2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[Amled]

Trump announces first meeting with Putin in Saudi Arabia

https://www.politico.eu/article/dona...-saudi-arabia/

It’s quite easy to get a sense of desja vu at the news of Trump and Putin sticking their heads together, to decide the fate of Ukraine!
Much like in Munich 1938, When Hitler’s Germany, England and France got together, and sold Czechoslovakia down the river to Hitler!
It’ll be interesting to see how they’ll shove any agreement they come to, down the craw of Ukraine and the rest of Europe?

[rj1]

It's not quite going to be that easy. If only because he needs EU buy in whether he likes it or not. The EU has sanctions imposed on Russia that cant be lifted without their agreement and can still supply military equipment to Ukraine (even if not merely enough) to keep the war simmering on for a while at least. They also control the bulk of Russia's frozen assets. Finally there's no deal if Ukraine say's 'no'. So at some point Trump has to talk to Zelenskyy. When he does? Trump being Trump will of course make threats but unless he's not listening to his advisers at all? He also has to offer Ukraine something because the first think Zelensyy going to say is 'what's in it for us?'

My best guess as to the outcome? Ukraine is going to lose most (not all) of the territory that Russia has already seized but then how long is it since there's been any realistic hope that it could recover them by military force anyway? Part of me thinks now might also be a good time for Ukraine to to invade Trans Dnieper just so they have an extra bargaining chip to bring to the table but I doubt that will happen. Ukraine is also not getting into NATO at least not while Putin is around. But hat still leaves membership of the EU on the table and again Trump has no direct say over that.

The hard part will be the details around clearing and and securing the confrontation line if or when both sides start pulling back. In any sane world if Trump was serious about enforcing his 'deal' he'd commit US troops and allied troops to the buffer zone. If he doesn't and just takes Putin on his word- then he's obviously not serious about his deal. But then as I've said noted before if or when a deal is signed Trump is going 'own' that deal and will publicly wring every bit of kudos out of it that he can because he has an ego the size of Mount Rushmore. If Putin then promptly turns around and invades again? Trump's is going to be publicly humiliated.

Honestly though? The US and by extension global politics are going to be a circus for the next four years so frankly at this point anything is possible.

It does surprise me Transnistria has just been sitting there this whole time the past 3 years.

As far as Trump publicly humiliated if Putin invades again, I expect his administration to make the case that's Europe's responsibility. I feel like I read former NATO officers on this board once state they determined the Baltic states were indefensible without nukes. Now throw in a disinterested America...

[Monash]

It does surprise me Transnistria has just been sitting there this whole time the past 3 years.

As far as Trump publicly humiliated if Putin invades again, I expect his administration to make the case that's Europe's responsibility. I feel like I read former NATO officers on this board once state they determined the Baltic states were indefensible without nukes. Now throw in a disinterested America...

Yes I'd expect he'd try. The problem for Trump? From the start he has and will continue to put his face and name all over any treaty and the US governments signature will be on it. In fact based on initial comments by Vance was it? supposedly while the European powers will be 'consulted' they will not involved in negotiations'. Presumably this implies they won't be signatories. If that is literally true (and I don't believe for a moment it will be because Trump needs their co-operation with lifting sanctions etc to get a deal done) he'd have no way of avoiding blame. Not that will stop him trying of course.

In reality a treaty with European commitments is impossible so they will be involved and I see Vance's statements were already being wound back 24 hours after he made them. As for defending the Baltic states. No-where is it written that 'defending' them means they wouldn't be partially or completely overrun by Russia during any war with NATO. It does mean fighting until such time as Russia is forced to withdraw or otherwise concedes to do so as part of a peace treaty. I can't think of any NATO battle plan I ever heard of that didn't anticipate Russia advancing into and occupying NATO members territory at the the start of any conflict. It's where they were by the end of it that mattered.

As for disinterested? Maybe, for four years (or longer if Trump is interested in staging a coup). After that? Being disinterested in Europe? Well technically Europe can be 'disinterested right back at you. Which means if they really want to? In extreme circumstances the US could in theory lose access to every military port, air base and facility on the continent, hell even military overflight rights could go if the EU decided they really wanted to push it, at least without receiving special permission first in advance anyway. Good luck maintaining fast and efficient logistical connections with the middle east if that ever happens. Honestly though it's never going to get anywhere near that bad.

Trump can whine about NATO all he want's. At the end of the day the alliance worked because it was useful to both sides. This is not an argument BTW against the fact that European members have been slacking off on their spending commitments for too many years and needed to do more. For the most part now? They are!

Oh and on Trans Dnieper? The only reason I've ever been able to come up with for not doing something is that technically Russia always claimed it was an independent republic that just happened to be a Russian ally . And certain EU members would have gotten their nickers in a knot if Ukraine did move in. That and it would give the Kremlin reason to scream 'invasion' at the UN etc! I still would have done it though, either earlier in the second half of 2024 when Russia started advancing again or more recently in tandem with the move into Kursk to double the sting in Moscow.

[Officer of Engineers]

You do know Australia is expected to offer a Battle Group. Canada is expected to move the Brigade Group from Latvia to this crap

[Monash]

You do know Australia is expected to offer a Battle Group. Canada is expected to move the Brigade Group from Latvia to this crap

Firstly I doubt I doubt we could put a battle group together of an (indefinite) posting to Europe, not without compromising what are supposed to be our security commitments in the Indo Pacific region. (BTW what are Korea's and Japans contributions expected to be?) Oh, as a face saving measure I'm sure we could sent a few troops and some light light vehicles and call it a 'battle group' but in reality? It wouldn't be able to battle a head cold let alone a hypothetical Russian incursion, even a minor one.

Secondly whose going to pay for it? Oh it may make sense if the US is going to make a major contribution to funding the peace keeping force but if not? And then we go back to Europe not being at the table for the treaty but expected to pay for the peace? Why the hell would they contribute anything?

Seems like a lot of 'expectation' for zero consultation. Anyone want to guess how long it is before Trump's 'grand vision' of getting this deal done bilaterally with Putin crashes into the reality of what happens when you don't give anyone else a seat at the table and then end up dining alone!

[Officer of Engineers]

Battle Groups/Task Forces. Take an inf bn and an armoured bn. Switch 1 coy each.Add in a combat support platoon. You've got two Battle Groups/Task Forces.

NATO will provide and pay for LOG. AUS is responsible for the Battle Group nominal pay (same old, same old).

In all practicality, two coys and a cbt spt pltn would constitute a Battle Group.

We need a visible but a viable Flag. That's what Australia is expected (You're ABCA whether you like it or not).

As such, Japan and South Korea are not going to provide Flags.

[Monash]

Battle Groups/Task Forces. Take an inf bn and an armoured bn. Switch 1 coy each.Add in a combat support platoon. You've got two Battle Groups/Task Forces.

NATO will provide and pay for LOG. AUS is responsible for the Battle Group nominal pay (same old, same old).

In all practicality, two coys and a cbt spt pltn would constitute a Battle Group.

We need a visible but a viable Flag. That's what Australia is expected (You're ABCA whether you like it or not).

As such, Japan and South Korea are not going to provide Flags.

On the other hand we're also the only member of 'ABCA' who isn't also a member of NATO. Maybe we should make that a condition of co-operating? FYI you forgot the N int he group. New Zealand should also be asked to assist. They can provide rugby players for the inter service matches and catering support..

[Officer of Engineers]

On the other hand we're also the only member of 'ABCA' who isn't also a member of NATO. Maybe we should make that a condition pf co-operating?

If and only if when you deployed an ice hockey team.

FYI you forgot the N int he group. New Zealand should also be asked to assist. They can provide rugby players for the inter service matches and catering support..

NZ is usually tucked under AUS. She's your problem.

Seriously, NZ is at best expected a coy deployment and at best viable in an Australian Battle Group. The rotation schedule doesn't fit with anyone else.

[Monash]

If and only if when you deployed an ice hockey team.

NZ is usually tucked under AUS. She's your problem.

Seriously, NZ is at best expected a coy deployment and at best viable in an Australian Battle Group. The rotation schedule doesn't fit with anyone else.

Where is the Australian Army going to find a ice hokey team? Might as well ask you guys to drum up beach volleyball squad.

[Officer of Engineers]

Not pretty

[Monash]

I'm sorry. I honestly searched for Australian Army beach volley ball teams and all I could come up with were photo's of woman's teams, not men's teams. I concede.

[rj1]

Yes I'd expect he'd try. The problem for Trump? From the start he has and will continue to put his face and name all over any treaty and the US governments signature will be on it. In fact based on initial comments by Vance was it? supposedly while the European powers will be 'consulted' they will not involved in negotiations'. Presumably this implies they won't be signatories. If that is literally true (and I don't believe for a moment it will be because Trump needs their co-operation with lifting sanctions etc to get a deal done) he'd have no way of avoiding blame. Not that will stop him trying of course.

In reality a treaty with European commitments is impossible so they will be involved and I see Vance's statements were already being wound back 24 hours after he made them. As for defending the Baltic states. No-where is it written that 'defending' them means they wouldn't be partially or completely overrun by Russia during any war with NATO. It does mean fighting until such time as Russia is forced to withdraw or otherwise concedes to do so as part of a peace treaty. I can't think of any NATO battle plan I ever heard of that didn't anticipate Russia advancing into and occupying NATO members territory at the the start of any conflict. It's where they were by the end of it that mattered.

We're reaching the end of this conflict it looks and where are Russia now?

As for disinterested? Maybe, for four years (or longer if Trump is interested in staging a coup). After that? Being disinterested in Europe? Well technically Europe can be 'disinterested right back at you. [/quote]

Yes. They can. Has anyone yet shown the balls?

I made this comment elsewhere, right now the continent needs De Gaulle or Tito leadership of someone that set a fiercely independent purpose and foreign policy from both the U.S. and Russia. The person stepping trying to be that person is Macron, but whoever that person ends up being, it's not Macron.

Oh and on Trans Dnieper? The only reason I've ever been able to come up with for not doing something is that technically Russia always claimed it was an independent republic that just happened to be a Russian ally . And certain EU members would have gotten their nickers in a knot if Ukraine did move in. That and it would give the Kremlin reason to scream 'invasion' at the UN etc! I still would have done it though, either earlier in the second half of 2024 when Russia started advancing again or more recently in tandem with the move into Kursk to double the sting in Moscow.

It's this long narrow strip. In theory, the Ukrainians and Moldovans could just coordinate an attack from each side. It's not like the Ukrainians aren't already at war with Russia.

[Monash]

In theory, the Ukrainians and Moldovans could just coordinate an attack from each side. It's not like the Ukrainians aren't already at war with Russia.

I don't think it would be difficult. From memory Russia only had a couple of thousand troops at most stationed there when the war began and they certainly haven't been reinforced since! That being the case I think the only thing that has stopped Ukraine marching straight in has been concern about being seen as the 'invader' even though Trans Dnieper is only recognized by Russia and a few of it's puppets. On paper it would be nice to be able to hand it over to the Moldovans when the war ends but the only reason to take it in the first place is for use as a bargaining chip during the peace negotiations so if not for that reason why bother taking it?.

[Ironduke]

In my opinion, it would probably be better if Moldova cast it off, and it ended up as part of Ukraine. It was originally a part of Ukraine, carved to create a proto-SSR with the aim of annexing Romanian Moldavia to it, the former Bessarabia, which is precisely what ended up happening after WWII.

That's no reason to join it to Ukraine per se, but Moldova is a small country, to have a pro-Russian population of that size would be a cancer on its body politic. Ukraine is larger, it would be easier to dilute the influence the Transnistrian population might have within it, while it would not be easy to dilute that influence within Moldova. Transnistria remaining part of Moldova, in my opinion, would continue to open up Moldova to Russian meddling, sway elections from pro-EU to pro-Russian politicians, etc. I'm sure the Russians aren't going to rescind recognition of Transnistrian statehood, even if Moldova and Ukraine were able to successfully evict the Russians, which may pose continuing problems for Moldovan membership in NATO and the EU.

Moldova, with the benefit of being free of any disputed territories, borders, and frozen conflicts, would have a free hand to join NATO. Or they could re-unite with Romania, and join NATO and the EU through the backdoor. Let Ukraine deal with Transnistria, they're not getting in NATO anytime soon anyway.

even though Trans Dnieper is only recognized by Russia and a few of it's puppets.

Wrong river. The Dnieper flows roughly through the middle of Ukraine, including Kyiv, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro, Kherson Province. The Dneister flows through far Western Ukraine before entering Moldova, then from there to the Black Sea.

[Monash]

Thanks I keep getting that wrong. My spell check allways takes me to Dnieper because I'm such a bad typist after so many years of retirement.