and so are your 'good guys'.

Of course you do. It's just that your rose-tinted glasses are Russian made, and so are your 'good guys'. — Olivier5

Accusations of partisanship is all you have left?

Got any more copium for us? :rofl:

Accusations of partisanship is all you have left? — Tzeentch

It's a fact, not an accusation. Your interpretation of anything happening in Ukraine is systematically viewed through a pro-russian bias. So you are "wearing rose-tinted glasses" in the sense that you are interpreting data through a strong pro-Russian bias. That is why the battle for Kiev, seen by everyone else as a Russian defeat, is interpreted by you as a mere "message" sent by the Russian monarch to the Ukrainian government. This is why you must interpret the retreat from Kherson as the result if some sort of occult deal, rather than the Russians fleeing. And that is why you can write things as improbable as this:

Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be, and it will only deteriorate from here, — Tzeentch

Let us reconvene in a month, and see how that particular prediction panned out. Although you can probably find a way to present any development as a loss for Ukraine.

:100:

Such a statement is meaningless, because Russia isn't seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons yet. If, after further escalation / mobilization by Russia NATO chooses to intervene with boots on the ground, nuclear weapons use will definitely be on the table, and what China thinks of it won't play a role anymore at that point. — Tzeentch

I believe you're misdiagnosing the situation.

I'm guessing the Taiwan situation plays a role. — jorndoe

I don't know. I think the US and China are more economically integrated than the US and Russia were. There are good reasons on both sides for peaceful negotiations about Taiwan.

https://www.dw.com/en/russian-missiles-cross-into-nato-member-poland-report/a-63770954
shit hitting the fan?

shit hitting the fan? — neomac

Shit tried to hit the fan and missed. Gonna be interesting to see if Nato will use this to pressure Russia based on article 5.

Let us reconvene in a month, and see how that particular prediction panned out. — Olivier5

Dejavu...

Do you remember:

The Russian lines haven't collapsed, Putin hasn't been overthrown. The Russian economy hasn't collapsed, etc. etc.

All the propaganda nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum and never happened.

Your accusations of partisanship at my address is projection of the highest degree. You're parroting western propaganda, and wish to frame every happening as a defeat for Russia. That's why you're so defensive when someone voices a different opinion.

Sorry to give you a dose of reality every once in a while. Cozy delusions don't serve anyone.

You're parroting western propaganda — Tzeentch

You haven't the faintest idea of what I write about or think of this war.

Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

?

Russia, or Putin and the five men or so who decided to escalate this to an all out war, didn't get what they wanted. That was basically shown in the first 24 hours of the attack: Ukrainians fought back, Zelensky didn't evacuate himself like the Afghan President.

Russia had to withdraw from the Kiev region, from Kharkivregion, from Kherson (which it reached basically in the first days of this campaign). When the Ukrainians hit the weakest point in the northeast of the front, Russian forces there were routed. This is not some propaganda, which you think it is. Russia is really facing huge problems.

Yet you think of the Russian Army as some kind of unstoppable Juggernaut that has simply so much arsenal and men to mobilize that only when "it gets it act together", the Ukrainians will be destroyed. Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Or then perhaps you assume Putin could just use nuclear weapons ...as if that would be the solution. Or then you assume everything is just Western propaganda. It isn't. Follow then the Russian side as they aren't either happy how the war is going.

The only thing Russia has a lot is it's famous artillery. Hence Russians can lob ordinary shells for a long time at the Ukrainians.

Ukraine has only 16 HIMARS -systems (in comparison: during the Gulf War US and UK had over 250 MLRS-systems, which packed a bigger punch than the HIMARS) for destroying the thousands of artillery pieces. Hence that isn't going to happen quickly.

Now this explosion in Poland. Right before winter.

Cool heads must prevail.

https://www.dw.com/en/russian-missiles-cross-into-nato-member-poland-report/a-63770954
shit hitting the fan? — neomac

Now this explosion in Poland. Right before winter.
Cool heads must prevail. — Manuel

I say just take the wretched bombs out already, aggressively, throughout, whether it takes lots or more or special or expensive tech or not.
They've been wreaking destruction for a long time and it's apparently spilling over.
It's not like shooting them down is going to kill anyone, at least that's very unlikely, rather the opposite.
Yep, keep heads cool, NATO shouldn't just retaliate.

But that would only be relevant if the deal were to stop Ukraine invading the 'new' Russia ie the deal involved the ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia. — Isaac

It is relevant to any deal because the annexations make the terms of any compromise to be about how much territory Russia is willing to cede to Ukraine to stop the war. The present efforts by Ukraine to recover territory are, by the measure of Russian law, an invasion of the Federation, just as much as if that effort were directed toward Belgorod, Rostov-on-Don, or even Moscow. Any realistic negotiation will have to address this conflict between current Russian law and the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine.

Outside of that issue are the other oblasts the invasion has attempted to remodel. The Russians were unable to take Kiev or Odesa. The Ukrainian state was not accepted as a legitimate governance of any of the territory up to the western borders. Having gone this far resisting the Russians, it would be ridiculous for the Ukrainians to let this condition continue.

That is why any possible agreement has to start with recognizing a Ukraine that is something more than a tool of foreign powers. A place where Russia does not have the right to remodel the government to its liking.

Perhaps a cease fire is possible in the conditions you imagine. But if it would not resolve the conflict. It woulld not provide the foundation to unwind the sanctions or seek repatriation of deported people The offer, as you described it:

"We don't recognize your right to rule over Donbas, but we will withdraw our forces from there if you stop shelling us"

is so uncharacteristic of the way the Putin regime speaks that it is difficult for me to entertain the thought experiment.

Personally, I think Putin + team should annex the Sea of Tranquility.
Resources free for the grabbing and no Ukrainians in the way.
Would also give them a way to get away from it all.