Russia - threadbanned users in OP

What's the story with Kherson, now, I wonder? Ukraine appears to be saying that the southern offensive was a feint to draw Russian forces from the north-east. If that's true, what will the forces in the south do now? Will they pack up and go north to try and hold the territory gained, or will they try to take advantage of the relatively limited gains made in the south. Ukrainian forces look like they're inching closer to Kherson, but it sounds like it's been a punishing slog and costly in terms of men and equipment, so it makes me wonder where they'll decide to go with that.

The republics depend on scraps from the table from Moscow, without much employment or wealth opportunities they are still viable recruiting grounds. Not so the large population centers in Russia who have better opportunities, who are likely to more resistant to "the draft". Even the men with fake military documents (bribe to avoid mandatory conscription) are now getting caught. They can grind away for a while yet unless there is significant backlash against the administration in the coming months.

They have a large Russian force pinned against the Dnieper and can grind them down at their leisure.

And, considering the usual rhetoric, Soloviev isn't taking rhe beating well and, looking for someone to blame, is taking punishment to a predictable level.

A lot of people are absolutely livid over the attack on the Ukrainian power grid, seeing it as a mean and spiteful act by Putin and not even connected to Russia's war effort.

How can anyone be sure if this ‘retreat’ by the Russians is as a result of the Ukrainians getting the upper hand or is it just the Russians giving the Ukrainians a false sense of victory and they will return with a major offensive including possible chemical/WMD’s…?

I refer you to my reply to Hobgoblin a couple of pages back. Anyone that thinks it was anything other than a rout isn’t looking at the evidence on the ground.

I have no doubt that Russia will try to regroup, however it is Unknown if all those who ran would want to go back into the cauldron.

How can you be so certain of this ie best of their equipment now used up……the WMD’s are still there and I’m sure there is also plenty of anthrax, mustard gas etc etc…?

It may also be a sign of desperation. Bad news after bad news this week, so he stages this nasty stunt as some form of diversion.

I was watching a former NATO commander on CNN today warning that Russia can raise huge manpower and extra resources with a declaration of war.

Putin didn't declare war for internal political reasons but if he's staring defeat of his "special operation" he may have to do something because a defeat is the end for him.

Lasting peace looks like a couple handfuls of nuclear warheads. This imbroglio was only made possible by the west's deception in guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for them handing over their nuclear weapons.

The main lesson from this conflict, which won't be lost on many, is that the only protection from Russia, Putin, or the like, is to possess nuclear weapons.

Even when this ends, it's not over, given Xi is as dangerous a megalomaniacal pri​ck as Putin. Australia, South Korea and Taiwan, all need them.

Imagine back last January when Putin was massing his troops on the border, if Biden could have said: "it's a good thing you are only conducting exercises their, Vladamir, because we gave them 5 nuclear weapons two weeks ago."

There would have been no invasion and many, many thousands of lives saved and hundreds of thousands of children still with their rightful parents in Ukraine.

Have you seen the sheer quantity of armour left behind during their disorganised retreat? Must be hundreds of millions of euro worth. Must be some masterplan.

Is it realistic? Russia like the United States is big enough that they might agree in principle to pay reparations and make a token effort as the United States did when it fled Vietnam. So reparations are unlikely, Crimea is a money pit, kinda like Northern Ireland is to the UK in one sense. I don't reckon Ukraine could do much with it after the war and most of the population (2 million) are ethnically Russian. Strategically the Russians must hold it to guarantee access to the Black sea, they also need agreement on the canal that supplies water from the Dnieper, which Ukraine had cut off in 2014. I suppose an agreement that the Russians pay for fresh water access with demilitarisation would work.

The Ukrainians are then left with the Donbass population, which is primarily Russian, this is an important economic centre for the country. There will need to be peacekeepers to protect the population from the reprisal of the more extreme elements of Ukrainian society who will want revenge and to enforce dominance. It would take time to deal with the bad blood between the two populations and there would always be an independence movement that wants to break away. That problem might be intractable as Russia will continue to exist and prepare for a second attack which might be years in the future. Most of eastern and Southern Ukraine down to the border with Romania are Russian speaking and even pre-February there was dislike for the language enforcement laws in these regions.

Given the paranoid nature and ambitions of successive Russian governments, I reckon they would eventually try again. A loss of Ukraine would also mean loss of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko (68) is probably coming to the end of his reign as well and with no Russian strongman, there is a real chance that he would be overthrown in a coup since there is a dissident population present there. Without a strongman at the helm, would an unstable Russia be in anyones interests?