|
Post by irimi on Mar 26, 2022 7:23:27 GMT -8
If Western numbers are correct about Russian casualties, it is not surprising that they are being pushed back in several areas. If a certain percentage of casualties (dead/wounded/captured) are reached, combat units start to lose cohesion and morale. Considering that perhaps half of the troops in Ukraine were ground troops/armored columns, and the rest things like artillery and logistics, they might have suffered 25%+ in casualties and given the structure of their ground units, that is enough to cause troops to lose their will to fight. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, and its turned into a meat grinder. A broken meat grinder that bites.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 28, 2022 12:55:52 GMT -8
I mean Ukraine does not have de facto control of Donbas or Crimea or Luhansk for that matter. I know that Russia really wants Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (or at least the important parts of both), and I doubt that Russia pulls out without territorial concessions in all five oblasts. (Or at least the promise of a referendum on each of the five.) Mariupol falling may provide Russia the ability to shore up its control over the five, which may be what Russia was waiting for to participate in meaningful ceasefire talks. The Russians may also want Mykolaiv and Odessa but have had zero success in either, so they really can't impose terms in either. Belarus may also want concessions for their involvement, as well. I would add that one of Russia's primary objectives in the invasion from Crimea was blowing up the Ukrainian dam in Kherson Oblast, which was diverting 85% of the water away from Crimea. And Russia has long claimed all of the Sea of Azov. Russia may want to ensure water rights in Crimea and total control of the Sea of Azov, as well as confirmation of their de facto control of Southeast Ukraine or the right for the people of the five Southeastern oblasts to set up "independent" governments. The creation of two "independent" parts of Georgia was the negotiated solution to Invasion of Georgia. NATO needs to unify and set up a air patrol over 10 of the 11 westernmost oblasts. (All but Zhytomyr, which has been invaded.) NATO needs to start setting up logistics to meaningful supply Ukraine and provide the government of Ukraine the opportunity to fall back to amore secure part of the country that NATO can say is within NATO's sphere, in case things start to turn South in Kiev. Kiev is undefendable by NATO without a huge influx of NATO troops in and around Ukraine. Finally, Kosovo keeps coming up over and over. NATO set such a dangerous precedent in the Invasion, and Putin has gone back to it time and again. It has served as Russia's rationale in the 2008 Invasion of Georgia and 2014 and 2022 Invasions of Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 28, 2022 12:59:09 GMT -8
I mean Ukraine does not have de facto control of Donbas or Crimea or Luhansk for that matter. I know that Russia really wants Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (or at least the important parts of both), and I doubt that Russia pulls out without territorial concessions in all five oblasts. (Or at least the promise of a referendum on each of the five.) Mariupol falling may provide Russia the ability to shore up its control over the five, which may be what Russia was waiting for to participate in meaningful ceasefire talks. The Russians may also want Mykolaiv and Odessa but have had zero success in either, so they really can't impose terms in either. Belarus may also want concessions for their involvement, as well. NATO needs to unify and set up a air patrol over 10 of the 11 westernmost oblasts. (All but Zhytomyr, which has been invaded.) NATO needs to start setting up logistics to meaningful supply Ukraine and provide the government of Ukraine the opportunity to fall back to amore secure part of the country that NATO can say is within NATO's sphere, in case things start to turn South in Kiev. Ukraine is not a NATO member state. So what part of Ukraine is formally "within NATO's sphere" to defend directly with NATO military forces?
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 28, 2022 13:39:53 GMT -8
I mean Ukraine does not have de facto control of Donbas or Crimea or Luhansk for that matter. I know that Russia really wants Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (or at least the important parts of both), and I doubt that Russia pulls out without territorial concessions in all five oblasts. (Or at least the promise of a referendum on each of the five.) Mariupol falling may provide Russia the ability to shore up its control over the five, which may be what Russia was waiting for to participate in meaningful ceasefire talks. The Russians may also want Mykolaiv and Odessa but have had zero success in either, so they really can't impose terms in either. Belarus may also want concessions for their involvement, as well. NATO needs to unify and set up a air patrol over 10 of the 11 westernmost oblasts. (All but Zhytomyr, which has been invaded.) NATO needs to start setting up logistics to meaningful supply Ukraine and provide the government of Ukraine the opportunity to fall back to amore secure part of the country that NATO can say is within NATO's sphere, in case things start to turn South in Kiev. Ukraine is not a NATO member state. So what part of Ukraine is formally "within NATO's sphere" to defend directly with NATO military forces? Ukraine has participated in joint NATO exercises. Whether or not Ukraine is a NATO member state is an issue that really has never been litigated, as the term is very loosely defined within NATO's charter. NATO would have to declare that portions of Ukraine are within NATO's sphere. That is what I am advocating. Kiev is far closer to Belarus than any NATO country, so I do not think that NATO could assert that Kiev is within NATO's sphere with a straight face. But Lviv and its environs have to be in NATO's sphere. I was chatting with my brother the other day. One of the things that I would like to see happen is the NATO nations surrounding Ukraine "claiming" their territory within Ukraine. Poland has territorial claims in Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne (most of it), Ternopil and Volyn Oblasts. Those are Polish oblasts that were forcibly removed from Poland (and renamed) after the 1939 Russian Invasion of Poland. Khmelnytskyi and Vinnytsia were each forcibly removed from Poland as part of the 1793 Partition of Poland. Chernivtsi and Odessa (Southern approximately half) Oblasts were both forcibly removed from Romania by the Soviets in 1940. Both Hungary and Slovakia have territorial claims within Zakarpattia (Transcarpathia), which was forcibly removed from Hungary by the Soviets after World War II. Those 10 oblasts are clearly within the NATO sphere of influence, and we should not allow them to fall into Russia's hands, nor a pro-Russia Ukrainian puppet state. The NATO allies should move to assert a protectorate over those 10 oblasts, in order to guarantee that the people living there will still be able to participate in a meaningful democracy, when this is all over.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 28, 2022 14:18:24 GMT -8
Ukraine is not a NATO member state. So what part of Ukraine is formally "within NATO's sphere" to defend directly with NATO military forces? Ukraine has participated in joint NATO exercises. Whether or not Ukraine is a NATO member state is an issue that really has never been litigated, as the term is very loosely defined within NATO's charter. NATO would have to declare that portions of Ukraine are within NATO's sphere. That is what I am advocating. Kiev is far closer to Belarus than any NATO country, so I do not think that NATO could assert that Kiev is within NATO's sphere with a straight face. But Lviv and its environs have to be in NATO's sphere. I was chatting with my brother the other day. One of the things that I would like to see happen is the NATO nations surrounding Ukraine "claiming" their territory within Ukraine. Poland has territorial claims in Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne (most of it), Ternopil and Volyn Oblasts. Those are Polish oblasts that were forcibly removed from Poland (and renamed) after the 1939 Russian Invasion of Poland. Khmelnytskyi and Vinnytsia were each forcibly removed from Poland as part of the 1793 Partition of Poland. Chernivtsi and Odessa (Southern approximately half) Oblasts were both forcibly removed from Romania by the Soviets in 1940. Both Hungary and Slovakia have territorial claims within Zakarpattia (Transcarpathia), which was forcibly removed from Hungary by the Soviets after World War II. Those 10 oblasts are clearly within the NATO sphere of influence, and we should not allow them to fall into Russia's hands, nor a pro-Russia Ukrainian puppet state. The NATO allies should move to assert a protectorate over those 10 oblasts, in order to guarantee that the people living there will still be able to participate in a meaningful democracy, when this is all over. What do you mean "not litigated"? Either you are a member or you're not. Ukraine is not and there's nothing ambiguous about it. List of NATO Member Countries.Now is it in NATO's self-interest to provide assistance to a neighboring democratic non-member state, without sending combat ground, air or naval forces? That's for NATO members to decide on a case-by-case basis. But NATO countries are not obligated by the NA TO treaty (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) to defend non-member states. And NATO is a defensive, not offensive alliance. Your proposition that Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary opportunistically annex Ukranian territory while Ukraine is heroically fighting for its existence against an invader is obscene.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 28, 2022 21:18:02 GMT -8
Ukraine has participated in joint NATO exercises. Whether or not Ukraine is a NATO member state is an issue that really has never been litigated, as the term is very loosely defined within NATO's charter. NATO would have to declare that portions of Ukraine are within NATO's sphere. That is what I am advocating. Kiev is far closer to Belarus than any NATO country, so I do not think that NATO could assert that Kiev is within NATO's sphere with a straight face. But Lviv and its environs have to be in NATO's sphere. I was chatting with my brother the other day. One of the things that I would like to see happen is the NATO nations surrounding Ukraine "claiming" their territory within Ukraine. Poland has territorial claims in Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne (most of it), Ternopil and Volyn Oblasts. Those are Polish oblasts that were forcibly removed from Poland (and renamed) after the 1939 Russian Invasion of Poland. Khmelnytskyi and Vinnytsia were each forcibly removed from Poland as part of the 1793 Partition of Poland. Chernivtsi and Odessa (Southern approximately half) Oblasts were both forcibly removed from Romania by the Soviets in 1940. Both Hungary and Slovakia have territorial claims within Zakarpattia (Transcarpathia), which was forcibly removed from Hungary by the Soviets after World War II. Those 10 oblasts are clearly within the NATO sphere of influence, and we should not allow them to fall into Russia's hands, nor a pro-Russia Ukrainian puppet state. The NATO allies should move to assert a protectorate over those 10 oblasts, in order to guarantee that the people living there will still be able to participate in a meaningful democracy, when this is all over. What do you mean "not litigated"? Either you are a member or you're not. Ukraine is not and there's nothing ambiguous about it. List of NATO Member Countries.Now is it in NATO's self-interest to provide assistance to a neighboring democratic non-member state, without sending combat ground, air or naval forces? That's for NATO members to decide on a case-by-case basis. But NATO countries are not obligated by the NA TO treaty (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) to defend non-member states. And NATO is a defensive, not offensive alliance. Your proposition that Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary opportunistically annex Ukranian territory while Ukraine is heroically fighting for its existence against an invader is obscene. The term "NATO Ally" is nowhere defined within the document. Neither is the term "Party." There is a thought that you do not have to be a "Member" to be an "Ally." NATO is primarily to ensure that the United States would assist free Europeans to maintain their independence and contain Russia. The idea that self-interest of NATO is paramount is an unusual one. NATO countries are obligated to defend "NATO Allies." The extent of such obligation is vague and ambiguous. I am not suggesting anything opportunistic or obscene! I don't think that you get what I am saying, which is probably my fault. Although, c'mon man, I used quotes for reason! I am trying to ensure that as much of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as possible are saved from Russia. Whether that means that portions of Ukraine are free under a Hungarian, Polish, Romanian or Slovakian flag is secondary to the point. The purpose of NATO is to protect the free people of Europe from Russia. If that occurs, using diplomatic territorial acquisition, rather than fighting, so much the better. Also, I find your assertion that areas that are currently in Ukraine are not the rightful parts of Poland, in particular, to be obscene! Łuck (Lutsk in Ukrainian, the capital of Volyn Oblast) had been a part of Poland since 1432. Lwów (Lviv in Ukrainian) had been a part of Poland since 1349. Równe (Rivne in Ukrainian) had been a part of Lithuania since 1349 and was peaceably transferred to Poland as part of the Union of Lublin (which peaceably united Lithuania and Poland under a single Polish crown) in 1569. Stanisławów (Ivano-Frankivsk in Ukrainian) was founded by Poles in 1662. Tarnopol (Ternopil in Ukrainian) was founded by the Polish on April 15, 1540. Each of the five was Polish and had been Polish for 370+ years until the Soviets, allied to the Nazis forcibly took the five and gave them to Ukraine to artificially expand the borders of the Soviet Union. My dad's family is almost 100% Polish. My grandfather and my grandmother's first language was Polish. They escaped German-owned Silesia after Bismark started up the Kulturkampf and the Germans started talking about solutions to the Polish Frage ("Polish Question"). The idea that Polish cities are no longer Polish, because of Soviet machinations within my grandparents' lifetime is vexing. It is even more vexing considering that two of my grandfather's younger brothers died in World War II.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 29, 2022 7:41:21 GMT -8
What do you mean "not litigated"? Either you are a member or you're not. Ukraine is not and there's nothing ambiguous about it. List of NATO Member Countries.Now is it in NATO's self-interest to provide assistance to a neighboring democratic non-member state, without sending combat ground, air or naval forces? That's for NATO members to decide on a case-by-case basis. But NATO countries are not obligated by the NA TO treaty (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) to defend non-member states. And NATO is a defensive, not offensive alliance. Your proposition that Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary opportunistically annex Ukranian territory while Ukraine is heroically fighting for its existence against an invader is obscene. The term "NATO Ally" is nowhere defined within the document. Neither is the term "Party." There is a thought that you do not have to be a "Member" to be an "Ally." NATO is primarily to ensure that the United States would assist free Europeans to maintain their independence and contain Russia. The idea that self-interest of NATO is paramount is an unusual one. NATO countries are obligated to defend "NATO Allies." The extent of such obligation is vague and ambiguous. I am not suggesting anything opportunistic or obscene! I don't think that you get what I am saying, which is probably my fault. Although, c'mon man, I used quotes for reason! I am trying to ensure that as much of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as possible are saved from Russia. Whether that means that portions of Ukraine are free under a Hungarian, Polish, Romanian or Slovakian flag is secondary to the point. The purpose of NATO is to protect the free people of Europe from Russia. If that occurs, using diplomatic territorial acquisition, rather than fighting, so much the better. Also, I find your assertion that areas that are currently in Ukraine are not the rightful parts of Poland, in particular, to be obscene! Łuck (Lutsk in Ukrainian, the capital of Volyn Oblast) had been a part of Poland since 1432. Lwów (Lviv in Ukrainian) had been a part of Poland since 1349. Równe (Rivne in Ukrainian) had been a part of Lithuania since 1349 and was peaceably transferred to Poland as part of the Union of Lublin (which peaceably united Lithuania and Poland under a single Polish crown) in 1569. Stanisławów (Ivano-Frankivsk in Ukrainian) was founded by Poles in 1662. Tarnopol (Ternopil in Ukrainian) was founded by the Polish on April 15, 1540. Each of the five was Polish and had been Polish for 370+ years until the Soviets, allied to the Nazis forcibly took the five and gave them to Ukraine to artificially expand the borders of the Soviet Union. My dad's family is almost 100% Polish. My grandfather and my grandmother's first language was Polish. They escaped German-owned Silesia after Bismark started up the Kulturkampf and the Germans started talking about solutions to the Polish Frage ("Polish Question"). The idea that Polish cities are no longer Polish, because of Soviet machinations within my grandparents' lifetime is vexing. It is even more vexing considering that two of my grandfather's younger brothers died in World War II. Well you've had your say and I've had mine. I'm content to leave it there.
|
|