Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Dr. StrangeHate said:
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?
Click to expand...
There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.
 
stefan92 said:
There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answers @Mike Smalling and @stefan92.

I guess there are nutters everywhere, as the images show flattened villages, you can't be more unrestrained than that.
 
the hea said:
Pro Russian Tegram channels are saying that ATACMS missiles where used in the attack.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Astra is a "pro-Russian" channel. I'm not a fan of theirs as they're a bit trash in terms of fact-checking but they're trying to be objective (half of their latest posts are about the Russian strike on Chernihiv for example).
 
stefan92 said:
There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.
Click to expand...
Economic reasons that you've mentioned aren't really relevant. The war costs much more (both directly and indirectly via sanctions) — and you'll need tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment to build/rebuild the industrial infrastructure (let alone the civilian one that is also required for it to function considering the damage from the war). Russia has a lot of untapped natural resources on its own territory that aren't getting harvested because of the lack of infrastructure investment.

The issue is people who are benefitting from this war — and I mean both the oligarchy and common folk who are working in military production (although they wouldn't be able to influence the decision directly). And another issue is that we can't really know how genuine Putin's elite are in their ideological convictions at this point (and there's no real way to check). If those who share the same beliefs as Putin (like Patrushev) will stay in power, nothing will change. If it's more practical people (like Sobyanin), I think the war will meet its swift end.
 
harms said:
I don't think that Astra is a "pro-Russian" channel. I'm not a fan of theirs as they're a bit trash in terms of fact-checking but they're trying to be objective (half of their latest posts are about the Russian strike on Chernihiv for example).
Click to expand...
Astra didn't mention ATACMS that was mentioned on Rybar and at least one other pro Russian channel I checked this morning. I just used Rob Lees tweet to show which attack I was referring to. Sorry for being unclear.
 
nimic said:
Do they have equipment and logistics for a million soldiers at war?
Click to expand...
Those people who advocate for that don't really give the impression that they would care about that to me.
 
TwoSheds said:
Yeah I don't believe the meat armour one, sorry. They perhaps just have more troops than troop carrying capacity so have them sit on the top or something.
Click to expand...
The BMPs especially are so badly armoured against mines that it's often safer for troops to ride on top than inside them, if they fear there could be mines.

The mines destroy the lower body of the BMP, but the upper armour prevents the shrapnels to reach the troops on top
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think its wishfull thinking. The whole idea that in countires that has only briefly flirted with democracy that the replacement of a dictator will be progressive is sort of naive considering that their brief spell with democracy was considered humaliating. On a whole I dont think the Russians national psyche and narrative will offer something radically better than whats already on the table.
 
stefan92 said:
The BMPs especially are so badly armoured against mines that it's often safer for troops to ride on top than inside them, if they fear there could be mines.

The mines destroy the lower body of the BMP, but the upper armour prevents the shrapnels to reach the troops on top
Click to expand...

Makes more sense I guess.
 
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/

"As Ukraine’s ousted chief commander Zaluzhny found to his cost, rational warnings that things may not turn out well can get commentators and analysts in trouble. But suspending critical thinking won’t win this war either.

The early burst of patriotic fervor which saw draft centers swamped with volunteers has evaporated. An estimated 650,000 men of fighting age have fled their country, most by smuggling themselves across the border.

Two years ago, the trains heading out of Ukraine were almost exclusively carrying women, children and the elderly to seek refuge. This week, around a third of the passengers on one train carrying this correspondent out of the country were men of fighting age. Somehow they’d managed to get waiver papers to leave"
 
Gehrman said:
I think its wishfull thinking. The whole idea that in countires that has only briefly flirted with democracy that the replacement of a dictator will be progressive is sort of naive considering that their brief spell with democracy was considered humaliating. On a whole I dont think the Russians national psyche and narrative will offer something radically better than whats already on the table.
Click to expand...
I think the realistic hope is not a democracy but a more practical minded leader that would be willing to trade geopolitical ambitions for economical gain, lifting of the sanctions etc.

Not that it would be this simple, I’d imagine that the west would ask for significant reparations (and rightly so), so it would be a significant short-term loss for a potential long-term gain for Russia.

All wishful thinking though. Everybody seems to be dying except for the one that actually needs to.
 
Germany arrests two for alleged military sabotage plot on behalf of Russia

BERLIN, April 18 (Reuters) - Two German-Russian nationals have been arrested in Germany on suspicion of plotting sabotage attacks, including on U.S. military facilities, in what officials called a serious effort to undermine military support for Ukraine.

According to Spiegel magazine, the facilities included the Grafenwoehr army base in the southern state of Bavaria, where Ukrainian soldiers receive training to use U.S. Abrams tanks.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...itary-sabotage-plot-behalf-russia-2024-04-18/
 
VorZakone said:
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
Click to expand...
Exactly, if anything he convinced the West that Ukraine was worth backing. And in doing so, he made us realise where our interests lay.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Because the long term opposition is not Russia. Russia is a dying state that is giving it one last attempted hurrah before it crumbles into the abyss of mid tier resource state irrelevancy. Nukes are all that keeps it in geopolitical relevance.

One more active Patriot/THAAD wasted on Russia is one less patriot in the Pacific Theatre when China inevitably falls into thucydides trap.
Click to expand...
If the US doesn't help Europe with Ukraine, then there won't be any European Patriot systems - or anything else - being sent to help the US protect Taiwan. You can be certain of that.
 
Wibble said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the point seems to be (at least decoding what Macron is saying) is that we can't box ourselves in with red lines, when Putin does not. By creating uncertainty about what the West might/might not do, we make it harder for Putin.

And the other thing is, if we do genuinely believe that Putin's winning Ukraine increases the chance of direct conflict with NATO in future, then shouldn't NATO bite the bullet and draw the line now?

I'm not saying we should do these things, but surely these are some of the calculations.
 
At least it looks as though Ukraine is going to get the weapons it needs again, which is a relief, although hopefully it's not too late. Finally people in the US seem to be waking up.
 
nickm said:
At least it looks as though Ukraine is going to get the weapons it needs again, which is a relief, although hopefully it's not too late. Finally people in the US seem to be waking up.
Click to expand...

The prospects are that whilst Ukraine is willing to 'bleed' and to continue the struggle, taking the hits etc. it becomes (if unofficially) NATO's front line and for the rest of Europe (if not a Trump led USA) a cause that it has to defend absolutely.
Reports suggest Russia is already on a war footing, economically as well as militarily and eventually the rest of Europe will become the same. Whether the UK is officially part of the EU or not won't matter, we will all be in the same boat, paddling like mad to keep our heads above water, in a war of attrition.
Everything else likely to shrink in the minds of our leaders, national debt, net zero, etc. all will retreat into the distance even further, as a war driven economy emerges and reality sets in.

Get your tin-hats now, stock up with carrots (see in the dark etc.) a dose of reality is coming Europe's way. Once any would be asylum seekers (real or imagined) realise they will get called up to the armed forces (once domiciled here) the answer to the small boats problem may be found... at last!

Rishi take note, ditch the Rwanda deal... now!
 
Maticmaker said:
The prospects are that whilst Ukraine is willing to 'bleed' and to continue the struggle, taking the hits etc. it becomes (if unofficially) NATO's front line and for the rest of Europe (if not a Trump led USA) a cause that it has to defend absolutely.
Reports suggest Russia is already on a war footing, economically as well as militarily and eventually the rest of Europe will become the same. Whether the UK is officially part of the EU or not won't matter, we will all be in the same boat, paddling like mad to keep our heads above water, in a war of attrition.
Everything else likely to shrink in the minds of our leaders, national debt, net zero, etc. all will retreat into the distance even further, as a war driven economy emerges and reality sets in.

Get your tin-hats now, stock up with carrots (see in the dark etc.) a dose of reality is coming Europe's way. Once any would be asylum seekers (real or imagined) realise they will get called up to the armed forces (once domiciled here) the answer to the small boats problem may be found... at last!

Rishi take note, ditch the Rwanda deal... now!
Click to expand...

You might have dementia.
 
You won't find more competent person on what's going on in Ukraine than professor Snyder:



I guess the whole hearing would be useful to watch:

 
nickm said:
If the US doesn't help Europe with Ukraine, then there won't be any European Patriot systems - or anything else - being sent to help the US protect Taiwan. You can be certain of that.
Click to expand...

The problem is not Patriot Batteries themselves. The problem is PAC-3's. Seven, as was the forementioned number of batteries proposed to be sent to Ukraine, requires 448 Pac-3's for just 2 full volleys. PAC-3's are the bottleneck, not batteries. USA can churn the batteries out like plastic toys.

Second of all, I'm not exactly sure what Europe could contribute to a Pacific War outside of the two UK CSG's and some Naval escorts.

That said, I'm not suggesting at all that the USA should not give weapons to Ukraine, just that it must not compromise the Pacific presence.
 
Raoul said:
Not exactly a high bar to prove Marge doesn't know what she's talking about.
Click to expand...
Correct. I am sure he wouldn't spend a second of his time on people like her if he had that choice. Unfortunately he didn't.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
The problem is not Patriot Batteries themselves. The problem is PAC-3's. Seven, as was the forementioned number of batteries proposed to be sent to Ukraine, requires 448 Pac-3's for just 2 full volleys. PAC-3's are the bottleneck, not batteries. USA can churn the batteries out like plastic toys.

Second of all, I'm not exactly sure what Europe could contribute to a Pacific War outside of the two UK CSG's and some Naval escorts.

That said, I'm not suggesting at all that the USA should not give weapons to Ukraine, just that it must not compromise the Pacific presence.
Click to expand...

NATO, money, sanctions, AKUS, intelligence. Not a game changer, Europe mostly doesn''t have the assets in the region, but I don't see how the US takes on China (god forbid) with all the diplomatic and economic wreckage that would cause, without all its allies on side.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
NATO, money, sanctions, AKUS, intelligence. Not a game changer, Europe mostly doesn''t have the assets in the region, but I don't see how the US takes on China (god forbid) with all the diplomatic and economic wreckage that would cause, without all its allies on side.
Click to expand...

I see it as the other way around.

China will have to hit Taiwan and then make a decision. Do you hit Taiwan and then hope the US doesn't get involved, because if they do you've lost the strategic initiative (First strike basically).

This gives China options:

1) Hit Taiwan. Pray USA don't get involved. If they do, LRASM, TLAM and JASSM-ER Spam will cripple their fleet.

2) Hit Taiwan. Hit Guam (though that's very difficult because Guam air defense density is insane, even if you lobbed a couple hundred IRBM's at it). Hit any straggler escort ships and CSG's in the region (provided they have the intelligence). Then you're left with the problem of USAF operating with absolute impunity from bases in Okinawa, Philippines, South Korea and Mainland Japan.

3) Hit Taiwan. Hit Guam, Marshall Islands, Philippines, Okinawa, South Korea, Japan Mainland. You'll do a lot of destruction in the first strike, but now you're outmatched navally because you've picked a fight with every one of your neighbours in the region.

All three options are not ideal for China.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
It could go in more than one thread. This is the result of the vote on the aid package.

316 for, 94 against.

Click to expand...



yes votes were 165 Dems and 151 Rs. I doesn't get much more bipartisan that that these days.

Predictably, most of the no votes were from the nutjob caucus and the squad / progressives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.