My coast guard friend informs me that people have been doing this since WWII, when the US military would write messages to Hitler on their ammo.
I could see myself considering asking for a shell with "To the Catamite of Tartary" on it, as it's an applicable insult towards Putin (as the current Russian Federation includes parts of Tartary) as well as a historical throwback to the Response of the Zaporozhian Cossacks (who lived in present day Ukraine) telling the Ottoman Sultan to sod off in the late 1600s.
But as zepherin said, it's getting a little too cyberpunk and morally gray at that point.
Also "catamite" as an insult is kind of offensively homophobic
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
If he wanted to, Putin could just say "ok we killed all the nazis, good job everyone!" and pull back. The people who buy his bullshit in the first place would also go "oh, I guess all the nazis are dead!"
Putin doesn't want to save face. He wants Ukraine to not exist as a country and for Ukranians to not exist as a people.
+31
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't mind tossing a few bucks to have "Eat Shit" written on the side of a shell but I'm guessing that's happening anyways.
Apparently once the bridge was blown up, the tanks all turned around (with their turrets pointed back towards the Ukrainians) and...drove right into the fucking river. To try and get back across. At least eight of them at once.
It did not work. And I'm counting like 11 other vehicles besides those.
Apparently once the bridge was blown up, the tanks all turned around (with their turrets pointed back towards the Ukrainians) and...drove right into the fucking river. To try and get back across. At least eight of them at once.
It did not work. And I'm counting like 11 other vehicles besides those.
Is that a different river crossing they fucked up? Or the same big one from a day or two ago?
I'm not sure how many river crossings they've tried but I think it's more than 3 at this point. I'm not sure if all of them have been utter failures but at least most of them have.
ISW write up that's worth a read, about 3 different scenarios where this war could realistically end.
Key takeaways
Forecast:
We assess that the remainder of this phase of the war in Ukraine will likely follow one of three courses: either Russian forces will annex occupied Ukrainian territory into Russia, the Russian military will stall for time as it attempts to mobilize additional forces, or the Russian military will continue to pursue impossible military objectives with insufficient resources and ultimately collapse in the coming months. Mobilization does not preclude military collapse.
If Russian forces make the deliberate choice to end their offensive before the Ukrainian military forces them to do so, that decision would be a strong indicator of imminent annexation. If Russian forces fail to recognize that their Donbas campaign has culminated, the Russian military in Ukraine may be headed for an outright collapse.
The West must take seriously the real and likely threat that Russia will annex southeastern Ukraine and then expand Russian nuclear doctrine to cover that newly annexed territory.
Ukraine and its Western partners likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory (or brings up additional forces).
Basically there's a possibility (likelihood even) that Russia straight out annexes the occupied territory with no plausible cause, and then threatens nuclear retaliation for any "counteroffensives." Thus forcing Ukraine to either stall or call their bluff. There's a narrow window where the Russian command and Putin don't acknowledge they're losing and they just blunder into a military collapse; let's hope Putin remains surrounded by yes men that continue to say "everything is fine."
StarZapper on
+3
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
I had the same question as Stabbity. It's either two separate fuck-ups or one fuck-up that just keeps turning out to be bigger and bigger. Either way - great news.
Remind me, is Rand Paul one of the many Republicans on the Russian payroll? Or is he just an in general asshole? It's sometimes hard to keep up with who is who in the party of crazy people these days.
The entire family is. Rand and Ron's campaign manager, who is also Ron Paul's grandson in law, was charge with laundering Russian money for Trump. They keep promoting pro-Putin talking points and putting all the blame on everyone else. There's been speculation that the Ron Paul campaign of 2012 was a trial run for Russian troll farming.
Not to mention that Kentucky politicians in general seem deeply connected to Russia, to the extent where Kentucky pension funds are major investors in Russian businesses.
+16
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
My coast guard friend informs me that people have been doing this since WWII, when the US military would write messages to Hitler on their ammo.
I could see myself considering asking for a shell with "To the Catamite of Tartary" on it, as it's an applicable insult towards Putin (as the current Russian Federation includes parts of Tartary) as well as a historical throwback to the Response of the Zaporozhian Cossacks (who lived in present day Ukraine) telling the Ottoman Sultan to sod off in the late 1600s.
But as zepherin said, it's getting a little too cyberpunk and morally gray at that point.
Also "catamite" as an insult is kind of offensively homophobic
True, mouth/keyboard got ahead of my brain there. A re-working of another derisive expletive from the document in question would be more fitting/less offensive for modern times "Goat fucker of Muscovy" has a nice ring to it.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
ISW write up that's worth a read, about 3 different scenarios where this war could realistically end.
Key takeaways
Forecast:
We assess that the remainder of this phase of the war in Ukraine will likely follow one of three courses: either Russian forces will annex occupied Ukrainian territory into Russia, the Russian military will stall for time as it attempts to mobilize additional forces, or the Russian military will continue to pursue impossible military objectives with insufficient resources and ultimately collapse in the coming months. Mobilization does not preclude military collapse.
If Russian forces make the deliberate choice to end their offensive before the Ukrainian military forces them to do so, that decision would be a strong indicator of imminent annexation. If Russian forces fail to recognize that their Donbas campaign has culminated, the Russian military in Ukraine may be headed for an outright collapse.
The West must take seriously the real and likely threat that Russia will annex southeastern Ukraine and then expand Russian nuclear doctrine to cover that newly annexed territory.
Ukraine and its Western partners likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory (or brings up additional forces).
Basically there's a possibility (likelihood even) that Russia straight out annexes the occupied territory with no plausible cause, and then threatens nuclear retaliation for any "counteroffensives." Thus forcing Ukraine to either stall or call their bluff. There's a narrow window where the Russian command and Putin don't acknowledge they're losing and they just blunder into a military collapse; let's hope Putin remains surrounded by yes men that continue to say "everything is fine."
I'm like 95% sure Ukraine is going to call that bluff, especially if they're winning at the time. Internationally, it makes zero difference whether Russia has 'annexed' the territory or not, none of that calculus changes. I doubt even China would back a play like that.
I'm not sure how many river crossings they've tried but I think it's more than 3 at this point. I'm not sure if all of them have been utter failures but at least most of them have.
From what I can tell the battle in question on the ninth consisted of three separate crossing attempts that each got wrecked. ISW thinks there might have been a successful one elsewhere in the last couple of days, but nobody has confirmation one way or another yet.
That ISW report briefly mentioned Russian efforts at "filtration" of occupied territory and even though they didn't go into excessive detail I got chills.
I wouldn't pay for a message on a bomb and if I had to it would be w simple 'for the Ukranian people'.
I think pushing my reps and senators and emphasizing how much the US money and military hose should go against Russia is the place my dollars matter.
But I really want a Sukhoi keychain and should send more money to resettlement efforts. Is there a place we can sign up to give displaced Ukranians homes?
Edit - like can I AirBnB a month in Prague or wherever and hand it off to refugees?
fwiw macron has not actually said that publicly; zelenskyy reported that he said it
there's no reason to think zelenskyy is lying about that, but I also don't really think it's necessarily fair to rake macron over something said in a private meeting
If an agreement had been reached and Macron had come out with it, there would be pressure on Zelenskyy to accept it. Think about how many people here and elsewhere want Ukraine to make that choice even now.
By making it public, but before anything was put together, it puts pressure on the EU leaders from even attempting to create such a deal in the first place.
If macron made a deal for peace without Zelensky's knowledge I suspect it would absolutely blow up in his face with basically everyone.
Besides which, the time for making concessions is well and truly past and given that Ukraine is doing a credible job of outfighting russia it's absoltely counter intuitive to create a situation wherein the ukraine not only surrenders territory but leaves this whole stupid fiasco in a position where it will inevitably blow the fuck up again.
If he wanted to, Putin could just say "ok we killed all the nazis, good job everyone!" and pull back. The people who buy his bullshit in the first place would also go "oh, I guess all the nazis are dead!"
Putin doesn't want to save face. He wants Ukraine to not exist as a country and for Ukranians to not exist as a people.
I actually threw something like this out a little while back and its as true now as it was when I wrote it:
He can literally make up whatever shit he wants, since he started the war for completely nonsensical reasons and could theoretically end it at anytime for eqaully baffling reasons.
"As you all know I started this war so that I could be paid tribute by Zelensky in the form of 5 lbs of Rambutans the farming of which is the primary source of income for the city state of Ukraine (or "Doug" as the natives call it) and in his capacity of Caliph of the Ukrainian unorthodox church of pastafarianism they have sent me a 4 pound bag which I will use to see directly into the kingdom of heaven."
Because the thing is, barring a coup putin doesn't have anything to worry about WRT being out of office; the elections were suspect even before he straight up threw them out and he did away with term limits ages ago. Hell, the press can't even question the actions of the government anymore without risking the lives of themselves and their families.
fwiw macron has not actually said that publicly; zelenskyy reported that he said it
there's no reason to think zelenskyy is lying about that, but I also don't really think it's necessarily fair to rake macron over something said in a private meeting
If an agreement had been reached and Macron had come out with it, there would be pressure on Zelenskyy to accept it. Think about how many people here and elsewhere want Ukraine to make that choice even now.
By making it public, but before anything was put together, it puts pressure on the EU leaders from even attempting to create such a deal in the first place.
If macron made a deal for peace without Zelensky's knowledge I suspect it would absolutely blow up in his face with basically everyone.
Besides which, the time for making concessions is well and truly past and given that Ukraine is doing a credible job of outfighting russia it's absoltely counter intuitive to create a situation wherein the ukraine not only surrenders territory but leaves this whole stupid fiasco in a position where it will inevitably blow the fuck up again.
Ukraine taking a peace agreement with Russia that surrenders no territory but demands the withdrawal of Russia from some or all contested territory is a good agreement.
Crimea being frozen is gonna happen and Ukraine will never ever surrender that claim to Russia.
+3
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
ISW write up that's worth a read, about 3 different scenarios where this war could realistically end.
Key takeaways
Forecast:
We assess that the remainder of this phase of the war in Ukraine will likely follow one of three courses: either Russian forces will annex occupied Ukrainian territory into Russia, the Russian military will stall for time as it attempts to mobilize additional forces, or the Russian military will continue to pursue impossible military objectives with insufficient resources and ultimately collapse in the coming months. Mobilization does not preclude military collapse.
If Russian forces make the deliberate choice to end their offensive before the Ukrainian military forces them to do so, that decision would be a strong indicator of imminent annexation. If Russian forces fail to recognize that their Donbas campaign has culminated, the Russian military in Ukraine may be headed for an outright collapse.
The West must take seriously the real and likely threat that Russia will annex southeastern Ukraine and then expand Russian nuclear doctrine to cover that newly annexed territory.
Ukraine and its Western partners likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory (or brings up additional forces).
Basically there's a possibility (likelihood even) that Russia straight out annexes the occupied territory with no plausible cause, and then threatens nuclear retaliation for any "counteroffensives." Thus forcing Ukraine to either stall or call their bluff. There's a narrow window where the Russian command and Putin don't acknowledge they're losing and they just blunder into a military collapse; let's hope Putin remains surrounded by yes men that continue to say "everything is fine."
This is exactly what I thought of with Putin's May 9th speech. He said that Ukraine is theirs and always has been theirs, and therefore touching any territory they control now is behind their borders and an "existential threat to Russia." He was not unclear. That's why I was so confused that all but a few seemed so relieved he didn't openly declare war. This report presents the possibility that along with Kherson, Zaphorizhzhya, Donetsk, and Luhansk, Russia may also try to annex Transnistria and South Ossetia at the same time, basically getting all the international outrage out of the way at once so everyone is tired of it before it gets cold outside.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Apparently once the bridge was blown up, the tanks all turned around (with their turrets pointed back towards the Ukrainians) and...drove right into the fucking river. To try and get back across. At least eight of them at once.
It did not work. And I'm counting like 11 other vehicles besides those.
Is that a different river crossing they fucked up? Or the same big one from a day or two ago?
I think it is a new incident...
Picture of the original pile of tanks:
And the new image from Telegram:
The pile of tanks is visible in both pictures, but the submerged tanks are only in the second one. In addition, the mud on the riverbank is a lot more torn up in the second photo, and the sunken remains of the bridges look like they've been pulled a bit by the current. Not sure if the downstream debris is two bridges or one that has broken up a bit. All that makes me think that this was a brand new fuckup. It's possible that the sunken tanks were recovered (or had their turrets pulled off in a recovery attempt), but I find that unlikely, as the area appears to be too contested for that.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+10
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I personally feel at this stage the only people that can decide what's acceptable for peace are the Ukranians. With Russian war crimes and the knowledge of what they will do to the Ukranian population in areas they control, I feel only Zelensky can make an accurate decision as to if it's acceptable to give territory or similar to Putin at this point. The international community should fuck right off in trying to tell Zelensky what he should or shouldn't accept anymore.
Look if Russia decides to attack anyone with a NATO or NATO adjacent banner unless we go full nukes and we all lose the war is over by Monday and Russia never crosses a border again.
Most of the US military is doing all they can to cheer on and help Ulraine knowing that like one US armored division with our combined support would wreck russia to the point where the biggest threat is wrecking them so bad they go nuclear.
Russia is no longer a conventional threat they are a joke. And honestly Chinas conventional threat got downgraded a lot too.
Look if Russia decides to attack anyone with a NATO or NATO adjacent banner unless we go full nukes and we all lose the war is over by Monday and Russia never crosses a border again.
Most of the US military is doing all they can to cheer on and help Ulraine knowing that like one US armored division with our combined support would wreck russia to the point where the biggest threat is wrecking them so bad they go nuclear.
Russia is no longer a conventional threat they are a joke. And honestly Chinas conventional threat got downgraded a lot too.
I suspect some Chinese generals are definitely having second, third and seventh thoughts about what going after Taiwan would look like, for sure.
fwiw macron has not actually said that publicly; zelenskyy reported that he said it
there's no reason to think zelenskyy is lying about that, but I also don't really think it's necessarily fair to rake macron over something said in a private meeting
If an agreement had been reached and Macron had come out with it, there would be pressure on Zelenskyy to accept it. Think about how many people here and elsewhere want Ukraine to make that choice even now.
By making it public, but before anything was put together, it puts pressure on the EU leaders from even attempting to create such a deal in the first place.
If macron made a deal for peace without Zelensky's knowledge I suspect it would absolutely blow up in his face with basically everyone.
Besides which, the time for making concessions is well and truly past and given that Ukraine is doing a credible job of outfighting russia it's absoltely counter intuitive to create a situation wherein the ukraine not only surrenders territory but leaves this whole stupid fiasco in a position where it will inevitably blow the fuck up again.
Ukraine taking a peace agreement with Russia that surrenders no territory but demands the withdrawal of Russia from some or all contested territory is a good agreement.
Crimea being frozen is gonna happen and Ukraine will never ever surrender that claim to Russia.
At this point the peace deal needs to look like this:
1. Russia withdraws all forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kerson, Kharkiv and any other location they're squatting right now.
2. Rusia publicly denounces DNR/LNR pushes for independance/autonomy and recognizes them as ukrainian territory in perpetuity.
3. Russia retains control of Crimea.
4. Russia negotiates terms for the end of the sanctions independant of ukraine.
That's the best deal that they should be able to get. One which doesn't require people to be shipped off to the Hague or reparations.
It's also a far cry from what Macron was suggesting.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Look if Russia decides to attack anyone with a NATO or NATO adjacent banner unless we go full nukes and we all lose the war is over by Monday and Russia never crosses a border again.
Most of the US military is doing all they can to cheer on and help Ulraine knowing that like one US armored division with our combined support would wreck russia to the point where the biggest threat is wrecking them so bad they go nuclear.
Russia is no longer a conventional threat they are a joke. And honestly Chinas conventional threat got downgraded a lot too.
But Russia can still go nuclear. If 20% of their warheads are functional, that’s over 1,000 warheads, they could at any moment kill almost every person in Ukraine. And then what? Do we nuke them and get nuked in return? Do we just let Ukraine be nuked.
And with a potentially dying possible crazy authoritarian running Russia. We don’t know how far they will be willing to escalate, and we don’t know how far Biden will escalate.
CNN had an article from a ukranian lawmaker confirming what I suspected, which is that Ukraine is suffering severe losses in more recent fighting compared to the start of the war, which is what happens when things shift to just shelling entrenched positions. They were begging for more advanced military aid to counter this. Another reason to be pissed off at Ron Paul’s bad faith spanned in the works. Now is the worst time to take the foot off the gas so to speak, because it will favour Russian attempts at just attritional grinding down of Ukrainian people and armed forces
fwiw macron has not actually said that publicly; zelenskyy reported that he said it
there's no reason to think zelenskyy is lying about that, but I also don't really think it's necessarily fair to rake macron over something said in a private meeting
If an agreement had been reached and Macron had come out with it, there would be pressure on Zelenskyy to accept it. Think about how many people here and elsewhere want Ukraine to make that choice even now.
By making it public, but before anything was put together, it puts pressure on the EU leaders from even attempting to create such a deal in the first place.
If macron made a deal for peace without Zelensky's knowledge I suspect it would absolutely blow up in his face with basically everyone.
Besides which, the time for making concessions is well and truly past and given that Ukraine is doing a credible job of outfighting russia it's absoltely counter intuitive to create a situation wherein the ukraine not only surrenders territory but leaves this whole stupid fiasco in a position where it will inevitably blow the fuck up again.
Ukraine taking a peace agreement with Russia that surrenders no territory but demands the withdrawal of Russia from some or all contested territory is a good agreement.
Crimea being frozen is gonna happen and Ukraine will never ever surrender that claim to Russia.
At this point the peace deal needs to look like this:
1. Russia withdraws all forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kerson, Kharkiv and any other location they're squatting right now.
2. Rusia publicly denounces DNR/LNR pushes for independance/autonomy and recognizes them as ukrainian territory in perpetuity.
3. Russia retains control of Crimea.
4. Russia negotiates terms for the end of the sanctions independant of ukraine.
That's the best deal that they should be able to get. One which doesn't require people to be shipped off to the Hague or reparations.
It's also a far cry from what Macron was suggesting.
Throw in (preferably UN or similar supervised) repatriation of Ukrainian refugees in Russia.
Look if Russia decides to attack anyone with a NATO or NATO adjacent banner unless we go full nukes and we all lose the war is over by Monday and Russia never crosses a border again.
Most of the US military is doing all they can to cheer on and help Ulraine knowing that like one US armored division with our combined support would wreck russia to the point where the biggest threat is wrecking them so bad they go nuclear.
Russia is no longer a conventional threat they are a joke. And honestly Chinas conventional threat got downgraded a lot too.
But Russia can still go nuclear. If 20% of their warheads are functional, that’s over 1,000 warheads, they could at any moment kill almost every person in Ukraine. And then what? Do we nuke them and get nuked in return? Do we just let Ukraine be nuked.
And with a potentially dying possible crazy authoritarian running Russia. We don’t know how far they will be willing to escalate, and we don’t know how far Biden will escalate.
I accept I've been wrong and amazingly wrong on what Russia is willing to do. And I'm quite open to being proven wrong again -hopefully not but sure.
Russia isn't going to go nuclear. They understand what even one small one means. The genie stays in the bottle and we accept that because if it gets out it's done before we know it and we are all just pawns.
Putin ordering a nuclear strike is the most dangerous desperation move he will ever make and I don't see it happening in any scenario where he isn't already deposed and deciding if he dies quietly or not.
CNN had an article from a ukranian lawmaker confirming what I suspected, which is that Ukraine is suffering severe losses in more recent fighting compared to the start of the war, which is what happens when things shift to just shelling entrenched positions. They were begging for more advanced military aid to counter this. Another reason to be pissed off at Ron Paul’s bad faith spanned in the works. Now is the worst time to take the foot off the gas so to speak, because it will favour Russian attempts at just attritional grinding down of Ukrainian people and armed forces
Ukraine is on the offensive and fighting back Russia. The original supplies were for an insurgency accepting Russia wasnt incompetent. Heavy weapons would be a waste any near peer would destroy in a week.
Now that we know Russia is not near peer and 50 years ago would have been the most pathetic Warsaw Pact member the rest of the USSR begged to keep up its gonna be hard fought battles but Ukraine is on the offensive. It's absolutely nuts in mid-May anyone would ever say that.
Russia fucked up historically badly.
+20
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
It's a lot less impossible for Ukraine to attack into Crimea than it was in the past, now that they're getting real NATO gear. If they can maintain a good AA screen and outrange Russian artillery, they notionally could have a chance at creating and pushing a beachhead back onto Crimea. It would probably still be costly, depending on what kind of hardened bunkers and defense lines Russia managed to setup, but maybe doable if Ukraine was willing to spend the blood. Hell, if we're really looking at wishful thinking, maybe it even isn't that costly if Ukraine is able to translate any lessons from pushing against defense positions in the breakaways.
Either way, this really isn't going to be an actual going concern for probably at least another month. They're going to sweep all the way back to the rest of the border and push against the breakaways first. I doubt that even if they all of a sudden have fast progress against Kherson that they would turn into Crimea immediately instead of also continuing to push back towards Maruipol.
Not sure who originally put this together, Chinese media or a tweeter perhaps, but someone pasted together the pictures from the earlier landings to give a better idea of how they actually fit together.
This is from before the flock of tanks went in for a swim.
fwiw macron has not actually said that publicly; zelenskyy reported that he said it
there's no reason to think zelenskyy is lying about that, but I also don't really think it's necessarily fair to rake macron over something said in a private meeting
If an agreement had been reached and Macron had come out with it, there would be pressure on Zelenskyy to accept it. Think about how many people here and elsewhere want Ukraine to make that choice even now.
By making it public, but before anything was put together, it puts pressure on the EU leaders from even attempting to create such a deal in the first place.
If macron made a deal for peace without Zelensky's knowledge I suspect it would absolutely blow up in his face with basically everyone.
Besides which, the time for making concessions is well and truly past and given that Ukraine is doing a credible job of outfighting russia it's absoltely counter intuitive to create a situation wherein the ukraine not only surrenders territory but leaves this whole stupid fiasco in a position where it will inevitably blow the fuck up again.
Ukraine taking a peace agreement with Russia that surrenders no territory but demands the withdrawal of Russia from some or all contested territory is a good agreement.
Crimea being frozen is gonna happen and Ukraine will never ever surrender that claim to Russia.
At this point the peace deal needs to look like this:
1. Russia withdraws all forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kerson, Kharkiv and any other location they're squatting right now.
2. Rusia publicly denounces DNR/LNR pushes for independance/autonomy and recognizes them as ukrainian territory in perpetuity.
3. Russia retains control of Crimea.
4. Russia negotiates terms for the end of the sanctions independant of ukraine.
That's the best deal that they should be able to get. One which doesn't require people to be shipped off to the Hague or reparations.
It's also a far cry from what Macron was suggesting.
4 should just not happen baring large scale governmental change in Russia- to quote a famous movie about beating the Red Army, the legs feed the wolf. The Russian economy funds its military, western tech is integral to their best weapons.
The 'integrate them into the western economy' plan was tried, it failed. All it lead to was 20+ years of escalating jackassery, which won't change. So why allow their capacity to continue it to be any larger than the minimum unavoidable level.
But this is a peninsula so if they destroy the bridge and blockade Sevastopol there is only a small land area that needs to be secured to starve out Russia.
In ten years I can see a Ukraine that had all their territory back, and shit a US Black Sea naval base near Odessa while they reintegrate Crimea.
One advantage to ending this in a military victory is that as long as there is fighting Putin will not lose hope. If he thinks his luck may change with a general or limited mobilisation he will be less likely to go nuclear.
So, one scenario would be to push them back more to 2014 borders, then agree a ceasefire too sudden for a Putin to try a dumb move.
2014 borders suck for UKR, but those are territories that were very pro-Russian and have been converted and pillaged since. I could imagine the rest of UKR agreeing with Zelensky, in hindsight, if he says they’re not worth another push.
And having those regions occupied as a frozen conflict does mean that UKR can keep pressure on the EU to keep sanctions on Russia while investing in Ukraine..
I understand the worry about setting a precedent in writing off Russian-occupied territory. But aside from Chinese investment in Russia, which may still happen, Russia is not going to be able to rebuild its army for another invasion.
However, the Sea of Azov coastal region is a different matter. There’s not much point in reopening those ports if Russia controls Crimea and the sole access point to the Sea of Azov. And without those ports there’s no point in rebuilding Mariupol. Unless either someone either in a sea canal across the Crimea neck (Pereskop isthmus) or UKR takes back Crimea.
But there’s no pat scenario there. Those are hard-fought and highly symbolic regions that would be impossible to stomach giving away.
At the moment, UKR doesn’t have to decide either way as it’s Russia who decides where the fighting is. But I imagine that once UKR has the initiative, their advance will be in the south. First cutting off Russia’s land bridge to Crimea by a push down to Sea of Azov, then an attack on the Pereskop Isthmus, followed by cruise missile attacks on the Kerch bridge.
After that an offensive in Luhansk & Donbass while Russian troops in the south are running out of food.
Then spring a peace proposal on Putin where those troops in the south get to withdraw.
Ukraine was already causing Russia serious pain in Crimea by shutting off the water. I suspect that their plan likely is mopping Russia up elsewhere and then relying on global support and sanctions to pretty much starve Russia out of Crimea because they will shut the water off again and might get the means to destroy the bridge built to Crimea, while also blockading Black Sea access to it sufficiently enough, that Russia can't reasonably keep things supplied there. Probably add the extra fuck of you of "we'll even escort Russia citizens out of Crimea to the Russia border and unlike the Russians, we won't make it a point of mining the exit or shooting the civilians. We'll also be sure to remind them every fucking step of the way about it too."
I'll say it again, Russia is in a very bad spot. They are eating global sanctions, while most of the world is pumping supplies into Ukraine. That's a hard setup to beat and I doubt Russia can do so. To make it even harder for Russia, they are take heavier losses than the Ukrainians. It'll just take a bit for all of that to materialize because we have several moving parts that are slow to move and in Russia's case, those parts are slow to stop.
One advantage to ending this in a military victory is that as long as there is fighting Putin will not lose hope. If he thinks his luck may change with a general or limited mobilisation he will be less likely to go nuclear.
So, one scenario would be to push them back more to 2014 borders, then agree a ceasefire too sudden for a Putin to try a dumb move.
2014 borders suck for UKR, but those are territories that were very pro-Russian and have been converted and pillaged since. I could imagine the rest of UKR agreeing with Zelensky, in hindsight, if he says they’re not worth another push.
And having those regions occupied as a frozen conflict does mean that UKR can keep pressure on the EU to keep sanctions on Russia while investing in Ukraine..
I understand the worry about setting a precedent in writing off Russian-occupied territory. But aside from Chinese investment in Russia, which may still happen, Russia is not going to be able to rebuild its army for another invasion.
However, the Sea of Azov coastal region is a different matter. There’s not much point in reopening those ports if Russia controls Crimea and the sole access point to the Sea of Azov. And without those ports there’s no point in rebuilding Mariupol. Unless either someone either in a sea canal across the Crimea neck (Pereskop isthmus) or UKR takes back Crimea.
But there’s no pat scenario there. Those are hard-fought and highly symbolic regions that would be impossible to stomach giving away.
At the moment, UKR doesn’t have to decide either way as it’s Russia who decides where the fighting is. But I imagine that once UKR has the initiative, their advance will be in the south. First cutting off Russia’s land bridge to Crimea by a push down to Sea of Azov, then an attack on the Pereskop Isthmus, followed by cruise missile attacks on the Kerch bridge.
After that an offensive in Luhansk & Donbass while Russian troops in the south are running out of food.
Then spring a peace proposal on Putin where those troops in the south get to withdraw.
On what planet can Ukraine unilaterally declare a ceasefire or peace proposal.
Putin doesn't want peace. He wants to conquer Ukraine. He's not going to agree to any truce or ceasefire just because Ukraine "springs it on him" like he's a small child that will get completely discombobulated if they throw the peace document at him too fast.
Also, no one gives a shit what Putin wants or what he can stomach giving away. The appeasement-for-peace game is over. That ship has sailed. We already tried it for literally decades, and it didn't work. We're no longer in the appeasement business. We're in the "we are going to fuck Putin and sanction Russia until Ukraine is made whole" business.
Maybe after Putin dies we'll try something new. But until that happens, Putin is in charge of Russia, and Putin will use Russia and the Russian people to invade other countries until he gets what he wants. So the only good solution available is to make sure that Russia does not have the means to wage war in the first place. Which means the sanctions stay until Putin dies.
Everyone with half a brain realized this after Putin invaded. That's why the U.S. and NATO have basically said that they will provide military aid to Ukraine and uphold the sanctions in perpetuity until Ukraine says to stop. And frankly, even then, everyone will likely keep the sanctions on because, again, as long as Putin is alive and in charge of Russia, we cannot justify allowing Russia to have enough military might to invade other countries. That's the end game.
At this point the only people with any moral authority to tell us to deviate from this plan are the Ukrainians, and that would be us going out of our way to stop doing what is in our own best interests. Which is, again, to keep the screws on Russia until Putin dies.
One advantage to ending this in a military victory is that as long as there is fighting Putin will not lose hope. If he thinks his luck may change with a general or limited mobilisation he will be less likely to go nuclear.
So, one scenario would be to push them back more to 2014 borders, then agree a ceasefire too sudden for a Putin to try a dumb move.
2014 borders suck for UKR, but those are territories that were very pro-Russian and have been converted and pillaged since. I could imagine the rest of UKR agreeing with Zelensky, in hindsight, if he says they’re not worth another push.
And having those regions occupied as a frozen conflict does mean that UKR can keep pressure on the EU to keep sanctions on Russia while investing in Ukraine..
I understand the worry about setting a precedent in writing off Russian-occupied territory. But aside from Chinese investment in Russia, which may still happen, Russia is not going to be able to rebuild its army for another invasion.
However, the Sea of Azov coastal region is a different matter. There’s not much point in reopening those ports if Russia controls Crimea and the sole access point to the Sea of Azov. And without those ports there’s no point in rebuilding Mariupol. Unless either someone either in a sea canal across the Crimea neck (Pereskop isthmus) or UKR takes back Crimea.
But there’s no pat scenario there. Those are hard-fought and highly symbolic regions that would be impossible to stomach giving away.
At the moment, UKR doesn’t have to decide either way as it’s Russia who decides where the fighting is. But I imagine that once UKR has the initiative, their advance will be in the south. First cutting off Russia’s land bridge to Crimea by a push down to Sea of Azov, then an attack on the Pereskop Isthmus, followed by cruise missile attacks on the Kerch bridge.
After that an offensive in Luhansk & Donbass while Russian troops in the south are running out of food.
Then spring a peace proposal on Putin where those troops in the south get to withdraw.
On what planet can Ukraine unilaterally declare a ceasefire or peace proposal.
Putin doesn't want peace. He wants to conquer Ukraine. He's not going to agree to any truce or ceasefire just because Ukraine "springs it on him" like he's a small child that will get completely discombobulated if they throw the peace document at him too fast.
Also, no one gives a shit what Putin wants or what he can stomach giving away. The appeasement-for-peace game is over. That ship has sailed. We already tried it for literally decades, and it didn't work. We're no longer in the appeasement business. We're in the "we are going to fuck Putin and sanction Russia until Ukraine is made whole" business.
Maybe after Putin dies we'll try something new. But until that happens, Putin is in charge of Russia, and Putin will use Russia and the Russian people to invade other countries until he gets what he wants. So the only good solution available is to make sure that Russia does not have the means to wage war in the first place. Which means the sanctions stay until Putin dies.
Everyone with half a brain realized this after Putin invaded. That's why the U.S. and NATO have basically said that they will provide military aid to Ukraine and uphold the sanctions in perpetuity until Ukraine says to stop. And frankly, even then, everyone will likely keep the sanctions on because, again, as long as Putin is alive and in charge of Russia, we cannot justify allowing Russia to have enough military might to invade other countries. That's the end game.
At this point the only people with any moral authority to tell us to deviate from this plan are the Ukrainians, and that would be us going out of our way to stop doing what is in our own best interests. Which is, again, to keep the screws on Russia until Putin dies.
Ukraine can set a ceasefire as soon as they are on the offensive.
Currently Russia is on the offensive even though they have had to retreat elsewhere to even be able to attack, and even though they are not advancing.
But that’s the point. Whenever Ukraine starts their offensive, they can stop whenever they want. That won’t surprise Russia in their conventional strategy, but I bet Putin has planned to a nuclear response as an option only for any UKR troops crossing the 2014 lines which Russia recognised .
Also, the sanctions are political, not moral decisions. It’s not up to just the US and NATO to decide on them, either. The sanctions are US and EU and third parties decisions. The EU was far from united even on these limited sanctions and always there was the idea that these sanctions are a temporary cost before a return to normal.
That return to normal is very desired among EU industrialists and markets, and as time passes and energy prices stay high, with more and more EU citizens.
It’s morally and strategically wrong to drop them ASAP, but we’re good at making the wrong decisions for short term gain.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
On what planet is Ukraine not on the offensive already.
Do you think war is some kind of binary state, where a side can only be on offense or defense at any given time?
Putin using nukes in any capacity means the end of Russia as we know it. He can threaten to do so, but he won't actually do it. The second he does, the gloves come off and NATO will knock out everything they can that might potentially launch a nuke.
Here's the thing about nukes that people don't seem to understand - nukes look like any other conventional weapon. If you put a nuke on a warhead, it will look like any other missile. If you put a nuke in a bomb, it will look like any other bomb.
This is the fulcrum upon which MAD sits. The second someone actually uses a nuke, the other side has no option other than to kill literally everything they can find. Because you have no idea where the next nuke will come from because everything can be a nuke.
If Putin throws a nuke because Ukraine recaptures the Donbas and Crimea, then Putin will be signing his own death warrant, and likely the death warrant of anyone living on or near Russian military capabilities.
Here's the thing about nukes that people don't seem to understand - nukes look like any other conventional weapon. If you put a nuke on a warhead, it will look like any other missile. If you put a nuke in a bomb, it will look like any other bomb.
I'm not sure this is accurate. There was a couple NY Times articles about how closely the US monitors the world's nuclear stockpiles a few weeks ago when Putin first started rattling the nuclear saber, and they made it sound like delivering a nuclear weapon was a little more complicated that just firing a missile.
CNN had an article from a ukranian lawmaker confirming what I suspected, which is that Ukraine is suffering severe losses in more recent fighting compared to the start of the war, which is what happens when things shift to just shelling entrenched positions. They were begging for more advanced military aid to counter this. Another reason to be pissed off at Ron Paul’s bad faith spanned in the works. Now is the worst time to take the foot off the gas so to speak, because it will favour Russian attempts at just attritional grinding down of Ukrainian people and armed forces
Not surprising. Hopefully if they've been frantically training new soldiers as fast as they can since the beginning of this thing, and all indications are that they have, in which case they should have a bunch of new troops just about ready to go at this point. Equipping them might be the bigger issue, and it occurs to me what an absolute clusterfuck Ukrainian logistics must be right now. They have their own assault rifle, the Malyuk, but it sounds like it isn't really widely used, and in most footage I've seen their ground forces seem to be armed with some kind of AK variant. There are also a bunch of foreign weapons trickling in, and while there are only a couple of standard ammunition types, I can see how it could be a huge pain to find what you're looking for in the field.
There's 39 different assault rifles in there. Thirty-nine. And that's just assault rifles, not counting battle rifles, semi-automatics or bolt-actions. Imagine you're a unit being rotated off of the front to resupply and your unit is using AKs, but all they have at the depot is 5.56 NATO ammo. Or they have 7.62, but no magazines that fit your specific models. I imagine that just trying to keep track of what units are where, using what weapons and ammo types would be enough to make the average quartermaster's head explode.
Posts
Also "catamite" as an insult is kind of offensively homophobic
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Putin doesn't want to save face. He wants Ukraine to not exist as a country and for Ukranians to not exist as a people.
Apparently once the bridge was blown up, the tanks all turned around (with their turrets pointed back towards the Ukrainians) and...drove right into the fucking river. To try and get back across. At least eight of them at once.
It did not work. And I'm counting like 11 other vehicles besides those.
Is that a different river crossing they fucked up? Or the same big one from a day or two ago?
ISW write up that's worth a read, about 3 different scenarios where this war could realistically end.
Key takeaways
Basically there's a possibility (likelihood even) that Russia straight out annexes the occupied territory with no plausible cause, and then threatens nuclear retaliation for any "counteroffensives." Thus forcing Ukraine to either stall or call their bluff. There's a narrow window where the Russian command and Putin don't acknowledge they're losing and they just blunder into a military collapse; let's hope Putin remains surrounded by yes men that continue to say "everything is fine."
The entire family is. Rand and Ron's campaign manager, who is also Ron Paul's grandson in law, was charge with laundering Russian money for Trump. They keep promoting pro-Putin talking points and putting all the blame on everyone else. There's been speculation that the Ron Paul campaign of 2012 was a trial run for Russian troll farming.
Not to mention that Kentucky politicians in general seem deeply connected to Russia, to the extent where Kentucky pension funds are major investors in Russian businesses.
True, mouth/keyboard got ahead of my brain there. A re-working of another derisive expletive from the document in question would be more fitting/less offensive for modern times "Goat fucker of Muscovy" has a nice ring to it.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I'm like 95% sure Ukraine is going to call that bluff, especially if they're winning at the time. Internationally, it makes zero difference whether Russia has 'annexed' the territory or not, none of that calculus changes. I doubt even China would back a play like that.
From what I can tell the battle in question on the ninth consisted of three separate crossing attempts that each got wrecked. ISW thinks there might have been a successful one elsewhere in the last couple of days, but nobody has confirmation one way or another yet.
I think pushing my reps and senators and emphasizing how much the US money and military hose should go against Russia is the place my dollars matter.
But I really want a Sukhoi keychain and should send more money to resettlement efforts. Is there a place we can sign up to give displaced Ukranians homes?
Edit - like can I AirBnB a month in Prague or wherever and hand it off to refugees?
If macron made a deal for peace without Zelensky's knowledge I suspect it would absolutely blow up in his face with basically everyone.
Besides which, the time for making concessions is well and truly past and given that Ukraine is doing a credible job of outfighting russia it's absoltely counter intuitive to create a situation wherein the ukraine not only surrenders territory but leaves this whole stupid fiasco in a position where it will inevitably blow the fuck up again.
I actually threw something like this out a little while back and its as true now as it was when I wrote it:
Ukraine taking a peace agreement with Russia that surrenders no territory but demands the withdrawal of Russia from some or all contested territory is a good agreement.
Crimea being frozen is gonna happen and Ukraine will never ever surrender that claim to Russia.
This is exactly what I thought of with Putin's May 9th speech. He said that Ukraine is theirs and always has been theirs, and therefore touching any territory they control now is behind their borders and an "existential threat to Russia." He was not unclear. That's why I was so confused that all but a few seemed so relieved he didn't openly declare war. This report presents the possibility that along with Kherson, Zaphorizhzhya, Donetsk, and Luhansk, Russia may also try to annex Transnistria and South Ossetia at the same time, basically getting all the international outrage out of the way at once so everyone is tired of it before it gets cold outside.
I think it is a new incident...
Picture of the original pile of tanks:
And the new image from Telegram:
The pile of tanks is visible in both pictures, but the submerged tanks are only in the second one. In addition, the mud on the riverbank is a lot more torn up in the second photo, and the sunken remains of the bridges look like they've been pulled a bit by the current. Not sure if the downstream debris is two bridges or one that has broken up a bit. All that makes me think that this was a brand new fuckup. It's possible that the sunken tanks were recovered (or had their turrets pulled off in a recovery attempt), but I find that unlikely, as the area appears to be too contested for that.
- John Stuart Mill
Most of the US military is doing all they can to cheer on and help Ulraine knowing that like one US armored division with our combined support would wreck russia to the point where the biggest threat is wrecking them so bad they go nuclear.
Russia is no longer a conventional threat they are a joke. And honestly Chinas conventional threat got downgraded a lot too.
I suspect some Chinese generals are definitely having second, third and seventh thoughts about what going after Taiwan would look like, for sure.
At this point the peace deal needs to look like this:
1. Russia withdraws all forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kerson, Kharkiv and any other location they're squatting right now.
2. Rusia publicly denounces DNR/LNR pushes for independance/autonomy and recognizes them as ukrainian territory in perpetuity.
3. Russia retains control of Crimea.
4. Russia negotiates terms for the end of the sanctions independant of ukraine.
That's the best deal that they should be able to get. One which doesn't require people to be shipped off to the Hague or reparations.
It's also a far cry from what Macron was suggesting.
And with a potentially dying possible crazy authoritarian running Russia. We don’t know how far they will be willing to escalate, and we don’t know how far Biden will escalate.
Throw in (preferably UN or similar supervised) repatriation of Ukrainian refugees in Russia.
I accept I've been wrong and amazingly wrong on what Russia is willing to do. And I'm quite open to being proven wrong again -hopefully not but sure.
Russia isn't going to go nuclear. They understand what even one small one means. The genie stays in the bottle and we accept that because if it gets out it's done before we know it and we are all just pawns.
Putin ordering a nuclear strike is the most dangerous desperation move he will ever make and I don't see it happening in any scenario where he isn't already deposed and deciding if he dies quietly or not.
Ukraine is on the offensive and fighting back Russia. The original supplies were for an insurgency accepting Russia wasnt incompetent. Heavy weapons would be a waste any near peer would destroy in a week.
Now that we know Russia is not near peer and 50 years ago would have been the most pathetic Warsaw Pact member the rest of the USSR begged to keep up its gonna be hard fought battles but Ukraine is on the offensive. It's absolutely nuts in mid-May anyone would ever say that.
Russia fucked up historically badly.
Either way, this really isn't going to be an actual going concern for probably at least another month. They're going to sweep all the way back to the rest of the border and push against the breakaways first. I doubt that even if they all of a sudden have fast progress against Kherson that they would turn into Crimea immediately instead of also continuing to push back towards Maruipol.
This is from before the flock of tanks went in for a swim.
4 should just not happen baring large scale governmental change in Russia- to quote a famous movie about beating the Red Army, the legs feed the wolf. The Russian economy funds its military, western tech is integral to their best weapons.
The 'integrate them into the western economy' plan was tried, it failed. All it lead to was 20+ years of escalating jackassery, which won't change. So why allow their capacity to continue it to be any larger than the minimum unavoidable level.
But this is a peninsula so if they destroy the bridge and blockade Sevastopol there is only a small land area that needs to be secured to starve out Russia.
In ten years I can see a Ukraine that had all their territory back, and shit a US Black Sea naval base near Odessa while they reintegrate Crimea.
So, one scenario would be to push them back more to 2014 borders, then agree a ceasefire too sudden for a Putin to try a dumb move.
2014 borders suck for UKR, but those are territories that were very pro-Russian and have been converted and pillaged since. I could imagine the rest of UKR agreeing with Zelensky, in hindsight, if he says they’re not worth another push.
And having those regions occupied as a frozen conflict does mean that UKR can keep pressure on the EU to keep sanctions on Russia while investing in Ukraine..
I understand the worry about setting a precedent in writing off Russian-occupied territory. But aside from Chinese investment in Russia, which may still happen, Russia is not going to be able to rebuild its army for another invasion.
However, the Sea of Azov coastal region is a different matter. There’s not much point in reopening those ports if Russia controls Crimea and the sole access point to the Sea of Azov. And without those ports there’s no point in rebuilding Mariupol. Unless either someone either in a sea canal across the Crimea neck (Pereskop isthmus) or UKR takes back Crimea.
But there’s no pat scenario there. Those are hard-fought and highly symbolic regions that would be impossible to stomach giving away.
At the moment, UKR doesn’t have to decide either way as it’s Russia who decides where the fighting is. But I imagine that once UKR has the initiative, their advance will be in the south. First cutting off Russia’s land bridge to Crimea by a push down to Sea of Azov, then an attack on the Pereskop Isthmus, followed by cruise missile attacks on the Kerch bridge.
After that an offensive in Luhansk & Donbass while Russian troops in the south are running out of food.
Then spring a peace proposal on Putin where those troops in the south get to withdraw.
I'll say it again, Russia is in a very bad spot. They are eating global sanctions, while most of the world is pumping supplies into Ukraine. That's a hard setup to beat and I doubt Russia can do so. To make it even harder for Russia, they are take heavier losses than the Ukrainians. It'll just take a bit for all of that to materialize because we have several moving parts that are slow to move and in Russia's case, those parts are slow to stop.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
On what planet can Ukraine unilaterally declare a ceasefire or peace proposal.
Putin doesn't want peace. He wants to conquer Ukraine. He's not going to agree to any truce or ceasefire just because Ukraine "springs it on him" like he's a small child that will get completely discombobulated if they throw the peace document at him too fast.
Also, no one gives a shit what Putin wants or what he can stomach giving away. The appeasement-for-peace game is over. That ship has sailed. We already tried it for literally decades, and it didn't work. We're no longer in the appeasement business. We're in the "we are going to fuck Putin and sanction Russia until Ukraine is made whole" business.
Maybe after Putin dies we'll try something new. But until that happens, Putin is in charge of Russia, and Putin will use Russia and the Russian people to invade other countries until he gets what he wants. So the only good solution available is to make sure that Russia does not have the means to wage war in the first place. Which means the sanctions stay until Putin dies.
Everyone with half a brain realized this after Putin invaded. That's why the U.S. and NATO have basically said that they will provide military aid to Ukraine and uphold the sanctions in perpetuity until Ukraine says to stop. And frankly, even then, everyone will likely keep the sanctions on because, again, as long as Putin is alive and in charge of Russia, we cannot justify allowing Russia to have enough military might to invade other countries. That's the end game.
At this point the only people with any moral authority to tell us to deviate from this plan are the Ukrainians, and that would be us going out of our way to stop doing what is in our own best interests. Which is, again, to keep the screws on Russia until Putin dies.
He'll never do that, of course, but that's what I would do in his situation.
Ukraine can set a ceasefire as soon as they are on the offensive.
Currently Russia is on the offensive even though they have had to retreat elsewhere to even be able to attack, and even though they are not advancing.
But that’s the point. Whenever Ukraine starts their offensive, they can stop whenever they want. That won’t surprise Russia in their conventional strategy, but I bet Putin has planned to a nuclear response as an option only for any UKR troops crossing the 2014 lines which Russia recognised .
Also, the sanctions are political, not moral decisions. It’s not up to just the US and NATO to decide on them, either. The sanctions are US and EU and third parties decisions. The EU was far from united even on these limited sanctions and always there was the idea that these sanctions are a temporary cost before a return to normal.
That return to normal is very desired among EU industrialists and markets, and as time passes and energy prices stay high, with more and more EU citizens.
It’s morally and strategically wrong to drop them ASAP, but we’re good at making the wrong decisions for short term gain.
Do you think war is some kind of binary state, where a side can only be on offense or defense at any given time?
Putin using nukes in any capacity means the end of Russia as we know it. He can threaten to do so, but he won't actually do it. The second he does, the gloves come off and NATO will knock out everything they can that might potentially launch a nuke.
Here's the thing about nukes that people don't seem to understand - nukes look like any other conventional weapon. If you put a nuke on a warhead, it will look like any other missile. If you put a nuke in a bomb, it will look like any other bomb.
This is the fulcrum upon which MAD sits. The second someone actually uses a nuke, the other side has no option other than to kill literally everything they can find. Because you have no idea where the next nuke will come from because everything can be a nuke.
If Putin throws a nuke because Ukraine recaptures the Donbas and Crimea, then Putin will be signing his own death warrant, and likely the death warrant of anyone living on or near Russian military capabilities.
I'm not sure this is accurate. There was a couple NY Times articles about how closely the US monitors the world's nuclear stockpiles a few weeks ago when Putin first started rattling the nuclear saber, and they made it sound like delivering a nuclear weapon was a little more complicated that just firing a missile.
Not surprising. Hopefully if they've been frantically training new soldiers as fast as they can since the beginning of this thing, and all indications are that they have, in which case they should have a bunch of new troops just about ready to go at this point. Equipping them might be the bigger issue, and it occurs to me what an absolute clusterfuck Ukrainian logistics must be right now. They have their own assault rifle, the Malyuk, but it sounds like it isn't really widely used, and in most footage I've seen their ground forces seem to be armed with some kind of AK variant. There are also a bunch of foreign weapons trickling in, and while there are only a couple of standard ammunition types, I can see how it could be a huge pain to find what you're looking for in the field.
I mean, just take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Ukrainian_Ground_Forces
There's 39 different assault rifles in there. Thirty-nine. And that's just assault rifles, not counting battle rifles, semi-automatics or bolt-actions. Imagine you're a unit being rotated off of the front to resupply and your unit is using AKs, but all they have at the depot is 5.56 NATO ammo. Or they have 7.62, but no magazines that fit your specific models. I imagine that just trying to keep track of what units are where, using what weapons and ammo types would be enough to make the average quartermaster's head explode.