By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Russia and Ukraine flashpoint



Around the Network

"If you look at NATO's text books and at the maths which we did [in planning the counter-offensive], four months should have been enough time for us to have reached Crimea, to have fought in Crimea, to return from Crimea and to have gone back in and out again," General Zaluzhny says sardonically. Instead he watched his troops and equipment get stuck in minefields on the approaches to Bakhmut in the east, his Western-supplied equipment getting pummelled by Russian artillery and drones. The same story unfolded on the offensive's main thrust, in the south, where newly formed and inexperienced brigades, despite being equipped with modern Western kit, immediately ran into trouble.

"First I thought there was something wrong with our commanders, so I changed some of them. Then I thought maybe our soldiers are not fit for purpose, so I moved soldiers in some brigades," says General Zaluzhny. When those changes failed to make a difference, the commander told his staff to dig out a book he once saw as a student in a military academy in Ukraine. Its title was "Breaching Fortified Defence Lines". It was published in 1941 by a Soviet major-general, P. S. Smirnov, who analysed the battles of the first world war. "And before I got even halfway through it, I realised that is exactly where we are because just like then, the level of our technological development today has put both us and our enemies in a stupor."

That thesis, he says, was borne out as he went to the front line in Avdiivka, also in the east, where Russia has recently advanced by a few hundred metres over several weeks by throwing in two of its armies. "On our monitor screens the day I was there we saw 140 Russian machines ablaze—destroyed within four hours of coming within firing range of our artillery." Those fleeing were chased by "first-person-view" drones, remote-controlled and carrying explosive charges that their operators simply crash into the enemy. The same picture unfolds when Ukrainian troops try to advance.

But by holding back the supply of long-range missile systems and tanks, the West allowed Russia to regroup and build up its defences in the aftermath of a sudden breakthrough in Kharkiv region in the north and in Kherson in the south late in 2022. "These systems were most relevant to us last year, but they only arrived this year," he says. Similarly, f-16 jets, due next year, are now less helpful, suggests the general, in part because Russia has improved its air defences: an experimental version of the s-400 missile system can reach beyond the city of Dnipro, he warns.

Yet the delay in arms deliveries, though frustrating, is not the main cause of Ukraine's predicament, according to General Zaluzhny. "It is important to understand that this war cannot be won with the weapons of the past generation and outdated methods," he insists. "They will inevitably lead to delay and, as a consequence, defeat."

General Zaluzhny is desperately trying to prevent the war from settling into the trenches. "The biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state," he says. In the first world war, mutinies interfered before technology could make a difference. Four empires collapsed and a revolution broke out in Russia.

Ukraine’s commander-in-chief on the breakthrough he needs to beat Russia (economist.com)



Gen. Zaluzhny's interview for the Economist confirms two critical points about this (and any) war :
1) slowness - kills;
2) “as long as it takes” approach - kills too, and long;
Therefore, the war is entering its new phase. We are too slow and have chosen (CC:@POTUS) a long battle that does not lead to a Ukrainian victory but a stalemate. We must not be afraid of winning.



Russia has shelled more than 100 settlements over the last 24 hours – more than in any single day so far this year – Ukraine has said as its commander-in-chief warns the war with Russia is moving towards a new stage of static and attritional fighting, a phase that could allow Moscow to rebuild its military power.

It comes amid reports that North Korea has supplied Russia with two months' worth of artillery shells.

Ukraine reports most extensive Russian shelling of the year | Ukraine | The Guardian



North Korea might have provided Russia with short-range ballistic missiles and portable anti-aircraft missiles in addition to artillery rounds for its war in Ukraine, a senior South Korean military official said Thursday.

(LEAD) S. Korean military says N. Korea might have provided Russia with short-range ballistic missiles | Yonhap News Agency (yna.co.kr)

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 02 November 2023

Around the Network





Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 02 November 2023

Ryuu96 said:

Just feels like the West wants Ukraine to win but not too quickly out of fear of what a quick collapse would do to Russia so instead hope for a slow bleed out of Russia and the delusional hope that Putin will eventually see sense, that and some countries are unwilling to actually take hits to their military, despite the fact that nobody threatens them directly and the only one who could (Russia) is currently fighting Ukraine. We spend a gross amount of money on military and it feels like it's all just for show if the time we should actually be using it most, we aren't.

What I've been thinking is that perhaps the West doesn't want Ukraine to win. Instead, perhaps the idea is to force a stalemate by providing Ukraine just enough equipment to not seriously threatedn Russia, so both parties can claim a bit of victory (Ukraine for keeping its independence, Russia for taking land), keeping Russia stabilized. But the West can't explicitly force Ukraine to accept a stalemate, so it has to be done the hard way, i.e. via actions instead of words. I'm just not sure many decision-makers are actually interested in making Russia lose due to instability concerns.

I'm not convinced this is the case, and perhaps the West is indeed still hoping for Russia to lose. I just haven't been all that sure about it in a while.

Ryuu96 said:

So many things we could have done better, so many things we can still do better, instead we still today debate about red lines and are unwilling to put ourselves in a fraction of an uncomfortable position as Ukraine is putting themselves in for us. We then moan about being tired because the war could last years despite us not doing everything in our power to speed the conclusion of this war up, the reason it is lasting years is because of our reluctance to give Ukraine what it needs.

This is also potentially another factor. The public support for supporting Ukraine might have been there a year ago, but it feels like significant support for Ukraine is much more difficult at this point in time, and it's probably not going to get much better. A lot of the momentum for support has been lost, I think.



Zkuq said:
Ryuu96 said:

Just feels like the West wants Ukraine to win but not too quickly out of fear of what a quick collapse would do to Russia so instead hope for a slow bleed out of Russia and the delusional hope that Putin will eventually see sense, that and some countries are unwilling to actually take hits to their military, despite the fact that nobody threatens them directly and the only one who could (Russia) is currently fighting Ukraine. We spend a gross amount of money on military and it feels like it's all just for show if the time we should actually be using it most, we aren't.

What I've been thinking is that perhaps the West doesn't want Ukraine to win. Instead, perhaps the idea is to force a stalemate by providing Ukraine just enough equipment to not seriously threatedn Russia, so both parties can claim a bit of victory (Ukraine for keeping its independence, Russia for taking land), keeping Russia stabilized. But the West can't explicitly force Ukraine to accept a stalemate, so it has to be done the hard way, i.e. via actions instead of words. I'm just not sure many decision-makers are actually interested in making Russia lose due to instability concerns.

I'm not convinced this is the case, and perhaps the West is indeed still hoping for Russia to lose. I just haven't been all that sure about it in a while.

Ryuu96 said:

So many things we could have done better, so many things we can still do better, instead we still today debate about red lines and are unwilling to put ourselves in a fraction of an uncomfortable position as Ukraine is putting themselves in for us. We then moan about being tired because the war could last years despite us not doing everything in our power to speed the conclusion of this war up, the reason it is lasting years is because of our reluctance to give Ukraine what it needs.

This is also potentially another factor. The public support for supporting Ukraine might have been there a year ago, but it feels like significant support for Ukraine is much more difficult at this point in time, and it's probably not going to get much better. A lot of the momentum for support has been lost, I think.

I'm just not sure anymore either and I'm tired of complaining.

I'd at least rather it be "cowardice" than the more insidious explanation of them wanting to force Ukraine into a stalemate. I also doubt Ukraine will be accepting of those conditions and I think it wouldn't go well for Zelenskyy at all, Ukraine is a massively militarised country now and I could see a scenario where if he accepted those terms, him being physically dragged out of office by the military. It isn't like Ukraine hasn't only recently had massive protests against a pro-Russian candidate and Zelenskyy definitely isn't pro-Russian but for him to give up land to Russia, I think the public would be enraged after all they've lost. I also strongly doubt Zelenskyy would ever do such a thing anyway, he seems dead-set on fighting to the very end.

From an international standpoint as well it would be utterly embarrassing for the West and make us look weak, any opposition party would also have easy attacks ranging from "you wasted billions for nothing" and "you sold out our ally" and America would appear as though they "lost" to Russia, etc. It'd just be an utter embarrassment that would make all our enemies laugh at us.

And yeah, the public support will continue to drop the longer this takes which is even more reason why the West should be trying to end this ASAP rather than the slow bleed out we're currently inflicting on Russia. If Russia "wins" even a bit of land it would further encourage imperialism over the globe, other countries to do the same, Ukraine would have to join NATO ASAP as well (which wouldn't be possible) and Russia would just rebuild and resume taking the rest of the land. Georgia and Moldova would likely be next in line for Russia and China will be further convinced to make an attempt on Taiwan. Russian collapse may be bad but Russia winning will be worse for the global world.

In the end, Ukraine doesn't have a choice but to fight, if they stop fighting, they die. Russia won't stop, they'll only pause.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 02 November 2023