In the Al Mawasi “humanitarian zone”, an area smaller than Heathrow which Israel had been advising all Gazans to move to, images showed crowds of people scrambling towards an aid distribution point.
It’s mentioned almost in passing, but we’re talking an area smaller than Heathrow, should house 2M people. It’s a miracle there aren’t more diseases going around already.
It’s okay, folks. Old white men are being well paid to discuss the problem at length, and will eat a full dinner before going to sleep in their safe, comfortable beds. Everything is normal.
There is a growing sentiment within the Biden administration, for example, that its interests would be better served by pressuring Zelensky to sue for peace, rather than persisting with a military campaign he stands little chance of winning.
Yeah, it is most definitely in the US/NATO’s best interests to continue supporting Ukraine against russia, as the longer the conflict continues, the more severely russia cripples itself against any future conflicts. It’s already an impossibility for russia to feasibly launch a successful offensive against any NATO nation at this point.
Why the hell would we stop supporting Ukraine when that serves to further our own interests and further weaken our greatest enemy?
That is, unless you’re a compromised republican/MAGA moron… (Hope it’s clear I’m not referring to the user above me here.)
Russia hasn’t gained any ground in over a year. They have lost their airpower. The Black Sea Fleet is heavily damaged and a good chunk has been sunk. On top of that, they have lost 5,618 tanks, 10,482 Amored vehicles, 8,045 artillery systems, 919 MLRS, 605 Anti-air systems, 324 airplanes, and another 324 Helicopters, 6,116 UAVs, 1,571 cruse missiles destroyed, 22 ships, 1 submarine, 10,561 vehicles, 1156 special equipment systems, and 336,230 personnel.
Ukraine isn’t losing right now, not by a long shot.
Not to mention their collapsing demographics over the last few decades, made all the worse by the pandemic/failed invasion double whammy. Compounded with the fact that they cannot mount another such an offensive for the foreseeable future.
Even taking all Ukraine as a willing slave at this point would not lessen those defeats, and the AFU would only become a hardened insurgency if the government falls.
Russia has dashed itself to smithereens on Ukraine whether they win or not, and even that is not yet sure.
The article states that any gain in substantial ground for Russia would be deemed a victory.
If these are the victory conditions, then Russia is really close to victory. They just have to negotiate a cease fire and uphold it, until the borders become normality and a peace treaty is signed with them.
It is really just a definition of what it means to win and loose.
That would be like if a football game with a 60 point lead changed the rules mid-game to say that the victory conditions for the team losing by 60 points is now just gaining a single yard.
That’s war. You have a victory target and try to achieve that. We do not know the victory target of Russia (we only know the propaganda they are spreading publicly).
The victory target may also change over time with what is realistically achievable.
So it is difficult to speak of winning or loosing without that information.
In a sports game, the teams agreed on the terms before the game started.
Yeah, but Russia is in an objectively worse geopolitical position than before the war. Before the war, Ukraine was a staunch Russian ally, and SW/FI weren’t NATO members. Also, they had ~5000 more tanks and a couple hundred thousand more servicemen. Also, CSTO was a thing. Also, Kazakhstan. Also, Wagner didn’t attempt a coup showing how weak Russian leadership is. Also, the Black Sea Fleet had a flagship floating on the Black Sea.
It’s as if the US went to war with the UK, broke apart NATO, lost a couple carrier groups, and said “we’ve got Scotland so we’re totally winning”.
From 2007 to 2017, the Telegraph was actually one of four European newspapers that published Russia Beyond The Headlines (a project from Russia's state news outlet) as a supplement.
The Telegraph Group has recently been in financial trouble and bailed out by a company run by the vice-president of the UAE Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. While Putin is visiting the UAE next week, Mansour is probably best known in the UK as owner of top-flight football team Manchester City, so him doing stuff in the UK is not anything new. On the other hand there is a government probe in to this acquisition, perhaps unsurprising considering that the Telegraph is one of the four newspapers of record in the UK despite how shit it is
I can’t read the article. Need to set up a subscription.
But the title does not sound promising. To be a victor, you first have to define what your victory conditions are. Depending on those, Putin might be right before victory, or light years away.
With the Ukraine conflict languishing in stalemate, the possibility that Russian president Vladimir Putin might yet emerge victorious from his ill-judged invasion cannot be ignored, with all the implications such an outcome would have for Europe’s security.
Ukraine’s failure to make a decisive breakthrough in its counter-offensive during the summer has all but silenced the optimistic predictions made by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his senior commanders that victory was within Kyiv’s grasp. Instead, the Ukrainian narrative is in danger of descending into recriminations over the refusal of its Western allies to provide Kyiv with the weaponry required to break the impasse on the battlefield. As the Ukrainian leader remarked in a recent interview, “We didn’t get all the weapons we wanted, I can’t be satisfied.”
The lack of military progress, together with the eruption of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, has certainly deepened the sense of scepticism among some Western leaders over Ukraine’s ability to prevail. There is a growing sentiment within the Biden administration, for example, that its interests would be better served by pressuring Zelensky to sue for peace, rather than persisting with a military campaign he stands little chance of winning.
Meanwhile, Putin is intensifying his efforts to reclaim the military advantage, using the country’s strong oil revenues to militarise the Russian economy, which has led to a significant increase in weapons production. Putin has also authorised a 170,000 increase in the size of the Russian military. He hopes this will aid its efforts to seize key strategic targets, such as the eastern town of Avdiivka in the Donbas region, the scene of recent heavy fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces.
The notion that, 21 months after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Russian military would still be capable of mounting an offensive seemed inconceivable only a few months ago, after Moscow had suffered a series of devastating setbacks. And while it still remains highly unlikely that Putin will be able to fulfil his goal of conquering all of Ukraine and establishing a puppet regime in Kyiv, any conclusion that results in the Kremlin retaining significant areas of Ukrainian territory will be hailed as a victory.
Such an outcome would present a significant challenge for the Western alliance, as its ability to withstand Russian aggression would be open to question after all the military support it has given Ukraine. It would also encourage Putin in the belief that he could undertake further acts of aggression on Nato’s eastern flank, safe in the knowledge that the West had neither the resources nor resolve to resist the Kremlin’s expansionist aims.
The prospect of Russia intensifying the threat it poses to European security in the event of Putin achieving only modest gains in Ukraine has prompted a number of prominent European military experts to question openly Nato’s preparedness for meeting such a challenge. A recent defence conference in Berlin was treated to a doomsday scenario whereby Europe risked suffering the same fate as the Holy Roman Empire under Napoleon, and being “washed away” in a future conflict with Russia because of Nato’s inability to defend Europe’s eastern flank.
Sönke Neitzel, one of Germany’s leading military historians, claimed that it could take 15 years before his country was capable of defending itself against Russia. His sentiments were reinforced by Jacek Siewiera, the chief of Poland’s National Security Bureau, who warned that Nato had as little as three years to prepare itself for a Russian attack on its eastern flank.
And yet, despite the obvious threat Moscow poses, Western leaders appear disinclined to credit it with the seriousness it merits. The argument made during the early stages of the Ukraine conflict – that ensuring Russia suffered a heavy defeat would dissuade Putin from further acts of aggression – has been replaced by war fatigue, and a desire to end hostilities at all costs, even if it leads to an emboldened Russia.
Nor has the West’s response to the conflict engendered better co-operation in the defence sphere. Commenting on the stalemate in the Ukraine conflict, the secretary general of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, recently lamented the fragmented nature of Europe’s defence industry. “We are not able to work as closely together as we should,” he said, warning that the inability of European nations to pool resources could undermine efforts to maintain ammunition supplies to Ukraine.
The failure to afford the Russian threat the seriousness it deserves is evident in Britain, too, where analysis of Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement last month suggests the Government is unlikely to fulfil its pledge to raise defence spending from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP, a key requirement for making our Armed Forces better-equipped to counter the Russian threat. Not only, it appears, is Europe preparing to let Ukraine lose the war: it has little appetite for defending itself against future acts of Russian aggression.
telegraph.co.uk
Active