Russia Says They Will End Ukraine War on These Four Conditions

[TU Curmudgeon]

Since when did you become a Russia enabler? Gotta say I'm really disappointed.

I'm sorry if an accurate recitation of the actual facts falls within your definition of "enabler".

For not wanting to why are the Ukrainians training with A-10's and F-16's in the U.S.?

The Ukrainian government has already told the US government that it doesn't want any A-10s.

The fact that members of the Ukrainian Air Force are training ON (not "with") F-16s does not answer the question which I asked you.

Russia is not controlling the skies because their expensive planes are vulnerable to ground to air missiles used by the Ukrainians.

Since I already said that NO ONE is "controlling the skies", what possible relevance does your comment have to reality?

To date they have lost somewhere just south of 100 aircraft according to Western Intelligence sources.

The Russian military/political mindset isn't as keenly attuned to combat losses as the American military/political mindset is.

Russia can't win this war if they don't control the skies with their Air Force.

That would really depend on what you mean by "winning", wouldn't it?

If the Russians come out of this situation having achieved what they had as their core goals when they went into it, then the Russians have "won".

It normally takes up to 2 years to train an F-16 pilot during peace time as there is no urgency.

That's right. Now, how long does it take to train one when there is urgency and what corners have to be cut in order to achieve the training goals in that time span?

And you can bet the U.S. has been training Ukraine pilots long before the invasion.

I'd be more than willing to bet that no more than a token number of Ukrainian pilots were trained by the USAF prior to the invasion.

Since training pilots costs money, and since the USAF can only spend the money that Congress has allotted to it on the programs that Congress has authorized, and since Congress didn't authorize any funds specifically for training Ukrainian pilots prior to June of 2022, where do you suppose the funds to train those Ukrainian pilots that exist in your febrile imagination came from?

You just don't know about it.

I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But you're assuming the Russians won't tire first.

And you are assuming that the Russians WILL "tire first" - an assumption based on a total lack of knowledge of the Russian temperament and/or goals and/or internal political situation - BUT using the assumption that the Russians will think and act exactly like Americans would in the same situation.

Keep in mind we are really putting the screws to their economy

True, but you are assuming that the average Russian is going to act the same way when their neighbourhood Starbucks (or McDonald's [if you are a Republican]) closes as the average American would.

Did you know that, prior to the invasion the US/Russia exchange rate was such that it took 70 Rubles to purchase one US dollar, but that two days ago it took only 60 Rubles to purchase one US dollar? Did you know that that is a sign of an IMPROVING economy?

and troop moral is much higher among troops defending their country vs. troops that don't want to be there and were lied to.

True. But you are assuming that the Russian troops know that they were being lied to and/or that they do not believe that they are actually fighting to "hel liberate their compatriots who no longer wish to live in a fascist country".

You are assuming this because that is the "approved narrative" from "OUR Guys" in Ukraine.

The US government has a lengthy history of listening to "OUR Guys in _[fill in the blank]_" as long as "OUR Guys in _[fill in the blank]_" were telling the US government what the US government wanted to hear (and helped boost the profits of American arms manufacturers) - even when "OUR Guys in _[fill in the blank]_" were flat out lying in order to save their own skins and/or get rich.

 

[TomFitz]

British and American long-range artillery have drastically reduced Ukrainian casualties because they’ve made a significant dent in Russia’s ability to effectively resupply its artillery units. The Russians have been forced to locate depots further behind their lines and transfer munitions directly from supply trains to the front. Another problem is the Russians don’t have enough reliable vehicles for transport. Finally, it appears their rail system has been vulnerable to sabotage. In short, things aren’t going well for Putin and his army.

Russia’s territorial progress has been effectively halted, and now they seem to be focused on reinforcing Kherson, which the Ukrainians are hoping to recapture by cutting off Russia’s ability to resupply it. Smart tactic, avoiding a direct assault on the city, but it will require patience.

That’s true.

The Russians have been driven back to essentially where they started, and even that is vulnerable.

Ukraine has learned to exploit the weaknesses in Russian logistics and command structure.

While Russia has largely retreated to meatgrinder tactics, and throwing bodies at their war.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course, anything can happen. But, yeah, I think the likelihood of a coup or change of heart among the Russian leadership anytime soon is pretty remote. It’s not a democracy. It can keep slinging cannon fodder recruited or drafted from Siberia or Central Asia against the Ukrainians for years. The conservative Russian leadership feels like it’s fighting an existential war for its own long-term survival against a hostile West, and the jury is still out on whether or not Western-oriented nations, especially among members of NATO, have the determination and financial wherewithal to see this thing through.

Personally, I’m not convinced. I expect Biden at some point to say to the Ukrainians, “Okay, fellas, great job on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, but it’s time to wrap things up. You don’t have the military strength to take back the Donbas.” Remember, he’s still worried about poking the nuclear bear too hard and having things spiral out of control. He wants this war concluded ASAP. And, in point if fact, Ukraine doesn’t have the strength to retake the entire country, and isn’t likely to for a long time. And when and if it does it will have to deal not just with the Russians, but a significant separatist army and insurgency.

The essential point in that post is the line

The conservative Russian leadership feels like it’s fighting an existential war for its own long-term survival against a hostile West
​

and, quite frankly it really doesn't matter if that belief is fact based or not because it IS the belief that the Russian leadership is acting on.

The "Western nations" most certainly do have the financial clout to out last the Russians. The question is whether the "Western nations" has the fortitude to out last the Russians. Since the degree to which the "Western nations" are prepared to "stick to it" is highly dependent on whether the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians that means that the question is whether the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians. Since the degree to which the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians is highly dependent on whether the American people have the fortitude to out last the Russians. Given past and recent history, the American people have the fortitude to endure any situation PROVIDED that it doesn't, in the least, inconvenience any American and ALSO PROVIDED that not a single American is killed or wounded.

If it weren't for the loss of face involved, Ukraine would likely be better off being shut of the ethnic Russians who want to become a part of "Mother Russia" once again then it would be if turned into the kind of police state that would be necessary to totally suppress the pro-Russia sentiments. Whether the people of the Donbas would actually be better off by leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia is a problem that they will have to sort out for themselves.​

 

[Lord of Planar]

The essential point in that post is the line​

​

The conservative Russian leadership feels like it’s fighting an existential war for its own long-term survival against a hostile West​

​

and, quite frankly it really doesn't matter if that belief is fact based or not because it IS the belief that the Russian leadership is acting on.

The "Western nations" most certainly do have the financial clout to out last the Russians. The question is whether the "Western nations" has the fortitude to out last the Russians. Since the degree to which the "Western nations" are prepared to "stick to it" is highly dependent on whether the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians that means that the question is whether the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians. Since the degree to which the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians is highly dependent on whether the American people have the fortitude to out last the Russians. Given past and recent history, the American people have the fortitude to endure any situation PROVIDED that it doesn't, in the least, inconvenience any American and ALSO PROVIDED that not a single American is killed or wounded.

If it weren't for the loss of face involved, Ukraine would likely be better off being shut of the ethnic Russians who want to become a part of "Mother Russia" once again then it would be if turned into the kind of police state that would be necessary to totally suppress the pro-Russia sentiments. Whether the people of the Donbas would actually be better off by leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia is a problem that they will have to sort out for themselves.​

Is there anything left of Donbas, or have the Ukrainians obliterated it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Honestly, I’m skeptical of those claims. I would think if three-fourths of HIMARS systems delivered by the U.S. to Ukraine had been destroyed by Russia there would have been some acknowledgement of that by the Pentagon, which certainly would have been aware of it, and yet it’s denied every such claim. And there is something incongruous about Russia saying, on the one hand, that the systems are toast while, on the other, HIMARS is slaughtering civilians across Eastern Ukraine. The latest incident involves a claim in Russian media that 10 HIMARS rockets struck Kadiivka. (The Ukrainians claim to have killed up to 200 Russian airborne troops in an attack on a hotel where they were garrisoned in the same city.) Two other notable examples involve continued HIMARS attacks on the two bridges leading into Kherson, and the recent precision strike on the Wagner Group HQ in Popasna.

So it’s pretty apparent that some sort of precision weapons system is continuing to
inflict significant damage on Russia’s military and infrastructure in occupied areas.

Yes, some significant damage is always done when you actually hit the desired target. Of course, you do have a slightly greater chance of actually hitting the desired target if you have a larger number of weapons to fire at it.

And remember the (Stalin) adage "Количество имеет собственное качество." "Quantity has a quality of its own." - because the Russian sure haven't forgotten it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That’s true.

The Russians have been driven back to essentially where they started, and even that is vulnerable.

Ukraine has learned to exploit the weaknesses in Russian logistics and command structure.

While Russia has largely retreated to meatgrinder tactics, and throwing bodies at their war.

In WWII the German Army was superior to the Red Army in training, doctrine, individual initiative, weapons skills, and equipment. The Red Army kept on feeding fresh troops into the meat grinder until the German Army completely wiped out the Red Army and conquered all of Russia - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is there anything left of Donbas, or have the Ukrainians obliterated it?

Sorry, terminological in-exactitude. I was referring to the entire Donbas region.

It's quite possible that the Russians will end up retaining the entire shoreline of the Caspian because [1] the Ukrainians aren't strong enough to retake it unless the Russians leave, [2] the Russians cannot afford the "loss of face" involved in leaving, and [3] the "Western Nations" won't give the Ukrainians the needed troop strength to physically retake the territory.

 

[bave]

That’s true.

The Russians have been driven back to essentially where they started, and even that is vulnerable.

Ukraine has learned to exploit the weaknesses in Russian logistics and command structure.

While Russia has largely retreated to meatgrinder tactics, and throwing bodies at their war.

This isn't true. Russians have been advancing in Kherson region the last two weeks. Not sure how they are managing the logistics, but the map lines are moving, albeit slowly.

If you think Ukraine is actually making the strategic military decisions, I have a bridge to sell you

Is there anything left of Donbas, or have the Ukrainians obliterated it?

Was largely destroyed before this year honestly. There has effectively been a civil war in the region since 2014.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Was largely destroyed before this year honestly. There has effectively been a civil war in the region since 2014.

Exactly. That's what the people as a whole are not being told. Ukraine have been bombing these areas for almost a decade before the Russians came in.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Well, yeah, if the demands are to "not admit Ukraine to NATO, because that would be like admitting Mexico into the CSTO, and is something the US would never allow, for obvious reasons, so that request doesn't seem too unreasonable, given that there had already been assurances given a long time ago that NATO would not continue to expand...." and then we would have saved millions of lives and livelihoods, instead of sending the entirety of the Ukrainian people through a meat grinder, ruining the lives of millions, killing hundreds of thousands, and causing a massive refugee crisis.....

Unlike NATO, which serves the security interests of each member, CSTO was shaped by Putin to achieve his ambitions. Unlike CSTO nations I'm sure Mexico is not in any fear of imminent economic and or military retaliation/invasion by the US should they take diplomatic positions or act on their own national interests even they might be contrary to what the US may prefer, and Mexico certainly has no interest helping Putin achieve his expansionist ambition of restoring Russia to previous Soviet era glory. Putin has long been using the imaginary threat of NATO's eastward expansion as a casus belli playing card and as a flimsy excuse to defend Russian national interests and the post-Soviet ‘near abroad.’ But this time Putin's imaginary threats has brought about the most catastrophic war since the Second World War. And it has ironically for Putin, had the effect of expanding NATO rather curtailing it's expansion. NATO did not expand its borders by force. This choice was made by independent states and their people to protect themselves from a dangerous neighbor. It was a choice they made freely and without coercion. NATO is a defensive alliance. It does not seek conflict. But if conflict were to come their way, they will be ready for it. As Secretary of State Blinken said; "We will defend every inch of NATO territory."

Yes. Sometimes, diplomatic compromise is a bit better than another war.

Yeah well. already been there and done that. During their initial negotiations with the Russians Ukraine Ukraine was poised to renounce attempting to join NATO in return for realistic security guarantees from other countries. The notorious Budapest Memorandum is now nothing more than a bitter memory. If there is one thing Europe learned from WWII it would be that it is better to stand up early on against an ultra nationalistic/imperialistic minded, egocentric dictator rather than try to appease or compromise with him. Because it doesn't end there.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The essential point in that post is the line​

​

The conservative Russian leadership feels like it’s fighting an existential war for its own long-term survival against a hostile West​

​

and, quite frankly it really doesn't matter if that belief is fact based or not because it IS the belief that the Russian leadership is acting on.

The "Western nations" most certainly do have the financial clout to out last the Russians. The question is whether the "Western nations" has the fortitude to out last the Russians. Since the degree to which the "Western nations" are prepared to "stick to it" is highly dependent on whether the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians that means that the question is whether the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians. Since the degree to which the US government has the fortitude to out last the Russians is highly dependent on whether the American people have the fortitude to out last the Russians. Given past and recent history, the American people have the fortitude to endure any situation PROVIDED that it doesn't, in the least, inconvenience any American and ALSO PROVIDED that not a single American is killed or wounded.

If it weren't for the loss of face involved, Ukraine would likely be better off being shut of the ethnic Russians who want to become a part of "Mother Russia" once again then it would be if turned into the kind of police state that would be necessary to totally suppress the pro-Russia sentiments. Whether the people of the Donbas would actually be better off by leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia is a problem that they will have to sort out for themselves.​

What a bunch of horse manure. Conservative Russian leadership my ass! This is all because of one man's blind egomaniacal drive to cement his legacy as being among the Soviet era greats by restoring Russia to the geopolitical prominence it once held when it was the Soviet Union, when he was KGB agent, before he dies. Which he's beginning to realize is likely to be coming sooner rather than later.

 

[Atomic Kid]

In WWII the German Army was superior to the Red Army in training, doctrine, individual initiative, weapons skills, and equipment. The Red Army kept on feeding fresh troops into the meat grinder until the German Army completely wiped out the Red Army and conquered all of Russia - right?

If you think the Russian people are going to be up for that again to continue prosecute an undeclared war upon Ukraine you may be even crazier than Putin.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Sorry, terminological in-exactitude. I was referring to the entire Donbas region.

It's quite possible that the Russians will end up retaining the entire shoreline of the Caspian because [1] the Ukrainians aren't strong enough to retake it unless the Russians leave, [2] the Russians cannot afford the "loss of face" involved in leaving, and [3] the "Western Nations" won't give the Ukrainians the needed troop strength to physically retake the territory.

The Russians simply don't have the numbers to be able to occupy and control any wide swathes of Ukrainian territory. A fact that will quite painfully play out for them in terms of blood and treasure.

 

[Variant]

In WWII the German Army was superior to the Red Army in training, doctrine, individual initiative, weapons skills, and equipment. The Red Army kept on feeding fresh troops into the meat grinder until the German Army completely wiped out the Red Army and conquered all of Russia - right?

The German army mainly ran out of fuel and had to fight man to man with a larger Russian force that could then simply push them off the field.

In contrast, when Russia invaded German held areas in WW1 the Germans outmatched them so badly that the Russian government collapsed.

Russia also suffered 11 million casualties in WW2, so the comparisons are going to be off on the simple scale difference of that conflict.

Also, If the Red army were even a shell of the group that sent the Germans back they would have already won. At it's peak in WW2 the red army was 11 million men.

 

[bave]

Putin has long been using the imaginary threat of NATO's eastward expansion as a casus belli playing card and as a flimsy excuse to defend Russian national interests and the post-Soviet ‘near abroad.’ But this time Putin's imaginary threats has brought about the most catastrophic war since the Second World War. And it has ironically for Putin, had the effect of expanding NATO rather curtailing it's expansion. NATO did not expand its borders by force. This choice was made by independent states and their people to protect themselves from a dangerous neighbor. It was a choice they made freely and without coercion. NATO is a defensive alliance. It does not seek conflict. But if conflict were to come their way, they will be ready for it.

Yeah well. already been there and done that. During their initial negotiations with the Russians Ukraine Ukraine was poised to renounce attempting to join NATO in return for realistic security guarantees from other countries. The notorious Budapest Memorandum is now nothing more than a bitter memory. If there is one thing Europe learned from WWII it would be that it is better to stand up early on against an ultra nationalistic/imperialistic minded, egocentric dictator rather than try to appease or compromise with him. Because it doesn't end there.

Yea, bullshit. NATO may not be using their military to attack and drive conflict, but their actions are certainly inherently creating conflict, by choice and by design. Georgia in the early 2000's, 100% antagonistic. Ukraine in 2014, 100% provocative. Russia has made it very clear for a very long time what it considers red lines in their spheres of influence, we intentionally crossed the lines knowing it would provoke a response. We stationed troops on their borders, we interfered with their domestic politics and flipped governments. These are things that would, and has, caused the US to go to war as well. So the idea that NATO is some pure as the driven snow entity is hogwash. It is a power exercising cudgel being wielded with politics, money, and covert actions.

The Russians simply don't have the numbers to be able to occupy and control any wide swathes of Ukrainian territory. A fact that will quite painfully play out for them in terms of blood and treasure.

Maybe yes, maybe no. They can certainy occupy the entire Black Sea coast from Odessa to Mariopol as those are friendly civvy populations. My guess is their new goal is to take up to the Dnieper and the Black coast, then flip the government.

 

[fireflygmf]

Yeah, I think all of the sanctions are starting to have an effect.
There are only so many billionaire yachts that can be seized before these billionaires start becoming uncomfortable with not having their fancy toys.
The people of Russia do not want this war.
A majority of the world is united with Ukraine.

Are they? If memory serves these are the same conditions that were asked for at the beginning of the war.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What a bunch of horse manure. Conservative Russian leadership my ass!

Since you, very obviously, refuse to admit that the forest exists, your comment on the trees is irrelevant.

This is all because of one man's blind egomaniacal drive to cement his legacy as being among the Soviet era greats by restoring Russia to the geopolitical prominence it once held when it was the Soviet Union, when he was KGB agent, before he dies. Which he's beginning to realize is likely to be coming sooner rather than later.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If you think the Russian people are going to be up for that again to continue prosecute an undeclared war upon Ukraine you may be even crazier than Putin.

The American people put up with Vietnam and Afghanistan for how long?

Is there some reason why you believe that everyone in Russia thinks and feels identically to someone who lives in Boisie and only has access to FOX News?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Russians simply don't have the numbers to be able to occupy and control any wide swathes of Ukrainian territory. A fact that will quite painfully play out for them in terms of blood and treasure.

The Russians do not have the numbers to be able to occupy an control any Ukrainian territory where the majority of the people who live there don't want them to do so.

The Russians DO have the numbers to be able to support the people who live in a part of Ukrainian territory to separate from Ukraine PROVIDED that the majority of the people who live there want to do so.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The German army mainly ran out of fuel and had to fight man to man with a larger Russian force that could then simply push them off the field.

In contrast, when Russia invaded German held areas in WW1 the Germans outmatched them so badly that the Russian government collapsed.

Russia also suffered 11 million casualties in WW2, so the comparisons are going to be off on the simple scale difference of that conflict.

Also, If the Red army were even a shell of the group that sent the Germans back they would have already won. At it's peak in WW2 the red army was 11 million men.

Your sarcasm detector needs re-calibrating.

 

[Variant]

Your sarcasm detector needs re-calibrating.

That's fair.

I still would have wanted to make the point for anyone thinking Russia of WW2 was remotely similar to the current thing.

Also, during that war the US was supplying the Russians instead of their foe.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's fair.

I still would have wanted to make the point for anyone thinking Russia of WW2 was remotely similar to the current thing.

Quite right. In WWII the Russians were actually trying to win.

Also, during that war the US was supplying the Russians instead of their foe.

During WWII, the US supplied SOME of the war materials that the Russians used - primarily trucks. The Russian tanks were an order of magnitude better than the American tanks and the Russian aircraft production dwarfed the amount of aircraft that the US supplied to Russia. The Russian production of bullets and shell was actually (if I recall my sources correctly) HIGHER than the US production of bullets and shells.

Of course, during WWII there were no American firms supplying Germany. After all, GM, Ford, IBM, AT&T, Dow, and the other American companies that had had fully owned subsidiaries in Germany had "sold" those subsidiaries to "neutrals" before America entered the war against Germany. Those "former" American owned companies continued producing right through WWII (and making tidy profits by doing so). After WWII ended, the "neutrals" who had "bought" the subsidiaries "sold" them back to their former owners (and the sale included all of the profits made by supplying war materials to the Nazis as well as the rights to claim compensation for "damage done to neutral property" [which the American firms took advantage of]). So "technically' no "American firms" sold any war materials to the Nazis but, in fact, the owners of those companies made a bundle out of it.

 

[Variant]

Quite right. In WWII the Russians were actually trying to win.

They are trying to win here too, just without actually having to comit all their resources to the task.

During WWII, the US supplied SOME of the war materials that the Russians used - primarily trucks. The Russian tanks were an order of magnitude better than the American tanks and the Russian aircraft production dwarfed the amount of aircraft that the US supplied to Russia. The Russian production of bullets and shell was actually (if I recall my sources correctly) HIGHER than the US production of bullets and shells.

I didn't say we supplied most of their army, just that we were supplying them.

But if you want a full list the US supplied Russia with:

In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[58] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[59] 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 Havocs and 2,397 were Bell P-63 Kingcobras)[60] and 1.75 million tons of food.[61]

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[62][63]

The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the high-octane aviation fuel,[35] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.[35] One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about $11 billion.[66]

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bave]

Interesting analysis I just read. For all the energy sanctions against Russia they are exporting as much oil as they were before the war in August, at nearly twice the price. Their net-revenue from energy to the government since before the war to now is +80B USD year to date. So despite losing a ton of military hardware, they can easily afford to replace it all, moreover the sanctions aren't working for shit. This also includes the net effect of declining gas exports.