Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

MATTHEW MILLER: I don’t think we knew at that time — and maybe still don’t to this day — how much was actual skepticism on [Zelenskyy’s] part and how much was putting forward a brave face to keep his economy from crumbling and a refugee crisis from happening. For all the skepticism that the Ukrainians weren’t doing enough to prepare in advance, I think the early days of the war disproved that idea.
Click to expand...
GEN. MARK MILLEY: There are indicators that you can tell as a professional soldier that separate the real thing from exercises, certain things you’re doing in exercises that you don’t do for invasions, and certain things you do in an invasion that you don’t do for exercises — a lot of it’s logistics, hospitals, tents, evacuation, blood, mobilization of doctors and nurses and medical people. The significant amounts of ammunition and getting them stored. Then the scale, the size. If you do an exercise and you have 200,000 troops, that’s very expensive. That’s a lot of money. They put it together in September, October, and then all sudden, you’ve still got those guys in the field in November? In December, it’s like, What are you doing? No one exercises that long. What kind of exercise is that?
Click to expand...
BILL BURNS: The president made the decision to declassify some of our intelligence relatively early on, which is always a complicated choice to make. Along with my colleagues in the intelligence community, the DNI and others, I believe strongly that it was the right choice. I had seen too many instances where Putin had created false narratives that we never caught up to.
Click to expand...
DAME KAREN PIERCE: We knew that the French and Germans had the same reports that we had. We were puzzled by their insistence that he would not invade. When I asked the Germans, they said they wanted to keep an open mind. Scholz has said it — they just were wrong. They hoped for the best.
Click to expand...
JOHN SULLIVAN, U.S. ambassador to Russia, Moscow: People had a hard time believing that there was going to be a major land war in Europe. “Yeah, maybe it’ll be like 2014-15 — there’ll be some ‘little green men,’ and there’ll be a minor incursion here, etc.” I was saying: “No. What they’re massing is not what happened in 2014-15. This is a World War II-style, or 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia-style military operation.” That’s what they had trouble wrapping their minds around.
Click to expand...
AMANDA SLOAT: It got to the point where we had to say to the Europeans, “Fine, we can agree to disagree analytically, but let’s start planning as if we are right. If we are right, then we’re in a good place because we’ve got all our planning. If you’re right, that’s the best possible outcome because then there’s not going to be an invasion — at best, this will have just been a waste of time.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
^Reading the above mentioned Politico article you just have to let it sink in how important the US is. Without US involvement, this would have been so much more grim.
Click to expand...

A fair assessment that the existence of NATO is the only thing stopping Putin storming into Europe after murdering his way through Ukraine.
 
MTF said:
I also think a part of it is simply not allowing the US and European NATO partners a win, which would give the overall alliance a boost in confidence when it comes to their ability and therefore willingness to support smaller nations against larger invaders, and would send a similar message to observers and leaders in the rest of the world.

If we think in terms of hypotheticals for a second, imagine that Ukraine were to secure victory in terms of restoring it's entire territory by end of 2024 (I know that it's probably optimistic). Unclear what happens in Russia politically, but the outcomes are probably more risky for China than status quo. Possibly boosts Biden's re-election chances vs a potentially isolationist GOP candidate (possibly DT), although I won't kid myself that would always depend more on situation in the US economy. But mostly everyone else watching in East and South Asia, Africa, and everywhere else China wants to have influence would likely conclude (at least until something else happens) that the US is the country that you don't want to challenge/whose side you want to be on. Both Russia and China were in one sense enjoying the years since 2003 when the relative power of the US was (rightly) being questioned, China would probably like that to continue.
Click to expand...

An interesting perspective.
 
But the public rhetoric masks deepening private doubts among politicians in the U.K., France and Germany that Ukraine will be able to expel the Russians from eastern Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014, and a belief that the West can only help sustain the war effort for so long, especially if the conflict settles into a stalemate, officials from the three countries say.

“We keep repeating that Russia mustn’t win, but what does that mean? If the war goes on for long enough with this intensity, Ukraine’s losses will become unbearable,” a senior French official said. “And no one believes they will be able to retrieve Crimea.”
Click to expand...

 
From China's perspective they could gain a lot of influence over a country where they share a border of over 4,000km. As much as it's wrong, China would love to hold power over a country that borders Europe.
 
Balljy said:
From China's perspective they could gain a lot of influence over a country where they share a border of over 4,000km. As much as it's wrong, China would love to hold power over a country that borders Europe.
Click to expand...

If the Putin regime falls, nothing says that the next Russian government would do less business and less diplomacy with China. At least nothing yet points towards that anyway.
 
This is at a Ukrainian vigil in Toronto tonight. The anti-vax protestor (sound in the background) got put back in his place with a good reminder that there is a time for anything, but tonight.



"Hey, sir. I think Ukrainians can tell you a little bit about freedom and liberty. So why don't you settle down? This is a night for them, NOT for you! This is a night for Ukrainians, NOT for you!":cool:
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
More and more media picking up on the China story.

Click to expand...


If China wants to do that, the US should accidentally drop a shipment of enriched uranium off a ship on the Taiwanese coast. I would imagine Taiwan's nuclear breakout period would be very short.

The terrifying thing that the Invasion of Ukraine (like Gaddafi's downfall) has reinforced is the security that only nuclear weapons can provide. North Korea will never relinquish its nuclear weapons. South Korea is talking about developing its own nuclear arsenal. Once Iran acquires theirs (thanks to Donald Trump), they'll never give it up either, which leads to the Saudis wanting nukes.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
This is at a Ukrainian vigil in Toronto tonight. The anti-vax protestor (sound in the background) got put back in his place with a good reminder that there is a time for anything, but tonight.



"Hey, sir. I think Ukrainians can tell you a little bit about freedom and liberty. So why don't you settle down? This is a night for them, NOT for you! This is a night for Ukrainians, NOT for you!":cool:
Click to expand...


Good stuff from Trudeau
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
@Sir Matt This is worth a read.

Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction (Wikipedia)

Their nuclear program was advancing well until the US told Taiwan to shut it down by 1987, which was 1-2 years away of becoming fully operational with the delivery system. In other words: go feck yourself, Reagan.
Click to expand...

In the end, the only country that chose to voluntarily disarm itself after the Cold War, is the one that has been invaded. And the one that shut down its program is next on the list. Bleak prospect, and one of the biggest reasons why the russian invasion must fail.

Regarding China selling weapons to Russia, I personally don't think they will. It's better for China to keep sitting on the fence for this one, at least until they are in a better position to face the US. Anyway, the sole rumor of this has helped them counter the PR impact of Biden visiting Zelensky in Kyiv, so I assume they'll keep using the weapons narrative when needed.
 
It's starting to look really bad in Bakhmut. While the city itself holds, the situation in the north and sourth deteriates further.
Berkhivka to the north was captured yesterday and the H-32 highway to the south is contested and under constant shelling. That leaves only one road into Bakhmut under ukrainian control.
At some point Ukraine needs to make a choice whether to leave the city and give Russia their propaganda victory or risk a complete surround and a Mariupol 2.0.
It's true, that Russia loses thousands of soldiers on a weekly basis trying to capture the town, but they don't care about them anyways and many are Wagner mercenaries. That means they are willing to keep the numbers up. Is Ukraine also willing to sacrifice thousands of it's soldiers to fight for a town that has only propaganda value left? Wouldn't it be smarter to leave the town and use those forces in the upcoming counter offensive at some point? Like they did with Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk?

123.jpg
 
This seems to be the new line among the Russian propaganda agents in the US. It's ridicolous how out of touch with what is going on in the world you have to be to believe something like this.
 
the hea said:
This seems to be the new line among the Russian propaganda agents in the US. It's ridicolous how out of touch with what is going on in the world you have to be to believe something like this.
Click to expand...



100% spot on. Exactly the same narrative being pushed by ru trolls in Polish internet.
 
The stronger the sanctions, the more open windows for russian tycoons. The tsar needs their money to keep them tanks rolling.
 
This is a very good analogy when it comes to the context of China's so-called peace plan. Imperial Japan had control over the most important areas in the country at the time.

 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
This is a very good analogy when it comes to the context of China's so-called peace plan. Imperial Japan had control over the most important areas in the country at the time.

Click to expand...


I mean that is reasonable, right?

If there is one thing we all know about Berlin in the Cold War, is that it was a peaceful, open, and demilitarised city.
 
the hea said:
If Russia is able to take the hill north of Ivanivske the last road out of Bakhmut will be under Russian fire control.
Click to expand...


Yes, it seems they want and need Bakhmut now for propaganda reasons. The next hours/days will be critical and ukrainian command needs to take a decision fast.

 
Ukrainian former air-force colonels Robert Svitan's interview to our Estonian media.

My forecast is this: by the summer, the Ukrainian army will be at the Sea of Azov, in the summer the Ukrainain army will clear the parts of the Crimean peninsula and Kherson Oblast, which are located on the left bank of the Dnieper, and from the end of the summer we can start dealing with Donbas. If the Western countries continue to supply the Ukrainian army in such volumes as in January and February, by the end of the year the Ukrainian army will complete the maneuver I described in Donbas and secure its positions on the Russian border. Yes, it will be difficult to defend yourself there, but I think everything will work out.
Click to expand...
 
Rajma said:
Seems like UAF are finally withdrawing from Bakhmut, it served its purpose.
Click to expand...

Seems like they have no choice if they don't want to risk another Mariupol with thousands of soldiers getting surrounded and grinded down. And we also saw how Russia treated those who surrendered. It's way smarter to withdraw and use those battle hardened troops for later counter offensives when western armor finally arrives.

Russia has 2 important reasons to take Bakhmut now. Of course for propaganda reasons after one year of war, they want to present another city after months of withdrawings and stalemates.
The other reason I believe Russia's storm on Bakhmut now is also a consequence of western big announced help in MBTs and IFVs. They know Ukraine will counter attack somewhere when the armor arrives in early spring, because Ukraine is clearly preparing something and since a bulk of their forces are in constant battle around Bakhmut, they want to solve that problem now to be able to strenghen other frontline sections.

It would have been way smarter to train Ukrainian troops in secret on those MBTs and IFVs and when announcing those deliveries, they would have been ready. Now, they need to train the troops first for at least a month and that gives Russia time to prepare and take action. The west needs to start thinking ahead in those things.
 
Ragnar123 said:
Seems like they have no choice if they don't want to risk another Mariupol with thousands of soldiers getting surrounded and grinded down. And we also saw how Russia treated those who surrendered. It's way smarter to withdraw and use those battle hardened troops for later counter offensives when western armor finally arrives.

Russia has 2 important reasons to take Bakhmut now. Of course for propaganda reasons after one year of war, they want to present another city after months of withdrawings and stalemates.
The other reason I believe Russia's storm on Bakhmut now is also a consequence of western big announced help in MBTs and IFVs. They know Ukraine will counter attack somewhere when the armor arrives in early spring, because Ukraine is clearly preparing something and since a bulk of their forces are in constant battle around Bakhmut, they want to solve that problem now to be able to strenghen other frontline sections.

It would have been way smarter to train Ukrainian troops in secret on those MBTs and IFVs and when announcing those deliveries, they would have been ready. Now, they need to train the troops first for at least a month and that gives Russia time to prepare and take action. The west needs to start thinking ahead in those things.
Click to expand...
Another way to see this is that Russia lost a massive amount of troops and equipment by rushing ill prepared offensives now. Probably wouldn't have happened this intensively if they thought they had time.
 
It's also a really shit propaganda win if they take Bakhmut now and in a month's time they've lost it again. Fingers crossed!
 
stefan92 said:
Another way to see this is that Russia lost a massive amount of troops and equipment by rushing ill prepared offensives now. Probably wouldn't have happened this intensively if they thought they had time.
Click to expand...

Of course, but Russia doesn't care about their own troops and even less for Wagner mercenaries, while Ukraine needs every man. Even with a 1:3 ratio, Russia is satisfied I think. They gladly exchange 3 prisoners for one ua soldier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.