NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg suggested that Ukraine may eventually have to make concessions in the war with Russia.

“At the end of the day, it has to be Ukraine that decides what kind of compromises they’re willing to do, we need to enable them to be in a position where they actually achieve an acceptable result around the negotiating table,” he said.

Stoltenberg said that he was not calling on Ukraine to make concessions now, and added that “real peace” will be achieved when “Ukraine prevails.”

Stoltenberg suggests Ukraine will have to compromise with Russia
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/stoltenberg-suggests-ukraine-will-have-to-1712432329.html

June 13 2014

https://twitter.com/sfrantzman/status/1777034444563423586
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hynwgvglr
despite everything,

ok when did Ukraine take Mariupol when I wasn’t looking, Odessa does seem exceedingly long odds

Your comments sent me back to the history books. By my count, there have been five countries that defeated or fought Russia/USSR to a draw in the past 120 years: Japan (1904-1905); Wilhelmine Germany (1914-1918); Poland (1919-1920, with French aid); Finland (1939-1940 and 1941-1944); and Afghanistan (1979-1989). Depending on your POV, you could throw in Estonia and Latvia in 1918-1920 or the border clashes on the Ussuri River with the PRC in the late 1960s. Finland lost territory but preserved its independence. That may be the best scenario on offer for Ukraine.

Karmi: That’s the point. Iran has been dissing and inflicting human and material damage on us for a very long time. As for my question about war with Russia, I think you’ve answered it.

No worries–this is my last word on this topic for a while. Thanks again for responding. Over and out.

I do not think they would resort to nuclear weapons unless they thought the heart of Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Siberia) was at risk.

It’s a rare opportunity to gain an Ally like Ukraine. NATO should be coming together much quicker, prepping to add Ukraine into NATO, and in the meanwhile—start authorizing much more weaponry for Ukraine.

Ukraine has the right to destroy all means of electricity in any Russian city they want to – including at least Moscow & St. Petersburg. NATO needs to be providing the means to do so, IMHO.

If Russia wants to conduct a full mobilization and start a war with NATO—because of those means – then so be it. It would be quite foolish on Russia’s part to do so – or to resort to nuclear war, but it is long past the time to break Russia of attacking neighbors and threatening others.

The ‘menacing’ call with Russia that’s turning into a diplomatic headache for France

https://www.politico.eu/article/phone-call-russia-france-lecornu-shoigu-diplomatic-headache-terror-attack-moscow/

Apparently there was a conversation between French FM and Russia FM in the last day or two.

The Duran talks about the readout from the call. French say they talked about ISIS-K. Russia says they talked about a freeze in Ukraine.

Which side do you believe?

Now it is possible Macron was merely giving the Russians a chance to return to Istanbul before committing French troops to Ukraine. That would certainly give your position credence that France has decided it does have an appetite for war. That would mark a huge change in position though, since France has been one of the stingiest European countries to date in providing aid to Ukraine.

France wants conflict freeze. Russia said NO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-rEeCcngAs

You are correct. I am not saying we should. It would be a dicey proposition with even the best people in charge. With either Trump or whoever is calling the shots in a Biden administration? Yikes! It’s downright terrifying.

”How do you think they’d respond to the destruction of their forces in Ukraine at our–and NATO’s–hands?”

Most likely they’d conduct a full mobilization, draw every available Soviet-era weapon out of storage, and send it all into Ukraine and other targets of opportunity. I do not think they would resort to nuclear weapons unless they thought the heart of Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Siberia) was at risk.

”We used to. [have the trust to lead a multi-national alliance] We don’t any more.”

We still do, and we are the only ones who do. A recent example: Remember a few years ago when Trump offered to buy Greenland from Denmark? Neither Denmark nor Greenland were interested, and the discussion ended there. After the offer was declined, did anyone here, in Greenland, in Denmark, or even in Russia believe we’d take Greenland by force? It wouldn’t even be that hard — we already have a military base there.

Of course not. Even the idea of it sounds ridiculous. For which other hegemon in all of history could you say that? None, probably. But that’s why we’ve been able to mostly keep the peace for 75 years by maintaining military bases in something close to 100 countries. Everyone, friend and foe alike, understands that keeping the peace, not conquest, is why we’re there.

Now, look at it from Russia’s perspective. Would you rather have an American-led NATO on your western border or a French-led NATO? Or a German-led NATO? Or a Polish, Swedish, or Finnish-led NATO? (Note for the historically challenged: Russia has been at war with each of these countries.)

Ideally you’d want no NATO at all so you could pick off your neighbors one by one. But barring that, you’d want an American-led NATO, because at least then you wouldn’t have to worry about being conquered from the west.

I wasn’t clear in my original comment, but this is why I say that America must lead NATO. No one would trust anyone else with that much power.

That’s not why they haven’t attacked Odessa, but the loss of landing craft makes it even less likely.

Here is an analysis by the US Naval Institute from 2022 listing several reasons why an amphibious landing assault would be likely disastrous for Russia.

Topography– high cliffs without much maneuvering ability. The areas with beaches suitable for landings open to urban areas which would leave the landing force vulnerable to attack.
Even in 2022, Russia had a marginal number of landing craft which would have required a continuous landing of the craft they had over days to bring enough men and armament to mount an invasion of such a large city. Any mechanical breakdowns would be disastrous. They would need continuous air support. Russia hasn’t been able to establish air superiority to any extent.

Their conclusion:

Vagaries of weather and sea conditions, restrictions of hydrography and topography, limitations of amphibious lift, difficulties maintaining air superiority, and challenges of logistics all point to the risky nature of any Russian amphibious operation in the Black Sea. It would only take a few elements not in their favor to spell disaster and make any Russian amphibious operation against Ukraine a “Beach Too Far.”

Russia–Ukraine: Putin’s Amphibious Options Are Limited
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/january/russia-ukraine-putins-amphibious-options-are-limited