Russia invades Ukraine

[Annetts key]

Cant see for one minute Putin allowing NATO forces into Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

Yes, I can't see Putin agreeing either. In fact, Ukraine being "independent" and not being allowed to join NATO is one of Russia's conditions...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2025 ==

The reality is that unless the U.S.A. helps the countries that currently support Ukraine to put maximum economic pressure on Russia by every available means, Putin will continue fighting and Ukraine will continue defending.

Putin will continue the war if the U.S.A. does nothing or Trump just holds talks.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Cant see for one minute Putin allowing NATO forces into Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

Wars end either when one side achieves outright military victory or both sides agree that a difficult compromise is preferable to continuing with the slaughter and destruction. However much we might like to characterise Putin as a megalomaniac I think even he recognises this. And he will also understand that he can only go on for so long with dragging down the Russian economy before the oligarchs lose patience and orchestrate his removal. He might dream of exterminating Ukrainian identity but securing a dependable land bridge to Sevastopol has long term strategic value.

The old Soviet idea of having virtually unlimited manpower available to be thrown in to the meat-grinder no longer applies, otherwise there would be no need for North Korean soldiers on the front-line. Putin probably can't lose the war militarily but he can't win it either. It's just a matter of time before he decides to draw a line under the whole sorry mess.

 

[Sorcerer]

The reality is that unless the U.S.A. helps the countries that currently support Ukraine to put maximum economic pressure on Russia by every available means, Putin will continue fighting and Ukraine will continue defending.

Putin will continue the war if the U.S.A. does nothing or Trump just holds talks.

Asking in genuine good faith and curiosity, what more can the US do in supporting Ukraine aside from backing it's refusal to cede territory and thereby rewarding Putin for it's aggression? Actual boots on the ground is incredibly risky, ironically because the American forces would so easily defeat the Russian forces that Putin might start looking towards the big red nuclear button as a last ditch effort for the survival of his regime. We can't be sure if he'll actually go that far but that's the very nature of a nuclear deterrence and pretty much the biggest reason no NATO forces have deployed in Ukraine already.

 

[357]

American forces would so easily defeat the Russian forces

The same way the russian forces were so easily going to defeat the Ukrainian forces?

 

[brad465]

Asking in genuine good faith and curiosity, what more can the US do in supporting Ukraine aside from backing it's refusal to cede territory and thereby rewarding Putin for it's aggression? Actual boots on the ground is incredibly risky, ironically because the American forces would so easily defeat the Russian forces that Putin might start looking towards the big red nuclear button as a last ditch effort for the survival of his regime. We can't be sure if he'll actually go that far but that's the very nature of a nuclear deterrence and pretty much the biggest reason no NATO forces have deployed in Ukraine already.

The same way the russian forces were so easily going to defeat the Ukrainian forces?

I'd be worried about relying on US forces to defend one's borders while Trump is in town: all it would take is for Putin to launch an attack, then flatter Trump over the phone and trick him into withdrawing and Trump would happily oblige.

 

[357]

I'd be worried about relying on US forces to defend one's borders while Trump is in town: all it would take is for Putin to launch an attack, then flatter Trump over the phone and trick him into withdrawing and Trump would happily oblige.

Agreed.

Who says it would even take that much - I'm fairly sure trump is now basically working for russia

 

[Sorcerer]

The same way the russian forces were so easily going to defeat the Ukrainian forces?

I mean if the Russians are struggling with a small neighbour on their doorstep they won't stand a chance when the big boys step in.

I'd be worried about relying on US forces to defend one's borders while Trump is in town: all it would take is for Putin to launch an attack, then flatter Trump over the phone and trick him into withdrawing and Trump would happily oblige.

Yes, I too would be concerned about relying on the US while someone like Trump is in the White House. But even assuming we had a more reliable individual I am still genuinely not quite sure what more can be done.

 

[Annetts key]

Asking in genuine good faith and curiosity, what more can the US do in supporting Ukraine aside from backing it's refusal to cede territory and thereby rewarding Putin for it's aggression? Actual boots on the ground is incredibly risky, ironically because the American forces would so easily defeat the Russian forces that Putin might start looking towards the big red nuclear button as a last ditch effort for the survival of his regime. We can't be sure if he'll actually go that far but that's the very nature of a nuclear deterrence and pretty much the biggest reason no NATO forces have deployed in Ukraine already.

I never suggested that the U.S. Army should put ground troops into Ukraine to fight at the front line.
As to the nuclear weapons situation, it's extremely unlikely Putin would use nuclear weapons unless Russia itself is under attack. And if other countries did help Ukraine with support and logistic crews working in the West of the country well away from the front lines or soldiers to "man" the borders that are not anyway near Russia (say, the border areas with Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Poland), that could help them. Putin would have difficulty justifying using nuclear weapons as a response to this, as Russia is using North Korean soldiers. Some of which are in active combat zones.

Anyway what I actually meant was that Trump could stop messing about looking for a peace deal for the purpose of getting himself a Nobel peace prize. He could lift the tariffs that apply to Ukraine (currently 10%). Although the U.S.A. trade with Russia is relatively small and has fallen over the past three years, he could still impose further sanctions and tariffs. He could still cooperate more with the European and other countries on making it much more difficult for Russia to make money on its oil exports. Including bans on the shadow tanker fleet. Put pressure on any country that helps Russia with its shadow tankers.

It would also help if the U.S. administration honoured the agreements that the Biden administration made for weapons systems and supplies. May be also provide more weapons and support to Ukraine. Even if it's only air defence systems and missiles. All without asking European countries to pay for any American weapons.

 

[Sorcerer]

I never suggested that the U.S. Army should put ground troops into Ukraine to fight at the front line.
As to the nuclear weapons situation, it's extremely unlikely Putin would use nuclear weapons unless Russia itself is under attack. And if other countries did help Ukraine with support and logistic crews working in the West of the country well away from the front lines or soldiers to "man" the borders that are not anyway near Russia (say, the border areas with Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Poland), that could help them. Putin would have difficulty justifying using nuclear weapons as a response to this, as Russia is using North Korean soldiers. Some of which are in active combat zones.

Anyway what I actually meant was that Trump could stop messing about looking for a peace deal for the purpose of getting himself a Nobel peace prize. He could lift the tariffs that apply to Ukraine (currently 10%). Although the U.S.A. trade with Russia is relatively small and has fallen over the past three years, he could still impose further sanctions and tariffs. He could still cooperate more with the European and other countries on making it much more difficult for Russia to make money on its oil exports. Including bans on the shadow tanker fleet. Put pressure on any country that helps Russia with its shadow tankers.

It would also help if the U.S. administration honoured the agreements that the Biden administration made for weapons systems and supplies. May be also provide more weapons and support to Ukraine. Even if it's only air defence systems and missiles. All without asking European countries to pay for any American weapons.

I never meant to imply that you were suggesting the US Army should put boots on the ground, so pardon me if it seemed that way. It was the only idea that sprang to mind hence why I asked what else could be done. All asked in good faith of course. I'm with you on some of the solutions but unfortunately I just cannot see the Trump Administration being a reliable ally in this war, especially when the President is only in it for his own gain.

I am actually shocked Trump didn't come out of the meeting with Putin calling Zelensky a tyrant and the fact he's agreed to meet with European leaders on Monday was a pleasant surprise to me. But at the same time I feel US support is also crucial for ensuring long-term peace. I'm not going to straight up say European NATO forces couldn't pull their weight, but we are certainly not as powerful without the Americans on our side.

 

[najaB]

I'm not going to straight up say European NATO forces couldn't pull their weight, but we are certainly not as powerful without the Americans on our side.

True. But Ukraine has managed, with weapons assistance, to fight for years and destroy a significant amount of Russia's armed forces. With our direct involvement I've no doubt Russia would lose in pretty short order.

 

[JamieL]

I am not sure I agree with the comments about not putting NATO ground troops in. Does the West believe in the international rule of law or not? I fully understand the alleged risks of nuclear retaliation but, if Ukraine has shown anything, I think we have been over rating Russian military effectiveness somewhat. Rather than quivering in fear of a Russian response, the West shoukd stop the appeasement and remove Russia from Ukraine.

 

[Yew]

I'm not going to straight up say European NATO forces couldn't pull their weight, but we are certainly not as powerful without the Americans on our side.

It's worth remembering that if the proposals for 5% defence spending actually go ahead with NATO, non-US NATO defence spending would be larger than the entire Russian economy.

 

[Annetts key]

I never meant to imply that you were suggesting the US Army should put boots on the ground, so pardon me if it seemed that way.

Understood

It was the only idea that sprang to mind hence why I asked what else could be done. All asked in good faith of course. I'm with you on some of the solutions but unfortunately I just cannot see the Trump Administration being a reliable ally in this war, especially when the President is only in it for his own gain.

Yes, it's a shame, but the current U.S. administration just cannot be relied on.

I am actually shocked Trump didn't come out of the meeting with Putin calling Zelensky a tyrant and the fact he's agreed to meet with European leaders on Monday was a pleasant surprise to me. But at the same time I feel US support is also crucial for ensuring long-term peace. I'm not going to straight up say European NATO forces couldn't pull their weight, but we are certainly not as powerful without the Americans on our side.

I don't think we need the U.S.A. as long as the vast majority of European NATO countries work together (and the other counties that are helping Ukraine continue to help). However, it would be an absolute huge advantage if the U.S.A. would help. Even if only with support and not combat forces.

 

[DarloRich]

I heard a news bulletin on Classic FM earlier during which there was some speculation as to why Putin and Trump were so tight lipped after their meeting. Namely that there is a possible compromise that could end the war: Russia would retain all the conquered territory as well as the remainder of the Donbas. In return Ukraine becomes like post WW2 Germany with a significant NATO presence sufficient to deter any further Russian adventurism.

Neither side gets what it wants and Russia does get some reward for it's aggression but given Trump has made it obvious that to an extent he agrees with the Might Is Right principle it's hard to see him resisting. And however bad this sucks for Ukraine unless NATO goes to war alongside Ukraine there's almost no way to evict the Russian occupiers.

Ultimately without a difficult compromise it seems inevitable that the war will simply drag on indefinitely or at least until the Russian economy suffers a complete collapse; I doubt the West has sufficient clout to actually bring this about.

The compromise is really simple:

Give Putin exactly what he wants.

 

[Annetts key]

True. But Ukraine has managed, with weapons assistance, to fight for years and destroy a significant amount of Russia's armed forces. With our direct involvement I've no doubt Russia would lose in pretty short order.

From what I can see, Ukraine could benefit from help in theses areas:

• Long range weapons to attack Russian supply lines, including bridges. If the Russians have difficulty getting weapons and supplies to their front line troops, their advances will grind to a stop. Yes, I know that they are already using drones, but it's clearly not having enough impact yet.
• Help with weapons that can deal with the Russian fighter bombers that can launch glide bombs at their positions.
• Help with air defence for civilian areas and infrastructure. And more for use near the front line would help as well.
• Help with freeing up personnel from support roles, logistics and other duties away from the front lines.

I am not sure I agree with the comments about not putting NATO ground troops in. Does the West believe in the international rule of law or not? I fully understand the alleged risks of nuclear retaliation but, if Ukraine has shown anything, I think we have been over rating Russian military effectiveness somewhat. Rather than quivering in fear of a Russian response, the West shoukd stop the appeasement and remove Russia from Ukraine.

I would love it if European NATO countries could go further than the points I have already made, but alas, our politicians don't appear to want to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2025 ==

The compromise is really simple:

Give Putin exactly what he wants.

A nice place in a Western jail

 

[Sorcerer]

I am not sure I agree with the comments about not putting NATO ground troops in. Does the West believe in the international rule of law or not? I fully understand the alleged risks of nuclear retaliation but, if Ukraine has shown anything, I think we have been over rating Russian military effectiveness somewhat. Rather than quivering in fear of a Russian response, the West shoukd stop the appeasement and remove Russia from Ukraine.

The problem isn't overrating Russia's military effectiveness. NATO forces, or even the US Armed Forces alone, could easily push Russia out of Ukraine, reclaiming Crimea while they are at it, and if they really wanted to could probably reach Moscow by Christmas. In terms of conventional warfare and capability, there is absolutely no question who would win in this conflict; it would be very reminiscent of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait.

The problem arises when your enemy now shares the capability of unleashing a literal recreation of the sun upon you and your cities, and the cruel ironic twist here is that they would be so outmatched that Putin would basically be backed into a corner, and given how likely it is that he wouldn't survive such a humiliating defeat, he suddenly doesn't have much to lose pressing that button. That's where the real fear of retaliation comes into the picture.

I don't think we need the U.S.A. as long as the vast majority of European NATO countries work together (and the other counties that are helping Ukraine continue to help). However, it would be an absolute huge advantage if the U.S.A. would help. Even if only with support and not combat forces.

I think in any eventual peace agreement with security guarantees we'll probably see the US managing logistical support while the EU provides actual combat forces. Meanwhile the Americans turn their focus to the Asia-Pacific region, specifically on China and North Korea with relation to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Perhaps also the Middle East since they also have security deals with Saudi Arabia against threats like Iran.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2025 ==

True. But Ukraine has managed, with weapons assistance, to fight for years and destroy a significant amount of Russia's armed forces. With our direct involvement I've no doubt Russia would lose in pretty short order.

True, I still wouldn't bank on Russia being to defeat European forces, but it might come at a greater expense. Perhaps I am underestimating our own capabilities though.

It's worth remembering that if the proposals for 5% defence spending actually go ahead with NATO, non-US NATO defence spending would be larger than the entire Russian economy.

True, and already Russia's economy has been stretched thin. Even if no peace agreement is reached now there is a good chance it'll end up as a war of attrition, in which case we simply need to keep supporting Ukraine until Russia cannot sustain it's efforts. Admittedly though my confidence isn't very high right now.

 

[Mogster]

The problem isn't overrating Russia's military effectiveness. NATO forces, or even the US Armed Forces alone, could easily push Russia out of Ukraine, reclaiming Crimea while they are at it, and if they really wanted to could probably reach Moscow by Christmas. In terms of conventional warfare and capability, there is absolutely no question who would win in this conflict; it would be very reminiscent of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait.

The problem arises when your enemy now shares the capability of unleashing a literal recreation of the sun upon you and your cities, and the cruel ironic twist here is that they would be so outmatched that Putin would basically be backed into a corner, and given how likely it is that he wouldn't survive such a humiliating defeat, he suddenly doesn't have much to lose pressing that button. That's where the real fear of retaliation comes into the picture.


I think in any eventual peace agreement with security guarantees we'll probably see the US managing logistical support while the EU provides actual combat forces. Meanwhile the Americans turn their focus to the Asia-Pacific region, specifically on China and North Korea with relation to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Perhaps also the Middle East since they also have security deals with Saudi Arabia against threats like Iran.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2025 ==


True, I still wouldn't bank on Russia being to defeat European forces, but it might come at a greater expense. Perhaps I am underestimating our own capabilities though.

True, and already Russia's economy has been stretched thin. Even if no peace agreement is reached now there is a good chance it'll end up as a war of attrition, in which case we simply need to keep supporting Ukraine until Russia cannot sustain it's efforts. Admittedly though my confidence isn't very high right now.

Russia chose to invade a country with lots of ex Soviet hardware, 1000 tanks, 2000 artillery pieces, 3500 AFVs. The idea seemed to be that the takeover could be processed on the cheap and in days. Putin totally misunderstood the messaging from Ukraine and NATO. I think the lack of response to his operations in Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine led to a feeling NATO would do nothing even though all the messaging strongly suggested Ukraine would be supported. Even so fighting Putin’s forces to a standstill was a monumental effort on Ukraine’s part.

Russia isn’t Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. To push Russia out of Ukraine and re-take the ground would require deployment of heavy ground forces. Large numbers of heavy ground forces. No European country has those heavy ground forces available and deployable in numbers and the ability to support them in theatre long term. The US doesn’t have those forces in Europe. As far as NATO driving to Moscow, with what?

 

[Sorcerer]

Russia isn’t Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. To push Russia out of Ukraine and re-take the ground would require deployment of heavy ground forces. Large numbers of heavy ground forces. No European country has those heavy ground forces available and deployable in numbers and the ability to support them in theatre long term. The US doesn’t have those forces in Europe. As far as NATO driving to Moscow, with what?

Even if the US doesn't currently have heavy ground forces in Europe, they are highly skilled in terms of military logistics, therefore it would be no trouble for them to deploy the necessary tanks and heavy infantry equipment necessary, and this equipment would be considerably more advanced than the ex-Soviet equipment on the Russian side. Furthermore, the NATO effort would be backed up by some of the world's largest economies, so it would be a lot more sustainable for them than it would for Putin's forces. That's not even considering air superiority and naval dominance in the Black Sea. In terms of conventional warfare there is simply no question as to which side is more capable between Russia and NATO.

 

[Annetts key]

Russia chose to invade a country with lots of ex Soviet hardware, 1000 tanks, 2000 artillery pieces, 3500 AFVs. The idea seemed to be that the takeover could be processed on the cheap and in days. Putin totally misunderstood the messaging from Ukraine and NATO. I think the lack of response to his operations in Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine led to a feeling NATO would do nothing even though all the messaging strongly suggested Ukraine would be supported. Even so fighting Putin’s forces to a standstill was a monumental effort on Ukraine’s part.

Russia isn’t Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. To push Russia out of Ukraine and re-take the ground would require deployment of heavy ground forces. Large numbers of heavy ground forces. No European country has those heavy ground forces available and deployable in numbers and the ability to support them in theatre long term. The US doesn’t have those forces in Europe. As far as NATO driving to Moscow, with what?

As I said before, you go after Russia’s weakness, logistics. That's bridges (road and rail), ports, ships, trains, trucks, railway infrastructure, etc. And I mean, behind far the lines not just near them.

Remember, most of the Russian "solders" are only in this war for the money. Cut them off from food, water, fuel and most importantly weapons and ammunition and they will no longer be able to attack. Hopefully, they may also be unable to hold the line. And, like we have seen before in this war. If Ukraine can breakthrough (although with the mine fields and drones, this will be very hard to do), there is very likely to be a combination of surrendering and a rout. Both far more likely if you can disrupt the behind the lines Russian forces who's job it is to keep the "meat" from retreating.

If NATO was involved, to help with any potential breakthrough, extensive air power would be used. First you gain air superiority over the battlefield. Taking out any and all SAM systems. And using your aircraft to keep the enemy aircraft away. Then, you can deal with the ground forces by using your aircraft in the ground attack role. Including destroying buildings / dug-outs, bunkers where the enemy drone operators are located.

Only then do you use your ground forces.

 

[Brooklands]

All fantasy I’m afraid. Russia could just nuke Ukraine and then we’ll all be vaporised. Even if only one nuke was used the world economy would collapse.
So much nonsense posted on here.

 

[GusB]

All fantasy I’m afraid. Russia could just nuke Ukraine and then we’ll all be vaporised. Even if only one nuke was used the world economy would collapse.
So much nonsense posted on here.

This makes no sense. Even if Russia decided to nuke Ukraine, I don't see how "we'll all be vapourised". Would you mind explaining your thinking?

 

[Brooklands]

This makes no sense. Even if Russia decided to nuke Ukraine, I don't see how "we'll all be vapourised". Would you mind explaining your thinking?

Any retaliatory strikes would inevitably result in an escalation of the conflict.
There’s a real danger that the mutually assured destruction tenant will be breached and all previous norms will become obsolete.

 

[GusB]

Any retaliatory strikes would inevitably result in an escalation of the conflict.
There’s a real danger that the mutually assured destruction tenant will be breached and all previous norms will become obsolete.

If Russia wanted to launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine, it would probably have done so by now. While Ukraine is not part of NATO and there are no obligations under Article 5 for the rest of us to launch retaliatory strikes, it would be an incredibly stupid move. It would end up with Russia being far more isolated than it is already.

 

[danielnez1]

If Russia wanted to launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine, it would probably have done so by now. While Ukraine is not part of NATO and there are no obligations under Article 5 for the rest of us to launch retaliatory strikes, it would be an incredibly stupid move. It would end up with Russia being far more isolated than it is already.

Plus depending on the wind patterns, it is likely any possible fallout could land in Russia’s puppet regime in Belarus and/or Russia itself. The same would apply to nuclear strikers deeper into Europe. Would Putin care?

 

[YorkshireBear]

The good news from Trump is that Zelensky could end the war today if only he would give up a load of his country. So starts the change in narrative from the great leader.

Quote of summary of BBC live feed and link below.

BBC live feed 18th August 07:15

Summary
Donald Trump says Volodymyr Zelensky can end Russia's war "if he wants to" but rules out Ukraine joining Nato as part of a peace deal

The US president also says Ukraine would not be able to reclaim the Crimean peninsula, illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014

It comes as the Ukrainian president lands in the US for White House talks on Ukraine's future, which will be attended by key EU leaders

Trump's special envoy says Vladimir Putin has agreed to "robust" security guarantees for Ukraine - including a potential Nato-style defence arrangement

Zelensky has reiterated his call for security guarantees, after earlier welcoming the US's "historic decision" to do so in the event of a peace deal with Russia

It is quite possible that today's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska, our Security Correspondent Frank Gardner writes

 

[martin butler]

So, just give Putin what he wants, until he decides to come back for another bite, I think the nuclear thing is a red herring, because the Russian leadership knows they will all die in the counterstrikes, or if the response is conventual, there would be little or no mercy shown, even without the US, the European forces have enough firepower to destroy Russia's ability to fight,

The US, i think would at that point oust Trump, and his lackies and fully support Ukraine,

What Ukraine should do is to offer independence to Crimea, and the pro-Russian areas, and re draw the borders, then Ukraine can rebuild, using western help and money, Ukraine, could become the centre for a revitalised Nato arms manufacturer, pooling German, British, French Italian designers, to design new 5th gen aircraft and weapons systems, so that Nato, minus the US, has an unified manufacturing base, , using European designs, no back door kill switches, the idea would be to make Ukraine, and the European side of NATO so strong, that Russia will never be able to threaten it again,

 

[oldman]

Wars often end in dirty, messy compromises and this will probably be the same.

Trump doesn't care about Ukraine and wants a settlement. So far European diplomacy has persuaded him that Ukraine should survive but that could easily change.
Western Europe does not have the capacity or will to provide combat support to defeat Russia. It needs time to build up its defences (including cyber-).
Fascist Russia has failed dismally to annex Ukraine but can celebrate the 'liberation' of Novorossiya and Crimea.
Ukraine has lost territory but preserved its independence and its right to align itself to Europe. It has a chance to rebuild its infrastructure and economy.

That assumes Putin is willing to accept partial defeat. The danger is he just carries on and defies Trump.

 

[Annetts key]

All fantasy I’m afraid. Russia could just nuke Ukraine and then we’ll all be vaporised. Even if only one nuke was used the world economy would collapse.
So much nonsense posted on here.

Absolute twaddle.

If Russia was going to fire off a nuclear weapon at Ukraine, it would have been when Ukrainian forces entered and held Russian territory. But Putin did nothing with Russia’s nuclear weapon systems, not even changing the alert level.

Putin knows what the response would likely be if Russia started a nuclear weapon "shooting" war. And I have never suggested that any NATO country attack Russia on their own internationally recognised territory.

 

[Yew]

Western Europe does not have the capacity... to provide combat support to defeat Russia.

I think that if we look factually, that is untrue.

 

[Annetts key]

I think that if we look factually, that is untrue.

Russia is currently as weak as it ever has been in the last two decades. Thousands and thousands of main battle tanks destroyed. Even more APC/IFV. A lot of its military equipment has been shown up as ineffective such as it's SAM and air defence systems and airforce. The only advantages they have is the number of their own people that they have no problem sending on suicide missions and the number of people that they have to fight.

But most of these people are only fighting for money. When the amount of money to pay them falls, as it must do as their economy gets worse, they may have difficulty recruiting more.

In any event, they don't have a endless number of people to throw at this war. No-one knows when, but at some point, Russia will get to the stage where they cannot continue advancing. And may well be unable to hold the ground they currently have.