Scrutable

monkey wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:32 pm I did. It was Nick Robinson wasn't it?

For the moment direct talks are possible and most likely to be productive, although it remains hard to be optimistic. The Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers are due to meet in Turkey on 10 March. With that in mind both sides have sketched out their proposals. These proposals will be judged not only on whether or not they impress the other side but also whether they can convey reasonableness to the international community.

All that can be said on the Russian side is that they have edged away from regime change in Kyiv, or at least are prepared to see Zelensky stay as president, but they still insist on neutralising Ukraine, so it can join no international organisations, along with recognition of annexed Crimea and the independence of the enclaves in the Donbas.

On the evening of 8 March Zelensky’s office issued his proposals. These were carefully constructed so as to suggest forms of compromise. The first raised the possibility of ‘a collective security agreement with all its neighbours and with the participation of the world’s leading countries’, which will provide guarantees for Russia as well as Ukraine. In principle this has attractions for Putin, because it would render membership of NATO unnecessary and would preclude Ukraine acting as a base for long-range US weapons. On the other hand it would give Ukraine some sort of US-backed security guarantee. It would not however lead to Ukraine’s demilitarization. Ukraine has had these sorts of guarantees before, notably in the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in return for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Moscow explicitly repudiated them, on the grounds that the government in Kyiv was illegitimate, so this raises obvious questions about what sort of guarantees could render this credible.

It suits neither country, though, to continue this war indefinitely. Neither has a confident route to a decisive military victory. In academic writing on the conditions for peace negotiations one that has often been identified is a ‘hurting stalemate’. The situation is currently too fluid to be described as a stalemate but it is certainly hurting both sides.

John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, has been talking about the plan to deliver Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. In short, the plan is off.

He said the US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin had being talking to his Polish counterpart, and had “stressed that we do not support the transfer of additional fighter aircraft to the Ukrainian Air Force at this time, and therefore had no desire to see them in our custody either.”

Kirby went through the reasons, the US was against the transfer of combat aircraft.

“First, we believe the best way to support Ukrainian defense is by providing them the weapons and the systems that they need most to defeat Russian aggression, in particular, anti-armor and air-defense. We, along with other nations, continue to send them these weapons and we know that they’re being used with great effect. The slow Russian advance in the north and the contested airspace over Ukraine is evidence alone of that.”

“Although Russian air capabilities are significant, their effectiveness has been limited due to Ukrainian strategic operational and tactical ground-based air-defense systems surface to air missiles, and Manpads [shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles]. Secondly, the Ukrainian Air Force currently has several squadrons of fully mission capable aircraft. We assess that adding aircraft to the Ukrainian inventory is not likely to significantly change the effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force relative to Russian capabilities. Therefore, we believe that the gain from transferring those MIG-29s is low.”

“Finally, the intelligence community has assessed the transfer of MiG-29s to Ukraine may be mistaken as escalatory and could result in a significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with Nato. Therefore, we also assess the transfer of the MiG 29 to Ukraine to be high risk. We also believe that there are alternative options that are much better suited to support the Ukrainian military in their fight against Russia. We will continue to pursue those options.”

monkey wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:12 pm On the Migs, from the Guardian feed: clicky

John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, has been talking about the plan to deliver Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. In short, the plan is off.

He said the US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin had being talking to his Polish counterpart, and had “stressed that we do not support the transfer of additional fighter aircraft to the Ukrainian Air Force at this time, and therefore had no desire to see them in our custody either.”

Kirby went through the reasons, the US was against the transfer of combat aircraft.

“First, we believe the best way to support Ukrainian defense is by providing them the weapons and the systems that they need most to defeat Russian aggression, in particular, anti-armor and air-defense. We, along with other nations, continue to send them these weapons and we know that they’re being used with great effect. The slow Russian advance in the north and the contested airspace over Ukraine is evidence alone of that.”

“Although Russian air capabilities are significant, their effectiveness has been limited due to Ukrainian strategic operational and tactical ground-based air-defense systems surface to air missiles, and Manpads [shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles]. Secondly, the Ukrainian Air Force currently has several squadrons of fully mission capable aircraft. We assess that adding aircraft to the Ukrainian inventory is not likely to significantly change the effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force relative to Russian capabilities. Therefore, we believe that the gain from transferring those MIG-29s is low.”

“Finally, the intelligence community has assessed the transfer of MiG-29s to Ukraine may be mistaken as escalatory and could result in a significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with Nato. Therefore, we also assess the transfer of the MiG 29 to Ukraine to be high risk. We also believe that there are alternative options that are much better suited to support the Ukrainian military in their fight against Russia. We will continue to pursue those options.”

tldr: the US reckons the gains aren't worth the risk of escalation.

Grumble wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:30 am That something is that the Poles don’t want to do it directly

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:10 am Report that Russia has sent conscripts to fight in Ukraine, something that Putin stated wouldn’t happen.
https://twitter.com/kevinrothrock/statu ... 19401?s=21

Suggests Russian shortages of contracted volunteer soldiers. Or just organizational failures.

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:08 am

Martin_B wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:31 am

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:05 am For f.ck's sake, America, you are a nuclear power, you alone have a military that could wipe the floor with Russia in a conventional war, and are part of a major defensive alliance. Stop tiptoeing around Putin and holding aid back from Ukraine while his army and airforce butcher civilians.

Does the US have a military which could wipe the floor with Russia? The US likes to sit back and use aerial bombardment to demoralise their opposition, but there aren't the targets for that sort of bombardment here (using smart missiles to take out individual tanks seems like overkill). As seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military on the ground aren't particularly special; they can get bogged down by guerilla tactics like any army.

Using smart missiles to take out individual tanks is exactly what NATO is able to do, due to the sheer quantity of guided weapons they can deploy, including ones specifically designed for taking out columns of tanks/other vehicles, like the RAF's Brimstone missile.

NATO pilots are also much better trained and are equipped with better aircraft and better weapons. Though not a member of NATO, Israel has demonstrated that an airforce equipped with F16s and F15s can run rings around the kind of AA system used by Russia.

Also, if the US (or NATO) enters the war directly that could escalate the war significantly, and Putin doesn't seem averse to putting nuclear options on the board (or is very good at bluffing that he might).

The issue here isn't that NATO is going to enter the war, it's that if Putin were to escalate in conventional warfare, he would lose. If he were to escalate to nuclear warfare, he'd lose, but so would everybody else. It's easy to think of Putin as irrational, but he's not. Evil, yes, but he's been making rational decisions based on the observable results of similar decisions. He invaded Ukraine because every time he's invaded or attacked before, he's got away with it, and the west has tiptoed around his belligerence, he miscalculated how well Ukraine would resist, but he did it not because he's mad, but because history gave him reason to believe he could get away with it.

Western militaries fought directly with Soviet pilots over Korea and Vietnam during the height of the cold war, and it did not lead to world war three. In the last decade, Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi and the US utterly annihalated a formation of Putin's Wagner Group at Khasham.

Ukraine needs aircraft that can fight against the Russian invasion of their country, and it seems Poland was willing to transfer some suitable aircraft, ones that Ukrainian pilots know how to fly, and Ukrainian ground crews know how to maintain, so long as the US facilitated the handover, and the US isn't handing them over. Appeasing Putin is why we are in this mess in the first place.

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:45 am

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:08 am

Martin_B wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:31 am

Does the US have a military which could wipe the floor with Russia? The US likes to sit back and use aerial bombardment to demoralise their opposition, but there aren't the targets for that sort of bombardment here (using smart missiles to take out individual tanks seems like overkill). As seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military on the ground aren't particularly special; they can get bogged down by guerilla tactics like any army.

Using smart missiles to take out individual tanks is exactly what NATO is able to do, due to the sheer quantity of guided weapons they can deploy, including ones specifically designed for taking out columns of tanks/other vehicles, like the RAF's Brimstone missile.

NATO pilots are also much better trained and are equipped with better aircraft and better weapons. Though not a member of NATO, Israel has demonstrated that an airforce equipped with F16s and F15s can run rings around the kind of AA system used by Russia.

Also, if the US (or NATO) enters the war directly that could escalate the war significantly, and Putin doesn't seem averse to putting nuclear options on the board (or is very good at bluffing that he might).

The issue here isn't that NATO is going to enter the war, it's that if Putin were to escalate in conventional warfare, he would lose. If he were to escalate to nuclear warfare, he'd lose, but so would everybody else. It's easy to think of Putin as irrational, but he's not. Evil, yes, but he's been making rational decisions based on the observable results of similar decisions. He invaded Ukraine because every time he's invaded or attacked before, he's got away with it, and the west has tiptoed around his belligerence, he miscalculated how well Ukraine would resist, but he did it not because he's mad, but because history gave him reason to believe he could get away with it.

Western militaries fought directly with Soviet pilots over Korea and Vietnam during the height of the cold war, and it did not lead to world war three. In the last decade, Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi and the US utterly annihalated a formation of Putin's Wagner Group at Khasham.

Ukraine needs aircraft that can fight against the Russian invasion of their country, and it seems Poland was willing to transfer some suitable aircraft, ones that Ukrainian pilots know how to fly, and Ukrainian ground crews know how to maintain, so long as the US facilitated the handover, and the US isn't handing them over. Appeasing Putin is why we are in this mess in the first place.

I disagree. NATO can’t militarily defeat Russia in a conventional war.

Yes, the alliance could probably defeat Russian forces invading one or more of its members. But that victory might take a long time and would come at enormous cost, especially for everyone who currently lives in the battlefields.

But that wouldn’t mean that Russia it’s self was defeated. To do that NATO would have to destroy Russian armies and infrastructure located in Russia it’s self.

I doubt that is possible with the military resources that would feasibly be available. Even if it were I don’t see how that could happen without escalation to the use of nuclear weapons.

This is the assumption that underlies NATO’s actions. Russia can’t be defeated in a similar fashion to Iraq in 2003.

Absent a democratic transformation in Russia, the only option is containment and dialogue aimed at preventing crises from escalating. Containment definitely includes providing Ukraine with aid (just as it did with Afghanistan during the Cold War). But there aren’t going to be direct military attacks against Russia, nor it would appear, anything that looks like one.

lpm wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:15 pm Thanks Woodchopper.

Those articles illustrate part of the reason why people here are over estimating so badly. You can't ignore how the USA will respond by de-escalating and flexing their position. It's not just an irrational and stupid Moscow that's needed, also need an incompetent Washington.

lpm wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:25 am Unfortunately the real world requires us to make immoral pacts with the devil.

I bet there's some back channel communication. A friend of Biden and a friend of Putin, meeting in Switzerland or somewhere.

"Send MIGs to Ukraine and he'll use chemical weapons."

"Understood. But if he uses chemical weapons we'll send the MIGs and enforce a no fly zone."

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:35 am

lpm wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:25 am Unfortunately the real world requires us to make immoral pacts with the devil.

I bet there's some back channel communication. A friend of Biden and a friend of Putin, meeting in Switzerland or somewhere.

"Send MIGs to Ukraine and he'll use chemical weapons."

"Understood. But if he uses chemical weapons we'll send the MIGs and enforce a no fly zone."

One problem with the current situation is that Putin doesn't appear to have a wider circle or friends who he trusts and could meet a US envoy. He's taken to humiliating ministers that are assumed to be his close political allies. The few people he trusts appear to be ensconced in Moscow.

I assume that there are at least attempts at back channel discussions. I'm just not optimistic that they are going to work.

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:50 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:11 am

sTeamTraen wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:23 am It's been at least 48 hours since we first heard of the 20/40/60km long convoy of doom trundlìng down the road towards Kyiv with the leading units only 30km away. What's happened to it? Did it split up, divert, get stuck, melt, turn back, or did it never exist?

Apparently it’s turned into an enormous traffic jam: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/10837337 ... icial-says

We know that Russian vehicles are running out of fuel. With freezing temperatures even stationary vehicles will run their engines at least part of the time and keep using more fuel. So it seems plausible that if Russia can’t improve its logistics the column is going to move slowly.

Looks like the traffic jam hasn't moved very much for a few days now. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-int ... 022-03-03/

Seems to be there due to a combination of Ukrainian attacks, poor organization, poor morale, lack of fuel, poor maintenance and the weather.

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:03 am

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:50 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:11 am

Apparently it’s turned into an enormous traffic jam: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/10837337 ... icial-says

We know that Russian vehicles are running out of fuel. With freezing temperatures even stationary vehicles will run their engines at least part of the time and keep using more fuel. So it seems plausible that if Russia can’t improve its logistics the column is going to move slowly.

Looks like the traffic jam hasn't moved very much for a few days now. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-int ... 022-03-03/

Seems to be there due to a combination of Ukrainian attacks, poor organization, poor morale, lack of fuel, poor maintenance and the weather.

The traffic jam is apparently still there, at least according to the UK MoD. I've also seen some satellite images over the past few days. So they are probably correct.

It seems that the Russian personnel are camping in the forests and trying to avoid being hit by missiles. Many of the vehicles may out of fuel, broken down, or just abandoned by troops who have no idea why they are there and would rather live under the trees than sit in a vehicle and be shot at.

Brightonian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:43 am Russian column getting shot at: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1501874452090560515

TopBadger wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:09 pm

Brightonian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:43 am Russian column getting shot at: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1501874452090560515

Poor tactics indeed... possibly explained by troops likely being told that the Ukrainian Army is on it's knees and they're about to be welcomed with open arms as liberators of an oppressive Nazi regime?

For those doubting NATO's ability to beat Russia in conventional warfare - a single flight of Apaches would take out this entire column in under 20 seconds. In fact, with Russians neatly arranged in columns one suspects the issue NATO would have it that it might run out of munitions' much faster than it runs out of targets.

Turkey has both shot down Russian planes and supplied Drones... Ankara has not been nuked.

One wonders at what point might Putin get a Hussain-Kuwait type ultimatum... If Ukraine had oil might it have been made already? Perhaps all that wheat is valuable enough? I think any action would need to be UN sanctioned and include more than just NATO members. I wonder if NATO is hoping that Putin is internally toppled before they have to do more militarily.

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:03 am

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:50 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:11 am

Apparently it’s turned into an enormous traffic jam: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/10837337 ... icial-says

We know that Russian vehicles are running out of fuel. With freezing temperatures even stationary vehicles will run their engines at least part of the time and keep using more fuel. So it seems plausible that if Russia can’t improve its logistics the column is going to move slowly.

Looks like the traffic jam hasn't moved very much for a few days now. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-int ... 022-03-03/

Seems to be there due to a combination of Ukrainian attacks, poor organization, poor morale, lack of fuel, poor maintenance and the weather.

The traffic jam is apparently still there, at least according to the UK MoD. I've also seen some satellite images over the past few days. So they are probably correct.

It seems that the Russian personnel are camping in the forests and trying to avoid being hit by missiles. Many of the vehicles may out of fuel, broken down, or just abandoned by troops who have no idea why they are there and would rather live under the trees than sit in a vehicle and be shot at.

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:16 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:03 am

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:50 am

Looks like the traffic jam hasn't moved very much for a few days now. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-int ... 022-03-03/

Seems to be there due to a combination of Ukrainian attacks, poor organization, poor morale, lack of fuel, poor maintenance and the weather.

The traffic jam is apparently still there, at least according to the UK MoD. I've also seen some satellite images over the past few days. So they are probably correct.

It seems that the Russian personnel are camping in the forests and trying to avoid being hit by missiles. Many of the vehicles may out of fuel, broken down, or just abandoned by troops who have no idea why they are there and would rather live under the trees than sit in a vehicle and be shot at.

It would make sense to me* to establish a perimeter out to the range of NLAWs, rather than sit in the vehicles, even if it is cold.

*Spoiler:

I have absolutely no expertise in military matters, and am indeed a cowardly pacifist

.

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:16 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:03 am

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:50 am

Looks like the traffic jam hasn't moved very much for a few days now. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-int ... 022-03-03/

Seems to be there due to a combination of Ukrainian attacks, poor organization, poor morale, lack of fuel, poor maintenance and the weather.

The traffic jam is apparently still there, at least according to the UK MoD. I've also seen some satellite images over the past few days. So they are probably correct.

It seems that the Russian personnel are camping in the forests and trying to avoid being hit by missiles. Many of the vehicles may out of fuel, broken down, or just abandoned by troops who have no idea why they are there and would rather live under the trees than sit in a vehicle and be shot at.

It would make sense to me* to establish a perimeter out to the range of NLAWs, rather than sit in the vehicles, even if it is cold.

*Spoiler:

I have absolutely no expertise in military matters, and am indeed a cowardly pacifist

.