Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Skåre Willoch]

I’d argue otherwise. It seems their plan is working perfectly. From day one the idea floated around was for them to frustrate Russia and stretch it out so the cost became unmanageable. Even if Russia takes Kiev so what? The war isn’t over and they don’t have the troops to keep what they have. It honestly looks as if the long term game theory into seeing Ukraine survive is not to give up anything

Oh, I agree they see their plan is working so far. But what happens when/if Putin ups the ante, and starts throwing more and more powerful weapons in their direction? Will they remain confident (still not sure about this phrase) if Kyiv/other major cities starts to look like Aleppo? When the death toll has an extra 0 or two? I'm not so sure.

 

[Pintu]

Are Russia, China and India playing the game that they have the populations to survive a nuclear war? Russia with its space and China and India with vast, vast populations?

Western powers are based around centralised cities, does that make them easy targets?

I don’t like entertaining these apocalyptic scenarios but the NATO (read the US) has enough nukes to make Russia pay no matter what geography and demographics might have you beleive.

 

[MadMike]

It’s never been an official demand. But you can read it between the lines of Putin’s invasion speech. And you can see the strategy. They (Putin and his regime) want the entire coastal area between Crimea and Russia.

It's not just about what they want. It's about what they're willing to settle for to end the war. Pretty sure they'd happily swallow all of Ukraine if they had capitulated in the first 2-3 days. That's what Putin's speech on the eve of the war was alluding to.

 

[cyberman]

Oh, I agree they see their plan is working so far. But what happens when/if Putin ups the ante, and starts throwing more and more powerful weapons in their direction? Will they remain confident (still not sure about this phrase) if Kyiv/other major cities starts to look like Aleppo? When the death toll has an extra 0 or two? I'm not so sure.

That’s what they’re fighting for though? They made the decision to fight weeks ago, they can’t go back on it now or it’s been all for nothing.

 

[MadMike]

That's reasonable I guess if it means stopping the war and at not destroy all big East cities resulting in many civilian casualties...

There's no demand that is reasonable if the security guarantees are provided solely by the aggressor (Russia). Inclusion in blocs will be a red line for Kyiv, someone has to guarantee their security.

It might not be the official demands though. We've heard many mixed statements in terms of end goal from them.

It's the Moscow reporter for ABC News quoting the Kremlin spokesperson. You think he's lying?

 

[MTF]

Oh, I agree they see their plan is working so far. But what happens when/if Putin ups the ante, and starts throwing more and more powerful weapons in their direction? Will they remain confident (still not sure about this phrase) if Kyiv/other major cities starts to look like Aleppo? When the death toll has an extra 0 or two? I'm not so sure.

It's not certain though. I'm not saying I have insight into this, but as anything else munitions are limited in quantity and ability to produce. Whatever Russia has in stockpile and whatever it has scheduled to be produced over coming months, it has to balance the opportunities to use them in Ukraine with their other defense priorities that include defense of their other borders.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

That’s what they’re fighting for though? They made the decision to fight weeks ago, they can’t go back on it now or it’s been all for nothing.

For sure. And that's where the pride and willingness come into play, rather than confidence. And I do think that pride and willingness will fade a lot with a massive increase in destruction and death.

I'd fight the world to save my loved ones, but I definitely wouldn't feel confident about it.

 

[Fearless]

It's not just about what they want. It's about what they're willing to settle for to end the war.

And what they wanted all along will be exactly what they settled for.

 

[MadMike]

And what they wanted all along will be exactly what they settled for.

What do you think they wanted all along?

 

[Pintu]

Expect more of this. The hate towards Russia is spreading. And it is not a good thing.

 

[Fearless]

What do you think they wanted all along?

Crimea, LNR and DNR with NATO keeping it's nose out.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

It's not certain though. I'm not saying I have insight into this, but as anything else munitions are limited in quantity and ability to produce. Whatever Russia has in stockpile and whatever it has scheduled to be produced over coming months, it has to balance the opportunities to use them in Ukraine with their other defense priorities that include defense of their other borders.

But do you think Putin will give up if he runs low on ammo, or do you think he'll switch to more effective/brutal weapons and escalate further?
I think Putin is as likely to back down as Ukraine are. If/when he is forced to make some changes for financial/logistical reasons, I don't think those changes will be in the direction of backing down. I think it will be in the direction of ramping up the pressure.

 

[TMDaines]

 

[Jotun]

Considering how the war is going? You mean the thousands of deaths, before Russia have even started using their full arsenal? I don't think they feel confident at all, I think they feel proud. And willing. They know Russia will eventually take the capital, and/or up the ante in regards to what kinds of weapons are in play. Ukraine won't back down, but I don't think that's because they're confident about their defense at all.

Russia take capital??? Maybe, but I consider it unlikely. Sarajevo was sieged for almost four years. If there are supplies coming in the city, it can defend almost indefinitely. Plus Kiev is HUUGE. Encircling it would be very hard, taking even harder. Even then, breaches of encirclement to provide supplies are possible. Note, that as the war goes on, Ukrainian manpower will grow. They are in full mobilization, but it takes time. Foreign fighter will keep coming.

Russian manpower will get worse and they can not enter total war and full mobilization (which is what Ukraine will be doing), as it would cause unrest in the country. As the Russian army is bogged down in Ukraine, they will have to divert resources. If they withdraw from Syria, Assad might fall. They need to keep resource in the country to prevent unrest and rebellion. As economy collapses, you can bet that Dagestan and Tatarstan will have ideas about independence, Chechens likely too. Who knows who else. If the war keeps long enough, Russia might end up losing their own territory.

Also while Russian economy and war effort collapses under these sanctions, Ukraine will be propped by the west. Putin is right in one thing, these sanctions are a declaration of war. He isn't fighting just Ukraine, he is fighting whole western world. Ukraine is just a proxy. Unless China bails him out (which I don't see as they will want to stay neutral) he can't keep this up. He needs to finish this and quickly. But I don't see how.

Unfortunately, war toll will be heavy on all of us and it will fall hardest on Ukraine.

 

[Balljy]

Crimea, LNR and DNR with NATO keeping it's nose out.

Agreed, followed by a further incursion into Ukraine in 7 or 8 years time to take more of the country as NATO still can't be involved. If they agreed to those terms, Ukraine would actually be in a worse position compared to now as not joining NATO would be written into their constitution.

 

[Simbo]

Oh, I agree they see their plan is working so far. But what happens when/if Putin ups the ante, and starts throwing more and more powerful weapons in their direction? Will they remain confident (still not sure about this phrase) if Kyiv/other major cities starts to look like Aleppo? When the death toll has an extra 0 or two? I'm not so sure.

Yeh confident might not be the right word, but these people will never capitulate, even if Putin 'ups the ante'.

However, we might actually already be seeing the full extent of Russia's current military power, and it is dwindling by the day.

 

[sglowrider]

Considering how the war is going? You mean the thousands of deaths, before Russia have even started using their full arsenal? I don't think they feel confident at all, I think they feel proud. And willing. They know Russia will eventually take the capital, and/or up the ante in regards to what kinds of weapons are in play. Ukraine won't back down, but I don't think that's because they're confident about their defense at all.

I am pretty sure the Russians can take most of the Ukrainian cities. The question is whether the russiana can hold the cities.
They will fail as they will need more like 500,000 russian troops to hold the major cities and part of the country. Otherwise Russian bodybags will be the tool that drowns the Russians .

 

[stefan92]

But do you think Putin will give up if he runs low on ammo, or do you think he'll switch to more effective/brutal weapons and escalate further?
I think Putin is as likely to back down as Ukraine are. If/when he is forced to make some changes for financial/logistical reasons, I don't think those changes will be in the direction of backing down. I think it will be in the direction of ramping up the pressure.

But will he be able to do that? They don't appear to be able to resupply their front line, most usable roads are more or less blocked by stuck Russian convoys and the Ukrainian air defense is still working. It is a recipe for disaster for the Russians, the longer this takes, the more ressources they'll lose.

 

[Jotun]

If you're gonna propose completely unrealistic scenarios during negotiations, you might as well not show up at all.

My proposal is as realistic as Russian.

 

[Maagge]

The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.

In some countries not throwing your people into the meat grinder might be seen as a win. Although when that meat grinder is entirely of your own making that may change things.

 

[MTF]

But do you think Putin will give up if he runs low on ammo, or do you think he'll switch to more effective/brutal weapons and escalate further?
I think Putin is as likely to back down as Ukraine are. If/when he is forced to make some changes for financial/logistical reasons, I don't think those changes will be in the direction of backing down. I think it will be in the direction of ramping up the pressure.

What more effective weapons though? The strategic bombers that can carry more payload but are needed in case they want to do any long-range strikes against NATO or China in a potential conflict? Cluster munitions that are devastating to cities, but whose ideal target are concentrations of enemy military formations? Again, I don't know if it is the case or what they have or don't have in reserve, I just mean that it's wrong to assume that they necessarily have a lot more available and that they're willing to use in this instance.

 

[TMDaines]

Crimea, LNR and DNR with NATO keeping it's nose out.

You think if they occupied the whole of Ukraine, Putin would have settled for that?!

 

[Skåre Willoch]

Russia take capital??? Maybe, but I consider it unlikely. Sarajevo was sieged for almost four years. If there are supplies coming in the city, it can defend almost indefinitely. Plus Kiev is HUUGE. Encircling it would be very hard, taking even harder. Even then, breaches of encirclement to provide supplies are possible. Note, that as the war goes on, Ukrainian manpower will grow. They are in full mobilization, but it takes time. Foreign fighter will keep coming.

Russian manpower will get worse and they can not enter total war and full mobilization (which is what Ukraine will be doing), as it would cause unrest in the country. As the Russian army is bogged down in Ukraine, they will have to divert resources. If they withdraw from Syria, Assad might fall. They need to keep resource in the country to prevent unrest and rebellion. As economy collapses, you can bet that Dagestan and Tatarstan will have ideas about independence, Chechens likely too. Who knows who else. If the war keeps long enough, Russia might end up losing their own territory.

Also while Russian economy and war effort collapses under these sanctions, Ukraine will be propped by the west. Putin is right in one thing, these sanctions are a declaration of war. He isn't fighting just Ukraine, he is fighting whole western world. Ukraine is just a proxy. Unless China bails him out (which I don't see as they will want to stay neutral) he can't keep this up. He needs to finish this and quickly. But I don't see how.

Unfortunately, war toll will be heavy on all of us and it will fall hardest on Ukraine.

Sure, which is why I said takes the capital and/or ups the ante in regards to what weapons are in play. You can't take the city? Make the city unlivable.

The rest of your points are all fair, but I still don't think Putin will back down with increased pressure. I think he'll just escalate further. Anything to save face, even if that means taking on all of Europe head on. (I also think that'll be his downfall. I mentioned earlier that I believe his days are numbered as the Russian head of state, with the oligarchs (and if given time, potentially the people) turning on him.)

 

[TMDaines]

In some countries not throwing your people into the meat grinder might be seen as a win. Although when that meat grinder is entirely of your own making that may change things.

You make this sound like the difference between living in modern-day France or Germany, or a Britain remaining in the EU or post-Brexit.

It amazes me that we see what is happening in Russia, to people like @harms, and people are so willing to lop off large bits of Ukraine and the people who live there, subjecting them to that rule.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

What more effective weapons though? The strategic bombers that can carry more payload but are needed in case they want to do any long-range strikes against NATO or China in a potential conflict? Cluster munitions that are devastating to cities, but whose ideal target are concentrations of enemy military formations? Again, I don't know if it is the case or what they have or don't have in reserve, I just mean that it's wrong to assume that they necessarily have a lot more available and that they're willing to use in this instance.

I used "effective/brutal" to clarify what kind of weapons I meant. More destructive ones. Thermobaric, "Father of All Bombs", carpet bombing. The works. You can stay, you can fight, but the city will look more and more like Aleppo and Groznyj.

But as you, I don't know about their reserves or willingness to escalate either, or if they even have the ability to do so. They might just run out of ammo and call it a day.

 

[MadMike]

Crimea, LNR and DNR with NATO keeping it's nose out.

I'm not sure, I don't believe that was their target. Crimea was de facto Russia anyway, and LDR/DNR was partly under their control too. I don't think they started the war for that.

I think they started the war to topple the Ukrainian govt and create a puppet state like Belarus. Which would also cover the non-EU/non-NATO part. I reckon failing that they wanted the coastline (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) in order to have a gas corridor to Transnistria and Europe that doesn't go through sovereign Ukraine, solidifying their hold on the Black Sea too. Hence the big push from the South.

I think accepting a sovereign Ukraine that also allows the aforementioned regions (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) to remain with Ukraine is them settling at less than their ideal targets. The problem is that a deal with no bloc membership, does not safeguard Ukraine from future Russian incursions and therefore is unacceptable to the former. Russian security guarantees, rightfully, mean absolutely nothing to Ukrainians right now.

 

[Maagge]

You make this sound like the difference between living in modern-day France or Germany, or a Britain remaining in the EU or post-Brexit.

It amazes me that we see what is happening in Russia, to people like @harms, and people are so willing to lop off large bits of Ukraine and the people who live there, subjecting them to that rule.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting Ukraine should give in to Russian demands for Crimea, Luhansk and Donbas. Quite the opposite.

 

[Fearless]

I'm not sure, I don't believe that was their target. Crimea was de facto Russia anyway, and LDR/DNR was partly under their control too. I don't think they started the war for that.

I think they started the war to topple the Ukrainian govt and create a puppet state like Belarus. Which would also cover the non-EU/non-NATO part. I reckon failing that they wanted the coastline (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) in order to have a gas corridor to Transnistria and Europe that doesn't go through sovereign Ukraine. Hence the big push on the South.

I think accepting a sovereign Ukraine that allows the aforementioned regions (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) to remain with Ukraine is them settling at less than their ideal targets. The problem is that a deal with no bloc membership, does not safeguard Ukraine from future Russian incursions and therefore is unacceptable. Russian guarantees don't mean anything.

Western guarantees mean even less. I actually wonder even if NATO would bother fighting Russia even if Ukraine were already members.

Our ultimate surrender to the Taliban is not disconnected to Putin's (over) confidence.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

I am pretty sure the Russians can take most of the Ukrainian cities. The question is whether the russiana can hold the cities.
They will fail as they will need more like 500,000 russian troops to hold the major cities and part of the country. Otherwise Russian bodybags will be the tool that drowns the Russians .

As mentioned before, if he can't take the cities, I don't think Putin will think twice about trying to just destroy them completely.

But will he be able to do that? They don't appear to be able to resupply their front line, most usable roads are more or less blocked by stuck Russian convoys and the Ukrainian air defense is still working. It is a recipe for disaster for the Russians, the longer this takes, the more ressources they'll lose.

I don't know if he'll be able to do that.
But what (I think) I know, is that Russia have more powerful bombs in their arsenal. Plenty of them. And I don't think Putin will back down. So I think the possibility is definitely there. Sadly.

 

[MadMike]

Western guarantees mean even less. I actually wonder even if NATO would bother fighting Russia even if Ukraine were already members.

Our ultimate surrender to the Taliban is not disconnected to Putin's (over) confidence.

To you maybe. They seem to matter to the Ukrainians seeking them. Also Afghanistan and a NATOic Ukraine would be vastly different. The former was not a NATO member and their citizens mostly saw Westerners as outsiders. Ukrainians (ethnic ones at least) seem to overwhelmingly want to be part of the West and are fighting for it, rather than shrugging their shoulders and awaiting take over. Abandoning a NATO member would mean the alliance collapsing. The stakes are much higher than they were in Afghanistan and the situation different.

If Putin made a connection between the two, it's him who's miscalculated.

 

[TMDaines]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting Ukraine should give in to Russian demands for Crimea, Luhansk and Donbas. Quite the opposite.

Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting Ukraine is the one throwing people into the meat grinder, due to not being willing to send the whole of Donbas into Putin’s dictatorship.

 

[11101]

Sure, which is why I said takes the capital and/or ups the ante in regards to what weapons are in play. You can't take the city? Make the city unlivable.

A lot of that requires shock and awe tactics and Russia has missed the boat with that. Ukrainians have dug in and shown their resilience. They will be a lot harder to break down from now on.

Russia can level Kyiv but all that artillery has limited range of about 20-30km. Zelensky has already suggested they start to push out and launch counter attacks, the field artillery will be well within striking distance if they do. Russia will not have free reign to bombard the cities.

 

[TwoSheds]

But do you think Putin will give up if he runs low on ammo, or do you think he'll switch to more effective/brutal weapons and escalate further?
I think Putin is as likely to back down as Ukraine are. If/when he is forced to make some changes for financial/logistical reasons, I don't think those changes will be in the direction of backing down. I think it will be in the direction of ramping up the pressure.

What weapons can he use that he hasn't already? They're supposed to have used thermobaric bombs right? So unless he's willing to go nuclear (which would be mental even if the West or China didn't retaliate as he's hundreds of thousands of his own troops and swathes of military equipment more or less trapped in Ukraine), basically his only threat is to blow the nuclear power plants up? But he can't say that out loud because he's making out that it's the Ukrainians who are doing it as a false flag...

I'm not saying that won't be his instinct because he's a bully but I'm not sure he's really got the option.

And to all the people saying Ukraine should give up Crimea - from a cultural point of view perhaps it makes the most sense but it makes no sense for the Ukrainians militarily / strategically. It's a short hop across the water to most of Ukraine's most strategic cities. If I were them I'd perhaps wait another week or two and then offer an advisory referendum under Ukraine's administration with independent audit (China?) on Crimea as hopefully the sanctions will have really started to bite and maybe the population of Crimea will have started to see the Russian soldiers coming home and hear their stories by then.

That or I'd actually rather give up the 2 eastern regions to be "independent" than give up Crimea tbh.

And if I could secure Crimea I'd get NATO to help me fortify the shit out of its Eastern border to stop this happening again so easily.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

A lot of that requires shock and awe tactics and Russia has missed the boat with that. Ukrainians have dug in and shown their resilience. They will be a lot harder to break down from now on.

Russia can level Kyiv but all that artillery has limited range of about 20-30km. Zelensky has already suggested they start to push out and launch counter attacks, the field artillery will be well within striking distance if they do. Russia will not have free reign to bombard the cities.

I hope you're right. I really do.

 

[Sarni]

As mentioned before, if he can't take the cities, I don't think Putin will think twice about trying to just destroy them completely.



I don't know if he'll be able to do that.
But what (I think) I know, is that Russia have more powerful bombs in their arsenal. Plenty of them. And I don't think Putin will back down. So I think the possibility is definitely there. Sadly.

That's the crux of a matter. Russia are probably incapable of holding major cities for long but they are perfectly capable of completely destroying them and making them almost impossible to rebuild.

Crimea is lost. It was lost in 2014. LNR and DNR, don't know, probably concessions can be made. But to expect Russia to 'give back' Crimea is unrealistic at this point unless we think it's possible that Ukraine will just destroy Russia into oblivion.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

What weapons can he use that he hasn't already? They're supposed to have used thermobaric bombs right? So unless he's willing to go nuclear (which would be mental even if the West or China didn't retaliate as he's hundreds of thousands of his own troops and swathes of military equipment more or less trapped in Ukraine), basically his only threat is to blow the nuclear power plants up? But he can't say that out loud because he's making out that it's the Ukrainians who are doing it as a false flag...

I'm not saying that won't be his instinct because he's a bully but I'm not sure he's really got the option.

And to all the people saying Ukraine should give up Crimea - from a cultural point of view perhaps it makes the most sense but it makes no sense for the Ukrainians militarily / strategically. It's a short hop across the water to most of Ukraine's most strategic cities. If I were them I'd perhaps wait another week or two and then offer an advisory referendum under Ukraine's administration with independent audit (China?) on Crimea as hopefully the sanctions will have really started to bite and maybe the population of Crimea will have started to see the Russian soldiers coming home and hear their stories by then.

That or I'd actually rather give up the 2 eastern regions to be "independent" than give up Crimea tbh.

And if I could secure Crimea I'd get NATO to help me fortify the shit out of its Eastern border to stop this happening again so easily.

Have they used thermobaric bombs on the regular? I've seen it mentioned once or twice, but have they really started using them in cities like Kyiv over time? Of the "Father of all bombs" magnitude? If so, I take back everything I've said.

I also think the nuclear option is off the table (for now, and like you I'm not even sure he can make that decision alone), but I also think it's naive to think what we're seeing right now is the full force of the Russian armed forces. I think they have another gear or two, before the last resort.

(Not sure if I'm included in the part about giving up Crimea etc, but just in case it is, I'm not suggesting they should)

 

[redshaw]

I guess when they say Crimea recognized they want Ukraine to unblock the river. Is there any estimates to how much the gas reserves are worth there? Seems a very lucrative thing for Ukraine to have back if at all possible.

 

[Fearless]

To you maybe. They seem to matter to the Ukrainians seeking them. Also Afghanistan and Ukraine are different. The former was not a NATO member and their citizens mostly saw Westerners as outsiders. Ukrainians (ethnic ones at least) seem to overwhelmingly want to be part of the West and are fighting for it, rather than shrugging their shoulders and awaiting take over. Abandoning a NATO member would mean the alliance collapsing. The stakes are much higher than they were in Afghanistan and the situation different.

If Putin made a connection between the two, it's him who's miscalculated.

I hope you're right, but NATO members failed / couldn't be arsed to foresee this specific tragedy as a direct result of it's insane lack of investment and reliance of Russian gas.

 

[nimic]

What weapons can he use that he hasn't already? They're supposed to have used thermobaric bombs right? So unless he's willing to go nuclear (which would be mental even if the West or China didn't retaliate as he's hundreds of thousands of his own troops and swathes of military equipment more or less trapped in Ukraine), basically his only threat is to blow the nuclear power plants up? But he can't say that out loud because he's making out that it's the Ukrainians who are doing it as a false flag...

I'm not saying that won't be his instinct because he's a bully but I'm not sure he's really got the option.

And to all the people saying Ukraine should give up Crimea - from a cultural point of view perhaps it makes the most sense but it makes no sense for the Ukrainians militarily / strategically. It's a short hop across the water to most of Ukraine's most strategic cities. If I were them I'd perhaps wait another week or two and then offer an advisory referendum under Ukraine's administration with independent audit (China?) on Crimea as hopefully the sanctions will have really started to bite and maybe the population of Crimea will have started to see the Russian soldiers coming home and hear their stories by then.

That or I'd actually rather give up the 2 eastern regions to be "independent" than give up Crimea tbh.

And if I could secure Crimea I'd get NATO to help me fortify the shit out of its Eastern border to stop this happening again so easily.

There's obviously no way Russia, which is currently the country invading, is going to let Ukraine run a referendum in Crimea. There's also sadly almost no chance Crimea would vote to go back to Ukraine.

 

[Enigma_87]

There's no demand that is reasonable if the security guarantees are provided solely by the aggressor (Russia). Inclusion in blocs will be a red line for Kyiv, someone has to guarantee their security.

It should be finished in a treaty that's for sure with western nations providing guarantee, not just between Ukraine and Russia, because we know how it will end.

It's the Moscow reporter for ABC News quoting the Kremlin spokesperson. You think he's lying?

Kremlin are telling us they are denazifying the entire country and are undergoing special military operation. I have zero trust in them and what they are claiming.