Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Russian invasion of Ukraine

We have some special rules for this thread, in addition to the normal EuroGA Guidelines. The basic one is that EuroGA will not be a platform for pro Russian material. For that, there are many sites on the internet. No anti Western posts. Most of us live in the "West" and enjoy the democratic and material benefits. Non-complying posts will be deleted and, if the poster is a new arrival, he will be banned.

I don’t like the underestimation and (I hope I am correctly using the word) disparagement of the enemy what many are doing.
This attitude can lead to defeat or big losses.
Of course we can laugh at them, because they have never seen a water closet, but I don’t think this will help.
I am not so optimistic about the current situation. I think we can easily end up 2-3 years of war, in Ukraine and countries like Moldova with millions dead/injured, infrastructure totally ruined, economy collapsed, europeans in recession, unemployment, unrest. Currently all signs are directed towards further escalation.

LHFM, LHTL, Hungary

I don’t think anyone is under-estimating Russia. Instead, the discussion is quite factual. It is hard to see where Russia might get the soldiers etc which they would need.

I think this is a good article local copy

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

robirdus wrote:

I don’t like the underestimation and (I hope I am correctly using the word) disparagement of the enemy what many are doing.

I don’t disagree, and I can imagine scenarios that might change the balance of power in Russia’s favour. It won’t be over until it’s over, and even then I think we might expect a few ‘thank you’ gifts like more Polonium all over London. Based on past form, we have been expecting stunts like that anyway, so what’s to lose?

countries like Moldova with millions dead/injured, infrastructure totally ruined, economy collapsed, europeans in recession, unemployment, unrest. Currently all signs are directed towards further escalation.

If the early attempts to decapitate the Ukrainian government had been successful and the country had capitulated in 3 days, Russia would probably be in Moldova already don’t you think? Perhaps without so much physical destruction in the short term.

Can you be more concrete in your suggestions as to how the West or the Ukraine might have avoided or reduced the scope of the current war?

Last Edited by kwlf at 10 May 15:42

This is where Russia is currently at. On the northern front line they are retreating, and the southern front line is static. They are making some very slow westward progress in the middle

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

kwlf wrote:

Can you be more concrete in your suggestions as to how the West or the Ukraine might have avoided or reduced the scope of the current war?

I have suggested some points already. However I am not an expert, plus whatever I say (or you) will not influence how the politicians are driving this conflict.
We will see where it goes. You think that thanks to the financial support and weapons UA receives, war will end soon and RU will get out of UA and never comes back. Putin dies, or will be removed, UA will be a prosperous democracy and a developed country in the European Union.
In my opinion this is wishful thinking and knowing both countries, it will end somehow but not this way. But I wish you were right.

LHFM, LHTL, Hungary

Not much to add to @Peter’s excellent post #295. I only wonder if the Russia as we know it will survive this war. IOW – will the center hold? I wouldn’t be surprised if the governors of some mineral-rich provinces in Siberia were having thought experiments…

To add: I hope Russia in its present form does NOT survive this war.

Last Edited by 172driver at 10 May 18:13

All the suggestions I have heard about how this war might have been avoided have one thing in common: in the end they boil down to appeasement.

Just this weekend a member of my family suggested perhaps we should not have ‘thrust NATO on Ukraine’ and left it there as a ‘neutral buffer state’.

Of course I responded that NATO is a voluntary alliance – membership is on application and no country is recruited or coerced into it, in fact those nations that are worried about Russia (e.g. Finland, Sweden) seem keen to join. Agreeing not to consider an application from a particular country, because a dictator in charge of another country demands it, is simply appeasement. Then I offered that what Putin would consider a ‘neutral buffer state’ is not neutral at all and actually refers to a state under his influence and with a puppet government under his control. Accepting that state of affairs under threat of violence is of course, again, appeasement.

Russia is a repressive country under a dictator. That is unfortunate, but perhaps not our problem to solve. When it does become our problem is when that dictator looks to expand his influence and bring other countries under his control. We need to resist that, directly or indirectly, otherwise freedom becomes nothing more than something we enjoy until some bad guy decides to take it away. If it’s wrong for Kyiv to keep fighting him for their freedom – and the appeasers says we have to compromise – then will we fight for Warsaw, Berlin, Paris…… London….. or compromise on those too?

Last Edited by Graham at 10 May 17:21
EGLM & EGTN

robirdus wrote:

But whether you like it or not, you have to offer something to the other party to reach an agreement.

Soviet Union was offered nothing to withdraw from Afghanistan – they were simply exhausted and their corrupted army wasn’t able stay there. I hope for the same scenario in Ukraine.

robirdus wrote:

Why do we think that after that Blitzkrieg failed and nothing has been achieved by Russians they will stop and withdraw their forces? Of course they continue.

They will occupy what they can and they will start serious negotiations once they are not able to advance or hold positions. After that they will stay at the occupied territory until Putin dies (hopefully soon, and hopefully by hand of his countrymen).

robirdus wrote:

But now we set a goal to weaken Russia so they will never try such things again. But is it a realistic goal? I have serious doubts.

This adventure will weaken Russia that it will not repeat something similar in our lifetime which is ok and that’s what Western politicians aim for.

Last Edited by Emir at 10 May 17:39
LDZA LDVA, Croatia

robirdus wrote:

I have suggested some points already.

Not with any substance.

What I observe, though, that there were moments of this war where a negotiated agreement could have been possible, but no-one tried. For example when the Russian Blitzkrieg failed. Maybe that was the moment when a compromise would have been possible. But whether you like it or not, you have to offer something to the other party to reach an agreement.

I can think of lots of reasonable compromises that could have been made that would have let Putin withdraw and save face and would have met his stated objectives (denazification, protection of Russian rights) albeit not his real ones. However, Russia’s openly made demands were to give up the Donbas and Crimea and to demilitarise, and there was no way they would have accepted anything reasonable. Negotiation has to be a two way process and as I see it, it hasn’t been the Ukrainians who were inflexible. Russia hasn’t even been able to provide safe evacuation routes for civilians in good faith.

So saying ‘They should have negotiated’ isn’t enough. You have to give specific examples of compromises that would have been sufficient for Russia and acceptable to the Ukraine. All the suggestions I heard at the time would have crippled the Ukraine as a country, and paved the way to an easy third invasion for Russia in the inevitable next round.

Our (West) current position is that Ukraine and Ukranian people must fight until total victory over the Russians or total destruction of their country.

Is it? I’ve never heard anybody seriously suggesting that NATO or the Ukraine or anybody else should invade Russia or destroy it. If they carry on, they might effectively lose all of their military aside from nuclear missiles but that’s not the same as having your country invaded or destroyed.

At most, people may wish for the expulsion of Russian forces from all Ukraine’s territories.

It’s not necessarily ‘wrong’ to aim for such an outcome without negotiation. It might be unreasonable to expect Russia to withdraw without getting something, but if you were mugged and by chance a passing police officer arrested the mugger before he has taken your wallet, you would not offer the mugger £5 anyway because he deserved it for hitting you. Ultimately it’s up to the Ukraine how long they want to fight for, and if the resolution of the conflict ultimately involves some form of compromise then that’s up to them.

You also suggested that we should have tried for peace prior to the outbreak of war. I recall numerous meetings and negotiations which came to nothing. It’s not enough to suggest that people should have negotiated for peace, because they did. You have to make some concrete suggestions as to what they should have done differently.

Last Edited by kwlf at 10 May 18:09

Listen, guys, if you got a chance to go around like this, would you do a deal with somebody?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top