UA-RU | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.

TCharley300

Well-known member
Here's one of those other questions to the forum. I'm getting a little bit of scuttlebutt stating that China has a fairly small convoy that has entered Ukraine from Russia. Not saying it's true, not saying it's false, but you guys have better sources than I do. So, I thought I'd better throw that out there to start looking. It's supposed to be a few of the heavy military trucks, but also followed with humvee's.
 

Irag8er

Moderator
Here's one of those other questions to the forum. I'm getting a little bit of scuttlebutt stating that China has a fairly small convoy that has entered Ukraine from Russia. Not saying it's true, not saying it's false, but you guys have better sources than I do. So, I thought I'd better throw that out there to start looking. It's supposed to be a few of the heavy military trucks, but also followed with humvee's.
saw this:

 

Irag8er

Moderator
Iif I recall there was a scheduled exercise with Russia and the Chinese around the end of Aug. / beginning of Sept.
so if video is authentic, could be from that. I would think there would be a lot more intel of this were true
 

es7129

Member
While I agree with you about supporting Ukraine. Being a guarantor of Ukraines sovereignty does have its limits.

I would also disagree with the equating neutrality and appeasement.
Neutrality is a policy position based on non-interference outside of serving your own nations self interest. It is live and let live and not becoming directly involved in another nation or nations domestic or international disputes unless it is necessary to protect one’s own legitimate interest or survival.
Appeasement is simply the taking of a weak self-serving position of letting other nations do things that are hurtful or damaging out of fear of the consequences or political expediency.

One is rooted in weakness and fear and is almost always damaging in the long run.
The other in confidence and strength. Being neutral can sometimes be the wrong choice. Appeasement is always the wrong choice
I believe your last paragraph is the motivator of these voices. These stances are not being made on strength.
 

Seriously

Well-known member
Advocating a cease-fire to stop Ukrainian people being killed and to buy time is not appeasement. Unfortunately, too many are convinced that these are synonymous.
I agree advocating for a cease fire and appeasement are not the same thing.
You can only advocate for a stable lasting cease-fire if you do not resort to appeasement.

Appeasement is used as a negative pejorative to criticize any given policy position. It’s always subjective.
 

Seriously

Well-known member
I believe your last paragraph is the motivator of these voices. These stances are not being made on strength.
No disagreement, just remember that what what one person might adamantly see a certain policy position as appeasement. Another might view it as a completely reasonable and fair policy choice.

This is why “influencers” and actual historic facts are so important.

The dialogue regarding government policy and definitions is so muddled right now. Most people aren’t even speaking the same language.

Take the trans debate. “Men can absolutely have babies”
“No men with testicles and no uterus cannot have babies”
“Having testicles or not does not define a man”
We’re not even using the same language. And the shame of it all is we’re not even being allowed agree on definitions of words. We just fire them back and forth at each other like mortar rounds praying for a knockout strike.
Serfs in the trenches no longer even knowing what we’re fighting for.
 

Seriously

Well-known member
Yes a cease fire can only benefit Russia now. General Patton’s philosophy was you don’t give your enemy a chance to rest and you keep pounding them night and day.
Correct but what is needed now is a clear and defined wartime goal for the end to this war.
All the sides involved have been ambiguous for what the end of hostilities should look like. Mostly because no one was even sure what was a possible outcome. Recent Historic boarders. But without Crimea. The breakaway republics returned or set free?

If the west is not loud and clear and in agreement with Ukraine. Well then Putin can continue to spin it as a the end goal had always been the destruction of mother Russia.
The Rodina is under attack, “to arms to arms”.
Is it? Some in the west would agree and say yes the ultimate goal is to collapse the Russian nation again. Give democracy a chance in Russia, and replace the oligarchs with international corporations. This is wrong for us in th west to do. And by definition is not neutral.
I believe this is a strategic mistake.

“Keep it simple stupid”
“Return or regain recent historical national boarders” nothing more nothing less.
That’s why Putin spend 20 years muddying the waters of just what exactly is the national and ethnic nation of Ukraine.

That’s why in history the terms of surrender are debated and made clear.

In the end when this is all over will be back basically the same map we had the first of Feb 2024 and another defacto hot spot to argue about for the next 70 years like the West Bank and occupied territories.
Who knows maybe this is the best we can hope for to avert a conflagration.
That’s why both side keep hinting about the risk of nuclear exchange. It’s the ultimate high stakes poker .
Same thing as the reason to use nukes in Japan. Yeah they probably saved lives or maybe not. But more importantly they kept Russia out of Japan. Tactical too strategic.
 

intel-bank

Well-known member
I agree advocating for a cease fire and appeasement are not the same thing.
You can only advocate for a stable lasting cease-fire if you do not resort to appeasement.

Appeasement is used as a negative pejorative to criticize any given policy position. It’s always subjective.
A lasting cease fire would be appeasement. It would basically turn all occupied land into Russian land, in practice. A short cease fire, maybe, but that gives Russia too much time.
 

Seriously

Well-known member
A lasting cease fire would be appeasement. It would basically turn all occupied land into Russian land, in practice. A short cease fire, maybe, but that gives Russia too much time.
And that is why I mention the necessity of a clear and definitive goals of the west and Ukraine.
First it’s honest to our own citizens. And secondly it sends a clear message to Russian citizens that the collapse or invasion of Russia is not anticipated.
We have mostly failed at this though.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
And that is why I mention the necessity of a clear and definitive goals of the west and Ukraine.
First it’s honest to our own citizens. And secondly it sends a clear message to Russian citizens that the collapse or invasion of Russia is not anticipated.
We have mostly failed at this though.
Strategic ambiguity is really necessary for the West over this. For many reasons mostly to save our asses. Drawing lines is never good for nuclear powers.
 

Seriously

Well-known member
Strategic ambiguity is really necessary for the West over this. For many reasons mostly to save our asses. Drawing lines is never good for nuclear powers.
Yet when we enter the waters of strategic ambiguity we always worry and fret it will escalate.
IF we had drawn this line been clear about it Russia likely would not of attacked.
Who knows maybe some in the west wanted Russia to invade so they could expose themselves and deplete their military stores.
If that’s true it was a cheap shot for noble democracies pull.
What I’m saying if we had not been ambiguous regarding our commitment to Ukraines sovereignty this war likely would not have happend.
 

dryjoy

Active member
Correct but what is needed now is a clear and defined wartime goal for the end to this war.
All the sides involved have been ambiguous for what the end of hostilities should look like. Mostly because no one was even sure what was a possible outcome. Recent Historic boarders. But without Crimea. The breakaway republics returned or set free?
Ukraine has been very clear what the end game is for them - liberation of all Ukrainian territories including Crimea, so a return to 2013 borders. The West says it support this, so it doesn’t seem ambiguous.
 

Socom7

Active member

While ISW is, in general, a trustworthy source of balanced analyses, there are some significant problems with this one in particular. I'll try to list them briefly below, referring to specific claims made in the update.

Ukrainian strikes into Russian-annexed Crimea clearly demonstrate that Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s illegally annexed territory do not automatically trigger Russian retaliation against NATO, as Simonyan would have her readers believe.
This is not a good comparison. Crimea is not currently at risk of being recaptured by the Ukrainian forces, nor was it at risk in July and August when the Ukrainian strikes happened. They also predated the Kharkiv offensive and, in general, there was much less pressure on the Kremlin to escalate at the point in time ISW is referring to.
This latest annexation discussion also omits other parts of Russian-occupied southern Ukraine in which the Kremlin was previously planning sham annexation referenda. A willingness to abandon the promise to bring all the occupied areas into Russia at the same time would be a significant retreat for Putin to make in the eyes of the hardline pro-war groups he appears to be courting.
It does not. Exactly the same thing is currently going on in the occupied Kherson Oblast. Pretty much the only "odd man out" is the Zaporozhye Oblast but the situation is changing by the minute so it's way too early for ISW to make such a claim.
The Kremlin’s proxies in Donbas regularly outpace Kremlin messaging, on the other hand, and may have done so again.
While it is true that the Kremlin does not have full control over the goings-on in the occupied Donbas, this action does not looke as though some gung-ho local apparatchiks have jumped the gun. Rather, it appears coordinated and deliberate, as confirmed by its geographical spread, synchronization and the early reactions coming from the Kremlin (cf. Medvedev's latest tg post). It is also getting a lot of air time in Russian media. This is much unlike anything that has happened up to this point in regard to the possible "referenda".

Of course, holding a sham referendum doesn't automatically translate into any changes in the momentum of the ground war. The obvious question is therefore - what does the Kremlin have riding on the back of this? Unfortunately, the possible answers are almost universally very bad (and that's another thing missing from the ISW report). I therefore respectfully disagree with ISW's assessment and would suggest keeping close tabs on the situation.
 

Socom7

Active member
The Duma has been tinkering with mobilization laws for some time now, but given the speed with which it is passing amendments today (along all the other things that are going on) it seems clear that the Kremlin has finally decided to escalate further.

The likely course of events is now as follows:
  1. Sham "referenda" in occupied territories
  2. De jure annexation by Russia (including of parts of Donetsk/Luhansk/Kerson/Zaporozhye Oblasts currently controlled by UA forces)
  3. Declaration of war on Ukraine
  4. Mobilization (partial or general)
  5. More war, possibly of the nuclear kind
 

Seriously

Well-known member

While ISW is, in general, a trustworthy source of balanced analyses, there are some significant problems with this one in particular. I'll try to list them briefly below, referring to specific claims made in the update.


This is not a good comparison. Crimea is not currently at risk of being recaptured by the Ukrainian forces, nor was it at risk in July and August when the Ukrainian strikes happened. They also predated the Kharkiv offensive and, in general, there was much less pressure on the Kremlin to escalate at the point in time ISW is referring to.

It does not. Exactly the same thing is currently going on in the occupied Kherson Oblast. Pretty much the only "odd man out" is the Zaporozhye Oblast but the situation is changing by the minute so it's way too early for ISW to make such a claim.

While it is true that the Kremlin does not have full control over the goings-on in the occupied Donbas, this action does not looke as though some gung-ho local apparatchiks have jumped the gun. Rather, it appears coordinated and deliberate, as confirmed by its geographical spread, synchronization and the early reactions coming from the Kremlin (cf. Medvedev's latest tg post). It is also getting a lot of air time in Russian media. This is much unlike anything that has happened up to this point in regard to the possible "referenda".

Of course, holding a sham referendum doesn't automatically translate into any changes in the momentum of the ground war. The obvious question is therefore - what does the Kremlin have riding on the back of this? Unfortunately, the possible answers are almost universally very bad (and that's another thing missing from the ISW report). I therefore respectfully disagree with ISW's assessment and would suggest keeping close tabs on the situation.
Well annexing the breakaway republics would defiantly help them reframe the public opinion argument.
“Oh look, there attacking Russian sovereign territory”
I don’t know as it would work. But I can see the reasoning.
 

Socom7

Active member
Well annexing the breakaway republics would defiantly help them reframe the public opinion argument.
“Oh look, there attacking Russian sovereign territory”
I don’t know as it would work. But I can see the reasoning.
Meduza is quoting some unnamed Kremlin administration officials as saying that the "war party" (Medvedev, Zolotov, Turchak, etc.) managed to change Putin's mind over the last week. Apparently the new big idea is that Ukraine will not dare attack "Russian" territory (which... yeah :rolleyes:), but if they do, partial mobilization + marshal law will ensue. They also say to watch out for reshuffles in the MoD and the presidential administration.
 

Torcher

Well-known member
Regular Contributor
Socom7 has this well covered. I would urge anyone who has not do so to read todays update


---


PLEASE CONTINUE HERE:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top