Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[the_cliff]

Besides 150M people, control of a huge proportion of the world's most demanded resources, a military victory and the certainty of total external and internal impunity?

I mostly agree with your points though, and think that that's the way some political and military analists are seeing it. I just think that historic powers usually don't die easily and Russia itself has managed to revive time and time again after several crisis and beatdowns during the last 250 years. I wouldn't count them out.

A lot of people also don't realise what Russia is doing in the Sahel region of Africa which is helping fund their war. I find it quite baffling that it hasn't gotten much media coverage and the US/EU nations seem to just be looking the other way.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Interesting to have someone with a military intelligence background essentially say the quiet part out loud about cold war military-industrial complex bullshit and incompetence. Old news of course, but bleakly depressing that we're getting a second go around with China while the climate dies around us. Neither country has a way of viewing geopolitics that seems capable of avoiding future conflict in this context of environmental degradation.

I wouldn't say it's "incompetence". It's politics. If we gave a report that said, "Hey Listen, Our military is about 30 years ahead of theirs and if we do nothing but maintain our current forces for 30 years, they'll still only be at the same level of strength as us by then,"

You would see budget cuts that make the peace dividend look like an inflation loss and half of the staffers lose their jobs.

Also, there is intrinsic bias in military intelligence. A lot of the time our assignments were heavily loaded prompts. This is because the political aspect of the Military *wants* a certain conclusion for funding/spotlight.

For example, "Find out how many Kinzhal missiles the Russians are able to produce on a monthly basis," and "We think the Russians are producing 1000 Kinzhals a month, can you verify this please?" are two very different questions trying to get an answer to the same thing. It will result in different methodologies and outcomes; Question A will result in an attempt to calculate a numerical value per month, the second question will result in intelligence officers looking for any kind of evidence to support the theory that there are 1000 Kinzhals a month.

As for China vs USA and the impact on the climate, I'm not going to comment on this because I have very charged opinions on this matter that I know are fully biased, nationalistic in nature (though I'm not American, very Pro West) and partisan towards one side. I won't give you an accurate picture in this when it comes to right vs wrong, who is the worst etc etc.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

A lot of people also don't realise what Russia is doing in the Sahel region of Africa which is helping fund their war. I find it quite baffling that it hasn't gotten much media coverage and the US/EU nations seem to just be looking the other way.

It's not getting much coverage because frankly, it's not our problem or care.

We have very little geopolitical interest there, it's been a series of failed states in that region and a dodgy Mercenary group supporting the flavor of the week Junta isn't enough to put anyone's attention there.

What this has shown however, is that ECOWAS isn't worth the paper it's written on and it's diplomatic threats have amounted to about as much substance as Shoigu's military career.

 

[Oldham]

I wanted NATO to be involved with troops and weapons from the beginning in this war and still whant that.
Probably more complicated now but it's the right thing to do both for Ukraine and for Europe...

 

[That_Bloke]

I wanted NATO to be involved with troops and weapons from the beginning in this war and still whant that.
Probably more complicated now but it's the right thing to do both for Ukraine and for Europe...

That's an insane take.

 

[4bars]

That's an insane take.

I am insane then too. Maybe not at the beginning as I didn't know the direction of war. But I would like to see that now

 

[The United]

That's an insane take.

Well, not really if the guy lives in UKR witnessing all the atrocities done by the Russians.

 

[That_Bloke]

Regarding Mig-25's, you're speaking with hindsight. Western analysts at the time were basing what they thought the Mig-25 was based on satellite imagery. The design characteristics (mostly around wing span and twin engines) led to the panic.

I didn't dispute that.

The Mig-25 did not do its job well. The MIG-25 existed to solve a problem that no longer existed - US overflight over Soviet Union with high altitude and ranged spy planes/strategic bombers. The engine quality was appalling, the frame was mostly built with lightened steel and the engines would burn out very quickly if it flew at its intended intercept speeds. The electronics onboard the plane were already obsolete by the 1970's. The MIG-25 is a perfect example of the problems plaguing the Soviet military-industrial complex. Lack of proper tertiary civilian industry (domestic electronics market, materials science engineering research, commercial engine research) led the military having to make-do with some poor trade offs and compromises.

That's a fair point. There were indeed many problems with the aircraft due to its rushed development, but as it often happens, most of the issues, notably the engines were ironed out in the next versions, before being replaced by the MiG-31. It still carried out reconnaissance and interception missions where its primary advantage, its speed, came in handy and while not being an air superiority fighter, its combat history shows it performed well when not fighting against overwhelming odds and a fairly equal opponent. Hence my comment. I agree with the rest.

You can point out the West's lack of experience in near-peer conflict, but your assessment of Iraq is completely off. Iraq's military in 1991 was a magnitude stronger than AFU in 2022. That's right by the way, for the first six months of the war, Ukraine's military was also absolutely horrific. Thankfully, they had the west to correct them on the basics. To this day, Ukraine's main armoured backbone is its T-64 supported by a small battalions of T-80's. Iraq was fielding export versions of T-72's by that point. Iraq's weakness in '91 is exactly the kind of weakness that Russia showed. Decent equipment on paper, lack of training, lack of cohesion, lack of a proper Non-Comm officer corps and complete lack of inter-unit co-operation.

I honestly don't see how. Iraq bled out during its war against Iran, and was economically crippled.

The Iran-Iraq war already showed an obvious lack of quality in the Iraqi millitary leadership with many high ranking commanding officers promoted because of their allegiance and not their competence. And that's not taking into account the purges during the war. They didn't have the means to properly maintain any of their military equipement nor train the crews or pilots. The T-72M1s fielded by Iraq during the Gulf War were heavily downgraded compared to the Russian counter-part. Without proper night-vision system, no modern fire control system and lesser armor, they didn't stand a chance against the M1A1s, the M1A1HAs or the Challengers. They also had a large number of the so-called "Lions of Babylon", a locally produced T-72 which was even worse. I won't even talk about their T-55s, T-62s and T-69s.

MiG-21s and MiG-23s formed the bulk of the Iraqi Air Force and were no match for the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s and Tornados. The couple of MiG-29s and Mirages weren't enough to make any diference and many were sent to Iran. Aside from the enormous technological edge and a much better trained military personel, the Coalition had absolute air and naval superiority.

The Iraqi ground troops, despite their massive numbers on paper, were equally poorly trained, ill equipped and largely demotivated, aside from few "elite" units.

So yeah, if you go by raw numbers, you can make an argument for Iraq having the 4th largest army in the world at the time, but it's an empty one. Quantity doesn't quality, millenia of warfare proved that and I don't think it didn't dawn on the US or Western Intelligence. Iraq didn't have a single chance against the US alone, even less against 40 countries. I stand by what said, Iraq being the 4th military power at the time was a myth propped up solely for international and domestic propaganda. I'll never consider the Gulf War as a real one, fought on remotely even terms. It was the one-sided destruction of a totally inferior opponent, at every level. My opinion though.

After their initial blunders, the Russians are learning and they're learning fast. They're acquiring an war experience none of the US or NATO ever had or has. And despite the Russian mistakes, Ukraine would've never lasted if not for the Western support.

Again, you assume Saddam's "doctrine" was static ground defense, but the truth could not be further away. In fact, the Iraqi Army followed the classic "defense - in - depth" doctrines that the Soviets employed and distributed at around a similar timeframe. Undermanned static defenses were purposefully deployed to be delaying troops, anchored by defensive hardpoints, creating funnels through which the enemy can breach. These funnels would allow the enemy to push deeper into the lines, before they were counter-attacked by well trained, mobile, armoured units and defeated through detail. The Republican Guard divisions were those mobile armored units, the problem was the gap between Iraq and the Coalition was so strong that it didn't matter what the Medina or Tawalkana Divisions did, they would get minced.

The problem was that the West was so much more technologically advanced that this Soviet doctrine was pretty obsolescent - so much so that shortly after, Russia and China both abandoned their concepts of defense in depth. Both countries (Soviet Union) too, had their defensive strategies exactly the same, just with more material and in Russia's case, somewhat better material. Fat lot of good defensive hardpoints do when enemy Air Cavalry divisions can just helidrop 10k troops in 4 hours 100km behind your lines, or when 2000 MBT's can roll through a desert through satellite navigation.

I stand corrected.

It still doesn't make sense to me because the skies belonged to the Coalition and Iraq's "empty", flat topography heavily played to its strengths. A confrontation on an open terrain was always going to end one way. Regrouping around urban centers would've been a sounder choice, not that it would've changed the outcome, mind.

They do rely on a fundamentally different geography and an air support/ defense to speak of. Which wasn't the case at all in Iraq.

Thanks again for your insight and feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong.

 

[Walrus]

I am insane then too. Maybe not at the beginning as I didn't know the direction of war. But I would like to see that now

I am also insane, and I will refer back to my posts on this thread when the war originally broke out such as;
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/rus...more-discussion.468216/page-153#post-28532439

NATO has already dropped the ball on this whole thing. Its easy to say "caution" and delay, delay delay, only to look back a year later and say "Maybe we shouldve done more, but who knew?". The only way to deal with an authoritarian bully like Putin is to meet strength with strength. It is the only thing he understands and respects. Every time a Western politician comes out and says "we arent sending troops to Ukraine" then you can add another tick in Putin's column as a small win.

When the conflict broke out, NATO should have moved to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine (at the Ukrainians invitation - it is their sovereign airspace after all), and given Putin an ultimatum that if he didnt remove all troops from Ukraine within 30 days, NATO peacekeepers would be coming in to remove them. NATO wouldnt be attacking Russia or marching on Moscow, it would be defending Ukraine's sovereign territory, and for all the fearmongering and rhetoric, Putin et al. would understand that.

Unfortunately instead, you simply have the boy who cries Nukes, and a collective West who still believe him.

 

[Oldham]

That's an insane take.

What? Why?
Are you OK with people in Ukraine dying because what???
What's wrong with you?
So many questions....

 

[That_Bloke]

What? Why?
Are you OK with people in Ukraine dying because what???
What's wrong with you?
So many questions....

- I've noticed that many people are on the insane take. You can all gather and make a collective appointment by the next friendly shrink. You can then discuss about the best way to take Putin down and militarily defeat Russia in your group therapy sessions.
- No, I am not. By far. I'm all for supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion. On the other side, deploying NATO troops on Ukrainian soil is a recipe for a worldwide disaster to which I'm not willing to subscribe. Not that it would happen anyway.
- Nothing. I do have have something against armchair warriors though.
- So few answers...

Don't take this reply too seriously (although you should). It was quite the boozy Friday night.

Peace, mate.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Walrus]

- I've noticed that many people are on the insane take. You can all gather and make a collective appointment by the next friendly shrink. There you can discuss about the best way to take down Putin and militarily defeat Russia in your group therapy sessions.
- No, I am not. By far. I'm all for supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion. On the other side, deploying NATO troops on Ukrainian soil is a recipe for a worldwide disaster to which I'm not willing to subscribe. Not that it would happen anyway.
- Nothing. I do have have something against armchair warriors though.
- So few answers...

Don't take this reply too seriously (although you should). It was quite the boozy Friday night.

Peace, mate.

Congratulations, you are unwittingly helping promote Putins agenda.

 

[the hea]

 

[stefan92]

Hopefully more countries will follow this example.

 

[Morty_]

Hopefully more countries will follow this example.

They for sure won't.

 

[Bert_]

If NATO deploys troops to Ukraine then that presumably means they will be directly engaging the Russians. Ukraine isn't Russian territory but it's not allied with NATO either. Russia would consider any NATO attack on their forces outside of NATO territory a declaration of war. No one is going to risk direct military confrontation with Russia. It's a race to the bottom.

NATO should have been arming Ukraine since 2014 with the goal to retake the Donbass at least. And Russia should have been isolated and sanctioned immediately. Instead our politians swam in pools of oligarch cash and turned a blind eye.

 

[Wibble]

What? Why?
Are you OK with people in Ukraine dying because what???
What's wrong with you?
So many questions....

You don't need to be OK with Ukrainians dying not to want to commit NATO forces to directly engage in a war with Russia.

That would be an incredibly dangerous escalation especially as it would effectively then be a US Russia war.

 

[Oldham]

You don't need to be OK with Ukrainians dying not to want to commit NATO forces to directly engage in a war with Russia.

That would be an incredibly dangerous escalation especially as it would effectively then be a US Russia war.

So we should just let Putin play his war games?
Sometimes you have to be brave and stop evil and this is in my opinion what should be done...

 

[the_cliff]

After seeing the US and the UK rush to defend Iranian attacks on Israel yesterday, Zelensky seems pretty annoyed and rightly so.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[DT12]

So we should just let Putin play his war games?
Sometimes you have to be brave and stop evil and this is in my opinion what should be done...

It's not a question of "bravery". When every major political and military leader in the West is saying direct war with Russia must be avoided "at all costs" (the acceptable 'cost' here being Ukraine), it's likely they have access to information that you don't about what the consequences of that war would be.

And for you and others who have begun to casually throw around words like "bravery" and "cowardice" when saying "we" must fight Russia directly - here's the link to the Ukrainian Foreign Legion:

https://ildu.com.ua

Let me know the link works and that your application has gone through.

 

[DT12]

After seeing the US and the UK rush to defend Iranian attacks on Israel yesterday, Zelensky seems pretty annoyed and rightly so.

If he still hasn't figured out the difference between an "ally" and a "proxy" 2 years into this war then he isn't "rightly" annoyed, he's a moron.

I will say this for him though - there is a definite anger coming through in his nightly addresses to the Ukrainian people. Scornful remarks about "genuine" friends and "those who only promise" (from last night's address, thanking Germany for the extra Patriot system while admonishing everyone else). There's a glimmer of hope that he's starting to realise he's been used as a disposable tool by the Washington neocons and he was an idiot to buy into their "new Winston Churchill" flattery.

 

[VorZakone]

If he still hasn't figured out the difference between an "ally" and a "proxy" 2 years into this war then he isn't "rightly" annoyed, he's a moron.

I will say this for him though - there is a definite anger coming through in his nightly addresses to the Ukrainian people. Scornful remarks about "genuine" friends and "those who only promise" (from last night's address, thanking Germany for the extra Patriot system while admonishing everyone else). There's a glimmer of hope that he's starting to realise he's been used as a disposable tool by the Washington neocons and he was an idiot to buy into their "new Winston Churchill" flattery.

What makes you think he bought into Churchill flattery? What specific behavior, quotes etc. shows that he bought into his own narrative?

 

[DT12]

What makes you think he bought into Churchill flattery? His own interests are to secure aid and maintain positive PR and Ukrainians by and large chose to fight back.

He wasn't forced or anything by Western allies to fight, that's a decision Ukraine made for itself.

He got caught up in the West's bullshit about how "Ukraine can defeat Russia", which every single Western leader must have known was utter nonsense. If they were genuine "friends" of Ukraine, they would have done 2 years ago what they are doing now - been bluntly honest with him about Ukraine's chances of 'victory' and made major diplomatic efforts to resolve it (I know, I know, "Putin can't be negotiated with! He invaded!!!"). Instead, and in contrast to Israel - an actual Western ally whose destruction they care about - they all got a bit giddy. They should have been honest with Zelenskiy. Instead they showered him with adulation, staged multiple #slavaukraini tours for their own domestic political benefit, contributed to the "Ukraine will win" horseshit, and the result is that Ukraine has been destroyed as a functioning state. I know you and most others here have a very different take and that's fine (though I will add that Zelenskiy is more and more expressing what I have written here). I don't propose to go over it all again.

 

[VorZakone]

He got caught up in the West's bullshit about how "Ukraine can defeat Russia", which every single Western leader must have known was utter nonsense. If they were genuine "friends" of Ukraine, they would have done 2 years ago what they are doing now - been bluntly honest with him about Ukraine's chances of 'victory' and made major diplomatic efforts to resolve it (I know, I know, "Putin can't be negotiated with! He invaded!!!"). Instead, and in contrast to Israel - an actual Western ally whose destruction they care about - they all got a bit giddy. They should have been honest with Zelenskiy. Instead they showered him with adulation, staged multiple #slavaukraini tours for their own domestic political benefit, contributed to the "Ukraine will win" horseshit, and the result is that Ukraine has been destroyed as a functioning state. I know you and most others here have a very different take and that's fine (though I will add that Zelenskiy is more and more expressing what I have written here). I don't propose to go over it all again.

But how do you know he got caught up in the "Ukraine can defeat Russia" rhetoric specifically?

The premise of your argument is that he would have behaved differently if the West was "honest". In fact, if I recall correctly, Western intelligence were honest in their assessment pre-invasion and told him that Ukraine was likely to get crushed if they didn't prepare better. He must have been given the same intel about Kyiv being stormed by Russia in potentially several days.

Instead, under those circumstances, he and his team chose to stay and rally the country to fight back.

The notion that he was convinced by the West that he could win doesn't really fly for me. Because it's precisely in those early days where the situation looked extremely vulnerable (and the West pessimistic) that he didn't back down

In other words, I don't recall the West singing kumbaya with Zelensky 2 years ago. The West was pessimistic and shared alarming intel with Ukraine on its chances for resistance, but Zelensky and his government chose to fight regardless.

 

[VorZakone]

Defenders of Ukraine’s strategy accuse the White House of prioritizing domestic politics over Kyiv’s military goals. U.S. officials say the rationale behind their warnings is more nuanced than critics suggest, noting that Moscow’s counterattack has hurt Ukraine more than the refinery attacks hurt Russia.

 

[africanspur]

I'm genuinely interested to know who these kinds of people are. I mean.....why wouldn't the White House prioritise domestic policies over Ukraine's military goals?

And why (if this is all true), would you piss off your biggest backer, by doing exactly what they've asked you not to do?

 

[VorZakone]

I'm genuinely interested to know who these kinds of people are. I mean.....why wouldn't the White House prioritise domestic policies over Ukraine's military goals?

And why (if this is all true), would you piss off your biggest backer, by doing exactly what they've asked you not to do?

I think it's a two-way street. Obviously the White House needs to think about its domestic policies, they're still the White House and have to deal with a lot more than just the war in Ukraine.

But on the other side, I also don't think the WH has 100% authority on Ukraine's decision-making. The Europeans have also provided a lot of (economic) aid and they don't seem to be upset or vocal about Ukraine's attacks on refineries.

The Ukrainians aren't using Western weapons on Russian territory to my best knowledge so they're adhering to that condition.

As for whether the refinery strategy is a good one in terms of hurting the Russian war machine, I don't know.

 

[TMDaines]

Just feel sorry for Ukrainians at this point, and more than slightly embarrassed by the inertia of the West.

 

[Red in STL]

I think it's a two-way street. Obviously the White House needs to think about its domestic policies, they're still the White House and have to deal with a lot more than just the war in Ukraine.

But on the other side, I also don't think the WH has 100% authority on Ukraine's decision-making. The Europeans have also provided a lot of (economic) aid and they don't seem to be upset or vocal about Ukraine's attacks on refineries.

The Ukrainians aren't using Western weapons on Russian territory to my best knowledge so they're adhering to that condition.

As for whether the refinery strategy is a good one in terms of hurting the Russian war machine, I don't know.

The US public is super sensitive about the price of gasoline, attacks on oil refineries inevitably leads to the price of oil going up and as a result the price of gasoline

No matter the reason the US president is always blamed if the price of gasoline goes up more than a few cents, Biden or Trump, it would make no difference

 

[VorZakone]

I read the article. Though it offers more details and shows that negotiations were going on for a long time (even after Bucha), it's still somewhat of a "he said, she said" story and we still don't know if the Russians were really intent on securing a diplomatic settlement. Ukraine was willing to agree to neutrality on military alliances but EU membership would be left open.

Nevertheless, the authors disagree with the notion that Ukraine was forced by the West to continue fighting. Also, another point that I was thinking about recently and mentioned in the article. Without hard security guarantees from the West, negotiations aren't worth much. Previous agreements have already been violated by Russia. Any new agreement without concrete security guarantees is just another agreement that Russia can violate without Western military intervention.

Still, the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia is baseless. It suggests that Kyiv had no say in the matter.

 

[VorZakone]

This thread says Poland's role was bigger than known, and that the Polish felt that the Russians were bluffing but tried to subjugate Ukraine at the negotiation table after the early military failures. Also says Russian officials threatened Ukrainian officials and that the Ukrainian delegation, including current minister Rustem Umerov, had symptoms of poisoning (here's a WSJ piece which may be linked).

 

[That_Bloke]

I read the article. Though it offers more details and shows that negotiations were going on for a long time (even after Bucha), it's still somewhat of a "he said, she said" story and we still don't know if the Russians were really intent on securing a diplomatic settlement.

Nevertheless, the authors disagree with the notion that Ukraine was forced by the West to continue fighting. Also, another point that I was thinking about recently and mentioned in the article. Without hard security guarantees from the West, negotiations aren't worth much. Previous agreements have already been violated by Russia. Any new agreement without concrete security guarantees is just another agreement that Russia can violate without Western military intervention.

It's still one of the best articles I've read about the topic, thanks.

You've raised some good points about which I'd like to talk. I'll get back to back you.

 

[VorZakone]

It's still one of the best articles I've read about the topic, thanks.

You've raised some good points about which I'd like to talk. I'll get back to back you.

Another quote from Ukrainian negotiator Arakhamia from a different article, when asked why Ukraine didn't agree to Russia's terms.

First of all, to agree to this point, we would have to change the [Ukrainian] Constitution. Our path to NATO is written into the Constitution.

Second of all, we did not and still do not trust the Russians to keep their word. This would only have been possible if we had security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, walk away, everyone would breathe a sigh of relief, and then [Russia] would invade, only more prepared this time — because the first time they invaded, they were actually unprepared for us to resist so much. So we could only work [with them] if we were 100 percent confident that this wouldn’t happen a second time. And we don’t have that confidence.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[the hea]

Pro Russian Tegram channels are saying that ATACMS missiles where used in the attack.

 

[VorZakone]

50,000 confirmed killed on the Russian side.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?

 

[Mike Smalling]

If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?

Difficult to say, but it's not like Putin has single-handedly spellbound an entire nation that will suddenly wake up upon his death. There is a big propaganda apparatus that has filled the population with lies about the conflict, and I'm sure many of his closest allies at the top of the food chain actually agree with Putin's reasons for the invasion. Putin's death could maybe act like a good opportunity for negotiations though. Whoever takes over wouldn't massively lose face by giving concessions to Ukraine, like Putin would.

It's all speculation, of course, and I don't see Putin dying the next 10 years. The bad ones always seem to live forever.