Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Awol]

Germans (or the SPD at least) are still torching Germany’s present and future reputation as a reliable ally with every state in Central and Eastern Europe. It’s literally unbelievable that they cannot see the entire European structure is a core interest of Germany too. Scholz is cynical coward. 

 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

Germans (or the SPD at least) are still torching Germany’s present and future reputation as a reliable ally with every state in Central and Eastern Europe. It’s literally unbelievable that they cannot see the entire European structure is a core interest of Germany too. Scholz is cynical coward. 

 

To be honest, I think he’s right in what he says. Ukraine can’t win. Russia can’t win. All that can happen is either Russia gets enough of the territory, probably utterly flattened, to then sue for peace from a position of semi-strength, or Russia doesn’t get that and the two sides continue pounding away with huge casualties. There won’t be a winner.

The part where he’s awry is the German policy of not really doing much to try to tilt the odds more towards Ukraine.

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

To be honest, I think he’s right in what he says. Ukraine can’t win. Russia can’t win. All that can happen is either Russia gets enough of the territory, probably utterly flattened, to then sue for peace from a position of semi-strength, or Russia doesn’t get that and the two sides continue pounding away with huge casualties. There won’t be a winner.

The part where he’s awry is the German policy of not really doing much to try to tilt the odds more towards Ukraine.

That depends on your definition of a victory, really. Ukraine isn't going to win a decisive victory where they invade Moscow but if the war degenerates into a stalemate with both sides suffering huge casualties with minimal gains I know which side I think is likely to cave first. And I think the Ukrainians do too.

Given how much the US spent on trying to keep Afghanistan going, I think they'll be pretty happy to keep bankrolling the utter destruction of Russia's military / economy.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[ender4]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 

The part where he’s awry is the German policy of not really doing much to try to tilt the odds more towards Ukraine.

Sorry, are you saying Germany are doing much or are not doing much to help Ukraine?

[Awol]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

To be honest, I think he’s right in what he says. Ukraine can’t win. Russia can’t win. All that can happen is either Russia gets enough of the territory, probably utterly flattened, to then sue for peace from a position of semi-strength, or Russia doesn’t get that and the two sides continue pounding away with huge casualties. There won’t be a winner.

The part where he’s awry is the German policy of not really doing much to try to tilt the odds more towards Ukraine.

Hard disagree. Russia is pulling T62s out of storage, deploying them into theatre with no ERA. They’ve opened recruitment to the over 40’s and are conducting a shadow mobilisation. They are running out of men and equipment. 

Ukraine is training 65 combat brigades in the west, all of whom have done at least one tour of Donbas since 2016. They should be ready for deployment in a strategic counter offensive from the end of June. Ukraine can absolutely retake everything bar Crimea IF the west gives them the tools to do it.

Scholz is sitting on the world’s supply of Leopard 1’s and Rhinemetall have said they can get them into good order to deploy. Germany (and France) don’t want Ukraine to win because they don’t want them in the EU or NATO.

[avfc1982am]

It would be nice if Germany and France pulled out of NATO. Neither government have any backbone and in the case of France, never did. Both Countries should be ashamed. 

I don't think any of the decisions governments make is in the best interests of it's citizens, only the elite. Elitism IS the biggest danger to us all imo. 

[Awol]

31 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

It would be nice if Germany and France pulled out of NATO. Neither government have any backbone and in the case of France, never did. Both Countries should be ashamed. 

France is worried about its agricultural sector (and the CAP which supports it) if the commercial juggernaut of Ukrainian farming is within the EU. The Franco-German axis fears the emergence of an alternate poll of political power in Central and Eastern Europe, of which Ukraine would form a decent chunk. 

As you say, it’s about the vested interests of political elites and the commercial actors bank-rolling them. Example: Even now France’s Total is still operating in Russia and Macron is eyeing up a massive expansion of its Russian business post-war. Lots of contracts available after BP, Shell et al. pulled out at a cost of 10’s of billions to their bottom line.

Macron and Scholz are cynical, callous, cowardly sons of bitches. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Awol

[blandy]

1 hour ago, ender4 said:

Sorry, are you saying Germany are doing much or are not doing much to help Ukraine?

I'm saying the first part of his tweet is right - Ukraine can"t win, and the second part (on his policy of not supplying much help) is the wrong thing for Germany to do - they should do much more.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

That depends on your definition of a victory, really. Ukraine isn't going to win a decisive victory where they invade Moscow but if the war degenerates into a stalemate with both sides suffering huge casualties with minimal gains I know which side I think is likely to cave first. And I think the Ukrainians do too.

Given how much the US spent on trying to keep Afghanistan going, I think they'll be pretty happy to keep bankrolling the utter destruction of Russia's military / economy.

As I've posted previously, it seems like (to me at least) that Russia's original plan to walk into Kyiv and take over in a couple of days has been replaced by "grab territory in the East and South East, emptying it of people and destroy all the buildings and then claim it as Russia and a victory" and then negotiate agreement with an exhausted Ukraine to stop the fighting - they may well do that (grab the land), but it's clearly no kind of victory in reality - just huge death and destruction and a barren land, which is likely going to be tried to be reclaimed by Ukraine for years and years, while Russia suffers sanctions, embargos and all the rest. Endless misery all round.

Alternatively Russia fails to grab that land in the next period and the two sides just pound away at each other with artillery and bombs and more and more death and destruction an displaced civilians - a kind of stalemate. But I don't think Ukraine will easily re-take Russian held territory, just because of the scale of the imbalance between the two sides. As much as the west has and will provide modern weapons and training, the UA forces are still under-equipped, more lightly armed and taking heavy casualties. It's one thing to defend a position, another to retake ground. Russia however is unbothered by high casualties, by pulverising civilian buildings and people. Ukrainian soldiers are never going to use those tactics against their own (former) cities and villages and the death toll on their own side is something that is of more concern to their leadership. It puts them at a disadvantage.

Where they have a chance, but only a small one, is if the west really provides and keeps on providing kit and munitions and training in vast numbers such that the UA reverses the situation and they collectively can outgun Russia. It's one thing to be able to pick off tanks or convoys with NLAWs, but another to remove large numbers of dug-in forces without air superiority.

[LondonLax]

From the sounds of it the Russians have had a pretty successful week this week and look like they are about to take another major town in Severodonetsk.

[Panto_Villan]

57 minutes ago, blandy said:

As I've posted previously, it seems like (to me at least) that Russia's original plan to walk into Kyiv and take over in a couple of days has been replaced by "grab territory in the East and South East, emptying it of people and destroy all the buildings and then claim it as Russia and a victory" and then negotiate agreement with an exhausted Ukraine to stop the fighting - they may well do that (grab the land), but it's clearly no kind of victory in reality - just huge death and destruction and a barren land, which is likely going to be tried to be reclaimed by Ukraine for years and years, while Russia suffers sanctions, embargos and all the rest. Endless misery all round.

Alternatively Russia fails to grab that land in the next period and the two sides just pound away at each other with artillery and bombs and more and more death and destruction an displaced civilians - a kind of stalemate. But I don't think Ukraine will easily re-take Russian held territory, just because of the scale of the imbalance between the two sides. As much as the west has and will provide modern weapons and training, the UA forces are still under-equipped, more lightly armed and taking heavy casualties. It's one thing to defend a position, another to retake ground. Russia however is unbothered by high casualties, by pulverising civilian buildings and people. Ukrainian soldiers are never going to use those tactics against their own (former) cities and villages and the death toll on their own side is something that is of more concern to their leadership. It puts them at a disadvantage.

Where they have a chance, but only a small one, is if the west really provides and keeps on providing kit and munitions and training in vast numbers such that the UA reverses the situation and they collectively can outgun Russia. It's one thing to be able to pick off tanks or convoys with NLAWs, but another to remove large numbers of dug-in forces without air superiority.

My own perspective is a bit different - the Ukrainians are fighting to protect and reclaim their country. I think high losses are more acceptable to them than they are for Russia. Currently there's plenty of support for the war in Russia but there's always a "rally around the flag" effect at the start of a war and we've only been going three months.

If thousands and thousands of Russians keep coming home in bodybags every month while the economy falls apart due to sanctions, I think Russians will become disillusioned with the war - particularly if the casualties suffered necessitate a more general mobilisation where people who don't particularly want to fight are getting called up to die in a war that they have no hope of winning. Which will be happening soon if current trends continue.

So while I appreciate it's not easy to reclaim territory I suspect what'll happen is the level of casualties being taken is going to cripple Russia before it does Ukraine, and it'll lead to the Russians desperately trying to negotiate for peace when they realise this war is bleeding them dry for no gain.

[magnkarl]

46 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

From the sounds of it the Russians have had a pretty successful week this week and look like they are about to take another major town in Severodonetsk.

The ‘town’ of Severodonetsk will likely be rubble, and Ukraine will have moved their troops behind the river of the same name before Russia ‘takes’ it. This is the only way Ukraine has operated so far in the war. Russia has yet to encircle any Ukrainian troops, bar in Maruipol. Russia has no equipment surplus to actually make the kind of gain you’re suggesting without UA troops withdrawing first.

UA tactics are to withdraw and trade territory for Russian hardware and men. They’re holding the old contact line for as long as it makes sense, then withdrawing in orderly fashion to predug secondary lines (now in Lysyshansk). 

Then Russia will again try to cross the river and get smashed over and over.

[PussEKatt]

Why not put some pressure on Putin.In WW II the USA sent convoys to England and Hitler was told that if Germany attacks them then the USA will look at that as an act of war.With Russia seteling the Ukraine grain,why dont NATO say "open those ports so that grain can reach the rest of the world"or we will look on that as an act of war.Doing something like that will put the ball in Putins court and might,just might be enough to make him back off.I think its worth a try.

[ender4]

16 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

Why not put some pressure on Putin.In WW II the USA sent convoys to England and Hitler was told that if Germany attacks them then the USA will look at that as an act of war.With Russia seteling the Ukraine grain,why dont NATO say "open those ports so that grain can reach the rest of the world"or we will look on that as an act of war.Doing something like that will put the ball in Putins court and might,just might be enough to make him back off.I think its worth a try.

That's a big bluff and Putin will just call the bluff.  Then what does NATO do?

[PussEKatt]

Just now, ender4 said:

That's a big bluff and Putin will just call the bluff.  Then what does NATO do?

Then NATO should do what Kennedy did in the Cuba crisis.Send some capital ships in.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, PussEKatt said:

Then NATO should do what Kennedy did in the Cuba crisis.Send some capital ships in.

They can't. They would be prevented by the Montreaux Convention of 1936 that closes the Bosporus to Warships in times of conflict. The only ships warships allowed through are those that have a home fleet in the Black Sea., in this instance that is only Russian ships based in Sevastopol but as the entire Black Sea Fleet is in the Black Sea, effectively thats no ships in or out

[ender4]

Haven't seen as many videos of Russian stuff being blown up lately. 

I guess that either means that people are bored of the war, or it's going badly for the Ukranians now?

[sidcow]

18 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Haven't seen as many videos of Russian stuff being blown up lately. 

I guess that either means that people are bored of the war, or it's going badly for the Ukranians now?

Ukraine Weapons Tracker lists most of it.  There is still plenty of Russian stuff ending up in the great scrapheap in the sky. 

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

They can't. They would be prevented by the Montreaux Convention of 1936 that closes the Bosporus to Warships in times of conflict. The only ships warships allowed through are those that have a home fleet in the Black Sea., in this instance that is only Russian ships based in Sevastopol but as the entire Black Sea Fleet is in the Black Sea, effectively thats no ships in or out

I think if they're travelling specifically as part of a humanitarian escort for civilian ships then I think they probably would be allowed, right? Because they're not warships that are party to the conflict.

Whether Turkey would choose to allow it is another matter entirely.

[Awol]

3 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think if they're travelling specifically as part of a humanitarian escort for civilian ships then I think they probably would be allowed, right? Because they're not warships that are party to the conflict.

Whether Turkey would choose to allow it is another matter entirely.

Bicks is right, unless the west wants to give Erdogan his laundry list of demands. I think we should tell the Russians to attack NATO assets on a humanitarian mission if they dare, and transit a task force into Odesa to get the grain out - avoiding a potential famine for 300 million people. That is probably beyond the risk appetite of self-deterring western leaders, for now at least.