Russia has invaded Ukraine

The bottom line here is that Ukraine has internationally recognised borders and Russia has been violating them for 10 years, most recently in an open war of aggression that has flattened cities and resulted in the kidnap of children and the rape and murder of adults. These are war crimes.

Boilerplate hard-left whataboutery has nothing to do with Ukraine’s right under international law to re-take its territory and allies are free to assist in that. While everyone’s busy wringing their hands over what Trump might do, given the chance, or lamenting the amateurish attempts from the current administration to control the conflict, most people seem to be missing the dynamic shift within Europe, particularly in Poland, the Baltics and latterly France (belatedly seeing that its strategic interests lie in military leadership, rather than burnishing its reputation for diplomacy). Arms production is slowly ramping up; the reason Ukraine is firing artillery again this week is largely due to a massive procurement effort by the Czech Republic for example.

As for whether Russia is rearming and getting stronger … you only have to spend 5 minutes looking at reputable sources which monitor what Russia is fielding, and losing, to see that it is fielding, and losing, ever-older equipment. There are burning T-55s out there right now. Yes, they’re conscripting a lot of men, but no, they won’t be well trained and they won’t last long. They are being used to soak up Ukrainian ammunition. Russia can keep the conflict going that way but it can’t advance. Meanwhile in the rear Ukraine is getting better at hitting the things Russia can’t quickly replace, like oil refining capacity and complex military aircraft. They are getting better enough at it that the White House is getting nervous, because the White House is still stuck in a paradigm in which it believes it can manage how ‘hot’ the war is. Eventually, the White House will realise that it is this attempt to control events via the drip-feeding of military aid that has lessened its influence in Kyiv and means they have no chance of persuading the Ukrainians to stop flying drones into Russia.

It’s going slower than anyone wanted - if you train an army for manoeuvre warfare but then deny it the fast jets it needs to cover that sort of operation, things will not go as planned - but Sevastopol has become all but untenable as a naval base, the Russian navy cannot manoeuvre in the western Black Sea, which was the whole reason for invading and controlling Crimea in the first place. It will be a long, slow slog, but Russia simply can’t hold on to what it has taken in Ukraine any more than the USSR could ultimately hold on in Afghanistan.

[jfman]

Were the Afghans not also reliant upon American resources for that war?

Any western appeals to international law ring absolutely hollow at the moment throughout the world given what they are financing and arming in Gaza.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Any western appeals to international law ring absolutely hollow at the moment throughout the world given what they are financing and arming in Gaza.

I agree it undermines them. But it doesn't mean they're wrong.

Originally Posted by jfman

Were the Afghans not also reliant upon American resources for that war?

Any western appeals to international law ring absolutely hollow at the moment throughout the world given what they are financing and arming in Gaza.

Neither point has any relevance to the application of international law in Ukraine.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Neither point has any relevance to the application of international law in Ukraine.

Both are absolutely relevant. There’s no such thing as a selective international law that allows actors to cherry pick the bits they want for an ally while using the same examples elsewhere in the world to condemn a foe. Such hypocrisy threatens the very existence of the entire order since it relies upon nation states to consent to them.

American influence around Russia’s borders has a long history. America wouldn’t tolerate Russian or Chinese weapons systems in Latin America on the basis of them having the consent of the governments of those states.

There’s also nothing “boilerplate hard left” about pointing out such hypocrisy, and white exceptionalism.

Originally Posted by jfman

Both are absolutely relevant. There’s no such thing as a selective international law that allows actors to cherry pick the bits they want for an ally while using the same examples elsewhere in the world to condemn a foe. Such hypocrisy threatens the very existence of the entire order since it relies upon nation states to consent to them.

American influence around Russia’s borders has a long history. America wouldn’t tolerate Russian or Chinese weapons systems in Latin America on the basis of them having the consent of the governments of those states.

There’s also nothing “boilerplate hard left” about pointing out such hypocrisy, and white exceptionalism.

How are you not being hypocritical as well? You don't see to have any politics apart from kneejerk contrarianism to whatever US foreign policy is.

You seem to believe in the right for Palestinian self-determination and are very critical of Israeli actions in Gaza but oppose the right for Ukraine to arm itself against a foreign invasion from Russia. Russia aren't even responding to a terrorist attack.

The US might be hypocritical in support Ukraine and not trying to curtail Israeli actions but you've also found yourself doing the same in the opposition direction as a result.

[jfman]

I think the two events aren’t comparable. Despite much hyperbole the Russian SMO appears very controlled and measured compared with the systematic destruction of buildings throughout Gaza, This, alongside the wholesale killing of women and children by indiscriminate bombing of urban areas - including mosques, churches, hospitals and other buildings generally considered protected puts Israel’s actions on an entirely different level.

I’ve no real objection to Ukraine’s right to defend itself, subject to the right to self determination of some regions as negotiated in the Minsk agreements. What’s more objectionable - from where I sit - is America leading them on implying a level of ongoing support that it would never commit to once it was no longer in it’s political or economic interest.

It’s entirely possible the US will force Ukraine to the table to negotiate an agreement worse than could have been achieved in spring 2022, at the cost of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Ukrainian lives and millions of Ukrainian refugees that will never return from Europe.

If I’m right, it’ll be interesting to see how Ukraine’s biggest cheerleaders reflect upon that outcome.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

The bottom line here is that Ukraine has internationally recognised borders and Russia has been violating them for 10 years, most recently in an open war of aggression that has flattened cities and resulted in the kidnap of children and the rape and murder of adults. These are war crimes.

None of that is in dispute.

Boilerplate hard-left whataboutery has nothing to do with Ukraine’s right under international law to re-take its territory and allies are free to assist in that. While everyone’s busy wringing their hands over what Trump might do, given the chance, or lamenting the amateurish attempts from the current administration to control the conflict, most people seem to be missing the dynamic shift within Europe, particularly in Poland, the Baltics and latterly France (belatedly seeing that its strategic interests lie in military leadership, rather than burnishing its reputation for diplomacy). Arms production is slowly ramping up; the reason Ukraine is firing artillery again this week is largely due to a massive procurement effort by the Czech Republic for example.

We’re well into past two years of this conflict. “Slowly” is not an adverb that should really be being used at this stage, two years in.

As for whether Russia is rearming and getting stronger … you only have to spend 5 minutes looking at reputable sources which monitor what Russia is fielding, and losing, to see that it is fielding, and losing, ever-older equipment. There are burning T-55s out there right now. Yes, they’re conscripting a lot of men, but no, they won’t be well trained and they won’t last long. They are being used to soak up Ukrainian ammunition. Russia can keep the conflict going that way but it can’t advance.

Russia doesn’t need to advance, you are correct it is not. But the point is neither is Ukraine.

Russia is very capable of holding on to what it has taken.

It’s going slower than anyone wanted - if you train an army for manoeuvre warfare but then deny it the fast jets it needs to cover that sort of operation, things will not go as planned - but Sevastopol has become all but untenable as a naval base, the Russian navy cannot manoeuvre in the western Black Sea, which was the whole reason for invading and controlling Crimea in the first place. It will be a long, slow slog

I don’t recall “ a long slow slog” being part of the narrative 12 months ago.

but Russia simply can’t hold on to what it has taken in Ukraine any more than the USSR could ultimately hold on in Afghanistan.

As usual your post has been very cogent, up until this last sentence.

There is absolutely no indication that Russia cannot hold on to what they have taken, furthermore there is no indication that Ukraine can take back what they have lost.

I have been consistent in my approach to this conflict from very early on, this is not a zero sum game.

Of course if you want to drag it out for a further 8 years, invoking Afghanistan. Would the end result look better than a much earlier negotiated peace?

What will Ukraine lose? Crimea….already lost many years ago without so much as a whimper.

Donbass and other Russian disputed Ukrainian territories. That have been fought over for decades….

Is it worth 8 more years of war? With no guarantee of solution?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Is it worth 8 more years of war? With no guarantee of solution?

Don't delude yourself that a deal with Russia solves anything. It just encourages Russia to re-group, shake off the West's sanctions before undertaking another invasion of Ukraine and potentially additional countries.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Don't delude yourself that a deal with Russia solves anything. It just encourages Russia to re-group, shake off the West's sanctions before undertaking another invasion of Ukraine and potentially additional countries.

Does a deal with Russia solve more or less than perpetual war with Russia? Bear in mind while we pay higher gas bills Ukranians are paying in blood. To borrow a phrase it’s a bit of Sunday afternoon luxury belief that other people should fight a proxy war for us.

Considering the time and effort to get not very much in two years, and a proven ability for the west to just enough support Ukraine that they don’t capitulate the rationale for the “next time” being proposed is significantly weaker.

It’d be possible - although I’d not hold my breath if I were Zelensky - for the US or other allies to use peacetime to upskill Ukranian military personnel in western equipment (like F-16s) to leave Ukraine better equipped for such a future conflict than simply putting ever decreasing quality of conscripts into the meat grinder.

If Russia have further aspirations loosening of sanctions is irrelevant - it’d be unlikely that Russia would realign it’s economy back to partial dependence on the west only for it to have to pivot away again.

Originally Posted by jfman

Does a deal with Russia solve more or less than perpetual war with Russia? Bear in mind while we pay higher gas bills Ukranians are paying in blood. To borrow a phrase it’s a bit of Sunday afternoon luxury belief that other people should fight a proxy war for us.

And yet while criticising those you perceive as speaking for Ukraine, you have no hesitation in … speaking for Ukraine.

You’ll never understand what’s going on here as long as your perspective is limited to great powers thinking. It isn’t all about the perpetual manoeuvring between East and West. Ukraine is a sovereign nation whose citizens strongly support continuing the war until it regains control over all its internationally recognised territory. The Ukrainians are in no doubt about the risks of trying to appease the neighbour which has already wreaked so much death and destruction on it.

Your inability to see Ukraine’s agency has been fatally undermining your position in this thread right from page 1.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

And yet while criticising those you perceive as speaking for Ukraine, you have no hesitation in … speaking for Ukraine.

You’ll never understand what’s going on here as long as your perspective is limited to great powers thinking. It isn’t all about the perpetual manoeuvring between East and West. Ukraine is a sovereign nation whose citizens strongly support continuing the war until it regains control over all its internationally recognised territory. The Ukrainians are in no doubt about the risks of trying to appease the neighbour which has already wreaked so much death and destruction on it.

Your inability to see Ukraine’s agency has been fatally undermining your position in this thread right from page 1.

We will see what happens when America turns off the dollars and second hand equipment whether Ukrainian agency holds more sway than the Central Intelligence Agency.

Originally Posted by jfman

We will see what happens when America turns off the dollars and second hand equipment whether Ukrainian agency holds more sway than the Central Intelligence Agency.

Again … your tunnel vision is preventing you seeing the broader picture. Even as the USA loses political influence in Kyiv (because of White House ineptitude, or Congressional Republicans being unduly influenced by Trump, or both), the Eastern European states with the most to lose from a resurgent Russia at or near their borders are becoming increasingly hawkish about support for Ukraine. Arguably this represents a schism that the Kremlin would consider a strategic win, as it potentially weakens America’s influence in Europe more broadly. But I think Putin has made a major strategic error, and Finland and Sweden’s accession to Nato is just one particularly visible illustration of that.

Poland and others understand Europe is entering a ‘pre-war’ era. Even France has finally realised that signalling red lines is counterproductive in the face of a dictator who will exploit them and has adopted its own version of Russia’s penchant for strategic ambiguity. In trying to control the conflict the White House has lessened its ability to choke it off later even if it withdraws material support entirely. Even now, Europe is providing about half of what’s going to Ukraine. Without America’s contribution Ukraine will be left with a very long-running conflict, to be sure, but one that Ukraine and its European allies are aware Russia can’t be allowed to win. It’s hard to see what the CIA is likely to be able to do in the face of that.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Again … your tunnel vision is preventing you seeing the broader picture. Even as the USA loses political influence in Kyiv (because of White House ineptitude, or Congressional Republicans being unduly influenced by Trump, or both), the Eastern European states with the most to lose from a resurgent Russia at or near their borders are becoming increasingly hawkish about support for Ukraine. Arguably this represents a schism that the Kremlin would consider a strategic win, as it potentially weakens America’s influence in Europe more broadly. But I think Putin has made a major strategic error, and Finland and Sweden’s accession to Nato is just one particularly visible illustration of that.

Poland and others understand Europe is entering a ‘pre-war’ era. Even France has finally realised that signalling red lines is counterproductive in the face of a dictator who will exploit them and has adopted its own version of Russia’s penchant for strategic ambiguity. In trying to control the conflict the White House has lessened its ability to choke it off later even if it withdraws material support entirely. Even now, Europe is providing about half of what’s going to Ukraine. Without America’s contribution Ukraine will be left with a very long-running conflict, to be sure, but one that Ukraine and its European allies are aware Russia can’t be allowed to win. It’s hard to see what the CIA is likely to be able to do in the face of that.

They’ve already toppled one legitimate government of Ukraine.

I’d remain sceptical of much of the European support continuing if America definitively pulled the plug. It’s easy to justify if they believe they’re plugging a gap until the end of the impasse in Congress.

If America started throwing its political weight against European donors this would further increase the chances of it drying up. Ultimately, if they want to go ahead and play Russian roulette much of their own defence and security depends on some level on the USA for supplies, intelligence, logistics and leadership. Never mind economic levers short of outright sanctions.

My guess is the dominos would fall quickly. Global Britain, Germany, France and the EU would lead the way.

Originally Posted by jfman

They’ve already toppled one legitimate government of Ukraine.

I’d remain sceptical of much of the European support continuing if America definitively pulled the plug. It’s easy to justify if they believe they’re plugging a gap until the end of the impasse in Congress.

If America started throwing its political weight against European donors this would further increase the chances of it drying up. Ultimately, if they want to go ahead and play Russian roulette much of their own defence and security depends on some level on the USA for supplies, intelligence, logistics and leadership. Never mind economic levers short of outright sanctions.

My guess is the dominos would fall quickly. Global Britain, Germany, France and the EU would lead the way.

Your first sentence is a Kremlin narrative and profoundly unserious.

The rest …. The only way America might attempt to definitively pull the plug would be in a Trump presidency, which, leaving aside how likely that really is, is unlikely to indulged in European capitals in 2025 in the way it was in 2017. He is now very much a known quantity. But we have a thread for that.