Ukraine crisis

[Danny]

Mar 28, 2022 7:43:33 GMT birdseye said:

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.

I argued the only stable outcome here was always to annexe a bit more of the most friendly areas. if I was  planning the invasion, presumably I would have defined targets in order of difficulty and imortance, so for example capturing Kyev was probably always some way down the list, especially if there was serious resistance. if that resistance didnt materialise, then a plan should have allowed to take advantage.

However, this was meant to be essentially over within a week. Since Russia failed to neutralise the ukrainian army or get control of the skys, it immediately became a long drawn out war of attrition, and frankly Russia isnt looking best placed to fight that. It never was. They either totally deceived themselves over their military capacity or they aways knew they could not sustain a drawn out war. Doesnt matter which is true, they are now stuck trying to find an exit strategy better than the US one of occupying a country for ten years, then running like hell.

[Danny]

Mar 26, 2022 8:07:23 GMT alec said:

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.

The tank was first developed by the british admiralty, spurred on by Churchill i think. Not so strange because it was an extension of the concept of the armoured battleship, to land. The admiralty had the technology.

Just as the concept of the battleship is now considered outdated because it is such a massive target, espcially to relatively modest weapons - first from small ships carrying torpedos and now from anything carrying guided missiles, the same sort of logic would seem to apply to the land tank.

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.

Or perhaps on the idea that projecting power abroad from troop landings by sea or air in a foreign country doesnt work too well with big heavy tanks?

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.

There doesnt seem to be much left of Mariupol. That is of no concern to Russia, which probably isnt interested in anyone living there and might choose to eradicate the city. Easier to hold the territory without restless residents. On the other hand, Ukraine already has to accept it is something of a writeoff but to them the issue is going to be as a rubble fortification to continue fighting Russia. I dont se they woudl now gain anythign by withdrawing. So game on.[/quote]

[birdseye]

Mar 29, 2022 16:45:59 GMT Danny said:

Mar 28, 2022 7:43:33 GMT birdseye said:

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.

I argued the only stable outcome here was always to annexe a bit more of the most friendly areas. if I was  planning the invasion, presumably I would have defined targets in order of difficulty and imortance, so for example capturing Kyev was probably always some way down the list, especially if there was serious resistance. if that resistance didnt materialise, then a plan should have allowed to take advantage.

However, this was meant to be essentially over within a week. Since Russia failed to neutralise the ukrainian army or get control of the skys, it immediately became a long drawn out war of attrition, and frankly Russia isnt looking best placed to fight that. It never was. They either totally deceived themselves over their military capacity or they aways knew they could not sustain a drawn out war. Doesnt matter which is true, they are now stuck trying to find an exit strategy better than the US one of occupying a country for ten years, then running like hell.

Self determination applies just as much to the russian loving areas of the east as to the independant areas of most of the Ukraine. But I reckon that Putin always believed his own rhetoric that they would be welcomed as liberators and as a result they have pulled their punches. Control of the skies for example - does anyone really beieve that the Russians couldnt achive that? Or that with a standing army way bigger than the 200k force used so far, they couldnt reach and enter Kiev?

What the Russians have illustrated apart from self deception is the same lesson they learned in Afghanistan and the Yanks learned in Vietnam Iraq and elsewhere - you might be able to gain territory with tanks and guns and planes, but you cant win a war and occupy a country which has a population that is willing to fight.

[Deleted]

Another useful chat between Vlad & Macron:-

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60926470

Surrender or we destroy their homes-tell 'em that Emmanuel.

[Deleted]

RUSI spokesperson interviewed on SKY.

No Russian withdrawals apparent. Just a cover for replacing and revolving personnel. Shelling and missile bombardments continue. Could be like this for "months".

What will be left of Ukrainian cities if they are not given long range weapons ?

[Deleted]

"4,019,000 people have now fled Ukraine since the start of the war on 24 February, according to the latest figures from the UN refugee agency.

More than six million people are displaced within Ukraine, meaning that in total at least a quarter of the population have abandoned their homes because of the war.

It's the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since World War Two."

BBC

[alec]

colin - "Another useful chat between Vlad & Macron:-.."

Always best to keep talking.

It's being widely reported tonight that an unnamed US official has briefed journalists that none of Putin's advisers are telling him the truth about how badly the war is going because they are afraid to be honest.

If true, perhaps the only way Putin actually gets to hear that he has lost probably a quarter of his operable mechanized units might be from talking to foriegn leaders? If I were on the end of the phone to him, I'd certainly ask if he understands how badly things are going and give him a few numbers.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2022 17:55:45 GMT alec said:

colin - "Another useful chat between Vlad & Macron:-.."

Always best to keep talking.

It's being widely reported tonight that an unnamed US official has briefed journalists that none of Putin's advisers are telling him the truth about how badly the war is going because they are afraid to be honest.

If true, perhaps the only way Putin actually gets to hear that he has lost probably a quarter of his operable mechanized units might be from talking to foriegn leaders? If I were on the end of the phone to him, I'd certainly ask if he understands how badly things are going and give him a few numbers.

Not to a war criminal imo. He knows exactly what he is doing to ukrainians_ he told Macron. they will be shelled until their military surrender. He told Abramovitch he would "Thrash them"

[Danny]

Mar 30, 2022 13:58:24 GMT birdseye said:

Self determination applies just as much to the russian loving areas of the east as to the independant areas of most of the Ukraine. But I reckon that Putin always believed his own rhetoric that they would be welcomed as liberators and as a result they have pulled their punches. Control of the skies for example - does anyone really beieve that the Russians couldnt achive that? Or that with a standing army way bigger than the 200k force used so far, they couldnt reach and enter Kiev?

What the Russians have illustrated apart from self deception is the same lesson they learned in Afghanistan and the Yanks learned in Vietnam Iraq and elsewhere - you might be able to gain territory with tanks and guns and planes, but you cant win a war and occupy a country which has a population that is willing to fight.

They have not pulled their punches. This started as a planned collection of strategic attacks on key defence installations. The idea was to knock out the Ukrainian forces before the war even began, and then rapidly enter main objectives.

The initial attacks are considered to have failed. Why? Probably mostly because Ukrainian forces were stronger than supposed, but also probably they had been comprehensively warned by western intelligence sources that attacks had begun.

First strikes were probably the best troops Russia could find. We dont know how badly they failed in expected capability, but even here they may have done. What is very clear is that the bulk of the army has behaved badly below expectations. There shouldnt be any reason for any Russian troops to be in revolt or engaging in self sabotage at this point in a war. Its clear the troops were lied to, and must know it. Many will be thinking mostly about how to get out of there (alive). I agree opposition from local civilians probably came as a terrible shock to Russian troops, and we have seen a couple of instances of them withdrawing faced by local crowds. There was an early film of Russians walking through a crowd holding hand grenades...What possible reason was there for this except to have withdrawn the pin already, so that if someone shot you and you dropped the grenade, it would kill people in the crowd. Yourself too, of course.

Once initial attacks failed, and there was no popular support, then the only options were withdraw or escalate. How do you think skies could be controlled in the face of effective ground to air missiles? The answer is they cannot. Matters have changed very much since ww2 when thousands of enemy planes flew with impunity across europe, confident there was little chance ground based defences could catch them. Russia even seems to have failed to down the Ukrainian airforce, but both sides are probably regarding planes mostly as a reserve which might become useful if conditions change. Its similar to WW1, where Germany and Britain played cat and mouse with thei navies, both afraid of fighting a decisive battle in case it was the other side which came out on top. Both preferred to keep their ships in reserve as a threat blocking the other, rather than having that decisive battle. If Russia had fully deployed its air forces within Ukraine, most would have been shot down by now.

as to men, the consenus seems to be the Russian army is wholly inadequate to occupy Ukraine, and under sized to conquer Ukraine. It never did have enough men, even on paper. In practice many of the paper men are proving pretty useless. Russia is now calling up reserves. It remains to be seen how effective these might be. By now the original plan probably called for all troops used in the initial attack to have been exchanged with reserves and to be recuperating back home. Instead they are still dying.

Questions have been raised as to the battle readiness of equipment too. Its one thing for a vehicle to be able to drive up and down a few miles occasionally, another for it to reliably drive thousands of miles across a country, especially if it is doing anything other than driving on roads. And then we heard Ukraine has been targeting fuel supplies and tyres, so trying to halt those vehicles for lack of support.

[Deleted]

WSJ headline states :-"Ukraine Proposal for NATO-Style Security Guarantee Greeted With Skepticism
In bid to end war with Russia, negotiators for Kyiv offering neutrality for a defense pledge from western countries" is somewhat confirmed by noises off in UK & USA.

So- NATO would have been at war with Russia if Ukraine had been a member.Which was the intention :-

"At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference.[11] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do."[12]" -WIKI

Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb24 2022 to stop this process.

Ukraine's President now says he will swap NATO membership to stop the war if ( amongst other conditions ) he gets Security guarantees triggering an armed response by guarantors, to a future invasion. ie guarantees better than the ones which failed Ukraine in the Budapest Agreement.

The West goes---errrr

UKraine wants EU membership -Russia appears to concede this. A membership they will never get unless there is peace in Ukraine.

So Zelensky is left swinging in the wind , needing more and more heavy weapons to counter Russian bombardment ( a military situation brought about by Ukraine's success at nimble destruction of Russian mobile armour). Heavy weaponry which the West prevaricates about. Heavy weaponry, without which a long and bloody conflict persists because peace is impossible , because the West will not commit to go to war with Russia............unless Ukraine is a member of NATO.



The conclusion is inescapable-Western strategy is that sanctions will stop Putin's ability to prosecute the war, whilst we give Ukrainian men enough arms to survive under the rubble of their cities -and put their wives and children in Airbnbs across Europe.


What a mess

[birdseye]

Mar 31, 2022 7:38:39 GMT Danny said:

They have not pulled their punches. This started as a planned collection of strategic attacks on key defence installations. The idea was to knock out the Ukrainian forces before the war even began, and then rapidly enter main objectives.

I disagree. We are talking here of a superpower at least in military terms. They have a policy of first use of nukes but have not used tactical nukes. They have 3800 aircraft - the ukranians have 225. The Russians have deployed just 10% of their tanks in the invasion.The Russians have 2.5 times as many personnel in their forces but have so far used just one fifth of them, without using reserves of 2 million.

Yes it does not seem to have gone well for them but my argument is that they pulled their punches because they did not remotely expect the sort of resistance they have met. They believed their own rhetoric that the Ukraine had been captured by ultra right wing fascists nationalists and the population were ready for liberation back into mother Russia. They have now realised that occupying the whole of the Ukraine would be a long term guerilla war and so are continuing military efforts outside the russian nationalist areas simply in order to drive a solution on thier terms.

[Deleted]

Visegrad grouping breaking up over Hungary/Ukraine:-


www.politico.eu/article/visegrad-group-ukraine-russia-war-orban-putin-war-zelenskyy/

[Danny]

Mar 31, 2022 9:16:04 GMT birdseye said:

I disagree. We are talking here of a superpower at least in military terms. They have a policy of first use of nukes but have not used tactical nukes.

Yeah right, and just how do we know that? because they said they would use them if we so much as sneeze? Like they would say publicly they arent going to use them?

They have 3800 aircraft - the ukranians have 225.

If they really had air superiority this war would be over. So something has prevented them using those 3800 aircraft. Maybe they only have ten pilots? 50 planes with actually two wings? Ukraine bristling with anti aircraft missiles?

The Russians have deployed just 10% of their tanks in the invasion.

Someone posted a piece about tanks. Which argued even the official battle ready vehicles probably have a lot which really arent, because thats exactly what the US has too. While reserves may be in even worse shape. Is this really an army with massive funding, or one which has had to make do for 40 years?

The Russians have 2.5 times as many personnel in their forces but have so far used just one fifth of them, without using reserves of 2 million.

Granted we only are seeing western analyses, but reports of surrenders and desertions are also supporting that many, maybe most of those soldiers would rather blow up their own vehicles than Ukrainian ones.

Yes it does not seem to have gone well for them but my argument is that they pulled their punches because they did not remotely expect the sort of resistance they have met.

]No. I think Putin postured like the grand old Duke of York marching his men up and down on the border to test western resolve. He only went ahead because the west faffed and did nothing meaningful, at least publicly. Only after he was confident this would be an easy win only needing minimal troops did he act. He would have climbed down had we taken any serious overt action against him, like starting sanctions. Right now Russia is desperately rushing to try to find more troops to avoid a humiliating defeat.

Wars always show up embarassing defects amongst troops and I dont see based on background that Russia wasnt a prime candidate to be hit really ahrd by this effect. Putin needed a victory to show how poerful his army is - in the sort of terms you described it. What he is demonstrating is much more like all the tanks have parts missing and the planes cant fly.

They believed their own rhetoric that the Ukraine had been captured by ultra right wing fascists nationalists and the population were ready for liberation back into mother Russia. They have now realised that occupying the whole of the Ukraine would be a long term guerilla war and so are continuing military efforts outside the russian nationalist areas simply in order to drive a solution on thier terms.

I doubt that too. They seem to have believed Ukraine would fall easily, and thats the one key mistake. Whether they really believed the locals would be friendly, I dont know, but had the Ukrainian army been defeated that would not have mattered. Simply expel anyone not friendly to Russia, and only retain any who are. The story of being welcomed is perfect window dressing to justify staying post conquest.

I think what has really happened here is Ukraine has managed to prepare really well against likely Russian moves, the west has provided comprehenssive intelligence of every step Russia has taken, probably exactly what units have been going where and how fast, commanders and likely morale, the west has quietly resupplied way ahead of Russian expectations. Most of all the west pretended not to be interested so Putin would take the bait. This war will benefit the west and NATO and disbenefit Russia. It is a win for the west already, whatever happens.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Britain will send longer-range artillery and weapons to help Ukraine launch counter-attacks against retreating Russians.

Ben Wallace said Britain would also send air and coastal defence systems and armoured vehicles, as well as training and logistical support.

“We are increasing our coordination to step up that military support and ensure the armed forces of Ukraine grow stronger as they continue to repel Russian forces,” the Defence Secretary said on Thursday.

It came as a top MoD official said Britain needed a national effort to boost its nuclear weapons programme in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

David Williams, the Permanent Secretary of the MoD, said Britain’s nuclear deterrent was “broader than defence”.”

Telegraph

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“France’s military intelligence chief is to step down after just seven months in the post reportedly for failing to accurately predict Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in contrast to Britain and America.

He was also in the firing line for France's inability to detect US-British plans to torpedo its multi-billion-euro submarine deal with Australia and create their own alternative AUKUS strategic pact - a move the French slammed as a “stab in the back”.”

…

His departure was first reported by l'Opinion website citing an internal defence ministry investigation that criticised "insufficient briefings" and "failure to master the issues."

Telegraph

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Just days before the mass invasion, the Elysée expressed its perplexity at such “Anglo-saxon” warnings, adding that that Germany was also worried about the “alarmist” tone coming from Washington and London.”

…

“Insisting there was still room for diplomacy, Mr Macron met Mr Putin in person in the Kremlin and trying to set up a summit with US President Joe Biden.

That sparked warnings in some quarters that Mr Macron risked driving a wedge into an otherwise united Western front regarding the Russian leader’s bellicose intentions. The issue is deeply sensitive as Mr Macron has largely avoided campaigning for the presidential election in April to focus on dealing with the war to bolster his credentials as a global statesman.”

[birdseye]

Mar 31, 2022 15:48:54 GMT Danny said:

Mar 31, 2022 9:16:04 GMT birdseye said:

I disagree. We are talking here of a superpower at least in military terms. They have a policy of first use of nukes but have not used tactical nukes.

Yeah right, and just how do we know that? because they said they would use them if we so much as sneeze? Like they would say publicly they arent going to use them?

They have 3800 aircraft - the ukranians have 225.

If they really had air superiority this war would be over. So something has prevented them using those 3800 aircraft. Maybe they only have ten pilots? 50 planes with actually two wings? Ukraine bristling with anti aircraft missiles?

The Russians have deployed just 10% of their tanks in the invasion.

Someone posted a piece about tanks. Which argued even the official battle ready vehicles probably have a lot which really arent, because thats exactly what the US has too. While reserves may be in even worse shape. Is this really an army with massive funding, or one which has had to make do for 40 years?

The Russians have 2.5 times as many personnel in their forces but have so far used just one fifth of them, without using reserves of 2 million.

Granted we only are seeing western analyses, but reports of surrenders and desertions are also supporting that many, maybe most of those soldiers would rather blow up their own vehicles than Ukrainian ones.

Yes it does not seem to have gone well for them but my argument is that they pulled their punches because they did not remotely expect the sort of resistance they have met.

]No. I think Putin postured like the grand old Duke of York marching his men up and down on the border to test western resolve. He only went ahead because the west faffed and did nothing meaningful, at least publicly. Only after he was confident this would be an easy win only needing minimal troops did he act. He would have climbed down had we taken any serious overt action against him, like starting sanctions. Right now Russia is desperately rushing to try to find more troops to avoid a humiliating defeat.

Wars always show up embarassing defects amongst troops and I dont see based on background that Russia wasnt a prime candidate to be hit really ahrd by this effect. Putin needed a victory to show how poerful his army is - in the sort of terms you described it. What he is demonstrating is much more like all the tanks have parts missing and the planes cant fly.

They believed their own rhetoric that the Ukraine had been captured by ultra right wing fascists nationalists and the population were ready for liberation back into mother Russia. They have now realised that occupying the whole of the Ukraine would be a long term guerilla war and so are continuing military efforts outside the russian nationalist areas simply in order to drive a solution on thier terms.

I doubt that too. They seem to have believed Ukraine would fall easily, and thats the one key mistake. Whether they really believed the locals would be friendly, I dont know, but had the Ukrainian army been defeated that would not have mattered. Simply expel anyone not friendly to Russia, and only retain any who are. The story of being welcomed is perfect window dressing to justify staying post conquest.

I think what has really happened here is Ukraine has managed to prepare really well against likely Russian moves, the west has provided comprehenssive intelligence of every step Russia has taken, probably exactly what units have been going where and how fast, commanders and likely morale, the west has quietly resupplied way ahead of Russian expectations. Most of all the west pretended not to be interested so Putin would take the bait. This war will benefit the west and NATO and disbenefit Russia. It is a win for the west already, whatever happens.

Nukes? There was an agreement (SALT) between all the nuclear powers that no country would make first use of them,. In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge against first use of nuclear weapons made in 1982 by Leonid Brezhnev.

Yes something prevented them using their superior air power - a decision not to. To suggest that they only have 10 pilots and 50 planes with wings is silly.

How many tanks are ready? Neither of us know but the latest data is that Russia is spending 11% of gdp on armaments

Yes we are only seeing data from one side and that has to be positive data to keep morale up. I am not sure how good that data is. Certainly the Russian claims are very suspect.

I agree with this para. No doubt we would find exactly the same with what there is of british forces.

I have no doubt about the Russians expecting an easy win over a reluctant population - contrast the 3 million men that failed to even get stalingrad for the Nazis with Putins 200k. You cant conquer and occupy a hostile country of the size of Ukraine and with a population of 44 million using just 200k soldiers. The Ukrainians have more than that. It just doesnt make sense.

[birdseye]

Mar 31, 2022 20:16:24 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“Just days before the mass invasion, the Elysée expressed its perplexity at such “Anglo-saxon” warnings, adding that that Germany was also worried about the “alarmist” tone coming from Washington and London.”

…

“Insisting there was still room for diplomacy, Mr Macron met Mr Putin in person in the Kremlin and trying to set up a summit with US President Joe Biden.

That sparked warnings in some quarters that Mr Macron risked driving a wedge into an otherwise united Western front regarding the Russian leader’s bellicose intentions. The issue is deeply sensitive as Mr Macron has largely avoided campaigning for the presidential election in April to focus on dealing with the war to bolster his credentials as a global statesman.”

Do you remember de Gaulle and the "la France - c'est moi". French Presidents are used to strutting self importantly round the globe. They are even less good at recognising how little they matter than we are.

Little man syndrome?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Well I was born in the Sixties, so de Gaulle’s political stance did not make the greatest impression on me. I recall being quite impressed by the Citroen DS though.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Hi birdseye

Little man syndrome?

Wasn't de Gaulle really tall - 6ft 5ish? As I've mentioned before, historically France has had much involvement / links with Eastern Europe than the UK. During the Cold War the French in their analysis tended to place more emphasis on the nationalist aspects of Soviet foreign policy rather than the ideology (the latter given more emphasis by US/UK analysts).    

[leftieliberal]

Mar 31, 2022 20:25:44 GMT birdseye said:

Mar 31, 2022 20:16:24 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Do you remember de Gaulle and the "la France - c'est moi". French Presidents are used to strutting self importantly round the globe. They are even less good at recognising how little they matter than we are.

Little man syndrome?

Napoleon I was quite short at 1.68 m. Macron is 1.73m, so almost exactly the average height for a man in the West (1.75 m, or 5' 9" in old money).

[Danny]

Mar 31, 2022 20:23:39 GMT birdseye said:

How many tanks are ready? Neither of us know but the latest data is that Russia is spending 11% of gdp on armaments

I tried to compare UK and Russian defence spending, but such comparison is terribly problematic assuming spening within Russia in roubles may not well exchange into other currencies. But one figure suggested total Russian spending wasnt so very much more than UK spending.

Considering how tiny are our forces compared to theirs, something has to give in that budget. I recall one of the reasons claimed for abandoning conscription in the Uk was simply that more resources were being wasted on training disinterested conscripts who wouldnt fight well, than simply abandoning conscription and only  having regular career troops.

Russia may have big numbers, but its very likely this is at the expense of quality, and at the core it might have fewer really good troops than the UK. Putin seems to have believed he did have an elite core, but apparently not.  In this invasion, the cannon fodder war favours Ukraine which is defending using civilian volunteers and forcing Russia to kill civilians. (but alongside what seems to have proved a well motivated and equipped regular force)

[Danny]

Mar 31, 2022 20:25:44 GMT birdseye said:

Do you remember de Gaulle and the "la France - c'est moi". French Presidents are used to strutting self importantly round the globe. They are even less good at recognising how little they matter than we are.

I am told Louis 14 said 'L'etat, cest moi', not de Gaulle. Whereas de Gaulle said approx, 'how can anyone govern a nation which has 246 types of cheese'.

[birdseye]

Could well be Danny but as someone who was around when De Gaulle was I can vouch that he said what I wrote. But then he saw himself as a latter day Louis 14.

I tried to compare UK and Russian defence spending, but such comparison is terribly problematic assuming spening within Russia in roubles may not well exchange into other currencies. But one figure suggested total Russian spending wasnt so very much more than UK spending.

Considering how tiny are our forces compared to theirs, something has to give in that budget. I recall one of the reasons claimed for abandoning conscription in the Uk was simply that more resources were being wasted on training disinterested conscripts who wouldnt fight well, than simply abandoning conscription and only having regular career troops.

Russia may have big numbers, but its very likely this is at the expense of quality, and at the core it might have fewer really good troops than the UK. Putin seems to have believed he did have an elite core, but apparently not. In this invasion, the cannon fodder war favours Ukraine which is defending using civilian volunteers and forcing Russia to kill civilians. (but alongside what seems to have proved a well motivated and equipped regular force)

That begs the question of whether the British remotely get value for the money that the MoD spends. I dont believe for a moment that we do and indeed the MoD has an apalling record of mis management. For example how many of our 82000 soldiers are the fat unfit women that I see coming from our local barracks? How is it that we have 1 admiral for every 2 ships, anf for that matter how many are seaworthy at any one time?

[birdseye]

Mar 31, 2022 20:42:44 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Well I was born in the Sixties, so de Gaulle’s political stance did not make the greatest impression on me. I recall being quite impressed by the Citroen DS though.

Wonderful cars. Pity what they have done to Citroen or even for that matter to the design approach that spawned such wonders as the 2CV and the R4.They have become a sort of low quality version of the Jap cars.

[Deleted]

Very pleased to see the outcome of the second second International Defence Donor Conference for Ukraine chaired by UK under Ben Wallace.:-

www.anews.com.tr/world/2022/03/31/international-donor-conference-to-provide-more-weapons-for-ukraine

thehill.com/news/3255576-ukraine-to-receive-more-military-aid-from-britain-allies/

It seems to me that this UK initiative sits alongside this reportage in the Times :-

" A senior government source said there were concerns that allies were “over-eager” to secure an early peace deal, adding that a settlement should be reached only when Ukraine is in the strongest possible position.
In a phone call at the weekend, Boris Johnson warned President Zelensky that President Putin was a “liar and a bully” who would use talks to “wear you down and force you to make concessions”. Zelensky is also understood to have raised concerns about the progress of the talks and whether Moscow was exploiting them to reposition and strengthen its forces.
“Some of our allies may be too eager for him [Zelensky] to settle,” a government source said, referring to France, Germany and the US. “We think Ukraine needs to be in the strongest possible position militarily before those talks can take place.”
The source said that this could lead to significant concessions on territory, sanctions and the pursuit of Putin as a potential war criminal."

Wallace seems to have had a consistent approach to what Ukraine will need. I wonder if his public tears after the fiasco in Kabul leave him resolved not to see a repeat in Ukraine?

The prospects of an agreed peace which requires inter alia :-

* Article 5 style guarantees for Ukraine about which prospective guarantors are currently unenthusiastic.
* A Russian withdrawal from Donbas which it won't agree to.
* A Ukraine Peace Agreement referendum ( proposed by Zelensky) which can be credibly held in current circumstances, and which the President could win.(1)

seems remote to me.

(1) In a Sky interview of Vitaly Klitschko ( mayor of Kiev) by Beth Rigby , VK was very tight lipped about the prospect of territorial concessions-or a referendum in current circumstances.

So at present i can see no end to this war aside from capitulation by Ukraine-or defeat of Russian Ground Forces.

The first aint going to happen, and the second aint going to stop Russian missile and artillery bombardments .

So I think Wallace and his 35 donor countries are on the right lines militarily. It remains to be seen whether national leaders in the West have the resolve to help Zelensky see this through an extended period.

Will the desire to ease sanctions for domestic reasons over ride their original purpose?

Will talk of the Bidenesque "Butcher" Putin -headed for The Hague , gradually be changed into accomodations which relieve Western costs as the burden of Ukraine's struggle become to big?

Meanwhile, lest armchair cheering at Russian losses, and excited talk of the collapse of the Russian Federation , makes us too comfortable-these are the people paying the price :-

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60949791

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60938429

and as Russian attempts to cut off east Ukraine gain pace-the horror of their scorched earth methods visits another community :-

news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-ferocious-fighting-for-izyum-the-city-thats-like-hell-for-russian-soldiers-12578504

"A ferocious battle is under way between Russian and Ukrainian forces in Izyum, the gateway to the Donbas region.
Over the course of three and a half weeks the eastern city of 50,000 people has been cut off from the world and become an urban battlefield akin to the besieged port of Mariupol in the south or the encircled city of Chernihiv in the north. The deputy mayor has described Izyum as “hell”.
Officials say the humanitarian situation is dire, with no heating, water or electricity and civilians being buried in parks. Valerii Marchenko, the mayor of Izyum, estimates that 20,000 people remain in the city.
Izyum is sandwiched on the edge of Ukrainian-controlled territory between one Russian grouping pushing southeast from Kharkiv and another pushing northwest from Luhansk. The two groupings are attempting to link up, but Ukrainian forces have dug in at Izyum, destroying bridges over the Donets river."

Times yesterday

[leftieliberal]

Here is a Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex on Russian troops in Ukraine: theconversation.com/ukraine-are-reports-of-russian-troops-mutinying-and-deserting-true-its-happened-before-180435

The way they are treated, it is not surprising that the conscripts are mutinying.

[Deleted]

"Britain’s most advanced portable missile system is thought to have shot down a Russian helicopter in its first use on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Starstreak, a high-velocity projectile that destroys targets with three kinetic darts, was filmed cutting the aircraft in two over the Luhansk region in the east of the country.
Footage of the attack shows the tungsten spears breaking the tail off the Mi-28N, after Ukrainians using British techniques opened fire.
A Ministry of Defence source believed that the video showed Starstreak in action over Ukraine. The source added that the anti-aircraft system had been deployed in the country for almost a week. Senior defence industry sources who examined the film also believe it to be the weapon.
Starstreak was sent to Ukraine as part of a weapons package from Britain that includes thousands of Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) missiles. It can be fired from a stand or shoulder launcher and take out jets and helicopters up to 7km away."

Times

[Deleted]

An interesting record of support for Ukraine:-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The Hungary listing is interesting given its relevance in the current Hungarian election.

[laszlo4new]

Apr 2, 2022 8:33:54 GMT colin said:

An interesting record of support for Ukraine:-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The Hungary listing is interesting given its relevance in the current Hungarian election.

Well, it is not communicated in Hungary anymore. What the government media (probably 80% of all) communicates: the opposition wants war, Fidesz wants peace. We don't allow weaponry through (not quite true - they do as long as it enters Ukraine from another country). Orbán yesterday said that he understands that Ukraine wants to pull in other countries to the war (he hasn't mentioned Putin's name since the beginning of the aggression), but they oppressed Hungarians, and "we are for peace". The Russian gas and oil shouldn't be stopped. Anyway, he said we help the refugees (he gives about 60% higher figure than the UN, and doesn't mention that many has moved on), and while the war is visible, there is a bigger threat coming from Western Europe: the gender issue and it is a bigger threat to our children (there will be a referendum on gender issues at the same time as the elections, and the opposition campaigned for invalid votes - there is a threshold in Hungary on the minimum votes in referendums).