The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[seaspear]

It might be fair to suggest though that Russia has depended mostly on its pre-existing stockpiles of Soviet war materials being reactivated , there may be a point that Soviet materials and present production cannot match losses .
Its not to suggest that Ukrainian losses are easily replaced depending on the goodwill of other nations in their disposal of mostly old war materials e.g. ATACM,S old version of Abrams and Challenger2 certainly old Leopards , I'm not sure which f-16 block version is proposed for Ukraine and if this can make a difference but economic pressures may be more of a deciding factor in this war

 

[Feanor]

It might be fair to suggest though that Russia has depended mostly on its pre-existing stockpiles of Soviet war materials being reactivated , there may be a point that Soviet materials and present production cannot match losses .

Of course. That day is coming. The estimates I've seen and others have quoted suggest some time in 2026.

Its not to suggest that Ukrainian losses are easily replaced depending on the goodwill of other nations in their disposal of mostly old war materials e.g. ATACM,S old version of Abrams and Challenger2 certainly old Leopards , I'm not sure which f-16 block version is proposed for Ukraine and if this can make a difference but economic pressures may be more of a deciding factor in this war

It will certainly play a major role.

 

[Ananda]

Economics factor was and is still predicted as main factors on War continuation. That's why the West conducting the overall economics embargoes and trade wars against Russia and Russian Oligarchs. However what's not being predicted (at least by many pundits and politicians in West), the resilience of Putin's war economy. The capabilities that Russian economy has not crumble within six months as many in West predicted in 2022.

This is means the economic costs increasingly in alarming rate for all sides. However also increasingly profitable for some suppliers. That's after all the nature of attrition wars. Some attrition will also bring not just costs but economic incentive. In the end whoever can't take or willing to pay the costs, will blink first.

So far no sides ses wiling to do that, and seems so far still willing to beared the incremental costs increase.

 

[seaspear]

It might also be the American election decides this war, a return of the Trump administration may likely be challenging for N.A.T.O and Ukraine

How to get Trump to agree to foreign aid: A loan, with a country's natural resources as collateral

GOP senators told NBC News that the approach appealed to Trump on an aid package to Ukraine and that there could be “more of this, not less,” if he wins in November.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[KipPotapych]

@KipPotapych Thanks for your very long reply.

Geez, you really reply to EVERYTHING!

Lol. Won’t be the case this time. I’ll give everyone and myself a break and be brief, if I can help it.

As you said, it's more a matter of optimism or pessimism.

No, I said it is optimism vs realism. I don’t believe I expressed pessimism in any of my posts here. Often, quite the opposite, actually.

You made a good point when you say that we gave them much more than what we intended to give them at the beginning.
But, especially the European Union, made a clear decision to support Ukraine for as long (and for as much) as it takes.

Again, because this is extremely important: what is supposed to take place? We don’t know. Until Ukraine is satisfied or defeated? Neither should align with our goals here. Reinstatement of Ukrainian borders to the “internationally recognized” boundaries? That’s not going to happen, I think that much should be clear to everyone by now. “Strategic defeat” of Russia? We already declared that over a year ago. Ukraine having an upper hand? That also already happened and went over a year ago. Even if that is the goal, we need to have a clear understanding what the “upper hand” is and that is clearly lacking. And so on.

In general, we do not appear to have an objective here. You can’t make a plan and provide support accordingly if you do not have an objective. Whatever Ukraine has in mind is completely unrealistic, idiotic even. Zelensky even reduced his “peace formula” theme for the upcoming summit in Switzerland or so he implies (I believe you posted the Reuters interview yourself, so I won’t bother with citations). The main theme now is the nuclear safety, safe navigation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov (which Ukraine currently has nothing to with and likely the only one that can pose a threat to anyone there), exchange of all POWs, and return of children. Basically, he talks about things that everyone “on the fence” (I hate this phrase) should have no issues with supporting. He is also now taking liberty of personally contacting and inviting leaderships of various countries to attend. This is in spite of Switzerland specifically stating that they are the ones doing that. Why such a change of heart and tactics? The answer is pretty simple: with less than a month to go, only 50 out 160 invitees said they will send their representatives. According to the Swiss, half of those 50 are non-European. The alarm bells must be ringing and reasonably so. Biden himself, probably after looking at how things are playing out, decided to attend a fundraiser in Hollywood along side Julia Roberts and George Clooney instead (must be a “zing” here in terms location and actors). For now, the summit seems to be a failure long before it began. We shall see what happens though.

Zelensky counted on this. He thought that the West and, in particular Europe, would give enough ammunitions and weapons. And Europe didn't.

Whose fault is it that he counted on it? Europe’s? Not really. Europe didn’t have enough ammunition to give to begin with. To believe that they would supply tanks and missiles in 2022 was insane. But I feel like we are starting/continuing to go in circles here.

No matter how much they gave already. Despite the huge number of vehicles and ammunitions delivered, it was still like 5x less than what was needed to vanquish Putin's army.

This is one of the keys though. Not sure about the multiplier, but they do not have enough to provide. Isn’t it clear at this point? Even if they wanted to give more than they can afford, they do not have enough equipment to give. I am not sure where the confusion is. They didn't have it before and they especially and certainly do not have it now. Just to make it clear, we are talking about Europe. Poland probably has more than anyone else there now and they surely aren’t going to give any of the “good stuff” up.

A quick thought on this note. It wouldn’t be completely crazy on the part of Russia to keep this pressured and heated heads in Europe believing that Russia might invade NATO next in order to further suppress deliveries to Ukraine and instead spend the scarce resources on their own rearmament in the face of fear of the bigger war, the risk of which supplying Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons also escalates.

Of course, nobody expected the West to give enough vehicles to match the Russians. Ukrainians wouldn't have enough trained men to drive them anyway.

That would be another part of the puzzle, wouldn’t it be?

However, if it was possible to quickly match the Russians equipment wise back in the second half of 2022, Ukraine would have more than enough men as they had more personnel than the Russians at the time, which is part of the reason the Russians failed.

But the fact is that, when Zelensky said that a massive number of shells was urgently needed, we were unable to give them.

That is because we didn’t have anything else to give. Yet, we still delivered for the 2023 counteroffensive.

To end with my plead in the defence of Zelensky: Every time a country made a donation to Ukraine, he personally thanked this country for the aid. Not matter how small this aid was. Every time. (But you don't read Ukrinform, right?)
It's not like he only complains and blames us.

Yes, he says thanks, which is usually followed by a “but”.

No his numbers are not real. 155 shells cost now between $3000 and $5000

No, he is correct. But it certainly is fluid and debatable. I have seen the cost estimates as high 10,000 US dollars per shell for the EU. According to this, his numbers are reasonable (he is a smart guy):

In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,171) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,489.60).

In race to make artillery shells, US, EU see different results

DOD’s early success may founder on Congressional inaction, while Europe’s private firms await orders.

www.defenseone.com

Regardless, either of the figures work for the argument he was making.

Then, but you know it, there is the quality and accuracy. If I remember correctly it takes 4x less NATO shells (4 or 5) to hit a target than Russian ones (15 to 20). If this ratio is correct, we win.

I read many various claims on this topic and don’t believe the number is nearly as high. I also read various claims about the fragmentation and whatnot. But I am not going to comment on any of it.

At the end of the day, you yourself mentioned something about quantity becoming quality, didn’t you? This is most certainly is the case with artillery more than anything else in this war.

Another note, the ammunition is not the only issue here. The barrels it is fired from is as big of a (in some cases probably even a bigger) problem.

In regards to “we win”. “We” are supposedly not in this war, so “we” cannot win.

But, the most important mistake he made is over simplification. A war is not won just by arithmetic. I'm sure Khodorkovsky knows this. He is not stupid. He says that to show his support for the Russian victory in the CBO (Cyrillic character: pronounced SVO). He had been jailed under Putin and, I think, he doesn't want to be in trouble again.

Sorry, this is a complete rubbish. So complete that it couldn't be more complete. He wasn’t talking in Russia. He will likely never make another step on the Russian soil ever again. This much is clear, at the very least. He also said things since he’s been out of prison that should put him in a lot more trouble than his little speech there. His basic premise is that a lot more weapons need to be supplied because otherwise Russia will go to Poland and elsewhere.

Zelensky may not be a Churchill, but his opening comment "I need ammunition, not a ride" earned him enough goodwill for a long time.

He certainly isn’t Churchill and not even close.

As for that comment, did it even happen? Personally, I doubt. But it is pretty good for a movie script, nonetheless. But with someone like George Clooney that Biden decided to hang with instead playing the main character, not Zelensky.

Russian Telegramm rumor mill vclaims that ukraine hit a russian ballistic missile early warning radar in Armavir, Russia.

This appears to be quite risky and especially so if storm shadows should have been used.

I have been thinking about this today and it seems like a very poorly thought through move by Ukraine. This radar has nothing to do with Ukraine. This radar has everything to do with the nuclear “warfare” that we are trying to avoid at all costs, so to speak. I would guess, this strike should have direct consequences on the decision whether to allow Ukraine use the western long-range capabilities to strike targets inside Russia. Yeah, I think it was quite dumb on their part, especially while asking for what they are asking currently.

 

[Fredled]

About the drone strike on the "Voronezh-DM" early warning radar:
We have two pictures from The war Zone, which were also shared on Ukrinform and Defence-UA and other websites.
I'm almost 100% sure that the picture taken from the ground has been retouched with a large white rectangle to conceal the damages and, perhaps, to also hide the electronic device inside the building. I have enlarged the picture on my PC screen and saw solid pixel rows forming a rectangle. While jpg compression can make such effect, it's a strong indication. Another indication is that we see damages on the left and on the right of the white rectangle. There is forcibly some damages in between.

The first radar looking at the Black Sea, on the left, was hit from the front. The second radar, on the right, looking at Iran, was hit from the back. For the Ukrainians, only destroying the radar on the left was useful. This suggests that they had enough drones for one more strike on the other radar after making sure the first one was out of service.

Curiously, the satellite picture shows debris scattered only around the first radar, not around the other one while the ground picture shows that both were hit. Maybe the debris fell like that or the personnel already started to clean the area.

Some pundits worry that such attack could trigger at least a pre-alert for nuclear retaliation because the radar belongs to the nuclear strike prevention network.

The conditions specifying the possibility of nuclear weapons use by the Russian Federation" include any "attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions

link: Y!news

 

[Fredled]

.... But when we're talking about vague public statements, they can be interpreted in various ways, and can simply be smoke.
....

I agree. First of all, the sources are anonymous, albeit taken seriousely enough by Western medias, including Reuters. Someone said something but there is nothing official to speculate about.

If Putin is serious about a ceasefire without a permanent peace treaty then he's lost his mind. The smartest thing Russia can do is to continue to pummel Ukraine with everything they've got right up until the pen touches the paper to sign peace. Any break gives Ukraine time to rebuild and makes it that much harder later for Russia.

A truce will benefit both side in this respect. Russia would also be glad to breath a little bit to rebuild its forces. It's just that right now, it's not the right time for the Russians because in the next two or three months, Ukraine will start to get important military supplies.

The point is, that if Putin wants to express a desire for dialogue it should be consistent with his actions. Nobody will believe his good intents if at the same time he still bombs civilian sites. He should at least order his forces to take a defensive posture on the frontline and stop attacking during the few days Ukrainians are thinking about the proposal. Not a truce, but limit the operations to the defence of the existing lines.

I think the peace deal will also have to deal with questions of Ukrainian NATO membership, and definitive resolution of the territorial dispute questions.

The territorial dispute should be resolved once for good and recognized internationally.
I think that Russia can forget about NATO non-membership of Ukraine because this is considered by Ukrainians as the guarantee for no further invasions. Secondly, it's irrelevant given the military support they get from the West. Anyway, membership will take time and it will take the shape of security agreement.
__________________________

However what's not being predicted (at least by many pundits and politicians in West), the resilience of Putin's war economy. The capabilities that Russian economy has not crumble within six months as many in West predicted in 2022.

The economic factor suggests a minimum of rational decision making.

Starting this full scale war was already irrational. Pronlonging it, even more. In the sens that the goals were not worth the cost. Starting a war is rarely rational and almost always cause an economic recession for various reasons. Economic recession doesn't mean that the economy crumbles. Just that the country is less wealthy. Only idiots could think that the economy of a major oil exporter could crumble. But it's true, some poeple said that. The fact is that Russia is losing hundreds of billion every year the war goes on. $100B in direct cost for the war, several hundreds in indirect costs. On the indirect cost, only a fraction is caused by the sanctions. Sanctions have an effect on the Russian economy, but the indirect influence of the war on investments, resource allocations, trust in the Russian state, domestic spending, inflation, is much greater. Actually, Russia is in war economy. Meaning that they don't think about the economy, only about the war. With oil sales, they know they can run the show indefinetely. We are very far from any expectation that Putin will embrace rational decisions in favor of peace.

On the Ukrainian side, economy is not a factor in the decision making. They have to resist constant agression no matter how bad the economy is. They have no choice. Surrender would not be rational because they would lose everything. As I explained above, only when Putin decides to stop firing missiles at Ukraine, peace talks can be possible.
___________________________

In general, we do not appear to have an objective here. You can’t make a plan and provide support accordingly if you do not have an objective. Whatever Ukraine has in mind is completely unrealistic, idiotic even. Zelensky even reduced his “peace formula” theme for the upcoming summit in Switzerland or so he implies (I believe you posted the Reuters interview yourself, so I won’t bother with citations). The main theme now is the nuclear safety, safe navigation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov (which Ukraine currently has nothing to with and likely the only one that can pose a threat to anyone there), exchange of all POWs, and return of children. Basically, he talks about things that everyone “on the fence” (I hate this phrase) should have no issues with supporting.

We have no firm objective because we don't know what Putin's objectives are. So far we have to adapt. Our goal is to save as much of what can be saved of Ukraine.

Of course, returning to the 1992 borders seems increasingly irrealistical. But it's the only position they can take. Suggesting that a peace deal could include giving some Ukrainian land to Russia would imply that Putin has legitimate rights on these lands and that his war of agression is justified. Even if that's what will probably happen, it can't be said publicly.

You should keep in mind that this is not a land dispute. It's Putin wanting to take control of Ukraine and if he can't, control as much Ukrainian land as he can by force. Putin has not even defined the areas of Ukraine that should be returned to Russia (in the sens that Ukraine allegedly belonged to Russia before 1917). When he said that he wants to put respectable people at the power in Ukraine, that's exactly what he means. In this context, you don't want to discuss a just agreement taking in consideration the demands from both sides[sic Xi].

No. The Peace Summit will not be only about Grain Corridor and return of children. Zelensky said that the summit will includes these topics to get some traction. But of course, they will also talk about war. The goal, IMO, is to draw an international condemnation since the UN declaration doesn't seem to have much weight.

A quick thought on this note. It wouldn’t be completely crazy on the part of Russia to keep this pressured and heated heads in Europe believing that Russia might invade NATO next in order to further suppress deliveries to Ukraine and instead spend the scarce resources on their own rearmament in the face of fear of the bigger war, the risk of which supplying Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons also escalates.

It's not just a quick thought. It's the fundamental reason why Europe is unable to provide more military aid to Ukraine. Nobody knows what Putin is up to. It would be crazy to reduce the number of weapons on the eastern NATO border to give them to Ukraine. To the contrary, NATO increases the number of weapons and deployement there at a fast pace. For the moment the bulk of the Russian army is in the Donbass, at a confortable distance. But this could change quickly. We better be prepared.

the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,171) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,489.60).

He talks about the price. Not about the cost for manufacturers. There is no reason, other than regular inflation and higher raw material cost, that it should be more expensive than before the war.

In regards to “we win”. “We” are supposedly not in this war, so “we” cannot win.

Maybe not Canada. But Europe is involved up to the neck.

 

[Ben Dhyani]

Imho, the elephant in the room wrt the Ukrainian situation may be Russia's concerns, fears even, that Russia's future as in independent entity is being threatened by what they consider US/NATO's ultimate intentions are, in the spreading of its influence in the context of the establishment of a new world order.

 

[seaspear]

Though Russia has some years left of Soviet era war stock ,it appears that its advanced radars are very limited in number and even ability if they have move s-400 radars from Kalingrad and the Kurile islands to Ukraine to address losses there

Ukraine’s gift to the West: Russia now has major air defense problem after S-400, S-300, Buk and Pantsir embarrassments

Deep into the third year of all-out war, Ukraine's strained air defenses have been under the microscope—But while Russia bombards Ukraine's critical infrastructure, Moscow has vulnerabilities of its own. Russia's air-defense network has been challenged by the fight against Ukraine, and...

www.globaldefensecorp.com

ttps://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2023/12/02/russia-relocates-s-400-air-defense-system-from-kaliningrad-to-moscow-to-protect-government-buildings-in-winter/
When Turkey acquired this missile system it found there was some issues in its tracking of slow type drones this led to the development of drones to counter this type of radar

Turkey Planning to Test Its Killer Drone Against S-400

Turkey will test its attack drone against Russian S-400 air defense systems. Based on the tactical knowledge gained through the use Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles in Libya and Syria against the Pantsir-S air defense missile system and the destruction of the S-300 air defense missile...

www.globaldefensecorp.com

 

[Feanor]

Though Russia has some years left of Soviet era war stock ,it appears that its advanced radars are very limited in number and even ability if they have move s-400 radars from Kalingrad and the Kurile islands to Ukraine to address losses there

Ukraine’s gift to the West: Russia now has major air defense problem after S-400, S-300, Buk and Pantsir embarrassments

Deep into the third year of all-out war, Ukraine's strained air defenses have been under the microscope—But while Russia bombards Ukraine's critical infrastructure, Moscow has vulnerabilities of its own. Russia's air-defense network has been challenged by the fight against Ukraine, and...

www.globaldefensecorp.com

ttps://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2023/12/02/russia-relocates-s-400-air-defense-system-from-kaliningrad-to-moscow-to-protect-government-buildings-in-winter/
When Turkey acquired this missile system it found there was some issues in its tracking of slow type drones this led to the development of drones to counter this type of radar

Turkey Planning to Test Its Killer Drone Against S-400

Turkey will test its attack drone against Russian S-400 air defense systems. Based on the tactical knowledge gained through the use Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles in Libya and Syria against the Pantsir-S air defense missile system and the destruction of the S-300 air defense missile...

www.globaldefensecorp.com

Remember, there was no standard deployment of S-400s to Ukraine. All S-400s in Ukraine come from somewhere else in Russia, be it Kurils, Kalinigrand, Murmansk, etc. This is the same as Russian forces deployed to Ukraine. They're a collection of units from other areas. Russia has certainly lost S-400 pieces in this war. How many exactly, and how this lines up with production is unclear. Pre-war S-400 production was quite robust, and the S-300 was nearing complete phase-out. Only a few upgraded S-300PMs remained in service. In other words, deploying S-400s from Kuril islands to Ukraine doesn't necessarily correlate with losses. The 39th Motor-Rifles is from neighboring Sakhalin and has been fighting in Ukraine for practically this entire time. In many cases also there has been unit bloat. Recent information surfaced stating that the 810th MarBde, ~3000 personnel pre-war, has swelled to over 11 000 personnel. They will be converting it into a division. This means that new S-400 kit could get moved to the Kuril islands for integration into the unit stationed there, and then months later get sent to Ukraine as part of a deployment by an S-400 btln out of that air defense regiment.

 

[seaspear]

With regard to pre war production of the s-400,s does this system rely on imported chips and circuitry that may have been effected by restrictions?

 

[Feanor]

With regard to pre war production of the s-400,s does this system rely on imported chips and circuitry that may have been effected by restrictions?

No idea. This is another variable that makes it hard to tell what exactly the situation is. Russia seems to be able to produce fairly sophisticated radars despite sanctions, including booting up production of a whole new counter battery radar type, the Yastreb-AV, and increased output of upgraded Zoopark variants. On the other hand we've seen no evidence of Buk-M3 production continuing despite the need for such systems. So maybe some systems have been impacted by sanctions? Or maybe production is being kept under wraps. Footage of Russia SAM ops has become more scarce over the past year, despite the fact that we know they're operating there. Initially we got footage of Pantsyrs setting up and doing their work. Now we get footage of the booster rockets falling to the ground in Belgorod, but no footage of the systems themselves. It's making it hard to tell what's really going on and I'm reasonably confident this is intentional.

To be clear, there's nothing impossible or even improbable about Russian SAM resources being strained. There's just not conclusive evidence in either direction.

 

[Fredled]

This means that new S-400 kit could get moved to the Kuril islands for integration into the unit stationed there, and then months later get sent to Ukraine as part of a deployment by an S-400 btln out of that air defense regiment.

What kind of management is it? Moving hardware 10000 km east, then move it back 10000 km west because it's needed in Ukraine... And Putin waited all this time to sack his Defence minister? I know he was an old friend, but there are some limits to stupidity.

More seriously, it shows that Russians never expected the war to last that long and require so much equipment. They didn't produce equipment for Ukraine because they thought it won't be necessary. Then a few months later they have to gather pieces from everywhere, from as far as the Kurill Islands.
___________________

More details about 155 shell cost and NLAW production.

which drew on publicly available information

I don't think that publicly available information are either exact or up to date. This is something that governments would want to keep secret. They could eventually publish inflated numbers to scare the enemy or, to the contrary conceal real production not to urge the other side to follow up in an arm race. I don't know what's their policy in this respect.

Russian factories were forecast to manufacture or refurbish

There is a big difference between producing new and refurbish. We know that they have for several years of soviet stock and that gives them a big advantage to start with. When we say that we are fighting the 2d strongest army in the world, the former Red Army, it's for a reason.
On the flip side, refurbishing 40 years old shells or producing new one on the same machines that stand in the factories for 40 years won't provide the same quality as shells produced today with cutting edge technology freshly imported from China.
IMO, the question "How much modernised is shell production in Russia" is as important as quantity.

On cost, it said the average production cost per 155 mm shell - the type produced by NATO countries - was about $4,000 (£3,160) per unit, though it varied significantly between countries. This is compared with a reported Russian production cost of around $1,000 (£790) per 152 mm shell that the Russian armed forces use.

I imagine that NATO won't keep producing shells at the most expensive work hour on the planet forever, when they urgently need to boost production. One thing is that every donor country wants that the money they donate for Ukraine be spend in their country. Which means that $1B spent in France, Belgium, Germany, UK or the US is equivalent to $0.6B spent in Poland, $0.5B spent in Romania or Bulgary and $0.3B spent in Ukraine, all costs combined.
The other thing is to rationally use the money to defeat Russia in an effective manner.
It's still unclear where they lean to the most to. I'm afraid everybody still wants the money to be spent in their own yard.

It's interesting that Russian production has also doubled in the last 3 years...
Khodorkovsky may want to take his calculator again...
__________________________

Strikes inside Russia with western weapons:
Sweden, UK, Stoltenberg agree. (OK Stoltenberg is not a country but it's somebody.)
Italy doesn't.
With weapons being built and repurchased among several countries, the legal framework to strike Russia with the authorisation from individual countries will be complicated.

IMO, the debate is not a true debate. ATACMS maximum range is 300 km. They can't bomb Moscow or strategic air bases or nuclear sites deep inside Russia. And if they think that 300 km is too dangerous an escalation, they could set a limit to, say, 100 km, which would allow all other weapons but ATACMS. At least they should allow artillery and rockets (20 to 50 km). That would be no big deal. But they should take a rational decision.

 

[KipPotapych]

This will be my last post on Zelensky (until the next one?).

I said it gets beyond annoying eventually. Some probably agree, some disagree. When, however, some of your staunch supporters start telling you in very straight terms that it is getting annoying, you should probably take a note. Here is Toomas Ilves, the president of Estonia from a decade ago (served for about 10 years, if I recall correctly, longer than any other), expressing himself on Twitter:

That was his response to the following (the source is in the tweet linked above):

I only saw it because Mark Galeotti retweeted it. I am assuming that when someone retweets something and does not comment themselves, they agree with the sentiment.

In regard to Kazakhstan, that is “next”, while on the subject. Putin reluctantly sent a few thousand paratroopers to Kazakhstan after being asked by Tokaev (president of Kazakhstan) just over a month before the invasion to Ukraine. For context, Tokaev asked for help dealing with rioters who overwhelmed Kazakh resources and it could very well be that Tokaev is still in his position because of that. If I recall correctly, the troops had withdrawn within a week or so. I am sure most of you read about it back when it happened.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/troops-protesters-clash-almaty-main-square-kazakhstan-shots-heard-2022-01-06/

Zelensky also gave an interview to the media outlets from the post-Soviet (Asian) space a couple of days ago. I will provide a Reddit link for reference (it appears there is the entire video there and what looks like a transcript) just because this is the first search result Google provided me with (I watched about half of it on Youtube and didn’t read the transcript cited below, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of translation, completeness, etc):

https://www.reddit.com/r/zelensky/comments/1d0978r

A couple of things on the interview. The main interviewer (from Kazakhstan) asked him to speak in Russian because they (journalists) all come from “Russian-speaking countries”. The president agreed, noting that it became increasingly difficult to speak Russian in Ukraine due to the hostilities, etc. However, he, who spoke exclusively Russian, his native language, his entire life until 5 (probably less) years ago, kept asking his aid how to say day-to-day words in Russian because he doesn’t remember. That was funny (and ridiculous), but I guess he needs to keep up the appearances because many as it is, I am sure, are not overly excited about the fact that he gave an interview in Russian. As a matter of fact, he asked for less help when speaking English in any interview I have seen previously. I wonder if that is what Churchill would do. Hmm…

Another thing that he was asked right away was why he never bothered to give an interview to the journalists from Central Asia, even though they tried to get one numerous times over the two plus years, until now. The answer is pretty clear here (though he didn’t say): the meaningless summit in Switzerland. @Fredled, if the UN has no meaning and not enough pull, as you say, this thing is not even close to the UN “importance”.

The second thing I wanted to mention, also related to the summit, is that Zelensky called on Biden and Xi to show their leadership to advance peace. Except, as it appears, he did in a way that placed both their efforts to the Ukrainian cause at the same level.

In English-language video recorded inside the charred remains of a printing press destroyed on Thursday in a Russian air strike, Zelenskiy said the summit would "show who in the world really wants to end the war".

"I am appealing to the leaders of the world who are still aside from the global efforts of the Global Peace Summit – to President Biden, the leader of the United States, and to President Xi, the leader of China," he said.

"Please, show your leadership in advancing the peace – the real peace and not just a pause between the strikes.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/zelenskiy-kharkiv-urges-biden-xi-join-peace-summit-2024-05-26/

Edit: Also, last comment on the fortifications. This one I actually spotted on the Russian Telegram channel and went to look for the original source, which is CNN:

Ukraine: Battles rage outside Kharkiv as troops try to hold back Russian advance | CNN

The grip the nation keeps on many of its towns is tenuous, and if Russian forces take Lyptsi, they can position artillery within range of Ukraine’s city of Kharkiv.

amp.cnn.com

It appears they have visited Lyptsi and interviewed a few Ukrainian troops there, visited a bunker in some basement, etc. One of the guys they interviewed tells them in direct terms that there were no fortifications there and everything was dug by the infantry upon arrival. That is definitely the place where the fortifications were supposed to be.

 

[Fredled]

@KipPotapych

The Baltic states, Moldova and Kazakstam will be next

He is right. Kazakstan is maybe far fetched because it's still Russian friendly. But about east European countries, he is perfectly right. That's why NATO is increasing their force deployment there. It's no joke.

Putin has his to do list. And once he will broke Ukraine, he will move on to point nr 2.

I am appealing to the leaders of the world who are still aside from the global efforts of the Global Peace Summit – to President Biden, the leader of the United States, and to President Xi, the leader of China.

Please, show your leadership in advancing the peace – the real peace and not just a pause between the strikes.

This conference is important because it's the first one outside the UN. Not under the UN framwork. Normaly the UN is the place for that. But it doesn't work because of the influence of Russia. There, they will be able to talk without being influenced by Russia.

The Chinese argument is that peace talks should be held with Russia and suggests that they won't participate if Russia is not invited. Except that this is not a peace talk. Chinese just doesn't want to expose or to see exposed their embarrassing links with Russia. But Zelensky is right to say that's a chance for China to show their leadership if they come. If they don't come, we won't talk about them.

Zelensky is also disapointed that Joe Biden is not attending. It reduces the level of the conference. It won't be head of state level.

if the UN has no meaning and not enough pull, as you say, this thing is not even close to the UN “importance”.

After numerous meetings, extraordinary meetings, the work of the UN has had absolutely no effect whatsoever. The fact that Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC makes this organisation inoperable. Because UN members have not even considered the demand by Ukraine that Russia lost its seat at the UNSC, - it fell on deaf ears even to the best supporter of Ukraine - there is no hope that the UN could have a functionality anymore. It would have been logical, as Russia is not respecting the UN Charter, that they would lose their seat. But if the UN has no respect for itself, it's therefore obsolete.

The conference doesn't pretend to create another international organisation. Just to talk outside the inoperant UN assembly. Even if the importance of this meeting may not meet Zelensky's expectation, it will be de facto more important that the UN because the importance of the UN is basically zero.

 

[swerve]

More details about 155 shell cost and NLAW production.

I Imagine that NATO won't keep producing shells at the most expensive work hour on the planet forever, when they urgently need to boost production. One thing is that every donor country wants that the money they donate for Ukraine be spend in their country. Which means that $1B spent in France, Belgium, Germany, UK or the US is equivalent to $0.6B spent in Poland, $0.5B spent in Romania or Bulgary and $0.3B spent in Ukraine, all costs combined.
The other thing is to rationally use the money to defeat Russia in an effective manner.
It's still unclear where they lean to the most to. I'm afraid everybody still wants the money to be spent in their own yard.

Germany has been spending money in other countries, buying secondhand stuff to be given to Ukraine. IIRC Rheinmetall is currently making ammunition outside Germany to fill German orders for Ukraine & to refill German stocks, & is investing in expanding production in Hungary as well as Germany. The Czech ammunition project has sourced 122mm, 152mm, & most of all 155mm shells from various places around the world, & multiple NATO countries have given money to it. Denmark gave Ukraine artillery it had just bought for its own army, & bought new guns from Israel as replacements (because it could deliver first).

So while they might prefer that money they give is spent at home, they mostly don't insist on it. The Germans seem quite willing to buy cheaper, or stuff for quick delivery, outside Germany.

There are some weird things going on, though, e.g. the I recently read that the US army is planning to spend money destroying about 1000 artillery rockets which are approaching expiry date, when the Ukrainians would love to get their hands on them & don't give a fuck about their age, & it'd be cheaper to give them to Ukraine . . . . At the same time, the UK's planning to spend money scrapping some AFVs the Ukrainians would quite like. In both cases, I think it's probably bureaucratic inertia. The system's rolling on, following its long-established procedures, & nobody from high enough to change it has noticed & countermanded it.

 

[Feanor]

@KipPotapych
He is right. Kazakstan is maybe far fetched because it's still Russian friendly. But about east European countries, he is perfectly right. That's why NATO is increasing their force deployment there. It's no joke.

Putin has his to do list. And once he will broke Ukraine, he will move on to point nr 2.

This again presupposes a kind of victory that's quite unlikely. The reason people dismiss Russia as a threat to NATO is because of Russia's poor performance in Ukraine.

This conference is important because it's the first one outside the UN. Not under the UN framwork. Normaly the UN is the place for that. But it doesn't work because of the influence of Russia. There, they will be able to talk without being influenced by Russia.

The Chinese argument is that peace talks should be held with Russia and suggests that they won't participate if Russia is not invited. Except that this is not a peace talk. Chinese just doesn't want to expose or to see exposed their embarrassing links with Russia. But Zelensky is right to say that's a chance for China to show their leadership if they come. If they don't come, we won't talk about them.

Zelensky is also disapointed that Joe Biden is not attending. It reduces the level of the conference. It won't be head of state level.

The issue is that there isn't an international consensus. If the countries that meet are only the ones who support Ukraine, then you won't really have the entire international community involved. If you want most of the major players, then you won't be able to simply use it as a platform for Ukraine to get a good outcome. It will have to be some sort of compromise that engages with Russia's position. You can "not talk" about China all you want. Their materiel support for Russia does plenty of talking all on its own. You can ignore this reality, but it won't resolve the issue.

After numerous meetings, extraordinary meetings, the work of the UN has had absolutely no effect whatsoever. The fact that Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC makes this organisation inoperable. Because UN members have not even considered the demand by Ukraine that Russia lost its seat at the UNSC, - it fell on deaf ears even to the best supporter of Ukraine - there is no hope that the UN could have a functionality anymore. It would have been logical, as Russia is not respecting the UN Charter, that they would lose their seat. But if the UN has no respect for itself, it's therefore obsolete.

I don't believe there is any mechanism for removing Russia from the UN Security Council. There certainly isn't consensus on doing this either. And it sets a nasty precedent. If the US doesn't respect the UN Charter, do they also get removed? Obviously not, they're the reigning super power. But then why remove Russia? Because they invaded a country illegally? Can China also be removed if they do something that a number of first world countries take issue with? It's quite the can of worms and Russia isn't nearly as isolated internationally as they would have to be for this to be a realistic option.

The conference doesn't pretend to create another international organisation. Just to talk outside the inoperant UN assembly. Even if the importance of this meeting may not meet Zelensky's expectation, it will be de facto more important that the UN because the importance of the UN is basically zero.

I think this is really what it is. It's not so much a peace conference as it is an opportunity for Zelensky to meet with a number of friendly countries and try to work out what a realistic end to the conflict might look like. It's not useless exactly, but it's not a peace conference, as you say, and it won't be the thing that resolves the conflict. Ukraine's position of regaining all of its territory to the '91 border seems fairly unrealistic at this point. Between that and legislating against negotiations with Russia as long as Putin is in office, it's clear that negotiations under Ukraine's present position are impossible. So what does Ukraine's position have to look like for negotiations to be possible? Because if Ukraine is going to wait until they reach the '91 borders and until Putin leaves office, to start negotiations with Russia, they might never be able to.

 

[Fredled]

The reason people dismiss Russia as a threat to NATO is because of Russia's poor performance in Ukraine.

I don't think their performance is so poor. Yes, it's humanly disastrous and their losses are humiliating. But Ukrainians can't kick them out of Ukraine despite our help.
I don't think that firing 100 cruise and ballistic missiles per month, non stop. for two years and half is poor performance. Nor is their amount of shells and other projectiles they manage to fire at Ukrainian forces. Their mobilisation performance is not bad neither.

I mean, the fire power and the quantity of men and material Russians are able to activate to reach their goal is frighthening. Just a look at aerial pictures is enough to make you rearm ASAP.

They won't stop at Ukraine, no matter if they lose or win there, because they believe that NATO wants to destroy Russia. And their doctrine dictates that the best defence is attack and expand the territory under their control, create a buffer zone. They may even think that invading Europe (the east of course) will be easier than Ukraine because Europeans are degenerates, while Ukrainians, after all, are slavs like them.

If the countries that meet are only the ones who support Ukraine, then you won't really have the entire international community involved.

I agree. The participation in the Peace Summit is in itself a show of support for Ukraine. Increasingly so. First off, because Zelensky is, allegedly, the initiator and it's the Zelensky's peace proposal which is at the agenda. I think it was a big mistake to have portrayed Zelensky as one of the main organiser. It should have been only Switzerland and non-Ukrainian leaders. But it's a good thing, after all, that the US President won't attend because that would make it an US-led initiative, further showing Zelensky as an US puppet.
If all the big countries who don't want to take a position against Russia don't come (Brasil, India, China especially), it will be moot. Not totally useless, but just like the dozens of meetings in support of Ukraine that already happened.

What I mean about China, is that if they don't participate, their voice won't be heard. If China wants to say something it's the best platform to speak from. But China prefer not to talk about that. They would like to silently support Russia while keeping non-engaging speeches about seeking peace by diplomatic means. The West is not tolerating this hypocrisy anymore.

Still, the worse absent would be India. Because India is the only heavy weight which has not yet taken a clear position.
The problem with countries outside the group that already support Ukraine, the Global South generally speaking, is that they don't care about Ukraine. Just like they don't care about Gaza. They have their issues of their own.

I don't believe there is any mechanism for removing Russia from the UN Security Council. There certainly isn't consensus on doing this either.

If there were a consensus, they would find a mechanism. The Ukraine ambassador to the UN made a good point: Russia has natural;y inherited the seat from the USSR, which is an usurpation. But everybody agreed. Proposing India was clever because India instead of Russia would make sens as they are the second most populous country. But even India wasn't excited.

If the US doesn't respect the UN Charter, do they also get removed?

Indeed. When they invaded Iraq in 2002, they didn't respect the UN charter because they invaded (and bombarded) without the authorisation of the UN and without valid justification. But not as blatantly as Russia in Ukraine because the UN had condemned Iraq for non compliance with previous resolutions. Saddam Hussein was known to be dangerous for the whole region and for the local populations. Not Zelensky.

Also, W Bush never intended to alter the borders or to annex parts or whole of Iraq. he even opposed the creation of a Kurdish state. Putin has been doing this since 2013.

So what does Ukraine's position have to look like for negotiations to be possible? Because if Ukraine is going to wait until they reach the '91 borders and until Putin leaves office, to start negotiations with Russia, they might never be able to.

I would not put too much importance on this so called law forbidding negotiations with Putin. At some point both Ukraine and Russia will be compelled to negotiate and they will abrogate this law to make it possible. They also silently understand that a return to 1991 border is impossible.
Just the same as aerial bombings make negotiations impossible, Russians will stop them when they will feel compelled to talk.

 

[seaspear]

Would then some some very large international peace keeping force be required along the border area?

 

[Feanor]

Would then some some very large international peace keeping force be required along the border area?

I think it would be in the interest of both sides to have one, whether they realize it or not. Though I suspect Russia would be against it.

I don't think their performance is so poor. Yes, it's humanly disastrous and their losses are humiliating. But Ukrainians can't kick them out of Ukraine despite our help.
I don't think that firing 100 cruise and ballistic missiles per month, non stop. for two years and half is poor performance. Nor is their amount of shells and other projectiles they manage to fire at Ukrainian forces. Their mobilisation performance is not bad neither.

I mean, the fire power and the quantity of men and material Russians are able to activate to reach their goal is frighthening. Just a look at aerial pictures is enough to make you rearm ASAP.

They won't stop at Ukraine, no matter if they lose or win there, because they believe that NATO wants to destroy Russia. And their doctrine dictates that the best defence is attack and expand the territory under their control, create a buffer zone. They may even think that invading Europe (the east of course) will be easier than Ukraine because Europeans are degenerates, while Ukrainians, after all, are slavs like them.

Putin is an old man and the current trajectory is unsustainable. It remains to be seen how things go.

What I mean about China, is that if they don't participate, their voice won't be heard. If China wants to say something it's the best platform to speak from. But China prefer not to talk about that. They would like to silently support Russia while keeping non-engaging speeches about seeking peace by diplomatic means. The West is not tolerating this hypocrisy anymore.

Sure. The best platform is one dominated by pro-Ukrainian voices when China is clearly pro-Russian. Come on. This is obviously not the best platform. It might be useful platform for China. It might not be. I think given their size and resources their voice will be heard whether they attend this or not.