Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 08:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  This is a truth bomb if I've ever seen one:

I agree there is a lot of truth there. There are also some things that are off the rails. In particular, the idea that NATO or the West can enforce an embargo on the South coast is absurd. Turkey is required by treaty to prevent warships not returning to home ports from entering the Black Sea. Not doing so puts Turkey in a war against Russia. That isn't happening. NATO has essentially no warships in the Black Sea. Romania/Bulgaria have nothing to contribute. Turkey could commit it's entire navy to the effort but wouldn't last a week, and would for sure start a full on war with NATO. This effort is even less likely than a no-fly zone. Suggesting it is absurd IMHO.

I also do not agree that military defeat of Russia by Ukraine is the only way Russia gives up. While I would dearly love that to happen, I think economic necessity is actually a better bet. I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. The West needs to make sure that does not happen. Keeping Ukraine in the war and viable is necessary. I have been a fan of delivering MLRS systems to Ukraine for quite some time. They do require training, but not as much as flying an F-16 or operating a tank. They also can hold essentially any Russian attack at risk and are inherently quite mobile. The "bang for the buck is large". Romania actually already has a HIMARS system, which is even more modern than the MLRS. The US National Guard also has quite a few. They are available.

Making Russia unable/unwilling to continue fighting and to withdraw from at least their post 2014 gains has to be the goal. That won't be easy.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-18-2022

Mariupol, Azov Battalion still conducting raids outside of the Azovstal steel plant, though this is near it. The end of the video is a bit brutal, some coup de grace grenades. Probable targets are Donbas separatist fighters/ DNR not Russian regulars. Russia seems to be letting Chechens and DNR do a lot of the close quarters fighting in Mariupol, likely to preserve their depleted elite shock troops.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Polk_Azov/status/1516025387779825668?s=20&t=xE1JpOn41KNcwaoiXnNuug[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 04-18-2022

Agreed with a lot of the analysis posted here.  Initiative is on the Ukrainians' side if they can pick their battles.  Let's hope we're giving them good intel about targets of opportunity.  (Also, go re-/build a dam to cut off that north Crimean canal and deprive eastern Crimea of water again!)

And here I thought the Chechens were second line troops sent to shoot any Russian regulars who were caught fleeing the front lines...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 09:32 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Agreed with a lot of the analysis posted here.  Initiative is on the Ukrainians' side if they can pick their battles.  Let's hope we're giving them good intel about targets of opportunity.  (Also, go re-/build a dam to cut off that north Crimean canal and deprive eastern Crimea of water again!)

The Ukrainians would love to do so. Unfortunately, both sides of the river are under Russian control at the moment. If even one side of the river is, there will be no dam.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 09:05 AM)Goose Wrote:  I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. 

If Ukraine can limit Russia to the territory you described, but retain Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson, why would Ukraine be non-viable?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 10:31 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(04-18-2022, 09:05 AM)Goose Wrote:  I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. 

If Ukraine can limit Russia to the territory you described, but retain Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson, why would Ukraine be non-viable?

IMHO, two reasons. Mariupol is a key port on the Sea of Azov. It exports a large percentage of Ukrainian grain and other products. It is the only port on the Sea of Azov with such large port facilities. It is also a major manufacturing center. If Russia keeps that strip of land, Ukraine can't use the M14 highway either. Odesa is just not a big enough port to supply Ukraine's needs. Historically it is the countries third choice, with Sevastopol and Mariupol ahead of it. Odesa is at the "far end" of the country. Lots of exports would have to go a long way.

The second reason is that Odesa is geographically just too easy for Russia to blockade. With the land corridor to Russia proper, Crimea can be supplied for sure. From there, Odesa is always at risk. The German navy tried to run a war out of Odesa. They gave up. Too hard to do. Ukraine can't constantly be at risk of being cut off. Nobody is going to invest with Putin sitting on such an advantage.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 10:52 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-18-2022, 10:31 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(04-18-2022, 09:05 AM)Goose Wrote:  I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. 

If Ukraine can limit Russia to the territory you described, but retain Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson, why would Ukraine be non-viable?

IMHO, two reasons. Mariupol is a key port on the Sea of Azov. It exports a large percentage of Ukrainian grain and other products. It is the only port on the Sea of Azov with such large port facilities. It is also a major manufacturing center. If Russia keeps that strip of land, Ukraine can't use the M14 highway either. Odesa is just not a big enough port to supply Ukraine's needs. Historically it is the countries third choice, with Sevastopol and Mariupol ahead of it. Odesa is at the "far end" of the country. Lots of exports would have to go a long way.

The second reason is that Odesa is geographically just too easy for Russia to blockade. With the land corridor to Russia proper, Crimea can be supplied for sure. From there, Odesa is always at risk. The German navy tried to run a war out of Odesa. They gave up. Too hard to do. Ukraine can't constantly be at risk of being cut off. Nobody is going to invest with Putin sitting on such an advantage.

In a portion of this thread, folks also argued that the Baltics are indefensible and subject to being blockaded.  Let's assume that is correct.  In that case, why have people invested so heavily there and how have the Baltics achieved per capita GDPs that are 2-3 times that of Ukraine?  I would think that security guarantees, in particular NATO membership, are the key.  Now let's assume there is a cease fire in which Russia gets to keep the territory you described.  Presumably, Ukraine would insist on strong security guarantees.  I understand that Zelenskyy has offered neutrality as a way to resolve the conflict, but that seems backwards to me, and I think it's based on the assumption that Russia does NOT keep much new land.  Is there a principled reason that Ukraine should not be a member of the EU or NATO?  If Russia gets to keep the land bridge, but Ukraine gets to join Europe in a formal way, with all the associated security guarantees, I think that would make Ukraine quite viable as an ongoing entity.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-18-2022

I thought Odessa and Mykolaiv were major ports, and I'm sure they will be flush with EU money to rebuild them after the war. Not really sure what Ukraine being non-viable means.

Assuming Russia keeps Mariupol and Azov coastline, Ukraine's Black Sea shoreline is still as long as Romania and Bulgaria's, two viable seeming nations.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 11:14 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  In a portion of this thread, folks also argued that the Baltics are indefensible and subject to being blockaded.  Let's assume that is correct.  In that case, why have people invested so heavily there and how have the Baltics achieved per capita GDPs that are 2-3 times that of Ukraine?

Easy. The US and the EU, particularly Germany dumped truckloads of money into these states as soon as they declared independence. The commercial interests didn't have to take the risks. They aren't real big. A few truckloads go a long way. Also, at the time that happened Belarus was considered an "independent state", not a Russian client state. It was assumed Russia would have to invade Belarus first, giving time for the Baltics to be defended. Not that way today however.
Interestingly, Ukraine fully expected similar truckloads of money. Didn't happen. If it had, who knows what would have been different. Ukraine opted for independence at least partially (some say mostly) because they thought the West was going to massively aid them and invest there.

Quote:I would think that security guarantees, in particular NATO membership, are the key.  Now let's assume there is a cease fire in which Russia gets to keep the territory you described.  Presumably, Ukraine would insist on strong security guarantees.  I understand that Zelenskyy has offered neutrality as a way to resolve the conflict, but that seems backwards to me, and I think it's based on the assumption that Russia does NOT keep much new land.  Is there a principled reason that Ukraine should not be a member of the EU or NATO?  If Russia gets to keep the land bridge, but Ukraine gets to join Europe in a formal way, with all the associated security guarantees, I think that would make Ukraine quite viable as an ongoing entity.

This scenario is a nice one, but the problem is that NATO really doesn't at present have the resources or will to defend Ukraine. That is why Germany and others basically nixed their application years ago. Rightly or wrongly, most of NATO views it as a bridge too far. That will be even more true with Russia in an even better strategic position. Zelenskyy has realized this. It makes him mad, but he is not expecting NATO to step up and take Ukraine into it's numbers. I suspect he has been repeatedly told NO and the message has been received.

The unfortunate fact is that Ukraine cannot receive meaningful security guarantees unless the guarantors actually station forces on Ukrainian soil in significant numbers. If your own citizens are going to get killed, you mean it. If, when the war starts, you can just say "Sorry, too hard to do", these assurances are meaningless. Zelenskyy knows this too. It has already happened to his country. He also knows Russia would never sit still for US troops in Ukraine. Therefore, he wants the tools for Ukraine to defend itself to be guaranteed. How that can work is through bilateral treaties that allow the US (for one) to provide military hardware to Ukraine without restrictions. Will we do it? Will Ukraine trust us to give them what they need to make Russian aggression too costly to contemplate? I don't know.

However, with the threat of hostilities always present, Ukraine will always be a poor investment risk. Even if they win the next war, it just isn't worth the risk of having your factory destroyed or being unable to ship product. Shell pulled out of potentially lucrative properties for good reason. Some kind of a stable political and economic settlement has to be reached, and that can't happen with Russia in the Donbas and Ukraine cut off from the Sea of Azov. Russia not keeping much land is a prerequisite for viability because only that indicates Russian goodwill and mitigates the threat of continued aggression in the future. The seeds of the next war need to be removed. I didn't say it would be easy.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 09:23 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Mariupol, Azov Battalion still conducting raids outside of the Azovstal steel plant, though this is near it. The end of the video is a bit brutal, some coup de grace grenades. Probable targets are Donbas separatist fighters/ DNR not Russian regulars. Russia seems to be letting Chechens and DNR do a lot of the close quarters fighting in Mariupol, likely to preserve their depleted elite shock troops.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Polk_Azov/status/1516025387779825668?s=20&t=xE1JpOn41KNcwaoiXnNuug[/tweet]

At about 1:17 of this video, you can see a Ukrainian soldier throwing a grenade under the truck, and a Russian soldier hiding under the truck kicks the grenade towards his wounded fellow soldiers along the wall...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-18-2022

The presumed Tochka strike that sank the Saratov, a Russian landing ship, in Berdyansk last month and damaged two other ships also led to the death of a captain of one of those damaged ships.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1516104542403928072?s=20&t=tgqOx-oesoEASFziq_8wJA[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

Here is a short video that shows a different angle, and probably from an earlier time, give the smoke going further aft.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shocking-images-video-capture-burning-174646162.html

It also shows a tug standing by doing nothing, which is a bit weird. The interview with the crewman's mother saying about 40 sailors were lost is a data point. It is consistent with the other photos, but with all the misinformation we have received, who knows?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 12:00 PM)Goose Wrote:  This scenario is a nice one, but the problem is that NATO really doesn't at present have the resources or will to defend Ukraine. That is why Germany and others basically nixed their application years ago. Rightly or wrongly, most of NATO views it as a bridge too far. That will be even more true with Russia in an even better strategic position. Zelenskyy has realized this. It makes him mad, but he is not expecting NATO to step up and take Ukraine into it's numbers. I suspect he has been repeatedly told NO and the message has been received.

The unfortunate fact is that Ukraine cannot receive meaningful security guarantees unless the guarantors actually station forces on Ukrainian soil in significant numbers. If your own citizens are going to get killed, you mean it. If, when the war starts, you can just say "Sorry, too hard to do", these assurances are meaningless. Zelenskyy knows this too. It has already happened to his country. He also knows Russia would never sit still for US troops in Ukraine. Therefore, he wants the tools for Ukraine to defend itself to be guaranteed. How that can work is through bilateral treaties that allow the US (for one) to provide military hardware to Ukraine without restrictions. Will we do it? Will Ukraine trust us to give them what they need to make Russian aggression too costly to contemplate? I don't know.

However, with the threat of hostilities always present, Ukraine will always be a poor investment risk. Even if they win the next war, it just isn't worth the risk of having your factory destroyed or being unable to ship product. Shell pulled out of potentially lucrative properties for good reason. Some kind of a stable political and economic settlement has to be reached, and that can't happen with Russia in the Donbas and Ukraine cut off from the Sea of Azov. Russia not keeping much land is a prerequisite for viability because only that indicates Russian goodwill and mitigates the threat of continued aggression in the future. The seeds of the next war need to be removed. I didn't say it would be easy.

I'm sure you know far more than I do about the internal economic and security situation in Ukraine.  But you're describing only the status quo.  I don't see a principled reason that NATO and Ukraine could not use some imagination to come up with a new, and more stable, equilibrium.  NATO would need to develop the will to do more, but will is not fixed, as we're learning from Finland and Sweden. Edit: I also note that Ukraine is discussing the possibility of accession to the EU. I understand that's a different animal from NATO, but the ongoing discussions make me think there's an opportunity to expand the discussion under the right conditions.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - cardcrimson - 04-18-2022

Must be just awful to be a parent of a sailor or soldier in today's Russia. Lies, obfuscation, fear of asking or saying too much. . . .

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/18/moskva-warship-need-answers-relatives-missing-crew-russia

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 01:12 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I'm sure you know far more than I do about the internal economic and security situation in Ukraine.

I am certainly no expert, and can't claim to be anything close, unfortunately.

Quote:But you're describing only the status quo.  I don't see a principled reason that NATO and Ukraine could not use some imagination to come up with a new, and more stable, equilibrium.  NATO would need to develop the will to do more, but will is not fixed, as we're learning from Finland and Sweden.  Edit:  I also note that Ukraine is discussing the possibility of accession to the EU.  I understand that's a different animal from NATO, but the ongoing discussions make me think there's an opportunity to expand the discussion under the right conditions.

It depends on what you mean by a "principled reason". I can tell you that Germany and other European nations are worried about getting drug into a war by some fairly weak country that does something to piss off Russia. The Ukraine prior to the "Madian revolution" (and somewhat so still after many would argue) was not a "stable" country. It was ruled by a Russian sympathizing President. Corruption was rife (and still exists to some extent). Many Europeans felt it was a potential liability and could not be trusted to stick to the rules of NATO or the EU. Lots of them still feel that way. Zelenskyy has shown such great leadership that we tend to forget Ukraine has not always been in such good hands. It can be argued that the current situation is the anomaly and that a return to form is possible. If that happens, where does it leave NATO?

Ukraine is also not easy to defend. There is lots of open land and the transportation links overland to Europe aren't great. The railroads are a different gauge. They are bordered by Russia and Russian Clients on two sides. Ukraine is also not a wealthy country, so how much they can contribute to their own defense is questionable. The Black Sea is a "no go" for NATO during a war with Russia, so that is three sides. Actually fighting a limited war in Ukraine, where NATO wasn't globally at war with Russia, is a bad tactical position to be in. The generals want no part of it.

So, if you are Ukraine, do you trust NATO to actually defend you under Article 5? This is assuming you can twist enough arms to get you in, which as of now I am virtually certain you can't. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-is-not-a-nato-member-what-it-takes-to-join-2022 is a good read IMHO. The operative statement is "And a new country can be inducted only if the full alliance, which employs consensus decision-making, is in agreement.". I can tell you right now that Hungary will say no. Others probably would too but don't have to. Zelenskyy says they are afraid. He is right.

The question is what is the best way forward for Ukraine? Also, what is the best way forward for NATO? As some of you may have gathered, I am not at all sure that NATO getting bigger equates to it getting better. In some cases NATO has accepted members based on the idea it was morally right, no matter whether it increased NATO's strength and/or increased the potential for conflict. A NATO that Russia (correctly or incorrectly) believes will not act is not a good thing. That is one reason why NATO requires all member states to agree with accepting new members. All the members have to be "trustworthy" in their willingness to "die for Danzig". I don't think NATO is there yet for Ukraine. IMHO it is hard to see them being so any time soon. I would settle for all the NATO countries turning off the Russian gas. If they won't even do that, does anybody think they would actually go to war and risk their cities getting hit like Kiev?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-18-2022

A Ukraine chock full of Neptune missiles, or newer longer range missiles, and with more and better air defense, is a much more difficult foe for Russia to threaten. Ukraine won't join NATO, she will need to guarantee her own security. And with better long range strike capabilities, she should be able to do so.

Joining the EU and ample rebuilding and security money will make Ukraine too dangerous to choke down for Russia. Ukraine has shown the will to fight, and indigenous capabilities to defeat Russia at home and at a distance. Just needs more of those capabilities. When the war ends, I think there will be less escalation worry on the part of the West to provide the advanced air defense capabilities Ukraine doesn't possess and may have difficulty developing domestically.


........

Britain will send a "handful" of Stormer Armored Missile Launchers with Starstreak missiles. These are short range, low ceiling weapons but would be pretty effective against most Russian air sorties that are currently occurring, even the fast movers. The level of kit provided continues to ramp up.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18298762/boris-johnson-missile-launchers-ukraine-war/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-18-2022

(04-18-2022, 02:28 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  A Ukraine chock full of Neptune missiles, or newer longer range missiles, and with more and better air defense, is a much more difficult foe for Russia to threaten. Ukraine won't join NATO, she will need to guarantee her own security. And with better long range strike capabilities, she should be able to do so.

Joining the EU and ample rebuilding and security money will make Ukraine too dangerous to choke down for Russia. Ukraine has shown the will to fight, and indigenous capabilities to defeat Russia at home and at a distance. Just needs more of those capabilities.

Totally agree. The rebuilding and security money can come out of money frozen by the war, at least in part. However, the EU is going to have to figure out how to continue that support, as Ukraine has nowhere near the economy necessary to do what is described here. Part of what has to be worked out.

As a frame of reference, Ukraine's GDP in 2020 was 155.3 Billion. Russia's GDP was 1,478.6 Billion, almost 10 times more. The GDP of Russia per capita is roughly triple that of Ukraine. The average Russian is much better off than the average Ukrainian by that measure.
Source: https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/ukraine/russia.  For reference, the GDP of Nevada was 145.2 Billion in 2020. Ukraine's GDP is projected to be only half of what it was last year. Ukraine defending itself is going to cost a lot of money that right now is not obviously available. That is an issue for sure.

Quote:When the war ends, I think there will be less escalation worry on the part of the West to provide the advanced air defense capabilities Ukraine doesn't possess and may have difficulty developing domestically.

I agree, but I think Ukraine is going to ask for formal assurance (treaty) from Russia that there will be no interference in any defense arrangements Ukraine makes. Otherwise, an unstable situation will exist where Russia can at any time threaten action because of weapon X. Ukraine can't risk that scaring the West out of doing what is required. Of course, Russia can do it anyway, but it is harder when there is a treaty that says you can't. Once again, money will be an issue.

Quote:........

Britain will send a "handful" of Stormer Armored Missile Launchers with Starstreak missiles. These are short range, low ceiling weapons but would be pretty effective against most Russian air sorties that are currently occurring, even the fast movers. The level of kit provided continues to ramp up.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18298762/boris-johnson-missile-launchers-ukraine-war/

A bit of hyperbole here. The UK has already sent Startstreak missiles to the UK in a MANPAD configuration. They did that weeks ago. The vehicular version is a definite improvement but is not a different class of weapon. These missiles require the operator to keep the target in the viewfinder, as I understand it. It is not a "fire and forget" weapon.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 04-18-2022

History doesn’t repeat…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/decodingtrolls/status/1500509527246004229?s=21&t=CMUKuzBJ-XJXrz7EeWuyEQ[/tweet]

It rhymes

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 04-19-2022

We are beginning a crucial stage of this conflict.  Russia is beginning their attack in the east.  If they succeed it would be easy to see them trying to hold the whole eastern part of the country.  This war could become a bit of a stalemate with devastating consequences.

OTOH, if UKR can hold, the current Russian positions become untenable in the long term.  I think at most Russian retreats from the North and tries to hold the land bridge between the Dombas and Knipro river.  But I also think there is a good chance they just retreat to pre-war lines and declare victory having de-Nazified UKR.

This will be a critical week.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 04-19-2022

FWIW, ISW is skeptical that the Russian offensive with achieve any significant goals.  If this is true, it will chew up even more military capabilities and my view is that Russia will have to retreat to pre-war lines in the next two months.  We will see.....

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-18

---