What's going on in Ukraine?

[fishfoodie]

Biden is US President, & immune from prosecution until January; if he feels the need to transfer say 10 tactical nuclear warheads to Ukraine, & similar to Finland, & maybe a couple to the Baltic Republics, & anything else in the Army warehouses that Ukraine asked for, then that's within his authority.

It wouldn't hurt to let it leak to the Orcs that Ukraine was now a nuclear power too thanks to Putin & the Traitor !

MAD kept the peace for 50 years, & if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes !!!

Pretty stupid idea. Zelensky is somewhat competent and trustworthy, but the next Ukrainian off the lot could a fucking psycho who’ll fire the nukes at Russia or sell them to Iran.

Nukes are almost completely useless as offensive weapons; the two super powers spent billions of dollars in analysis to eventually conclude just that simple reality !

They do however have a value as reactive weapon; where if you're stupid enough to attack a nuclear powered state with sufficient forces that they face annihilation, where they've nothing left to lose, then sure, they'll use their nukes against your population centers, because you've backed them up against the wall.

If the Orcs actually made a break thru & would they risk 3-4 nukes on St Petersburg, & Moscow, & a couple on Crimea, or Rostov-On-Don for that prize ?

Similarly; is it worth pushing into Finland, or Latvia for one of them turning Murmansk, or Arkhangelsk into a glowing slagheap ?

They'd be trading a Queen for a Pawn.

[_Os_]

Obviously Trump committing to ending the conflict before he's in office, strips him of his strongest negotiating position, that'll he'll continue supporting Ukraine or increase the conflict. But his plan doesn't appear to make much sense. There's two options without either side winning:

Frozen conflict: There's a DMZ like in North/South Korea, neither side gives up their claims, neither side has any control over the sovereignty of the other.
Finlandisation: Ukraine gives up land for peace, could also be some control by Russia over Ukrainian sovereignty (membership of NATO).

These are two different and distinct outcomes, they're not the same. If Ukraine is formerly ceding territory and Russia has some control over Ukrainian sovereignty, where is the peace and why is their a DMZ patrolled by Europeans (and not the brilliant US partners, of course)?

Finlandisation isn't the worst outcome, if there's enough in the deal to actually become Finland.

Russia incorporating a large percentage of Ukraine including most of its natural resources, and having control over Ukraine's sovereignty to the extent that it veto it's application to international organizations ...... is a fuckiing terrible outcome and one which the Russians would be absolutely delighted with.

Russia's objectives: control all of Ukraine, which was democratising and wanted EU membership. The threat it posed was potentially showing Russians a better way of life. Other than perhaps Crimea everything else is irrelevant. Russia didn't care about Donbas, Girkin dreamt all that up, Russia got behind it as an afterthought with a small force probably because they hoped to exchange Donbas for Crimea. Ukraine rejected negotiating away territory so it became a useless bargaining chip. Not convinced Russia care a great deal about Ukrainian NATO membership. Not convinced Russia care about natural resources, considering how much Russia has.

There's two options.

Finlandisation: Finland gave up 10% of its territory, remained neutral during the Cold War, accepted restrictions on its military. Stalin originally wanted to annex Finland entirely. Ukraine currently has control over most of its territory including some coastline/ports. If Ukraine retains the 80% of its territory it currently controls, and there's enough in the deal (EU membership) to become a successful country, then Putin hasn't achieved his main objective.

Frozen conflict: no conflict termination and potentially no peace. Russia has significantly stronger fundamentals than Ukraine, it could be quite different to North/South Korea. Ukraine still wouldn't have the territory it doesn't control currently. Still no NATO membership because it's at war with Russia. This could be economically suboptimal. West not interested anymore, frozen conflict like Moldova and Georgia, weak economy, intense Russia interference. Possibility of turning back towards Russia in a generation if they decide it hasn't worked and feel betrayed.

Rejecting both means continuing trying to beat Russia in a land war. Not a safe bet when Russian troops remain committed and tolerant of casualty rates they've not seen since WW2. The risk being Ukraine runs out of men before Russia does materiel. Could end up forced into making that bet, losing means Ukraine formerly ceding territory and rump Ukraine becoming a vassal.

[Flockwitt]

Obviously Trump committing to ending the conflict before he's in office, strips him of his strongest negotiating position, that'll he'll continue supporting Ukraine or increase the conflict. But his plan doesn't appear to make much sense. There's two options without either side winning:

Frozen conflict: There's a DMZ like in North/South Korea, neither side gives up their claims, neither side has any control over the sovereignty of the other.
Finlandisation: Ukraine gives up land for peace, could also be some control by Russia over Ukrainian sovereignty (membership of NATO).

These are two different and distinct outcomes, they're not the same. If Ukraine is formerly ceding territory and Russia has some control over Ukrainian sovereignty, where is the peace and why is their a DMZ patrolled by Europeans (and not the brilliant US partners, of course)?

Finlandisation isn't the worst outcome, if there's enough in the deal to actually become Finland.

Russia incorporating a large percentage of Ukraine including most of its natural resources, and having control over Ukraine's sovereignty to the extent that it veto it's application to international organizations ...... is a fuckiing terrible outcome and one which the Russians would be absolutely delighted with.

Russia's objectives: control all of Ukraine, which was democratising and wanted EU membership. The threat it posed was potentially showing Russians a better way of life. Other than perhaps Crimea everything else is irrelevant. Russia didn't care about Donbas, Girkin dreamt all that up, Russia got behind it as an afterthought with a small force probably because they hoped to exchange Donbas for Crimea. Ukraine rejected negotiating away territory so it became a useless bargaining chip. Not convinced Russia care a great deal about Ukrainian NATO membership. Not convinced Russia care about natural resources, considering how much Russia has.

There's two options.

Finlandisation: Finland gave up 10% of its territory, remained neutral during the Cold War, accepted restrictions on its military. Stalin originally wanted to annex Finland entirely. Ukraine currently has control over most of its territory including some coastline/ports. If Ukraine retains the 80% of its territory it currently controls, and there's enough in the deal (EU membership) to become a successful country, then Putin hasn't achieved his main objective.

Frozen conflict: no conflict termination and potentially no peace. Russia has significantly stronger fundamentals than Ukraine, it could be quite different to North/South Korea. Ukraine still wouldn't have the territory it doesn't control currently. Still no NATO membership because it's at war with Russia. This could be economically suboptimal. West not interested anymore, frozen conflict like Moldova and Georgia, weak economy, intense Russia interference. Possibility of turning back towards Russia in a generation if they decide it hasn't worked and feel betrayed.

Rejecting both means continuing trying to beat Russia in a land war. Not a safe bet when Russian troops remain committed and tolerant of casualty rates they've not seen since WW2. The risk being Ukraine runs out of men before Russia does materiel. Could end up forced into making that bet, losing means Ukraine formerly ceding territory and rump Ukraine becoming a vassal.

There's a lot, like a LOT, of mineral wealth in the Donbas. Russia wants that, if only to preven Ukraine being a competitor.

Crimea is a given, I think Russia will attempt to force the landbridge concession, if they get the nuclear power plant and the swath of land they currently hold it will hurt Ukraine.

[Calculon]

Ukraine is not allowed to join Nato but has to trust Russia won't attack in the future. Yeah, great plan, such a mystery why the russians are so keen on this pan.

[tabascoboy]

Here are some insights into @Putin’s perspective on the “peace plans” recently associated with @realDonaldTrump in the media.

Judging by their content, these proposals are fundamentally unacceptable to him. However, based on recent statements, Putin seems to view these plans not as genuine intentions but as elements of Trump’s election campaign, detached from any concrete policy goals. While these ideas remain unacceptable to Putin, he appears untroubled by them—not because he is open to negotiation on these terms, but because he does not consider them a starting point. With Trump’s true intentions still unclear, Putin has adopted a wait-and-see approach to see what might eventually be proposed.

Putin also places significant belief in the “personal factor,” convinced that past American presidents had, intellectually, the potential to build constructive relations with Russia but were ultimately unable to overcome a “deep state” hostile to Russia. He has spoken warmly of George W. Bush and his father, and he praised Trump’s courage following an assassination attempt against him. Underlying this is a strong hope that Trump might overcome these constraints and engage in a comprehensive strategic dialogue with Russia. For Putin, Ukraine is only one piece of a larger puzzle. He is now waiting to see what Trump’s first move will be—focused not solely on Ukraine—but remains psychologically prepared for full escalation if diplomacy fails.

I scarcely ever agree with John Mearsheimer. Yet one of his maxim’s may have validity here. He often points out that world leaders often lie to their own people but seldom to each other.

Putin made his strategic position totally clear in his December 2021 demands. He demanded that NATO roll back to 1997 boundaries.

Putin is not interested in settling who controls Donbas or even the left bank of Dnieper. Putin is after the whole enchilada. He told us so. His demands were totally unacceptable to US, thus he invaded Ukraine.

The implications here are more than most folks are admitting. Putin wants to remake the map of Europe and feels he is already at war with the West.

Yet, he now lacks the military means to pull it off. So while he will demand to reopen this discussion, he no longer has the conventional military power he counted on in late 2021.

My bet however is that Putin has not given up on his strategic goals, especially with Trump willing to negotiate.

[_Os_]

There's a lot, like a LOT, of mineral wealth in the Donbas. Russia wants that, if only to preven Ukraine being a competitor.

Crimea is a given, I think Russia will attempt to force the landbridge concession, if they get the nuclear power plant and the swath of land they currently hold it will hurt Ukraine.

Like myself, you and Hellraiser have been posting about this conflict since 2014. Correct that Donbas has resources, but that started as a Girkin side quest, the little green men (obvious GRU cut out, basically became Wagner) were focused on Crimea at first. Things have developed since then and Putin obviously wants it now, it's his consolation prize. Russia having it hurts Ukraine more than it helps Russia, as you say. But Ukraine is still left with its large agri base.

Putin's position is that he wants Luhansk/Donetsk/Zaporizhzhia/Kherson. Very likely including territory he has been unable to win on the battlefield.

Obvious that Trump is going to try and railroad something then claim it's a "brilliant deal". I suspect Ukraine has to engage and expose Putin's demands as unreasonable to retain Western support. Possible Trump cuts off Ukraine regardless of the quality of any deal, but that still leaves Europe. Trump has said Pompeo and Haley will not be in his second administration, both are anti-Russian especially Pompeo, it does look like Trump wants to leave Europe to focus on supporting Israel and opposing China.

It's maybe also an opportunity for Ukraine, if they start really going backwards on the battlefield then talks where Ukraine gets anything become impossible.

[_Os_]

Ukraine is not allowed to join Nato but has to trust Russia won't attack in the future. Yeah, great plan, such a mystery why the russians are so keen on this pan.

Conditions under which Ukraine joins NATO:
Total Ukrainian military victory.

Conditions under which Ukraine never joins NATO:
Frozen conflict, where there's no peace and Ukraine remains at war with Russia (North and South Korea are still at war). Moldova and Georgia aren't in NATO and cannot be.

Conditions under which Ukraine gets something halfway:
Negotiated outcome where Ukraine trades things it wants for things Russia wants.

What Russia wants short of a total military victory, is a frozen conflict like Moldova and Georgia but hotter. A constant low grade war. It makes it hard for Ukraine to do anything constructive, Russia then waits and eats away at the country. Are Moldova and Georgia functional solid members of the EU and NATO? Russia's goal is to prevent Ukraine becoming a successful country like Poland. Russia would not be keen on the 80% of Ukraine that Ukraine controls becoming like Finland, but Russia has not won the war so cannot dictate everything. Maybe Russia does come knocking again, but there's risks in a no deal too.

If you're going for a total military victory the softest starting point is cutting the land bridge to pressure Crimea, the minimum required to do that is taking the Tokmak area to gain fire control over the land bridge. That's not happening anytime soon.

[Calculon]

Let's see what Trump actually does, and how Europe responds, before we tell the Ukrainians to surrender

[_Os_]

Let's see what Trump actually does, and how Europe responds, before we tell the Ukrainians to surrender

"We"? Ramaphosa has already gone to Kyiv and Moscow in a hopeless attempt to try secure a peace deal.

Not hard to find Ukrainians talking about this stuff, including those who served in the UAF. Already posted some of their comments on the thread.

[Calculon]

Let's see what Trump actually does, and how Europe responds, before we tell the Ukrainians to surrender

"We"? Ramaphosa has already gone to Kyiv and Moscow in a hopeless attempt to try secure a peace deal.

Not hard to find Ukrainians talking about this stuff, including those who served in the UAF. Already posted some of their comments on the thread.

by we i mean you, your plan is a terrible outcome for Ukraine short of russia completely occupy the country , which even if the Americans withdraw support seems an unlikely outcome

[tabascoboy]

After some small but not insignificant successes in the last couple of months, even at great cost, get the feeling that Russian leadership is determined to step things up. This despite the unfavourable season since they expect Ukraine to be forced into territorial concessions - and the more land they occupy, albeit contested in places - the better for them. There is a build of forces in the Zaporizhzhia direction. Also, reportedly Putin orders Kursk region to be retaken by January 20, before Trump's inauguration, and efforts to do this appear to be more concerted than previously.

[Sandstorm]

Trump likes a big headline and "I brought peace to Ukraine!" is a big one. I reckon he'll throw Putin under the bus to get the win.

[Uncle fester]

Let's not forget that Putin's original plan was not to annex Donbass but to "give them back" to Ukraine after rewriting their constitution to ensure that Donbass (i.e. he and Russia) had a veto on Ukraine stepping out of line with Russian objectives.

[_Os_]

Let's see what Trump actually does, and how Europe responds, before we tell the Ukrainians to surrender

"We"? Ramaphosa has already gone to Kyiv and Moscow in a hopeless attempt to try secure a peace deal.

Not hard to find Ukrainians talking about this stuff, including those who served in the UAF. Already posted some of their comments on the thread.

by we i mean you, your plan is a terrible outcome for Ukraine short of russia completely occupy the country , which even if the Americans withdraw support seems an unlikely outcome

Trump is saying one way or another it's not continuing as is. As I outlined a frozen conflict is also worse than a conflict termination through negotiation.

US cutting support and the war continuing at a lower intensity whilst more Westerners forget about Ukraine. Would be an excellent outcome for Putin. Ukraine cannot join any multilateral international institutions in any significant way under those conditions, and Putin can destroy more of Ukraine, after four years of that there'll be little chance of Ukraine becoming successful for decades.

[_Os_]

Let's not forget that Putin's original plan was not to annex Donbass but to "give them back" to Ukraine after rewriting their constitution to ensure that Donbass (i.e. he and Russia) had a veto on Ukraine stepping out of line with Russian objectives.

Exactly. Putin just doesn't want a successful Ukraine unaligned to Russia, it has never been about anything else. As you say Donbas was intended as a bargaining chip in negotiations, "you can have Donbas if we get Crimea, each region has a veto in the new political system ... and we secretly control the Donbas and have their regional veto". That didn't work so Russia turned it into a face saving measure "we must have Donbas!".

The whole point is Putin doesn't want Ukraine to become Finland.

[tabascoboy]

Well speaking of "Finlandisation"

Finland's Valtonen opposes "Finlandization" solution for Ukraine peace

The Finnish FM opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine, citing Finland’s history with Russia and warning it would harm international order and Ukraine’s sovereignty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And not directly relevant, but pertinant

Occupied Abkhazia rebelled against the ratification of an investment agreement with Russia.

Echo of the Caucasus writes that mass protests began after the signing of an agreement that allows Russian companies to implement investment projects in the unrecognized republic. The opposition criticized the document, fearing infringement on the rights of local entrepreneurs and the strengthening of "oligarchic groups."

The so-called authorities call the protests illegal mass unrest. Military equipment has been brought to government buildings.

[_Os_]

Well speaking of "Finlandisation"

Finland's Valtonen opposes "Finlandization" solution for Ukraine peace

The Finnish FM opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine, citing Finland’s history with Russia and warning it would harm international order and Ukraine’s sovereignty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And not directly relevant, but pertinant

Occupied Abkhazia rebelled against the ratification of an investment agreement with Russia.

Echo of the Caucasus writes that mass protests began after the signing of an agreement that allows Russian companies to implement investment projects in the unrecognized republic. The opposition criticized the document, fearing infringement on the rights of local entrepreneurs and the strengthening of "oligarchic groups."

The so-called authorities call the protests illegal mass unrest. Military equipment has been brought to government buildings.

Finlandisation is typically a pejorative. It's obviously worse than a total Ukrainian victory. But it's also the least worse of the other potential outcomes. Finns compare their Cold War experience to larger Western countries, not the Baltics which is probably more relevant.

The Georgia news item shows what happens in a frozen conflict between countries with a large disparity in the fundamentals (economy, population, territory, resources). It's not North and South Korea, it's the weaker of the two being pulled towards the stronger. Putin would welcome a Moldova or Georgia outcome, because it would leave Ukraine crippled.

[Hellraiser]

Bit of an update on how Joe McDonald has been getting on. He's now in a drone unit of the 124th Territorial Defence Brigade which recently became part of the Marine Corp.

[Calculon]

Well speaking of "Finlandisation"

Finland's Valtonen opposes "Finlandization" solution for Ukraine peace

The Finnish FM opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine, citing Finland’s history with Russia and warning it would harm international order and Ukraine’s sovereignty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And not directly relevant, but pertinant

Occupied Abkhazia rebelled against the ratification of an investment agreement with Russia.

Echo of the Caucasus writes that mass protests began after the signing of an agreement that allows Russian companies to implement investment projects in the unrecognized republic. The opposition criticized the document, fearing infringement on the rights of local entrepreneurs and the strengthening of "oligarchic groups."

The so-called authorities call the protests illegal mass unrest. Military equipment has been brought to government buildings.

Finlandisation is typically a pejorative. It's obviously worse than a total Ukrainian victory. But it's also the least worse of the other potential outcomes. Finns compare their Cold War experience to larger Western countries, not the Baltics which is probably more relevant.

The Georgia news item shows what happens in a frozen conflict between countries with a large disparity in the fundamentals (economy, population, territory, resources). It's not North and South Korea, it's the weaker of the two being pulled towards the stronger. Putin would welcome a Moldova or Georgia outcome, because it would leave Ukraine crippled.

And a frozen conflict with Russia under continued sanctions and Ukrainia receiving western support is far better than them formally giving up territory and also some sovereignty to Russia. As long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war they should be supported by the West

[_Os_]

And a frozen conflict with Russia under continued sanctions and Ukrainia receiving western support is far better than them formally giving up territory and also some sovereignty to Russia. As long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war they should be supported by the West

The key part is "as long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war". You need to start listening to what Ukrainians are saying, they're saying they don't have enough men and equipment.

If Ukraine doesn't use this juncture to get something from negotiations whilst the sides are mostly stagnant, then Ukraine remains in a war of attrition that's destroying the country of Ukraine more than it is the country of Russia. Zelensky isn't being realistic I'm afraid, NATO membership isn't happening whilst they're at war with Russia, obtaining nukes isn't going to happen if Ukraine wants to be a Western partner and isn't a quick fix anyway, even increasing military aid will be challenging given Trump's election promises that secured his mandate and production constraints. None of Zelensky's victory plan looks likely, unless there's another victory plan Ukraine winning depends on Russia being unable to man and supply its defences. There's also a political failure from Zelensky in framing victory as the total military defeat of Russia, rather than simply Ukraine existing as an independent country.

Clausewitz said war was politics by other means. Bismarck that "politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best". Attempting impossible things in politics means losing everything. What sort of partner enables that to happen? That logic applies to Israel too btw.

[Calculon]

And a frozen conflict with Russia under continued sanctions and Ukrainia receiving western support is far better than them formally giving up territory and also some sovereignty to Russia. As long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war they should be supported by the West

The key part is "as long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war". You need to start listening to what Ukrainians are saying, they're saying they don't have enough men and equipment.

If Ukraine doesn't use this juncture to get something from negotiations whilst the sides are mostly stagnant, then Ukraine remains in a war of attrition that's destroying the country of Ukraine more than it is the country of Russia. Zelensky isn't being realistic I'm afraid, NATO membership isn't happening whilst they're at war with Russia, obtaining nukes isn't going to happen if Ukraine wants to be a Western partner and isn't a quick fix anyway, even increasing military aid will be challenging given Trump's election promises that secured his mandate and production constraints. None of Zelensky's victory plan looks likely, unless there's another victory plan Ukraine winning depends on Russia being unable to man and supply its defences. There's also a political failure from Zelensky in framing victory as the total military defeat of Russia, rather than simply Ukraine existing as an independent country.

Clausewitz said war was politics by other means. Bismarck that "politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best". Attempting impossible things in politics means losing everything. What sort of partner enables that to happen? That logic applies to Israel too btw.

The Ukrainian public supports the war and overwhelmingly rejects peace based on giving up the territory currently occupied by Russia. As for listening to Ukrainians, they also say they need more support from the West, so maybe you're the one who should be listening to what they say. Russia having larger resources doesn't make their victory inevitable as you seem to think,, Ukraine needs to persuade them that holding on to those, or at least some of those territories is more trouble than it's worth. A very difficult task of course

[tabascoboy]

NATO will provide military assistance to Ukraine on a scale that ensures the Ukrainian Armed Forces are prepared to continue fighting in 2025, according to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

"The purpose of this visit is to focus our efforts on ensuring that Ukraine has the funds, ammunition, and mobilized forces to fight effectively in 2025 or to be able to enter negotiations from a position of strength." - he stated.

[tabascoboy]

[Guy Smiley]

Tell me you're not hearing ' a very special envoy, a person of great authority' in Trump's voice.

[Flockwitt]

We need a meme of Trump spreading out both hands and going "the best people".

[tabascoboy]

We need a meme of Trump spreading out both hands and going "the best people".

We need an updated 2024 version of this

[_Os_]

And a frozen conflict with Russia under continued sanctions and Ukrainia receiving western support is far better than them formally giving up territory and also some sovereignty to Russia. As long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war they should be supported by the West

The key part is "as long as the Ukrainians are prepared to continue the war". You need to start listening to what Ukrainians are saying, they're saying they don't have enough men and equipment.

If Ukraine doesn't use this juncture to get something from negotiations whilst the sides are mostly stagnant, then Ukraine remains in a war of attrition that's destroying the country of Ukraine more than it is the country of Russia. Zelensky isn't being realistic I'm afraid, NATO membership isn't happening whilst they're at war with Russia, obtaining nukes isn't going to happen if Ukraine wants to be a Western partner and isn't a quick fix anyway, even increasing military aid will be challenging given Trump's election promises that secured his mandate and production constraints. None of Zelensky's victory plan looks likely, unless there's another victory plan Ukraine winning depends on Russia being unable to man and supply its defences. There's also a political failure from Zelensky in framing victory as the total military defeat of Russia, rather than simply Ukraine existing as an independent country.

Clausewitz said war was politics by other means. Bismarck that "politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best". Attempting impossible things in politics means losing everything. What sort of partner enables that to happen? That logic applies to Israel too btw.

The Ukrainian public supports the war and overwhelmingly rejects peace based on giving up the territory currently occupied by Russia. As for listening to Ukrainians, they also say they need more support from the West, so maybe you're the one who should be listening to what they say. Russia having larger resources doesn't make their victory inevitable as you seem to think,, Ukraine needs to persuade them that holding on to those, or at least some of those territories is more trouble than it's worth. A very difficult task of course

We're going round in circles.

Zelensky has outlined what he thinks he needs for a victory, he's not going to get it. Zelensky has framed winning as a total military victory, and nothing short of that. Ukrainians actually fighting or close to the fighting, say they need more men and equipment. Can't make any more men and a higher flow of weapons depends on the US. Meanwhile all the infrastructure Ukraine needs to run its economy is being destroyed. To be clear total military victory means defeating Russian ground defences through offensive campaigns, it doesn't mean fighting forever.

When have I ever thought Russian victory was inevitable, literally at any point over the last decade of this? The first thing you need to understand is Russian objectives, which I have explained. If Ukraine becomes a successful country unaligned to Russia, then Russia has lost. A forever war that destroys Ukraine, means Russia has won.

Rejecting all negotiations until Ukraine has no will to fight or simply cannot fight any further, would mean Ukraine has no leverage and cannot negotiate anything. Wrong to think negotiations happen from that position, what then happens is defeat and unconditional surrender. So what you're actually saying is Ukraine must achieve a total military victory or cease to exist.

[_Os_]

Looks like Trump is going to cut "a brilliant deal, the best deal" with Putin, that Ukraine either accepts or does not and forgoes US support.

Ukraine would be wise to fully engage to shape the deal into something that's the least worst, if they don't non-Ukrainians will negotiate it all for them.

Anything short of Ukraine working with Trump looks catastrophic for Ukraine.

[lemonhead]

Tell me you're not hearing ' a very special envoy, a person of great authority' in Trump's voice.

It's going to be Marjorie Taylor Greene, isn't it...

[Hellraiser]

If the US stops military aid, Ukraine will be able to develop a primitive nuclear bomb like the "Fat Man" dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 within a few months, The Times reported, citing Ukrainian Defense Ministry documents.

In the absence of uranium enrichment facilities, Ukraine can use plutonium from spent fuel from nuclear reactors.

The total mass of plutonium from Ukrainian nuclear reactors is 7 tons, which is enough to create several hundred tactical warheads of several kilotons, which is approximately 1/10 of the power of the "Fat Man".

This will be enough to destroy the Russian airbase, concentration of armed forces, industrial and logistics facilities.

Ukraine has the competence to create such technology. It will be difficult to accurately calculate the power of such a weapon, since it will use different isotopes of plutonium, - Oleksiy Yizhak, head of the department of the National Institute for Strategic Studies.

The project will be presented in the near future. The Ukrainian government has not yet taken a course on developing nuclear weapons, but it may be preparing a legal basis for withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which it abandoned in 1994 under the security guarantees spelled out in the Budapest Memorandum, handing over 1,734 strategic warheads.

Western experts believe that Ukraine will need at least 5 years to develop nuclear weapons and a suitable carrier.

As for the carrier, Valentin Badrak, the head of the center developing the project, said that within six months Ukraine will demonstrate ballistic missiles with a range of 1,000 km.

Iyzhak and Badrak believe that if the US cuts off aid, Britain will help Ukraine develop a nuclear deterrent, provided that Ukraine has no conventional way to deter Russia.

If Russia reaches Pavlograd (≈100 km from the front line), this will be a signal for Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons.

"I was surprised by the reverence the US has for Russian nuclear weapons. Perhaps it cost us the war. They treat nuclear weapons as if they were some kind of deity. Well, maybe it's time for us to worship them," - Jizak.

[tabascoboy]

[tabascoboy]

Russian celebrity chef and restaurant owner Aleksei Zimin, an outspoken critic of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, has been found dead in Belgrade. The 52-year-old, who ran a restaurant in London, was found deceased in a hotel room. An autopsy and toxicology report are underway to determine the cause of death.

[_Os_]

If the US stops military aid, Ukraine will be able to develop a primitive nuclear bomb like the "Fat Man" dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 within a few months, The Times reported, citing Ukrainian Defense Ministry documents.

In the absence of uranium enrichment facilities, Ukraine can use plutonium from spent fuel from nuclear reactors.

The total mass of plutonium from Ukrainian nuclear reactors is 7 tons, which is enough to create several hundred tactical warheads of several kilotons, which is approximately 1/10 of the power of the "Fat Man".

This will be enough to destroy the Russian airbase, concentration of armed forces, industrial and logistics facilities.

Ukraine has the competence to create such technology. It will be difficult to accurately calculate the power of such a weapon, since it will use different isotopes of plutonium, - Oleksiy Yizhak, head of the department of the National Institute for Strategic Studies.

The project will be presented in the near future. The Ukrainian government has not yet taken a course on developing nuclear weapons, but it may be preparing a legal basis for withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which it abandoned in 1994 under the security guarantees spelled out in the Budapest Memorandum, handing over 1,734 strategic warheads.

Western experts believe that Ukraine will need at least 5 years to develop nuclear weapons and a suitable carrier.

As for the carrier, Valentin Badrak, the head of the center developing the project, said that within six months Ukraine will demonstrate ballistic missiles with a range of 1,000 km.

Iyzhak and Badrak believe that if the US cuts off aid, Britain will help Ukraine develop a nuclear deterrent, provided that Ukraine has no conventional way to deter Russia.

If Russia reaches Pavlograd (≈100 km from the front line), this will be a signal for Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons.

"I was surprised by the reverence the US has for Russian nuclear weapons. Perhaps it cost us the war. They treat nuclear weapons as if they were some kind of deity. Well, maybe it's time for us to worship them," - Jizak.

Not possible to deter something which has already happened. Lets say Ukraine manages to produce some small nukes and uses them. Inside Ukraine it very maybe gets away with it without a Russian response, but Ukraine has then nuked its own country maybe killing the people it wishes to liberate. Inside Russia and there'll be a strong Russian nuclear response, anything less and their nuclear deterrent becomes meaningless. Nuking a Russian airbase and losing Lviv doesn't seem worth it.

If they get a real conflict termination and agreed borders (Finlandisation), then a nuclear deterrent becomes interesting. The US may not be happy though, there's a chance they sanction a nuclear armed Ukraine. The Western alliance is really about maintaining US dominance, it's not about strengthening the periphery countries enough to rival the US (anyone who does that ends up a US enemy). There's a lot of latent/threshold nuclear weapon countries, as going further would upset the US. There's a proliferation risk whenever a new country attains a nuclear deterrent, it's not just Ukraine which has justifiable reason to become nuclear armed: Poland/Finland/South Korea/Japan/Taiwan/Turkey/Egypt/Saudi/Iran. Once they're all armed others will want them, maximum proliferation would be about 30 nuclear armed countries.

Seems inevitable though. Doesn't seem likely the US launches a retaliation nuclear strike on behalf of another country, no chance at all if that country isn't in NATO.

[Hellraiser]

If the US stops military aid, Ukraine will be able to develop a primitive nuclear bomb like the "Fat Man" dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 within a few months, The Times reported, citing Ukrainian Defense Ministry documents.

In the absence of uranium enrichment facilities, Ukraine can use plutonium from spent fuel from nuclear reactors.

The total mass of plutonium from Ukrainian nuclear reactors is 7 tons, which is enough to create several hundred tactical warheads of several kilotons, which is approximately 1/10 of the power of the "Fat Man".

This will be enough to destroy the Russian airbase, concentration of armed forces, industrial and logistics facilities.

Ukraine has the competence to create such technology. It will be difficult to accurately calculate the power of such a weapon, since it will use different isotopes of plutonium, - Oleksiy Yizhak, head of the department of the National Institute for Strategic Studies.

The project will be presented in the near future. The Ukrainian government has not yet taken a course on developing nuclear weapons, but it may be preparing a legal basis for withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which it abandoned in 1994 under the security guarantees spelled out in the Budapest Memorandum, handing over 1,734 strategic warheads.

Western experts believe that Ukraine will need at least 5 years to develop nuclear weapons and a suitable carrier.

As for the carrier, Valentin Badrak, the head of the center developing the project, said that within six months Ukraine will demonstrate ballistic missiles with a range of 1,000 km.

Iyzhak and Badrak believe that if the US cuts off aid, Britain will help Ukraine develop a nuclear deterrent, provided that Ukraine has no conventional way to deter Russia.

If Russia reaches Pavlograd (≈100 km from the front line), this will be a signal for Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons.

"I was surprised by the reverence the US has for Russian nuclear weapons. Perhaps it cost us the war. They treat nuclear weapons as if they were some kind of deity. Well, maybe it's time for us to worship them," - Jizak.

Not possible to deter something which has already happened. Lets say Ukraine manages to produce some small nukes and uses them. Inside Ukraine it very maybe gets away with it without a Russian response, but Ukraine has then nuked its own country maybe killing the people it wishes to liberate. Inside Russia and there'll be a strong Russian nuclear response, anything less and their nuclear deterrent becomes meaningless. Nuking a Russian airbase and losing Lviv doesn't seem worth it.

If they get a real conflict termination and agreed borders (Finlandisation), then a nuclear deterrent becomes interesting. The US may not be happy though, there's a chance they sanction a nuclear armed Ukraine. The Western alliance is really about maintaining US dominance, it's not about strengthening the periphery countries enough to rival the US (anyone who does that ends up a US enemy). There's a lot of latent/threshold nuclear weapon countries, as going further would upset the US. There's a proliferation risk whenever a new country attains a nuclear deterrent, it's not just Ukraine which has justifiable reason to become nuclear armed: Poland/Finland/South Korea/Japan/Taiwan/Turkey/Egypt/Saudi/Iran. Once they're all armed others will want them, maximum proliferation would be about 30 nuclear armed countries.

Seems inevitable though. Doesn't seem likely the US launches a retaliation nuclear strike on behalf of another country, no chance at all if that country isn't in NATO.

It's the Israel 1973 gambit.

[Hellraiser]

OSINT researcher Jompy has updated the lists of weapons remaining at Russian storage bases. He notes that in many categories the amount of weapons remaining has fallen to less than 50% of pre-war stocks, and what remains is often in rather poor technical condition. Also, the images of some storage bases are not the freshest - there has been no data for more than six months at some locations.

• Tanks. The Russians have removed at least 2,957 tanks from storage bases, or 47% of those there. Of the remainder, only 579 appear to be in good technical condition.

• BMP/BMD: the Russians removed 2964 combat vehicles of this class, or 43% of the pre-war ones. Of the remaining ones, only 913 look to be in normal technical condition. Almost all are BMPs, there are practically no BMDs left.

• BTR/MT-LB: The Russians removed 4,678 vehicles of this class from their bases, or exactly half. Of the remaining, only 1,465 appear to be in normal technical condition. The remaining vehicles are mainly BTR-60/70, MT-LBu and BRDM-2.

• Artillery: The Russians removed 12,264 artillery systems, or 58%. The largest percentage of those removed were mortars, MLRS and large-caliber towed guns.

@yigal_levin

[mat the expat]

If the US stops military aid, Ukraine will be able to develop a primitive nuclear bomb like the "Fat Man" dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 within a few months, The Times reported, citing Ukrainian Defense Ministry documents.

In the absence of uranium enrichment facilities, Ukraine can use plutonium from spent fuel from nuclear reactors.

The total mass of plutonium from Ukrainian nuclear reactors is 7 tons, which is enough to create several hundred tactical warheads of several kilotons, which is approximately 1/10 of the power of the "Fat Man".

This will be enough to destroy the Russian airbase, concentration of armed forces, industrial and logistics facilities.

Ukraine has the competence to create such technology. It will be difficult to accurately calculate the power of such a weapon, since it will use different isotopes of plutonium, - Oleksiy Yizhak, head of the department of the National Institute for Strategic Studies.

Not possible to deter something which has already happened. Lets say Ukraine manages to produce some small nukes and uses them. Inside Ukraine it very maybe gets away with it without a Russian response, but Ukraine has then nuked its own country maybe killing the people it wishes to liberate. Inside Russia and there'll be a strong Russian nuclear response, anything less and their nuclear deterrent becomes meaningless. Nuking a Russian airbase and losing Lviv doesn't seem worth it.

If they get a real conflict termination and agreed borders (Finlandisation), then a nuclear deterrent becomes interesting. The US may not be happy though, there's a chance they sanction a nuclear armed Ukraine. The Western alliance is really about maintaining US dominance, it's not about strengthening the periphery countries enough to rival the US (anyone who does that ends up a US enemy). There's a lot of latent/threshold nuclear weapon countries, as going further would upset the US. There's a proliferation risk whenever a new country attains a nuclear deterrent, it's not just Ukraine which has justifiable reason to become nuclear armed: Poland/Finland/South Korea/Japan/Taiwan/Turkey/Egypt/Saudi/Iran. Once they're all armed others will want them, maximum proliferation would be about 30 nuclear armed countries.

Seems inevitable though. Doesn't seem likely the US launches a retaliation nuclear strike on behalf of another country, no chance at all if that country isn't in NATO.

To be fair to Ukraine, they gave up Nukes on the proviso the West would aid them

Fair enough if they want to re-up

[tabascoboy]

[tabascoboy]

Well, Scholz's call to Putin was obviously really persuading ( and Trudeau in supporting this is an idiot too). Why keep trying to appease this man who is clearly little more than a terrorist threat to the region?

Imagine your country is exposed to this level of terror. You wouldn’t negotiate with the terrorists from this neighboring country. You would fight back.

Freedom is not negotiable. Freedom is not for free. And you are just curtailing your own freedom if you expect any other country should accept this.

Amid widespread attacks on Ukraine's civilians, barring Ukraine from striking military targets in Russia feels particularly cynical. Again, Russia targets energy infrastructure to freeze civilians in winter. For the Ukrainian Armed Forces, these strikes are not as devastating.

[tabascoboy]

Finally

And here we have it. The constraints are gone.

Future generations will look back to this episode and will wonder why they couldn’t see the obvious way to victory.

[inactionman]

Finally

And here we have it. The constraints are gone.

Future generations will look back to this episode and will wonder why they couldn’t see the obvious way to victory.

Not seeing that elsewhere?

If true, took his bleeding time.

And I know it's not exactly the primary military target, but here's a $1B+ palace in Krasnodar Krai that could do with a few storm shadows through the skylights.

ETA; I've seen it now, on the NYT frontpage.

ETA2: And not all weapons, and not in all places. It's a start, I suppose, although only a couple of months until Biden is out.