The primary reason why Russia hasn’t committed its Air Force in earnest is likely that it wishes to hold its Air assets fresh and in reserve as a deterrence against any NATO effort to enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
You're just trolling.
What year did the Berlin Wall fall?
Since then, how many confrontations and wars did Russia had to fend off that originated from China?
From the west?
given that the US has unilaterally abrogated 3 US-Russia treaties which post-soviet Russia had relied on for the security of its status as a major nuclear power, it is very unlikely Putin will trust the good future behavior of Ukraine ,from Russia perspective, to any piece of paper that would leaves a Ukrainian government which could potentially be free to continue to collaborate secretly or in open with the US, or restart it in the future.
The vehemence and total inflexibility with which the US refused any accommodation with Russia over nuclear weapons in Ukraine just before the invasion shows the U.S. will certainly not abide by any mere treaty of neutrality for Ukraine, and will attempt to nullify it in the future So as to reopen the opportunity to insert offensive nuclear weapons into Ukraine.
From putin’s perspective, no outcome short of installing a Russia dominated puppet government in Kyiv would do. Any less and this invasion is a waste of time for Russia.
Based on how long it took for Russia to control Grozny during the 1999/2000 Chechen War, I wonder why anyone would assume it would take just a week for Russia to take the cities of Kiev and Kharkov? If the Russians themselves seriously believed that they could do so, it is indicative of extreme hubris on their part. They/one should assume the worse, and that the Ukrainians are as determined as the Chechens are, and additionally they have significantly better anti-aircraft and anti-armour weaponry than the Chechens did, and in addition, the Russians constrained themselves, understandably, to the extent to which they would undertake air strikes and artillery barrages on Kiev and Grozny, so as to reduce civilian causalities and minimize the damage to infrastructure.
Researching the second Chechen War, it took more than two months for the Russians to surround Grozny, while during that period launching a constant barrage of airstrikes and long range artillery strikes, as well special operations recon missions. During that period, the Russians progressively approaches to locations where they established forward operating bases that they strongly fortified and ensured that they had controlled their supply lines and patrolled them constantly against interdiction. It was when all this was done that the Russians utilized a constant onslaught of combined arms of warplane and gunship airstrikes, infantry and armour in combination with gunship air support, as well as light and heavy artillery from any combination of vehicle mounted rocket launching pads, howitzers, and mortars, while all the while constantly reconnoitering their supply lines to ensure their safety. Even though the battle of Grozny is stated to have officially taken place from December 25, 1999 to February 6, 2000, the actual attacks on Grozny began in October.
Kiev and Kharkiv are much larger than Grozny, the Ukrainians are determined to fight, the Russians obviously very likely won't decide to barrage those cities remotely as destructively as they did Grozny, the Ukrainians have better anti aircraft weaponry and anti-armour weaponry than the Chechens did. The Russians are likely able to take those cities through extremely bloody battles that are highly destructive and at great cost to themselves as well. What's the point of doing that when alternatively, they can be surrounded to strengthen the hand at negotiations? Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine is particularly vulnerable, being very close to the Russian border, meaning that there is no need for them to maintain extensive supply lines and they'll be much more capable of preventing reinforcements to and breakouts from the city. There's need need to storm and take the city when the defenders can be "starved out".
And back to my first point of emphasis. The lessons of the Chechen War should have taught, especially the Russians, that there are no quick victories against a determined and at least have decently prepared enemy in urban warfare.
Researching the second Chechen War, it took more than two months for the Russians to surround Grozny, while during that period launching a constant barrage of airstrikes and long range artillery strikes, as well special operations recon missions. During that period, the Russians progressively approaches to locations where they established forward operating bases that they strongly fortified and ensured that they had controlled their supply lines and patrolled them constantly against interdiction. It was when all this was done that the Russians utilized a constant onslaught of combined arms of warplane and gunship airstrikes, infantry and armour in combination with gunship air support, as well as light and heavy artillery from any combination of vehicle mounted rocket launching pads, howitzers, and mortars, while all the while constantly reconnoitering their supply lines to ensure their safety. Even though the battle of Grozny is stated to have officially taken place from December 25, 1999 to February 6, 2000, the actual attacks on Grozny began in October.
Kiev and Kharkiv are much larger than Grozny, the Ukrainians are determined to fight, the Russians obviously very likely won't decide to barrage those cities remotely as destructively as they did Grozny, the Ukrainians have better anti aircraft weaponry and anti-armour weaponry than the Chechens did. The Russians are likely able to take those cities through extremely bloody battles that are highly destructive and at great cost to themselves as well. What's the point of doing that when alternatively, they can be surrounded to strengthen the hand at negotiations? Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine is particularly vulnerable, being very close to the Russian border, meaning that there is no need for them to maintain extensive supply lines and they'll be much more capable of preventing reinforcements to and breakouts from the city. There's need need to storm and take the city when the defenders can be "starved out".
And back to my first point of emphasis. The lessons of the Chechen War should have taught, especially the Russians, that there are no quick victories against a determined and at least have decently prepared enemy in urban warfare.
It is a big chess board.
Sometimes, we find some loose change on the ground.
Just take their money and run.
From that perspective it means permanent war. No government installed by the Kremlin will be regarded as legitimate. It will be extremely costly to install such a regime in power. Propping up such a government will require a great expenditure of resources. What Russia can much more easily maintain is constant harassment of Ukraine at the border areas as long as a government in Kiev has a hostile posturing towards Russia.
Ukraine isn't joining NATO, ever. The Ukrainians can likely be made to capitulate to neutrality. Any attempt by Ukraine to do so end neutrality in future without any first restart of belligerence on the part of Russia will be regarded as an unnecessary provocation by Western European countries like France and Germany. I think that Putin has made it clear to Ukraine and the West the punitive actions that will be pursued on Ukraine if it tries to join an alliance that is hostile to Russia. They will block any American led efforts to try to make it join NATO.
Putin isn't going to agree on only neutrality. You can expect him to either annex or (most probably) make Eastern Ukraine an "independent" state which will be controlled by Russia.
Russia will also make Western Ukraine a landlocked country cutoff from its ports
There is also a chance of complete annexation of Ukraine, but I think this is very unlikely to actually happen
Russia will also make Western Ukraine a landlocked country cutoff from its ports
There is also a chance of complete annexation of Ukraine, but I think this is very unlikely to actually happen
let's look at the historical case.
Finland - . Now wants to join NATO.
Sweden - declared neutrality in 1949. De facto member of NATO that participates in NATO exercises, contributes to NATO missions and even allows NATO troops to be deployed to Swedish territory.
So it turns out that at most a treaty is 50-60 years and only if you're a superpower. Otherwise a treaty's not worth much.
Nope it's not worth.
I believe these are the viable choices for Putin in decreasing order of ambition
1. Installing a Russian dominated puppet in Kiev to rule whole Ukraine except all of Dontesk, Lugansk, Crimea, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts which are ceded to Russia (Ukraine is cut off from Sea of Azov)
2. Forcing an unequal treaty down Zelensky's throat, partitioning Ukraine and taking everything east of Dnieper and maybe Odessa and Mykolaiv and forcing neutrality on them.
3. Unilaterally partitioning Ukraine in the same way, ending in an armistice like the Korean War. In this case West Ukraine refuses to surrender so Russia has to go for de-facto conquest on the ground. Remnants of west Ukraine will join NATO.
Russia cannot even accept merely taking Dontesk, Lugansk, Crimea, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts without a puppet in Kiev because there isn't a natural barrier to protect Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. It'll just be moving the Dontesk/Lugansk line a few hundred km west. That's not going to cut it because Dontesk and Lugansk have already been shelled continuously for 8 years.
It has to be a maximalist, all in, everything east of Dnieper if a puppet can't be installed.
It is still a huge capitulation on the part of Kiev that they had resisted. Remember, the Russians do not have an infinite amount of time, except if China is willing to prop Russia up in exchange for mineral and other commodity resources, or if Putin had actually already enacted plans to be entirely economically cut off from the West and be self reliance entirely in ensuring that its economy is able to replicate demands for goods demanded from the West, be produced domestically, or also be purchased from non- Western aligned countries.
Sweden was NEVER neutral.
Other countries won't let Finland join NATO.
If Ukraine accepts neutrality, so as to avoid a conflict, a number of countries in NATO won't ever allow it to join. Germany and France are not interested in American geopolitical obsession of weakening ever major regional power in Eurasia that is not aligned with it...
- Status