Three scenarios for the next phase of the Ukraine war and what each means for China.
Beijing is positioning itself to increase its global power at the end of the Ukraine war.
But the question right now for China’s president Xi Jinping is which scenario is most likely to happen, what role China can play, and what each outcome will mean for China.
This article was authored by Natasha Kuhrt, Senior Lecturer in International Peace & Security, King’s College London and Marcin Kaczmarski, Lecturer in Security Studies, University of Glasgow.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
As the war continues, the strength of the Sino-Russian alignment will be tested as never before. Whether Russia wins or loses, or whether the war remains unresolved resulting in a frozen conflict, all pose a dilemma for China, which has been deliberately raising its profile as a peacemaker during the conflict. There are various scenarios that are the most likely ways the war could proceed, or end.
Scenario 1 – Ukraine wins
Russia’s loss in Ukraine would send a powerful signal confirming both the west’s resilience and weakness of authoritarian aggressors. Such a development would explicitly undermine one of the key narratives shared within the Chinese Communist party, at least since the 2008/09 global economic crisis, that the west is in decline and its rivals, China in particular, are in the ascendancy.
The victory of Ukraine supported by the west would put Xi in a particularly uncomfortable position, challenging his favourite phrases of the “east wind prevailing” and “changes unseen in a century”.
However, wars tend to end messily. Were Russia to be defeated, much would hinge on the nature of the defeat. If defeat implied the departure of not only Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, but also his inner circle, a new Russian government might deprioritise relations with China and reprioritise good relations with the west, which would be a blow to Beijing.
Scenario 2 – Russia wins
Russia’s victory amid crumbling support for Ukraine in the west would empower China. Beijing might be tempted to move to much more risky behaviour, especially in its neighbourhood.
Under such circumstances, Taiwan would probably face massive pressure from Chinese armed forces, forcing the US, which has pledged to support Taiwan, to decide whether to respond militarily. Moreover, China’s position towards Europe would be much stronger, allowing Beijing to successfully discourage European states from siding with the US both globally and in east Asia.
It could also be argued that a weakened or defeated Russia could be an opportunity for China. For example, it could take a more active role in central Asia, or force Moscow to accept further dependence on China in economic and financial sectors.
Scenario 3 – stalemate
It is entirely plausible that the war will continue in a state of stalemate for some time. In some ways, this might suit China as it can continue to benefit from cheap Russian commodities.
Russian dependence on China which has been growing since 2014, will be even greater – making Russia permanently reliant on China for raw materials. This was always the stuff of nightmares for Russian policymakers in the 1990s. But under this scenario it could turn into a reality.
The frozen conflict scenario allows Beijing to continue its policy of alleged neutrality while promoting its peacemaker role, without having to make any difficult choices.
China’s current position
China has already attempted to position itself as a peacemaker. Its “peace plan” announced in February was less a plan and more a reaffirmation of existing positions. However point 12 spoke of “offering assistance” with post-conflict reconstruction, a reminder that in 2019 China was Ukraine’s top trade partner.
Despite China’s robust partnership with Russia, it is attempting to position itself as peacemaker in the event that Russia loses, in order to be in prime position to reap the rewards of economic reconstruction of Ukraine. Xi’s recent call with Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky would seem to point to this.
While the peace plan was lacking in detail, it symbolises China’s increasingly active stance in global affairs. Note its high levels of contributions among the permanent UN security council members to UN peacekeeping, in terms of both troops and financial contributions,and its involvement in Africa as well as in the Middle East. This all forms part of Xi’s global security initiative which seeks to broaden the scope of China’s diplomacy, upholding multilateralism and the role of the UN, while pushing back against western ideas of a liberal international order, based around Washington.
Challenges
The challenges for Xi consist of how to square China’s support for Russia’s reading of the global order with Chinese principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty. Strategically, China’s tangible support for Russia may bring the US and European nations closer together and strengthen transatlantic unity, a result Beijing has been trying to avoid for the past two decades.
In the shorter term, Beijing is exploiting a sanctioned Russia by benefiting from cheap Russian commodities. Chinese companies have seized emerging opportunities in the Russian market. But the continuation of the war means the disruption of global supply chains, including deliveries of grain and fertiliser on which China is heavily reliant.
The impact of war on China’s policies in east Asia remains ambiguous. Russia’s invasion has diverted US resources away from the Asia-Pacific. But Beijing’s threat to Taiwan has become more acute in the light of developments in Ukraine.
The US responded by mobilising its Asian alliance network and accelerating the importance of security cooperation groups of nations such as the Quad (Australia, India, Japan and the US) or Aukus (Australia, the UK and US). The Taiwanese government has also intensified its efforts to reinforce the island’s defences.
China sees Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a proxy war – a war against the west (and specifically against US power) – just as Russia does. A victory or a defeat for Russia in the war is not simply an issue for Russia, but rather could represent either the victory or the defeat of the liberal international order.
The bottom line for Beijing is, however, to avoid Russia’s complete failure in Ukraine. The role of peacemaker is one way to prevent such a development. Should this not succeed, Beijing may decide to step up its support for Moscow, ranging from financial assistance to arms deliveries.
Natasha Kuhrt, Senior Lecturer in International Peace & Security, King’s College London and Marcin Kaczmarski, Lecturer in Security Studies, University of Glasgow.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The next stage of the war has started, ALCM in use now by both sides. Announcement of supply clearly timed by London to maximise chance of success. Wreckage has been found and photographed, Storm Shadow was used to attack Luhansk.
Pretty self explanatory really,after all it didn’t hit civilian infrastructure did it?
JIMK,
I’m a little confused by the above statement, are you saying that after 15 months of been on the receiving end of such weapons the Ukraine having gained parity with Russia regards the use of air launched cruise missiles, that somehow this is a step too far?
Anyway the Ukrainians have struck again today taking out two command posts also situated in the city of Luhansk this morning, as well as a supply point subsumed underneath a motorway bridge between Avdiivka and Donetsk City, as for the icing on the cake Moscow today lost
1x Su35
1x Su27
2x Mil 8 (I’ve read one was a own goal)
They also lost a Mil 28 yesterday
The interesting thing these losses is they were all well inside Russia to the north of Kyiv.
Silly me, a link to the aircraft losses
These are shaping exercises. Pre requisite phases to shape the battlefield ready for Ukraine’s much anticipated counter attack.
Farouk will know about shaping operations.
Knocking out two CPs and a Supply Point don’t constitute shaping operations. Shaping operations seek to totally transform the battlespace (in particular the enemy’s strength and dispositions and reducing the enemy’s key enablers) and ideally include some cunning deception measures – to the Ukrainian’s advantage.
We haven’t seen this yet.
It’s possibly fair to say these could be the opening elements of a shaping operation..after all just the presence of storm shadow will require Russia to start modifying its IADs and how it deploys is CPs and logistic dumps… Now Ukraine has provided the early proof to start that change…it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks and months as the mud season ends and If Ukraine can significantly degrade ( even more) the Russian armies command and control.
I did read one estimate that says Russia now has less MBTs in theatre than Ukraine ( 450-500 vs 800+) after losing 2500ish…that’s going to hurt this summer.
Puzzled by your question, where did i say, or even imply, anything about a step too far?
The Su-27 you cite was actually an Su-34. This seems to have been a standard RuAF strike package with the Su-34 as bomber, the Su-35 top cover, one Mil-8MTPR-1 as ECM, the other Mi-8 as SAR. Likely using a regular flight path whilst over ‘friendly’ territory which led to an excellent ambush opportunity, executed with skill. Quite how it was done is still a subject of speculation.
Not sure about the loss of the Su-35, it seems likely but unlike the others there is so far no photo evidence.
Similarly, the Russians have claimed to have shot down the UAF Su-24/Mig-29 strike mission, but again no photos.
Not seen anything yet on the extra strikes you mention.
Here some real FACTs (childish reply to mine, using the big words FACT thing) but I will respond in kind
I didn’t deny the storm shadow was being used FACT
You refuse to condemn Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine FACT
You refuse to condemn the murder, rape and torture of civilians by Russian so called troops FACT
You have continued to spout Pro Russian/Anti Ukrainian propaganda FACT
You never respond to a commentator when they have pulled your propaganda statement to bits FACT
And to reiterate, you are still too cowardly to confirm your pro Russian stance, no balls no call FACT!
I await your amusing yet sad response!
For the benefit of those reading your comment and thinking WTF, Mods have removed a couple of posts so all you can see is Airborne going off on probably his weirdest to date ad hominem rant on me.
Airborne is simply relating the facts as they stand. You’re one of Putin’s “useful idiots” in the West.
BTW the Russian advance from Kherson to Odessa that you were confidently predicting last year, remind me how well that is going 🤣
Mate he gave me one of his usual guff zero information responses, and he started to use the sad old terminology of writing a statement and saying “FACT” at the end of each line. You know the one, where each statement and claim is actually not a fact but by saying it, they want it to be seen a s a fact. Childlike as per usual mate. And the Mods seem to have chinned it off…..wonder why.
Oh you must be JohnInMKs mate?
his one and only…
Can always rely on you for eloquent and logical reasoning… NOT
Nope.
Nope, I’m responding to your post which has not yet been approved, or removed by Mods. So dry your eyes, but the question is now why are the Mods removing your oft repeated nonsense and propaganda. I am condemning the illegal invasion of Ukraine, by Putin, now its your turn to condemn the same, for the benefit of all reading these comments…..As for my reply to you, its in the exact same vein as your original post to me. So do stop with your random guff nonsense.
Nope, it does seem to be a site where we can say what we want (hence johnskie is still here) and I will always challenge this sort of diseased dross attitude! If you won’t or can’t, up to you.
Just because you’ve ” Not seen anything yet…” doesn’t mean it hasn’t taken place. Your FSB handlers probably don’t tell you everything. Are you really that narcissistic that you think you’re the most important conduit for Kremlin propaganda?
Agreed, which is why I phrased it and the Russian claim the way I did. Your other comments made me smile. When I report something that has been reported to have happened with some analysis it is Kremlin propaganda, when almost anyone else here does the same it is taken as read.
You report nothing relevant, as the vast amount of your previous claims have been proven wrong time and time again, and some of your “sources”, are staggering in their inadequacy and lack of knowledge. You have used YouTube nutters many times….sorry, that’s not a sources, that’s a sad opinion. Anyway as we are talking, can you yet condemn the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin? That’s the big question WE ALL love you to answer, but you cannot, and verifies two things, one, your lack of bollocks, and two, your a Russian Nazi troll.
Train spotting, no thanks I will leave that to people who like trains! Playground rubbish, if you’re ok hanging on to the shirt tails of a Russian troll who supports this illegal invasion, and who promotes the actions of the modern day Nazis, then that’s up to you! I suppose you are too afraid to challenge this sort of behaviour online or in life, then that’s up to you, you can justify your inaction to yourself, that’s up to you once again.
Good to hear!
There’s a reason for that. Your Kremlin comrades couldn’t lie straight in a bed, they lie, dissemble and peddle falsehoods at will ( just off the top of my head here :- No intention of invading Ukraine, not attacking civilian targets, NATO WMD in Ukraine, Moskva still afloat, bio labs, abduction of children, execution of civilians etc. It’s a tawdry and shameful list of noxious lies). By contrast, many posters here provide links from reputable sources to back up their claims ( unlike you, who relies on unsubstantiated crap from degenerate Russian milbloggers). There’s no equivalence between the crap you post and the facts others here provide.
Can you point to one post of yours that has ever withstood scrutiny ?
Bravo!
‘Puzzled by your question, where did i say, or even imply, anything about a step too far?’
The invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was ‘step too far’ in itself. You have written nothing that does not objectively support this aggression.
Do you –
a) support this wanton act? Was it justified? Yes or No.
b) read your own posts? These are consistently favourable to the Putin clique’s goals by any impartial reading.
You have offended so many decent commentators here with your consistent defending or deflecting Russian attacks, who have responded with reasoned and evidenced retorts to you propaganda driven interventions. I marvel that so many remain civil to you. An objective balanced appraisal, including perceived negatives for Ukraine as possibilities in the near term, as the one above, is well beyond your limited abilities to fake sincerity.
Would you consider joining me in
A. Offering condolences to Russian Army for their losses or;
B. Saying good riddance, next?
in relation to your ‘wreckage photographed’ comment; i believe you have misidentified the wreckage.
the only pics from today’s strikes are of ADM-160 MALD decoy missiles which were launched by Ukraine
As you know I have not served. What I wrote didn’t need it.
What you wrote didn’t mean anything. The amusing thing here is your previous claim (I can cut and paste it if you want me to) stating that Russia would not even need to invade Ukraine and just beat them in a few days with missiles!!!!!!!! You are so wrong, on every post, you need to get a grip of your handler, otherwise you two will soon be members of the T72 low flying turret display team.
I know it is perhaps a novelty to you, as many if not most of your posts are comments, slurs or past history but what I wrote were those things called facts.
The next stage of the war has started, ALCM in use now by both sides. FACT
Announcement of supply clearly timed by London to maximise chance of success. FACT
Wreckage has been found and photographed, Storm Shadow was used to attack Luhansk. FACT
Its you I respectfully suggest that needs to get a grip of reality.
The only thing anyone knows about you is that you are a nazi supporting cheerleader for warcrimes and genocidal activities by your Russian masters.
No, in discussions with Airborne and others probably more has been disclosed about me than anyone else here, in sufficient detail that it should withstand reasonable scrutiny.
My ‘crime’ here, is not that I am a nazi etc etc but is that I express a different view from that of the general consensus. From that I am accused, like you have just done, of all kinds of ‘activities’ all of which, to quote a famous poster here, is “shite”.
Ironically and this depends on how the site is financed, but if it is by ‘clicks’ then I could be the most valuable poster here, vide your post, by creating posts and views. Yup, I am a successful ‘clik-baiter’.
Not comparable use though. I believe we now have an excess of 10k aircraft and missile assaults on Ukraine by Russia. We are still telling them they can only hit their own territory with these weapons.
Do you not think the Ukrainians have the right to hit Russian bridges etc?
Under Scenario 2 – Russia wins. How does this ‘allow Beijing to successfully discourage European states from siding with the US both globally and in east Asia’?
I’m assuming it relates to a collapse in western consensus that’ allows Russia to win.,,and then leaves the US without support from Europe if Taiwan kicks off…not that Europe would give much support anyway…the only nations that could are the UK and France and only the SSNs would really deploy and get in theatre in time to make a difference…
OK. UK is not supplying weapons and munitions to Ukraine primarily to side with the Americans. We will of course stop supplying if Scenario 2 pans out, as will others, including US. Don’t see that affecting our relationship withthe US.
I put Taiwan in another basket. If Taiwan is threatened by a huge build up of Chinese forces adjacent to Taiwan then I could see carrier groups heading over there (US and maybe one British CSG and 1-2 SSNs) and much rhetoric from the US and for US to step up weapon supplies. I doubt UK will send weapons and munitions. If China actually invades Taiwan – I still don’t see UK supplying weapons and munitions to Taiwan for all sorts of reasons (happy to elaborate).
Hi graham, no I don’t think the relationship with the UK will be much affected by the outcome of Ukraine, but I think if the US went cold on Ukraine and Ukraine lost it would affect other US European relationships, such Poland, Germany, Baltic states etc….it would definitely lessen their view of the U.S. as reliable ally and may just mean when it comes to sanctioning china or blocking Chinese trade they are colder than the could have been…and if Taiwan did go hot it would be possible trouble for the US…I don’t think the UK would ever not support the US in the pacific, unless trump has a second term and he goes completely rogue.
looking at the likely outcome and timelines for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan I honestly don’t think a UK carrier group would be involved…the tyranny of distance is just to much..as well as wider geopolitical concerns that would pretty much instantly arise….
1) Distance: in reality if you look how china would mobilise it’s forces, your probably looking at a month before the west realised china was serious and the 4 Chinese seas being closed and the strait crossed (;remember china has at least one pretty big exercise in that area every year…so the warning time the force builds up beyond that will be limited, a month is reasonable). If we consider that the Chinese are not stupid ( and they are very very clever geopolitical players…and are nothing like Putin) they will not undertake the invasion when a UK carrier group is in the area or within easy transit as that will at 25% to the availability carrier groups ( with one months notice the US just may be able to get 3 in theatre with fair winds). So it’s going to kick off probably with an Elizabeth and group at around 1 months notice..it’s then a 5-6 week transit so the UK carrier group would get their after the US would need to force the strait to prevent landings..what it could do is replace whatever US carrier group is in the med/Middle East/Indian ocean..effectively the US could move its carrier group coving this area to one of the china seas and within 6 weeks the UK carrier group would be in place…this is important because of point 2
Our SSNs on the other hand can transit from home waters in under 3 weeks and would be available to force the strait or any of the four China seas.
2) The really key point of why the outcome of Ukraine is important to a conflict in Taiwan is contagion and the wider backing to the US will need across the globe. Any invasion of Taiwan is simply the single most contagious conflict imaginable and would almost inevitably lead to a world war. Every nation is going to be pushed to pick a side. It does not matter if the US forces the strait and prevents a crossing or if China manage to hold the strait and cross…neither side would be able to admit defeat and take an off ramp ( your talking two super powers with the winner being the hegemonic power of the mid 21c ) as they are both such massive nations with very significant resources the conflict would lead to both sides effectively dragged into general war in the pacific very quickly…after that the U.S. and China would very quickly drag every ally into shutting down the others access to resources across the globe…Iran, Russia others in South America would align with china and you would see conflict in all the worlds sea lanes and areas of significant resource…non aligned nations would be pushed by both sides to pick a side or stay out of it and European nations would not escape pressure from a China, Russia, Iran axis and if the U.S. had been seen to sell Ukraine down the river…..you may find some decide to stay out of it… so probably the UK and US would agree early on the majority of the Uk assets would be more useful in the Middle East/western Indian Ocean, med and northern flank, north east passage etc to support any wider conflict or attempt to close sea lanes.
“1) Distance: in reality if you look how china would mobilise it’s forces, your probably looking at a month before the west realised china was serious and the 4 Chinese seas being closed and the strait crossed (;remember china has at least one pretty big exercise in that area every year…so the warning time the force builds up beyond that will be limited, a month is reasonable)”
Broadly agree with your post but I’ve seen some very knowledgeable people state that the lead time the US would have that something was up would be closer to 3 months at a minimum. It’s just not possible to put an invasion force, the size of what’s required to invade Taiwan without a massive mobilization effort that would quickly get noticed by signal or/and human intelligence. Russia can testify to this as the US made it clear to them several months in advance of the invasion that they knew what they were up to.
That’s one of the the reasons why you don’t see the US make a big deal of the frequent temper tantrums (aka exercises) that prc tend to have every time something happens that displeases them.
It would depend on if china was going for a strategic surprise or a build up type campaign… I know a lot of US publications have talked about strategic build ups over 3-6 months and think that’s how china will do it. But Taiwan’s ministry of defence published in 2021 that they felt it would be likely that china would force a landing via strategic surprise and turn one of its exercises into an attack….the thing with china is not only does it regularly exercise closing the seas around Taiwan it also regularly practices mobilisations across whole provinces, including Fujian province…on occasion they have even undertaken mass mobilisation and holding back discharging military personnel….so it would be a real challenge to see what china was doing..unlike Russia, (that could not afford for its military to practice large scale mobilisation) china can afford to regularly send huge amounts of it’s military to mess with Taiwan’s head) China has even actually published how it would gain strategic surprise again in 2021, via one of its managed media outlets..so letting both Taiwan and the U.S. it’s possible.
Yes India is interesting geopolitically. My personal view is no matter what the “end of history and the west won..so everyone will become western” has been proven to have been utter drivel ( damaging drivel that has actively harmed the west..but don’t get me started on that)..so I think what we will see is some of the other non wester great powers( especially India) moving to practical super powers in a uni polar world.
India knows it’s going to transition from great power status to effective super power in the next 50 years and it’s not going to do anything to get in the way of that…western markets and access to resources and sea lanes will be important so I don’t think india will willing do anything that puts it in conflict with the west ( the west and India do not really have any overlapping areas of conflict…so can do exist in peace as long as we don’t push any of India’s buttons by trying to restrict its market access).
India and china on the other hand are very much rubbing against each other..one a super power the other a future super power…they are probably going to end up in conflict at some point..India’s not going to push it but neither are they likely to actively assist china ( I’m sure India would quite happily see the Chinese military suffering massive attrition in a war with with the west).
Very interesting post with much food for thought. Not sure what ‘tyrranny of distance’ means. Does it mean that the Taiwan AO is too far for a British carrier to get to in order to have an effect? I recall that we sailed a 2-carrier centred task force to the Falklands some 3 days after the Argies landed – and they certainly had an effect on their arrival! Probably not a fair comparison, I am sure.
Some might wonder why we have the carriers if at least one did not sail in the face of aggressive Chinese action, be it concentrating forces prior to invading Taiwan or the actual invasion itself.
Back to Ukraine – the US would certainly lose credibility as a reliable ally if they turned off the tap to Ukraine before the war concludes one way or the other. I would lose faith in the US coming fully and quickly to the aid of western and central Europe in the event of Russian aggression westwards, notwithstanding the US NATO membership and Article 5 etc.
Hi graham there are some really good papers on tyranny of distance and military dominance in the Pacific..as well as some interesting papers on waining US military supremacy caused by the tyranny of distance…
one of my favourite quotes and a really interesting paper ( P Humle and E Gartzke, international studies sept 14 2020: the tyranny of distance: assessing and explaining the apparent decline in U.S. military performance)
” Distance is tyrannical: it saps military strength and increases the cost of contests, even as it reduces US expertise and motivation to prevail.”
“We show that the distance from home at which the United States fights is the best predictor of the outcome of the conflict”
Another really interesting one is: the tyranny of time and distance Bridging the pacific: foreign military studies office, fort leavenworth 2000. ( this older paper is one of my favs it’s any easy 15 pager gives a good oversight of distance on historic military outcomes in the 20c and how this impacts the pacific theatre).
basically if you look at the fact china is probably going to try for strategic surprise and that it’s quicker an easier for the US to concentrate carrier battle groups in the pacific as well as easier for the UK to deploy a carrier battle group in the Middle East…med than the U.S…..it would be strategically more sound for the UK carrier battle group to cover any issues of contagion in the Middle East or Europe ( Russia and iran). So I suspect UK assets in the pacific will be more skin in the game type contributions ( SSN and some escorts and maybe one of its amphibious groups) while the UK then expends most of its resources with CvBG focusing on Stabilisation of the Middle Eastern sea lanes ( and holding Iran at risk if they join the fight) as well as the main amphibious group in the high north to support that flank with the bulk of our SSNs keeping Russia honest and held at risk if they play games.
It may not sit well or seem right that the RN did not immediately sending a CvBG to the pacific…but that thought will not last as contagion will likely see the RN having to face off against Chinese allies in most of the major sea lanes.
But it may be that china is not able to get wider support to threaten and hold the rest of the west and wider sea lanes at risk….but I don’t think the Chinese are crossing the strait until they have their ducks in a row…as I said they are smart geopolitical players..so:
1) they are happy they can deny the 4 china seas to the US and prevent the US forcing the strait of Tiawan.
2) they can cross the strait and knock out the republic of China armed forces.
3) they have wider support and can form a coalition that can hold the west and allies at risk in a wider conflict ( everyone pretty well acknowledges that a world war is very likely in the case of china invading the republic of China).
But If somehow the west can manage to keep it regional ( by essentially bullying everyone else into not supporting china or china messing up) then you may see a UK CvBG in that fight.
Andy, I don’t think its just an idea that part of a fleet are in maintenance, be it carriers, escorts, MCMVs or whatever. It is a fact.
QE and PoW are not the same as US carriers and we as a nation don’t have to operate them in the same way. Our carriers have several roles – aircraft carrier, helo carrier, C2 centre, HADR, enabler for commando operations. They don’t need a full air wing with full weapon loads and escorts for all those roles.
You seem to be convinced that a sneak attack by a hostile power should be planned for all the time. I don’t think that is the navy way and it was not the army way when I was in (I did not carry a weapon in GB during ‘The Troubles’ just in case the IRA attacked me in Colchester or Tidworth.
The forces get Intelligence and do threat and risk assessments to determine how to structure a deployed force.
“in reality if you look how china would mobilise it’s forces, your probably looking at a month before the west realised china was serious and the 4 Chinese seas being closed and the strait crossed (;remember china has at least one pretty big exercise in that area every year…so the warning time the force builds up beyond that will be limited, a month is reasonable)”
Surely our intelligence resources would give us more warning? I know China has been regularly conducting exercises; taunting Taiwan – but that’s way different to China moving their chess pieces prior to a preemptive strike. But in saying that, I concede that Putin gave us plenty of warning. It’s just that we chose to look the other way.
It seems to be Taiwan that is concerned over the possibility of strategic surprise, their defence department wrote an interesting paper on it in 21/22, their view is the way china runs so many internal mobilisation exercises as well as exercises around Taiwan that they worry it will no be obvious until china kicks off. When you add the tyranny of distance ( the US have wrote a lot on this specifically around their ability to swiftly project across the pacific ) it’s very likely china will make a swift move over a military build up over a long period..china itself has even published this message through state sponsored media, explaining just how they would use a snap invasion launched of the back of annual province wide internal mobilisation, linked with a large exercise around Taiwan…..cheeky buggers literally telling Taiwan and the US how they will do it when they are ready…it’s one of the reasons the US keeps one carrier deployed in the china seas and the RR at one months notice based in Japan.
Hmmm…hadn’t even reached Scenario 2… attention arrested by the following quote, “…wars tend to end messily. Were Russia to be defeated, much would hinge on the nature of the defeat.” Seldom have truer or more consequential words been written. The authors have chosen to further expound upon the happy scenario of Mad Vlad’s presumed departure from power, but there is a corollary of one of Murphy’s Laws of Warfare that states that the ‘enemy (almost) always has a vote.’ Presume for the sake of argument that the Ukrainians, underwritten by NATO material and intelligence assistance, are completely successful w/ this or subsequent counter-offensives, and rout the Orcs. Have not seen any convincing countervailing argument that Mad Vlad would not employ tactical nukes to neutralize an apparent existential threat to Mother Russia, particularly since *escalate to deescalate” is a core tenet of current Russian doctrine, What happens then? Unknown, other than vague pronouncements of serious consequences. Presumably, these consequences at least begin w/ conventional warfare by NATO. The Russians, w/ depleted manpower and materiel resources, may have no viable alternative to defeat other than a strategic nuclear strike. Before dismissing/discrediting this hypothetical scenario, one should ask whether London, Paris and/or New York City would be scarified by their respective governments? Indeed, the entire Northern Hemisphere would be in immediate jeopardy. The bottom line is that a nuclear armed country cannot be be subjugated/conquered in same manner/to the same degree, as a conventionally armed opponent. What recourse then? At some point, an off ramp of some kind must be considered. Obviously, both sides will seek the most favorable terms. An assumption would be that the Ukrainians seek and obtain admission to NATO and EU, and ownership of previously seized Russian assets. The model for Ukraine to emulate would be West Germany of the Cold War era. The Russians will probably retain control of X% of former Ukrainian land, after appropriate legitimately internationally supervised, referenda of wishes of ethnic inhabitants of occupied/disputed regions. Unknowable how long it will take, or the number of additional casualties, for the participants to reach this approximate conclusion, if they ever do. Rant over, prepared to duck and cover from the incoming barrage. Have at it. 🤔😳😎
Er… sacrificed…(not scarified, though that does have a certain poetic ring)…🙄
😉
Thank you, it was no rant, that was a totally on topic analysis of what might happen. I would take it back a bit and postulate that the first tactical nuke could be unleashed by either side in the war if it looked like they were losing. Also that Korea may be a better comparison than Germany. But, as you conclude, we don’t know when this might happen, the only thing we can be certain of is that sadly many more are going to die before it is all over. Looking back, the peace deal agreed in Turkey in April 2022 should have been accepted by the UK/US rather than sending Boris to kill it.
The sad thing is many more people are going to die, due to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine! Simple really, nothing to do with trying to blame others subsequently after the initial event of the illegal invasion. Nothing top do with Boris et al etc. Putin could stop this war right now if he pulled out, as he is the architect of this war, and all its subsequent horrors. And useful fools like you fully support this illegal invasion.
What peace deal in 2022 ?? You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The only side threatening the use of nuclear weapons is Russia. Ukraine doesn’t have any, or didn’t you know that? They’re threatening their use because the Russian military is losing.
Just thought I would wack up a few more of Johnskie boy specials:
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to Airborne
I agree that Poland’s military is pretty dam good and a good reason for Russia to leave them alone. We all should have a right to be free but sometimes our leaders have different views.I am not aware that Russia is currently actually threatening any country at the moment apart from Ukraine and that’s only if they were to attack Donbas.
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to Airborne
It is a guess bit I doubt that the Russians have any plans to attack anywhere unless forced to in Ukraine. With modern munitions, especially Russian, military strategy and tactics are rather different to the old way of fighting.
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to Jacko
Two problems with your comment. Russia’s objective of stopping the attack on Donbas can be achieved without ‘strolling’ in. They will use missiles/rockets etc to bring Ukraine to its knees without going in as such. Second, conscripts are not volunteers and generally speaking do not want to be there. That is why in the fighting of 2015/16 there were SBU units behind the front lines to kill sorry discourage deserters
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to JohninMK
Ukraine is not a member of NATO neither was Georgia. If you were Swedish or Finnish what conclusion would you draw from that ?
Reply
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to David Steeper
That I would want to stay out of it, as both Sweden and Finland have now said.
Love them, keep em coming troll boy.
No, believe we have different perspectives.
Mad Vlad would be the sole instigator of the use of nuclear weapons, probably motivated by a combination and fear and rage at failure to subjugate the Ukrainians en masse. Nonetheless, believe the most favorable current terms Ukraine can elicit include a durable ceasefire, which would permit UKR to rebuild and rearm under the auspices of EU and NATO. Meanwhile, Mad Vlad and his successors would be hobbled in their ambitions of conquest for a generation, by continued sanctions. That course of action should allow sufficient time for the combination of Poland and Ukraine, in conjunction w/ Sweden, Finland and the Baltics to harden NATO”a Eastern frontier. There is also the distinct possibility that, over the next twenty to thirty years, the West is able to develop, test and deploy a robust European ABM system, facilitated by AUKUS Pillar 2 R&D. The Russians may fail to realize the weight of combined R&D of the Americans, Brits and Aussies (plus probable other players to be named later), but the scum-sucking, slimeball ChiComs are definitely perturbed by that prospect. However, the ChiComs may feel constrained to simply malevolently scheme/plot against the West, if they don’t believe they can win w/out being destroyed themselves
Agree, West Germany (later reunified) and South Korea are both examples of countries which have recovered from wars and have built thriving economies. Believe German historical example more applicable in this specific instance.
Doubtful any April 22 ‘peace’ initiative of Russia would have resulted in reasonable terms for Ukraine, but unaware of specifics, therefore, will w/hold judgment.
…NATO’s…🙄
…of fear…(really do need a proofreader)…🙄
Great reply. I can only visualise the end of this war as being when Putin leaves office one way or another. However Putin might be replaced by someone as ruthless or more ruthless and may well continue/resume the conflict but with even fewer inhibitions in order to close out the conflict quickly and that tactical nukes might well be used. I struggle a bit to see further escalation to strategic weapon release. I struggle to forecast the US President’s response to use by Russia of tactical nukes.
However Russia/USSR has faced defeat before and withdrew, notably in Afghanistan in 1989 after 9 years fighting – and other examples abound. They could leave ‘little green men in Donbas’ perhaps. The Russian PR machine could no doubt spin some sort of ‘victory’ story.
Presumption being initial NATO response to detonation of Russian tactical nukes in UKR would be a punishing conventional campaign, which a depleted Russian would probably be unable to resist. Putin, facing complete and detailed defeat, may choose to further escalate. Obviously, the worst case scenario, but has the advantage that anything else would be preferable. There are certainly many potential pathways in the decision tree analysis of this scenario, certainly not least the identity of the then current POTUS. 😱 Unfortunately, Eisenhower has not been available for duty for a while. 🤔😳
…depleted Russian military…🙄
Last time a beligerent dictator released WMD, the West did nothing (Assad attacking his people with poison gas), despite Obama talking of a red line having been crossed.
I hope the western response to Putin releasing tac nukes in Ukraine is more robust, as you say.
Agreed. I recall that ‘Voice of America’ broadcast into the USSR, as I am sure the BBC did – in the Cold War. Are these stations still beaming news and current affairs programmes in the Russian language into Russia? Are they being jammed?
Too many variables to make an accurate prediction, but a general principle would be that each repetition would be progressively faster, all other factors being equal. Practice alone may not make perfection, but does tend to result in improvement. Are you inquiring re a specific airframe (eg., B-1B, B-52, F-16, etc. )?
Sorry, reread your text. Presume from context of thread F-16s?
Essentially in all outcomes Russia actually losses the geopolitical game as it becomes a pawn of china no matter what…and the reality is china has always been a greater geopolitical threat to Russian than Western Europe and the U.S.
Hi Jonathan – that is my take on it. The Russians lose and start to face threats from China over disputed territory in the Amur river. Ukraine liberates Crimea, joins NATO and the EU and has the largest, battle hardened armed forces in Europe.
Scenario 1: Russia loses, badly, due to being incompetent and shite!
Scenario 2: Russia loses very badly, due to being utterly incompetent and proper shite!
Scenario 3: Russia loses so badly due to being utterly incompetent at every level, and utterly shite at any sort of modern, combined arms warfare and Putin suffers an accident where he falls from the floor of his bungalow balcony, while juggling a set of steak knives, which all land in his back, while using a home made chemistry set, making poisen for his girlfriends college project, which slips into his mouth.
To be honest my only concern in all this is trump..if he gets in he may just cut off Ukraine…the simple fact is Russia for all its incompetence has a far great economic power than Ukraine and Ukraine would run out of money first…if you run out of money you loss.
As long as Ukraine is bankrolled it’s got the fighting sprite to win…but fighting spirit does not pay the bills unfortunately.
If Trump wins he will not take power until the middle of January 2025, by which time the war could be all over bar the shouting, so to speak.
You are spot on re finance. There probably isn’t any chance that Russia will run out of money over that timespan, whilst Ukraine’s tax base has collapsed and could be even more reduced if the latest 11th EU round of sanctions stops oil and gas transit from Russia. So they are dependent on the monthly supply of $B from the US for nearly all their expenditure, from paying soldiers to pensions and civil servants.
If the US, for some reason, stops or significantly reduces that flow there is no-one else that can step in. There is a reasonable chance that it won’t happen as the US just creates the $ it needs out of thin air but something could happen in the next 20 moths that forces them to.
But its not just the money, it is unlikely that NATO can keep up with Ukraine’s need for weapons and munitions over that period either. Russia’s MIC appears to be on a war footing already, there is little evidence of that happening in the West.
This is where we will disagree, Ukraine has a will to fight and that is massive..the Russian military is in a mess moral wise and that matters…army’s fail when they or their nations will to fight fails ….materials wise it’s even swinging towards Ukraine,.latest estimates are that as Russia has lost well over 2000 MBTs it’s now only got 450 MBTs left in theatre vs an estimated 800+ Ukrainian MBTs…so let’s be very honest as long as the west can support the Ukrainian economy to not to collapse Russia is pissing in the wind if it thinks it can win. The simple fact is Ukraine is a large county and its to big to overwhelm unless the nations will to fight collapses or its finances collapses..the only real option Russia had was a beheading move to collapse the will to fight and they managed to utterly blow that by inexplicably invading during the mud season ( this is possibly going to go down as one of the most profound military mistakes in history…there was something odd driving that,,either Putin was pushed internally or he was so delusional as to have lost all attachment to reality ).
I agree that Ukraine has a powerful will to fight and will do so for as long as it can. This discussion, as per your original post, is about finance and how long that would last. I just put a bit more meat on it but I think we would both agree if cash stopped its game over. As to the military, this is not a tank war, its all about artillery and the supply of its ammunition.
The original Russian plan was, as you say, failed but if the peace agreement of April 2022 in Turkey had held it would have worked.
On the other hand the US/NATO original plan didn’t work either, they expected Russia’s economy to be brought to its knees by sanctions, as per Biden ‘Rouble will be rubble’, making it withdraw. There was no intention for there to be a drawn out war.
If you want a ‘greatest in all time’ disastrous decision it was probably that of the US misreading the strength of the Russian economy, the sanctions leading to the catastrophic energy price rises in the World other than for Russia and its friends.
Oh BTW John maybe you could answer this time what constitutes a ‘win’ for Putin. Both you and your hero have never spelled out what a win might look like. The decapitation ‘win’ will now never happen, I think that is clear and the current situation if stalemated is not a win either, so where does he go? Your rhetoric is chock full of implied assumptions, if this, if that etc but you cannot convincingly describe a path by which Russia comes out on top. ‘ Not losing’ seems the best you can come up with. What a joke military they really are 😆😆😏
Good question, but since, as you say, the Russians have not defined it themselves, any answer by me would be pure speculation. When I did that at the start I have not been allowed to forget it so I won’t do it now since it would be a hostage to fortune.
Wrong, the Russians defined a “win” in their initial invasion plans which were captured when their advance forces were wiped out.
A “win” for Russia, was decapitation of the Ukrainian government, seizure of the entire country, and installation of a puppet regime. As that’s not going to happen, Russia has already lost.
Well you are the one saying stuff like ‘Russia will prevail eventually’ you’ve said it several times on this site. Now your all coy regards the outcome after your several months of insisting it’s a wrap for Russia. The best I remember Putin crowing about was ‘ blad blah denazification rhubarb’ and he’s stfu lately 😌😌. Actually your last sentence actually comes about as close an admission of being wrong as anyone’s ever likely to hear from you. Think I remember reading that you had a career in sales and that adds up considering your passing acquaintance with what most people call the truth!!
‘… any answer by me would be pure speculation.’
When did that ever stop you?
👍
There was no peace agreement in Turkey in April 2022.
The NATO plan hasn’t failed. The plan is simple, supply the weapons that Ukraine asks for for as long as it asks for them. NATO doesn’t not apply economic sanctions, it is a military organisation.
Now a large number of countries have sanctioned Russia, some are NATO members, some are not.
The Russian economy is in a gradual downward decline. Different sectors will decline at different rates, depending upon its previous relationship with western suppliers.
So one example is civil aviation, an important sector due to the vastness of the country. Russia ensured it still had an aviation sector by stealing the civilian airlines that were recalled by the leasing companies that owned them.
While a certain amount of servicing was done domestically, for deep maintenance, Aeroflot etc would fly their aircraft to European serving centres. This level of servicing is no-longer available.
For the maintenance that can be done in Russia, parts have to be replaced on a regular basis after a set number of cycles. So Russia is now having to cannibalise aircraft to keep others flying. Even domestically designed and built airliners, which had a low production rate even before the war, rely on Western parts and systems.
Russia can try and start designing/ manufacturing it own parts for the western aircraft. But these will not be authorised by the manufacturers, as a result the airworthiness certificates will be invalidated. Russia’s aviation authorities will overlook this, but foreign air regulators won’t – even if those countries aren’t sanctioning Russia.
So domestic air-services, both civilian and freight, in Russia will decline in availability and become more expensive. The number of countries Russian aircraft can fly to will decline in number to those countries with poor safety standards. And we’ll see more incidents and ultimately crashes.
John just to note…the conditions in Eastern Europe change dramatically so for the two mud seasons and the bit of winter in between combined arms mobile warfare is not possible..so sept to May have generally poor conditions for mobile warfare as everything needs to stay on a road or get bogged down…so this is primarily fixed warfare of infantry and artillery…may to sept the vast open spaces of Ukraine open up and combined armed mobile warfare becomes king…this is when units become encircled and artillery interlock with mech and the tank and armoured infantry dominate…..Russia is going to be on the receiving end as Ukraine now has more and better tanks..the Russian IADs has to spread further as Ukraine has longer range air threats available so local air support to that combined arms becomes Ore effective…this next 5 months will give a very good indication if fix Russia forces are going to be defeated in detail over the next year 18 months by superior Ukrainian combined armies units or if this war is simple going to grind until Russia runs out of resources or the west losses the will to support Ukraine with money and resources…be in no doubt if the west retains the will to support and supply Ukraine Russia would even loss this attritional grind as well …as although Ukraine is an economic minnow vs Russia..Russia is also and economic minnow vs Western/centeral Europe….when you add the U.S. it’s a whole power difference 45 trillion dollars vs 1.5ish trillion dollars…if china went all in you would still have almost a 30 trillion dollar gap…..and in war money counts.
I understand all that you wrote. It is a pretty good analysis of the Western point of view of the war. Thanks.
‘It is a pretty good analysis of the Western point of view of the war.’
Bingo!
“It is a pretty good analysis of the Western point of view of the war” = reality
An accomplished piece of the propagandists art. You have been well trained. But, the direction of tilt is still just a little too obvious.
John, the simple fact is Russia cannot win,ever,for the simple reason that their military is totally incompetent in every area of combat,most tellingly in logistics. Forget manpower and resources if you simply cannot organise the proverbial….. In a brewery. It will come down, eventually to one Russian combatant vs one Ukrainian bullet and Ukraine will not run out of bullets. Russia is slowly losing leverage on any systems they ever had except the lone PBI man. The Russian MIC can do whatever the hell it wants but no competent military will lead to complete failure. That is where Russia is heading at an accelerating speed.
Interesting analysis and very on topic for this article.
I will comment further but first, would you agree with me that back in late January 2022 Ukraine had the biggest military in Europe west of Russia, that included large numbers of armoured vehicles and a significant AD system? Further, that key sections of it were very well trained (in part by us) with a pretty good defensive line in the east constructed over 8 or so years.
Whoa there! IIRC you were predicting an easy win and a mad dash to the Polish border and writing the Ukr military off as useless! As for it being an artillery war that is about to change into a war of manoeuvre by the Ukr something your much vaunted Orcs couldn’t manage!
Exactly. It’s only currently an artillery war because Russia lost the manoeuvre war when its tanks fell in vast numbers to NLAWS, Javelins and tractors… So it reverted to a style of warfare that requires no tactics, no intelligence, no real ability other than lobbing shells in a general direction.
Now that Ukraine has approaching 300 western tanks, and has been trained in combined arms operations, the war is about to get a lot more mobile again.
Agreed, a total misjudgement on a grand scale by Putin and his head shed criminals. And the war has reverted, as you say, to a dumb war by dumb Russians doing what they always do, lobbing dumb ordnance on just about anything in front of them. However, time to change things, like western platforms, operated by western trained Ukrainians, in combined arms manoeuvre, all backed up by massive Ukrainian balls!!!!!! Johnskies going to be sad…..
What idiot invades an Eastern European county in the mud season…it’s literally written in every analysis of every campaign ever…don’t do that or you wont get your army back….
Estimates are that Russia only has around 450MBTs in theatre vs over 850 Ukrainian MBTs ( including as you said 300 western MBTs) Ukraine proved it could win a manoeuvre campaign last summer while Russia still had a a lot more MBTs that Ukraine…this summer with Ukraine having the greater number and quality of MBTs will be very interesting….if they play it well surround and defeat the Russian army in detail while Maintaining their MBT force…we may see if Ukraine can remove Russia without having to go down years and years of attrition…I think what will be key is not so much if western MBTs don’t get knocked out because they will..but if as before they can save the crews and be easily patched up and returned…soviet MBTs just kill the crew and blow up….never to be recovered.
“pretty good defensive line in the east”
As good as the Maginot Line or the Siegfried Line? We all know how good these ideas are.
Or to quote Patton,
“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity.”
Skip to minute 14 or so and it will show what a Challenger thinks of the Orc ‘defences’😂
https://youtu.be/Ugb2wiIty_k
Looks like they wouldn’t even stop the much lighter, smaller, and less powerful soviet era tanks, let alone the mighty Challenger! 😂
Seems their defences are as inadequate as their equipment, training, tactics, etc etc
Good enough to stop the Russians at Bakhmut and Avdiivka.
Do make an effort at responding to Farouk, as yet again (as did I but comments disappeared) has ripped your comments to bits with research, knowledge and experience. Have the decency not to just ignore the fact you are wrong again and pushing out garbage, but that Farouk has corrected you once again.
I also did cut and paste many of your previous comments about Russia taking Ukraine in hours, not having to invade at all but destroy Ukraine in hours with missiles and how your mates in the Donbass militia (or whatever they call themselves) could defeat Ukraine in their own. A far cry from your excuses now weren’t they! But very common propaganda you push out, certainly in the easy days until you and everyone else realised the Russian military are wank.
I did get the chance to read them before they disappeared,very amusing how he can ‘forget’ what he posted and try again from a different angle😂.
He NEVER responds to any post that lays it out for him!
Once again, Farouk has shown up below how your rubbish doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Yep, a good quote. Cheers Sean. 👍
Not what you were posting in Feb 2022 pal!
johninMK
1 year ago
Reply to Mark
With perhaps 80-150,000 troops ready to roll within about 100 miles of the border I’d say that any UK support was a complete irrelevance to the Russians. The Donbas militias, with it is assumed some Russian support, crushed the Ukrainian army 2-3 times. Had Russia had any intention to do more, much more, than it did there was nothing militarily stopping them. Same now.
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to dave12
I agree totally with DM. As I have already posted, if Russia goes in, which it will only do if provoked, it is likely to be over in hours with no invasion. The militia in the Donbas, fully trained and equipped, will be capable of sorting out the UA after that rain of death. Our QR forces wont have even got to Brize.
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to dave12
We can all pick outliers but sadly for the Ukrainian Army that episode was not typical of their overall performance. From a position of apparent strength in terms of numbers and assets, they proved to be a huge disappointment. From memory they ended up cut off in 2 or 3 caldrons, as they called them, with thousand of troops isolated. Then finally in early 2015 came the worst, that of Debaltseve where the separatists well and truly beat the UA leading to the rapid Agreement of Minsk 11 and the ‘ceasefire’ that still exists today.
JohninMK
1 year ago
Reply to dave12
You put very well the reason why Russia is highly unlikely to do more in Ukraine than is necessary to defend Donbas if it is attacked. As a byproduct that might involve the destruction of the Nazi oriented Azoz groups as well as much of Ukraine’s military infrastructure. By using stand-off weapons but there would be little need for many Russian soldiers to cross the border.
There’s so many more, I love them, they are so insightful and fun to read in a propaganda led way.
JIMK wrote:
I’m sorry but I have to ask, where did that come from? (Source please) because all I see in that statement is an excuse for the poor showing of Russia this past 15 months regards its invasion by claiming “Well actually the Ukraine had the biggest military and so was/is able to face up to Moscow”
If taken at face value, with the large number of legacy military equipment left behind in the Ukraine, when the USSR broke then there does appears to be some credence in claiming so. But and a big but , there were other nations in the USSR and if we look at Poland we find that actually Poland has a bigger equipment holding (more on that below) In March 2022, the EU knocked out a briefing report where the total number of active military for the Ukraine as of 2021 was 196K
The Spanish come in at 211K ,France comes in at 208K, the British at 196K, So regards active full time military the Ukraine isn’t the most powerful military when it comes to blokes.
Equipment wise, the Ukraine did indeed look impressive, but what that fails to take into account is that since 1991, the Ukraine has been skint and so has been unable to procure, upgrade or even maintain equipment . So for example the T84 (Opolot) which was the tank the Ukraine built as its future MBT in 1999, but due to financial difficulties, in the last 24 years it has the total number of 6 T84s in service. The vast majority of its armour holdings was/is the T64, yet most were kept in storage and Armour needs to be turned over in which to keep them viable, if not they go to pot, requiring a full overall. Now Poland with a similar armoured vehicle holding (Ive actually checked it was larger) had the money to keep their vehicles maintained and even upgraded.
Regards how the Ukraine was skint this months Airforces monthly has a chapter on the Heavy champions of Ukraine where it describe that the country was that skint between 1992 to 2000 135 II-76s were leased out to 22 Ukrainian airline and air cargo companies. In 2000, the Ukrainian military ordered all those planes to be returned where they were placed under a central command . Due to that lack of funding between 1994 and 2001 the Ukr airforce was reduced from 100K to 60k, with 22 regiments disbanded
Now going back to the never mind the quality feel the width analogy, in 1940, France had a much larger Military than did the Germans , just as the Russians had a much , much larger military than the Germans. Oh here is a chart from the EU from March 2022 regards miltary sizes:
https://i.postimg.cc/HnXVJ5vn/Opera-Snapshot-2023-05-15-223810-www-europarl-europa-eu.png
JIMK wrote:
“”Further, that key sections of it were very well trained (in part by us) with a pretty good defensive line in the east constructed over 8 or so years.””
You keep on banging on about how that well-constructed defensive line as one of the reasons for why Moscow hasn’t advanced further into the Ukraine in the East. Well allow me to open your eyes and dispel that lame excuse once and for all. Find as below a political map of the Ukraine as of Feb 21st 2022. The area held by the rebels is in grey, the border with the Ukraine I have coloured in yellow, the captured areas of the Ukraine Moscow holds is in red. So how come Moscow had no problem steam rolling over the vast majority of that well-constructed defensive line (which actually corresponds with their initial lines of attack (North north west to the Russian border and Kharkiv, and South,south west to link up with the Crimea. At the time the bit in the middle wasn’t strategically important and only became so after that the decapitation attack on kyiv failed resulting in huge losses in Moscows best trained units, which saw them pulled back , reformed with less well trained new recruits and then sent to a supposably easy attack front (all flat pastures) in which to allow Putin to regain some face (huge mistake) the problem been that ATGMs just love flat pastures and funny enough the supplied western ones (Javelin, NLAW, Milan ) were designed to operate on the North German Plain, a huge flat pasture which was where we (BAOR) expected Moscow to come a knocking.
But I digress, my point, the 8 year old defensive lines you claim that have held up the Russians have actually crumbled more than they remained in place. Only on a small front have they remained and the reason for that is simply because at the time the Russians concentrated their armoured thrusts elsewhere and once things settled down (after suffering huge losses) the Russians simply did not have the expertise (and some could say the armour) to start afresh in the middle. Which kind of explains the human waves tactics used against Bakhmut by a private army of all people and why having lost the central premise of Russian SOPs (manoeuvre warfare) Moscow resigned itself to reinventing the Somme complete with artillery barrages.
https://i.postimg.cc/yxGz0YxG/023.jpg
Note this isn’t an attack on you, rather it is simply to point out that a lot of the bumf you get, is exactly that bumf, promogulated by arm chair experts who judge Militaries & weapons systems by how good they are on paper and not in real life such as
Battle of Fort Eben-Emael (1940)
Battle of Arras (1940)
Battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954)
Sharon and the Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967)
2 Para Goose Green (1982)
Where on paper those who won, didnt have a chance in hell.
Tbh I’m not up on the forces tha Ukr had at its disposal in Jan 22. Also I’m not sure of the point your making. I’m sure even if they had a large force back then it was poorly organised and led in line with all ex soviet states. They have come a long way in 1.5 years
‘… would you agree with me that back in late January 2022 Ukraine had the biggest military in Europe west of Russia.’
If your masters knew all this how comes they failed utterly to factor it in? Their troops had no idea where they were, or why and had no food or fuel.
“it is unlikely that NATO can keep up with Ukraine’s need for weapons and munitions over that period”
In your wet dreams perhaps.
Reality is arms manufacturing has been slowly ramping up in the West over the last year and will continue to do so. Because it’s capacity is vastly superior to Russia’s, the West doesn’t need to shift to a war economy.
Whereas Russia’s entire economy is on a war footing, yet they are still having to deploy T55s to the Ukraine and could only spare a single T34 for Victory Day.
I see you’ve still failed to condemn Russian war-crimes; murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, looting, etc, etc.
Spot on!
Indeed, Russia is an economic minnow compared to the west. Its combined industrial capacity is orders orders of magnitude above that of Russia.
Russia has a smaller economy that Italy… so long as the West continues to back Ukraine, Russia has zero chance.
Yep it’s entirely about political will to either fight or support the fight.
Russia cannot win. It has inherited one pile of rubble in Syria and another closer to home and the potential for a guerrilla war is not an outcome, it’s a mill stone. However, the destabilising effects would continue even for Trump. Putin made it clear he saw bringing Ukraine down was but a first step.
it defends on your definition of victory…if you are talking about defeating Ukraine and forcing terms, then Russia could, to say otherwise is hubris, this is still a war between a nation in which the population difference is around 100 million, the Russian economy is 1.8 trillion vs Ukraines .2 trillion dollars.
This is the important point. no matter how much will to fight there is in Ukraine it’s Economic output and population would mean in the end if the Russian will to fight continues “on its own” Ukraine at some point would become exhausted and run out of money or men. So western support is vital to ensure victory…and we have US presidential elections…in which one possible Candidate and a group within one party are saying clearly they would not continue support to Ukraine.
Also war is the ultimate expression of Chaos..it’s utterly brutal and you never can tell if a nations will to fight is just going crumble unexpectedly….on paper the US should never have lost the Vietnam War, the French third republic should not have fallen to Germany as it did…the RN of 1982 should not have been able to sail into the air umbrella of a major regional power 8000 miles from home stand fast undertaking amphibious operations and win.
so do I think Russia can force Ukraine to unfavourable terms…yes but only if..the US pulls away from supporting it and Western Europe is unable or unwilling to take up the slack ( they would not be willing to)..or if the Ukrainian will to fight crumbles…I thing either of those is less likely that the US continuing to support Ukraine and Ukraine continuing to have the will to fight…so I think Ukraine is more likely to push Russia to unfavourable terms.
As for a long term geopolitical win I think Russia has already lost and cannot win, whatever happens it is now dependent on a geopolitical opponent (china)….but for a bit of context let’s remember that the British empire ended up dependent on a geopolitical opponent and you could argue that did not end badly for the UK ( bad for imperial ambition).
But never think Russia could not beat the Ukraine into unfavourable terms if some things aligned in its favour…it could….why do you think the Ukrainian president is doing such a stand up job of being visible across the globe.
‘Thank you Mr Peacenik in British West Bromwich. Now, next on the line is a John, in er, … Magnitogorsk – is that a place …? I’m getting a nod from my producer, so …Over to you John ….’
😂😂👍
🤣😁😁👍, particularly enjoyed scenario 3!
Scenario 3, seems a common set of accidents in Putins Russia mate!
if putin is obliged to leave, how possible is an orderly handover to a humane government and should there be prosecution for war crimes or just accept the peace?
Anyone else noticed that comments on this thread are disappearing like snowfall on a summers day?
yup
Because I log in at intervals I had not. Did you notice what type of comments are been deleted?
Various different comments.
Not to worry the main ones with the troll are still here showing him getting ripped a new arsehole👍😂
Thanks
Difficult to see a Russian win here. Everyone including China must by now realise that every cent in western pockets will be diverted from buying Chinese goods to supporting the underdog in this conflict. China are simply looking to invest their surplus funds around the world for influence and the days when automation puts them out of a job.