Ukraine illegally invaded by Putin's Russia

I think in the end, there'll probably be a cease fire and some sort of Korean style demilitarised zone stretching along what is now the front line.

Russia will keep the land it took, Ukraine will have to yield on that front, but if the fighting stops as a result, then that would he a positive step even though the situation would be far from ideal.

I dont see either side winning outright.

Vermilion wrote:I think in the end, there'll probably be a cease fire and some sort of Korean style demilitarised zone stretching along what is now the front line.

Russia will keep the land it took, Ukraine will have to yield on that front, but if the fighting stops as a result, then that would he a positive step even though the situation would be far from ideal.

I dont see either side winning outright.

I don't think Ukraine are likely to ever get Crimea back. And the regions like Donbas are also probably gone for good.

I don't see Ukraine ever giving up its claim to those lands though. The fighting might stop, but diplomatically this will rumble on for decades/centuries.

Moggy wrote:

Vermilion wrote:I think in the end, there'll probably be a cease fire and some sort of Korean style demilitarised zone stretching along what is now the front line.

Russia will keep the land it took, Ukraine will have to yield on that front, but if the fighting stops as a result, then that would he a positive step even though the situation would be far from ideal.

I dont see either side winning outright.

I don't think Ukraine are likely to ever get Crimea back. And the regions like Donbas are also probably gone for good.

I don't see Ukraine ever giving up its claim to those lands though. The fighting might stop, but diplomatically this will rumble on for decades/centuries.

Yeah definitely. It would take a huge twist for Ukraine to gain those lands. Not just the case of better and more equipment.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Vermilion wrote:I think in the end, there'll probably be a cease fire and some sort of Korean style demilitarised zone stretching along what is now the front line.

Russia will keep the land it took, Ukraine will have to yield on that front, but if the fighting stops as a result, then that would he a positive step even though the situation would be far from ideal.

I dont see either side winning outright.

I don't think Ukraine are likely to ever get Crimea back. And the regions like Donbas are also probably gone for good.

I don't see Ukraine ever giving up its claim to those lands though. The fighting might stop, but diplomatically this will rumble on for decades/centuries.

Yeah definitely. It would take a huge twist for Ukraine to gain those lands. Not just the case of better and more equipment.

That's why i feel it will most likely end in some sort of Korean style armistice, with no victor, just a heavily fortified buffer zone.

Unfortunately, neither side right now seems to be even remotely close to entering negotiations.

Vermilion wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Vermilion wrote:I think in the end, there'll probably be a cease fire and some sort of Korean style demilitarised zone stretching along what is now the front line.

Russia will keep the land it took, Ukraine will have to yield on that front, but if the fighting stops as a result, then that would he a positive step even though the situation would be far from ideal.

I dont see either side winning outright.

I don't think Ukraine are likely to ever get Crimea back. And the regions like Donbas are also probably gone for good.

I don't see Ukraine ever giving up its claim to those lands though. The fighting might stop, but diplomatically this will rumble on for decades/centuries.

Yeah definitely. It would take a huge twist for Ukraine to gain those lands. Not just the case of better and more equipment.

That's why i feel it will most likely end in some sort of Korean style armistice, with no victor, just a heavily fortified buffer zone.

Unfortunately, neither side right now seems to be even remotely close to entering negotiations.

Currently I agree that’s the route it seems to be heading towards.

Sweden is now a member of NATO.

Putin has done wonders for NATO enlargement.

Moggy wrote:Sweden is now a member of NATO.

Putin has done wonders for NATO enlargement.

He wanted less NATO, but his actions have given him more.

He'll be so pleased with this, his aides had better not sit down for tea with him anytime soon.

Even better, there is now talk of NATO troops being sent into Kiev. That’ll learn him…

still wrote:Even better, there is now talk of NATO troops being sent into Kiev. That’ll learn him…

I don't see that happening tbh, doing so would just give Putin the excuse he wants to escalate things even further.

I think Germany said their long range cruise missile system would need German military personnel inside Ukraine if they were going to send them, due to the complexity, so they've apparently decided not to send any.

But I haven't heard any actual chatter about NATO troops in Kyiv. I guess if/when the war ends and Ukraine potentially joins, or part-joins, NATO you might see a token NATO force their one day. But I have a feeling once peace arrives, NATO won't want to stir things up by doing that.

Imrahil wrote:I think Germany said their long range cruise missile system would need German military personnel inside Ukraine if they were going to send them, due to the complexity, so they've apparently decided not to send any.

Scholz has out and out said absolute no to Taurus being sent today.

But I haven't heard any actual chatter about NATO troops in Kyiv. I guess if/when the war ends and Ukraine potentially joins, or part-joins, NATO you might see a token NATO force their one day. But I have a feeling once peace arrives, NATO won't want to stir things up by doing that.

Slovak PM - see today's Guardian.

Vermilion wrote:

still wrote:Even better, there is now talk of NATO troops being sent into Kiev. That’ll learn him…

I don't see that happening tbh, doing so would just give Putin the excuse he wants to escalate things even further.

How is Putin going to escalate things further? The west is scared stiff of him and has delayed for far too long. Every decision to help has been taken 6 to 9 months too late. The man is a typical bully and a coward - the only thing he understands is strength. Biden etc have been far too weak. If Putin wants to blow the world up then over to him but I'm pretty sure he just wants to hang on to power and will back down if ever seriously faced up to.

still wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I think Germany said their long range cruise missile system would need German military personnel inside Ukraine if they were going to send them, due to the complexity, so they've apparently decided not to send any.

Scholz has out and out said absolute no to Taurus being sent today.

But I haven't heard any actual chatter about NATO troops in Kyiv. I guess if/when the war ends and Ukraine potentially joins, or part-joins, NATO you might see a token NATO force their one day. But I have a feeling once peace arrives, NATO won't want to stir things up by doing that.

Slovak PM - see today's Guardian.

I wouldn't trust anything the Slovak PM has to say on the matter tbh. The guy's been pro-Kremlin from the start.

I can't envisage it happening while the war itself is still going on, unless Putin does something else like invade Moldova or Poland.

Not my petition but it was the most actionable one (reasonable concrete demand) on the petitions website, so it's a good one to sign if you care.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/653640

UK support has been depressingly lacking in quantity. We have been the first (up until the F16s) which has its own quality, but quantity is needed now, I.e. not sure how many artillery shells we make/are sending.

To be fair, the UK pumped in loads of money in the years before the war training the Ukrainian army and also donated tons of equipment before a shot was fired - none of which tends to be included in the military donation lists since the war started. I'd say we've more than done our part so far, even if there is some room for more equipment to be sent out. They must be hitting danger levels soon though, we don't have huge reserves.

Also from what I understand, the Typhoon is a bit of a nightmare compared to the F16 when it comes to training up Ukrainian pilots and maintaining the planes. But it's been a while since I looked into it all. From what I recall, I thought everyone had already pretty much agreed it was impractical, they're not designed to be ground-hugging jets like the F16 or something, which is needed near those Russian SAMs, they're more high altitude interceptors/missile platforms.

Imrahil wrote:
Also from what I understand, the Typhoon is a bit of a nightmare compared to the F16 when it comes to training up Ukrainian pilots and maintaining the planes. But it's been a while since I looked into it all. From what I recall, I thought everyone had already pretty much agreed it was impractical, they're not designed to be ground-hugging jets like the F16 or something, which is needed near those Russian SAMs, they're more high altitude interceptors/missile platforms.

This is a really interesting point both on a 1) technical nerdy airplane point of view but also 2) on the 'pot' PoV.

On 2)

I saw a lot of commentary on the F16s (from the US opposed to Euro countries) being that if you have a fixed pot of money I.e. $60b you get a lot more bang for your buck sending artillery shells then you get for sending F16s at $30m a unit.

There is also the question of whether it's in the best of interest to add another complex system to the Ukranian military l I.e. given the option of 50 F16s or 30 F16s and 30 Eurofighters is the former more effective because of the efficiency gains or is the latter better because of sheer quantity.

So my answers would be,

1) I don't think the limit on us is funding (as it is in the US), I think it's actually having the physical kit we can send, particularly on items which we're not planning to replace anyway.

2) I would leave this up to the Ukranians, fundamentally we in Europe have a limited number of F16s we can send as we don't make them. We can in theory make more Typhoons and Grippens (and I guess what ever the French want to pretend they will send and then not).

Edit: And therefore I would suggest signing the petition to all readers who care, as even if we don't send the Typhoons because of the above it provides (infinitely small) pressure to expand the 'pot'.

Pressure also works better when it's something those in government probably want to do anyway.

Seems like we should start producing equipment that Ukraine need rather than given them old stock.

Imrahil wrote:

still wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I think Germany said their long range cruise missile system would need German military personnel inside Ukraine if they were going to send them, due to the complexity, so they've apparently decided not to send any.

Scholz has out and out said absolute no to Taurus being sent today.

But I haven't heard any actual chatter about NATO troops in Kyiv. I guess if/when the war ends and Ukraine potentially joins, or part-joins, NATO you might see a token NATO force their one day. But I have a feeling once peace arrives, NATO won't want to stir things up by doing that.

Slovak PM - see today's Guardian.

I wouldn't trust anything the Slovak PM has to say on the matter tbh. The guy's been pro-Kremlin from the start.

I can't envisage it happening while the war itself is still going on, unless Putin does something else like invade Moldova or Poland.

Earlier in the week, Macron did say not to rule out NATO troops in Ukraine:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68417223

Rather unhelpfully, Scholz confirmed (in fairness what Russia probably already knew to be true) that there are already some NATO soldiers in Ukraine:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-soldiers-in-ukraine-germany-b2504462.html

It's not meaningful numbers of NATO troops but they're obviously doing highly specialised roles related to the more advanced NATO equipment.

I assumed we were talking more about actual combat troops being stationed there rather than technical military staff. It stands to reason you're going to get people going back and forth passing over specialist equipment and training Ukrainians on their usage.

Captain Kinopio wrote:Seems like we should start producing equipment that Ukraine need rather than given them old stock.

This is a 100% true- but rather than starting a new petition from scratch I thought it better to advertise an existing petition broadly on the same lines if at least in spirit.