Ukraine crisis

[Danny]

Mar 22, 2022 15:58:01 GMT @tw said:

It will easier for each country that was 'neutral' and/or partially free-loading to say they have to increase defence spending and take defence seriously if EC-EU27 make everyone get to say a minimum of 2% defence spending, etc.

i dont know why you want to increase defence sending? The evidence of this war is that Russian forces are incompetent, while our forces already in existence hve been ordered to do nothing whatever and leave the Ukrainians to do the fighting all by themselves. We arent even using the forces we have already paid for.

[Deleted]

Mar 23, 2022 8:59:57 GMT colin said:

Times reports Ukraine using munitions faster than supplies. Some countries not delivering as promised.

At the other end of the spectrum then countries like Sweden (not a NATO member, no direct border to Russia, previously 'neutral') are delivering large amounts and answering the call by promising to deliver more.

www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-provide-ukraine-with-5000-more-anti-tank-weapons-tt-news-agency-2022-03-23/

There is also the question of what you send. EG old Russian made equipment you found at the back of the cupboard in former E.Germany [1] v the latest kit like NLAW, Javelin, Starstreak and Sky Sabre [2]

Turkey stands out for sending Bayraktar TB2 drones early on (and more since). They also deserve credit for invoking the The Montreux Convention and blocking passage of warships through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles.

We'll see what happens in the meetings tomorrow but I notice Zelensky has made comments about a few countries today (or the businesses like Renault that have clear country links). For UK then he posted on his twitter feed:

IE UK is standing with Ukraine (but we will not speak for them)

[1] www.dw.com/en/germany-to-ship-anti-aircraft-missiles-to-ukraine-reports/a-60995325

[2] www.thenational.scot/news/20015208.weapons-sent-ukraine-uk/

[birdseye]

Mar 23, 2022 18:52:39 GMT @tw said:

Mar 23, 2022 8:59:57 GMT colin said:

We'll see what happens in the meetings tomorrow but I notice Zelensky has made comments about a few countries today (or the businesses like Renault that have clear country links). For UK then he posted on his twitter feed:




IE UK is standing with Ukraine (but we will not speak for them)

[1] www.dw.com/en/germany-to-ship-anti-aircraft-missiles-to-ukraine-reports/a-60995325

[2] www.thenational.scot/news/20015208.weapons-sent-ukraine-uk/

France has a reputation for this sort of thing going back as far as the sanctions against Southern Rhodesia as it then was. Self interest rules.

[birdseye]

Mar 23, 2022 7:11:29 GMT Danny said:

Mar 22, 2022 15:58:01 GMT @tw said:

It will easier for each country that was 'neutral' and/or partially free-loading to say they have to increase defence spending and take defence seriously if EC-EU27 make everyone get to say a minimum of 2% defence spending, etc.

i dont know why you want to increase defence sending? The evidence of this war is that Russian forces are incompetent, while our forces already in existence hve been ordered to do nothing whatever and leave the Ukrainians to do the fighting all by themselves. We arent even using the forces we have already paid for.

In the end it isnt tanks and helicopters that allow you to take over an area but boots on the ground. Do we have many boots in reality? From what I have seen of our small army, maybe half but no more are capable of doing the job.

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2022 8:05:10 GMT birdseye said:

Mar 23, 2022 18:52:39 GMT @tw said:

We'll see what happens in the meetings tomorrow but I notice Zelensky has made comments about a few countries today (or the businesses like Renault that have clear country links). For UK then he posted on his twitter feed:




IE UK is standing with Ukraine (but we will not speak for them)

[1] www.dw.com/en/germany-to-ship-anti-aircraft-missiles-to-ukraine-reports/a-60995325

[2] www.thenational.scot/news/20015208.weapons-sent-ukraine-uk/

France has a reputation for this sort of thing going back as far as the sanctions against Southern Rhodesia as it then was. Self interest rules.

France refuses to reveal its military support to Ukraine saying that could "aid Russia".

[Deleted]

Interesting analysis of the state of play in Times today.

Paraphrasing :-

Russian armoured vehicles have been brought to a standstill by anti-tank defences. UK donated N-LAW reported to be Ukrainian "weapon of choice", responsible for 30% to 40% of Russian tank losses.

Stalemate possibly presages a Russian retrenchment to S & E Ukraine. ie securing all the coast line plus Donbass.

I suppose this is very bad news for Odesa. The drone pictures of what was Mariupol are an awful prospect for Odesa.

[Danny]

R4 just got something on with reports from Ukraine, and in particular the Russian speaking east and south. The reporter said he has yet to meet anyone supporting the Russian action. He also described an old woman swearing at a passing train carrying Russian troops. Can't help thinking that if Ukraine start pushing troops back from the centre, they will be getting close enough to get missiles on those trains. A different report argued that when you look at those maps of Russian held territory, it isnt held at all, its simply Russians passed through it so it is behind their lines. Their troops are ahead with a hostile population behind them. Very militarily precarious.

[Deleted]

REports on the NATO meeting , Biden comments etc seem to indicate more drones and anti-ship missiles. Together with the +6k uk anti-tank missiles.

Why this stuff is being drip fed in whilst Putin pounds civilians in cities I do not understand.

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2022 17:11:55 GMT colin said:

REports on the NATO meeting , Biden comments etc seem to indicate more drones and anti-ship missiles. Together with the +6k uk anti-tank missiles.

Why this stuff is being drip fed in whilst Putin pounds civilians in cities I do not understand.

Russian civilian deaths 0 - Ukraine thousands (probably tens of thousands) and counting
Russian refugees 0 - Ukraine 4million and counting
Russian towns or cities 'wiped from the map' 0 - Ukraine: Mariupol and others on there way there
Russian territory occupied by a hostile invader 0 - Ukraine: chunks of Eastern, Southern and Northern Ukraine (in addition to what Putin took and has effectively controlled since 2014)

It is great to see more advanced weapons being sent to Ukraine but Putin has a lot of advanced weapons as well. In a war of 'attrition' that drags into next Winter and beyond then the numbers of Ukrainian civilian deaths, Ukrainian refugees and Ukrainian towns+cities 'wiped from the map' will increase significantly and all whilst 'the World is watching'

Shame on anyone who is looking at numbers of tanks lost, etc. when the ongoing civilian deaths, ongoing refugee crisis, ongoing towns+cities being wiped from the map and territory being controlled by a hostile invading force continues.  

I had low expectations for NATO and sadly was not surprised by the very limited additional measures.

[Danny]

Mar 24, 2022 17:45:05 GMT @tw said:

I had low expectations for NATO and sadly was not surprised by the very limited additional measures.

The point is Ukraine is fighting the overall war against Russia for NATO. Its Ukrainian troops and civilians dying and the cost of reconstructions falls on Ukraine. Nato loses nothing whatever the outcome. Russia was guaranteed at most a very limited victory, which would then galvanise the west to spend more on defence. So pretty much there has never been any bad outcome for NATO from Russia invading ukraine.

Which explains why NATO did nothing to prevent the invasion, which it could have done. Russia would not have invaded had sanctions been imposed immediately at the threat alone. Or had NATO more obviously and publicly sent military support. Nato reassured Putin it would allow him to win.

That doesnt mean Nato wanted Putin to win, I guess the worse he is beaten the better. But Nato couldnt do anything before hostilities started which would scare him off. It could and has quietly boosted Ukrainian troops in non obvious ways. It refused to provide coastal defences against ships, which might have scared off Putin.

Now at this point the question NATO may be thinking is whether they want Ukraine to win outright, or might prefer Ukraine to be partitioned. Are they willing to provide the weapons needed to drive Russia out?

[Deleted]

So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no.

[Deleted]

Sky News -
"Russia will focus on the "liberation" of Ukraine's eastern Donbass region after mostly completing the first phase of its military operation, Moscow's defence ministry has said.

It claimed that Russian-backed separatists are controlling 93% of Luhansk and 54% of Donetsk - the two areas that make up the Donbass.

"The main objectives of the first stage of the operation have generally been accomplished," said Sergei Rudskoi, head of the Russian General Staff's Main Operational Directorate.

"The combat potential of the armed forces of Ukraine has been considerably reduced, which makes it possible to focus our core efforts on achieving the main goal - the liberation of Donbass.""

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2022 15:23:46 GMT colin said:

Sky News -
"Russia will focus on the "liberation" of Ukraine's eastern Donbass region after mostly completing the first phase of its military operation, Moscow's defence ministry has said.

It claimed that Russian-backed separatists are controlling 93% of Luhansk and 54% of Donetsk - the two areas that make up the Donbass.

"The main objectives of the first stage of the operation have generally been accomplished," said Sergei Rudskoi, head of the Russian General Staff's Main Operational Directorate.

"The combat potential of the armed forces of Ukraine has been considerably reduced, which makes it possible to focus our core efforts on achieving the main goal - the liberation of Donbass.""

Mariupol is (although it is becoming was as it is being wiped off the map) in Donetsk Oblast and that will be a problem in agreeing any new lines on the map. 

Also the corridor that Russian forces control in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts (including the city of Kherson) and the sections of Northern areas most of which are East of the Dnieper with the notable exception Chernobyl which is in Kyiv Oblast West of the river. 

Zelensky should not concede anymore territory IMO, although I expect he will be under pressure from the Normandy Front to do so (Macron has elections soon and the 'Traffic Light' coalition want to put their foot back down on the debt brake) and with Biden-Dems looking at mid-term elections later this year then Biden will likely be keen to see oil price drop and appear to be the statesman who secured peace (however, naively thought through and temporary that 'peace' might be) 

UK, Poland and Baltic countries likely to be the notable exceptions and continue to back Zelensky and not trust a single word Putin ever says, ever again. However, if a ceasefire and 'stalemate' peace is agreed then very little the 'eyes wide open' group can do if US, Germany, France and other appeasers agree a Minsk III style deal and force[1] Zelensky to agree to it. 

[1] Maybe Zelensky holds out but if NATO (still very much US+) state they'll stop suppling Ukraine with weapons, aid, etc. unless Zelensky 'signs' then they can certainly put a lot of pressure on Zelensky to agree. Would UK and a few others then keep supplying Ukraine if US and some others put UK under pressure to agree to a united NATO position? Sadly I expect Boris might like to pretend he is also a 'peace maker' and he (and Rishi) will want to see oil and gas prices come down.  

[leftieliberal]

From BBC reporting: Posted at 17:18
'Russian colonel killed by own men - Western official

Paul Adams

BBC Diplomatic correspondent

Two more senior Russian commanders have been killed - one of them apparently died after being attacked by his own men, a Western official has said.

The commanding officer of the 37th Motor Rifle Brigade, a colonel, was deliberately run over by his own troops as a result of the scale of losses taken by his brigade, the official said.

“That just gives an insight into perhaps some of the morale challenges that Russian forces are having,” they added.

However other reports suggested the colonel - named as Yuri Medvedev - had suffered leg injuries and had been evacuated to Belarus.

A seventh general (commander of the 49th Combined Arms Army) was also killed. The Kremlin has not yet responded to the claims.

The BBC has not been able to confirm this independently.'

It's looking very bad for the Russians now - fragging used to be a hazard for US officers in Vietnam.

[alec]

colin - "So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no."

I thought UKPR2 had decided tanks were useless these days?

I think we might be losing site of the fact that Russia is losing here, heavily. They are sustaining massive losses, and that counts for an awful lot. We seem to be at the point of the turning of the tide, and everything seems to be running against Russia at the moment. As pjw1961 suggests, the worry is how Putin reacts to this, but he isn't the only Russian.

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2022 23:13:34 GMT alec said:

colin - "So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no."

I thought UKPR2 had decided tanks were useless these days?

I think we might be losing site of the fact that Russia is losing here, heavily. They are sustaining massive losses, and that counts for an awful lot. We seem to be at the point of the turning of the tide, and everything seems to be running against Russia at the moment. As pjw1961 suggests, the worry is how Putin reacts to this, but he isn't the only Russian.

Tanks are likely of little to no value for an 'aggressor' when the 'defender' is armed with the modern anti-tank weapons - as demonstrated by the lack of progress for Russian forces. They also have little to no value for an island (eg UK) - hopefully so obvious that I don't need to explain that.

I'll pick just two cities and kindly ask that you suggest what should happen to

Kherson: 
Mariupol: 

EG do you think Zelensky should concede either/both to Putin (ie reward Putin and see Putin to have been rewarded) or should Kherson be reclaimed and Mariupol stay 'Ukraine' in any negotiated 'peace' that appears what you desire as an outcome.

If I have misrepresented your views on desiring a negotiated peace whereby Putin is given more territory then I apologise in advance and give you the opportunity to clearly state your desired outcome

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2022 0:48:01 GMT mercian said:

Mar 26, 2022 0:14:27 GMT @tw said:

For the benefit of @everyone could you please state exactly what you think would be a 'beneficial outcome' and to whom that would apply...

That seems a bit ridiculous to me....

Moved to the issue specific thread

I've been accused of hiding various people's posts because I don't want to substantiate my opinion or have it challenged. That seems ridiculous to me as it is quite clear (IMO) why I was hiding certain people's posts.

However, I'm sure Alec does not wish to be seen as a hypocrite and that he is quite able to clarify what he means by a 'beneficial outcome' (having previously stated that one block would likely be a 'winner')

[alec]

Mar 26, 2022 0:00:24 GMT @tw said:

Mar 25, 2022 23:13:34 GMT alec said:

colin - "So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no."

I thought UKPR2 had decided tanks were useless these days?

I think we might be losing site of the fact that Russia is losing here, heavily. They are sustaining massive losses, and that counts for an awful lot. We seem to be at the point of the turning of the tide, and everything seems to be running against Russia at the moment. As pjw1961 suggests, the worry is how Putin reacts to this, but he isn't the only Russian.

Tanks are likely of little to no value for an 'aggressor' when the 'defender' is armed with the modern anti-tank weapons - as demonstrated by the lack of progress for Russian forces. They also have little to no value for an island (eg UK) - hopefully so obvious that I don't need to explain that.

I'll pick just two cities and kindly ask that you suggest what should happen to

Kherson: 
Mariupol: 

EG do you think Zelensky should concede either/both to Putin (ie reward Putin and see Putin to have been rewarded) or should Kherson be reclaimed and Mariupol stay 'Ukraine' in any negotiated 'peace' that appears what you desire as an outcome.

If I have misrepresented your views on desiring a negotiated peace whereby Putin is given more territory then I apologise in advance and give you the opportunity to clearly state your desired outcome

Thanks Trevor. I think the tanks issue was misconstrued, first by Johnson and then by many of the comments on here. In the committee questioning, Tobias Ellwood made it clear that he was talking of cuts to land based forces, including tanks, but also including troop numbers. Johnson focused on tanks and it went from there. So the starting point was wrong, in many ways.

Specifically on tanks, modern tanks are developing already, with plans for armoured vehicles with far superior situational awareness and defensive capabilities (anti missile systems, radar, anti drone technology, etc). In future tanks are likely to be a platforms for multi vector capabilities, so tanks advance with their own drones for vision, targeting, defence etc. Tanks were only ever viable as a standalone battlefield item in WW1, pre dating the development of defensive technologies, and since WW2 had to be deployed with infantry support in most arenas anyway, but the future developments are likely to be more high tech. Whether this works or not I don't know, but it's what the military planners seem to be thinking.

For the UK, I think the idea we don't need strong land based forces, including tanks, would surely be based on the idea that we only fight wars in the UK. Our armed forces are developed largely on the basis of needing to defend ourselves overseas, and Ellwood was really making the point that land based military conflicts will persist and that we should be equipped for them. I would agree with him.

On Mariupol and Kherson, fair question. I don't know, and it's up to Ukraine. I don't want to see Putin be given an inch of territory, but Ukraine has to balance prolonging the war with getting a settlement. As I've said before, wars end either through total capitulation or via a deal. It looks like Kherson will be recaptured, and I suspect a great deal more territory will follow also, but I don't see the 2014 boundaries being restored, unfortunately, although I could be wrong on that.

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2022 23:13:34 GMT alec said:

colin - "So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no."

I thought UKPR2 had decided tanks were useless these days?

I think we might be losing site of the fact that Russia is losing here, heavily. They are sustaining massive losses, and that counts for an awful lot. We seem to be at the point of the turning of the tide, and everything seems to be running against Russia at the moment. As pjw1961 suggests, the worry is how Putin reacts to this, but he isn't the only Russian.

I was referencing  Zelensky's requests.


I make the assumption that he isn't losing sight of anything. 

[neilj]

Mar 25, 2022 8:02:35 GMT colin said:

So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no.

Not quite, Johnson said he would like to supply them but it would be very difficult and unlikely.
In practical terms for Ukraine the British and French response will result in the same, no tanks. But of course Johnson would have liked to supply them...

www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/very-difficult-to-provide-ukraine-with-tanks-and-jets-says-boris-johnson/amp/
Johnson told reporters following the meeting that Western allies were working to “ramp up lethal aid” to Ukraine “in the quantity and with the quality” needed for defending Ukraine from Russia’s invasion.
But he said the help will likely not extend to tanks and jets.

“Logistically it looks very difficult, both with armor and with jets,” he said. “We are very conscious of what he is asking for. The equipment we think is most valuable at the moment are missiles, which they can use to defend themselves.”

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2022 12:47:08 GMT neilj said:

Mar 25, 2022 8:02:35 GMT colin said:

So. Johnson said yes to Zelenskys request for tanks. Macron said no.

Not quite, Johnson said he would like to supply them but it would be very difficult and unlikely.

“Logistically it looks very difficult, both with armor and with jets,” he said. “We are very conscious of what he is asking for. The equipment we think is most valuable at the moment are missiles, which they can use to defend themselves.”

That does give the possibility of a change in view in the future, either when a 'red line'[1] is crossed OR possibly perhaps as part of a future 'peace keeping' force placed inside Ukraine to ensure Putin never comes back to try to slice off another chunk of Ukraine.

Tanks positioned in Ukraine and used in conjunction with total air superiority[2] (backed up by enforcement of a 'no fly zone') would provide a deterrent to future aggression but before that then Russian forces would need to withdraw so I admit that seems like wishful thinking at the moment, with the current approach that NATO are taking. 

There is also the issue of presenting a united NATO position to ensure Putin doesn't think he can 'divide and conquer'. I don't personally think it would be sensible for UK to act unilaterally in any way, ever[3], and I'm glad Boris does not intend to do so. However, I think it is fair to say that UK, along with Poland (eg their MiGs offer) and the Baltic nations are seeking to push for a stronger NATO response, whilst also being aware of the higher importance of a united response.  

[1] Not that Biden is going to call anything specific as a 'red line' after Obama and Syria issue then it is possible NATO have discussed the issue of what would constitute a justifiable escalation and more direct military intervention from NATO and/or a 'coalition of the willing'.

[2] A large reason for the large loses of Russian tanks is their own forces negligence, use of 'older' style tanks against a defending force armed with excellent modern anti-tank weapons (eg Javelin, NLAW and drones) and the fact that Russia very clearly has not have achieved total air superiority. 

[3] OK, maybe not 'ever' but given we're part of NATO (a deterrent and mutual defence organisation) then there should never be a need to act unilaterally. However, there might be situations in the future where we might have to (hopefully not of course)

[Deleted]

Lviv bombarded-three explosions.

Don't want to let those women and children fleeing to Poland , feel too safe !

I wonder if part of the weapons supply chain has been hit.?

So much for a Russian retreat.

[Deleted]

Moving on from Mariupol............   news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-no-way-out-for-150-000-people-trapped-in-city-of-hell-chernihiv-as-russian-forces-bomb-last-bridge-standing-12575091

[domjg]

Mar 26, 2022 15:52:01 GMT colin said:

Lviv bombarded-three explosions.

Don't want to let those women and children fleeing to Poland , feel too safe !

I wonder if part of the weapons supply chain has been hit.?

So much for a Russian retreat.

As I understand it the first attacks on Lviv took place at around the same time Biden was visiting US troops in Rzeszow less than 100 miles distant. As such it look like typical Russian bully boy bravado, saying look if we really wanted to we could have killed your President.

[leftieliberal]

Mar 26, 2022 21:40:05 GMT domjg said:

Mar 26, 2022 15:52:01 GMT colin said:

Lviv bombarded-three explosions.

Don't want to let those women and children fleeing to Poland , feel too safe !

I wonder if part of the weapons supply chain has been hit.?

So much for a Russian retreat.

As I understand it the first attacks on Lviv took place at around the same time Biden was visiting US troops in Rzeszow less than 100 miles distant. As such it look like typical Russian bully boy bravado, saying look if we really wanted to we could have killed your President.

One wonders whether Putin would have really tried to kill the US President knowing that the consequence would have been an H-bomb on the Kremlin within 15 minutes. There is a best-selling  novel 'Fail-safe' from the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis where the US drops a nuke on New York, as the only way to show the Soviets that an attack by a single bomber on Russia was not the first move in a thermo-nuclear war. It illustrates just how far 'thinking the unthinkable' has to go.

[domjg]

Mar 27, 2022 18:58:54 GMT leftieliberal said:

Mar 26, 2022 21:40:05 GMT domjg said:

As I understand it the first attacks on Lviv took place at around the same time Biden was visiting US troops in Rzeszow less than 100 miles distant. As such it look like typical Russian bully boy bravado, saying look if we really wanted to we could have killed your President.

One wonders whether Putin would have really tried to kill the US President knowing that the consequence would have been an H-bomb on the Kremlin within 15 minutes. There is a best-selling  novel 'Fail-safe' from the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis where the US drops a nuke on New York, as the only way to show the Soviets that an attack by a single bomber on Russia was not the first move in a thermo-nuclear war. It illustrates just how far 'thinking the unthinkable' has to go.

Obviously they would never do that unless it was in the midst of an all out nuclear exchange. It was just an exercise in bravado.

[birdseye]

Mar 26, 2022 21:40:05 GMT domjg said:

Mar 26, 2022 15:52:01 GMT colin said:

Lviv bombarded-three explosions.

Don't want to let those women and children fleeing to Poland , feel too safe !

I wonder if part of the weapons supply chain has been hit.?

So much for a Russian retreat.

As I understand it the first attacks on Lviv took place at around the same time Biden was visiting US troops in Rzeszow less than 100 miles distant. As such it look like typical Russian bully boy bravado, saying look if we really wanted to we could have killed your President.

Which would be a complete misunderstanding. The President isnt all powerful. Toppling him doesnt damage the government much - it carries on. Putin is a dictator - toppling him would change the government. So killing a President wouldnt be a major blow unlike killing Putin.

[birdseye]

Seems to me that all than can practically be done to put pressure on Putin has been done so from his point of view he should carry on until the Ukranians sue for peace. Likely he has realised that his initial idea of restoring the Ukraine as a whole back into mother Russia wont work so he will settle eventually for incorporating the Russian bits of the Ukraine plus the coast. Meantime flattening the rest of the Ukraine into submission costs nothing more than lives which doesnt concern him much.

[mercian]

Putin has ensured that his name will go down in history as a mad dictator not far off (and possibly worse when it all ends) Hitler and Stalin. Reducing whole cities to rubble and starving the survivors and deporting some to forced labour camps is right up there. Perhaps the poor little chap just wants to be remembered?

[Danny]

Mar 26, 2022 0:00:24 GMT @tw said:

Tanks are likely of little to no value for an 'aggressor' when the 'defender' is armed with the modern anti-tank weapons - as demonstrated by the lack of progress for Russian forces.

The large amount of captured/abandoned Russian equipment suggests that maybe the crews of said tanks might not be using them very aggressively.