Europe at War

[Gurn Blanston]

I would be cautious with claims that Russia is losing the war. It's certainly true that both Russian and Ukrainian telegram channels (and other social media) are convinced Russia is losing...

An interesting and informative summary,  thanks for posting it.

🤠😎

[drogulus]

     Russia is not able to go on a war footing. They will fight with what they have plus lots of extra bodies. Rusty museum pieces are loaded on railroad cars, something else Russia doesn't have. They don't have enough trucks. They can't supply the troops they have, let alone hundreds of thousands more. There will be no new tanks. For a time they will be able to cannibalize some of the old ones.

     The Ukrainian army is growing and getting stronger. They can do what they couldn't early in the war, launch multiple offensives at once. Now it's the Russians that are outnumbered and outgunned. They are wasting resources launching attacks in Donetsk that do produce small gains. Donetsk will have to wait. The push is to the north and south.

     The weather will dictate how far the Ukes can advance for the rest of the year. Time is on their side. The Ukes have a 10 week training cycle for their new soldiers. You can see the results.

     I know it's become a cliche but the Ukes have more Russian tanks than the Russians, and with competent crews those old hulks are not half bad!

[Florestan]

I think the question of winning and losing is actually quite simple on either side.

Russia can safely be considered to have lost the war if, following a peace treaty or a permanent armistice, they will have to retreat, and remain, within the borders of Russia proper, thus relinquishing their de facto control over all Ukrainian territory they grabbed since February 24, 2022.

Ukraine can safely be considered to have lost the war if, following a peace treaty or a permanent armistice, they will not regain de facto control of all territory that Russia grabbed from them since February 24, 2022.

Zelensky staying in power and Crimea remaining under de facto Russian control might be considered a trade off.

My two cents, anyway.

[Que]

I think the question of winning and losing is actually quite simple on either side.

Russia can safely be considered to have lost the war if, following a peace treaty or a permanent armistice, they will have to retreat, and remain, within the borders of Russia proper, thus relinquishing their de facto control over all Ukrainian territory they grabbed since February 24, 2022.

Ukraine can safely be considered to have lost the war if, following a peace treaty or a permanent armistice, they will not regain de facto control of all territory that Russia grabbed from them since February 24, 2022.

Zelensky staying in power and Crimea remaining under de facto Russian control might be considered a trade off.

My two cents, anyway.

The problem for Putin is that any peace treaty is an humiliation. We know from history how that works out.

Leaving Crimea under de facto Russian control was the status quo before the recent invasion.

Even though Crimea, unlike the other territories has a pro-Russian majority, I think the invasion has changed things.
A continued Russian presence in Crimea woukd result in a continued Russian control of the Black Sea and a future safety threat for Ukraine and other countries. Strategically, letting Russia keep the Crimea is unwise.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Telegram is an instant messaging app. Since the start of the war I've followed a number of channels there in which people (mostly Ukrainian civilians) have been sharing their experiences, ways to keep one another safe, videos and reports from the front lines, and other relevant information. These are not things you see in news stories and sometimes they do not prove to be true, but they do represent, essentially, what people are talking about and the tone of public opinion, which in its own way plays a major role in shaping the outcomes of war and diplomacy.

(Some use of Google Translate is necessary since I can't speak Ukrainian or Russian lol)

Telegram is an app similar to Whatsapp and Instagram. It's not as heavy on moderation and content control, so it has a history of rather nasty groups using it. But there are plenty of legitimate users, especially in Eastern Europe/ex-USSR countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)

Thanks for the information about T.

PD

[Todd]

Leaving Crimea under de facto Russian control was the status quo before the recent invasion.

Russia has been at war with Ukraine since 2014.  It is a fiction to pretend that this year's hostilities mark the beginning of the war or a separate war.  It is an enlarged war.  The official stance of the US is that Russia has been engaged in war in Ukraine since 2014.  From the White House on September 1, 2021: "Together, we [the United States and Ukraine] call on Russia to recommit to the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine and engage genuinely in conflict resolution efforts to end the war."

Russia's strategic objective is pretty clear: prevent the West from controlling Ukraine.  If Ukraine remains "neutral" - not part of NATO and not engaged in "Deepening Strategic Defense Cooperation" with the US, to use language from the White House from September 1, 2021 - then that is victory.  It really is quite remarkable that people repeatedly dismiss the language used by US officials in official policy documents and in public settings.  Expanding NATO to include Ukraine has been an explicit US objective since 2008.  That is a direct threat to Russia. 

[Todd]

NATO to hold nuclear exercise despite Russian warnings

[drogulus]

     Ukraine seems to be happy with the truck theory for the bridge explosion. Was it a suicidal Russian truck driver, or did someone plant an enormous explosive charge in the truck that escaped the notice of the inspectors on the bridge? The latter may be more plausible than the former. There's another problem with the truck theory, and that is the truck doesn't seem to be what exploded.

     On the happiness front Ukraine would rather the Russians continue to freak out over saboteurs. Russians, they figure, will not trust the results of any investigation. It's "usual suspects" all the way down. If anyone does figure out what really happened they will not be encouraged to speak out unless by remarkable coincidence the result aligns with the official story.

     I don't know how the Ukes did it, or even if they did. As crazy as it sounds, it could just be a horrible accident, something the Russian are good at. A nation of alcoholics might have trouble with bridge inspectors, too. It's best to keep an open mind.

[Todd]

US could assassinate Putin if Russia uses nuclear weapon in Ukraine, claims John Bolton

[Madiel]

The places that the Russians struck with missiles include Zaporizhzhia, which according to them is now part of Russia. Talk about mixed messages.

[Florestan]

I do think that not modifying one's behaviour in the face of what's happening in Ukraine seems a bit daft.
Hold your scheduled exercises when everything has calmed down: fine.
Hold them now, just because you scheduled them in a different time and situation, and it just seems a little too much poking the bear with a pointy stick and hoping it stays asleep.

The exercise "involves fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads but does not involve any live bombs." On the other hand, Russia has been issuing nuclear threats for months, involving real missiles.

[Que]

The exercise "involves fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads but does not involve any live bombs." On the other hand, Russia has been issuing nuclear threats for months, involving real missiles.

It's just an exercise. Right from the start, or even before that,  Putin has been playing the "I am being provoked and I am just defending legitimate Russian interests" card.

And many have been and keep buying into that, even though Putin keeps crossing red lines.

[Florestan]

But relying on Putin to believe us when we say there are no live bombs, right now, in present circumstances...?

Isn't he the guy who's been issuing nuclear threat after nuclear threat this year and ordered his nukes to be put on stand by? For him to be upset by a NATO exercise is a little ironic, don't you think?

[Florestan]

Well, I don't care whether he's upset or not. I care that we conduct ourselves in such a way that we do not help mistakes happen. That's all.

Honestly, I don't disagree. I just wanted to point out Russia's / Putin's staggering hypocrisy.

[Que]

Steady Ukrainian progress on the western bank of the Dnipro:



The strategic target is not the city of Kherson, but Nova Khakovka. A further encirclement should trigger a Russian retreat from the city.

https://wavellroom.com/2022/10/12/a-river-too-far-control-of-bridges-in-kherson-oblast/

[Todd]

It is instructive to watch people rationalize every form of escalatory behavior.

[Todd]

From WaPo: Biden scrambles to avert cracks in pro-Ukraine coalition

[BasilValentine]

Russia's strategic objective is pretty clear: prevent the West from controlling Ukraine.  If Ukraine remains "neutral" - not part of NATO and not engaged in "Deepening Strategic Defense Cooperation" with the US, to use language from the White House from September 1, 2021 - then that is victory.  It really is quite remarkable that people repeatedly dismiss the language used by US officials in official policy documents and in public settings.  Expanding NATO to include Ukraine has been an explicit US objective since 2008.  That is a direct threat to Russia.

Cynical synecdoche. It's a threat to Putin (and other kleptocrats), not to Russia.

[Karl Henning]

Isn't he the guy who's been issuing nuclear threat after nuclear threat this year and ordered his nukes to be put on stand by? For him to be upset by a NATO exercise is a little ironic, don't you think?

Performative.

[Todd]

Cynical synecdoche. It's a threat to Putin (and other kleptocrats), not to Russia.

It is a direct threat to Russia.