How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Cheerful Charlie]

UK will be getting Ukraine long range missiles. Kiss the Kerch bridge goodbye.

London is looking for long-range missiles for Ukraine

The UK plans to arm Ukraine with missiles with a 100 to 300 km range through the Fund for Ukraine

mil.in.ua

Usually missiles with a range below 1000km are classified as "Short Range"; 300km is the high end of "Tactical Range".

The typical range descriptors are:
Tactical: <300km
Short: 300-1,000km
Medium: 1,000-3,000km
Intermediate: 3,000-5,500km
Long (aka Intercontinental): >5,500km

Ukraine doesn't need Long Range missiles, unless they're planning to target Vladivostok

All Ukraine needs is enough range to hit targets like the Kersh bridge, ammo and fuel dumps, and barracks and command centers now just out of reach. Trains loaded with supplies moving to Crimea.

 

[Jayjay]

Even Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can actually win:

Biden’s team fears the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive

Behind closed doors, the administration worries about what Ukraine can accomplish.

www.politico.com

There is belief that Kyiv is willing to consider adjusting its goals, according to American officials, and a more modest aim might be easier to be sold as a win.

There has been discussion, per aides, of framing it to the Ukrainians as a “ceasefire” and not as permanent peace talks, leaving the door open for Ukraine to regain more of its territory at a future date. Incentives would have to be given to Kyiv: perhaps NATO-like security guarantees, economic help from the European Union, more military aid to replenish and bolster Ukraine’s forces, and the like. And aides have expressed hope of re-engaging China to push Putin to the negotiating table as well.

 

[Patooka]

Even Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can actually win:

Biden’s team fears the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive

Behind closed doors, the administration worries about what Ukraine can accomplish.

www.politico.com

There is belief that Kyiv is willing to consider adjusting its goals, according to American officials, and a more modest aim might be easier to be sold as a win.

There has been discussion, per aides, of framing it to the Ukrainians as a “ceasefire” and not as permanent peace talks, leaving the door open for Ukraine to regain more of its territory at a future date. Incentives would have to be given to Kyiv: perhaps NATO-like security guarantees, economic help from the European Union, more military aid to replenish and bolster Ukraine’s forces, and the like. And aides have expressed hope of re-engaging China to push Putin to the negotiating table as well.

I read the article. You're glossing over a lot to come to the conclusion "Biden doesn't think Ukraine can actually win". This sounds like a familiar conversation.

 

[Copernicus]

Even Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can actually win:

Biden’s team fears the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive

Behind closed doors, the administration worries about what Ukraine can accomplish.

www.politico.com

There is belief that Kyiv is willing to consider adjusting its goals, according to American officials, and a more modest aim might be easier to be sold as a win.

There has been discussion, per aides, of framing it to the Ukrainians as a “ceasefire” and not as permanent peace talks, leaving the door open for Ukraine to regain more of its territory at a future date. Incentives would have to be given to Kyiv: perhaps NATO-like security guarantees, economic help from the European Union, more military aid to replenish and bolster Ukraine’s forces, and the like. And aides have expressed hope of re-engaging China to push Putin to the negotiating table as well.

I read the article. You're glossing over a lot to come to the conclusion "Biden doesn't think Ukraine can actually win". This sounds like a familiar conversation.

I read the article, too, and it was not saying that the Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can win. It has doubts that it can achieve some of the objectives it has set for the Spring offensive and is looking at contingencies if that becomes the case. Ukraine would like to cut Russia's land bridge to Crimea, but it is far from clear that Ukraine is going to be able to do that. They aren't going to lose the war just because they can't do that in the near future. Perhaps there are other objectives that would make more strategic sense, but Ukraine isn't necessarily going to do what people expect. They are in charge of their own strategy.

 

[Jayjay]

Even Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can actually win:

Biden’s team fears the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive

Behind closed doors, the administration worries about what Ukraine can accomplish.

www.politico.com

There is belief that Kyiv is willing to consider adjusting its goals, according to American officials, and a more modest aim might be easier to be sold as a win.

There has been discussion, per aides, of framing it to the Ukrainians as a “ceasefire” and not as permanent peace talks, leaving the door open for Ukraine to regain more of its territory at a future date. Incentives would have to be given to Kyiv: perhaps NATO-like security guarantees, economic help from the European Union, more military aid to replenish and bolster Ukraine’s forces, and the like. And aides have expressed hope of re-engaging China to push Putin to the negotiating table as well.

I read the article. You're glossing over a lot to come to the conclusion "Biden doesn't think Ukraine can actually win". This sounds like a familiar conversation.

I read the article, too, and it was not saying that the Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can win. It has doubts that it can achieve some of the objectives it has set for the Spring offensive and is looking at contingencies if that becomes the case. Ukraine would like to cut Russia's land bridge to Crimea, but it is far from clear that Ukraine is going to be able to do that. They aren't going to lose the war just because they can't do that in the near future. Perhaps there are other objectives that would make more strategic sense, but Ukraine isn't necessarily going to do what people expect. They are in charge of their own strategy.

That's just haggling over the definition of "winning" and "losing".

I think if Ukraine can't regain most of the land it lost, then it's a loss. But at the same time, one could consider it a win that Ukraine remains an independent nation and hasn't lost the entire southern Black Sea coast for example. Certainly, after the war, Ukraine will have to concoct a national narrative where they "won" regardless.

 

[Copernicus]

That's just haggling over the definition of "winning" and "losing".

I think if Ukraine can't regain most of the land it lost, then it's a loss. But at the same time, one could consider it a win that Ukraine remains an independent nation and hasn't lost the entire southern Black Sea coast for example. Certainly, after the war, Ukraine will have to concoct a national narrative where they "won" regardless.

I still think that your claim about what the Biden administration believes is misleading, given what the article actually says. We are talking about near-term strategy and tactics, not the entire war. It's not the meaning of "winning" and "losing" that we are haggling over, but the object of those verbs. Ukraine isn't going to lose the war if it doesn't retake all of its territory in the near future. Regardless of what it manages to achieve this spring, the war is likely to go on for a long time. The fact is that we don't know how it is going to turn out in the future, but Ukraine is not currently losing or winning the war. It is just struggling to continue to exist, and both Europe and the US are committed to helping it do that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Even Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can actually win:

Biden’s team fears the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive

Behind closed doors, the administration worries about what Ukraine can accomplish.

www.politico.com

There is belief that Kyiv is willing to consider adjusting its goals, according to American officials, and a more modest aim might be easier to be sold as a win.

There has been discussion, per aides, of framing it to the Ukrainians as a “ceasefire” and not as permanent peace talks, leaving the door open for Ukraine to regain more of its territory at a future date. Incentives would have to be given to Kyiv: perhaps NATO-like security guarantees, economic help from the European Union, more military aid to replenish and bolster Ukraine’s forces, and the like. And aides have expressed hope of re-engaging China to push Putin to the negotiating table as well.

Sounds like more tempered expectations of a fighting force that has proven its mettle for over a year now and will continue to do so going forward regardless of the support of feckless western leaders. If Biden would have provided F-16s in a timely fashion, this wouldn't be an issue, Ukrainians wouldn't have to provide air cover for a ground assault with Soviet MiGs. But they will. They will do what needs to be done to take back their country and avenge every child murdered by Russian garbage.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine supporter debates Russia supporter

 

[barbos]

Even Biden administration doesn't think Ukraine can actually win:

They never cared whether or not Ukraine wins. Their only goal is to hurt Russia.

 

[barbos]

Cut their supply lines to Crimea and the Russians will have a very serious problem. Expect the Kersh bridge to get hammered again.

In your wet dreams. Russians have built serious defensive lines and are anxiously waiting beating the crap out of nazis.

Defensive lines get bypassed, not attacked.

Sure, ukrainian blitzkrieg to Moscow! No, to Vladivostok!

 

[TV and credit cards]

Reuters states Russia is actually losing ground in Bakhmut now. After going through countrymen like cordwood, Russia might not even have this hollow victory to show for it.

 

[Copernicus]

Reuters states Russia is actually losing ground in Bakhmut now. After going through countrymen like cordwood, Russia might not even have this hollow victory to show for it.

It seems to me that the story only claims that there have been limited advances in a few places, but Ukraine is still not making significant advances. Here is the link:

Ukrainian defenders oust Russian forces from some positions in Bakhmut -Ukraine general​

 

[barbos]

Reuters states Russia is actually losing ground in Bakhmut now. After going through countrymen like cordwood, Russia might not even have this hollow victory to show for it.

You never learn, do you?

 

[blastula]

Russian troops digging trenches in Ukraine reportedly infected with anthrax

Melitopol mayor says two soldiers were admitted to hospital and the unit quarantined, following the diagnosis

www.telegraph.co.uk

Russian troops were reportedly infected with anthrax after unearthing a burial site for cattle while digging defensive trenches in southern Ukraine.

Aw, what a shame.

 

[barbos]

I think if Ukraine can't regain most of the land it lost, then it's a loss. But at the same time, one could consider it a win that Ukraine remains an independent nation and hasn't lost the entire southern Black Sea coast for example. Certainly, after the war, Ukraine will have to concoct a national narrative where they "won" regardless.

Ukrainian regime have talked trash for way too long to easily switch to something less ambitious.
It has to be regime change. And even in that case it would still be hard. Zele-nazies has cleaned all the opposition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

UK will be getting Ukraine long range missiles. Kiss the Kerch bridge goodbye.

London is looking for long-range missiles for Ukraine

The UK plans to arm Ukraine with missiles with a 100 to 300 km range through the Fund for Ukraine

mil.in.ua

Yeah, Russia won't like that even if they can't actually drop the bridge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At Stalingrad, the Germans were well dug in but their flanks were weak, held by allies such as Romanians. The Russians attacked these weak positions and enveloped the 6th army. Russia can dig in at key points, but not all along their Southern defense line in strength. This won't necessarily guarantee Ukrainian success in taking and holding territory, but they can do a lot of damage. An old and favorite Russian technique is massed artillery. But they don't haveven<ough artillery, munitions, and logistic capability to do this over hundreds of kilometers of a long front line. Or to movelots of troops fast to plug breakthroughs. And most of their elite forces have badly mauled. This may get ugly.

And Ukraine has done a pretty good job of denying the Russians massed targets for that artillery. They seem to fair very poorly at dealing with dispersed enemies, incapable of counterbattery fire against lone guns that shoot and scoot. With modern communications and computer assisted aiming of the guns there is no need for artillery batteries anymore unless you need to maintain a defense of an area. Ukraine places it's guns one by one but the software lets them concentrate fire anyway.

 

[barbos]

No, they have not.

Yeah, they have.

If they had I would have seen the evidence of that already.

All you have to do is actually follow the news, especially newspapers.

I actually, do. So show me Rachel Maddow appologizing for spreading utter lies.

Where is video of that cunt Rachel Maddow apologizing for AlfaBank story?
Where is BBC apologizing for staged chemical attacks in Syria?

Here:

Corrections and Clarifications - Archive 2021

The BBC's responses to editorial, technical and corporate issues.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mayday: The Canister on the Bed​

BBC Radio 4, Friday 20 November 2020

In a report on a chemical weapons investigation by the OPCW (Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons) in Douma, Syria, we said a whistleblower believed the attack had been staged. This was based on our interpretation of research and testimony from sources at the time of broadcast.

Since then, ‘Alex’ has told the BBC he challenged how the OPCW reached its conclusions because of his concerns over its methods and procedures. He says he has called for an open and transparent process to address these issues, but does not prejudge the outcome of any such ‘proper, independent and impartial investigation.’

BBC and most western news sources are actually held accountable for any inaccuracies and mistakes they make. That's exactly why they are more reliable than outright propaganda outlets that pass for "news" in Russia. Or some random youtube channels.

I don't see any apologies at all.
Let me remind you what happened. BBC scum participated in staging fake chemical attack hospital video.
It was so bad that even 3 year old couldn't be fooled by their actors.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I think if Ukraine can't regain most of the land it lost, then it's a loss. But at the same time, one could consider it a win that Ukraine remains an independent nation and hasn't lost the entire southern Black Sea coast for example. Certainly, after the war, Ukraine will have to concoct a national narrative where they "won" regardless.

Ukrainian regime have talked trash for way too long to easily switch to something less ambitious.
It has to be regime change. And even in that case it would still be hard. Zele-nazies has cleaned all the opposition.

The Ukranians did managed to defeat the orcs and drive them out of Kharkiv. And defeat the massive Russian attack on Kyiv. Ukranians pushed Russian forces out of Kherson. Bahkmut has become a Russian death trap. Keep blustering.

 

[barbos]

Granted, these could have been just malfunctions or friendly fire and not shot down by Ukraine. With Russian equipment you never know.

I was promised ~30. Also I don't see them proving it's 35 and not 27.
And yes, malfunctions are also possible. The fact is, russians are not as dumb as you westerners think.
They know that Su-35 is a new and very expensive plane and they can do cost-benefit analysis of using them in areas of ukrainian AA.
Su-35 only recently started coming closer to launch glide-bombs. Before that they were used sparingly to launch extreme range AA (300km or something) missiles at ukro-nazi air-crafts.