Russia invades Ukraine

[najaB]

Peace deal as suggested by a friend : Ukraine permanently gives up Crimea and Donbas

My suggestion is little changed from the one I made at the start of the war:

1. Russia takes permanent control of Crimea.

Which legitimises the use of force to annex another country's territory.

 

[DustyBin]

Which legitimises the use of force to annex another country's territory.

The problem is that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to remove Russia from all of its territory by force, and Russia isn’t going to leave (Crimea in particular) voluntarily.

As I stated, I’m not entirely comfortable with this but I can’t see any other better, realistic scenario. The key thing is that Russia gains nothing from this invasion. The way I look at it, and I appreciate opinions will differ, is that they’ve had effective control of Crimea since 2014. They took it at little cost to themselves as the world stood back and did nothing at the time. Retaining control of Crimea, albeit officially, isn’t really a gain in my opinion and certainly isn’t worth the cost. Russia has been severely weakened beyond what Putin could have imagined, and will continue to be punished for it’s actions. It’s therefore debatable whether anything is being legitimised here, although I absolutely do see your argument.

 

[najaB]

The problem is that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to remove Russia from all of its territory by force, and Russia isn’t going to leave (Crimea in particular) voluntarily.

As I understand it, the main reason that Russia wants to control Crimea is unhindered access to Sevastopol. One possible solution would be for Ukraine to cede the city/port to Russia and also guarantee free access via land routes. It would be a situation somewhat reminiscent of the Allies having freedom to access West Berlin, or to Russian access to Kaliningrad.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us not forget that for all these most sensible suggestions on this thread on how matters should proceed, there is the matter in real life of the Putin mindset.

 

[najaB]

Let us not forget that for all these most sensible suggestions on this thread on how matters should proceed, there is the matter in real life of the Putin mindset.

He would be able to spin free, uncontested access to Sevastopol as a win. Which is what appears to really matter to him at present.

 

[daodao]

An interesting perspective from Angus Roxburgh in the Guardian:

Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now:
"... the west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war. Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, ..."

Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now | Angus Roxburgh

By providing arms but avoiding military intervention western leaders are prolonging this hideous conflict, says former BBC Moscow correspondent Angus Roxburgh

www.theguardian.com

In essence, the longer the conflict continues, the more people will be killed or maimed, the more Ukrainian territory will be taken (and kept) by Russia, and the more destruction will be wrought.

 

[Cloud Strife]

In essence, the longer the conflict continues, the more people will be killed or maimed, the more Ukrainian territory will be taken (and kept) by Russia, and the more destruction will be wrought.

The same Angus Roxburgh who used to act as a consultant to the Kremlin? The same one who has been repeatedly accused (with some merit) of being pro-Kremlin?

He's not worth taking seriously. His comment:

To get Putin to the negotiating table at all, everything would have to be up for discussion – including Ukraine’s borders, Russia’s age-old security concerns, perhaps even the very logic of basing today’s international frontiers in that part of Europe on what were internal borders in the USSR

is utterly unacceptable. Agreed, it's an interesting article, but one should be aware of Roxburgh's links to the Kremlin.

In terms of Crimea as discussed above, I think most Ukrainians accept that Crimea has been lost. The real issue is Donetsk/Luhansk and now Kherson. Ukraine absolutely must regain access to the Sea of Azov and break the land corridor, otherwise they'll be under permanent threat of invasion. They may well accept the loss of Mariupol as there's almost nothing to salvage anyway, but Kherson is absolutely critical to this entire war.

 

[najaB]

In essence, the longer the conflict continues, the more people will be killed or maimed, the more Ukrainian territory will be taken (and kept) by Russia, and the more destruction will be wrought.

That presumes that Russia can continue to replace the equipment that is being lost. There is very strong evidence that they can not.

To date the relative losses of personnel are also very much in Ukraine's favour. Which means that on average the experience level of Ukrainian forces is increasing, while that of the Russians is decreasing.

 

[gg1]

He would be able to spin free, uncontested access to Sevastopol as a win. Which is what appears to really matter to him at present.

He already had that prior to the invasion by way of the Kerch Bridge.

Yes it was contested diplomatically but for all practical purposes it gave Russia unrestricted land access to Crimea, that obviously wasn't enough for Putin.

 

[Cloud Strife]

That presumes that Russia can continue to replace the equipment that is being lost. There is very strong evidence that they cannot not.

To date the relative losses of personnel are also very much in Ukraine's favour. Which means that on average the experience level of Ukrainian forces is increasing, while that of the Russians is decreasing.

Yes, the Russian tank factories have seemingly come to a standstill, while the lack of equipment is well documented. The losses on the Russian side are staggering - this site only counts confirmed losses: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

And yes, the Ukrainian forces are becoming better and better with every passing day. They've been using their hit and run tactics to great effect, and there's plenty of video evidence showing that the Russians have a very, very poor grasp of military tactics.

He already had that prior to the invasion by way of the Kerch Bridge.

There is a strong argument that the Kerch Bridge only exists because Ukraine lets it exist. Given the successful attacks within mainland Russia, they could bring the Kerch Bridge down today if they wanted.

 

[gg1]

There is a strong argument that the Kerch Bridge only exists because Ukraine lets it exist. Given the successful attacks within mainland Russia, they could bring the Kerch Bridge down today if they wanted.

They could now, in fact I'm suprised they haven't, but there was absolutely no chance they would have done so if they were not already at war.

With no war Russia would have safe, secure road and rail access to Crimea.

 

[Ediswan]

There is a strong argument that the Kerch Bridge only exists because Ukraine lets it exist. Given the successful attacks within mainland Russia, they could bring the Kerch Bridge down today if they wanted.

There are numerous reports along the lines that Ukraine is not currently able to destroy the bridge.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news...idge-Unacceptable---Peskov-20220421-0021.html

If Kiev had the opportunity, it would have attacked the Crimean bridge long ago and would still do it, given a chance, Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Alexey Danilov said on Wednesday.

 

[najaB]

He already had that prior to the invasion by way of the Kerch Bridge.

Yes it was contested diplomatically but for all practical purposes it gave Russia unrestricted land access to Crimea, that obviously wasn't enough for Putin.

Agreed. But he needs to be able to present something, and perpetual, officially recognised control of Sevastopol and the means to access it might be enough, as opposed to all of Crimea.

 

[coppercapped]

My suggestion is little changed from the one I made at the start of the war:

1. Russia takes permanent control of Crimea.

2. The UN oversees referenda in Donbas and Luhansk with both sides committed to honouring the result. (To me this is the most difficult issue to deal with).

3. Ukraine announces it has “de-nazified” but in such a way that doesn’t give credence to Putin’s claims. Disbanding the Azov Battalion should do.

4. Ukraine accepts that it won’t join NATO (which it appears to have already done) and declares itself neutral. Short of WMDs however, it is free to arm itself with whatever it likes.

I think that covers the main issues as I understand them. Note that this isn’t my “ideal” scenario, it’s simply one that I think could realistically be acceptable to both sides.

The difficulty with this set of issues is that it is essentially Putin's stated list of war (sorry, 'special military operation') aims:

• Demilitarisation of Ukraine
• Denazification of Ukraine
• Protection of the Donbas
• Countering NATO expansion.

Where to start? Firstly there is no mention of the Crimea so Putin clearly did not expect there to be any change in its status. Any change in its control, e.g. returning it to Ukraine, will depend on the position on the ground when talks begin - see below.

How about denazification? This is nonsense, its intention was to promote an echo to link the 'special military operation' to the Russian myths of the Great Patriotic War against Germany to gain popular support. In practice it would mean that Putin had intended to replace the complete Ukrainian government - as was the case in Germany in 1945. In which case - why withdraw from Kyiv?

What if Zelensky says 'No' to the other points you have listed? If the war goes long, then Russia is screwed - its economy cannot support a long war. It is artificially supporting the rouble's exchange rate by, for example, stopping people selling it and offering a very high interest rate of some 17%. It can't import spare parts for its civilian air fleets which are mostly Boeing or Airbus because its Tupolevs and Antonovs were so inefficient and, frankly, unsafe. It has no civil aircraft industry of sufficient scale which could be shifted to military production in the aerospace sector. It bought cheap tyres for its fighting vehicles from China which don't work and the oligarchs skimmed off the difference. This is part of the reason for Russia's weak economy - the oligarchs took a significant percentage of Russia's capital off-shore.

After some initial wavering, 'The West' has indicated to Zelensky - and by extension to Putin - that it is prepared to support him in the long run. It has already shipped large numbers of shoulder fired missiles which are easy to transport and train people to use. It is now supplying heavier equipment which takes longer to activate, ship to the front and train people to use. Apart, that is, from supplying spare parts for the Soviet era aircraft that Ukraine uses from Czech and other sources for which the training time is effectively zero. Regarding heavier weapons the Germans are taking Gepard anti-aircraft tanks out of storage where all of them have been for the last decade or more because of the 'peace dividend'. It has been suggested that Brazil will supply some 300,000 rounds of suitable ammunition to augment the supplies from European sources. The Dutch are supplying a small number of German designed and built 155mm armoured mobile howitzers (Panzerhaubitze) from their reserves and it is likely that Italy will supply more. The significance of these is that the fire control system is a NATO standard and the howitzer receives targeting information from the data networks while moving; Ukraine is taking the first small steps into the NATO command and control system.

As the Soviet era munitions remaining in Ukraine and the ex-Warsaw Pact countries get consumed and replaced by NATO standard equipment Ukraine will become a 'de facto' NATO member even if it 'de jure' remains a non-member. The USA is supplying air transportable howitzers - just the sort of thing needed for counter attacks in the Donbas and other areas - which use NATO standard ammunition; and so the process will continue.

After all this provocation and in spite of all the sabre rattling, Russia still hasn't invaded its western neighbours or nuked Kyiv. Russian military textbooks claim - I am informed - that nuclear weapons will only be used if the existence of the Russian state is endangered in the case of war. And this is a 'special military operation', not a war...and it certainly doesn't endanger the Russian state.

The USA is in the process of starting 'lease-lend' for Ukraine - the supply of military equipment and other support will effectively become limitless. All that remains is the announcement of a new Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine's damaged infrastructure and Putin's 'special military operation' will be over.

How the final peace agreement will work out I don't know. But when the first of the West's heavy equipment becomes combat ready in a few weeks or months time the positions of the front lines at the point when the level of pain suffered by Putin outstrips any gain that he may be able to claim will define the contents of that agreement.

 

[gingerheid]

My worry is that Ukraine's spectacular success is that it is losing at possibly even less than 1% of the rate it was expected to, which nevertheless ultimately represents losing (particularly in a world where destroying things is quicker than rebuilding them). How long can Ukraine last before it is a country with no power supply, for example?

 

[duncanp]

Meanwhile, a Russian MP is claiming that fish and chips is a Russian invention, and The Queen is covered in moss.

I suppose some people in Russia might believe this load of tripe, but the fact that they are coming out with this rubbish suggests they are rattled.

Access Restricted

Britain accused of being ‘more evil’ than US and stealing ‘Russian’ invention of fish and chips​

Andrei Isayev, a pro-Kremlin politician, said Britain had ‘never been a real ally to Russia’ during an impassioned tirade on state TV

A Russian MP has labelled Great Britain “more evil” than the United States in an impassioned tirade on state TV, where the UK was also accused of stealing the “Russian” invention of fish and chips.

Andrei Isayev, a pro-Kremlin politician, said that of “that couple that we constantly mention,” the UK has “of course historically” been “more hardcore anti-Russian” than the US.

He said: “They’re basically Siamese twins, or two heads of a dragon, but Britain has historically been the more evil head of the dragon because in that couple it has responsibility for Europe.”

He also opined that the UK and Poland were “seriously discussing the possibility of a direct military clash” with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
The comments come as Volodomyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, has heaped praise on Britain for its unequivocal support for his country which has been under siege by Russian forces since February.

“Britain is definitely on our side. It is not performing a balancing act,” the Ukrainian leader told the Economist magazine, while criticising the more limited help afforded by France and Germany.

Mr Isayev attributed the UK’s hawkish stance towards Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the “philosophy which the British aristocracy is taught in its colleges” that “they’re an island state”.

He added: “That’s why their objective is to prevent the formation of strong states on the continent in order to maintain control over the continent. And now they’re simply bringing those college dreams of theirs to life.”

'Britain has never been a real ally to us'​

The politician, who was dismissed as the deputy secretary to the parliamentary leader of United Russia for his involvement in a drunken brawl on a plane, urged listeners to “draw lessons from this”.

“Britain has never been a real ally to us,” he said.

“Even in those moments when it acted as our ally during the world wars, the Englishwoman [sic] managed to create trouble. But now she’s simply thrown off all her disguises.”

He continued: “Clear off back to your island! Eat your porridge! Catch your chip and fish [sic] from your foggy marshes!”

In a bizarre turn, Yevgeny Popov, the state TV host, then chimed in to claim the British culinary dish was in fact a Russian innovation.

“It turns out that white fish, fish and chips is Russian,” he pronounced.

Mr Isayev concurred, finishing with the peculiar peroration: “And pray for your moss covered queen!”

 

[najaB]

How long can Ukraine last before it is a country with no power supply, for example?

While there has been massive destruction in some towns/cities which have made the headlines (Irpin, Mariupol, Bucha, etc.) most of the larger population centres are largely intact. And the infrastructure that's been destroyed has mostly been things like bridges which, admittedly you are correct will take longer to rebuild than they did to destroy, power and communications are largely still intact in most of the country.

 

[gg1]

Meanwhile, a Russian MP is claiming that fish and chips is a Russian invention, and The Queen is covered in moss.

That last one sounds very Monty Python.

 

[coppercapped]

My worry is that Ukraine's spectacular success is that it is losing at possibly even less than 1% of the rate it was expected to, which nevertheless ultimately represents losing (particularly in a world where destroying things is quicker than rebuilding them). How long can Ukraine last before it is a country with no power supply, for example?

Countries can continue to function for a long time even if the infrastructure is very badly damaged, Germany in the last years of the 2nd world war comes to mind. North Korea during the Korean War, Vietnam and so on.

Populations can take enormous punishment yet still survive - Leningrad (St Petersburg) during 2nd World War lasted nearly 2 1/2 years under siege and millions died - but people survived.

As I posted earlier - Ukraine is now 'plugged in' to 'The West' and will get the support it needs to be able to continue fighting - even if it would like even more! Electrical power supply systems are very damage tolerant and if necessary copper wire, transformers and switches can be shipped in from abroad. These things are repairable. Railways used to be able to get marshalling yards operational again in a few hours after being bombed in the Second World War - a bulldozer, earth or ballast to fill in the holes and some rails from the stockpile. Job done.

 

[daodao]

Meanwhile, a Russian MP is claiming that fish and chips is a Russian invention

Not entirely false. The first fish and chip shop in Britain is said to have been opened in the East End of London in 1860 by a Russian Jewish immigrant named Joseph Malin(sky).

 

[nw1]

The difficulty with this set of issues is that it is essentially Putin's stated list of war (sorry, 'special military operation') aims:

• Demilitarisation of Ukraine
• Denazification of Ukraine

I do find this kind of grimly amusing. The correct way to demilitarise Ukraine is to end the war. And the correct way to denazify Ukraine, of course, is for Chief Nazi Putin to pull out.

Isn't there a psychological problem in which people label others with their own negative traits? Putin clearly has this in droves.

 

[DustyBin]

As I understand it, the main reason that Russia wants to control Crimea is unhindered access to Sevastopol. One possible solution would be for Ukraine to cede the city/port to Russia and also guarantee free access via land routes. It would be a situation somewhat reminiscent of the Allies having freedom to access West Berlin, or to Russian access to Kaliningrad.

That’s not a bad shout actually. Unfortunately it involves trust and cooperation between the two sides, both of which seem a long way off at this point.

 

[Cowley]

Isn't there a psychological problem in which people label others with their own negative traits? Putin clearly has this in droves.

Psychological projection. I’m not sure if he’s aware of this type of behaviour…

 

[Cloud Strife]

How the final peace agreement will work out I don't know. But when the first of the West's heavy equipment becomes combat ready in a few weeks or months time the positions of the front lines at the point when the level of pain suffered by Putin outstrips any gain that he may be able to claim will define the contents of that agreement.

Much depends on the will of Russia to keep fighting. They can keep throwing bodies at the war, Ukraine can keep killing them, and this can go on indefinitely. In the Russian psyche, they don't value individual life. For that reason, even if a million get killed in Ukraine, it's not a big deal to them.

 

[najaB]

For that reason, even if a million get killed in Ukraine, it's not a big deal to them.

In the days of the USSR, that would have worked. The problem is that the Russian Federation really isn't that populous a country - they only have a population of some 145 million. And, more importantly, the age pyramid is skewed heavily in favour of the over 40s and their birth rate has been declining for the last few decades. They simply cannot sustain the kind of losses of young men that the USSR (c. 280 million) could have.

 

[Strathclyder]

Meanwhile, a Russian MP is claiming that fish and chips is a Russian invention, and The Queen is covered in moss.

I suppose some people in Russia might believe this load of tripe, but the fact that they are coming out with this rubbish suggests they are rattled.

Access Restricted

Either they are rattled enough to spout this utter twaddle, or this is primarily for domestic consumption (I'd wager on it being the latter). Either way, that last part (my bold) reads like it was ripped straight from a Monty Python knock-off.

 

[DustyBin]

The difficulty with this set of issues is that it is essentially Putin's stated list of war (sorry, 'special military operation') aims:

• Demilitarisation of Ukraine
• Denazification of Ukraine
• Protection of the Donbas
• Countering NATO expansion.

Where to start? Firstly there is no mention of the Crimea so Putin clearly did not expect there to be any change in its status. Any change in its control, e.g. returning it to Ukraine, will depend on the position on the ground when talks begin - see below.

How about denazification? This is nonsense, its intention was to promote an echo to link the 'special military operation' to the Russian myths of the Great Patriotic War against Germany to gain popular support. In practice it would mean that Putin had intended to replace the complete Ukrainian government - as was the case in Germany in 1945. In which case - why withdraw from Kyiv?

What if Zelensky says 'No' to the other points you have listed? If the war goes long, then Russia is screwed - its economy cannot support a long war. It is artificially supporting the rouble's exchange rate by, for example, stopping people selling it and offering a very high interest rate of some 17%. It can't import spare parts for its civilian air fleets which are mostly Boeing or Airbus because its Tupolevs and Antonovs were so inefficient and, frankly, unsafe. It has no civil aircraft industry of sufficient scale which could be shifted to military production in the aerospace sector. It bought cheap tyres for its fighting vehicles from China which don't work and the oligarchs skimmed off the difference. This is part of the reason for Russia's weak economy - the oligarchs took a significant percentage of Russia's capital off-shore.

After some initial wavering, 'The West' has indicated to Zelensky - and by extension to Putin - that it is prepared to support him in the long run. It has already shipped large numbers of shoulder fired missiles which are easy to transport and train people to use. It is now supplying heavier equipment which takes longer to activate, ship to the front and train people to use. Apart, that is, from supplying spare parts for the Soviet era aircraft that Ukraine uses from Czech and other sources for which the training time is effectively zero. Regarding heavier weapons the Germans are taking Gepard anti-aircraft tanks out of storage where all of them have been for the last decade or more because of the 'peace dividend'. It has been suggested that Brazil will supply some 300,000 rounds of suitable ammunition to augment the supplies from European sources. The Dutch are supplying a small number of German designed and built 155mm armoured mobile howitzers (Panzerhaubitze) from their reserves and it is likely that Italy will supply more. The significance of these is that the fire control system is a NATO standard and the howitzer receives targeting information from the data networks while moving; Ukraine is taking the first small steps into the NATO command and control system.

As the Soviet era munitions remaining in Ukraine and the ex-Warsaw Pact countries get consumed and replaced by NATO standard equipment Ukraine will become a 'de facto' NATO member even if it 'de jure' remains a non-member. The USA is supplying air transportable howitzers - just the sort of thing needed for counter attacks in the Donbas and other areas - which use NATO standard ammunition; and so the process will continue.

After all this provocation and in spite of all the sabre rattling, Russia still hasn't invaded its western neighbours or nuked Kyiv. Russian military textbooks claim - I am informed - that nuclear weapons will only be used if the existence of the Russian state is endangered in the case of war. And this is a 'special military operation', not a war...and it certainly doesn't endanger the Russian state.

The USA is in the process of starting 'lease-lend' for Ukraine - the supply of military equipment and other support will effectively become limitless. All that remains is the announcement of a new Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine's damaged infrastructure and Putin's 'special military operation' will be over.

How the final peace agreement will work out I don't know. But when the first of the West's heavy equipment becomes combat ready in a few weeks or months time the positions of the front lines at the point when the level of pain suffered by Putin outstrips any gain that he may be able to claim will define the contents of that agreement.

If I understand the above correctly, you’re suggesting that ultimately Russian losses (both military and economic) will weaken their negotiating position and put Ukraine in the driving seat (to an extent at least)? You may be correct based on what we’re seeing, however it will take an enormous amount of death and destruction for Putin to walk away with nothing.

Does anybody know what is actually being discussed in the negotiations? There seems to be very little in the public domain. As you correctly point out, I made reference to Putin’s (original) key war aims, simply on the basis that there’s nothing else to go on.

 

[Annetts key]

The problem is that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to remove Russia from all of its territory by force, and Russia isn’t going to leave (Crimea in particular) voluntarily.

As I stated, I’m not entirely comfortable with this but I can’t see any other better, realistic scenario. The key thing is that Russia gains nothing from this invasion. The way I look at it, and I appreciate opinions will differ, is that they’ve had effective control of Crimea since 2014. They took it at little cost to themselves as the world stood back and did nothing at the time. Retaining control of Crimea, albeit officially, isn’t really a gain in my opinion and certainly isn’t worth the cost. Russia has been severely weakened beyond what Putin could have imagined, and will continue to be punished for it’s actions. It’s therefore debatable whether anything is being legitimised here, although I absolutely do see your argument.

If you remove the main reason that Russia wants Crimea (Sevastopol and its port) by getting Russia to withdraw its fleet from the Black Sea or by the Black Sea fleet being destroyed. And by preventing Russia from sending any more warships through the Turkish Straits, then it becomes more realistic that Russia would leave Crimea.

How the above is achieved is another matter…

For Crimea and the Russian occupied areas of Donetsk/Luhansk, you need at least three years where the people living there are able to access free media so that they have the opportunity to see what has happened without their heads being constantly filled with one sided propaganda. That in effect means Russia has to withdraw its forces and a neutral UN force has to police theses areas. Only then can a meaningful referendum be held. But Russia will never agree to this.

 

[oldman]

Not entirely false. The first fish and chip shop in Britain is said to have been opened in the East End of London in 1860 by a Russian Jewish immigrant named Joseph Malin(sky).

Or rather a Jewish immigrant from somewhere in Eastern Europe, possibly the Russian Empire.

 

[DustyBin]

If you remove the main reason that Russia wants Crimea (Sevastopol and its port) by getting Russia to withdraw its fleet from the Black Sea or by the Black Sea fleet being destroyed. And by preventing Russia from sending any more warships through the Turkish Straits, then it becomes more realistic that Russia would leave Crimea.

How the above is achieved is another matter…

I think we can discount the above scenario to be honest!

For Crimea and the Russian occupied areas of Donetsk/Luhansk, you need at least three years where the people living there are able to access free media so that they have the opportunity to see what has happened without their heads being constantly filled with one sided propaganda. That in effect means Russia has to withdraw its forces and a neutral UN force has to police theses areas. Only then can a meaningful referendum be held. But Russia will never agree to this.

This is the problem, along with trying to restore the original populations of these areas prior to any kind of referendum being held.