Russian invasion of Ukraine

Although things are going well for Ukraine, Russia is having some sucess hitting immobile western artilary pieces a third of these have been destroyed or damaged (a loss ratio of about 1 Ukrainian piece to 6 Russian ones) the trouble is Russia has a lot of Artilary compared to Ukraine. Ukraine needs lots more artilary from the west.
Not sure on the time frame of these strikes on the heavy Ukrainian artillery pieces but could it be possible that this has been the consequence of the muddy season? am assuming the shoot and scoot pieces are far more mobile. Either way you'd hope their central command and Nato would have identified this pattern and come up with an alternative strategy to deploy on the ground.
 
Although things are going well for Ukraine, Russia is having some sucess hitting immobile western artilary pieces a third of these have been destroyed or damaged (a loss ratio of about 1 Ukrainian piece to 6 Russian ones) the trouble is Russia has a lot of Artilary compared to Ukraine. Ukraine needs lots more artilary from the west.
Despite your well established misgivings, I believe the west will give Ukraine what it needs to do the job. I think western nations, individually and collectively, decided to ramp up support in a staged way in order to avoid unnecessary escalation of tensions between NATO and Russia, and quite possibly for tactical and/or strategic reasons.
 
I think it's more about providing stable, long term support for Ukraine: a deal is signed which agrees status of Crimea and Donbass; Ukraine now qualifies for NATO and rebuilding can start towards EU membership; NATO membership deters Russia from reneging.

None of that requires trust in Putin, but it does require a deal.
No deal is possible.
Putin won't withdraw.
Even without him, Russia won't withdraw without being handed their arses on a plate.
Then there is the problem of trust.
As Russia havnt stuck to a single agreement since the end of the Cold war, they simply can't be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Despite your well established misgivings, I believe the west will give Ukraine what it needs to do the job. I think western nations, individually and collectively, decided to ramp up support in a staged way in order to avoid unnecessary escalation of tensions between NATO and Russia, and quite possibly for tactical and/or strategic reasons.
Have to say the rescent actions by Germany under Scholz have removed many of my misgivings. Only Macron to sort out now.
 
Have to say the rescent actions by Germany under Scholz have removed many of my misgivings. Only Macron to sort out now.
I expect it’s all been part of the dance, partly for the benefit of domestic audiences.

Anyone with any common sense can see how important it is to Western Europe that Ukraine prevails and Russia fails.
 
Have to say the rescent actions by Germany under Scholz have removed many of my misgivings. Only Macron to sort out now.
This was the latest pledge from Macron further to Zelensky's visit to Paris last week. The Italians have also promised quite a hefty military package further to his trip to Rome - not sure what the Pope promised though

 
I’ve asked it repeatedly. What is the point in doing a deal with someone who won’t keep to it?

Still waiting for a meaningful answer.

I don’t think anyone has suggested a deal is something Ukraine should be seeking, more that if the Ukrainian offensive this summer we’re to fail, it will become politically impossible for the US, UK, France and Germany to support at the same level going forward, which ultimately would necessitate a ‘deal’.

That ‘deal’ would of course be Ukraine giving up a chunk of their land and likely Russia accepting NATO forces on the border, which Putin can still sell internally as a ‘win’.
 
I don’t think anyone has suggested a deal is something Ukraine should be seeking, more that if the Ukrainian offensive this summer we’re to fail, it will become politically impossible for the US, UK, France and Germany to support at the same level going forward, which ultimately would necessitate a ‘deal’.

That ‘deal’ would of course be Ukraine giving up a chunk of their land and likely Russia accepting NATO forces on the border, which Putin can still sell internally as a ‘win’.
But again any deal is pointless. Russia will see it as a Western weakness and just break it at some point in the future. They have to be driven out of UKR, including the Crimea, and handed their arse. Putin needs to suffer defeat and hopefully Russians finally get some degree of freedom from oligarchs robbing them blind.
 
I don’t think anyone has suggested a deal is something Ukraine should be seeking, more that if the Ukrainian offensive this summer we’re to fail, it will become politically impossible for the US, UK, France and Germany to support at the same level going forward, which ultimately would necessitate a ‘deal’.

That ‘deal’ would of course be Ukraine giving up a chunk of their land and likely Russia accepting NATO forces on the border, which Putin can still sell internally as a ‘win’.
It would be very surprising if the Ukrainian offensive were to fail. The Russians have had all their best kit destroyed or captured and their best troops decimated. We even have the spectacle of Russian troops and Wagner mercenaries killing each other. Once the Ukrainian offensive starts in earnest with modern western weaponry and western trained troops the Russians will collapse faster than anyone can imagine. In my opinion of course. At that point I don’t see how Putin will be able to stay on. Whether it will be civil war or a plot from within the higher echelons of the Russian military I don’t know but I suspect the sixth floor awaits.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.