Umm, not sure they’ll go for that approach. Zelensky will want to retain, and be seen to retain, the moral high ground. Laying waste to the homes of normal Russian citizens may not play to his international audience. Proving they CAN get 30-50 km inside Russia, take out some convenient military targets, then withdraw with as little collateral destruction as is feasible will strengthen Ukraine’s reputation as ‘the good guys’, whilst throwing the organisation behind Russia’s assault in the east into disarray.
Obviously guess work but I don’t think the plan is to withdraw. It doesn’t look like there’s currently any meaningful defence in the area they’ve seized and while clearly there’s little point in pushing too far and over stretching, I reckon they’ll try to fortify their new positions once the line settles in the coming days. Geographically it’s no different holding a new line 10mi inside Russia than the line they were defending in Ukraine last week. A lot can be achieved with drones and artillery and they’ll know Putin won’t be able to just leave them be either. The plan I bet is to attrit the Russians and take that area off the board as somewhere they can accumulate their forces to launch attacks on Ukraine.
Plus it's a huge black eye for Putin, which only helps in the PR war. Ultimately, Putin is a strongman and having an enemy force waltz around inside Russian borders with impunity makes him look foolish. Be interesting to see if the Ukrainians start to conduct a Vietcong-esque guerrilla war on Russian soil.
I'll say this for Donald Trump, the message he's put out already "stop the killing" as No.1 priority is difficult to disagree with. Crimea is gone. Forget Crimea. Also makes sense. Since I was angrily told that there was no alternative to lashings and lashings of killing and blasting at the start of this thread, that negotiation was absolutely impossible, there have been approximately 320,000 casualties on both sides. Citizens as well as soldiers of course. Sons, mothers, brothers, sisters. Hundreds of thousands of refugees and destroyed homes. If Trump is able to stop the slaughter and negotiate a peaceful settlement, then fair play to him I say.
It's appeasement. It didn't work in the 1930s, it won't work now. Putin has already taken parts of Georgia and Moldova through the exact same playbook, as well as Crimea, each time becoming more emboldened. All it does is put a pause on things, allow Russia to consolidate its gains and then go again to take more territory. Putin has explicitly stated his aim - the whole of the Ukraine is part of Russia and it shouldn't exist as an independent state. I think I asked you this question before but given your affection for Cuba, would you be ok if the USA started expanding from Guantanamo and taking bits of Cuban territory? Would you just say "all war is bad, Cuba can't win so should just give up their territory for peace?" even if the US president had stated that their intention was to take over the whole of Cuba? If so, then I admire your commitment to pacifism but the logical conclusion is that no-one one should ever fight against any larger power. If your position is that no, Cuba has a right to defend itself and other nations should support them, then why is it different to Ukraine? Just because you have a connection to one country but not the other?
I expect the Ukrainian military to make a significant move prior to the January inauguration of President Trump. Maintaining a strong hand prior to negotiations. A ceasefire maybe possible on “day one”, because both sides need to be seen to be responsive to the Trump agenda. What will be extremely difficult is to deliver a peace deal that is palatable. For Putin he wants to make Ukraine a client state. This means cutting off the route to NATO (and EU) membership. It also means Ukraine formerly accepting that Crimea is part of Russia proper. On the other hand, the Ukrainians, want a pathway to integration with Western Europe and a return of their international border. NATO membership as a shield against further Russian invpcursions. Not sure what either side is prepared to trade. So the US can impose a peace by simply letting the Russians win. If Putin gets his way it will be bad news for Moldova, the Baltic States and Poland. Remember the Russians invaded Poland in 1939. Not to rescue it from the Nazis, but because they saw the territory as an important buffer and naturally part of the Russian sphere of influence. Germany will be in play. It’s going through a massive realignment of politics and society. Increasing Russian influence, ensuring Germany does not remilitarise is Putins next goal.
Whether he is any of those or not, the idea he can resolve the Ukraine crisis within 24 hours is puerile and indicative of a lack of understanding of the issues involved.
Whether he is or not!? I thought that's what all you bedwetters were interested in?! You're not interested in how he leads, just what he's like as a person. Comical really. Oh, and for what it's worth, I am sure he won't end the war in 24 hours, but I bet he manages to end it quickly! You only have to look at how Russia, China & Hamas are acting now he's been re-elected. They're getting into line. Would NEVER have happened under such weak leadership from Biden or Harris!
Hmmm but have they really? Qatar binned off its role as intermediary between Hamas and Israel, which I think could be Trump-related. Though publicly it blamed both sides for its decision. But that's about it. Putin's press conference is meaningless. Of course he wants to maintain the status quo on the battlefield in Ukraine, to keep the territory he's grabbed. Equally, Russian state media broadcast Melania Trump's nudes again. Does that sound like they're in line? And I've not heard a peep about China. What have they done?
There has been no change in the way the countries have acted. There might be, as Trump will likely be more agreeable to deals that harm others but benefit the US in the short term, and is also more unpredictable (e.g. asking his security to shoot black protestors in the legs to prove a point). What he'll likely do is the equivalent of the Munich agreement and give himself a nice pat on the back like Chamberlain.
I start my post with a neutral comment on the accusations thrown at Trump, and that makes me a ‘bedwetter’? Your ‘comical’ statement is valid, but not in the way you meant it. He is a ‘convicted felon’; point of fact. He has made racist comments and members of his previous administration (no wishy-washy ‘leftie wokes’ themselves) have expressed concerns about his tendency towards fascist methods. That’s without including that he glories in the fact he sexually molests women. I’d suggest what he’s like as a person will have a major influence on how he ‘leads’. It could be claimed Hitler & Stalin were ‘successful leaders’ but I doubt many decent-minded people would suggest how they led and what they did when leading was any good for mankind. We’ll have to wait and see what he actually does, but likely having control of Senate, House and Supreme Court will remove any potential checks to most extreme acts he wishes to implement. He is a proclaimed isolationist who doesn’t understand/care about the implications for world order of massive trade tariffs, forced deportation, allowing Putin free reign etc. He thinks all that will Make America Great Again; history suggests it simply will not. As for Hamas, Russia, China ‘falling into line’, as others have said there is absolutely no evidence of their position changing one iota. As for ending the Russia-Ukraine war, maybe we should revert to discussing ‘reversing Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine’. If Trump’s quick fix is based upon Ukraine accepting Russia’s illegal territorial gains, would you see that as ‘strong leadership’? I’m not sure many would see it as such. In a hypothetical situation, which parts of UK would you be willing to cede to an invading force to achieve ‘peace’? Channel Isles cos they’re near France anyway? Isle of Wight as it’s not attached to the mainland? Hampshire, cos, you know, Wurzel Gummidge an’all? Sussex cos it’s way too ‘woke’? Kent so we don’t have to worry about Dover & The Chunnel anymore? The other issue is that granting Putin any sort of ‘legalisation’ of the fruits of his illegality will be pointless anyway, another very clear lesson from history. My original comment was simply that Trump’s claim (more a boast, really) that he could sort it out in 24 hours is not only puerile but a worrying indication that he still believes groundless bombast will work. He’d rather broker ANY deal no matter how detrimental rather be seen to not deliver on one of his boasts. That is concerning. As you said, we’ll see.
Senile Biden has given the green light for Ukraine to use long-range western missiles. Oh well, it was nice knowing you all!
A bargaining chip for the Ukrainians. Either they use them over the next two months (to say take out the bridge to Crimea) or keep them as a negotiating tool when the talks start. taking out the logistics network is the only way Ukraine can slow down the Russian military attempts to secure all the Donbas by the spring.
If anything the pattern of this war since 2022 is that Russia says something will be an unacceptable escalation and then does... nothing. I wouldn't fret about it. Plus I don't think they'll be too bothered if a load of North Korean mercenaries get blown up.
I think it will depend on what or who Ukraine target. If they have been given limited permission, and the US need to sign off on any specific targets, then it will probably be just military targets such as the North Koreans. However, if they target infrastructure (as the Russians have done in Ukraine) and this impacts Russian civilians then it's a different ball game. Obviously Putin's position currently is fairly safe but if Russian civilians get a real taste of war then that could change. Putin, imho, will want to "look strong" in such circumstances and retaliate in force to quell any disquiet amongst his populace. I support the decision but hope that strikes are just limited to military targets only.
I don't get it. Russia already has millions of square miles of cold, bleak, grey, potato growing landscape. Why on earth does it need more? Much more sensible for Russia to push south in Asia and get some nice, sunny, hot land, south of the Stans.
At least we'll be going out with the hornets in the playoff spots! The idea that the west can keep on provoking Putin more and more because they'll do nothing is very dangerous indeed. Someone used the analogy of cuba earlier. Suppose Russia gave Cuba a load of long range missiles to fire into the united states over the illegal occupation of national territory at Guantanamo. What would the reaction be? Well we don't have to imagine. We saw it in 1962 with the October crisis.
Well, 1962 was about nukes, which is a bit different. The USSR staging them in Cuba (just as the US was in eastern Europe and Turkey) pretty much rendered early warning systems dead and greatly increased the chances of a nervous first strike. On Saturday Russia fired hundreds of missiles and drones at targets across the whole of Ukraine. It also masses troops on its side of the border for days and sometimes weeks on end before making another grinding advance. Why should Ukraine be limited to only be able to attack them when they actually cross the border, when any military strategist from any point in the past thousand years would say if you can hit them sooner, do it? Russia can stop all this tomorrow if it wishes.
I'm pretty sure Putin has been using weapons in Ukraine which were manufactured outside of Russia, the man's a hypocrite
If the US was regular using it's, and other nation supplied weapons, to bomb Cuba on a daily basis, killing civilians and destroying vital infrastructure then yes, I would totally support Cuba's right to retaliate, wherever they source their weapons from.
In no world is Russia going to retaliate with a nuclear strike because someone blew up e.g. a power station with a US-sourced weapon. The whole thing is Putie manipulating the weak-minded and fearful in order to maximise his advantage.
Provoking? Look at the last 20 years. It is dangerous because it is true and the Kremlin is making it that way. When the west didn't respond strongly, Russia has continually escalated its annexations and occasions of Ukraine. If Russia escalates every time the west doesn't respond, Russia is leaving the west with only one option
Clive, do you mean ‘provoking’ in the way you can ‘provoke’ a thug who’s attacking you by asking him to stop? Because that’s what ‘the West’ did originally and with what response?
The notion that Russia has been in any way "provoked" is just plain odd to me. During the Obama administration, the US went out of its way to rebuild relations with Russia, handing the notorious reset button over to the Russians. It didn't change anything. Putin's Russia is focused on restoring pre-USSR breakup geographical borders, and their actions are designed to further that goal. There's no provocation here, it's propaganda spread to justify further Russian border aggression. The Russian government do not act in good faith. That's been self-evident for years now, no matter how hard they try to gaslight the world into believing otherwise. They were handed an olive branch by the West, took the olive branch, and then used it to beat Crimea over the head.
You'll have to point me to where 'the west' asked Russia to stop and wanted a negotiated peace settlement. I don't remember that at all. All I can recall is escalation and more escalation. Killing and bombing and bloodshed. If you gave the person being attacked an increasingly deadly range of weapons to kill the 'thug', culminating in rockets and bombs which you encouraged him to use to obliterate the attacker's house and family, would you seriously expect the 'thug' to suck it up nicely and not reach for his own weapons and do exactly the same to both you and the person being attacked? Despite all the bravado and cheer and flag waving, graphic celebratory videos of Russians being blown up and killed and gung-ho newspaper articles assuring us that Russia will soon be beaten, after 320,000 people killed, do you *honestly* think that Ukraine will win this war? Or would you concede, as even some of the gung-hoers are starting to, that a negotiated peace is the only way this will ever be settled?
