Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

I bet China is rethinking the value of Russia as a ally ?!

China is currently thinking of Russia as a future vassal state

[PussEKatt]

Just now, bickster said:

China is currently thinking of Russia as a future vassal state

The way they are fighting,thats about all they are good for.

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

China is currently thinking of Russia as a future vassal state

Say what you want about China, but they do seem to have some perspective when it comes to business. They seem to be slightly more open to equitable negotiation than the Russians.

The longer this goes on the more I'm beginning to think that Putin actually has gone a bit strange in the head.  

[Mandy Lifeboats]

44 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

On your third point, though, it still baffles me that they are so shit scared of NATO, as if when they let their guard down for a second NATO countries would invade Russia. Have they spun this nonsense for so long that they now believe it?  

During the Cold War a young West German flew his small plane all the way to Moscow and landed in Red Square.  It was hugely embarrassing for Russia’s airforce.  Especially when the USA pointed out that the plane had a radar signature larger than most of their bombers.  As a result,  50+ Military staff were disciplined to various levels of severity. 

Imagine you are the head of the Russian airforce in 2022.   Are you going to risk a NATO plane being spotted in Russian airspace?  Of course not.  You overplay the threat and then portray the absence of  NATO planes as being your great success.  

Hopefully this “Look after yourself first”  culture will continue to undermine their operations.  
 

 

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

During the Cold War a young West German flew his small plane all the way to Moscow and landed in Red Square.  It was hugely embarrassing for Russia’s airforce.  Especially when the USA pointed out that the plane had a radar signature larger than most of their bombers.  As a result,  50+ Military staff were disciplined to various levels of severity. 

Imagine you are the head of the Russian airforce in 2022.   Are you going to risk a NATO plane being spotted in Russian airspace?  Of course not.  You overplay the threat and then portray the absence of  NATO planes as being your great success.  

Hopefully this “Look after yourself first”  culture will continue to undermine their operations.  
 

 

You may be right, but that's just bonkers when it comes to spending billions of pounds (roubles) on defence. It seems entirely sensible to me that the defence deployment accurately reflects the defence risk. That's kind of the only job that top defence staff have!!

The only way I can reconcile it is that someone, or in fact whole divisions of government are trying to justify their jobs/spending. That seems more probable in a capitalist system than a socialist one? 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

You may be right, but that's just bonkers when it comes to spending billions of pounds (roubles) on defence. It seems entirely sensible to me that the defence deployment accurately reflects the defence risk. That's kind of the only job that top defence staff have!!

But look at the sinking of the Moskva.  The UK lost HMS Sheffield to a missile attack.  Would the British public rather hear that it was accidentally blown up?  The Moskva’s Captain’s fate is unclear.  Did he die in the attack?  Or did he realise that he would immediately be held accountable and blamed for causing the loss by gross incompetence?  Those above him aren’t going to admit that their “invincible” and expensive defence systems THEY purchased are ineffective.  
In the UK forces the top brass can be dismissed for incompetence with a large payoff.  They aren’t going to face the rest of their life in Siberia.  
 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

You may be right, but that's just bonkers when it comes to spending billions of pounds (roubles) on defence. It seems entirely sensible to me that the defence deployment accurately reflects the defence risk. That's kind of the only job that top defence staff have!!

The only way I can reconcile it is that someone, or in fact whole divisions of government are trying to justify their jobs/spending. That seems more probable in a capitalist system than a socialist one? 

Take that billions of pounds and split it in two, then you probably have the real number of rubles going to the actual military and not the corrupt idiocy that goes on in Russia. I imagine some fat cats producing tanks and planes in Russia are starting to get really worried about getting some oversight into their books atm.

[HKP90]

50 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

But look at the sinking of the Moskva.  The UK lost HMS Sheffield to a missile attack.  Would the British public rather hear that it was accidentally blown up?  The Moskva’s Captain’s fate is unclear.  Did he die in the attack?  Or did he realise that he would immediately be held accountable and blamed for causing the loss by gross incompetence?  Those above him aren’t going to admit that their “invincible” and expensive defence systems THEY purchased are ineffective.  
In the UK forces the top brass can be dismissed for incompetence with a large payoff.  They aren’t going to face the rest of their life in Siberia.  
 

If that's the case, their defence is in a catastrophically awful state. How can you make any strategic decisions when you literally cannot rely on anything any of your advisers are telling you.  I guess Russia are finding that out now the hard way. You can see why it is so easy to get drawn into a catastrophic nuclear conflagration with these people. All it takes is for an idiot or a lackey to say yes, and 400 people in positions of oversight to nod politely, and we're all banjaxed. 

[HKP90]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Take that billions of pounds and split it in two, then you probably have the real number of rubles going to the actual military and not the corrupt idiocy that goes on in Russia. I imagine some fat cats producing tanks and planes in Russia are starting to get really worried about getting some oversight into their books atm.

Fair point. 

[Tegis]

Sweden applying for NATO membership. Growing up during very lefty times I'd never thought this would happen. And with the Social Democrats at the helm to boot.

Strange times

[Brumerican]

43 minutes ago, Tegis said:

Sweden applying for NATO membership. Growing up during very lefty times I'd never thought this would happen. And with the Social Democrats at the helm to boot.

Strange times

Zlatan said NATO applied to join him.

[juanpabloangel18]

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

How can you make any strategic decisions when you literally cannot rely on anything any of your advisers are telling you.

I re-watched Chernobyl a few months before this invasion. Assuming it's fairly reliable in its depiction of events, one of the major themes (and problems) is that everyone in the upper echelons of power is too terrified to say anything out loud which undermines the "wisdom" and "strength" of the Soviet Union / Russia. I imagine there's a lot of that going on right now 

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Mark Felton is a British Historian who publishes excellent videos on YouTube. He is well worth a look.  His information is well researched and reliable.  
Apparently when the US was setting up the Afghan government they purchased a lot of Soviet weapons.  They were cheap and effective but not sophisticated enough to pose a real threat to the USA if Afghanistan fell. When Afghanistan fell the USA left a large amount of equipment in Afghanistan.  But there was also a large amount of equipment held in the US and in other countries.  This include 5 helicopters that were in Ukraine for repair.  They have been given to Ukraine along with another 11 helicopters that were in the USA for repair.  
 

That made me remember a few months ago when the US gave Ukraine a large amount of Soviet air defences which could easily be integrated into Ukrainian systems.  I wonder if that was originally bound for Afghanistan?  It explains why USA were in possession of a relevantly good Soviet air defence system.  They probably bought it from Russia!  
 

 

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, HKP90 said:

You may be right, but that's just bonkers when it comes to spending billions of pounds (roubles) on defence. It seems entirely sensible to me that the defence deployment accurately reflects the defence risk. That's kind of the only job that top defence staff have!!

The only way I can reconcile it is that someone, or in fact whole divisions of government are trying to justify their jobs/spending. That seems more probable in a capitalist system than a socialist one? 

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions there that suggest you grew up in a capitalist system though - the main one being that the defence staff have their jobs because of competence at defence matters, and the most likely reason for losing them would be incompetence at defence matters.

In reality you'll find a lot of key staff in the Soviet hierarchy (and this also applies to dictatorships / autocracies everywhere) is that many top officials have their job because they're loyal to the party (or specifically the person in charge of the party) rather than because they are competent. The army is often a tool of internal prestige and repression as much as something designed to fight external enemies. The US loves their military and has the most powerful one in the world but they don't feel the need to do a massive parade of all their gear every year, whereas Russia, China and North Korea sure do.

This problem is nowhere near as bad in functioning democracies. In the light of the recent events in Ukraine a lot of analysts have been repeating the mantra that an army can only be as good as the society that creates it. As mentioned by another poster above, you can see another example of this in Chernobyl. The priority was initially to try to hush up the accident so it didn't damage Soviet prestige, and anyone that wants to deal with (or learn from) the problem has to actively fight the system to do so.

[delboy54]

Just wondering hypothetically that as Putrid is being backed into a corner and he decides to fire one of his small "tactical battlefield" nukes into Ukraine, I wonder what our response will be?

Nobody is going to live in the area of the blast for several decades but will he care?

I think the West will respond by hand wringing and a strongly worded email....

Regards

Derek

[Chindie]

He's not going to use nukes, of any sort.

They don't solve any problems he has and create multiple more he doesn't need. Their only use to him is as a threat that keeps the rest of the world from getting involved beyond 'support'. The moment that threat is realised the gloves potentially come off, and for no benefit to him.

[fightoffyour]

4 hours ago, HKP90 said:

If they left their northern flank with NATO open...........absolutely nothing would happen. Seriously Vlad, aside from the invasion bulls**t no-one gives a toss about Russia. In fact most of Europe would just like it if you built a massive wall and f**cked off behind it to brood on collectivism or some old mcgubbins. 

I don’t think they can get McGubbins in Russia anymore, not even old ones.

[avfc1982am]

1 minute ago, delboy54 said:

Just wondering hypothetically that as Putrid is being backed into a corner and he decides to fire one of his small "tactical battlefield" nukes into Ukraine, I wonder what our response will be?

Nobody is going to live in the area of the blast for several decades but will he care?

I think the West will respond by hand wringing and a strongly worded email....

Regards

Derek

He's already backed into a corner and has been for quite some time, currently face saving by trying to now concentrate fully on the Donbass. I think the idea that he is going to use nukes, tactical or otherwise though is bollocks tbh. Much in the same way the Russian propaganda machine runs with the NATO is a danger narrative. Using nukes in any format will remove him from power quicker than defeat in Ukraine imo. 

 

 

[Zatman]

23 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

There are people in their 20’s in Russia, including I suspect the majority of the army, that have never known any leader but Putin. he has been very good at the personality cult stuff.

There is a risk, that if Putin is killed or removed then Russia could descend in to chaos. Oil money stopped, crops not planted, all manner of unknowns trying to wrestle for power. Starvation and chaos causing millions to decide to walk to Poland with little prospect of people offering spare bedrooms.

We need to be a bit careful what we wish for here.

 

Also the breakaway regions inside Russia will try get independence as well. Might turn into another Yugoslavia

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Putin threatening to use nukes is a terrifying as a man sitting in a bath of petrol throwing matches at you. 

The nuclear deterent is incredibly important to Russia.  Without it the West would have intervened when Putin first grabbed Crimea.  Its also stopping NATO taking out the Russian airforce and leaving Ukraine to finish the job.  

The theory of mutually assured destruction (MAD)  is that whoever strikes first automatically suffers a retaliation of equal severity.  If that didn't happen there is no way to stop the aggressor using another and another and another. No-one wins a nuclear war.  

Putin is using the nuclear threat to scare the population of the West and thereby encourage opposition to the war.