Russian invasion of Ukraine

Mr Kobayashi said:
Victors get to name their terms. Ukraine doesn't have to agree to the first demand, that isn't what I said.

Crimea needs to be abandoned.

It can haggle over how much of the East it wants to give up. Reality is that it will be difficult to persuade Russia to vacate that land without offering a more attractive alternative.
Click to expand...
Ukraine will not "give up" an inch of land.
Ukraine will not stop fighting for every inch of land,that is theirs.

Slava Ukraini.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
It can't join NATO with territorial disputes but maybe surrendering their current claims on lost territory would be worth it for that.
Click to expand...
I accept the only realistic way for Ukraine to enter NATO would be to surrender claims on lost territory.

The prevailing narrative in some is quarters is that they surrender the lost territory and agree not to join NATO.

Can’t see that flying in various ways.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Nothing wrong with that statement. Ukraine has lost the war. Russia needs to come to the table and name it's terms. Ukraine need to accept that they have lost territory and come to terms with it and demand assurances and protection from the West to prevent further losses.

All of what you say is true, but it does not negate the fact that Ukraine is defeated and that the war needs to stop and that conflict is not worth starting WW3 or a nuclear conflict over.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this isn’t close to right yet. Even if Russia manages to take the entirety of Ukraine it then has to keep it to class it as a win/loss.

It takes 10.76 troops per 1000 capita to hold a country. With insurgence that goes to 20/25 ( I think that’s what the US needed in Iraq and in a large part Iraq welcomed the US, that won’t be the case here )

The Ukrainians could make an insurgency far larger than anything in Iraq. A million trained troops and 2.5m reserve as well as a large chunk of guns an ammo given out during the run up to the election.

So Russia would need to have at least a million troops to hold Ukraine alone ( based on Iraq ). An insurgency with 50/75% of the population fighting against the invaders is something else entirely.
 
grunge said:
Sorry but this isn’t close to right yet. Even if Russia manages to take the entirety of Ukraine it then has to keep it to class it as a win/loss.

It takes 10.76 troops per 1000 capita to hold a country. With insurgence that goes to 20/25 ( I think that’s what the US needed in Iraq and in a large part Iraq welcomed the US, that won’t be the case here )

The Ukrainians could make an insurgency far larger than anything in Iraq. A million trained troops and 2.5m reserve as well as a large chunk of guns an ammo given out during the run up to the election.

So Russia would need to have at least a million troops to hold Ukraine alone ( based on Iraq ). An insurgency with 50/75% of the population fighting against the invaders is something else entirely.
Click to expand...

Good points. So it's better to change the nature of the war than continuing fighting a format of war they have proved incapable of winning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.