Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Oh I don't think he wants to get rid of ties to Russia, but as you yourself said he values his independency and during all those deals he always made sure that he gets a good deal from Russia.

Like for example having Russian troops keep him in power and then sending no troops to support them in Ukraine. I am quite sure that Putin is very unhappy about that, but he apparently doesn't have the means to do anything to force Lukashenko, but instead even has to endure hearing Lukashenko about how he calmed down Putin during the Wagner coup as if Putin was an enraged Teenager.
Yes, he plays his weak hand very well in his ties with Russia, that is definitely true. And about Putin unhappy about Lukashenka bragging about Wagner situation also agreed - he actually realized that and started to backtrack a bit.

But on Belarus not sending troops and Putin pressuring - a common misconception that lives on - I am not sure why. If you watch them and think about it - it does not make sense and there is no evidence for that:

1. Belarusian army is small and has no combat experience. There are maybe 5k or so of more or less prepared troops, others are no better than Russian mobilized personnel. They would not have made a huge difference (of course if Kyiv had fallen Lukashenka would have been more than happy to have them participate a tik tok parade there)

2. On the other hand there are significant risks. Lower level personnel is a lot less enthusiastic about the war than their Russian counterparts. Most would obey orders I guess but there would be defections - but above all sending the troops is hugely unpopular in Belarus. Around 90% of population including the majority of Lukashenka supporters are strictly against it. And there is only that much state propaganda could do given that they brandished “no war“ as one of Lukashenka’s prime achievements. This is a home run for opposition forces - and however crushed they might seem - they are still a lot more popular in Belarus than Russian opposition in Russia (and Lukashenka is a lot less popular in Belarus than Putin in Russia)

So it is perfectly feasible that Putin could conclude himself (possibly with the help of argumentation from Lukashenka of course) that the risk reward calculation is unfavorable and as long as he can move his own troops through Belarus it is enough.

Of course you could argue that their calculations and perceptions could be different - but the thing is, if they have some major disagreement it is always revealed by Lukashenka or Putin words/actions. For instance, Lukashenka would act offended, let some remarks slip how russia does not appreciate him etc etc - but there was nothing after the beginning of war. Plus Putin would pressure on economic concessions, deny requests (which was the case even in 2020-2021 although Putin gave Lukashenka full political support in his repressions against his own population) - but after the onset of war he gave Lukashenka all the stuff in terms of economic support that the latter had been asking for years. This just does not fit with Putin pressing and being unhappy and Lukashenka resisting.

Most likely his request was to let through troops, support the war rhetorically and in return get full economic and political support - to which Lukashenka agreed seeing it as the best realistic deal he could get.
 
How long before we get reports of civilians being killed by these by accident?

It's not a great look from the US, but Ukraine have been using cluster munitions since the start of the war. Just not to the same extent as the Russians. Turkey sent them some (US made ones) in January this year I believe.

Also remember seeing an Amnesty (I think...?) report about civilians being killed by cluster munitions used by both sides. So the reports you mention are already out there.
 
It's not a great look from the US, but Ukraine have been using cluster munitions since the start of the war. Just not to the same extent as the Russians. Turkey sent them some (US made ones) in January this year I believe.

Also remember seeing an Amnesty (I think...?) report about civilians being killed by cluster munitions used by both sides. So the reports you mention are already out there.
Fair enough, just more ammo to the whatabout crew.
 
It's not a great look from the US, but Ukraine have been using cluster munitions since the start of the war. Just not to the same extent as the Russians. Turkey sent them some (US made ones) in January this year I believe.

Also remember seeing an Amnesty (I think...?) report about civilians being killed by cluster munitions used by both sides. So the reports you mention are already out there.
Just heard that the dud percentage of US / NATO cluster munitions is around 2%, while upwards of 40% of the Russians are duds.
 
How long before we get reports of civilians being killed by these by accident?

Russia will no doubt start reports like that immediately, if they haven't already. These are artillery fired cluster shells, their not going to be used on populated areas.
 
“War has always been the mother of invention”


Meanwhile somewhere in Texas:
FzvIVD4WAAATIcq
 
How long before we get reports of civilians being killed by these by accident?
Russia has been using them since the beginning of the war including when firing on civilian areas.

These are the remains of Russian MLRS cluster munitions used against Kharkiv.

F0bPXagXoAMYL73
 
Russia has been using them since the beginning of the war including when firing on civilian areas.

These are the remains of Russian MLRS cluster munitions used against Kharkiv.

F0bPXagXoAMYL73
Fair enough, I hope they will really make a difference because the propagandists will pick up on this very effectively.

However, I've read they can cause damage years later because some fail to explode. I don't know, I kinda get what they want to use them, but I also expect "my side" to be better than the bad guys.
 
Fair enough, I hope they will really make a difference because the propagandists will pick up on this very effectively.

However, I've read they can cause damage years later because some fail to explode. I don't know, I kinda get what they want to use them, but I also expect "my side" to be better than the bad guys.
The unexploded munitions are why they are so controversial, the bomblets can remain on the ground for a long time and harm people very long after the conflict has ended. The reason why Ukraine wants them so badly is because they are one of the most effective weapons against trench systems like the ones Russia has constructed all over the occupied territories. With these shells Ukrainian artillery will be able to cover a much bigger area while using fewer shells compared to the HE shells they are using now.
 
The unexploded munitions are why they are so controversial, the bomblets can remain on the ground for a long time and harm people very long after the conflict has ended. The reason why Ukraine wants them so badly is because they are one of the most effective weapons against trench systems like the ones Russia has constructed all over the occupied territories. With these shells Ukrainian artillery will be able to cover a much bigger area while using fewer shells compared to the HE shells they are using now.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that's all.
 
Cluster munitions are a huge help against fortified trenches. Instead of one explosion from a 155 shell, you get 2 dozen explosions in the best case and have a much greater chance to hit the trench of course. Which in turn helps to storm those trenches and keep more Ukrainian men alive and unharmed.
What Ukraine needs to do is mark the spots where they use them, so when the area is liberated, they need to search for unexploded submunitions of course. But as others said, Russia uses them since the start of the war. It's the least that ukraine has the same weapons. The delivery was overdue.
 
Cluster munitions are a huge help against fortified trenches. Instead of one explosion from a 155 shell, you get 2 dozen explosions in the best case and have a much greater chance to hit the trench of course. Which in turn helps to storm those trenches and keep more Ukrainian men alive and unharmed.
What Ukraine needs to do is mark the spots where they use them, so when the area is liberated, they need to search for unexploded submunitions of course. But as others said, Russia uses them since the start of the war. It's the least that ukraine has the same weapons. The delivery was overdue.
I'm pretty sure they'll be too busy trying to stay alive and kill Russians to worry about marking up bits of paper
 
Fair enough, I hope they will really make a difference because the propagandists will pick up on this very effectively.

However, I've read they can cause damage years later because some fail to explode. I don't know, I kinda get what they want to use them, but I also expect "my side" to be better than the bad guys.

I think I agree with what this guy says on the matter. Ukraine needs all the effective weaponry they can get their hands on and they need it yesterday.


 
You say that as if putin gives a shit about his own population.

He'd give a shit when his army is all sick with radiation poisoning.
Fair enough, I hope they will really make a difference because the propagandists will pick up on this very effectively.

However, I've read they can cause damage years later because some fail to explode. I don't know, I kinda get what they want to use them, but I also expect "my side" to be better than the bad guys.

No such luxury when you're fighting for your very existence. You do whatever is necessary.

Kind of highlights how long it has been since any Western country has faced that.
 
He'd give a shit when his army is all sick with radiation poisoning.


No such luxury when you're fighting for your very existence. You do whatever is necessary.

Kind of highlights how long it has been since any Western country has faced that.
I mean, it's a bit much saying we have to give them these weapons because their existence is as stake, but not give them fecking airplanes, which is warfare 101.
 
Regarding what they’re thinking - I’m fairly certain we don’t make them anymore.

ATACMS aren't being made anymore and their replacement system isn't in production yet, which is probably a big part of the explanation. The limited stock is all the US has of this particular capability.

Still, send them yesterday!
 
I mean, it's a bit much saying we have to give them these weapons because their existence is as stake, but not give them fecking airplanes, which is warfare 101.

We weren't giving them aircraft because we didn't trust they won't use them to attack Russian territory. No such worries with replenishing artillery rounds they already had.

Now we are giving them jets anyway, once the pilots are ready.
 
I mean, it's a bit much saying we have to give them these weapons because their existence is as stake, but not give them fecking airplanes, which is warfare 101.
Its a bit more complicated then just give them jets. Jets on their own are not much use. There is a whole infrastructure behind jets that make them effective. For instance there are tactical control centers that amalgamate all radar to form a picture of incoming threats, ground support and maintenance crews who need to be specifically trained for new jets, new missiles etc. Without all the other infrastructure, jets just roaming around looking for targets, Russia will just take them out within a few weeks. Plus Russia has a sht load of jets already. I think 1500 compared to Ukrains 100 or so. So even if Ukraine got jets they can never overcome the numerical advantage Russia has. The other thing is that Russia can just launch missiles from Belarus and from the Russian border. If Ukraine wants to control its skies they would have to engage them outside thier airspace. Jets will help Ukraine but its not going to be that much of a help like when Western militaries can take out everything and totally control the airspace.
 
Its a bit more complicated then just give them jets. Jets on their own are not much use. There is a whole infrastructure behind jets that make them effective. For instance there are tactical control centers that amalgamate all radar to form a picture of incoming threats, ground support and maintenance crews who need to be specifically trained for new jets, new missiles etc. Without all the other infrastructure, jets just roaming around looking for targets, Russia will just take them out within a few weeks. Plus Russia has a sht load of jets already. I think 1500 compared to Ukrains 100 or so. So even if Ukraine got jets they can never overcome the numerical advantage Russia has. The other thing is that Russia can just launch missiles from Belarus and from the Russian border. If Ukraine wants to control its skies they would have to engage them outside thier airspace. Jets will help Ukraine but its not going to be that much of a help like when Western militaries can take out everything and totally control the airspace.
We weren't giving them aircraft because we didn't trust they won't use them to attack Russian territory. No such worries with replenishing artillery rounds they already had.

Now we are giving them jets anyway, once the pilots are ready.

My point is that ukraine has been refused material they have asked before and in many instances the west was late to supply them, so saying these specific weapons must be delivered because it's an existential war seem like a poor argument to me. It's obvious they know using them is fecked up, that's why they felt the need specifically justify their use.

As I said before, I understand why they're doing it and if I was ukranian I would probably see things differently, but these are banned weapons by a shitload of countries for a reason, so using them bothers me. "But russia has been using them forever", yeah but they're supposed to be the villains, right?
 
My point is that ukraine has been refused material they have asked before and in many instances the west was late to supply them, so saying these specific weapons must be delivered because it's an existential war seem like a poor argument to me. It's obvious they know using them is fecked up, that's why they felt the need specifically justify their use.

As I said before, I understand why they're doing it and if I was ukranian I would probably see things differently, but these are banned weapons by a shitload of countries for a reason, so using them bothers me. "But russia has been using them forever", yeah but they're supposed to be the villains, right?
I think using them on your own territory as a defensive or counteroffensive measure is ethically a bit different, as Ukraine is fully incentivised to reduce the future risks that they could cause to civilians.
 
My point is that ukraine has been refused material they have asked before and in many instances the west was late to supply them, so saying these specific weapons must be delivered because it's an existential war seem like a poor argument to me. It's obvious they know using them is fecked up, that's why they felt the need specifically justify their use.

As I said before, I understand why they're doing it and if I was ukranian I would probably see things differently, but these are banned weapons by a shitload of countries for a reason, so using them bothers me. "But russia has been using them forever", yeah but they're supposed to be the villains, right?

They've not been denied anything that could only be used defensively and wouldn't risk depleting NATO stocks. Everything that has been denied so far has been either offensive capable (long range missiles, jets) or would risk leaving the donor country short (tanks, jets).