War in Europe?

[cromwell]

It's a good point Kaz.
What worries me is that neither side wants to talk.
Putin doesn't and the US and UK don't seem to want to either.
If Putin turns off the gas supply to Germany it would shut down their economy virtually overnight; would Europe stay united then?

[Workingman]

There is a phrase, "talks about talks", that is where we need to get to.

Nobody knows whether Putin will talk or not because, at least in public, nobody has tried. However, the claim is often and forcibly made in order to enforce and bolster the status quo - he wont talk so neither will we.

Just a reminder: the status quo is war. Think about it; war with no end in sight.

What would the talks be about? Well a ceasefire and possibly a line of control would be good things to aim for, initially. At least the majority of the killings and devastation would stop. If they can be established then things can move on.

Macron's call with Putin were / are mainly about keeping a line of communication open and maintaining humanitarian corridors rather than establishing negotiations. They could possibly provide the lever for "talks about talks".

[Suff]

There were talks in Turkey early on. Russia wanted to stop the war and consolidate, Ukraine wanted Russia gone.

Russia saw talks as a fast track to getting what they want. Ukraine saw them as an avenue to stop the war and get rid of Russia.

Until something radically changes, any talk will just go down the same path. There are only two paths for that radical change. One side, or the other, loses.

[Workingman]

OK. I'll try again.... WITHOUT TALKS WHAT IS THE OTHER PLAN? HOW WILL IT BE IMPLEMENTED? WHAT IS THE END GAME?

As I see it if there are no talks the war goes on and on and on, then guess what, one side or the other loses; except on that path there is escalation and more devastation and loss of life.

There is also the risk of a wider war in Europe between NATO and Russia - no winners, just losers.

What a shame there is nothing worth talking about.

[Kaz]

It's a good point Kaz.
What worries me is that neither side wants to talk.
Putin doesn't and the US and UK don't seem to want to either.
If Putin turns off the gas supply to Germany it would shut down their economy virtually overnight; would Europe stay united then?

That does concern me too

[Suff]

OK. I'll try again.... WITHOUT TALKS WHAT IS THE OTHER PLAN? HOW WILL IT BE IMPLEMENTED? WHAT IS THE END GAME?

OK I'll take that as it was meant. Frustration with us not addressing your concerns and how you would like to approach it.

My take? We bolster Ukraine to rebuff Russia until they either retreat to the border or circle the wagons and run up the white flag. Once either happens, then Russia and Ukraine can come to the table and talk. Not until.

Yes, I know, this is hugely wasteful in lives, lives which could be saved. But, on the other hand, the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to their country to make sure it remains their country. All they ask is that we give them the means and they will see to it that they remain free and whole.

To a free, democratic, country, I do not see this as wasting lives. I see this as helping them to keep their own Liberty. If we were not helping them they would be a Russian vassal state right now. Some things are worth fighting for. We have understood this for centuries but nearly 100 years of no threat to our borders seems to have changed attitudes. It has not changed mine and it has not changed the way I view the situation. If we were in the same situation I'd want them to do the same for us and, old, knackered and with a dodgy cardiovascular system or not, I would be out there trying to ensure that we stayed free.

So that's the plan. Help them be free. Once they are categorically free, help them to the table to make sure they stay free.

There was a saying in the Navy that they imparted to officers. "Walk softly but carry a big stick". It is as true in this scenario as any other. Russia has chosen to enact politics via violence. Once they have lost they will be willing to talk. Until they lose they will not be willing to talk. They cannot. Because if they do their own people will ask "why didn't you just talk in the first place, why did you waste our son's/fathers/mothers/daughters lives".

I know you want to stop the deaths. If I thought for one second that coming to the table and talking would stop the deaths I'd be all for it.

The point is this. If we don't want war in Europe, then this has to end with a loss for Russia. Any other end means Russia can be encouraged to do it again. Fortunately Ukraine and the Ukrainians want that end result too. I say help them. Act when it is time to act, talk when it is time to talk.

I know we don't agree on this and I respect that you see it differently. I just don't see it that way.

[Workingman]

My take? We bolster Ukraine to rebuff Russia until they either retreat to the border or circle the wagons and run up the white flag.

So we supply more missiles, bombs, guns and bullets, then what? We can't supply more Ukrainian troops - they are dead. We have to keep those supply lines open 24/7: forever. How do we do that?

We cannot impose a no-fly zone, so the Russian MIGs and Sukhois have a free run on those few land based Xkm long supply lines. Oh, and they also have precision stand-off missiles as well.

Once either happens, then Russia and Ukraine can come to the table and talk. Not until.

Err, so there will be talks - eventually? Well I never! Why not now?

All they ask is that we give them the means and they will see to it that they remain free and whole.

We can't, and you bloody well know it. See above.

The point is this. If we don't want war in Europe, then this has to end with a loss for Russia.

And so I ask once more: How will you Achieve that? Also, if Russia looks like losing it has nukes. Cornered rat syndrome: do beware what you wish for.

You tend to be strong on verbiage but very light on specifics.

[Suff]

The only reason Russian planes have free access to Ukrainian airspace is because we won't supply full coverage SAM nets.

This is part of the "give them the tools" I am talking about. Today we are giving them bits and pieces, nothing strong enough to comprehensively beat Russia. I am sure this is because they do not trust Ukraine to stop at the border. If they give enough power to crush the Russian forces, they can drive the over the border and even further back.

There is no need to set up a no fly zone, interdiction of airspace is a NATO speciality and planes are only a small part of it. If you are going to be shot down by missile you can't fly there.

Anyway, there will be no talk until all sides have common ground for talks. This means Russia has to lose or to win. I am on the lose side.

[Workingman]

Interdction is BY aircraft against ground assets such as fuel dumps, ammo stores, bridges, strategic junctions etc. It is an offensive tactic and is what Russia would be using against any Ukraine supply routes.

A NFZ is a three course meal. It requires surveillance (high flying aircraft / satellites), aircraft to engage any transgressors and shoot them down, as well as SAMs. It might also require destroying or disabling any ground-based anti-aircraft systems that the other side has behind their lines.

There have only ever been three - Iraq, Bosnia and Libya - and they needed NATO's superior air power to be enforced. Ukraine does not have the means, but Russia might.

[Suff]

It might. But the only way a NFZ will be created is if NATO implements one under orders from the UN. The UN in which Russia has a veto at the security Council.

So long as ground assets keep destroying Russian planes you don't need a NFZ. In fact you don't want one if you want to destroy their aircraft, you want to suck them in and then destroy them.

Different tactics, you make it so that they can't win without air attacks then degrade their ability to fly air sorties.