Ukraine could totally use Chinese access to US weapons as a barginning chip.
Lets says China agrees to a peacekeeping mission or even just supplies stuff to Ukraine... they might leave with HIMARS or Bradley's or M1. Heck, even getting some time to thoroughly scope them out might be nice. Or just knowing what kinds of intelligence we might be providing Ukraine.
Rather than a case of the enemy of my enemy, it would be more of a "know your friends well and enemies better" type of thing.
I do not think Crimea will ever be part of Ukraine again. There will be no Western support to push the boundaries back to the pre 2014 boundaries and Ukraine cannot do it themselves.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:I do not think Crimea will ever be part of Ukraine again. There will be no Western support to push the boundaries back to the pre 2014 boundaries and Ukraine cannot do it themselves.
I think that without the Crimea Canal, there is no Crimea. Russia is screwed.
Water to Crimea can be yet another bargaining chip in a ceasefire. Cutting off the supply arbitrarily isn't exactly a way to win hearts and minds if you intend to retake it. But, if they don't have the ability to take Crimea, Ukraine can use access to the water supply to get something they want.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:I do not think Crimea will ever be part of Ukraine again. There will be no Western support to push the boundaries back to the pre 2014 boundaries and Ukraine cannot do it themselves.
Then the west is agreeing with Russia. Might makes it right. Just go in, take it away by force and it's Russia's. 9 years occupation makes it right!!!!
So the west compromises. Russia makes a bunch of money in the peacetime, builds a better military, more modern, less corruption. And try's again later? Should we just let Russia get away with it this time?
What we have now is absolutely the best way! Our soldiers aren't dying. Our equipment is being tested in the best way possible.
Want to see this approach work? Look at Spain. Pre WW2. Germany went in, tested and trained during that period. Came out much stronger.
GIRTHQUAKE said:In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
I'll double-check, it's not the first time I heard descriptions about one part of Ukraine and confused it for another.
Aircooled may be on the money. I double-checked and the peninsula is pretty parched and mountainous- east of Kerch and the Kerch straights are the swampy parts.
The key to Crimea issues is that there are only two, very tight land approaches (surrounded by wetlands). The eastern one is absurdly tight and would be super easy to cut / defend. The western one is a bit wider, but completely eliminates any possibility of encirclement so would require a very straight forward charge directly into defenses that could rather easily be setup (and I suspect are already started).
I think the best the Ukrainians could hope for realistically is to have Crimea demilitarized. Governing it might be a minor nightmare for them unless they pull a "Russia" and displace all the Russian loyalists there.
the best idea I've seen about a possible resolution on this was the formation of "EU Lite" (not "NATO Lite"...) of the countries of Eastern Europe in a standalone economic group ranging from the Baltic states (e.g. Poland) down to the Black Sea states (e.g. Romania). If it can be fig-leafed as "Non-NATO" then Putin can claim a win domestically with a barrier to Russia while the "Intermarium" countries can do their own version of NAFTA and leave Russia in the economic dust. I think George Friedman has some YT videos on it.
In reply to stroker :
The flaw that I see is the combined countries would need to have the ability to defeat Russia. For it to be viable.
Given Russia's population and potential wealth that would require a lot bigger share of each nations GDP than Russia would need.
What America and the rest of NATO gets for its investment is a counter to our potentially biggest threat. Without investing the blood of our men and women.
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
In reply to frenchyd :
American soldiers are dying in Ukraine. Someone I went to school with recently died in Ukraine, he is an American soldier.
Your confusing what's morally right, and what actually matters in geopolitics. Might is right is pretty much the MO of geopolitics, the US has been relying on it since WW2.
aircooled said:Along the lines of "does the west have a plan":
-----------
UK, French, and German officials are reportedly preparing a NATO-Ukraine pact that falls far short of the protections Ukraine would receive from NATO membership and appears to reflect a desire to press Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on unfavorable terms.[1] The Wall Street Journal reported that the exact provisions of the pact are undecided, but the officials indicated that the pact will provide advanced military equipment, arms, and ammunition to Ukraine, but not Article V protection or a commitment to station NATO forces in Ukraine—falling short of Ukraine’s aspirations for full NATO membership. The officials stated that the pact aims to provision Ukraine so that Ukrainian forces can conduct a counteroffensive that brings Russia to the negotiating table and deter any future Russian aggression. The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported.[2]
This was predictable. A gentle nudge to let Zelensky know that the gravy train isn't going to run forever, done publicly to make sure he gets the message. The US not signing on suggests we'll be seeing a few rounds of "good cop/bad cop", all of which will make it increasingly difficult for Ukraine to push for its stated war aims, compelling it to some form of negotiations.
As I've said before, the most sustainable route out of this is a militarily neutralized, economically Western-oriented, and well-armed Ukraine in control of as much territory as it can scrape back, either on the battlefield or at the table, along with a promise from the West that it will not allow it NATO membership. It addresses many of Russia's stated war aims, which may chafe Ukraine and its supporters, but it matters if a sustainable peace is to be achieved.
My gut suggests that the Ukrainians are going to try to push hard south in the direction of Berdiansk, Melitopol, or Mariupol to split the Russian position before they are willing to think about negotiating. As it stands, the Russian position is quite favorable, as it can be maintained with little difficulty as a contiguous territory; if it is divided, it becomes more expensive, less defensible, and thus more likely to see its borders adjusted in negotiations. If such an offensive fails, Ukraine will have to demand access to the Sea of Azov by treaty (think Danzig Corridor), but it will be difficult to make this work.
As to the idea of a regional alliance, there are two problems: one, for it to work, you'd need NATO members to join, and that's a non-starter, and two, it would not be capable of achieving its raison d'etre without outside assistance. This was tried in the interwar period with the Little Entente - it fell apart in the face of German aggression and French unwillingness/inability to support it.
In reply to Opti :
Huge difference though between former soldiers who volunteer, American operatives who are not officially there (potentially, not sure any losses have happened happened, not that it would even be released) and committed American regular military soldiers who are ordered there.
aircooled said:In reply to Opti :
Huge difference though between former soldiers who volunteer, American operatives who are not officially there (potentially, not sure any losses have happened happened, not that it would even be released) and committed American regular military soldiers who are ordered there.
+1
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
In reply to aircooled :
I understand that I was trying to illustrate how inconsistent Frenchys point is. People are dying from all over in this confrontation.
Initially he makes an argument over what he believes is morally right, "should we just let Russia get away with this?" and poking at "might makes it right." Ive been told in this thread the west dont get a say in how this goes, even though we are funding it, we dont get to exercise any influence over whats happening, thats up to Ukraine. Even though there are allegations we are already did this and Boris Johnson nixed peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, but that is still being argued
Then he switches it up and says how its good that we are getting what we want and WE arent dying for it, only everyone else.
That seems like a rather inconsistent point of view.
Geopolitics is full of bad guys aiming to further their own causes, there are no good guys. Using a moral argument to justify the continuation of massive human suffering is ridiculous, and it is a tactic regularly used in propaganda.
Ill also say it again, because inevitably Ill be accused of supporting Russias actions, I do not support the Russian invasion, but I do worry about escalation (or acceleration) and the costs involved (human and otherwise) of this war.
OK, and I do entirely agree with your observation that there are no really "good guys". It's all shades of gray... of course some are clearly more toward either end of the spectrum.
I think the general "guess" (maybe not by everyone in this thread) is that the West very much does have a say of what happens in Ukraine. They are funding it, and if they don't like the direction, or the amount of time being taken, they can very much influence what happens (and almost certainly will).
Idealistically, it's nice to say the Ukrainians should be able to do what they think is right and just. Realistically and practically, that's unlikely to happen. I highly suspect we will have a much better view of any potential future this summer.
In case you didn't here "somebody" flew "something" over an airbase in Belarus and dropped some explosives on a Russian A-50 AWACS plane. Some pics came out today. Not sure if I can see the damage, but it is parked at a weird angle and it looks like something may have leaked out the back. Proably would not take much to do a lot of damage to one of these of course.
There has also been a whole "thing" about Russia effectively threatening to invade (with what?) Moldova to save Transnistira. Transnistria is now trying to raise a peacekeeping force. Sigh...
The bottom line here is that the russian nation under putin is a cancer. Cancer does not negotiate or go away and as a rule, the cure is arguably worse than the disease. For as long as it continues to exist it will consume both its own citizens and those that it comes into contact with. Remission ( cease fires or peace agreements) just mean that it goes quiet until can mutate and pursue a new path to kill its host.
If we should decide that putin is not going to conquer the entirety of Ukraine, then the key to this war is crimea; probably the only piece of occupied land worth much. The problem with liberating Crimea from Russia is that it is full of russians; it would be like trying liberating Florida from old people.
Actually, Russia's increasingly more peaceful geopolitical climate has made it less of a threat.
As Russian citizens and oligarchs spend more time out of the country and interacting with EU/US citizens, the average Russian has softened considerably on Russian foreign policy.
It's theorized that this is why Putin is pushing these wars so much - he wants to create an enemy that most Russians know doesn't exist. Ironically, he's also killing off those who are likely to believe his claims.
If Putin was smart and really wanted to drum up support for the war, he'd almost goad Ukraine into making strikes into Russian territory. That'd probably lend credence to the idea that Ukraine was overstepping it's boundaries as merely protecting itself, and acting in aggression. Doing so however might hurt the war effort by limiting capabilities of those Russian units stationed further inside the country.
America's war on terror would have likely never happened had the attacks of 9/11 never taken place. Being the victim of an attack is always a better rallying cry than being the attacker.
Can't forget that Russia has been literally replacing Ukrainians for Russians in captured territory- though ironically, some have used that as a means to escape to the west.
aircooled said:OK, and I do entirely agree with your observation that there are no really "good guys". It's all shades of gray... of course some are clearly more toward either end of the spectrum.
I think the general "guess" (maybe not by everyone in this thread) is that the West very much does have a say of what happens in Ukraine. They are funding it, and if they don't like the direction, or the amount of time being taken, they can very much influence what happens (and almost certainly will).
Idealistically, it's nice to say the Ukrainians should be able to do what they think is right and just. Realistically and practically, that's unlikely to happen. I highly suspect we will have a much better view of any potential future this summer.
We just learned what happens if it is publicly declared "We would would like to stop by X date". The opposition just waits it out. The message needs to be "As long as it takes."
If only they would take a poll of the New Russians from Ukraine on how they like being on the other side of the border.
pheller said:If Putin was smart and really wanted to drum up support for the war, he'd almost goad Ukraine into making strikes into Russian territory. That'd probably lend credence to the idea that Ukraine was overstepping it's boundaries as merely protecting itself, and acting in aggression. Doing so however might hurt the war effort by limiting capabilities of those Russian units stationed further inside the country.
America's war on terror would have likely never happened had the attacks of 9/11 never taken place. Being the victim of an attack is always a better rallying cry than being the attacker.
If Ukraine were to hit something that wasn't a military target by mistake. I.E. shopping mall. It definitely could increase the war fervor. It it wouldn't be unlike the Russian government to stage something like that.
You'll need to log in to post.
