Will Russia invade Ukraine and what happens if it escalates with NATO/US getting involved

[DiggerUK]

9 hours ago, satsuma said:

For the last 70 years these Russians have been mowing down men with spears and rocks to defend themselves 

To be fair, they have also developed some world beating slingshots.
My understanding is that they are also light years ahead in bow and arrow weaponry. Let's not underestimate their secret Siberian Mountain Archery battalions, if Russia deploys those forces its game over for Kyiev..._

[DiggerUK]

Just to bring events back to reality, Judge Napolitano interviews Larry Johnson. The interview and article cover the claim that Russia is in a catastrophic economic bind..._
 

https://sonar21.com/prospects-for-an-end-to-the-war-in-ukraine-a-chat-with-judge-napolitano/

[pig]

11 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Yes.

The only way to deal with these bastards is to kill them.

Which is where we are now, after they declared war on us.

That’s a bit extreme ! 
What we appear to need now are a variety of military “walls”, a projection of force  to discourage further invasions. That doesn’t necessarily mean killing anybody.

For example Sweden, who has been neutral for 200 years, has had to join NATO due to Russias threat and unreliability.

[Flat Bear]

16 hours ago, 70PC said:

Russia is fecked in every way possible. How much worse can it get for them? Militarily, financially, Politically, Morally. Russia has no redeeming qualities at all. It must be embarressing to admit to being Russian

This is a cruel death for a nation, BUT I think they deserve it and I have zero sympathy.

[70PC]

9 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

Russia is fecked in every way possible. How much worse can it get for them? Militarily, financially, Politically, Morally. Russia has no redeeming qualities at all. It must be embarressing to admit to being Russian

This is a cruel death for a nation, BUT I think they deserve it and I have zero sympathy.

Agreed!

The pro Putin lobby argue their case on the numerical advantage of Russia's military forces alongside captured ground peppered with landmines. Scant regard is given to the many factors which will influence the outcome. Russia now faces the prospect of losing more than they started with. Crimea would have been impossible to take back two years ago. Now it faces being cut off from Russia.  

[Sackboii]

1 hour ago, Flat Bear said:

Russia is fecked in every way possible. How much worse can it get for them? Militarily, financially, Politically, Morally. Russia has no redeeming qualities at all. It must be embarressing to admit to being Russian

This is a cruel death for a nation, BUT I think they deserve it and I have zero sympathy.

Agreed again!

[Will!]

Wavell Room 15th August: Portrait of Ukrainian Advances

[Staffsknot]

7 hours ago, mynamehere said:

Just guessing but Long duration for a conventional war might be 5 wars. For a counter insurgency of sporadic intensity maybe 10 years. Often there are stages of both  

we already had 10 years of ‘non state’ war in donbas. We are at 1.5 years of conventional war

Conflict end would be a sustained ceasefire of significance. 

If Ukraine war ends in under 3 years it would be below average for this war type? 

Nope because it depends on more than just arbitrary ticks in a box.

If you measured WW2 in terms of Germany vs France it was over in a year... because there was a peace deal & ceasefire, except some French people didn't accept it so there was now a separate insurgency and a war with exiled French forces as part of the Allies.

So measuring by 'there is a ceasefire' is also meaningless.

Trying to boil down things to averages is rather silly as the circumstances of each conflict are unique.

[mynamehere]

23 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Nope because it depends on more than just arbitrary ticks in a box.

If you measured WW2 in terms of Germany vs France it was over in a year... because there was a peace deal & ceasefire, except some French people didn't accept it so there was now a separate insurgency and a war with exiled French forces as part of the Allies.

So measuring by 'there is a ceasefire' is also meaningless.

Trying to boil down things to averages is rather silly as the circumstances of each conflict are unique.

you are being pedantic. I said significant ceasefire, which never happened in WW2 by any reasonable analysis. Uk declared war on Germany in 1939

 just sticking finger in the air, less than 3 years seems unlikely to my uneducated wet pinky.

we were talking about how long the war could feasibly last. Feel free to contribute something unpatronising 

Edited August 16, 2023 by mynamehere

[pig]

20 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

you are being pedantic. I said significant ceasefire, which never happened in WW2 by any reasonable analysis. Uk declared war on Germany in 1939

 just sticking finger in the air, less than 3 years seems unlikely to my uneducated wet pinky.

we were talking about how long the war could feasibly last. Feel free to contribute something unpatronising 

Its a fair point though - its a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question.

All we can really do is analyse the current situation. There are infinite factors from a single moment on a battlefield somewhere to geopolitical currents that could affect the length of the war.

Some examples of factors Ukraine is more interested in preserving life, speed isn't their primary concern, by comparison Russia is profligate with expending life. Even that complicates as it  doesn't necessarily mean overall Ukraines is 'slow' and Russia is 'fast' as the war = the two strategies pitted against eachother and 'effectiveness' in achieving objective is what determines overall 'speed'.

[DiggerUK]

@mynamehere,

you are asking an unanswerable question. There is no formulae by which the length of a conflict can be reckoned.
The variables in Ukraine make it an unfathomable question without a formulae, let alone with one. There are no computer models for warfare.

The recent background in Ukraine would have to include the Colour Revolution in 2004, followed by The Maidan Coup in 2014, followed by a civil war with Kyiev sending the army on a War Against Terrorism to quell the secessionist uprising in Crimea and Donbass, followed by Russias 'Special Military Operation' in support of those who had seceded from Ukraine.

Then there is the situation we have now, which means Ukraine finds itself thrown under the bus by NATO, with nothing to show from its 'Spring Offensive' and its third army since 2022 being decimated. Far too many want to fight this war to the last Ukrainian, the slaughter must end.

The only sensible solution is to push for the parties to negotiate a ceasefire and conclude a peace deal..._

Edited August 16, 2023 by DiggerUK

[Staffsknot]

40 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

you are being pedantic. I said significant ceasefire, which never happened in WW2 by any reasonable analysis. Uk declared war on Germany in 1939

 just sticking finger in the air, less than 3 years seems unlikely to my uneducated wet pinky.

we were talking about how long the war could feasibly last. Feel free to contribute something unpatronising 

The ceasefire with France was extremely significant and largely observed, same as Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. Each lasted longer than the actual war elements and the standing armies and administration largely abided by those terms on home soil, bar insurgents and overseas forces.

This is not pedantry its pointing simple facts you can't pick a conflict and say this one is going to last X legth of time because of an average.

1914-1918 was 4 years and involved many times the losses and manpower seen but by the token definition of 'quick' it is a rapid decisive outcome...

Next up we have the evolution of conflict and weapons - the multi-spectral dynamics of how it is being fought and the intensity.

Just Googling is likely to give a garbage answer as its a garbage simple question.

The war can feasibly last as long as each side deems necessary, which could be 5 more mins or 30 years as a semi-frozen conflict.

This isn't patronising, trying to boil down something very complex to X or Y from Google is trying to make it patronisingly simple

[Staffsknot]

5 minutes ago, DiggerUK said:

@mynamehere,

you are asking an unanswerable question. There is no formulae by which the length of a conflict can be reckoned.
The variables in Ukraine make it an unfathomable question without a formulae, let alone with one. There are no computer models for warfare.

The recent background in Ukraine would have to include the Colour Revolution in 2004, followed by The Maidan Coup in 2014, followed by a civil war with Kyiev sending the army on a War Against Terrorism to quell the secessionist uprising in Crimea and Donbass, followed by Russias 'Special Military Operation' in support of those who had seceded from Ukraine.

Then there is the situation we have now, which means Ukraine finds itself thrown under the bus by NATO, with nothing to show from its 'Spring Offensive' and its third army since 2022 being decimated. Far too many want to fight this war to the last Ukrainian, the slaughter must end.

The only sensible solution is to push for the parties to negotiate a ceasefire and conclude a peace deal..._

Started out meaningful then you found the familiar ditch of wibble at the first hairpin bend

[mynamehere]

Outstanding levels of nonsense from the resident 'expert'. UK continued to fight germany throughout the 'ceasefire'. 

I'm only really paraprasing the comments of senior ukranian officials. The odds of this war being over in one or two years are extremely slim, it would be unprecedented for a war of this magnitude.

 Similar happened when I reposted Zelenskeys' comments on why Bakhmut was so important and that it was high priority to hold and why they continue to pour resources into taking it back. 

Staffknot, you knowledge seems about on par with larrys. 

 

[Staffsknot]

37 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

Outstanding levels of nonsense from the resident 'expert'. UK continued to fight germany throughout the 'ceasefire'. 

I'm only really paraprasing the comments of senior ukranian officials. The odds of this war being over in one or two years are extremely slim, it would be unprecedented for a war of this magnitude.

 Similar happened when I reposted Zelenskeys' comments on why Bakhmut was so important and that it was high priority to hold and why they continue to pour resources into taking it back. 

Staffknot, you knowledge seems about on par with larrys. 

 

Errm we were referencing France... what Britain did is irrelevant to France as the war with France ended technically when they signed their armistace as Vichy France.

Your ability to ignore what's written is on par with LL.

Now as for what a Ukranian official said - playing down expectations - GW1 was of a larger magnitude and lasted just under a year. 

As stated you are asking Gogle to give a how long is a piece of string and pushing the answer as valid because a search engine said so.

Again chucking insults is not making your case and not bothering to read what's written as you do so is unwise if you wish to not make yourself look very silly.

[mynamehere]

11 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Errm we were referencing France... what Britain did is irrelevant to France as the war with France ended technically when they signed their armistace as Vichy France.

Your ability to ignore what's written is on par with LL.

Now as for what a Ukranian official said - playing down expectations - GW1 was of a larger magnitude and lasted just under a year. 

As stated you are asking Gogle to give a how long is a piece of string and pushing the answer as valid because a search engine said so.

Again chucking insults is not making your case and not bothering to read what's written as you do so is unwise if you wish to not make yourself look very silly.

Hey if you want to claim WW2 technically lasted a year , you knock yourself out. 

Makes you seem like a nutter with no perspective, but at least you win

 

[Staffsknot]

50 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

Hey if you want to claim WW2 technically lasted a year , you knock yourself out. 

Makes you seem like a nutter with no perspective, but at least you win

 

To French forces it official did or have you never heard of Mers El Kebir?

To Britain and Germany WW2 lasted almost 6 years. For America, Japan, Russia, Brazl, Italy and numerous other countries it lasted a lot less.

But if you want to make it all about what you think from treating everything the same knock yourself out and look silly.

How long did WW1 last from a Russian, Italian, Japanese or American perspective?

I mean this is pretty straightforward stuff and throwing petty insults because you've made an arse of yourself makes you look pretty stupid. As does continuing your daft 'hey the war isn't over in 1 yr therefore it will take X on average because X conflits in different countries, with different combatants, in different eras with differing aims took X time... now that's truly nuts.

[mynamehere]

13 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

To French forces it official did or have you never heard of Mers El Kebir?

To Britain and Germany WW2 lasted almost 6 years. For America, Japan, Russia, Brazl, Italy and numerous other countries it lasted a lot less.

But if you want to make it all about what you think from treating everything the same knock yourself out and look silly.

How long did WW1 last from a Russian, Italian, Japanese or American perspective?

I mean this is pretty straightforward stuff and throwing petty insults because you've made an arse of yourself makes you look pretty stupid. As does continuing your daft 'hey the war isn't over in 1 yr therefore it will take X on average because X conflits in different countries, with different combatants, in different eras with differing aims took X time... now that's truly nuts.

 

Okay, apologies, let's cool it down a bit. 

I was just making a passing comment. Perhaps it's best to change the subject. 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by mynamehere

[Quiet Guy]

There was a strange event recently. Stian Jenssen, director of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s private office, said one solution to the ongoing war could be for Ukraine to offer Russia land in return for a spot in the NATO military alliance. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-ukraine-membership-cede-territory-russia/

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4154918-nato-official-says-remarks-about-ukraine-giving-up-territory-to-gain-membership-were-mistake/

Foot in mouth or did he let slip that he doesn't expect Ukraine to recover their lost land ?

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

Attack the off narrative heathen!!

[mynamehere]

Seems all the more strange as Russia have never indicated it would be interested in a NATO orientated deal. Seems more like an off the cuff comment in a public panel discussion, that was hopefully taken out of context.

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

Agreed, one of the origins of the conflict was NATO expansion, can't see Russian's entertaining anything other than neutrality either.

[DiggerUK]

It has all the hallmarks of someone 'going off script'. But if it is an 'off topic' comment, what a revealing comment it is.

NATO does not acknowledge that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war with Russia on their behalf, so wild talk such as this doesn't help maintain that meme.

Overall I feel positive about this gaffe, because it makes me believe that wise heads are finally opening up back channels to end the conflict. Not a moment too soon..._

[Staffsknot]

59 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

 

Okay, apologies, let's cool it down a bit. 

I was just making a passing comment. Perhaps it's best to change the subject. 

 

 

Fair enough and agreed a spat about historical conflicts is not going to inform either of us on Ukraine's future

[Staffsknot]

52 minutes ago, Quiet Guy said:

There was a strange event recently. Stian Jenssen, director of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s private office, said one solution to the ongoing war could be for Ukraine to offer Russia land in return for a spot in the NATO military alliance. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-ukraine-membership-cede-territory-russia/

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4154918-nato-official-says-remarks-about-ukraine-giving-up-territory-to-gain-membership-were-mistake/

Foot in mouth or did he let slip that he doesn't expect Ukraine to recover their lost land ?

Its floating the idea Ukraine joining NATO and letting Russia keep sayCrimea would be a starting point. Ukraine gets more than word based security guarantees, Russia has to accept it can no longer threaten Ukr in the manner it did.

Russia saves some face and the conflict ends sooner than wouldfor Ukr pushing Russia out of every inch of territory.

Russia doubtless would reject this as they'd be screwed with a much better protected Ukr on doorstep and Putin's fantsy reasons for war are scuppered and Russia constrained.

Ukraine may reject it depending on what they would have to give up for concrete security.

Only what Ukraine and Russia agree matters as they are the two conflict parties.

But Russia can't claim 'West endless fight to last Ukrainian' ****** line anymore.