The War in Ukraine

[daftandbarmy]

So Danatt anticipates 10,000 on the ground with 4 rotations of six months.

First rotation comes from existing "stocks". Could the second rotation be mananged by plumping the rotation up with reserves? Third and fouth rotation - new entries? Older troops getting leaned on again?

Maybe they should look at the manning levels required to manage the 'Phoney War' of 1939-40.... it's starting to look like the same thing:

Phoney War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe they should look at the manning levels required to manage the 'Phoney War' of 1939-40.... it's starting to look like the same thing:

Phoney War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You might be on to something ---

It feels like something out of our time.

When British Member of Parliament (MP) Leopold Amery suggested to Kingsley Wood, the Secretary of State for Air, that the Black Forest should be bombed with incendiaries to burn its ammunition dumps, Wood amazed the MP by responding that the forest was "private property" and could not be bombed; neither could weapons factories, as the Germans might do the same to England

 

[brihard]

Are you suggesting to weaken the left flank to secure the right?

IMHO, Reassurance needs to stay put. This needs to be a new commitment from NATO. . . unless we can find a way for the UN to step up.

Not suggesting. I just have no idea what’s conceivably in the cards.

 

[KevinB]

A not too complimentary look at Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg.

Now its Kellogg’s turn

No, not the breakfast cereal, but still soggy

wesleywark.substack.com

Pretty shit take given how much Kellogg has previously supported Ukraine and absolutely hates Russia.

No one inside the beltway (except maybe PH and DJT and of course the DNI Commissar) think Russia will go for any peace plan, or follow it if they do.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Pretty shit take given how much Kellogg has previously supported Ukraine and absolutely hates Russia.

No one inside the beltway (except maybe PH and DJT and of course the DNI Commissar) think Russia will go for any peace plan, or follow it if they do.

Worth remembering...

"Russia has only two allies; its army and navy."

- Alexander III

 

[ueo]

Hell no.

We would be foolish to move any kind of Forward Located Forces meant for deterring Russia towards a Ukrainian PSO. I can see this being part of the trap Putin is setting by drawing European troops out of the Baltics.

If Canada puts anything to Ukraine, I can see it being a separate contribution, maybe GRTF.

With what?

 

[suffolkowner]

Pretty shit take given how much Kellogg has previously supported Ukraine and absolutely hates Russia.

No one inside the beltway (except maybe PH and DJT and of course the DNI Commissar) think Russia will go for any peace plan, or follow it if they do.

What is it that Putin/Russia would object to?

 

[YZT580]

Pretty shit take given how much Kellogg has previously supported Ukraine and absolutely hates Russia.

No one inside the beltway (except maybe PH and DJT and of course the DNI Commissar) think Russia will go for any peace plan, or follow it if they do.

Oh they will agree to a peace plan all right. The highlighted is the problem. They have never adhered to any agreement

 

[RangerRay]

What is it that Putin/Russia would object to?

Not having their tanks or a puppet government in Kiev?

Otherwise, Trump is giving them everything else on a silver platter. And if Kiev objects, he'll blame Ukraine for not wanting peace.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

With what?

Exactly.

We may need to sit this one out

 

[Kirkhill]

Germany to reject Starmer’s plan for troops in Ukraine as Europe splits over peace deal

France is likely to back PM’s proposal for peacekeeping force – but other allies remain less convinced

www.telegraph.co.uk

What is Zelensky looking for to make him feel comfortable?

Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, has suggested that 200,000 international troops would be required to enforce any peace settlement.

And he wants some of those to be Americans.

But the Americans aren't playing. They want to know what the Europeans are willing to pony up.

The US State Department has sent a survey to European capitals asking for information on what weapons and peacekeeping troops they could provide to Kyiv after an end to the fighting.

And the answer?

Germany is likely to reject Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to deploy a European peacekeeping force to Ukraine, throwing the proposals into disarray.

As European leaders prepare to meet on Monday afternoon in Paris, a split is emerging. The UK and France are set to propose sending soldiers to Kyiv, while Germany and Poland more likely to not participate.

Other countries, including Italy and Norway, are so far undecided.

To be fair I can understand why Poland wouldn't commit troops inside Ukraine. It is more useful staying home. It has to deal with Belarus and Kaliningrad as well as being unsure of its neighbours Slovakia and Hungary. And apparently it can't rely on Germany either if AfD gets in. The best they can hope for there is to have a "neutral" Air Defence pact in their rear consisting of Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Poland serves better as a connector from the Baltic to Ukraine covering the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Western Ukraine from within its own borders.

Poland has ruled itself out of such a mission because Warsaw’s troops are committed to protecting Nato’s eastern flank.

Both Hungary and Slovakia are also highly unlikely to join given their governments’ close ties with the Kremlin.

The undecided include

Ahead of the talks in Paris, José Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, said: “Nobody is currently considering sending troops to Ukraine. Firstly, because peace is still very far away and for one reason only: Vladimir Putin.”

Many European nations, such as Spain, Italy and Norway, have remained on the fence, leaving some capitals despondent over the possibility of a peacekeeping operation.

It seems that the further away from the point of contact the less interest there is in deploying forces. But those distant from the point of contact are the very countries least at risk and thus having more freedom of movement, more opportunities to manoeuvre.

Meanwhile, as always,

Britain became the first European military power to announce that it was prepared to deploy troops to Ukraine.

“The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine. This includes further support for Ukraine’s military – where the UK has already committed £3 billion a year until at least 2030,” Sir Keir wrote in The Telegraph.

“But it also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way.”

With some help from its friends.

One potential option could be for a UK-led deployment of the Joint Expeditionary Forces (JEF), a coalition of 10 Northern European Nato nations.

A coalition of about 40,000 to 50,000 troops could be created from the JEF’s members, which include the Netherlands, the Scandinavians and Baltics, and France for deployment in Ukraine.

It is unlikely such a force could be deployed on the contact line between the heavily armed militaries of Russia and Ukraine.

But it could be stationed behind the line inside Ukraine to offer reassurance to Kyiv that Western forces would assist if Moscow’s forces broke the terms of any ceasefire.

“It doesn’t have to be hundreds of thousands of troops, or cover a 1,200km [745-mile] contact line. Where it is deployed, and in what role, is more important than the overall size,” Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, wrote on social media.

“The force does not need to be everywhere. It needs to be in a country with battalions deployed on maybe four operational directions, and sufficient mobility to redeploy as necessary along the front.”

So, to reiterate, JEF

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - on the Baltic, with high levels of ethnic Russians, bordering directly on Russia, or Belorussia or Kaliningrad.
They, especially Lithuania, have expressed willingness to send troops to Ukraine but frankly they, like Poland, are best staying at home and anchoring that portion of the line.

Finland - long skinny country with a long border with Russia covering both the Baltic Fleet in St Petersburg and the Northern (Nuclear) Fleet in Murmansk. It, like Poland is best staying home.

Sweden - long skinny country with a long border with Finland that approaches Russia in the north. It has some room to manoeuvre and send a small force to Ukraine.

Norway - long skinny country with a long border with Sweden and a short border with Russia but more importantly a long coast line covering the GIUK gap. Its Air Force and Navy are best staying put and the regular/army moving to the North to cover the Finns and Swedes and the Murmansk approaches.

Denmark - little country at the entrance to the Baltic. Air Force and Navy committed to the Baltic with no direct land threat from the Russians until the Russians reach Berlin. Denmark has already moved troops forwards to the Baltics and could relocate them to Ukraine, assuming that the locals, together with the Poles, can fix the Russians in place.

Greenland, Iceland, Faroes - no effective military forces. Write if you get work. Hang by your thumbs.

UK - the spirit is strong(ish) but the flesh is weak. Corps headquarters for JEF. A nuclear umbrella, if the Americans will let it use it. A cobbled together division that could sustain a single brigade in Ukraine for an indefinite period. The RN and the RAF could possibly contribute to a No-Fly Zone, especially if Turkey let one of the Carriers and a Type 45 into the Black Sea as a peacekeeping force guaranteeing safe passage.

Netherlands - it is in JEF because the UK is in JEF. They would likely add their marines to wherever the Brits are sending the Royals. The majority of the Netherlands army is more likely to adopt a German posture given that they have some troops under German/Joint command.

....

France is not part of JEF. But France has to be seen as a player. It would never let the Brits get away with looking like they are leading anything on their own. If the Brits are in the French are in. They won't mind sending a Demi-Brigade of Legionnaires. They have their own truly independent nuclear force but will they sacrifice Paris for Kyiv? Anymore than the Americans are likely to sacrifice Washington for Kyiv?

....

And the rest of Europe moans about America leaving them to twist in the wind.

...

PS - Canada

We are distant from the point of contact (if you ignore the Russian bases in the Arctic and the occasional Russian overflights and the subs under the ice). We are not directly threatened. And we have a significant Ukrainian population (backed by Poles, Czechs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Finns). We have room to manoeuvre. If only we had something to manoeuvre with.

I understand the argument for anchoring Latvia but given the rest of the options Canada might do a greater service by relocating to Western Ukraine, along with the Danes, Brits and French and establish a No Fly Zone / AD Umbrella, extending the Polish coverage.

The force is a tripwire in any event. It is only to buy time. To be fair our last tripwire force bought 45 years of security.

 

[Kirkhill]

If Europe punts on this one, don't blame the Americans. Don't blame Trump. This is all their own work.

Nothing learned since 1939.

 

[Kirkhill]

You want to avoid tariffs?

Send troops.

And stop flirting with the Chinese.

 

[KevinB]

You want to avoid tariffs?

Send troops.

And stop flirting with the Chinese.

Park 1 CMBG in Western Ukraine, and tell Trump the first 18 F-35 are going into Lviv to do CAP and a No Fly.

I suspect that if Canada led, a lot of other countries would be absolutely shamed into action.

 

[suffolkowner]

Park 1 CMBG in Western Ukraine, and tell Trump the first 18 F-35 are going into Lviv to do CAP and a No Fly.

I suspect that if Canada led, a lot of other countries would be absolutely shamed into action.

everyone is still waiting to be led by the US. For one reason or another that is not happening

 

[KevinB]

everyone is still waiting to be led by the US. For one reason or another that is not happening

Kellogg and Vance have both said that if Russia doesn’t adhere to a plan, then US Forces will be deployed into Ukraine, but I would not expect it to be soon, and I expect that DJT would do his utmost to delay that for the next 4 years.

 

[suffolkowner]

Kellogg and Vance have both said that if Russia doesn’t adhere to a plan, then US Forces will be deployed into Ukraine, but I would not expect it to be soon, and I expect that DJT would do his utmost to delay that for the next 4 years.

whats the plan though? Putin keeps what he wants?

 

[Kirkhill]

I suspect, based on the questionnaire that the US State Department supplied, that Trump is selectively signalling a willingness to support Article 5 under the right circumstances.

I suspect that those right circumstances could be a willingness to backstop those countries, like the UK, like France, like JEF, willing to put themselves in the line.

The Finnish president (Stubbs), also a member of JEF and recently joined under the auspices of Boris Johnson's umbrella, doesn't seem particularly bent out of shape. But that would be true of most Finns I have met.

Stubb: US gave Europe 'questionnaire' on Ukraine security guarantees

The Finnish President called for calm among European leaders over the US announcement that peace talks between Washington and Moscow would start "immediately". #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

"Europe needs to get its act together. Europe needs to talk less and do more. What worries me is that we're seeing diplomacy, which is all over the place. I see a lot of people here who are upset and who are not happy with the situation. But my question is, okay, what are you going to do about it?" Stubb told reporters.

The Finnish politician, who was chairman-in-office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) when the peace deal in Georgia in 2008 was being brokered, said that peace talks have at least three phases, and that Trump had initiated the first one on "pre-negotiations".

During this phase, he said, the aim would be to put maximum pressure on Russia and to continue to ensure Ukraine is in a position of strength.

Phase two would be a ceasefire with a demarcation of the border and monitoring on both sides during which "confidence-building measures" would have to be rolled out by both sides while they discuss the modalities and agenda or the actual negotiations, which would be phase three.

"But this cannot happen unless there are clear security arrangements for Ukraine, where Ukraine takes the lead, where the EU supports and when the united where the United States provides a backstop, because the only thing that Russia and Putin understand is power," Stubb said.

"We now know we have to move Ukraine to a position of strength in the negotiations. But for that, we need a plan. And to me, it seems like no one really has a strategy for a plan," he added.

The US questionnaire, he continued, should therefore be seen as "good news" as it suggested allies have time to prepare.

 

[Kirkhill]

whats the plan though? Putin keeps what he wants?

The plan will follow negotiations. Anything else is just making assumptions.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have suggested in the past that this was really a war of resources, just like the Franco-Prussian War, WW1 and WW2 were all ultimately about the coal fields of Belgium, the Saar and Alsace-Lorraine. The Donbas stands in for those coal fields.

Funny thing about coal...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/06/climate/coal-ash-rare-earth-elements/index.html

Radioactive Wastes From Coal-fired Power Plants | US EPA

Like all rocks, coal contains small amounts of radioactive elements that are found naturally in the environment. Generally, wastes from coal-fired power plants are only slightly more radioactive than the average soil in the United States.

www.epa.gov

Burn coal, remove hydrogen, generate heat, generate CO2 plant food, concentrate heavy metals including radionuclides and rare earths.

Apparently Ukraine not only has coal but it has lots of the other stuff as well. And vast piles of coal ash equate to new rare earth mines.

So Trump is taking Zelensky up on an offer. Bankroll us and we will pay you back in rare earth and energy profits. And you will keep them out of Vlad's hands. Trump likes the offer. Zelensky doesn't like Trump's terms.

Revealed: Trump’s confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold

Panic in Kyiv as US president demands higher share of GDP than Germany’s First World War reparations

www.telegraph.co.uk

President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries.

He calculated that it would lead to US companies setting operations on the ground, creating a political tripwire that would deter Vladimir Putin from attacking again.

The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”.

The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,” it states.

The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children’,” said one source close to the negotiations.

It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce.

Trump wants a 50% stake.

That would keep Ukraine's rare earths out of the hands of Vlad and Xi and add them to Trump's American stockpile.

By the way - Canada's drilling mud is loaded with rare earths as well.


Graphite
Lithium
Titanium, Zirconium
Non-ferrous metal
Russian-controlled
Polymetallic
Rare earths
Iron
Manganese
Uranium