Ukraine crisis

[johntel]

[johntel]

Mar 11, 2024 13:18:34 GMT colin said:

So this is what TRump meant when he said he will stop the war in Ukraine on his first day :-

www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-donald-trump-wont-give-a-penny-to-ukraine-if-elected/

What Orban actually said was "Donald Trump has "pretty detailed plans" for how to end this war." 

I suspect the plan will be offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis and Putin won't like it. 


Who really has any idea what's going to happen? The last few months of this year are going to be 'interesting times'. 

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2024 18:56:46 GMT johntel said:

Mar 11, 2024 13:18:34 GMT colin said:

So this is what TRump meant when he said he will stop the war in Ukraine on his first day :-

www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-donald-trump-wont-give-a-penny-to-ukraine-if-elected/

What Orban actually said was "Donald Trump has "pretty detailed plans" for how to end this war." 

I suspect the plan will be offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis and Putin won't like it. 


Who really has any idea what's going to happen? The last few months of this year are going to be 'interesting times'. 

It looks more specific than that :-

"“He will not give a single penny for the Russian-Ukrainian war. That’s why the war will end, because it’s obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own two feet,” Orban, a right-wing nationalist, told Hungarian television after meeting Trump at his Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida.

“If the Americans don’t give [Ukraine] any money or weapons, then the Europeans won’t be able to fund this war on their own. And then the war will end,” Orban added."

Times

[Deleted]

""Chancellor Olaf Scholz defended his refusal to send Taurus long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, telling German lawmakers Wednesday that prudence is not a weakness while insisting that he trusts Kyiv.
Scholz has stalled for months on Ukraine’s desire for Taurus missiles, which have a range of up to 500 kilometers (310 miles) and could in theory be used against targets far into Russian territory.

That position has frustrated the main center-right opposition bloc and parts of Scholz's three-party coalition. The criticism didn't diminish after Scholz finally offered a detailed explanation last month, pointing to his insistence that Germany must not become directly involved in the war.

The chancellor has long emphasized his determination to help Ukraine without escalating the war and drawing Germany and NATO into it, stressing that no German soldiers will go to Ukraine. Over the past two years, he has at times drawn criticism for appearing to hesitate before pledging new weapons systems, such as the Leopard 2 battle tanks, to Kyiv.

Scholz has dug in much harder on Taurus missiles, though he has stopped short of explicitly ruling out ever delivering them.
“From my point of view, this is a very long-range weapon,” he told parliament's lower house, the Bundestag. “Given the significance of not losing control over targets, this weapon could not be used without the deployment of German soldiers. I reject that.”
"“Prudence is not something that one can qualify as a weakness, as some do,” he said. “Prudence is something that the citizens of our country are entitled to.”

Critics reject Scholz's insistence that Taurus missiles could only be responsibly used with the involvement of German soldiers whether inside or outside Ukraine — which he said is “a line that I as chancellor do not want to cross.”

In a sometimes testy exchange with conservative lawmakers at a regular question-and-answer session, Scholz rejected the suggestion that he didn't trust Ukraine to use the missiles responsibly.

“We trust Ukraine — that's why Germany is by a long distance the biggest supplier of weapons among the European states," he said."
Britain and France have long since announced that they were sending Storm Shadow and Scalp long-range missiles, respectively, to Ukraine. But Scholz said last month that “what is being done in the way of target control and accompanying target control on the part of the British and the French can’t be done in Germany.” He didn't elaborate then or on Wednesday."

Indy
(extracts)

If he really does trust Ukraine, then this is all about not provoking Putin .

Meanwhile ISW says :-

"German outlet Der Spiegel published interviews with unnamed Ukrainian commanders on March 12 who stated that almost all Ukrainian units and formations have to husband ammunition and materiel because of the overall ammunition shortage and that some Ukrainian units with limited ammunition and materiel can only hold their current positions if Russian forces do not “attack with full force.”[1] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi warned that there is a threat of Russian units advancing deep into Ukrainian formations in unspecified areas of the frontline."

[johntel]

Macron's speech on French TV last night:

[johntel]

Big dilemma for Putin today - should he blame Ukraine for the terrorist attack, even though he knows it was nothing to do with them? But if he doesn't it looks like a big failure of his own intelligence services. Either way I expect he'll use it as an excuse to extend conscription.

Edit: I see Putin has said that the attackers were caught '"heading towards Ukraine".  So I think the best for Zelenskiy to do now is to come out and say that they will investigate and if they find any accomplices in Ukraine they will hand them over to the Russian authorities. He has to be completely unequivocal about this.  

[johntel]

It's being reported by official Russian news sources that the Crocus terrorists were recruited via an ISIS channel on Telegram and that the channel has been closed down by the Russian authorities. However simultaneously the authorities are still saying that Ukraine was behind the attack.

There are also reports that the general public in Moscow are angry at the lack of security at the venue and are questioning the competence of the police and security services, who didn't turn up until 30 minutes after the attack started and allowed the terrorists to escape.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Ukraine seems to have stabilised the lines, but I'm assuming that has a lot to do with the weather. When the grounds dries, and if US does not provide the necessary assistance, there is a real threat that sustained pressure from the Russians will break the Ukrainian lines. Geo-politically, you would think it was a no-brainer that the US would provide Ukraine with the support necessary to thwart Russia, but when you look at the content being shared around right-leaning/Trump supporting demographics on social media the reasons for the current hold-up becomes clearer. I'm sure this is partly accounted for by Russian ops, but its also clear Trump is playing with fire on this topic. This is one of the reasons why some traditional republicans, who tend to be hawkish in regards to foreign policy, are willing to vote for Biden.

If sufficient aid is not sent to Ukraine over the next couple of months, it may actually be too late come November. In which case US politicians will have a lot to answer for, especially Mike Johnson.

[mercian]

Donald Tusk has apparently said that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, it will be much harder to stop him after that because he will have Ukraine's resources. And that we are in a pre-war situation. Tusk always seemed one of the more sensible EU leaders and now that he's Poland's PM I can see why he's worried.

The Eastern European countries are ramping up their defence spending, and so should we. The Americans can't be relied on any more, though if they do help it will obviously make a huge difference.
The Tories don't seem to be doing much on defence. I wonder if Labour will (assuming they win the GE). A cynical thought occurs - could the Tories be holding out on the date of the election in the hope that war is declared and they can form the nucleus of a national government and so retain power? Surely even they wouldn't be that devious would they?
Anyway, I've got my mum's ARP helmet and a longbow, so I'll be joining Dad's Army if it kicks off. 🤩 Pity I let my Canadian passport lapse.

[Deleted]

Slovakia now has a pro Russian President as well as a pro Russian PM.

Putin stooges -inside EU & inside NATO.

[mercian]

colin
That's pretty bad news. I had to look up exactly where Slovenia was and it borders Ukraine. Must be a bit worrying for them. Will Ukraine have to take troops from the front line to police that border I wonder?

[Deleted]

Apr 7, 2024 13:38:34 GMT mercian said:

colin
That's pretty bad news. I had to look up exactly where Slovenia was and it borders Ukraine. Must be a bit worrying for them. Will Ukraine have to take troops from the front line to police that border I wonder?

I think Putin has plans for that area and Slovenia is placed for it.

[domjg]

Apr 7, 2024 13:38:34 GMT mercian said:

colin
That's pretty bad news. I had to look up exactly where Slovenia was and it borders Ukraine. Must be a bit worrying for them. Will Ukraine have to take troops from the front line to police that border I wonder?

I know you mean Slovakia but just to be clear it’s Slovakia. Slovenia is between Croatia and Austria one of the ex Yugoslav states also now an EU member.

It’s weird that this little and really quite inconsequential country has gone off on this tangent. It must be due to local issues.
Czechia which they used to share a state with and still pretty much share a language with is far more western oriented. 

[domjg]

The Italian press are reporting that Ukraine has somehow hit and disabled a Russian navy missile vessel off the coast of Kaliningrad, in the Baltic.

Flightradar24 shows US surveillance aircraft in the area that are not normally seen at this time.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

For those interested,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJpXBF3GnpI&t=1s

Looks very unlikely that Russia will make big gains. Congress passing legislation to provide aid will limit significantly any Russian advance. Western politicians need to get their act together. Its a concern how far down people's agenda Ukraine sits these days. I struggle to understand how people can be so short-sighted.

[Deleted]

This must be debilitating and you can understand Zelensky's frustration having seen the response to Iran's drone attack on Israel:-]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68813529

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Finally, Congress has seen sense and agreed the aid package. So it wont give enough to allow Ukraine to win, but should enable them to hold the line. Putin wont be happy.

[johntel]

Apr 22, 2024 8:09:42 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Finally, Congress has seen sense and agreed the aid package. So it wont give enough to allow Ukraine to win, but should enable them to hold the line. Putin wont be happy.

Not sure it will enable them to hold the line - rather I think the Russians will continue to make territorial gains right along the front lines due to thier manpower advantage, but Ukraine will hit some serious long-range targets in Crimea with the new ATACMS and hopefully bolster their air defence of power network targets. 

[birdseye]

There is, IMO, no way that the Ukraine can win. With a three times larger resource of manpower and a huge territory that the Ukraine is not allowed to attack, the Ukrainians are out gunned, outmanned and prevented from impacting on their enemy. The Russians can sit back using artillery and their glide bombs to devastate Unkrainian territory a slice at a time. Western support is limited to money and defence weapons only, and the quantity of those isnt sufficient anyway.

Putin has us on the horns of a dilemma. Get involved directly and we risk ww3. Stand back as we are doing and Ukraine will fall.

[neilj]

May 21, 2024 16:03:47 GMT birdseye said:

There is, IMO, no way that the Ukraine can win. With a three times larger resource of manpower and a huge territory that the Ukraine is not allowed to attack, the Ukrainians are out gunned, outmanned and prevented from impacting on their enemy. The Russians can sit back using artillery and their glide bombs to devastate Unkrainian territory a slice at a time. Western support is limited to money and defence weapons only, and the quantity of those isnt sufficient anyway.

Putin has us on the horns of a dilemma. Get involved directly and we risk ww3. Stand back as we are doing and Ukraine will fall.

Quite right, same as there was no way Russia could lose against Afghanistan...

[alec]

birdseye - "There is, IMO, no way that the Ukraine can win. With a three times larger resource of manpower and a huge territory that the Ukraine is not allowed to attack, the Ukrainians are out gunned, outmanned and prevented from impacting on their enemy. The Russians can sit back using artillery and their glide bombs to devastate Unkrainian territory a slice at a time. Western support is limited to money and defence weapons only, and the quantity of those isnt sufficient anyway."

While there are certainly lots of issues regarding western support, much of what you write here is untrue. Russia can't do this 'one slice at a time'. As soon as they are inside
Ukrainian territory, US weapons can be used on them. That's why Crimea is now no longer safe for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and that is territory that Putin now claims to be inside Russia itself. Western support is also not limited to defence weapons only (although I'm unclear what the distinction here is). F16s are about to start flying in Ukraine, and they are pretty handy offensive weapons, as are the ATCAMS that have pounded Crimea. It's also worth bearing in mind the Ukrainian campaign against Russian energy and military assets. They have regularly hit big targets hundreds of miles inside Russia.

I suspect (could be wrong) that European weapons are already being used across the border, even as the White House maintains it's reticence over this issue. I suspect the mre aggressive European assistance is what's going to force Biden's hand in the end. What's the point of the US placing restrictions on weapons use if other countries weapons are already hitting Russia?