Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[TheAuthority]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

So none of us want a nuclear war, but what is the red line before NATO formally get involved. Is there one, short of Russian aggression directly against a NATO member, can they get away with literally anything in Ukraine? 

I asked the same question after the train bombing.

If (and probably when) the atrocities get too much for folks and public opinion starts to demand retaliatory action, what then? It has to been discussed how to proceed.

I have a lot of doubts that the Russians are even capable of launching ICBM's. Of course you need to be damn sure about that before we level the Kremlin. 

[bickster]

 

[magnkarl]

Finland with the help of Swedish air and tech would literally turn anyone invading into a crisp. Finland has prepared for this since 1945. If Russia can’t achieve their objectives in a wide open country like Ukraine, then how the hell are they going to win anything in a country that is essentially one big bog full of mosquitoes, firtrees and extremely well trained troops.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 

Love it. Trolling Russia back is the best part. 

[blandy]

It seems like Russian forces are about to take control of the heap of rubble and bodies and traumatised survivors that used to be Mariupol.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[Awol]

Russian city of Belgorod is a key logistics hub for transferring soldiers and vehicles withdrawn from the Kyiv front to the Donbas. Someone has explosively disturbed a key railway line/bridge nearby, and it won’t be getting fixed in the next few days. 

 

 

[desensitized43]

If true that Russia have brought out the chemical agents then it changes the calculation for me significantly. I thought we were broadly on the right track so far, send weapons and give the Ukrainians the ability to defend their country and make the cost so high that popular opinion would shift in Russia against Putin and ideally he's be ousted or possibly assassinated by his own commanders.

If they've started using gas etc then there's no way to inflict the kind of losses on Russia that would make that strategy successful and we need to shift to something else.

[regular_john]

7 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I asked the same question after the train bombing.

If (and probably when) the atrocities get too much for folks and public opinion starts to demand retaliatory action, what then? It has to been discussed how to proceed.

I have a lot of doubts that the Russians are even capable of launching ICBM's. Of course you need to be damn sure about that before we level the Kremlin. 

Very valid question. At the moment, it seems that they can do basically whatever they want in Ukraine and there'll be no NATO intervention. After all, they're currently starving over 100,000 people to death in Mariupol and nothing is being done. The deaths from a nuclear attack probably wouldn't be much more than that, so I suspect even use of nuclear weapons won't be enough to trigger a military response.

 

I don't think NATO will intervene as long as the conflict does not spill into NATO territory. 

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

If true that Russia have brought out the chemical agents then it changes the calculation for me significantly. I thought we were broadly on the right track so far, send weapons and give the Ukrainians the ability to defend their country and make the cost so high that popular opinion would shift in Russia against Putin and ideally he's be ousted or possibly assassinated by his own commanders.

If they've started using gas etc then there's no way to inflict the kind of losses on Russia that would make that strategy successful and we need to shift to something else.

Totally understand the sentiment, but all we can really do is more of the same - which most people would welcome anyway.

Putin’s big immediate problem is loads of equipment but too little manpower. It’s estimated that Ukraine has functionally destroyed 38-39 Russian BTGs so far, (for reference that’s equivalent to the entire combat strength of the British army) and Russia has about 80 BTGs remaining in Ukraine. He has scraped forces from the rest of the army and mobilised 60,000 reserves to reinforce those units, but what they have in the field now is basically everything available worth having in manpower terms.

A general mobilisation for war in Russia would vastly increase the pool of manpower available, allowing the generation of many new units over 6-12 months to then prosecute the war. But that would be an admission that the ‘Special Military Operation’ was a failure and Russia was transitioning to general war. 
 
Two problems with that: first, the narrative that Ukrainians are being liberated from Nazism goes out the window if it becomes a war against Ukraine itself - state propaganda has been rolling the pitch for this, framing the Ukrainian nationality as Nazism.

Secondly, he would have to officially expand his war aims. Only the total conquest of Ukraine would justify general war (his original intent anyway) but that isn’t looking very feasible even with introduction of more (but older less capable) kit, and a force of conscripted soldiers. He’d potentially be committing to an even greater defeat and his own end.

If Putin could claim national mobilisation was necessary for a war with NATO it gets him out of a no-win situation he’s created for himself, but that claim needs to be credible to his own people. As long as we are just supplying arms and information that is very difficult for him. As awful  as chemical weapons are, beating him quickly in Ukraine depends on not getting dragged over the line into direct confrontation - with the genuine risk of nuclear war.

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

If Putin could claim national mobilisation was necessary for a war with NATO it gets him out of a no-win situation he’s created for himself, but that claim needs to be credible to his own people. As long as we are just supplying arms and information that is very difficult for him. As awful  as chemical weapons are, beating him quickly in Ukraine depends on not getting dragged over the line into direct confrontation - with the genuine risk of nuclear war.

Is it not the case that if Russia manages to take control of a big chunk of the south and east of Ukraine - create their land corridor to Crimea, control the coast along that area, that he could say that Russia has achieved (a revised) objective of "re-uniting" or "liberating" the "pro Russia" parts of Ukraine with Russia by 9 May as his way out? I mean from what we read, that seems like where he's decided to concentrate all their efforts? The initial objective went out the window, surely, within a week of the start of the madness. The enter negotiations to get (from his perspective) Ukraine to sign up to some sort of new settlement of the state of things?

I guess what happens after that is very much TBD - stop there, and then more of the type of stuff that was going on before he started the war  - lower level conflicts across whatever new borders are set up.

genuine open questions, I haven't got a clue.

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Is it not the case that if Russia manages to take control of a big chunk of the south and east of Ukraine - create their land corridor to Crimea, control the coast along that area, that he could say that Russia has achieved (a revised) objective of "re-uniting" or "liberating" the "pro Russia" parts of Ukraine with Russia by 9 May as his way out? I mean from what we read, that seems like where he's decided to concentrate all their efforts? The initial objective went out the window, surely, within a week of the start of the madness. The enter negotiations to get (from his perspective) Ukraine to sign up to some sort of new settlement of the state of things?

I guess what happens after that is very much TBD - stop there, and then more of the type of stuff that was going on before he started the war  - lower level conflicts across whatever new borders are set up.

genuine open questions, I haven't got a clue.

I think there’s a good chance his aim now is to do exactly that with the forces he has available, then as he did before, wait for an opportune moment to attack again. 

There’s an equal chance that he could fail to take Donbas if we can keep the UA supplied, and that they could break the back of Russia’s regular army by the summer.

Putin then faces several options:

1) try to hold what occupied land they have with remaining Russian forces against a Ukrainian counter-offensive. (IMO) Dangerous and liable to lead to complete rout of the Russian army.
2) Withdraw entirely from the east but maybe try to hold the Crimea. (IMO) political suicide, not happening. 
3) General mobilisation. (IMO) where he needs to get to but cannot justify for reasons given in last post *unless* it is to fight NATO. 

Given what they have suffered, I can’t imagine Ukraine settling for less than the total liberation of their country, even if certain western leaders try (again) to pressure them into making concessions.

Just my take, no inside track here.

[lapal_fan]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Finland with the help of Swedish air and tech would literally turn anyone invading into a crisp. Finland has prepared for this since 1945. If Russia can’t achieve their objectives in a wide open country like Ukraine, then how the hell are they going to win anything in a country that is essentially one big bog full of mosquitoes, firtrees and extremely well trained troops.

You forgot pasty, ginger bastards  

[bobzy]

19 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

You forgot pasty, ginger bastards  

[KentVillan]

 

 

[avfc1982am]

24 minutes ago, Awol said:

I think there’s a good chance his aim now is to do exactly that with the forces he has available, then as he did before, wait for an opportune moment to attack again. 

There’s an equal chance that he could fail to take Donbas if we can keep the UA supplied, and that they could break the back of Russia’s regular army by the summer.

Putin then faces several options:

1) try to hold what occupied land they have with remaining Russian forces against a Ukrainian counter-offensive. (IMO) Dangerous and liable to lead to complete rout of the Russian army.
2) Withdraw entirely from the east but maybe try to hold the Crimea. (IMO) political suicide, not happening. 
3) General mobilisation. (IMO) where he needs to get to but cannot justify for reasons given in last post *unless* it is to fight NATO. 

Given what they have suffered, I can’t imagine Ukraine settling for less than the total liberation of their country, even if certain western leaders try (again) to pressure them into making concessions.

Just my take, no inside track here.

This is going to be the overriding factor regarding any peace deal which is why I see this going on for a long time. Very doubtful Ukraine will give up territory now Kyiv is somewhat liberated from invading forces and they're seeing what destruction Russians have left. Would we in the same situation, I don't think so. I think we'd want to wipe them from our lands never to return. Part of me hopes Ukraine can continue this and decimate the Russian Army and send them back to the dark ages. Putin has already sent them back decades. The new lepers of the world. 

[blandy]

Just now, avfc1982am said:

The new lepers of the world

Unfortunately, for Putin (and fortunately for the ordinary people of Russia) they're not.

While "the West" is just about holding a line on Russia, a huge chunk of the rotw is ambivalent. India, China, large parts of Africa and South America, the middle east...quite happy to stay out of it and carry on dealing with Russia or take advantage of/adapt to Russia's new circumstances. And there are some that are outright supportive of Russia, obviously. India has stepped up purchasing of Russian Oil, China is gaining from their relationship with Russia, Hungary, Serbia, Belarus are supportive...

The West does not have anything like a monopoly and how we look at and deal with things is very different to other parts of the world.

That said, Russia is clearly disadvantaged and what they have Putin has been counter-productive for Russia, as it was always going to be.

[bickster]

We see the Russian losses charts all the time but this one approaches it slightly differently so in some respects you get a better picture but in others you don't (the Russian inflated tank figure we all know includes relics from the Soviet era)

[PussEKatt]

What I dont understand about this Russian war is this,and its quite simple really.

1- What is the difference between Putin,Stalin,Saddam.H,Hitler.Answer no difference at all.

2 - Would any of the mentioned above be happy with defeat or settle for peace talks,Answer no.

3 - All of the above were convinced that they would win ( thats why what their armies did,did not bother them at all ) because the victors dont go to court for war crimes,etc.

5- So what makes,the west/NATO think that ANYTHING except a defeat of Russia is going to end this ?!

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Nato are the only winners of this conflict.  Finland and Sweden are closer than ever to joining Nato. Russia's army has been significantly damaged.  Natos modern weapons have been proven to be far superior to the bulk of Russian equipment.  Regardless how the war ends, Ukrainians will be killing Russians and tying up Russian troops for the next decade. 

This war has been tragic.  Its done massive damage to Ukraine in the short term.  It will do massive damage to Russia in the long term.  But the military threat to Nato countries from Russia has never been lower than it is today.