The end?

I can't see this war ending in 2023 - probably, not even half way through it yet.

Americans troops were in Vietnam for 8 years
Soviets in Afghanistan for 8 years
We were in Iraq for 6 years, Americans longer I think.

Both sides need to negotiate and there is no sign of this.
 
I can't see this war ending in 2023 - probably, not even half way through it yet.

Americans troops were in Vietnam for 8 years
Soviets in Afghanistan for 8 years
We were in Iraq for 6 years, Americans longer I think.

Both sides need to negotiate and there is no sign of this.
Difference is that Vietnam, Afghan and Iraq were not organised armies with top grade western weaponry. It won't and can't last as long as those wars, but yes, there is probably still a long way to go to a resolution
 
I can't see this war ending in 2023 - probably, not even half way through it yet.

Americans troops were in Vietnam for 8 years
Soviets in Afghanistan for 8 years
We were in Iraq for 6 years, Americans longer I think.

Both sides need to negotiate and there is no sign of this.
As horrible as this war is there is nothing to negotiate until russia returns every inch of the sovereign territory of Ukraine and the only way i can see that happening is regime change in Russia or to be physically removed.
 
Both sides need to negotiate and there is no sign of this.
How do you propose to negotiate with Putin?

The wars you mention were characterised more by insurgency and asymmetrical warfare than this conflict, so I'm not sure you can draw parallels with them. Putin is plainly trying to expand the Russian sphere of influence, if we don't repulse him in Ukraine he might fancy a little bit of another country soon. Which is frighteningly easy to say but carries a horrible toll in blood. If you are looking for a comparison then WW2 followed a similar path where an avaricious dictator tried to grab bits of other countries by deception and then by force when that failed.
 
The Soviets lost 15,000 troops in Afghanistan.
The US lost 58,000 in Vietnam.
The US lost 2,500 in Afghanistan and 4,500 in Iraq

Each of those lasted 8 years+

It just shows the scale of the blunder the SMO in Ukraine has been. 17 months and the Russian losses exceed the combined total of all those by a good 25%.
 
I can't see this war ending in 2023 - probably, not even half way through it yet.

Americans troops were in Vietnam for 8 years
Soviets in Afghanistan for 8 years
We were in Iraq for 6 years, Americans longer I think.

Both sides need to negotiate and there is no sign of this.
The wars you mention in most parts(Iraq maybe not as much at first) where guerrilla warfare also the same during the troubles in Northern Ireland, going back even further the Spanish resistance during the Peninsular war in the Napoleon era. These wars are known for not many if any set battles and battle grounds(trench warfare, defensive positions, offensives and counter offensives etc etc).
My opinion is the current phase of the war will end by the end of autumn, with some pockets of russian resistance and counter attacks in the Ukrainian far east and border towns. I think at that point Russia will rather be at the point of full civil war or nearing that point with the Russian resistance causing problems and most likely other guerrilla groups causing problems within Russia. I don't think an official peace treaty or even full ceasefire will be made until Russia has a change of regime and things settle back down and peace also depends on which way the new leaders lean in regards to military expansion and protocols. I think will be a while longer(if it's a new leader with the old mentality and desire for expansion they might agree to a long term ceasefire but not a formal peace agreement and peace treaty as if this happened then Ukraine would join NATO, so in some ways I think it will be prolonged in small pockets and border disputes so Ukraine can't join NATO).
 
Putin is a nasty piece of work and it was wrong for the Russian Federation to invade and bomb Ukraine in 2022.

However faced with what the current situation is:

The Russian Federation needs/wants an outlet to a warm water port for its Navy. It also needs/wants a buffer zone between it and the West.

To me those are negotiation chips in return for Russian Federation withdrawal and peace.

If you don't offer anything the war is very likely to go on. Especially when both sides broadly feels they are right. (look at WW1).

Some background

The Russians have a very long term fear of invasion from the West, where they are virtually no geographical obstacles and history of large invasions from Western powers (Napoleon and Hitler, possibly the Kaiser too in WW1). Their Northern ports are often blocked by ice in the Winter, bottling its Fleet up for 5 month of the year. (see Prisoners of Geography by Marshall) They obviously get a bit shaky when a large country bordering the belly of the Russian Federation says it wants to join NATO and militarily aligned with countries who in the past have threatened the existence of Russia.

The Donbass region and Crimea are politically and socially different to the rest of the Ukraine. For example Crimea was not part of the Ukraine set in 1991. For those military historians on here you will know the UK fought a war in Crimea in the 1850s, against the Russians under the Czar. It was not fought against Ukrainians. Hence Crimea was then judged part of Russia then. The Soviets joined Crimea to Ukraine in 1921 due I believe for administrative reasons, but in 1991 it was split away, when Ukraine declared independence. Crimea was then judged an independent republic. Posters on here have told me on here the Donbass was an area of heavy industry and many people moved there from other countries and from outside of the region. Stalin in particular moved people there from other areas of the Soviet Union, particularly to work in the cities. Most people in the Donbass and Crimea speak Russian as their first language, unlike the rest of the Ukraine. (Wikipedia).
 
I'm far from an expert, and I'm not as up-to-date as some on here but I think/ hope it will be largely over before the end of the year, maybe within a few months.

Russia have stopped progressing it seems, and seem to have been losing ground for over a year. Inevitably there's going to be some sort of retreat by them in the coming months. Maybe all we need is a tipping point where enough becomes enough, and there seems to be a few ways this could end:
- Putin backs down and runs away with his tail between his legs
- His troops run away
- His troops get cut off
- His troops run out of ammo
- Civil War in Russia
- Putin finds his way to a window
- Putin ends himself
- Economic strangulation
- NATO supplies Ukraine with more and more arms, and of better quality, as an inverse to what Russia is able to supply it's own troops
- Combination of most of the above (most likely it seems)

Putin doesn't even have the energy bargaining chip now either (or nowhere near to the same level), the EU has adopted (amazingly quickly to be honest, but they had to).
 
Difference is that Vietnam, Afghan and Iraq were not organised armies with top grade western weaponry. It won't and can't last as long as those wars, but yes, there is probably still a long way to go to a resolution
Organised armies could actually make it longer - WW1 and WW2 were not short wars. I understand where you are coming from about bandit type wars in remote areas can go on for decades. Vietnam was mainly the North Vietnamese Army, the Americans were fighting. The NVA were very organised, but avoided open areas until the US starting to withdraw.

I mentioned the other wars, to show how long major regimes stick at it even when it is clear, there is no easy or quick resolution. For example sit down and say lets stop this, or their populations say they have had enough. And they withdraw their military.

There has been an ongoing conflict in parts of the Donbass region since 2014. Two regions declared independence from Ukraine in 2014. The common feeling is that Putin put them up to it, but it is also believed they strongly don't want to be part of Ukraine allied to NATO and the EU etc
 
I kind of mis read the bit "His troops get cut off" and thought that's harsh, very 1917 Bolshevik-esque.....but under the circumstances pretty fair.

Then realised it was a reference to the army getting cut off in Ukraine.......🙄🙄
 
The Russian Federation needs/wants an outlet to a warm water port for its Navy. It also needs/wants a buffer zone between it and the West.
It only needs those while it continues a hostile relationship with the west. There is the negotiating chip, stop the aggressions, invest and trade, and in return you don't need/want these things.
 
I'm far from an expert, and I'm not as up-to-date as some on here but I think/ hope it will be largely over before the end of the year, maybe within a few months.

Russia have stopped progressing it seems, and seem to have been losing ground for over a year. Inevitably there's going to be some sort of retreat by them in the coming months. Maybe all we need is a tipping point where enough becomes enough, and there seems to be a few ways this could end:
- Putin backs down and runs away with his tail between his legs
- His troops run away
- His troops get cut off
- His troops run out of ammo
- Civil War in Russia
- Putin finds his way to a window
- Putin ends himself
- Economic strangulation
- NATO supplies Ukraine with more and more arms, and of better quality, as an inverse to what Russia is able to supply it's own troops
- Combination of most of the above (most likely it seems)

Putin doesn't even have the energy bargaining chip now either (or nowhere near to the same level), the EU has adopted (amazingly quickly to be honest, but they had to).
Andy - you may be right and it might end within 6 months, but American Generals said the same roughly for over 5 years in the 1960s. North Vietnam forces would collapse under mass bombing/poisoning, just give me a few more troops and bombs.
 
The Russians have a very long term fear of invasion from the West, where they are virtually no geographical obstacles and history of large invasions from Western powers (Napoleon and Hitler, possibly the Kaiser too in WW1). Their Northern ports are often blocked by ice in the Winter, bottling its Fleet up for 5 month of the year. (see Prisoners of Geography by Marshall) They obviously get a bit shaky when a large country bordering the belly of the Russian Federation says it wants to join NATO and militarily aligned with countries who in the past have threatened the existence of Russia.
pack of nonsense, if they fear invasion from the west, why would the west invade via the sea when a) that's a really dangerous thing to do as ships can be sunk and b) there is a 1,600 mile NATO land border where NATO could amass a land army with 5 times the men and 100 times the military assets.
 
It only needs those while it continues a hostile relationship with the west. There is the negotiating chip, stop the aggressions, invest and trade, and in return you don't need/want these things.
The needs have been a Russian desire for over 200 years at least - according Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall - Most countries feel the need for physical security, with their armed forces, look at USA massive trade power but also massive armed forces. If you ask them they will say in case we are attacked - which was the last country to invade the USA?
 
Putin is a nasty piece of work and it was wrong for the Russian Federation to invade and bomb Ukraine in 2022.

However faced with what the current situation is:

The Russian Federation needs/wants an outlet to a warm water port for its Navy. It also needs/wants a buffer zone between it and the West.

To me those are negotiation chips in return for Russian Federation withdrawal and peace.

If you don't offer anything the war is very likely to go on. Especially when both sides broadly feels they are right. (look at WW1).

Some background

The Russians have a very long term fear of invasion from the West, where they are virtually no geographical obstacles and history of large invasions from Western powers (Napoleon and Hitler, possibly the Kaiser too in WW1). Their Northern ports are often blocked by ice in the Winter, bottling its Fleet up for 5 month of the year. (see Prisoners of Geography by Marshall) They obviously get a bit shaky when a large country bordering the belly of the Russian Federation says it wants to join NATO and militarily aligned with countries who in the past have threatened the existence of Russia.

The Donbass region and Crimea are politically and socially different to the rest of the Ukraine. For example Crimea was not part of the Ukraine set in 1991. For those military historians on here you will know the UK fought a war in Crimea in the 1850s, against the Russians under the Czar. It was not fought against Ukrainians. Hence Crimea was then judged part of Russia then. The Soviets joined Crimea to Ukraine in 1921 due I believe for administrative reasons, but in 1991 it was split away, when Ukraine declared independence. Crimea was then judged an independent republic. Posters on here have told me on here the Donbass was an area of heavy industry and many people moved there from other countries and from outside of the region. Stalin in particular moved people there from other areas of the Soviet Union, particularly to work in the cities. Most people in the Donbass and Crimea speak Russian as their first language, unlike the rest of the Ukraine. (Wikipedia).

Russia doesn't need anything.

What it wants is immaterial, it's not a justification for invading.

Russia fearing invasion from the West is a ridiculous excuse for invading another country.

Ukraine didn't exist as an independent entity until 1917, it doesn't mean that it didn't exist before then, what is now independent Ukraine was involved in the Crimean War.
Crimea only became part of the then Russian Empire in 1783, and it only became a slight majority ethnic Russian in the 1940s after 150 years of ethnic cleansing and genocide, and a very deliberate programme of non-ethnic Russian deportations in the 1940s, it was decisively part of Ukraine from 1954, and was part of Ukraine when it became independent.

I'm not sure where you've got the made-up 1991 info from, Crimea had been part of Ukraine for as long as an independent Ukraine has existed.
It voted decisively for independence along with the rest of Ukraine.

Speaking Russian does not make you Russian, Zelensky is a native Russian speaker.
Being ethnically Russian doesn't mean you want to be part of Russia.
At no point during this conflict has Russia not been involved, every uprising in Crimea and the Donbass has either been started by or supported by Russia.
 
Last edited:
I can't see this war ending in 2023 - probably, not even half way through it yet.

Americans troops were in Vietnam for 8 years
Soviets in Afghanistan for 8 years
We were in Iraq for 6 years, Americans longer I think.

Both sides need to negotiate and there is no sign of this.
The problem is, how do you negotiate with a bullying pariah state led by a gangster?

Putin will probably claim he would settle for Crimea and other parts of annexed Ukraine, he would want freedom from prosecution along with all his war criminals. Any land grabbed subsumed into Russia, he’d want sanctions lifted etc and a return to Russia being accepted back into the civilised world. He would want to be able to claim it as a victory for the motherland.

This would merely allow him and his successors to regroup, build up their finances over time and opportunity to prepare for more ‘special military operations’ taking more each time while the west effectively lets them. Enough really is enough. Nothing short of a Ukraine victory or Russian surrender should now happen, Putin and his cronies gone or held in the Hague and tried. Free elections in Russia to hope something remotely acceptable can be undertaken that enables the Russian people to self determine their future direction. This has to be fought to the end now, awful to write it, but it is too far gone now, imho. Russians need to understand we want to live together in peace and just trade like most nations do while respecting their neighbours freedoms.
 
pack of nonsense, if they fear invasion from the west, why would the west invade via the sea when a) that's a really dangerous thing to do as ships can be sunk and b) there is a 1,600 mile NATO land border where NATO could amass a land army with 5 times the men and 100 times the military assets.
Tim Marshall basically wrote it. The Russian navy could be effectively bottled up it is a psychological fear as much as a real fear. TM was a journalist for SKY for 24 years. He went to grammar school in Otley I don't think he's pro-Russian or ill informed.


Again with the land border its a psychological fear. I am sure they don't like Poland and the Baltic States been in NATO, but its not as close Ukraine to Central parts of Russia.

An example of psychological fear is what happened after 911, Americans believed they were under threat and most believed they had to conduct a War on Terror.

20 million Soviet citizens died in WW2 when their country was invaded from Western Europe - it sticks in the National Psyche for a long time.
 
Back
Top