And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
This makes no sense. Putin doesn’t want just a bone. He either wants to be in charge of a defeated Ukraine or to see the whole nation reduced to rubble if that isn’t possible. The only way negotiating makes any sense is if there are some kind of guarantees that would prevent Russia from attacking again, by which I mean troops on the ground from a European NATO member. Putin would think twice if there were something like a division of infantry from the UK, France, Poland, etc. stationed at whatever the new agreed upon border is. Short of that, any agreement is worthless.
The war can end when Putin is dead. And not a day before.
I would imagine that trying to get a damaged sub to sail again would be greatly expensive with all the electrical wiring and electronics/computers that has been exposed to saltwater, everything that needs to be cut open, the fact that any weakening of the hull would be a huge vulnerability when dealing with underwater pressure…..even if the Russians get that sub sailing again, the cost of doing so may be the same as building a new sub from scratch.
Could very well be.
In favor of refit, that sub type is currently under production. So replacement parts aren’t out of production. In favor of scrapping, well, it might be easier & faster, and only slightly more expensive to just add one more boat to the current production run and salvage as many parts of this hulk as they can. Also in favor of scrapping is, well, Russia. Stuff isn’t working all that well for them just now. More’s the pity.
Although the USN put this little oopsie back together: USS San Francisco (SSN-711) - Wikipedia.
Apparently not sunk. Unclear how much actual damage there is.
Now, of course they’re going to release video that seems to minimize damage (maybe old footage?) and Russia knowing that port is at risk is still a win, but it looks like a missed opportunity.
Ukraine is achieving impressive damage. The sub attacks have to hurt the Russian navy.
The youtube channels that support Ukraine are reporting small successes on the front.
Ukraine is still very much in the fight despite the stalemate on the front lines.
If the sub was netted, the drone would have detonated early. Impressive boom & smoke cloud w meagre results.
If not, I’d expect significant damage up to constructive total loss.
I think Ukraine should guarantee not to join NATO, but then instead join the brand new TNNATO (Totally Not NATO), which has just so happens to have the same member countries (possibly minus some of the more troublesome ones*) and has a very similar charter.
Brian
* which at the moment includes the USA, but I was thinking maybe Bulgaria
Or guarantee not to join NATO, but then join NATO. We’ve all seen how much guarantees are worth, with Russia.
Even if Ukraine were OK’d to apply to join NATO, it looks like a mighty steep uphill climb. Even the process of getting Sweden and Finland in - about as unobjectionable new members as could possibly be - took years and Turkey, Hungary, etc. stonewalled it at times. With the unanimity requirement, it’s really hard to see how Ukraine could get all 32 votes - since Ukraine would be, by far, the NATO member nation that would be the likeliest to find itself at war with Russia, and the likeliest cause for the alliance going to war.
Hence the negotiations appear to be about finding a way of guaranteeing Ukraine against future attacks without bringing them into the full NATO structure.
NATO members are free to form independent alliances with whoever they want - the U.S. certainly has. There’s nothing in the NATO charter preventing the UK, France and Germany from deploying troops in Ukraine if they want to. All they need is some cojones… which is why it’ll never happen.
It sounds crazy, but maybe asking some of the non-European democracies to help would be the way to go. Having Australian or South Korean troops on the border is probably just as good as having British or French troops, and it would avoid the whole NATO thing.
I don’t see why they’d be any keener than France, Germany, the UK or [cough] the US.
I was thinking in terms of Russia’s objection of having NATO on their border. If that’s their objection, then they should, in theory, be OK with Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, etc., since they aren’t NATO.
ETA: Especially if those troops are stationed within Ukrainian territory rather than in some kind of “free zone” that would likely amount to de facto Russian territory.
“Unhappy with NATO on their border” is really just a foreign affairs industry shorthand / buzzphrase.
It stands for the larger idea that:
- Russia will not be happy until / unless they control a layer of vassal states which puts a couple / few hundred km between the closest bit of Russia proper and any Western country.
If they ever do succeed in subduing / annexing Ukraine, they will promptly declare it to (once again) be part of Russa proper and hence a new vassal state needs to be created between the former Ukraine and the west.
Fair enough. But those countries might (would almost certainly not?) be keen on the idea. Would South Korea want to risk direct conflict with NK?
I heard recently that the NK troops in Ukraine have gone home.
Putin will not be happy until he controls the borders of the old Russian empire. Which, includes Alaska- altho of course he never mentions that.
He wans ukraine, most of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. plus a lot of ‘stan notions, altho those can remain as puppet states.