You can’t negotiate with Putin for a permanent stop to the war. He’ll just use any break in fighting to retool his military and try invade again. However, with the amount of corruption there that could take some time.
Plus, after all this I don’t see Ukraine wanting to capitulate on anything - EU, future NATO, reparations, etc.
The entire world community would almost have to treat them like Germany or Japan after WW2 in order for me to trust any permanent truce, and I don’t see any Russians going for that. I don’t think trying to isolate them like Iran would even work.
Yeah. The thing is though, the dude is old. Ooooold.
This is his kick at this can, he doesnt have the time to re-tool his military.
As many have said in this thread, his is the head that needs to roll. He has little to nothing to lose.
Really, I dont know who is standing behind him to take the reins after this. Is that person a stable, reasonable moderate? Or does that person's crazy make Putin look like a teddy bear?
In the grand scheme of mass defenestration, the right body simply hasnt gone out the window yet.
Its the only way I see this stopping.
This isnt Russia's war. This is Putin's war.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
For the record, I'm not sure if negotiations are in any way a realistic or reasonable option, but I do see the logic.
This war is not going to be over soon with the way Russia is willing to throw people into the grinder, it has a lot of potential to get a lot uglier, there is a risk of escalation, and a purely military victory for Ukraine is impossible because you can't push the Russians further than their own border, and that's not enough to force them to stop.
I'm not saying that to suggest Ukraine should negotiate. It's after all easy for military staff to look at the situation from another continent and suggest that Ukraine should just give up their people and land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I agree with your take. Eventually, there is going to have to be some kind of negotiated diplomatic settlement. The only other option is to force Russia into an unconditional surrender and forced de-militarization. The second option does not seem at all possible.
I'll leave it up to people smarter than me to figure out where the sweet spot is to force Russia's hand and get the most favourable terms for Ukraine. I don't think we are there yet, but there are factors for both Ukraine and Russia that are on timers.
If the plan is to try and run down the clock and hope that Russia's economy, political landscape, and internal security collapses, this could go on for a whole generation.
I believe the US's official position is, rightly, it is up to Russia or Ukraine to initiate peace talks as one invaded and the other is fighting off that invasion.
If Milley is saying this publicly, rest assured there's been a lot of back channel talking with diplomats or military officials
I cannot imagine the US being the 'honest broker' anymore than I can see China' being the 'honest broker' - it is optically a no go. It would take someone else, like a Germany or France IMO for that to work.
I believe the US's official position is, rightly, it is up to Russia or Ukraine to initiate peace talks as one invaded and the other is fighting off that invasion.
If Milley is saying this publicly, rest assured there's been a lot of back channel talking with diplomats or military officials
I cannot imagine the US being the 'honest broker' anymore than I can see China' being the 'honest broker' - it is optically a no go. It would take someone else, like a Germany or France IMO for that to work.
That's the thing. I don't think Milley has done any racing out to diplomats. The US' position, and that of almost every ally save France, is that negotiation is on Ukraine's terms.
I don’t think that’s terribly accurate given the quality of men Russia is fielding. Ukraine can likely make gains just like they have to date. Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago people were saying Kherson wouldn’t fall to the new year and now it did?
The Following User Says Thank You to Kasi For This Useful Post:
Personally I think Milley is just pissed that the Ukrainians are ####kicking the enemy that the US military has done most of its major fund raising in opposition to with the military equivalent of the spare change the west finds down the back of its sofa, why exactly would the US drop trillions into the military if it becomes obvious that the ex communist armies, training and technology are rubbish
Personally I think Milley is just pissed that the Ukrainians are ####kicking the enemy that the US military has done most of its major fund raising in opposition to with the military equivalent of the spare change the west finds down the back of its sofa, why exactly would the US drop trillions into the military if it becomes obvious that the ex communist armies, training and technology are rubbish
Next up a muffin punch from China if they want their airforce destroyed and ships sunk going for Taiwan.
Personally I think Milley is just pissed that the Ukrainians are ####kicking the enemy that the US military has done most of its major fund raising in opposition to with the military equivalent of the spare change the west finds down the back of its sofa, why exactly would the US drop trillions into the military if it becomes obvious that the ex communist armies, training and technology are rubbish
Well...thats not entirely accurate either.
Ukraine is being supplied by NATO forces.
NATO cant put boots on the ground, but they've been fairly generous in terms of donating materiel. Very similar to what the US did in WWII with England prior to Pearl Harbour with the 'Lend/Lease' act.
Take those Western Weapons away and, despite the ineptitude of the Russian military we'd probably be seeing a very different story.
I think everyone is astonished at the amazing ineptitude of the Russian Army...but I'm just 'some guy' its not my job or even my hobby to know about Russian armament. You'd think the USA and/or NATO would have had a little bit more of a finger on the pulse there.
Because nobody should ever have been afraid of this.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
NATO cant put boots on the ground, but they've been fairly generous in terms of donating materiel. Very similar to what the US did in WWII with England prior to Pearl Harbour with the 'Lend/Lease' act.
Take those Western Weapons away and, despite the ineptitude of the Russian military we'd probably be seeing a very different story.
I think everyone is astonished at the amazing ineptitude of the Russian Army...but I'm just 'some guy' its not my job or even my hobby to know about Russian armament. You'd think the USA and/or NATO would have had a little bit more of a finger on the pulse there.
Because nobody should ever have been afraid of this.
Oh I'm not arguing we aren't supplying Ukraine, but what we are supplying is older generations equipment we have mostly mothballed or older Russian gear that Poland and other ex Warsaw pact countries have swapped out for a promise of newer western gear, Ukraine is beating the tar out of Russia with our scraps and left overs, they arent flying F 35's or rolling out Abrahms, the only up to date kit we have sent them really are the manpads and Javelins, even the Himars and artillery rounds being sent while modern are limited in scope, we have far far better munitions we are not supplying Ukraine
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Reposting the Perun-video for extra visibility, and because I want to talk about it a bit more.
My dad had engineer friends in the Soviet Union / Russia at the time of the Soviet breakup, and friends who were generally involved in Finnish-Russian relations and so I heard some stories about the transition from Soviet to post-Soviet.
A story that really stuck to me was about statisticians.
In the early stages of that transition, there was an idea that the western nations could help the Russian government to transform itself into a more modern western one, a government capable of ruling a nation with a properly functioning independent market economy. Part of that project included Finnish statisticians helping their Russian colleagues to produce stats / information relevant to governing a market economy.
The way I heard it, a major issue that turned up was that it was extremely hard to get Russian statisticians to understand that statistics should or could be accurate and based on facts with as little bias as possible. This was just beyond them. They had trouble in just wrapping their heads around the idea that accurate statistics were possible, that it's possible to get reliable data of and that it's okay to turn that data into unflattering reports about the state of reality. Frankly they didn't even want to do that. These were people who had gotten to their positions in their current organizations by being essentially good liars, and they were working in a system that was built from top to bottom by corrupt liars to serve corrupt liars. There was nothing in it for them to start serving accurate information, and it would just make everyone look bad.
This was when I knew that Russia is borderline impossible to govern smartly, and nothing has changed my opinion on this in the following 30 years. Every good decision begins with good information, and without a system to produce good information, it doesn't matter much who's making the decisions.
Of course Putin has probably managed to make the situation even worse by going all Darth Vader on people who displease him. If back in the late Soviet days the punishment for being an honest patriot who wanted to actually do his job well was getting sidelined when it came to promiotions, under Putin's rule the punishment for honesty has often been death.
To make things even worse, the punishment for actual competency has very often also been death, because competent military leaders tend to become popular with their troops and thus a potential threat to Putin. Likewise anyone developing a reputation for competency in the government has been at risk of acute defenestration, because once again competent people tend to become popular with people and once again a threat to Putin. No on can seem more competent or even as competent as Darth Putin, because that could be a threat.
So competent smart people learn to just stay away from the military and positions of power in the government.
So you couldn't replace all the corrupt liars even if you wanted to.
Last edited by Itse; 11-14-2022 at 02:46 AM.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Personally I think Milley is just pissed that the Ukrainians are ####kicking the enemy that the US military has done most of its major fund raising in opposition to with the military equivalent of the spare change the west finds down the back of its sofa, why exactly would the US drop trillions into the military if it becomes obvious that the ex communist armies, training and technology are rubbish
It's not just equipment, it is training.
The #### eaters are pushing through accelerated training in the UK. Canada has sent advisors to help with that training as have other Western nations (not just NATO, Kiwis for example). The Ukrainian approach to war is in line with NATO's approach to war.
The tactics from the top down to the section level are superior to the Russians.
Started in June, it has trained 7,000 Ukrainian soldiers so far, with another 3,000 due to finish by Christmas. A similar EU initiative, which aims to train 15,000 troops in Germany and Poland, starts this month.
......................
Brigadier Justin Stenhouse, who oversees the training programme across several UK sites, said one Ukrainian commander emailed him about a recent frontline incident he witnessed where 10 soldiers came under Russian attack but stood firm and “took the fight to the Russians, while the others took cover”.
Their example inspired the rest of their platoon to join the fight, Stenhouse recounted. Afterwards, when the Russians had been repulsed, the commander asked them why they had done this. They replied: “This is what we were taught to do in UK training.”
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Oh I'm not arguing we aren't supplying Ukraine, but what we are supplying is older generations equipment we have mostly mothballed or older Russian gear that Poland and other ex Warsaw pact countries have swapped out for a promise of newer western gear, Ukraine is beating the tar out of Russia with our scraps and left overs, they arent flying F 35's or rolling out Abrahms, the only up to date kit we have sent them really are the manpads and Javelins, even the Himars and artillery rounds being sent while modern are limited in scope, we have far far better munitions we are not supplying Ukraine
In terms of shipping weight only, the US could send 1 Abrams tank or 2500 Javelins.
In terms of shipping weight only, the US could send 1 Abrams tank or 2500 Javelins.
the US could send the tanks and the Javalins if it wanted, we have chosen just to send relatively minimal levels of equipment relative to what the US has, the choice has been made for both practical and political reasons, the Ukrainians arent trained on western gear, we dont want the Russians capturing it and the West has generally tried to look like although we have a side we arent escalating the conflict.
All of this has combined to have the Ukrainians beating the snot out of the Russians using mostly older Russian gear, worse in theory than the Russians have, plus a sprinkling of western hand held anti tank and anti air systems and from the summer the Himars and artillery with a limited selection of munitions
the US could send the tanks and the Javalins if it wanted, we have chosen just to send relatively minimal levels of equipment relative to what the US has, the choice has been made for both practical and political reasons, the Ukrainians arent trained on western gear, we dont want the Russians capturing it and the West has generally tried to look like although we have a side we arent escalating the conflict.
All of this has combined to have the Ukrainians beating the snot out of the Russians using mostly older Russian gear, worse in theory than the Russians have, plus a sprinkling of western hand held anti tank and anti air systems and from the summer the Himars and artillery with a limited selection of munitions
I'm not sure sending M1s is the option. The Ukrainians can't just jump in them and go, also the servicing and upkeep of them requires specialized (at least I expect) skills, finally the fueling of them could be pain in the ass.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
The #### eaters are pushing through accelerated training in the UK. Canada has sent advisors to help with that training as have other Western nations (not just NATO, Kiwis for example). The Ukrainian approach to war is in line with NATO's approach to war.
The tactics from the top down to the section level are superior to the Russians.
This is the real advantage, but if you are a US general the slightly annoying conclusion to be drawn is the US dont really need a replacement for the M1 or most of the rest of their kit, they can easily repulse the Russians and the Chinese with what they have, that numbers make almost no difference of the modern battlefield, almost the whole point of a 4 star General is to fight for funding for new stuff
This is the real advantage, but if you are a US general the slightly annoying conclusion to be drawn is the US dont really need a replacement for the M1 or most of the rest of their kit, they can easily repulse the Russians and the Chinese with what they have, that numbers make almost no difference of the modern battlefield, almost the whole point of a 4 star General is to fight for funding for new stuff
It is still an impressive piece of kit considering the original design is over 40 years old.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
