Arming the Ukrainians

[Spud]

Quite the opposite, but you're forgetting that Russia was the defender in those cases, France and Germany had invaded Russia, just like Russia is now (again) invading Ukraine. But you've been suggesting that Ukraine shouldn't be looking at that possibility, they should just surrender now because territorial integrity and self-defence are insufficient merits to justify such sacrifice.

O.

Interesting point, Outrider. I heard two days ago that Russia's plan is to capture the four oblasts in their entirety (stage 1) then capture Kharkiv and Odessa (stage 2) then bring the rest of Ukraine into its orbit like Belarus (stage 3). I guess they're assuming that Ukraine will keep fighting.

[Outrider]

Interesting point, Outrider. I heard two days ago that Russia's plan is to capture the four oblasts in their entirety (stage 1) then capture Kharkiv and Odessa (stage 2) then bring the rest of Ukraine into its orbit like Belarus (stage 3). I guess they're assuming that Ukraine will keep fighting.

Russia's had any number of battle-plans, and here we are several years later...

O.

[ad_orientem]

Now that the new "peace" plan has been leaked, probably by Dimitriev himself, it's difficult to see how it could in any way be accepted by a sane Ukraine and its European partners. It's just russia's maximalist demands again: Ukraine and Europe have to make all the concessions for a promise (not worth the paper it's written on) not to invade again. Witkoff is an incompetent shite!

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/20/politics/ukraine-russia-trump-peace-proposal

[Nearly Sane]

Now that the new "peace" plan has been leaked, probably by Dimitriev himself, it's difficult to see how it could in any way be accepted by a sane Ukraine and its European partners. It's just russia's maximalist demands again: Ukraine and Europe have to make all the concessions for a promise (not worth the paper it's written on) not to invade again. Witkoff is an incompetent shite!

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/20/politics/ukraine-russia-trump-peace-proposal

The trouble of classifying him as an incompetent idiot is that that would need to be judged against what was his and the USA's aim.

[ad_orientem]

The trouble of classifying him as an incompetent idiot is that that would need to be judged against what was his and the USA's aim.

Yeah. I see what you mean. Fair point.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah. I see what you mean. Fair point.

I agree that I don't see how it can be accepted. Oddly enough I think it's harder for Europe to accept than the Ukraine.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that for European countries this is the most important decision since Sarajevo

[Spud]

Russia probably won't accept it anyway?

[Nearly Sane]

Russia probably won't accept it anyway?

Because it isn't as fascist enough

[Nearly Sane]

Messy


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g95x50kdyo

[Gordon]

It's quite galling and pathetic, as events unfold, that all the fairly senior folk involved in negotiations clearly feel the need to keep 'thanking' the moronic, needy, orange-tinted and immature narcissist.

[ad_orientem]

It's quite galling and pathetic, as events unfold, that all the fairly senior folk involved in negotiations clearly feel the need to keep 'thanking' the moronic, needy, orange-tinted and immature narcissist.

It's been quite clear, since Trump became president, that the US is a wholly unreliable partner. Europe really needs to grow some balls now, stop humiliating itself infront of the orange turd and ditch the US, seize all the frozen russian assets and give Ukraine all the tools it needs.

[Spud]

Quite the opposite, but you're forgetting that Russia was the defender in those cases, France and Germany had invaded Russia, just like Russia is now (again) invading Ukraine. But you've been suggesting that Ukraine shouldn't be looking at that possibility, they should just surrender now because territorial integrity and self-defence are insufficient merits to justify such sacrifice.

O.

In those cases Russia's population was significantly higher than the invading country's. The reason I suggested Ukraine should surrender is because it has a significantly lower population than the invader and therefore very low chances of defeating it.

[Outrider]

In those cases Russia's population was significantly higher than the invading country's. The reason I suggested Ukraine should surrender is because it has a significantly lower population than the invader and therefore very low chances of defeating it.

And if it was just a pure war of personnel attrition you might have a case unless Ukraine could significantly improve the casualty ratio. As I've pointed out repeatedly, though, Ukraine's strategy here is not a war of personnel attrition, it's a war of capital attrition - they're attempting to make the war too expensive for Russia to continue, as that appears to be their best chance of success. China's tacit support for economics over morality, unsurprising as it is, was to be expected, but Trump's abandonment of the post-war US-European alliance has jeapordised that plan. It's not proven useless, yet, but it does mean that the war drags on.

The underlying difference between the Ukrainian leadership's position and your own, however, seems to be that you're taking a short-sightedly utilitarian approach - your entire judgement is based on how many people might die in the immediate and direct conflict. You make no assessment of the quality of life for an occupied territory, no assessment of the self-respect or independence of a sovereign nation and its people, and no assessment of the moral justification the Ukrainian people might feel. The continued high levels of support for President Zelensky suggests that the Ukrainian people - like me, and a few others on here - are including a broader range of longer term considerations than that.

As a non-Ukrainian, for me it's about deterrent - Ukraine is probably, at the moment, not bothered if Russia goes on to invade someone else next, emboldened by the continued rewards they get for their aggressive expansionism and imperialist activities, but along with the rest of Europe I am worried about that. Someone has to draw a line for Putin and actually enforce it, and it seems as though - with Trump showing how dependent we were on a US that can no longer be entirely relied upon - some of the European powers are starting to come around to that understanding.

O.

[Spud]

And if it was just a pure war of personnel attrition you might have a case unless Ukraine could significantly improve the casualty ratio. As I've pointed out repeatedly, though, Ukraine's strategy here is not a war of personnel attrition, it's a war of capital attrition - they're attempting to make the war too expensive for Russia to continue, as that appears to be their best chance of success. China's tacit support for economics over morality, unsurprising as it is, was to be expected, but Trump's abandonment of the post-war US-European alliance has jeapordised that plan. It's not proven useless, yet, but it does mean that the war drags on.

The underlying difference between the Ukrainian leadership's position and your own, however, seems to be that you're taking a short-sightedly utilitarian approach - your entire judgement is based on how many people might die in the immediate and direct conflict. You make no assessment of the quality of life for an occupied territory, no assessment of the self-respect or independence of a sovereign nation and its people, and no assessment of the moral justification the Ukrainian people might feel. The continued high levels of support for President Zelensky suggests that the Ukrainian people - like me, and a few others on here - are including a broader range of longer term considerations than that.

As a non-Ukrainian, for me it's about deterrent - Ukraine is probably, at the moment, not bothered if Russia goes on to invade someone else next, emboldened by the continued rewards they get for their aggressive expansionism and imperialist activities, but along with the rest of Europe I am worried about that. Someone has to draw a line for Putin and actually enforce it, and it seems as though - with Trump showing how dependent we were on a US that can no longer be entirely relied upon - some of the European powers are starting to come around to that understanding.

O.

I think you need to look at the situation on the ground more closely. Russia is winning and it's NATO that's running out of resources.

[Outrider]

I think you need to look at the situation on the ground more closely. Russia is winning and it's NATO that's running out of resources.

NATO has been supplying Ukraine primarily out of material due for replacement anyway, it's been SAVING resources by not having to destroy old stuff. True, it's now getting to new stock, but it's far from running dry.

Meanwhile, Russia has been supplying units with repurposed equipment from North Korea.

O.

[ad_orientem]

I think you need to look at the situation on the ground more closely. Russia is winning and it's NATO that's running out of resources.

Russia is not winning. It's claims of success on the battlefield range from wild exaggeration to outright lies. Pokrovsk is a good example, although the situation remains difficult. After almost four years of fighting, russia is still unable to take the whole of Donetsk. It's one of the reasons why it resorts to bombing civilians (apart from being rapist, murderer barbarians).

[Spud]

Russia is not winning. It's claims of success on the battlefield range from wild exaggeration to outright lies. Pokrovsk is a good example, although the situation remains difficult. After almost four years of fighting, russia is still unable to take the whole of Donetsk. It's one of the reasons why it resorts to bombing civilians (apart from being rapist, murderer barbarians).

They are fighting NATO. What did you expect? Obviously they can still lose, but they are currently projected to achieve their goals. Pokrovsk is in a cauldron with the evacuation corridor within range of drones.

[Nearly Sane]

They are fighting NATO. What did you expect? Obviously they can still lose, but they are currently projected to achieve their goals. Pokrovsk is in a cauldron with the evacuation corridor within range of drones.

They are not fighting NATO

[Maeght]

In those cases Russia's population was significantly higher than the invading country's. The reason I suggested Ukraine should surrender is because it has a significantly lower population than the invader and therefore very low chances of defeating it.

'Russian victory on battlefield 'not inevitable', say analysts'

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-peace-plan-us-trump-russia-moscow-abu-dhabi-war-latest-driscoll-12541713

[Outrider]

They are fighting NATO.

And it's been a stalemate, so far. Imagine how badly it will go when the NATO forces realise they were supposed to be involved....

What did you expect?

I expected Russia to abide by its commitments. I expected the US not to pander to Russian expansionism. I expected anyone with an ounce of decency and sense to see how this was playing out. I've been disappointed on all three, it seems.

Obviously they can still lose, but they are currently projected to achieve their goals.

Not before they do irreparable harm to their economy - arguably that's already been done. It's a question, if they continue, of whether they will achieve their objective in Ukraine and then suffer the economic consequences after, or if the economic consequences will overcome them before their military aims are reached.

Pokrovsk is in a cauldron with the evacuation corridor within range of drones.

Everything West of Moscow is within range of drones, at this point.

O.

[Spud]

And it's been a stalemate, so far. Imagine how badly it will go when the NATO forces realise they were supposed to be involved....

Since Avdiivka last year the Russians have been gaining momentum.
What exactly do you mean by "Imagine how badly it will go when the NATO forces realise they were supposed to be involved"?
I'm guessing you mean Russia will attack a NATO country? Or that NATO will have to replace Ukrainian soldiers?

[Maeght]

Since Avdiivka last year the Russians have been gaining momentum.
What exactly do you mean by "Imagine how badly it will go when the NATO forces realise they were supposed to be involved"?
I'm guessing you mean Russia will attack a NATO country? Or that NATO will have to replace Ukrainian soldiers?

What was meant was that NATO forces aren't involved but if they were to be it would go badly for Russia.

[Outrider]

Since Avdiivka last year the Russians have been gaining momentum.

Not that anyone's noticed. They've ground out some advances, but increasingly found themselves bypassed by drone strikes and the like into Russian territory, bringing the war to Russia itself to put political pressure on Putin at home.

What exactly do you mean by "Imagine how badly it will go when the NATO forces realise they were supposed to be involved"?

I mean that it's patently nonsense to suggest that NATO has been in this conflict at all. No NATO planes have been flown, no NATO troops have put boots on the ground, and no NATO weapons have been fired. Some (most) NATO countries have sent materiel to Ukraine to support THEIR war effort - NATO is not in this conflct, and Russia is desperate for it to stay that way, because if NATO gets actively involved Russia will get rolled back in quick order.

I'm guessing you mean Russia will attack a NATO country? Or that NATO will have to replace Ukrainian soldiers?

No. And no. Russia is desperate not to get NATO involved, to the point where it's trying to run the gauntlet of attempting to be intimidating with drone flights over NATO countries, and lurking ships around other nations' territorial waters, but not actually doing anything which might trigger an Article 5 situation.

As things stand, I can't see NATO sending troops to Ukraine unless Russia crosses a line. Of course, if the EU, or European nations collectively, decide that the threat is pressing they could decide to bypass NATO (and the increasingly unreliable US contingent) and decide for themselves to actively support the war effort - right now I see that as almost as unlikely as a NATO involvement.

O.

[Spud]

Not that anyone's noticed. They've ground out some advances, but increasingly found themselves bypassed by drone strikes and the like into Russian territory, bringing the war to Russia itself to put political pressure on Putin at home.

I mean that it's patently nonsense to suggest that NATO has been in this conflict at all. No NATO planes have been flown, no NATO troops have put boots on the ground, and no NATO weapons have been fired. Some (most) NATO countries have sent materiel to Ukraine to support THEIR war effort - NATO is not in this conflct, and Russia is desperate for it to stay that way, because if NATO gets actively involved Russia will get rolled back in quick order.

No. And no. Russia is desperate not to get NATO involved, to the point where it's trying to run the gauntlet of attempting to be intimidating with drone flights over NATO countries, and lurking ships around other nations' territorial waters, but not actually doing anything which might trigger an Article 5 situation.

As things stand, I can't see NATO sending troops to Ukraine unless Russia crosses a line. Of course, if the EU, or European nations collectively, decide that the threat is pressing they could decide to bypass NATO (and the increasingly unreliable US contingent) and decide for themselves to actively support the war effort - right now I see that as almost as unlikely as a NATO involvement.

O.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes Nato is not involved in the Article 5 sense (and if it was, it would not work out well for them either), but there is a lot the mainstream media hasn't been telling us, if reports from some of the independent journalists are true. The YouTube blogger Borzzikman, for example, reports the deaths of Nato personnel most days. Ukraine is relying on US supply and support, including intelligence, which is why the war has been in stalemate. Until the past year, that is, because the attrition seems to be taking a higher toll on Ukraine.

I suggest that because the losing side can't expect to dictate the terms of a peace agreement, the West is currently claiming that Russia isn't winning, or can't win, in order to avoid having to agree to peace terms dictated by Russia.