Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

harms said:
You underestimate the enamourment by everything Western that happened in Russia in the 90's. Europe had integrated former empires into it, it integrated former Soviet countries into it... by the time that Putin became president it was probably a bit too late already but it's hard to judge that clearly since we retroactively know what happened to him* and the country itself. The first Maidan, as you've said, was the turning point and the Munich speech was the point of no-return.

* I'm not trying to say that Putin was good at any point of his political or spy career, mind you, I'm pretty sure that he was always an enormous c-t but he was quite pragmatic in the beginning before succumbing into the Ilyin-Gumilev inspired civilizational madness.

I don't think that Russia and Russians are intrinsically different from Europeans to a point where under the proper non-fascistic governance they wouldn't be able to get integrated into the European society. Look at Germany, Italy, Spain etc. — at some point those were also fascistic states with tons of historical ressentiment yet look at them now. It's all a bit futile now though since Putin isn't going nowhere, the Russian society is in a very bad place and the world-wide rise of right wing ideology doesn't fill me with hope either.
Click to expand...
That’s the key question. I used to be optimistic on that point when I first went to work there in 2004. By the end of my stay, though, I was (and still am) on the pessimistic side. Not that Russians are intrinsically different but more that dreams of empire are incredibly hard to shake off. If you think that even a supposedly mature democracy like the UK, which had not had pretensions of being a genuine power since the Suez crisis in 1956,, had a hissy fit like Brexit, how much harder must it be for a people in a state that, until recently, was used to its leaders’ meetings with the US being described as summits.
 
So we are a couple of weeks away from North Korea invading a European country and what are our politicans doing? Still hiding behind some imaginery red lines?
 
nimic said:
They can't avoid it, but it would cross a red line and be considered a hostile and aggressive enough act that I am sure the US would immediately go in with full force in Ukraine, if they discovered it.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, but anyway, this would not change the transaction done, and as you said, if discovered
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Nuclear weapons are not something you can easily hide either.
Click to expand...

And would lose the purpose of deterrance

I know is not the more likely scenario, but if speciallh russia and iran feel cornered i dont see it out of this world
 
The Kremlin could not have asked for better publicity at a better time when Ben Swann, a self-described independent journalist who promotes conspiracy theories, released a 12-part video series he promised would reveal dark truths about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Swann’s flashy documentary-style videos were filled with innuendo, attacks on Zelenskyy’s character and commentary from guests sympathetic to Russia in its two-year war with Ukraine.
Click to expand...

 
Wow, I know this person from the Hromadske Youtube channel. He did interviews with Ukrainian troops and the channel had English subtitles.

A Soldier Chose a Radical Way to Publicize Troop Fatigue: He Deserted
For months, Serhii Hnezdilov, a Ukrainian soldier, pushed for troops exhausted by years of war with Russia to be replaced with fresh conscripts. He expressed his concerns in interviews, on social networks and in a podcast, drawing on his five years of fighting in an infantry brigade. But Mr. Hnezdilov, 24, said his calls went unanswered. So last month, he took a radical step that he hoped would focus attention on his cause: He deserted and then publicly announced it on social media and in news outlets.

Mr. Hnezdilov said he and many fellow soldiers saw it as deeply unfair that many people can avoid conscription, while those at the front cannot leave the army after years of fighting. “This is what I call the curse of the uniform. Once you put it on, you can’t take it off,” he said. “That’s why most people avoid it.”
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/19/world/europe/ukraine-troop-fatigue.html
 
Military wise, i fail to understand Ukraine's decision in Kursk. Reminds me on GoT when Theon invaded North and tried to keep Winterfell (sorry for nerd talk).

Operation to go into Kursk was brilliant but staying there was complete suicide. Invade, make max damage and run, ffs.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Military wise, i fail to understand Ukraine's decision in Kursk. Reminds me on GoT when Theon invaded North and tried to keep Winterfell (sorry for nerd talk).

Operation to go into Kursk was brilliant but staying there was complete suicide. Invade, make max damage and run, ffs.
Click to expand...

But then we wouldn't get to see American Abram's & Bradley's marauding through mainland Russia... Was this on anyone's bingo card a couple years back?


Seriously though, what you suggest is basically what has been happening. They are not 'suicidally' trying to cling on to it, they are just making Russia pay dearly for it.
 
VorZakone said:
It seems they will be deployed in Kursk...

Click to expand...


To start with, at least. I'm sure we'll see them on the Ukrainian frontlines at some point.

To me it shouldn't matter in terms of escalation or Western response if they are fighting in Kursk or Ukraine, they are a foreign army as an active participant in the war. That should essentially be a green light for Western troops assisting in Ukraine, although that is not likely to happen. But I don't think we'll be seeing any real response from any Western allies until after the US elections.

Even in that context the statement by Lloyd Austin in the tweet above was very weak, and his other statements following a visit to Kyiv earlier this week were mostly praising US support of Ukraine:

“It’s been absolutely remarkable that Ukraine has been able to do what it’s done,” Austin told reporters traveling with him on Sunday night. “It’s been able to do that, of course, because of the fact that we have supported them from the very beginning, and we’ve rallied some 50 countries to be a part of that support.”
Click to expand...

North Koreas involvement here (and their current aggression against SK) and all talk of WW3 also plays into Trumps hands, as it indicates the war is escalating to countries outside of Ukraine/Russia and the Biden administration is unable to manage the conflict.
 
Mavs said:
To start with, at least. I'm sure we'll see them on the Ukrainian frontlines at some point.

To me it shouldn't matter in terms of escalation or Western response if they are fighting in Kursk or Ukraine, they are a foreign army as an active participant in the war. That should essentially be a green light for Western troops assisting in Ukraine, although that is not likely to happen. But I don't think we'll be seeing any real response from any Western allies until after the US elections.

Even in that context the statement by Lloyd Austin in the tweet above was very weak, and his other statements following a visit to Kyiv earlier this week were mostly praising US support of Ukraine:



North Koreas involvement here (and their current aggression against SK) and all talk of WW3 also plays into Trumps hands, as it indicates the war is escalating to countries outside of Ukraine/Russia and the Biden administration is unable to manage the conflict.
Click to expand...
You realize that that it would be NATO's declaration of war on Russia?
 
Andycoleno9 said:
You realize that that it would be NATO's declaration of war on Russia?
Click to expand...

Maybe it is? Russia started this war, and if we want it to end with any kind of Ukrainian victory, I believe NATO will need to get more directly involved in some capacity. If you call that declaration of war, then that is unfortunate, but its the reality that Russia has created.

And what would be an otherwise appropriate response in your opinion to North Korean troops involved in this war? Would you say that North Korea has now declared war against Ukraine, specially if we see them in Ukraine proper in the coming weeks? Should Ukraine now start military operations in NK?

If we allow the war to continue on the path that it is there is much more chance of a greater war or conflict spreading in the coming years. And again, to prevent that, NATO will need to assist more directly in some way. In my opinion.
 
Mavs said:
To start with, at least. I'm sure we'll see them on the Ukrainian frontlines at some point.

To me it shouldn't matter in terms of escalation or Western response if they are fighting in Kursk or Ukraine, they are a foreign army as an active participant in the war. That should essentially be a green light for Western troops assisting in Ukraine, although that is not likely to happen. But I don't think we'll be seeing any real response from any Western allies until after the US elections.

Even in that context the statement by Lloyd Austin in the tweet above was very weak, and his other statements following a visit to Kyiv earlier this week were mostly praising US support of Ukraine:



North Koreas involvement here (and their current aggression against SK) and all talk of WW3 also plays into Trumps hands, as it indicates the war is escalating to countries outside of Ukraine/Russia and the Biden administration is unable to manage the conflict.
Click to expand...

It also underscores how insanely desperate Putin must be in terms of running out of meat grinder troops on the front lines, where he has to literally beg a neighboring dictatorship for soldiers. This tells me the Ukrainians are not far from breaking through. And yes, it would also be a green light for NATO troops in Ukraine.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
You realize that that it would be NATO's declaration of war on Russia?
Click to expand...

No is not. NATO is a defense treaty. NATO doesn't go to attack. It could happen that countries that are part of NATO would put boots in the ground (doubtly so). But if the US, UK and France, to name a few, would decide to go in Ukraine, that would not mean NATO declaring war on Russia because none of the other NATO members are bound to go in at all. Is their choice if so and I assure you that several to many NATO members would not go
 
Mavs said:
Maybe it is? Russia started this war, and if we want it to end with any kind of Ukrainian victory, I believe NATO will need to get more directly involved in some capacity. If you call that declaration of war, then that is unfortunate, but its the reality that Russia has created.

And what would be an otherwise appropriate response in your opinion to North Korean troops involved in this war? Would you say that North Korea has now declared war against Ukraine, specially if we see them in Ukraine proper in the coming weeks? Should Ukraine now start military operations in NK?

If we allow the war to continue on the path that it is there is much more chance of a greater war or conflict spreading in the coming years. And again, to prevent that, NATO will need to assist more directly in some way. In my opinion.
Click to expand...
Response to NK is on Ukraine. If they think it is declaration of war then it is up to them to declare it.

It is easy to say lets kick Russia's ass from 1000 km away and from armchair while others will fight. I feel sorry for Ukraine, of course i do but do i want my country in war with them? No.

Also, what greater war in future? Russia attacking NATO country? Come on, you don't believe in that surely?
 
4bars said:
No is not. NATO is a defense treaty. NATO doesn't go to attack. It could happen that countries that are part of NATO would put boots in the ground (doubtly so). But if the US, UK and France, to name a few, would decide to go in Ukraine, that would not mean NATO declaring war on Russia because none of the other NATO members are bound to go in at all. Is their choice if so and I assure you that several to many NATO members would not go
Click to expand...
IF France, USA or Uk soldiers start shooting on Russia's soldiers it is a war. So what then happens in that scenario? Russia retreats and say sorry?
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Response to NK is on Ukraine. If they think it is declaration of war then it is up to them to declare it.

It is easy to say lets kick Russia's ass from 1000 km away and from armchair while others will fight. I feel sorry for Ukraine, of course i do but do i want my country in war with them? No.

Also, what greater war in future? Russia attacking NATO country? Come on, you don't believe in that surely?
Click to expand...

5 years ago people said the same thing about a major war in Europe. And who knows what the future brings? Trump may not be able to take the US out of NATO, but he can certainly undermine it. If Putin is convinced that NATO is weak, and that countries won't "want my country at war with them", as you say, it's certainly plausible that he would invade the Baltic countries, for example. We know for a fact that he wants them. And they have no way of protecting themselves. The only thing that keeps Russia from invading them is the threat of general war with NATO, which they would lose. But if that general war is not a realistic deterrence... then what?
 
Let me put two different hats on:

My personal, Ukrainian hat:

NATO country troops should at the very least provide border control troops to certain parts of the frontline that is seeing no action and will likely see no action and reserve echelon services. This frees up tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops for frontline brigade duty. An ideal scenario would be Western soldiers act as a trip wire force and declare a no-fly zone.

My pro-west, medium-long term, geopolitical strategy hat:

This war is a waste of manpower, money and resources for the West if they were to directly intervene in any capacity. Every munition spent on Russia is a munition that won't be available against China. Russia is not the long term threat to the West, it is the last gasp of an overextended empire that is just lashing out. China is the real threat that needs to be prepared for.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
IF France, USA or Uk soldiers start shooting on Russia's soldiers it is a war. So what then happens in that scenario? Russia retreats and say sorry?
Click to expand...

Only, soldiers of major powers have constantly fired at each other for the past decades without there being an outcome pertaining to a declaration of war.
 
nimic said:
5 years ago people said the same thing about a major war in Europe. And who knows what the future brings? Trump may not be able to take the US out of NATO, but he can certainly undermine it. If Putin is convinced that NATO is weak, and that countries won't "want my country at war with them", as you say, it's certainly plausible that he would invade the Baltic countries, for example. We know for a fact that he wants them. And they have no way of protecting themselves. The only thing that keeps Russia from invading them is the threat of general war with NATO, which they would lose. But if that general war is not a realistic deterrence... then what?
Click to expand...

Baltics isn't going to happen.

Even if Article 5 has no political will to be triggered, there's a reason tripwire forces exist.
 
nimic said:
5 years ago people said the same thing about a major war in Europe. And who knows what the future brings? Trump may not be able to take the US out of NATO, but he can certainly undermine it. If Putin is convinced that NATO is weak, and that countries won't "want my country at war with them", as you say, it's certainly plausible that he would invade the Baltic countries, for example. We know for a fact that he wants them. And they have no way of protecting themselves. The only thing that keeps Russia from invading them is the threat of general war with NATO, which they would lose. But if that general war is not a realistic deterrence... then what?
Click to expand...
Going to war to defend non-Nato country and protecting your ally with which you have a treaty are two completely different things. Even without USA, European NATO nations are way stronger than Russia. Not to mention that two European nations are nuclear powers and economic giants.

So yeah, no way that Russia would attack Baltic (Nato) country. But Moldova and Georgia are in real danger though.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Going to war to defend non-Nato country and protecting your ally with which you have a treaty are two completely different things. Even without USA, European NATO nations are way stronger than Russia. Not to mention that two European nations are nuclear powers and economic giants.

So yeah, no way that Russia would attack Baltic (Nato) country. But Moldova and Georgia are in real danger though.
Click to expand...

But what if there's no popular or political will in those countries to defend the Baltics? Or at least that Putin thinks there isn't. Keep in mind Hitler never thought the invasion of Poland would lead to WW2, he assumed France and Britain would back down again. He thought he was making a rational decision for a quick and easy war. And that's even though France and Britain had clearly stated intentions to go to war for Poland, including an ultimatum after the fact. Obviously NATO is an even stronger adhesive, but only as long as it's a credible deterrent. Finland will fight to protect the Baltics. Poland certainly will. But Germany, France and Britain? Who the hell knows.

I don't think Russia is going to invade the Baltics, or any other NATO country, but IMO it's just wrong to say that it definitely couldn't happen. This is not the old order anymore, we can't necessarily trust the old rules.

AfonsoAlves said:
Baltics isn't going to happen.

Even if Article 5 has no political will to be triggered, there's a reason tripwire forces exist.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting this would happen overnight, but there's no law of nature that says those tripwire forces have to continue existing.
 
nimic said:
But what if there's no popular or political will in those countries to defend the Baltics? Or at least that Putin thinks there isn't. Keep in mind Hitler never thought the invasion of Poland would lead to WW2, he assumed France and Britain would back down again. He thought he was making a rational decision for a quick and easy war. And that's even though France and Britain had clearly stated intentions to go to war for Poland, including an ultimatum after the fact. Obviously NATO is an even stronger adhesive, but only as long as it's a credible deterrent. Finland will fight to protect the Baltics. Poland certainly will. But Germany, France and Britain? Who the hell knows.

I don't think Russia is going to invade the Baltics, or any other NATO country, but IMO it's just wrong to say that it definitely couldn't happen. This is not the old order anymore, we can't necessarily trust the old rules.



I'm not suggesting this would happen overnight, but there's no law of nature that says those tripwire forces have to continue existing.
Click to expand...

You're basically suggesting a complete 180 in operational strategy from the Western bloc that has been in its current iteration since 2004, and essentially a gigantic political dynamic shift from the Americans after 80 years in the next 5 years, a political shift that is popular with one subsection of the Republican party spearheaded by one man and his crowd of weirdos, that even his own house and senate do not support (hence the provisions that a US President cannot withdraw from NATO).

It's so absurdly unrealistic you may as well have said, "US foreign bases may completely disappear in the next 5 years."
 
AfonsoAlves said:
You're basically suggesting a complete 180 in operational strategy from the Western bloc that has been in its current iteration since 2004, and essentially a gigantic political dynamic shift from the Americans after 80 years in the next 5 years, a political shift that is popular with one subsection of the Republican party spearheaded by one man and his crowd of weirdos, that even his own house and senate do not support (hence the provisions that a US President cannot withdraw from NATO).

It's so absurdly unrealistic you may as well have said, "US foreign bases may completely disappear in the next 5 years."
Click to expand...

Where are you getting "in the next 5 years" from? If you're going to argue, at least argue against things I've actually said. Otherwise I won't be bothered to participate.

Edit: I get it, it's because I said "5 years ago people said the same thing about a major war in Europe." That's not foundational for my argument at all. I could have said "1 week ago" February of 2022, it doesn't logically follow that I then think the world would or could change the same in the next week.
 
nimic said:
Where are you getting "in the next 5 years" from? If you're going to argue, at least argue against things I've actually said. Otherwise I won't be bothered to participate.

Edit: I get it, it's because I said "5 years ago people said the same thing about a major war in Europe." That's not foundational for my argument at all. I could have said "1 week ago" February of 2022, it doesn't logically follow that I then think the world would or could change the same in the next week.
Click to expand...

I was halfway through responding then I saw your edit.

The future of the Republican political power is not in anti-NATO. The future of GOP power post trump will lie in the likes of De Santis, Tom Cotton ilk, or the likes of Nikki Haley, dependent on how well this election goes. What's the same thing across all of them? Two of them are former soldiers with a track record of believing in the current power-system and the other is a classical Republican foreign policy interventionist.

There is nothing to suggest that NATO and the West will reverse it's military strategy in Europe either now, in 5 years, or in 15 years. Tripwire forces are a fundamental part of NATO as the signatures themselves.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Let me put two different hats on:

My personal, Ukrainian hat:

NATO country troops should at the very least provide border control troops to certain parts of the frontline that is seeing no action and will likely see no action and reserve echelon services. This frees up tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops for frontline brigade duty. An ideal scenario would be Western soldiers act as a trip wire force and declare a no-fly zone.

My pro-west, medium-long term, geopolitical strategy hat:

This war is a waste of manpower, money and resources for the West if they were to directly intervene in any capacity. Every munition spent on Russia is a munition that won't be available against China. Russia is not the long term threat to the West, it is the last gasp of an overextended empire that is just lashing out. China is the real threat that needs to be prepared for.
Click to expand...

Aside from air defence perhaps, assuming they don't already have more than they'll ever need, what exactly has been supplied to Ukraine that would be required in a war against China? When it comes to land warfare specific manpower & resources, its all spare.

Money? You'll know more about this than I do, but any idea what it has cost the US over decades past to maintain a readiness force for the eventuality of an all out land war in Europe? I'm wondering what the saving will be once Russia is defeated and Ukraine armed properly so that Russia can never threaten Europe again. I suspect its all profit for the US.

and your geopolitical strategy hat thinks showing China that Russia can get away with invading its neighbour just because it wants to, is the right move? Have you had a beer or two?
 
Simbo said:
Aside from air defence perhaps, assuming they don't already have more than they'll ever need, what exactly has been supplied to Ukraine that would be required in a war against China? When it comes to land warfare specific manpower & resources, its all spare.

Money? You'll know more about this than I do, but any idea what it has cost the US over decades past to maintain a readiness force for the eventuality of an all out land war in Europe? I'm wondering what the saving will be once Russia is defeated and Ukraine armed properly so that Russia can never threaten Europe again. I suspect its all profit for the US.

and your geopolitical strategy hat thinks showing China that Russia can get away with invading its neighbour just because it wants to, is the right move? Have you had a beer or two?
Click to expand...

1) It's already been been deterred. I read a lot of Chinese military white papers and learnt Mandarin for this very purpose. The general consensus in China now is that rash, poorly thought out decisions to invade based on political timelines is a bad idea. The overarching point right now from Chinese think-tanks and analysts is that China must not react based on what it perceives as political weakness from the West and a perception of inactivity, but based on actual military parity and/or superiority. China's learnings from Ukraine has been that assuming your opponent has no political will to directly intervene is not the right approach, because you can always miscalculate the political intentions of your adversaries - in this case the hard hitting sanctions and huge amount of military aid that has been provided to Ukraine. The prevailing argument is that the timing of any attempt to retake Taiwan by force (if it reaches that point, a lot of arguments still persist that peaceful reunification is the right way), must show that the Chinese military has a sizeable advantage even with the full assumption of adversarial intervention.

The main argument is that if China builds up it's military stockpile and capabilities to such an extent, USA will not intervene in Taiwan because it has no means to do so. With the abandonment of it's main ally, Taiwan will be forced to negotiate/surrender. The second argument is that China must be in a position where they are militarily stronger than the United States so that victory is almost assured, should it come down to war. They point to Russia using Western inaction as the basis point to an invasion, as opposed to their own military realities, which led to critical failure.

China are also not stupid. The importance of Taiwan to USA and the importance of Ukraine to USA is a factor of 100x. US has specific congressional acts pertaining to Taiwan. It did not have such pertaining to Ukraine. Taiwan holds the key to the first island chain. Ukraine holds the key to absolutely nothing of key US interests.

2) Yes, money.

Every Brigade forward deployed anually, costs 3.7 billion USD. (probably more now, i'm plucking from numbers years ago). That's not taking into consideration replacement, replenishment of losses, combat surging etc. That 3.7 billion is an extra 750 SM-6's. Forward deploying 8 brigades, which is probably going to be the bare minimum, is a huge cost cutting exercise for the Navy and Air Force (see, GWOT).

I'm okay with this if Congress passes a FY25 Defense Budget of 1 Trillion, but you and I both know this is not going to happen.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
IF France, USA or Uk soldiers start shooting on Russia's soldiers it is a war. So what then happens in that scenario? Russia retreats and say sorry?
Click to expand...

Is a war, not a NATO war. Is a war between countries that they decide to be at war
 
‘What the f**k to do with them?’ Russian soldiers heard condemning North Korean recruits in intercepted audio

The Russian soldiers talk disdainfully about the incoming North Korean soldiers, codenamed the “K Battalion,” at one point referring to them as “the f**king Chinese.”
Click to expand...
“And he’s like standing there with his eyes out, like… f**k,” the soldier says. “He came here and says what the f**k to do with them.”
Click to expand...

The North Korean troops will enter battle in the next few days according to the article. Incredible that Russia has managed to find another source of cannon fodder. I wonder what Putin has promised them.
 
Russian economy in the gutter, having to bring North Korean soldiers into the mix. How much longer does this war have left?
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Russian economy in the gutter, having to bring North Korean soldiers into the mix. How much longer does this war have left?
Click to expand...

Russia wont budge. They can withstand shittier conditions than middle class europeans and they are more repressive than any european country if need to.

Also it means Putin survivability which will bring him to go even beyond those 2 points
 
4bars said:
Russia wont budge. They can withstand shittier conditions than middle class europeans and they are more repressive than any european country if need to.

Also it means Putin survivability which will bring him to go even beyond those 2 points
Click to expand...

Yeah there is a lot of fight left in Russia despite their massive losses during their current offensive. And they always have the option of simply going defensive and build fortifications to hold the captured territory, we've seen that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to mount any significant counteroffensive.

A lot will depend on the upcoming US presidential elections, but both candidates will simply bring their own level of uncertainty to the conflict. Trump wins, he'll likely halt aid to Ukraine as soon as possible and put the ball in Russias court in terms of a "peace" talk or just continue their offensive (he might set conditions for peace talks though).

Harris wins and we'll see the conflict continue in the same manner for an unknown amount of time. Maybe Ukraine will get permission for long-range strikes on Russian territory, that'll help. Ukraine is also building their own long range drones and missiles. So they might have the long-term advantage in that situation but any victory or end to the war would still be far away, and dependant on Western support.
 
Whats the situation on the front like? I'm reading about Russians being on the front foot everywhere but maybe someone with more information on this could comment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.