Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I have posted something in the History Thread which I think many of you will enjoy.  

[Anthony]

 

[LondonLax]

Prigozhin seems even more glum about Russia’s prospects than usual. 
 

 

 

 

 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Prigozhin seems even more glum about Russia’s prospects than usual. 

Seems to be pretty standard for his recent outbursts

[LondonLax]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Seems to be pretty standard for his recent outbursts

There is a fair bit of detail on broader tactical assessments that I haven’t seen so much from him. Normally he’s just calling Russian generals names for not giving him ammunition. 

[LondonLax]

The Washington Post have published some more intel about the Nord Stream attack.

 

Quote

Three months before saboteurs bombed the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces.

 

Details about the plan, which have not been previously reported, were collected by a European intelligence service and shared with the CIA in June 2022. They provide some of the most specific evidence to date linking the government of Ukraine to the eventual attack in the Baltic Sea, which U.S. and Western officials have called a brazen and dangerous act of sabotage on Europe’s energy infrastructure.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/

 

[LondonLax]

You’d have to say it’s commendable that Germany has maintained support for Ukraine even though they have known this whole time that the Ukrainians destroyed the new energy pipelines that bypassed Ukraine and went directly from Russia to Germany. 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

You’d have to say it’s commendable that Germany has maintained support for Ukraine even though they have known this whole time that the Ukrainians destroyed the new energy pipelines that bypassed Ukraine and went directly from Russia to Germany. 

The source for these leaks are from the dubious guy who seems to have posted several instances of contradictory information, the thought is that US intelligence were aware of the leak after a while and fed him disinformation. Many of his leaks, like Ukraine not having enough anti-air, have been proven completely false.

Might be true, might be disinformation. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

You’d have to say it’s commendable that Germany has maintained support for Ukraine even though they have known this whole time that the Ukrainians destroyed the new energy pipelines that bypassed Ukraine and went directly from Russia to Germany. 

I presume the German government is taking a balanced approach and also considering:

the murder of 300 when Russia shot down an airliner

the second invasion of Ukraine by Russia in a decade

the chemical attack committed in Salisbury by Russia 

the Russian invasion of Georgia 

Etc

 

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The source for these leaks are from the dubious guy who seems to have posted several instances of contradictory information, the thought is that US intelligence were aware of the leak after a while and fed him disinformation. Many of his leaks, like Ukraine not having enough anti-air, have been proven completely false.

Might be true, might be disinformation. 

Did you read the article? It’s pretty conclusive, not just one guy’s opinion. The evidence has been corroborated by the German government. 

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Did you read the article? It’s pretty conclusive, not just one guy’s opinion. The evidence has been corroborated by the German government. 

It does seem so. I wonder if it’s also the reason that the Dam being blown up hasn’t been pounced on as “it was Russia” even though it obviously benefited Russia way more than Ukraine, in terms of making the river crossing much harder, destroying electricity generation, ruining farmland and food production, destroying homes of Ukrainians, polluting water, destroying water supplies and all the rest of the impacts.

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

It does seem so. I wonder if it’s also the reason that the Dam being blown up hasn’t been pounced on as “it was Russia” even though it obviously benefited Russia way more than Ukraine, in terms of making the river crossing much harder, destroying electricity generation, ruining farmland and food production, destroying homes of Ukrainians, polluting water, destroying water supplies and all the rest of the impacts.

Most of those impacts are on land Russia is now calling part of mother Russia. It also wiped out a bunch of Russian military defences and most critical of all has made Crimea very difficult to hold in the long term. One of the main reasons for the land bridge to Crimea was to secure that vital waterway. It’s all gone for them now. 

This has very much benefited Ukraine. 

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Most of those impacts are on land Russia is now calling part of mother Russia.... 

This has very much benefited Ukraine. 

It's on land Ukraine is rightly calling part of Ukraine.  Yes some soldiers got their feet wet, but beyond that...I dunno.

[villa89]

35 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Most of those impacts are on land Russia is now calling part of mother Russia

Russia knows the newly annexed land cannot be held so they are implementing a scorched earth policy. i.e. we are going to lose this anyway so lets destroy as much as possible and then when Ukraine re-takes the land it will cost a huge amount of resources to rebuild. Russia is trying to play the long game, hoping NATO support dwindles and the news cycle moves on. 

Your constant defence of Russia is bizarre, I'll just ignore your posts from here on.

[LondonLax]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's on land Ukraine is rightly calling part of Ukraine.  Yes some soldiers got their feet wet, but beyond that...I dunno.

It’s cleared large swaths of landmines which have washed down stream. It’s wiped out months worth of Russian trench lines. The waters will recede in a couple of days and the land will dry out shortly and Crimea will be left exposed and without water. 

A Ukrainian general has already been quoted back in November as saying one of their options on the table was to blow the dam so the idea that it would be unthinkable for Ukraine to contemplate is obviously not true. 

They are at war, nothing would be off the table. 

It will be interesting to see what their next moves are and whether this was part of their planned counterattack strategy. 

[LondonLax]

3 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Russia knows the newly annexed land cannot be held so they are implementing a scorched earth policy. i.e. we are going to lose this anyway so lets destroy as much as possible and then when Ukraine re-takes the land it will cost a huge amount of resources to rebuild. Russia is trying to play the long game, hoping NATO support dwindles and the news cycle moves on. 

Your constant defence of Russia is bizarre, I'll just ignore your posts from here on.

You might want to try and dig up some quotes of mine supporting Russia. I’d love to read them

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s cleared large swaths of landmines which have washed down stream. It’s wiped out months worth of Russian trench lines. The waters will recede in a couple of days and the land will dry out shortly and Crimea will be left exposed and without water. 

A Ukrainian general has already been quoted back in November as saying one of their options on the table was to blow the dam so the idea that it would be unthinkable for Ukraine to contemplate is obviously not true. 

They are at war, nothing would be off the table. 

It will be interesting to see what their next moves are and whether this was part of their planned counterattack strategy. 

It’s clearly possible that either side did it, no arguments there. I’m just not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that it has benefited Ukraine to any extent. It’s also a bit of a question in my mind how they might have undetected managed to do it, when the dam was under Russian control. It would certainly be easier for Russia to have done it.

[LondonLax]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

It’s clearly possible that either side did it, no arguments there. I’m just not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that it has benefited Ukraine to any extent. It’s also a bit of a question in my mind how they might have undetected managed to do it, when the dam was under Russian control. It would certainly be easier for Russia to have done it.

It is certainly true that Russia had the ‘means’ but my first thought is that neither side had the ‘motivation’  

The whole point of Russia’s ‘land bridge’ was to secure that dam and canal behind it supplying Crimea. What use is it to them now? The reasoning given for them being responsible seems weak. 

At the same time Ukraine obviously does not want to see any more distraction of their land than has already occurred. 

Both sides could potentially make some use of it but the motivation might only become clear in time.

Whether Ukraine had the means to do it, I could not say. They obviously do undertake operations behind enemy lines which we joke about being a Russian ‘smoking accident’. When they previously talked about taking it out the plan was supposedly to hit it with HIMARS which they did once before. Russia has said they did the same this time round resulting in the collapse but no evidence for that that has been presented. 

We’ll probably need to wait and see. We may well find out over time who was ultimately responsible and why. 

[bickster]

47 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s wiped out months worth of Russian trench lines.

The trench lines were hilariously useless. Ukraine were never going to make an amphibious assault across the Dnipr, they had no way of getting armour across the river and no means to transfer large amounts of foot soldiers across the river. If the left bank was going to be liberated it would always have been from the Melitopol direction, the trenches would have been the last line of defence before the Russians jumped into the river (or surrendered). In reality Russia knew this, Ukraine have been sending small Special Ops teams across the river for a couple of months, they've never encountered any resistance, the whole area wasn't exactly chock full of Russian troops to begin with

The trenches were mainly just a propaganda tool and a token defence line for show mainly