Ukraine crisis

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jan 19, 2024 13:32:01 GMT alec said:

colin & lululemonmustdobetter - we do seem to be at a critical point in the war, both on the battlefield and in western governments. There isn't much sign of Europe easing up, with Germany putting in around 5 times more per capita than the UK now, and many of the eastern states digging in. It all comes down to the reluctance by some in the Biden administration to stop delaying the necessary equipment.

On the battlefield, I've read recent (this week) reports that Ukraine is still destroying Russian equipment at a hell of a rate, equivalent to the ratio that Israel achieved in the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Last week Ukraine also shot down an A-50 AWACS plane over the Sea of Azov, which is actually quite astonishing, and in the last couple of days it has emerged that Ukrainian grain exports are now close to pre war levels, such has been their ability to negate the seaborne threat of the Russian navy. And I don't think the F16s have been deployed yet.

It's just so frustrating that Biden is pissing around and doesn't seem to recognise that a fast resolution of the war is in the wests best interests, and for that he needs to park his reluctance to offer the weapons systems needed.

Hi alec, your overall and consistently optimistic take on the war always makes me smile (in a nice way).

Unfortunately, the Russians have literally tonnes of Soviet era stuff in storage, which they are using to replenish losses. The Russians are using APC/tanks to deploy troops to the front, and the Ukrainians are doing a good job of knocking them out after they have dropped the troops off. But when the Ukrainians use the same tactics the Russian reciprocate. There is an on going arms race in regards to electronic/drone warfare, and Russia still has an edge in terms of artillery. 

Given the numbers of western aircraft that have been given to Ukraine, it is nowhere near the levels necessary to gain air-superiority and secure victory on the battlefield. Western aid in general remains at a level that allows the Ukrainians to stay in the fight, but is not sufficient to give them victory. Personally, I think the Biden administration placed far too much faith in economic leavers, and made the fatal error of not putting boots on the ground as a deterrent prior to the invasion. His foreign policy risks being a total failure on all fronts, and if Trump does get in, I really fear for the future of the western alliance.  

Morale, weather, terrain and manpower are just as, if not more, important as equipment (the pro-West forces in Afghanistan had no shortage of western equipment, neither did South Vietnam). The Ukrainians did make limited gains in the  summer, where the terrain was harder for the Russians to defend. But they have suffered heavy casualties, and currently have significant manpower issues. Its very much a numbers game, and in terms of losses, the Russians can afford to lose 2-3 times the number casualties as the Ukrainians. I very much doubt that this war will be settled on the battlefield, the respective home fronts and decisions made in the capitals of Kyiv's allies will be the deciding factor.

[johntel]

Unfortunately I don't believe Putin has any interest in a negotiated settlement - he'll be perfectly happy if the war goes on for the rest of his life. Remember that his only goal is to rebuild the 'Russkiy Mir', and reclaiming Kiev, the spiritual home of Russians, is the most important part of that.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2024 21:26:31 GMT johntel said:

Unfortunately I don't believe Putin has any interest in a negotiated settlement - he'll be perfectly happy if the war goes on for the rest of his life. Remember that his only goal is to rebuild the 'Russkiy Mir', and reclaiming Kiev, the spiritual home of Russians, is the most important part of that.

I agree. And he has proxies and actors in his strategic game:-

"The populist leader of Slovakia has vowed to veto Ukraine’s Nato accession, claiming it is controlled by the United States.
Under its previous government, the central European state, which shares a 60-mile border with Ukraine, had stood firmly by Kyiv’s side. Slovakia became an important conduit and repair hub for western armaments funnelled to the Ukrainians, as well as donating about 0.6 per cent of its GDP in bilateral aid.
However, since the more Russia-friendly Robert Fico returned three months ago for another spell as prime minister there has been a pronounced shift in policy and rhetoric.
On the campaign trail Fico rode a wave of popular resentment against the costs of the war and the instability it had provoked. In office he has upheld his pledge not to provide Ukraine with “a single round” of additional military aid from Slovakian stocks, although he has not blocked arms shipments through his country’s territory or European Union funding for Kyiv.
Over the weekend, hours before a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Denys Shmyhal, Fico made a series of vitriolic remarks, decrying Ukraine as “one of the most corrupt nations in the world”.
He also said he would block Ukraine from joining Nato, a prospect that has remained alive but distant since the alliance’s Vilnius summit last summer. “It would merely be a basis for World War Three, nothing else,” he told RTVS, the Slovakian public broadcaster.
He described Ukraine as “not an independent or sovereign country”, arguing that it was “under the total influence and control of the United States”. He said it had to recognise that there was no point in trying to win the war and that it should instead give up territory to Russia.
“There has to be some kind of compromise, which will be very painful for both sides,” he said. “And what are they waiting for? For the Russians to leave? That’s not realistic.”

The Times today

Slovakia is  a member of the European Union, the Eurozone,  the United Nations &  NATO.


I can see what is left of unoccupied Ukraine becoming Europe's Taiwan.

[alec]

But then again....major blasts at an air defence systems factory in Tula, S of Moscow and c 400km from the Ukrainian front line, and the Ust Luga oil and gas terminal in St Petersburg is currently ablaze, and that's about 1000km north of Ukraine.

Lots of strategic targets are blowing up all over Russia, they can't defend Crimea, they've lost control of the Black Sea. While the war on the ground is stagnating, Ukraine is waging a far more effective strategic air war against Russia than Russia is managing against them.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2024 11:55:43 GMT alec said:

But then again....major blasts at an air defence systems factory in Tula, S of Moscow and c 400km from the Ukrainian front line, and the Ust Luga oil and gas terminal in St Petersburg is currently ablaze, and that's about 1000km north of Ukraine.

Lots of strategic targets are blowing up all over Russia, they can't defend Crimea, they've lost control of the Black Sea. While the war on the ground is stagnating, Ukraine is waging a far more effective strategic air war against Russia than Russia is managing against them.

While it lasts though Alec.

IISS have just produced this report :-


www.iiss.org/research-paper/2024/01/russian-military-thought-and-doctrine-related-to-nonstrategic-nuclear-weapons/

They say "“Knowing that the West is casualty and risk averse, Russia may seek to use enough non-strategic nuclear weapons to inflict damage preventing its own defeat, knowing that the US would be unwilling to cross the nuclear threshold in retaliation, and may be willing to terminate the conflict early,”

imagine this :-

Trump is POTUS. Putin adopts the above doctrine in Ukraine. Trump tells Ukraine and Europe to defend themselves and USA leaves NATO.

EU & NATO plunge into a chaotic disagreement about what to do. Slovakia & Hungary make decision making even more difficult. Putin moves on Moldova and Latvia to "protect" Russian nationals there.

Trump declares Fortress USA and proposes a Treaty of non interference with and peace between USA/Russia/China .

[alec]

colin - I read a Norwegian analyst recently (really sorry but I can't relocate the article) who gave a pretty dire warning about how we have 3 years in his view to prevent war with Russia. His central thesis was that we're looking at the threat in a completely wrong manner. Russia will never launch a full conventional assault on NATO as that's a guaranteed loss, and while he didn't discuss nuclear options, hos basic assessment of Russian military doctrine chimes with your link. Basically, Putin sees the west as unwilling to enter a conflict with sufficient commitment, has a deep fear of escalation, and will be more prepared to agree terms to avoid this, to Russia's advantage. I can see the logic of this, although I think it potentially gets shaky in the scenario of an attack on a NATO member, although as you say, if Trumps wins, then NATO might not be such a force.

Having said that, it's difficult to conceive of Europe sitting back and letting Russia try to re-subsume the Baltic states into his orbit. It's done enough damage trying to do that with Ukraine, but clearly, if this is where he wants to go, he will use that fear of escalation against the west.

We're in a tricky spot at present, with that age old conundrum of how countries who want to behave decently deal with a leader who long ago shed all vestiges of humanity. Part of me thinks that we turn the fear of escalation right back onto Russia. Step one inch into NATO territory and we launch such a powerful conventional attack that no Russian would ever dream of doing anything like it again. But that sounds warlike, and there is clearly a far greater risk of escalation. It's just that sometimes, you need to face down the threat with force.

The tone of the article I referred to was that being maneuvered into such a conflict meant the west had already lost. Far better to do whatever is required to convince Putin not to try it, which is where the three years came in. His view was that we need to signal very clearly, through properly orientated military rearmament, exactly what our intentions are, with absolute clarity and no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. As ever with armed conflict, the easiest and best way to win is to credibly convey your decisions and power well before any bullets are fired.

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2024 12:35:40 GMT alec said:

colin - I read a Norwegian analyst recently (really sorry but I can't relocate the article) who gave a pretty dire warning about how we have 3 years in his view to prevent war with Russia. His central thesis was that we're looking at the threat in a completely wrong manner. Russia will never launch a full conventional assault on NATO as that's a guaranteed loss, and while he didn't discuss nuclear options, hos basic assessment of Russian military doctrine chimes with your link. Basically, Putin sees the west as unwilling to enter a conflict with sufficient commitment, has a deep fear of escalation, and will be more prepared to agree terms to avoid this, to Russia's advantage. I can see the logic of this, although I think it potentially gets shaky in the scenario of an attack on a NATO member, although as you say, if Trumps wins, then NATO might not be such a force.

Having said that, it's difficult to conceive of Europe sitting back and letting Russia try to re-subsume the Baltic states into his orbit. It's done enough damage trying to do that with Ukraine, but clearly, if this is where he wants to go, he will use that fear of escalation against the west.

We're in a tricky spot at present, with that age old conundrum of how countries who want to behave decently deal with a leader who long ago shed all vestiges of humanity. Part of me thinks that we turn the fear of escalation right back onto Russia. Step one inch into NATO territory and we launch such a powerful conventional attack that no Russian would ever dream of doing anything like it again. But that sounds warlike, and there is clearly a far greater risk of escalation. It's just that sometimes, you need to face down the threat with force.

The tone of the article I referred to was that being maneuvered into such a conflict meant the west had already lost. Far better to do whatever is required to convince Putin not to try it, which is where the three years came in. His view was that we need to signal very clearly, through properly orientated military rearmament, exactly what our intentions are, with absolute clarity and no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. As ever with armed conflict, the easiest and best way to win is to credibly convey your decisions and power well before any bullets are fired.

Thanks. I certainly think rearmament is absolutely vital. But at present I only see Poland doing something about it.

Honestly I think the only thing Putin understands is force. So if we stop supplying Ukraine and Russia starts to turn the tide there , I think he will sit and wait for the fallout in EU & NATO. And if Trump wins he will know we wont resist further incursions -whatever is said in public.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jan 23, 2024 12:35:40 GMT alec said:

We're in a tricky spot at present, with that age old conundrum of how countries who want to behave decently deal with a leader who long ago shed all vestiges of humanity. Part of me thinks that we turn the fear of escalation right back onto Russia. Step one inch into NATO territory and we launch such a powerful conventional attack that no Russian would ever dream of doing anything like it again. But that sounds warlike, and there is clearly a far greater risk of escalation. It's just that sometimes, you need to face down the threat with force.

Hi alec, I think we are in a very tricky spot, and the challenges and dilemmas facing us go a lot deeper. Currently I'm not sure 'western' decision makers have a clear sense of what they are actually trying to achieve, let alone how to go about it. Is it containment, re-enforcing the rules based international system and fostering the spread of democracy or purely defensive goals? Also the 'west' itself is going through a significant crisis in confidence and identity, with strong centrifugal forces operating in many countries leading to internal division. In the US people are genuinely considering the possibility of a civil war (which I personally think is highly unlikely) or some form of attempted coup (which I think is more likely).

Also what, who, where is the threat and its nature? While Russia is currently the main disruptor on the international stage, its power is often over-stated, militarily and economically its no match for the west. It seeks to exploit divisions and indecision amongst its opponents, but we have dealt with Russia a number of times historically. Its bogged down in a costly war in Ukraine, and as long as west hold its nerve in supporting Kyiv, unlikely to achieve all of its war goals. Also Russia does not offer up a viable or appealing alternative model, in reality its presenting as being driven by nationalist/imperialist objectives.

China on the other hand poses a much bigger and complex challenge geo-politically. Its growth model and political/societal structure, while not without its flaws, can be seen as a genuine alternative to the western one. Its been gaining influence across the globe to facilitate access to raw materials etc and the US is overly dependent on its cheap exports (as Germany's model was on cheap energy from Russia). Its not too far fetched to see the Ukrainian war as in part motivated by a Chinese desire to probe/test/drain western resolve and resources.

Does it make more sense to focus on driving growth, wealth and creating a vibrant society that will deliver both the soft and hard power necessary to secure hegemony? Ramping up spending and militarising our societies, choosing guns over butter in the short term, will distract from resolving the issues that are weakening the cohesion and health of our system/society. Longer term, in order to win/compete, our overall model needs to deliver for its citizens and have appeal. 

Economic globalisation, while providing growth and wealth for some, had contained in it the seeds of western decline. The loss of jobs and hollowing out of middle class is a primary cause of the internal political instability and polarisation we are currently experiencing. It played a key role in alienating large sections of the trad w/c in the UK and facilitating Brexit.  It also led to dependencies developing on other nations that ultimately seek different objectives and international system. So what is going to be our socio-economic model?

Parochially, from a UK perspective, what does it make sense for us to do? Focus on sorting ourselves out or dealing with these external threats? We don't necessarily have the manpower or economic wealth to support a large military. Should it be our job to help 'police' the world? Is it actually in our interest to do so.

Personally, I think you can make compelling arguments either way, and I'm not sure what the best course of action is. As an internationalist by inclination, naturally I lean towards engagement rather than isolationism. But the realist part of me does keep on asking what are we trying to do and is it actually achievable? 
 

[alec]

lululemonmustdobetter - I think the above post is one of the best posts I've read on here for a very long time.

Just don't expect me to come up with the answers....

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jan 25, 2024 13:00:41 GMT alec said:

lululemonmustdobetter - I think the above post is one of the best posts I've read on here for a very long time.

Just don't expect me to come up with the answers....

Thanks alec, that's very nice of you to say so.

[Deleted]

Sobering stuff Miss Lemon.

[domjg]

@lululemonmustdobetter

My admittedly uninformed twopenneth would be that we don't have a choice in the short term to ramp up military spending, commitment and rhetoric to deter Russia as it seems they maybe seriously considering very dangerous actions within a few short years.

If we don't credibly deter them now and Russia did successfully invade the Baltics for example then that's western authority, prestige and credibility shot possibly for ever and no amount of fixing our societies and economies to be more attractive as an international model will have much impact on the rest of the world as we'll all be facing constant challenge, threat and international instability that will detract from that far more long term goal.

The world would then be a highly dangerous wild west in which any stable economic growth in the west at least would be very unlikely.

In other words without projecting huge and determined military power (as in the Cold War) we can't hope have the time and space to quietly fix other flaws in our system.

[steamdrivenandy]

Jan 25, 2024 14:10:57 GMT domjg said:

@lululemonmustdobetter

My admittedly uninformed twopenneth would be that we don't have a choice in the short term to ramp up military spending, commitment and rhetoric to deter Russia as it seems they maybe seriously considering very dangerous actions within a few short years.

If we don't credibly deter them now and Russia did successfully invade the Baltics for example then that's western authority, prestige and credibility shot possibly for ever and no amount of fixing our societies and economies to be more attractive as an international model will have much impact on the rest of the world as we'll all be facing constant challenge, threat and international instability that will detract from that far more long term goal.

The world would then be a highly dangerous wild west in which any stable economic growth in the west at least would be very unlikely.

In other words without projecting huge and determined military power (as in the Cold War) we can't hope have the time and space to quietly fix other flaws in our system.

I agree, we can't hope that whatever happens elsewhere in the world won't affect us.

Yes, we could look totally inwards and concentrate on fixing our problems but how long before it becomes obvious that we're simply not going to be allowed to do our own thing. By the time that realisation occurs our neighbours and current allies could be in much worse state than now and the threats much closer and well developed. It would sort of mirror the 1930's.


 

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2024 14:10:57 GMT domjg said:

If we don't credibly deter them now and Russia did successfully invade the Baltics for example then that's western authority, prestige and credibility shot possibly for ever and no amount of fixing our societies and economies to be more attractive as an international model will have much impact on the rest of the world as we'll all be facing constant challenge, threat and international instability that will detract from that far more long term goal.

The world would then be a highly dangerous wild west in which any stable economic growth in the west at least would be very unlikely.

Exactly.

And if "the West" turns out to be Europe without an isolationist USA it would be a world most people alive have never experienced.

A particularly sensitive one for a loc PM;

www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2023/jul/10/russia-threat-europe-defence-military

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jan 25, 2024 14:28:10 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Jan 25, 2024 14:10:57 GMT domjg said:

@lululemonmustdobetter

My admittedly uninformed twopenneth would be that we don't have a choice in the short term to ramp up military spending, commitment and rhetoric to deter Russia as it seems they maybe seriously considering very dangerous actions within a few short years.

If we don't credibly deter them now and Russia did successfully invade the Baltics for example then that's western authority, prestige and credibility shot possibly for ever and no amount of fixing our societies and economies to be more attractive as an international model will have much impact on the rest of the world as we'll all be facing constant challenge, threat and international instability that will detract from that far more long term goal.

The world would then be a highly dangerous wild west in which any stable economic growth in the west at least would be very unlikely.

In other words without projecting huge and determined military power (as in the Cold War) we can't hope have the time and space to quietly fix other flaws in our system.

I agree, we can't hope that whatever happens elsewhere in the world won't affect us.

Yes, we could look totally inwards and concentrate on fixing our problems but how long before it becomes obvious that we're simply not going to be allowed to do our own thing. By the time that realisation occurs our neighbours and current allies could be in much worse state than now and the threats much closer and well developed. It would sort of mirror the 1930's.

I don't necessarily disagree, but its worth remembering that overall the US has the most formidable armed forces the world has ever seen and superiority in all platforms (the Russians may have numerical superiority in nuclear warheads but its a bit moot given the overall number both posses) , and it didn't deter Russia. What embolden them was the sense that Western societies are divided and that the west had no stomach/will to fight, as illustrated by the debacle in Afghanistan. Without a clear consistent, united strategy and greater degree of internal cohesion, actors such as Russia will continue to frustrate and outmanoeuvre us irrespective of how much money we spend. Personally, I think the key to dealing with Russia is not necessarily more spending, but being more decisive and willing to call their bluff. Russia is troublesome, but not actually as powerful as many think.

 

[domjg]

Jan 25, 2024 14:55:29 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Jan 25, 2024 14:28:10 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

I agree, we can't hope that whatever happens elsewhere in the world won't affect us.

Yes, we could look totally inwards and concentrate on fixing our problems but how long before it becomes obvious that we're simply not going to be allowed to do our own thing. By the time that realisation occurs our neighbours and current allies could be in much worse state than now and the threats much closer and well developed. It would sort of mirror the 1930's.

I don't necessarily disagree, but its worth remembering that overall the US has the most formidable armed forces the world has ever seen and superiority in all platforms (the Russians may have numerical superiority in nuclear warheads but its a bit moot given the overall number both posses) , and it didn't deter Russia. What embolden them was the sense that Western societies are divided and that the west had no stomach/will to fight, as illustrated by the debacle in Afghanistan. Without a clear consistent, united strategy and greater degree of internal cohesion, actors such as Russia will continue to frustrate and outmanoeuvre us irrespective of how much money we spend. Personally, I think the key to dealing with Russia is not necessarily more spending, but being more decisive and willing to call their bluff. Russia is troublesome, but not actually as powerful as many think.

 

True, but that will take a long time to fix, we need to show our teeth in the short term to avert a disastrous wider war which whatever the Russians may be deluded into thinking would be met with a determined response. Calling their bluff would be great, the west has been so timid. Not daring to station any assets in or above Ukrainian territory for example, effectively ceding it all operationally to the Russians, even the far west. 

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2024 22:31:59 GMT domjg said:

Jan 25, 2024 14:55:29 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

 

True, but that will take a long time to fix, we need to show our teeth in the short term to avert a disastrous wider war which whatever the Russians may be deluded into thinking would be met with a determined response. Calling their bluff would be great, the west has been so timid. Not daring to station any assets in or above Ukrainian territory for example, effectively ceding it all operationally to the Russians, even the far west. 

"Carlos Del Toro, one of America’s most senior defence officials, said that “sacrifices” had been made in the British Army and the UK needed to ask itself if it needed to be strengthened in light of recent events. He also urged the UK to invest more in the Royal Navy after it emerged that the government plans to decommission ships to free up sailors.
It is rare for a member of the US administration to comment so publicly about the state of Britain’s military.

His comments, made in a briefing after a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in London, are likely to infuriate No 10, which has tried to stop its own military chiefs from speaking out.
The Times has disclosed that US and European generals fear the UK is no longer a top-level fighting force after decades of cuts.
Del Toro, who served two decades in the military before becoming secretary of the US navy — a civilian post — said that the world was changing at a “lightning pace”.
He told journalists: “I think it is important for the United Kingdom to reassess where they are today given the threats that exist today.”
He said it should make those decisions on its own, including whether the army needs to be strengthened. “But I would argue, quite frankly, that given the near-term, economic threats to the United Kingdom and the United States that investments in their navy are significantly important.”
Del Toro pointed out that America had continued to make significant investments in its national security even with challenges domestically out of “necessity”."

Times

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jan 25, 2024 22:31:59 GMT domjg said:

Jan 25, 2024 14:55:29 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

 

True, but that will take a long time to fix, we need to show our teeth in the short term to avert a disastrous wider war which whatever the Russians may be deluded into thinking would be met with a determined response. Calling their bluff would be great, the west has been so timid. Not daring to station any assets in or above Ukrainian territory for example, effectively ceding it all operationally to the Russians, even the far west. 

This year's US elections is going to be one of the most significant in a long time, both from a domestic US perspective but more importantly the potential geo-political implications of who the winner is. An incoming Labour gvt could very well find itself having to deal with a US president who effectively pulls the rug out from beneath Kyiv's feet. Its difficult to be certain this would happen given Trump's erratic nature, but at the very least we should be looking at plans for dealing with such an event. 

Many people's current views of the US approach to foreign affairs is coloured by their engagement in the Cold War and the apparent neo-imperialist approach taken by Bush in '00s post 911. The long tradition of isolationism in US foreign policy is often overlooked. Prior to 911, in UK foreign policy circles there was real concern that the Bush administration would adopt a more isolationist approach. Also the experience of Vietnam in terms of deploying troops left a long shadow in terms of committing ground troops, and post the fall of Kabul, you can see similar sentiments emerging. It would be very unwise for us not to contemplate a scenario in which US support is not guaranteed.

Such a development would most likely push us into a closer alignment with our European allies, and probably ultimately facilitate us re-joining the EU. If Biden does win, much of our angst may on the other hand prove unfounded, especially if a Trump loss precipitates a shift in Republican strategy back towards a more centrist approach. Given the uncertainty perhaps we should follow the advice of Vegetius, Si vis pacem, para bellum! 

[domjg]

Jan 26, 2024 9:35:39 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Jan 25, 2024 22:31:59 GMT domjg said:

True, but that will take a long time to fix, we need to show our teeth in the short term to avert a disastrous wider war which whatever the Russians may be deluded into thinking would be met with a determined response. Calling their bluff would be great, the west has been so timid. Not daring to station any assets in or above Ukrainian territory for example, effectively ceding it all operationally to the Russians, even the far west. 

This year's US elections is going to be one of the most significant in a long time, both from a domestic US perspective but more importantly the potential geo-political implications of who the winner is. An incoming Labour gvt could very well find itself having to deal with a US president who effectively pulls the rug out from beneath Kyiv's feet. Its difficult to be certain this would happen given Trump's erratic nature, but at the very least we should be looking at plans for dealing with such an event. 

Many people's current views of the US approach to foreign affairs is coloured by their engagement in the Cold War and the apparent neo-imperialist approach taken by Bush in '00s post 911. The long tradition of isolationism in US foreign policy is often overlooked. Prior to 911, in UK foreign policy circles there was real concern that the Bush administration would adopt a more isolationist approach. Also the experience of Vietnam in terms of deploying troops left a long shadow in terms of committing ground troops, and post the fall of Kabul, you can see similar sentiments emerging. It would be very unwise for us not to contemplate a scenario in which US support is not guaranteed.

Such a development would most likely push us into a closer alignment with our European allies, and probably ultimately facilitate us re-joining the EU. If Biden does win, much of our angst may on the other hand prove unfounded, especially if a Trump loss precipitates a shift in Republican strategy back towards a more centrist approach. Given the uncertainty perhaps we should follow the advice of Vegetius, Si vis pacem, para bellum! 

"Si vis pacem, para bellum!" - Exactly. It's the lesson the Germans are finally learning. Was just reading this this morning in fact: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/britain-peace-belligerent-putin-russia

If the Germans are now warning of a major war within a few years you know something must be up. Merkel has a lot to answer for in hindsight.. 

In the long-term there's no reason why Europe can't re-configure itself as a rich, military power that can easily deter Russia in it's own right. We can see the beginnings of that in the EU wide scheme to optimise production of ammunition. Russia itself is only going to continue to decline economically and demographically making it less powerful as an opponent but potentially more unstable and therefore dangerous. In the immediate term though we still need America alas. I suspect and hope that the US military and Foreign Policy establishment is working overtime on plans to handle and guide Trump should be become President again but hopefully it's not a scenario we'll have to face. 

[domjg]

Jan 26, 2024 9:24:23 GMT colin said:

Jan 25, 2024 22:31:59 GMT domjg said:

True, but that will take a long time to fix, we need to show our teeth in the short term to avert a disastrous wider war which whatever the Russians may be deluded into thinking would be met with a determined response. Calling their bluff would be great, the west has been so timid. Not daring to station any assets in or above Ukrainian territory for example, effectively ceding it all operationally to the Russians, even the far west. 

"Carlos Del Toro, one of America’s most senior defence officials, said that “sacrifices” had been made in the British Army and the UK needed to ask itself if it needed to be strengthened in light of recent events. He also urged the UK to invest more in the Royal Navy after it emerged that the government plans to decommission ships to free up sailors.
It is rare for a member of the US administration to comment so publicly about the state of Britain’s military.

His comments, made in a briefing after a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in London, are likely to infuriate No 10, which has tried to stop its own military chiefs from speaking out.
The Times has disclosed that US and European generals fear the UK is no longer a top-level fighting force after decades of cuts.
Del Toro, who served two decades in the military before becoming secretary of the US navy — a civilian post — said that the world was changing at a “lightning pace”.
He told journalists: “I think it is important for the United Kingdom to reassess where they are today given the threats that exist today.”
He said it should make those decisions on its own, including whether the army needs to be strengthened. “But I would argue, quite frankly, that given the near-term, economic threats to the United Kingdom and the United States that investments in their navy are significantly important.”
Del Toro pointed out that America had continued to make significant investments in its national security even with challenges domestically out of “necessity”."

Times

"America had continued to make significant investments in its national security even with challenges domestically out of “necessity” - When you think about it it must be very galling for Americans that Europeans, including us, expect them to invest huge amounts in their military and R&D to protect us while we cut our own down to the bone for ideological reasons. The tories are clearly the anti-military party in that respect. 

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2024 10:33:02 GMT domjg said:

Jan 26, 2024 9:24:23 GMT colin said:

"Carlos Del Toro, one of America’s most senior defence officials, said that “sacrifices” had been made in the British Army and the UK needed to ask itself if it needed to be strengthened in light of recent events. He also urged the UK to invest more in the Royal Navy after it emerged that the government plans to decommission ships to free up sailors.
It is rare for a member of the US administration to comment so publicly about the state of Britain’s military.

His comments, made in a briefing after a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in London, are likely to infuriate No 10, which has tried to stop its own military chiefs from speaking out.
The Times has disclosed that US and European generals fear the UK is no longer a top-level fighting force after decades of cuts.
Del Toro, who served two decades in the military before becoming secretary of the US navy — a civilian post — said that the world was changing at a “lightning pace”.
He told journalists: “I think it is important for the United Kingdom to reassess where they are today given the threats that exist today.”
He said it should make those decisions on its own, including whether the army needs to be strengthened. “But I would argue, quite frankly, that given the near-term, economic threats to the United Kingdom and the United States that investments in their navy are significantly important.”
Del Toro pointed out that America had continued to make significant investments in its national security even with challenges domestically out of “necessity”."

Times

"America had continued to make significant investments in its national security even with challenges domestically out of “necessity” - When you think about it it must be very galling for Americans that Europeans, including us, expect them to invest huge amounts in their military and R&D to protect us while we cut our own down to the bone for ideological reasons. The tories are clearly the anti-military party in that respect. 

Yep.

Will Starmer rebuild the Army and Navy ?.

What do you think ?

[mercian]

Did anyone see today that some senior retired military man was saying that we might need conscription up to the age of 60? It won't happen, but even the thought shows how serious the military think the situation is.

[mercian]

Just heard on the radio that the US will be stationing nukes in UK again. Reminds me of Airstrip One in 1984. Here we go again.

[alec]

Lessons for everyone here - www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/27/ukraine-levels-up-the-fight-with-drone-strikes-deep-into-russia

Interesting discussion above. lululemonmustdobetter is correct, I think, in that with Russia, it's less about military power and more about political will.

[leftieliberal]

Jan 26, 2024 10:45:14 GMT colin said:

Jan 26, 2024 10:33:02 GMT domjg said:

"America had continued to make significant investments in its national security even with challenges domestically out of “necessity” - When you think about it it must be very galling for Americans that Europeans, including us, expect them to invest huge amounts in their military and R&D to protect us while we cut our own down to the bone for ideological reasons. The tories are clearly the anti-military party in that respect. 

Yep.

Will Starmer rebuild the Army and Navy ?.

What do you think ?

It was Attlee's government that began the development of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent after the McMahon Act in the USA ended sharing of nuclear information. When it comes to defence, Labour governments are just as patriotic as Tory governments.

[mercian]

leftieliberal
Let's hope so. I certainly have more faith in Starmer defending the country than I would have had in Corbyn. He'd have been bleating on about 'All violence is bad' as the Russians stormed the beaches.

[leftieliberal]

Lawrence Freedman in New Statesman on Ukraine
He makes the very important point that while we know what is going on from Ukraine's point-of-view; we don't know what is going on from Russia's point-of-view. All we get from there is Putin's propaganda. So while it is increasingly unlikely that Ukraine can push the Russian Army out of the territories they have occupied, it is completely unclear whether Russia has the military forces left to overrun Ukraine. It's turning into WW1.

[johntel]

I really hope Zelenskiy knows what he's doing in sacking Zaluzhnyi.

Working a lot in Ukraine from around 2000 I've seen how often their politics descends into petty squabbles, backstabbing and chaos.

I really think their best interests would be to start negotiating.

[leftieliberal]

A good article by Patrick Cockburn on Ukraine. This should be in the i newspaper tomorrow; as a subscriber I am able to read them in advance. He makes the case why Ukraine needs peace negotiations with Russia.

[domjg]

Feb 8, 2024 20:58:21 GMT johntel said:

I really hope Zelenskiy knows what he's doing in sacking Zaluzhnyi.

Working a lot in Ukraine from around 2000 I've seen how often their politics descends into petty squabbles, backstabbing and chaos.

I really think their best interests would be to start negotiating.

“I've seen how often their politics descends into petty squabbles, backstabbing and chaos.” - Sounds pretty familiar from a lot closer to home. Isn’t that a description of politics in most places?

It’s a terrible shame if they’re not able to liberate the south if only to go some way to righting the terrible wrong of Mariupol which will be a terrible stain on Russia for ever. If they can’t reasonably expect to regain more territory then a settlement and cast iron security guarantees would be best to stop the loss of life and allow them to rebuild. We should however NEVER recognise the occupied land as Russian territory.