Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

The Ukraine is a bad situation - an aggressive NATO policy supported by the traditional CIA, insert fascist puppet government and take over coup attempt (The Revolution of Digninty!) has backfired a little as Putin seems to have decided to take advantage of that period of uncertainty to assert his own claim on the place. It's a peculiar place to start with, with a lot of the country identifying as Russian and a lot of the country identifying as anything but Russian - it's a volatile pot that's been stirred in more than one direction.

In what I guess would be the most similar historical precedent, Russia backed away from Cuba, whether the US can be seen to be backing away from Putin might be a more difficult proposition.

 

Hmm, I’m not sure I agree with you on the whole CIA / NATO plot thing if you’re implying that’s what initiated this situation. There was a close election that the pro-Russia party narrowly won, then they refused to sign the EU affiliation deal that the country had previously negotiated. There were protests against that that eventually turned violent, lots of people were killed, and both parties agreed to form a unity government. Then after a vote of no confidence in the existing leader, he fled to Russia and Russia subsequently invaded. I think it’s a bit cynical to think the CIA / NATO masterminded that.

Sure, it’s provocation if you look at it from Putin’s perspective - but that’s a pretty unreasonable perspective. Russia is a corrupt dictatorship, so having Ukraine become a functional democracy makes Russia look bad and can’t be allowed. And taking away Russia’s ability to meddle in Ukraine politically and militarily to stop that happening (via NATO membership) would clearly infuriate Putin.

But a majority of Ukrainians want better links to the EU (and I suspect now NATO too), because being a Russian puppet state kinda sucks.

Remember also with the Cuba analogy that the major confrontation there only happened when the USSR tried to put nuclear missiles on Cuba, not simply because it turned commie. The Ukraine situation is purely because Putin sees it as his sphere of influence and he won’t accept a democratic state there, let alone one protected by NATO (no matter what the pesky locals might want) and I’m not sure we should go along with that just because of realpolitik.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[chrisp65]

It’s at times of genuine international pressure like this that I’m so grateful we have a heavy weight serious Churchillian leader setting an example to us and to the world.

If there was one man who’s word I would trust and who I would want to lead us over the top.

 

[Xann]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

If there was one man who’s word I would trust and who I would want to lead us over the top.

Brexit Boris appreciates Russian money.

The East launders money in the City of London.

The best outcome here is the Brits and Russians turning on their own leaders.

[sne]

Take it with a huge pinch of excrement smelling salt, It's FOX. But...

Quote

Families of US Embassy personnel in Ukraine ordered to begin evacuating as soon as Monday: officials

The State Department has ordered families of U.S. Embassy personnel in Ukraine to begin evacuating the country as soon as Monday, U.S. officials tell Fox News. 

Next week, the State Department is also expected to encourage Americans to begin leaving Ukraine by commercial flights, "while those are still available," one official said. 

Late Friday night, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine announced the first shipment of ammunition had arrived as directed by President Biden. 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-embassy-personnel-family-in-ukraine-ordered-begin-evacuating-officials

[Mozzavfc]

I wonder if Boris will be eying this up as his Falklands moment, where he can be the strongman and win sweeping approvals across the board

[Follyfoot]

On 21/01/2022 at 23:57, OutByEaster? said:

The Ukraine is a bad situation - an aggressive NATO policy supported by the traditional CIA, insert fascist puppet government and take over coup attempt (The Revolution of Digninty!) has backfired a little as Putin seems to have decided to take advantage of that period of uncertainty to assert his own claim on the place. It's a peculiar place to start with, with a lot of the country identifying as Russian and a lot of the country identifying as anything but Russian - it's a volatile pot that's been stirred in more than one direction.

In what I guess would be the most similar historical precedent, Russia backed away from Cuba, whether the US can be seen to be backing away from Putin might be a more difficult proposition.

 

 

But ultimately back away they will. America has no stomach for this conflict and once Putin takes Ukraine watch the domino effect come into place, Frightening times

[OutByEaster?]

20 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

But ultimately back away they will. America has no stomach for this conflict and once Putin takes Ukraine watch the domino effect come into place, Frightening times

I can't see there being a domino effect of any sort - Putin didn't want to take Ukraine, it's not part of a plan, the US was 'transitioning' the Ukraine to make it a NATO country where they could place their fancy new tactical nuclear weapons on Russia's border - it's a defensive move by Putin. 

 

[Panto_Villan]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I can't see there being a domino effect of any sort - Putin didn't want to take Ukraine, it's not part of a plan, the US was 'transitioning' the Ukraine to make it a NATO country where they could place their fancy new tactical nuclear weapons on Russia's border - it's a defensive move by Putin. 

 

To be honest I'm a little surprised you're posting things like this given you seem a sensible and well-informed poster elsewhere on these forums.

You're absolutely correct there won't be a domino effect. But Putin absolutely does want to take the Ukraine. This isn't just conjecture, he literally posted an essay on the topic last year on the Kremlin website. Here's a link to some analysis on the contents by the Guardian with a quote to give you some flavour for what it contains.

Quote

In June, Putin published an article in which he doubled down on a public claim that “Russians and Ukrainians were one people”, saying the formation of an ethnically Ukrainian state hostile to Moscow was “comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us”.

The US historically did want to get Ukraine into NATO in the 90s but doesn't really care about Russia any more - it's a failing country with a significantly smaller GDP than Italy or even Canada (and I'm not talking per capita here - they're 81st in the world if you look at that). Post 9/11 the US was focused on the middle east, and now they're focused on China. The only relevance they have is that they've invested heavily in their military over the past decade and Putin is going out of his way to cause trouble for the West because it plays to his hard man image.

Why do you think America needs to put tactical nukes in Ukraine? They already have overwhelmingly superior conventional military forces and enough strategic nukes to annihilate Russia several times over if it came to it (and Russia could do the same to the US). Russia were the ones that breached the INF missile control treaty, too, so they're the ones with the fancy new missiles rather than the US. It's deeply strange to me that you think the West are the aggressors in this situation - I just don't understand how you've come to that conclusion?

The only things giving Putin pause about invading Ukraine are the potential economic sanctions they would face, and the fact that military action might be politically unpopular if lots of Russian soldiers start coming home in bodybags. That could happen quickly if the Ukrainians can inflict enough casualties on the Russians before they are defeated, or afterwards if there is a drawn-out insurgency (which there probably would be).

[OutByEaster?]

The US ousted the elected government and replaced them with a more malleable fascist government in 2014 as part of their efforts to permanently move the country into NATO and the West - what we're seeing and have been seeing since is Putin reacting to that in order to protect his border and as an opportunist trying to take advantage of the chaos in order to take control of the Ukraine.

Ultimately the best outcome for Ukraine is if both Putin and the US take a lot less interest in them.

[Panto_Villan]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The US ousted the elected government and replaced them with a more malleable fascist government in 2014 as part of their efforts to permanently move the country into NATO and the West - what we're seeing and have been seeing since is Putin reacting to that in order to protect his border and as an opportunist trying to take advantage of the chaos in order to take control of the Ukraine.

Ultimately the best outcome for Ukraine is if both Putin and the US take a lot less interest in them.

That seems a bizarre claim, frankly. Russia was more involved in the events of 2014 than the US was, but neither of them actually overthrew the government. Russia has been gunning hard for Ukraine ever since they started negotiating a deal with the EU because Putin refuses to accept the Ukraine could / should be an independent nation outside of Russian orbit, they didn't suddenly only become interested in 2014.

During 2013 Russia deliberately damaged the Ukrainian economy by doubling gas prices and blocking Ukrainian imports, then in Nov 2013 the Ukrainian government refused to sign the EU association deal that had been negotiated (kicking off major protests) and in Dec 2013 they signed a deal with Russia to bail them out financially and lower gas prices. In Feb 2014 the government cracked down on the protestors using force and hundreds of people died (at Russian urging, and with potential Russian involvement) and the country nearly fell into civil war, which unsurprisingly caused the government to fall.

It seems very difficult to come to the conclusion that it was a US coup or that Russia were the good guys there. What's your timeline / interpretation of the events?

 

[sidcow]

What exactly is Russia's plan if they do invade? 

They've amassed 100,000 troops but the Ukrainian army is apparently 180,000 or so, probably now bigger with reserves you would have expect they would call up. 

By the sound of it they've had tons of top grade Western weaponry sent in there. 

They have presumably got loads of built in defences and are fighting on home soil for their liberty. 

100,000 troops doesn't seem anywhere near enough to actually take Ukraine unless they've got an absolute shit load more that can get there quickly. 

I guess they would have massive air superiority but past wars tell you that counts for shit when people are dug in. 

Depends on how state of the art Ukrainian air defences are too. 

Sounds more like it could be a war of attrition taking chunks over a long period of time which is going to cost Russia dear in terms of manpower and money. 

I just don't understand the whole situation. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by sidcow

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

What exactly is Russia's plan if they do invade? 

They've amassed 100,000 troops but the Ukrainian army is apparently 180,000 or so, probably now bigger with reserves you would have expect they would call up. 

By the sound of it they've had tons of top grade Western weaponry sent in there. 

They have presumably got loads of built in defences and are fighting on home soil for their liberty. 

100,000 troops doesn't seem anywhere near enough to actually take Ukraine unless they've got an absolute shit load more that can get there quickly. 

I guess they would have massive air superiority but past wars tell you that counts for shit when people are dug in. 

Depends on how state of the art Ukrainian air defences are too. 

Sounds more like it could be a war of attrition taking chunks over a long period of time which is going to cost Russia dear in terms of manpower and money. 

I just don't understand the whole situation. 

I don't think anybody seriously believes that Russia are threatening to take *all of Ukraine*, the question is of taking Donetsk and Luhansk provinces ('the Donbas' region) in the east. Russia likely has more forces and better equipment and the terrain is the kind of flat open farmland you can pretty effectively roll a lot of tanks over so if they do decide to annex those provinces (which I still do not believe they have actually decided to do, at this stage) then I think they will be successful.

[magnkarl]

On 23/01/2022 at 13:37, Follyfoot said:

But ultimately back away they will. America has no stomach for this conflict and once Putin takes Ukraine watch the domino effect come into place, Frightening times

A simplistic view, imo. Do you think the Eastern NATO members will tolerate Putin carpet bombing Ukraine? The Baltics, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Czech, etc absolutely HATE Russia. You also have to remember that Ukraine has 140.000 active personnel, bolstered with US sam systems, weapon systems from NATO and will be fighting for their lives. It will cost Putin enormous amounts of soldiers. He's not strong without his army and neither can he afford it.

Ukraine in 2014 is nowhere near Ukraine 2022, anti-Russian sentiment is huge and no one wants a repeat of a Russian overlord causing holdomir and disaster for Ukraine. Everyone will fight. Can you say the same about Russia once the rather small and underfunded Russian army gets bogged down in Ukrainian trench warfare? It took Russia's 'state of the art' army YEARS to defeat a small ISIL force in Syria, why on earth do you think Putin would dare to invade a country which will actually defend itself properly, with state of the art equipment, home soil advantage and the risk of Western interference if Putin starts killin civilians?

Putin has overplayed his hand. He's tough against small countries like Georgia, but Ukraine is not Georgia. Neither is Poland or the combined Baltic armies. He's encircled, rules a dying country and hopefully will be overthrown if he tries anything.

Edited January 25, 2022 by magnkarl

[Panto_Villan]

Quote

"What stands in front of us, what could be weeks away, is the first peer-on-peer, industrialised, digitised, top-tier army against top-tier army war that’s been on this continent for generations,” warned James Heappey, Britain’s junior defence minister, on January 19th, pointing to Russia’s build-up of over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. “Tens of thousands of people could die.” Estonia’s defence chief echoed the warning. “Everything is moving towards armed conflict,” he said.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, is due to meet Antony Blinken, America’s secretary of state, in Geneva on January 21st. But the prospects for diplomacy are dim. On January 19th Sergei Ryabkov, one of Mr Lavrov’s deputies, said that even a 20-year moratorium on nato membership for Ukraine would not satisfy Russia. In recent weeks, Russia has mobilised reservists and dispatched troops and missiles from as far away as the North Korean border.

Western countries are bracing for the worst. On January 17th Britain began airlifting thousands of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Days earlier Sweden rushed armoured vehicles to the island of Gotland as three Russian landing craft passed through the Baltic Sea, destination unknown. The same day, Ukraine was struck by cyber-attacks which defaced government websites and locked official computers. Meanwhile, the White House said it had intelligence showing that Russia was planning staged acts of sabotage against its own proxy forces in eastern Ukraine to provide a pretext for attacking the country.

Such an attack could take many forms. One possibility is that Russia would simply do openly what it has done furtively for seven years: send troops into the Donetsk and Luhansk “republics”, breakaway territories in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, either to expand their boundaries westward or to recognise them as independent states, as it did after sending forces into Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two Georgian regions, in 2008.

Another scenario, widely discussed in recent years, is that Russia might seek to establish a land bridge to Crimea, the peninsula it annexed in 2014. That would require seizing 300km (185 miles) of territory along the Sea of Azov, including the key Ukrainian port of Mariupol, up to the Dnieper river.

Such limited land-grabs would be well within the capabilities of the forces mustering in western Russia. What is less clear is whether they would serve the Kremlin’s war aims. If Russia’s objective is to bring Ukraine to its knees and prevent it from joining nato or even co-operating with the alliance, simply consolidating control over Donbas or a small swathe of land in southern Ukraine is unlikely to achieve it.

To do so would require imposing massive costs on the government in Kyiv—whether by decimating its armed forces, destroying its critical national infrastructure or overthrowing it altogether. One option would be for Russia to use “stand-off” weapons without troops on the ground, emulating nato’s air war against Serbia in 1999. Strikes by rocket launchers and missiles would wreak havoc. These could be supplemented by more novel weapons, such as cyber-attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure like the ones which disrupted the country’s power grid in 2015 and 2016.

The problem is that such punitive campaigns tend to last longer and prove harder than they first appear. If war comes, stand-off strikes are more likely to be a prelude and accompaniment to a ground war rather than a substitute for it. “I don’t see a lot between them and Kyiv that could stop them,” says David Shlapak of the rand Corporation, a think-tank.

The aim would probably be to hurt Ukraine, not occupy it. The country is as large and populous as Afghanistan, and since 2014 over 300,000 Ukrainians have gained some form of military experience; most have access to firearms. American officials have told allies that the Pentagon and cia would both support an armed insurgency.

Russia might consider what America’s army calls a “thunder run”, says Mr Shlapak, a swift and deep assault on a narrow front, intended to shock and paralyse the enemy rather than seize territory. And an attack need not come solely from the east.

On January 17th Russian troops, some from the far east, began arriving in Belarus, ostensibly for military exercises scheduled for February. Russia has said it will also send a dozen warplanes and two s-400 air-defence systems. An attack from the north, over the Belarus-Ukraine border, would allow Russia to approach the Ukrainian capital from the west and encircle it.

“Once they’re within rocket range of downtown Kyiv,” asks Mr Shlapak, “is that a situation the Ukrainians want to live with?” Even if Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, is willing to tolerate a siege, Russia may gamble that his government will simply collapse—and it may use spies, special forces and disinformation to hasten that process.

Wars, though, unfold in unpredictable ways. Russia has not fought a large-scale offensive involving infantry, armour and air power since the climactic battles of the second world war. Countries under attack can just as easily stand firm as fall apart. Ivan Timofeev of the Russian International Affairs Council warns of a “long and sluggish confrontation” that would be “fraught with destabilisation of…Russia itself”.

Even victory would be costly. “The Ukrainians will fight and inflict major losses on the Russians,” says Peter Zwack, a retired general who was America’s defence attaché in Moscow during the Kremlin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. “This is going to be hard for Russia—and they are basically alone.” Coupled with the threat of heavy sanctions being prepared by America and its European allies, and the apparent absence of any domestic support for a new adventure, all this may, even now, be giving Mr Putin pause for thought. 

I generally find the Economist is quite good at explaining the potential outcomes in a 5-10 minute read when situations like these arise. I've pasted their recent article on what the likely military options for Russia are as I think it's quite informative.

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

A simplistic view, imo. Do you think the Eastern NATO members will tolerate Putin carpet bombing Ukraine? The Baltics, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Czech, etc absolutely HATE Russia.

Just on this point, you are not going to see eastern European NATO members acting unilaterally, against the interests and preferences of the actual military powers in the alliance. To do so would be to place the entire alliance - and its literally invaluable benefit for these countries of being under the American security umbrella - at risk, and nobody is that stupid.

European countries are sometimes good - not that often to be honest - at talking belligerantly, but most of the countries you name have weekend armies, they're not going to be fighting the Russian army in eastern Ukraine.

[Panto_Villan]

23 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

A simplistic view, imo. Do you think the Eastern NATO members will tolerate Putin carpet bombing Ukraine? The Baltics, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Czech, etc absolutely HATE Russia. You also have to remember that Ukraine has 140.000 active personnel, bolstered with US sam systems, weapon systems from NATO and will be fighting for their lives. It will cost Putin enormous amounts of soldiers. He's not strong without his army and neither can he afford it.

Ukraine in 2014 is nowhere near Ukraine 2022, anti-Russian sentiment is huge and no one wants a repeat of a Russian overlord causing holdomir and disaster for Ukraine. Everyone will fight. Can you say the same about Russia once the rather small and underfunded Russian army gets bogged down in Ukrainian trench warfare? It took Russia's 'state of the art' army YEARS to defeat a small ISIL force in Syria, why on earth do you think Putin would dare to invade a country which will actually defend itself properly, with state of the art equipment, home soil advantage and the risk of Western interference if Putin starts killin civilians?

Putin has overplayed his hand. He's tough against small countries like Georgia, but Ukraine is not Georgia. Neither is Poland or the combined Baltic armies. He's encircled, rules a dying country and hopefully will be overthrown if he tries anything.

I think you’re seriously underestimating Russia’a military forces there. The fact you’re referring to their army as “small and underfunded” kinda gives your prejudices away - Russia has the fifth largest army in the world (1m active duty personnel and 2m reservists) and it’s not underfunded at all these days. Nobody seriously thinks Ukraine can protect itself against a full-scale Russian invasion, the question is whether Putin wants to pay what that would cost him.

Beating an insurgency on the other side of the world is very different to fighting a conventional war against a neighbour. America couldn’t win a war in Afghanistan but that doesn’t mean their military forces are small or underfunded either.

[desensitized43]

35 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Just on this point, you are not going to see eastern European NATO members acting unilaterally, against the interests and preferences of the actual military powers in the alliance. To do so would be to place the entire alliance - and its literally invaluable benefit for these countries of being under the American security umbrella - at risk, and nobody is that stupid.

European countries are sometimes good - not that often to be honest - at talking belligerantly, but most of the countries you name have weekend armies, they're not going to be fighting the Russian army in eastern Ukraine.

Isn't NATO also a purely defensive alliance, or do I have that wrong? If they chose to involve themselves in a foreign war where they (or another NATO member) weren't directly attacked they couldn't then invoke the collective defence clause?

[Panto_Villan]

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Isn't NATO also a purely defensive alliance, or do I have that wrong? If they chose to involve themselves in a foreign war where they (or another NATO member) weren't directly attacked they couldn't then invoke the collective defence clause?

Yup. That’s why a country like France wasn’t obliged to take part in the US-led war in Iraq, for example.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Isn't NATO also a purely defensive alliance, or do I have that wrong? If they chose to involve themselves in a foreign war where they (or another NATO member) weren't directly attacked they couldn't then invoke the collective defence clause?

Yes, in theory it is. In practice NATO has taken that 'self defence' part quite expansively (eg in operating against ISIS) but it is a defensive pact. As Ukraine is not a NATO member - and really has no realistic hope of becoming one in the forseeable future - an attack on its territory would not necessitate collective self-defence under Article 5.

[magnkarl]

34 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think you’re seriously underestimating Russia’a military forces there. The fact you’re referring to their army as “small and underfunded” kinda gives your prejudices away - Russia has the fifth largest army in the world (1m active duty personnel and 2m reservists) and it’s not underfunded at all these days. Nobody seriously thinks Ukraine can protect itself against a full-scale Russian invasion, the question is whether Putin wants to pay what that would cost him.

Beating an insurgency on the other side of the world is very different to fighting a conventional war against a neighbour. America couldn’t win a war in Afghanistan but that doesn’t mean their military forces are small or underfunded either.

When I say underfunded, I of course mean in comparison to what Putin wants to stop. Where do you get your reservist troop count from? That number has been debunked many times. The reservist pool for a country like Ukraine would be larger in a self defense scenario.

                                         NATO                    EU                      Russia

Pop:                               961 mil               446 mil               144 mil with a downtrend

Active troops:                3.6 mil                1.4 mil                1 mil

Reserves:                       2 mil                    2 mil                   200k

Military spending:      1.3 tril dollar      200 bil euro       48 bil dollar

 

The power disparity isn't even close. If Putin is dumb enough to invade a country next to a bunch of anti-Russian NATO and EU countries he's stupid.

Edited January 25, 2022 by magnkarl