- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:00 am to DabosDynasty
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:00 am to DabosDynasty
I think that, earlier on in the conflict, most Western leaders still envisioned a future in which Russia kept control of Crimea, as it was always the part of Ukraine that was the most pro-Russian, and since the Russian takeover eight years ago, it has undoubtedly gotten much more pro-Russian. Re-integrating it back into Ukraine is a challenging concept.
But I think that most Western leaders are coming around to the realization that Ukraine's long-term security really depends on a demilitarized Crimea. Ukraine cannot depend on the Azov Sea if Russia controls the Kerch Strait. Ukraine's economy depends on the Port of Odesa, and that's not secure at all when Russia has a massive naval base at Sevastopol. And of course, Russia could again invade from Crimea and threaten Kherson.
So, any long-term resolution to this war needs to give real security guarantees to Ukraine, and that's not possible with a Russian military presence in Crimea. Thus, Crimea needs to be independent, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, or fully integrated back into Ukraine.
I further think that Western leaders have realized that long-distance strike capabilities such as GLSDB, JDAM-ER, Storm Shadow, and perhaps ATACMS mean that Russia will not be able to hold Crimea too much longer.
They will run out of fuel very quickly, long before they run out of ammo or food.
But I think that most Western leaders are coming around to the realization that Ukraine's long-term security really depends on a demilitarized Crimea. Ukraine cannot depend on the Azov Sea if Russia controls the Kerch Strait. Ukraine's economy depends on the Port of Odesa, and that's not secure at all when Russia has a massive naval base at Sevastopol. And of course, Russia could again invade from Crimea and threaten Kherson.
So, any long-term resolution to this war needs to give real security guarantees to Ukraine, and that's not possible with a Russian military presence in Crimea. Thus, Crimea needs to be independent, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, or fully integrated back into Ukraine.
I further think that Western leaders have realized that long-distance strike capabilities such as GLSDB, JDAM-ER, Storm Shadow, and perhaps ATACMS mean that Russia will not be able to hold Crimea too much longer.
quote:
basically starve out the Russians in Crimea
They will run out of fuel very quickly, long before they run out of ammo or food.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:02 am
3
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:01 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
What does this look like hypothetically, with respect to territory controlled?
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
My logical peace plan since the start has been this:
1. Russia ceases its war in Ukraine and pays costs of reconstruction.
2. All Russian commanders/soldiers who conducted war crimes would be handed over to the Hague.
3. Russia ends support for the DNR/LNR breakaway regions and allows them to be reintegrated into Ukraine but with a form of limited autonomy. Russia gives up any future territorial claims in the Donbas.
4. Any person who wishes to go to Russia will be allowed to leave and those that decide to stay will be granted pardons by Ukraine.
5. Ukraine foregoes any territorial claims to Crimea.
6. A DMZ will be created on the Ukrainian/Russian border and Belarusian/Ukrainian border and patrolled by international peacekeepers.
7. Ukraine agrees not to pursue NATO membership but will receive Western security guarantees in return and agrees not to host permanent Western military forces. (Only point I'm iffy on because I don't believe Ukraine should limit its foreign policy decisions to appease Moscow)
I know I'm not some super smart diplomat here but that's the fairest solution to both sides. Each side is forced to give up on some of their demands while still getting a "victory" on others.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:12 am to DabosDynasty
Russia has full international recognition of its claim to Crimea
Ukraine is returned all other territory occupied by Russia and is given an expedited membership to NATO and the EU with an agreement to hold no permanent NATO forces or weapons
Ukraine is returned all other territory occupied by Russia and is given an expedited membership to NATO and the EU with an agreement to hold no permanent NATO forces or weapons
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:15 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:15 am to WestCoastAg
I wonder if EU membership for Ukraine should be the first option compared to NATO? The EU has collective defense in the charter but I'm not sure how concrete that obligation is compared to Article 5 of NATO.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:16 am to Burhead
quote:
7. Ukraine agrees not to pursue NATO membership but will receive Western security guarantees in return and agrees not to host permanent Western military forces. (Only point I'm iffy on because I don't believe Ukraine should limit its foreign policy decisions to appease Moscow)
Only point I really disagree on, if I were Ukrainian, but also partly as an American. They had security assurances from us but have still been attacked. The NATO membership puts a stop to it or ensures complete overwhelming of Russian invaders next time changing their calculus. Lack of NATO ascension puts us back on the hook for future aggression more so than their entry into NATO because it makes it more likely to occur imo. We’ve already invested over $100 billion, seems somewhat a waste to not bring them into NATO, gain a real partner to counteract German and French weakness in the alliance. Easier and more frequent trade to benefit American economic interests, etc.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:16 am to Burhead
They are basically a NATO country now. No real reason to not make it official, along with EU membership
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:17 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
They are basically a NATO country now. No real reason to not make it official, along with EU membership
Agree
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:24 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
Only point I really disagree on, if I were Ukrainian, but also partly as an American. They had security assurances from us but have still been attacked. The NATO membership puts a stop to it or ensures complete overwhelming of Russian invaders next time changing their calculus. Lack of NATO ascension puts us back on the hook for future aggression more so than their entry into NATO because it makes it more likely to occur imo. We’ve already invested over $100 billion, seems somewhat a waste to not bring them into NATO, gain a real partner to counteract German and French weakness in the alliance. Easier and more frequent trade to benefit American economic interests, etc.
I'm 50-50 on it myself like I said. I was just thinking in the future about giving the Kremlin more talking points to use. That said whatever happens this conflict can not be allowed to refreeze it will only lead to another bigger and costly war in the future. For better or worse its going to have to be settled now.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:24 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:24 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
expedited membership to NATO and the EU with an agreement to hold no permanent NATO forces or weapons
That's sounds good from a western POV, but I suspect it's a complete non-starter with Putin and Russia. They wouldnt even sit down knowing NATO membership for Ukraine is on the table.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:32 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
What does this look like hypothetically, with respect to territory controlled?
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
Really good questions. All we can do though is speculate on where the lines on the maps will be drawn. What is clear though is right now neither side has the means to knock the other out of the war. It’s the definition of a stalemate right now. But that will not be the case forever. There are two ways this could go:
1. Ukraine, after building up its forces from stocks provided by the West, goes over to the offensive and inflicts a defeat on the Russians sufficient to bring Russia to the negotiating table and the war ends in a settlement. What that final settlement looks like we can only speculate but it should at least be favorable to Ukraine.
2. The anticipated Ukrainian offensive does not achieve sufficient results to force Russia to sue for peace. If this happens then the outlook for Ukraine is not good because in this instance the stalemate would continue. And due to the size of Russia from a resource and manpower standpoint comparative to Ukraine, all Russia would need to do is keep bleeding Ukrainian forces until they reach the point of exhaustion and possibly total collapse. If this happens the peace that follows will definitely favor Russia.
Everything hinges on the outcome of the Ukrainian offensive that we expect to come later this Spring. In my opinion, it’s outcome will determine the outcome of this war.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:39 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Everything hinges on the outcome of the Ukrainian offensive that we expect to come later this Spring. In my opinion, it’s outcome will determine the outcome of this war.
Yeah I think this tells us where its headed. I just wonder how the rumblings with Belarus and Transinistra play in. Obviously right now Russia is not having success in Ukraine alone, if that continues to be the case do they surrender in embarrassment or double down again and muddy the waters further trying to draw the west in to just completely go down swinging but with complete mobilization to recreate the WWII effort and try to take the world with it?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:49 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
But I think that most Western leaders are coming around to the realization that Ukraine's long-term security really depends on a demilitarized Crimea.
If so, why haven't they delivered the type weapons that can achieve this? The only western leaders that fully support this right now are Poland and the Baltic states. What do you think that Macron is talking about when he says France will never agree to humiliate Russia. He means Russia being kicked out of Crimea.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:50 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
I think that, earlier on in the conflict, most Western leaders still envisioned a future in which Russia kept control of Crimea, as it was always the part of Ukraine that was the most pro-Russian, and since the Russian takeover eight years ago, it has undoubtedly gotten much more pro-Russian. Re-integrating it back into Ukraine is a challenging concept.
We like to talk about Ukraine taking back Crimea; however, even if they could do it militarily, how will they deal with the very pro-Russian population? That's going to be a big problem for Ukraine. Russia will be in the position to stage an insurgency with the support of the population. For Ukraine, that isn't a good position to be in.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:51 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Everything hinges on the outcome of the Ukrainian offensive that we expect to come later this Spring. In my opinion, it’s outcome will determine the outcome of this war.
agree in part. Ukraine needs a successful offensive, but they have till the fall/end of the year. another winter of stalemate and there will be a push for both side to get to the negotiating table
with the delay of western equipment, Ukraine may not be suffieiently ready for a full offensive in spring...
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:56 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
I think that, earlier on in the conflict, most Western leaders still envisioned a future in which Russia kept control of Crimea, as it was always the part of Ukraine that was the most pro-Russian, and since the Russian takeover eight years ago, it has undoubtedly gotten much more pro-Russian. Re-integrating it back into Ukraine is a challenging concept.
Not true. It voted for independence just as Donbas did overwhelmingly. After the Russian takeover and even resettling Tatars, it ended up leaing pro Ukraine and not Russia. I'll have to go back and find the data from months ago. We all know that even in Moscow elections are a sham.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 10:02 am to Burhead
First off, I don't think Ukraine should sit down and negotiate until after a likely spring/summer offensive. If Ukraine's offensive is successful - pushing Russia back to the pre-invasion lines, isolating Crimea, retaking Mariupol, etc - then Ukraine will be in a very strong negotiating position. What will be tricky is convincing the Russians that it is in their interest to negotiate and save face at that time.
That said, I largely agree with these points. A few notes:
A. I think you can synthesize 1 & 5 by characterizing any payments from Russia to Ukraine not as war reparations but rather as financial consideration for Russia effectively acquiring Crimea. Reclassifying these payments may help smooth it over and still provides Ukraine with the funds they deserve from Russia.
B. #2 is likely a nonstarter. Best we can likely do is try Russian soldiers and officers involved in war crimes who are in Ukrainian custody at the end of hostilities. That said, if the Ukrainian Intelligence Service hunts some of these thugs down when they travel outside of Russia after the war, I wouldn't be mad about it. No one should lose any sleep over a fancy yacht exploding and sinking to the bottom of the Med.
C. Regarding #7, I am not particularly concerned about Ukraine agreeing to stay out of NATO and not host NATO troops because (a) post-war Ukraine will likely be armed to the teeth with advanced NATO weaponry, which is now proven to be far superior to Russian military hardware, (b) Ukraine's battle-hardened army already operates like a NATO force and can receive NATO training & intel, and (c) Ukrainians have already proven to be more than capable of defending themselves PROVIDED they receive the necessary resources (that alone should disincentivize Russia from pursuing another invasion anytime soon).
I would also add:
I. All Ukrainian citizens (especially the children) held in Russia must be immediately repatriated.
II. While Russia gets Crimea, Crimea should be demilitarized - no major military installations beyond border & coast guards (or Russian equivalent thereof).
III. Russia should be given some incremental "carrots" to incentivize compliance and good behavior. Following through on certain commitments lifts certain sanctions, re-opens trade w/ EU, et al.
IV. NATO & "The West" needs to find some meaningful role for China in the peace process. Show China that, so long as they operate in good faith, they will have an important seat at the table. Demonstrate to China that they will prosper more in the long run by playing nice vs belligerence.
That said, I largely agree with these points. A few notes:
A. I think you can synthesize 1 & 5 by characterizing any payments from Russia to Ukraine not as war reparations but rather as financial consideration for Russia effectively acquiring Crimea. Reclassifying these payments may help smooth it over and still provides Ukraine with the funds they deserve from Russia.
B. #2 is likely a nonstarter. Best we can likely do is try Russian soldiers and officers involved in war crimes who are in Ukrainian custody at the end of hostilities. That said, if the Ukrainian Intelligence Service hunts some of these thugs down when they travel outside of Russia after the war, I wouldn't be mad about it. No one should lose any sleep over a fancy yacht exploding and sinking to the bottom of the Med.
C. Regarding #7, I am not particularly concerned about Ukraine agreeing to stay out of NATO and not host NATO troops because (a) post-war Ukraine will likely be armed to the teeth with advanced NATO weaponry, which is now proven to be far superior to Russian military hardware, (b) Ukraine's battle-hardened army already operates like a NATO force and can receive NATO training & intel, and (c) Ukrainians have already proven to be more than capable of defending themselves PROVIDED they receive the necessary resources (that alone should disincentivize Russia from pursuing another invasion anytime soon).
I would also add:
I. All Ukrainian citizens (especially the children) held in Russia must be immediately repatriated.
II. While Russia gets Crimea, Crimea should be demilitarized - no major military installations beyond border & coast guards (or Russian equivalent thereof).
III. Russia should be given some incremental "carrots" to incentivize compliance and good behavior. Following through on certain commitments lifts certain sanctions, re-opens trade w/ EU, et al.
IV. NATO & "The West" needs to find some meaningful role for China in the peace process. Show China that, so long as they operate in good faith, they will have an important seat at the table. Demonstrate to China that they will prosper more in the long run by playing nice vs belligerence.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 10:08 am to NWHoustonTiger
quote:
While Russia gets Crimea, Crimea should be demilitarized - no major military installations beyond border & coast guards (or Russian equivalent thereof).
What about the Russian naval base in Sevastapol? Putin will never give that up.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 10:15 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
as an attack on Russia
But wait I thought the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia were all Russia now and are already getting attacked, so isn't Russia already getting attacked and an attack on Transnistria wouldn't change anything other than adding a front
For the record I don't think Ukraine should do that just pointing out the fallacy in Russias logic
Posted on 2/24/23 at 10:17 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Assuming Russia negotiates I'm good faith (huge if), then I'm sure part of the ceasefire would include water security for Crimea and security guarantees for the bridge if Ukraine fails to recapture Crimea
Posted on 2/24/23 at 10:35 am to ridlejs
quote:
Not sure how you can agree to any ceasefire if you are Ukraine while Putin is in power. All that will do is allow him to restock and attack at some other time. He's already shown his cards.
Just other illustrations
Russia was supposed to leave Transnistria by 2020 per the Kozak Memorandum. If something more recent surfaced extending that I did not see it
Or in the case of Georgia
quote:
A direct result of the war has been the increased and emboldened Russian military presence in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. While Russian armed forces were present in both regions before the outbreak of the war, in the capacity of peacekeeping forces since the civil wars in the 1990s, this was limited to 500 servicemen in South Ossetia (JPKF) and 1,600 in Abkhazia (CISPKF),[262] with the latter being expanded to over 2,000 in the months leading to the 2008 war.[263] With these mechanisms becoming obsolete after the 2008 war, the Russian recognition of the independence of both regions was a prerequisite to legitimise the post-war stay of Russian armed forces with the conclusion of "bilateral" military cooperation and integration agreements with the newly recognised "states".[264]
From 2009 onwards, the Russian Federation expanded existing military infrastructure in both regions. First the 4th Guards Military Base in South Ossetia[265] and the 7th Military Base in Abkhazia were established, formalised in an agreement valid for 49 years.[266] Then, Russia started the construction of border guard bases under the command of the Russian FSB Border Guard Service to demarcate and "protect the state border" of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In total more than 30 of these so called "militarized border guard bases"[267] have been constructed near the boundary line of both regions with Tbilisi controlled Georgia.[268][269] In each region an estimated 3,500 Russian military servicemen and around 1,500 FSB personnel are deployed.[270][271][272] Georgia considers the two regions occupied by Russia.
LINK
Page 2454 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News