As Trump dithers over Ukraine, Russia’s military edge weakens, officials say

[j brown's body]

"Rather than the U.S. leadership he promised, Trump has mused that he might just walk away and leave the negotiations to the Europeans — perhaps even the new pope — to sort out. His administration has not committed to additional military or financial aid to Ukraine.

But the timing for putting pressure on Moscow may be more advantageous now than at any point since the early days of the conflict, according to more than a dozen officials who discussed the current state of the war and the sensitive politics and diplomacy surrounding it, most on the condition of anonymity.

...Whether Putin genuinely believes he has “all the cards,” as Trump has put it, or is simply waiting for the West to grow tired of the seemingly unending conflict, dwindling stockpiles of Soviet-era equipment will make Russia increasingly dependent on new systems produced from scratch. That, a number of Western officials and experts said, makes it the right time to impose new sanctions and to continue to supply new weaponry to Ukraine."

Link

Will Trump come to the uncomfortable realization that supporting Ukraine more is tge quickest way to bring an end to the war?

 

[Tigerace117]

"Rather than the U.S. leadership he promised, Trump has mused that he might just walk away and leave the negotiations to the Europeans — perhaps even the new pope — to sort out. His administration has not committed to additional military or financial aid to Ukraine.

But the timing for putting pressure on Moscow may be more advantageous now than at any point since the early days of the conflict, according to more than a dozen officials who discussed the current state of the war and the sensitive politics and diplomacy surrounding it, most on the condition of anonymity.

...Whether Putin genuinely believes he has “all the cards,” as Trump has put it, or is simply waiting for the West to grow tired of the seemingly unending conflict, dwindling stockpiles of Soviet-era equipment will make Russia increasingly dependent on new systems produced from scratch. That, a number of Western officials and experts said, makes it the right time to impose new sanctions and to continue to supply new weaponry to Ukraine."

Link

Will Trump come to the uncomfortable realization that supporting Ukraine more is tge quickest way to bring an end to the war?

Y’all have been claiming that for, like, three years now, blithely ignoring the failure of each Ukrainian offensive or “game changing” Western weapon system.

So which one is it? Is Russia about to invade Finland(for reasons not a single American apologist has ever been able to actually lay out, much less support) or is “their military edge weakening”? You can’t have it both ways.

 

[j brown's body]

It would be classic Trump to not lift a finger to give additional help to Ukraine and then take credit when the Russian invasion is acknowledged as a failure.

 

[JoeB131]

Will Trump come to the uncomfortable realization that supporting Ukraine more is tge quickest way to bring an end to the war?

Quite the contrary, the war has ground to a stalemate, and nothing can really be accomplished by either side at this point.

A fair treaty would allow Russia to keep Crimea and Donbass, return Zaporozhia and Kherson. Allow for a UN (not NATO) force of peacekeepers to uphold the peace, and provide money to Ukraine to rebuild.

 

[j brown's body]

Quite the contrary, the war has ground to a stalemate, and nothing can really be accomplished by either side at this point.

A fair treaty would allow Russia to keep Crimea and Donbass, return Zaporozhia and Kherson. Allow for a UN (not NATO) force of peacekeepers to uphold the peace, and provide money to Ukraine to rebuild.

You don't seem to be aware of Russia's goal in this. It wants all of Ukraine. From the article:

"Moscow’s negotiating terms, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday, would be based on the “root causes” of the conflict, a reference to Moscow’s repeated insistence that Ukraine is historically a part of Russia that has become a corrupt, illegitimate and Nazi-ruled state. A true peace agreement, Lavrov said, could be negotiated and signed only by a “legitimate,” newly elected Ukrainian government."

 

[j brown's body]

Today from David Ignatius:

Trump’s road to failure in Ukraine

"The sad truth is that peace in Ukraine is probably more distant today than when Trump took office in January. He started with a sensible plan for European leaders to take over responsibility for arming Ukraine. And he warned Putin hours after his inauguration: “I think Russia’s going to be in big trouble” if it doesn’t make peace.

...This long exercise in diplomatic frustration culminated in Trump’s Monday phone call with Putin. Trump issued an upbeat statement after the call, claiming he had launched a phase of direct negotiations toward a ceasefire (as Putin had demanded). “The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be,” he said — even though only a few days before he had insisted that he and Putin alone could stop the war. “Let the process begin!” trumpeted Trump, as though he had achieved a breakthrough. The Russia statement dispensed with the bubble machine. Trump “shared his position on the cessation of hostilities,” it noted coldly. “Eliminating the root causes of this crisis is what matters most to us” — code for Ukraine accepting Russian hegemony. In four months, Russia hadn’t budged.

...Sometimes diplomatic history is ambiguous. But the results of the Ukraine negotiations are crystal clear. Russia, the aggressor, has refused to stop fighting until it gets what it wants. And Trump, the attempted peacemaker, has so far let Putin get away with it. Unless Trump finally delivers on his threats, he has folded his hand on what could be the most damaging failure of his presidency."

 

[Juin]

"Rather than the U.S. leadership he promised, Trump has mused that he might just walk away and leave the negotiations to the Europeans — perhaps even the new pope — to sort out. His administration has not committed to additional military or financial aid to Ukraine.

But the timing for putting pressure on Moscow may be more advantageous now than at any point since the early days of the conflict, according to more than a dozen officials who discussed the current state of the war and the sensitive politics and diplomacy surrounding it, most on the condition of anonymity.

...Whether Putin genuinely believes he has “all the cards,” as Trump has put it, or is simply waiting for the West to grow tired of the seemingly unending conflict, dwindling stockpiles of Soviet-era equipment will make Russia increasingly dependent on new systems produced from scratch. That, a number of Western officials and experts said, makes it the right time to impose new sanctions and to continue to supply new weaponry to Ukraine."

Link

Will Trump come to the uncomfortable realization that supporting Ukraine more is tge quickest way to bring an end to the war?

Except the article is a contradiction. If Russia is weakening then Trump is not needed

 

[j brown's body]

Except the article is a contradiction. If Russia is weakening then Trump is not needed

Maybe not needed, but would be very helpful. I mean, why not crush Russia? Its earned it.

And let's be fair, Trump's been backing Russia because he believes it is winning and he he has a pathological need to be seen as a winner. So if the tide turns, he can switch sides and do well by doing good.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't seem to be aware of Russia's goal in this. It wants all of Ukraine. From the article:

"Moscow’s negotiating terms, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday, would be based on the “root causes” of the conflict, a reference to Moscow’s repeated insistence that Ukraine is historically a part of Russia that has become a corrupt, illegitimate and Nazi-ruled state. A true peace agreement, Lavrov said, could be negotiated and signed only by a “legitimate,” newly elected Ukrainian government."

I'm sure they do.

Ukraine wants all its territory back, including Crimea, and that isn't going to happen, either.

So the goal should be an agreement that neither side is going to be happy with, but both can live with.

Trump isn't going to be the guy to get that done, so someone from Europe needs to step up to the plate.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm sure they do.

Ukraine wants all its territory back, including Crimea, and that isn't going to happen, either.

So the goal should be an agreement that neither side is going to be happy with, but both can live with.

Trump isn't going to be the guy to get that done, so someone from Europe needs to step up to the plate.

Who should that European be? I doubt Zelenskyy will agree to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia. Public sentiment is against trading land for a [temporary] cease-fire.

I agree with Z that wars of aggression/expansion should not be rewarded. Doing so upends the entire post-WWII security architecture.

 

[Yakshi]

Quite the contrary, the war has ground to a stalemate, and nothing can really be accomplished by either side at this point.

A fair treaty would allow Russia to keep Crimea and Donbass, return Zaporozhia and Kherson. Allow for a UN (not NATO) force of peacekeepers to uphold the peace, and provide money to Ukraine to rebuild.

A fair treaty, in whose opinion? I guarantee you that Ukrainians would say no to that pro-russian treaty.

Far too many discussions about ending the war from the west ignore the publicly expressed views of Ukrainians.

 

[Yakshi]

I'm sure they do.

Ukraine wants all its territory back, including Crimea, and that isn't going to happen, either.

You don't know that.

So the goal should be an agreement that neither side is going to be happy with, but both can live with.

Trump isn't going to be the guy to get that done, so someone from Europe needs to step up to the plate.

Such an agreement doesn't exist.

The idea that this war will end with an "agreement" with putin is laughable to most Ukrainians, who are far more well-versed in russia's history of negotiation than you are, it appears.

 

[j brown's body]

I'm sure they do.

Ukraine wants all its territory back, including Crimea, and that isn't going to happen, either.

So the goal should be an agreement that neither side is going to be happy with, but both can live with.

Trump isn't going to be the guy to get that done, so someone from Europe needs to step up to the plate.

If it's true that Russian forces are weakening, then an infusion of resources to Ukraine could drive them out.

"So, how exactly does Ukraine defeat Russia? Isolate and destroy Russian ground forces in Ukraine by attacking their ability to sustain their army and their ability to wage war. This will create siege warfare-like conditions for Russian ground forces in the close fight. They will be left eventually to wither on the vine, vulnerable to defeat by a decisive combined arms offensive. ...This would involve three phases. First comes the destruction of Russia’s deep strike capability. A no-fly zone over Ukraine would protect civilians being targeted by Russian ballistic missiles and drones. European countries have already put forth an initiative called Sky Shield, the deployment of 120 fighter jets as part of a European air force to protect Kyiv and western Ukraine. Ukraine would also need the air defense systems and munitions to create an integrated, layered air defense belt like the one Israel employed to defeat the Iranian attacks in April and October 2024. ...Phase two starts with turning back on the flow of weapons, munitions and intelligence to Ukraine, reactivating the logistical throughput of military aid from the Rzeszów-Jasionka airport in Poland is mission critical. ...Phase three is the decisive push of Russian forces out of Ukraine. Once the conditions have been set, a combined arms offensive including close air support can be launched, driving Russian forces from the occupied territories just when Russia is at its weakest."

Link

Thread 'Ukraine can still win, but not if Trump keeps chasing a cease-fire Russia doesn’t want'

May 16, 2025

"Contrary to what many analysts, journalists and politicians are saying, Ukraine can still defeat the Russian army and drive it out of their country — not just “hold out for an indefinite period,” as retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis put it in March. But victory will not come from the close fight alone. Ukraine simply does not have the manpower or weapons necessary to dislodge Russian defenders from their fighting positions in a direct fire engagement.

Linear thinking will only result in needless loss of life, playing right into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s...

• j brown's body
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Russia / Ukraine / Belarus

• 

 

[Yakshi]

If it's true that Russian forces are weakening, then an infusion of resources to Ukraine could drive them out.

"So, how exactly does Ukraine defeat Russia? Isolate and destroy Russian ground forces in Ukraine by attacking their ability to sustain their army and their ability to wage war. This will create siege warfare-like conditions for Russian ground forces in the close fight. They will be left eventually to wither on the vine, vulnerable to defeat by a decisive combined arms offensive. ...This would involve three phases. First comes the destruction of Russia’s deep strike capability. A no-fly zone over Ukraine would protect civilians being targeted by Russian ballistic missiles and drones. European countries have already put forth an initiative called Sky Shield, the deployment of 120 fighter jets as part of a European air force to protect Kyiv and western Ukraine. Ukraine would also need the air defense systems and munitions to create an integrated, layered air defense belt like the one Israel employed to defeat the Iranian attacks in April and October 2024. ...Phase two starts with turning back on the flow of weapons, munitions and intelligence to Ukraine, reactivating the logistical throughput of military aid from the Rzeszów-Jasionka airport in Poland is mission critical. ...Phase three is the decisive push of Russian forces out of Ukraine. Once the conditions have been set, a combined arms offensive including close air support can be launched, driving Russian forces from the occupied territories just when Russia is at its weakest."

Link

Thread 'Ukraine can still win, but not if Trump keeps chasing a cease-fire Russia doesn’t want'

May 16, 2025

"Contrary to what many analysts, journalists and politicians are saying, Ukraine can still defeat the Russian army and drive it out of their country — not just “hold out for an indefinite period,” as retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis put it in March. But victory will not come from the close fight alone. Ukraine simply does not have the manpower or weapons necessary to dislodge Russian defenders from their fighting positions in a direct fire engagement.

Linear thinking will only result in needless loss of life, playing right into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s...

• j brown's body
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Russia / Ukraine / Belarus

• 

A common refrain in the Ukraine War Thread is the firm belief that putin only understands force, and that only force will expel russia from Ukraine.

In my opinion, this is what putin fears most--that the west will provide overwhelming force to Ukraine--and putin demonstrates his fear every time he threatens nuclear war.

If America rope-a-doped putin by sending a massive military aid package to Ukraine every time putin rattled his sabre, Ukraine would have Crimea by now.

 

[j brown's body]

A common refrain in the Ukraine War Thread is the firm belief that putin only understands force, and that only force will expel russia from Ukraine.

In my opinion, this is what putin fears most--that the west will provide overwhelming force to Ukraine--and putin demonstrates his fear every time he threatens nuclear war.

If America rope-a-doped putin by sending a massive military aid package to Ukraine every time putin rattled his sabre, Ukraine would have Crimea by now.

It puts Trump in the paradoxical position of needing to wage war in order to win that Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Tigerace117]

A fair treaty, in whose opinion? I guarantee you that Ukrainians would say no to that pro-russian treaty.

Far too many discussions about ending the war from the west ignore the publicly expressed views of Ukrainians.

Gee dude, Germans raged for decades about giving up all that land to Poland....and yet doing so hasn’t hindered their country one bit.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know that.

Actually, the war has largely ground down to a stalemate. So unless you have something like a complete collapse of Putin's government, they aren't going anywhere

Such an agreement doesn't exist.

The idea that this war will end with an "agreement" with putin is laughable to most Ukrainians, who are far more well-versed in russia's history of negotiation than you are, it appears.

Again, Ukraine can only fight until the money runs out. And Trump is ready to cut the money.

So let's look at what a fair agreement might look like.

Russia gets to keep the Donbas and Crimea, but gives back Zapohra and Kershon.

Ukraine gets security garuntees and is allowed to join the EU and NATO.

Russia pays Ukraine compensation for the land they gain.

If it's true that Russian forces are weakening, then an infusion of resources to Ukraine could drive them out.

Or it could trigger World War III.

 

[Yakshi]

Actually, the war has largely ground down to a stalemate. So unless you have something like a complete collapse of Putin's government, they aren't going anywhere

You don't know that, either. You're assuming a lot.

Again, Ukraine can only fight until the money runs out. And Trump is ready to cut the money.

Another assumption. The assistance isn't only coming from America.

So let's look at what a fair agreement might look like.

Who wants an agreement? Ukraine certainly doesn't. russia doesn't. putin has been explicit in his desire to remove Ukraine from the map.

Russia gets to keep the Donbas and Crimea, but gives back Zapohra and Kershon.

You are ignoring what Ukrainians want. They would never agree to such terms.

Ukraine gets security garuntees and is allowed to join the EU and NATO.

Russia pays Ukraine compensation for the land they gain.

You are ignoring what putin wants. russia would never pay Ukraine compensation for the land they gained.

Or it could trigger World War III.

This is the heart of the issue for you, I'm guessing. Imagine how much reality must be ignored by westerners who still, after all this time, insist on negotiation. They're afraid of World War 3. At some level, they actually believe putin. To some degree, they actually believe the russian propaganda.

Using Trump's language, America has no cards. Ukraine is going to continue fighting, regardless of what the west thinks. That's your reality.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Actually, the war has largely ground down to a stalemate. So unless you have something like a complete collapse of Putin's government, they aren't going anywhere

You sound like the Putin sychopohant Viktor Orban.

Again, Ukraine can only fight until the money runs out. And Trump is ready to cut the money.

The EU will step in. They are holding $300 billion in frozen Russian assets.

So let's look at what a fair agreement might look like.

A fair agreement would be Moscow ordering the withdrawal of all its military forces from Ukraine and then paying Ukraine war reparations.

Russia gets to keep the Donbas and Crimea, but gives back Zapohra and Kershon.

No. Wars of aggression should not be rewarded.

Or it could trigger World War III.

Now you sound very much like Dmitry Medvedev. If I had a sawbuck for every time Medvedev threatened nuclear war, I could enjoy a very nice Tomahawk steak dinner at St. Elmo's.

Your appeasement shtick won't fly here. You are on the verge of being a labeled pro-Russia individual.

 

[Yakshi]

You sound like the Putin sychopohant Viktor Orban.



The EU will step in. They are holding $300 billion in frozen Russian assets.



A fair agreement would be Moscow ordering the withdrawal of all its military forces from Ukraine and then paying Ukraine war reparations.



No. Wars of aggression should not be rewarded.



Now you sound very much like Dmitry Medvedev. If I had a sawbuck for every time Medvedev threatened nuclear war, I could enjoy a very nice Tomahawk steak dinner at St. Elmo's.

Your appeasement shtick won't fly here. You are on the verge of being a labeled pro-Russia individual.

I get the feeling that @JoeB131 will simply remain unconvinced by our arguments and keep repeating himself.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I get the feeling that @JoeB131 will simply remain unconvinced by our arguments and keep repeating himself.

He does seem to be entrenched. Odd for an individual who self-describes as "Slightly Liberal".

There is nothing Liberal in handing Putin victories in Ukraine.

 

[Yakshi]

He does seem to be entrenched. Odd for an individual who self-describes as "Slightly Liberal".

There is nothing Liberal in handing Putin victories in Ukraine.

Yeah, and it remains obvious which forumers aren't following this war in any meaningful way.

 

[Tigerace117]

He does seem to be entrenched. Odd for an individual who self-describes as "Slightly Liberal".

There is nothing Liberal in handing Putin victories in Ukraine.

Odd that you apparently think blind denial changes the facts on the ground.

But then again, as Afghanistan shows, the US has never had an issue with using other people as cannon fodder in failed campaigns.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know that, either. You're assuming a lot.

I can look at a map. Russia has control of the four Oblasts they've taken over and their defenses are pretty impressive. Tactically, we are looking at the Western Front in WW1 after 1915 or the Korean War after 1951, when the conflicts ground down to stalemates.


While the Ukrainians did a pretty good job blunting the initial attack, their subsequent offensives have made little progress no matter how much money we threw at them.

Another assumption. The assistance isn't only coming from America.

You mean the same Europeans who can't spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Who wants an agreement? Ukraine certainly doesn't. russia doesn't. putin has been explicit in his desire to remove Ukraine from the map.

Which is why both sides need to be brought to the table.

You are ignoring what Ukrainians want. They would never agree to such terms.

They don't really have a lot of choice. Less if Trump and the Republicans just cut off the gravy train.

You are ignoring what putin wants. russia would never pay Ukraine compensation for the land they gained.

They might if offered reasonable concessions, such as a redrawn border and re-integration into the economic community.

This is the heart of the issue for you, I'm guessing. Imagine how much reality must be ignored by westerners who still, after all this time, insist on negotiation. They're afraid of World War 3. At some level, they actually believe putin. To some degree, they actually believe the russian propaganda.

I know that any nation can be pushed too far and act irrationally if they feel sufficiently threatened.

Using Trump's language, America has no cards. Ukraine is going to continue fighting, regardless of what the west thinks. That's your reality.

I;m sure Zelenskyy will fight to the last man, but eventually he'll run out of men.

The EU will step in. They are holding $300 billion in frozen Russian assets.

..Again- the same EU that can't be bothered to spend 2% of GDP on defense?

You sound like the Putin sychopohant Viktor Orban.

Not at all, I recognize reality. There isn't going to be a military solution here, so we need to find a diplomatic one.

No. Wars of aggression should not be rewarded.

Takes away from the fact Russia DID have legitimate issues when this started. Crimea and Donbass are predominantly Russian areas that were assigned to Ukraine by Khrushev. There was initial harmony when the ethnic Russians in Ukraine felt they were being represented, but after the Maidan Revolution of 2014, that went right out the window.

While Trump's claim that "Ukraine started the war" is indeed silly, the fact was Zelenskyy did try to crush the Donbass militarily in violation of the agreement Ukraine signed at Minsk.

Now you sound very much like Dmitry Medvedev. If I had a sawbuck for every time Medvedev threatened nuclear war, I could enjoy a very nice Tomahawk steak dinner at St. Elmo's.

Your appeasement shtick won't fly here. You are on the verge of being a labeled pro-Russia individual.

Not really pro-Russian. I just don't see any point in throwing good money after bad.

If Richard Nixon was in the White House, he'd have negotiated a peace deal. Sadly, we have Trump in there.

So, all the pearl-clutching aside, what would a reasonable agreement look like?

A redrawing of the border to reflect the ethnicity of the region would be a good start.
Security guarantees for Ukraine. Perhaps even NATO membership and definitely EU membership.

Everyone gets something they want; everyone goes home a little disappointed.
That's what a good deal looks like.

Continuing the war until Ukraine is ground down to a bloody pulp, not seeing how that benefits anyone.

 

[Yakshi]

Yep, he's not listening--not to Ukrainians, and not to people who are actually following the war.

Another wasted conversation.