Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

sun_tzu said:
Yes - my gut fee is that if its a case of

1. Putin Killing lots of people to save face and Zelenski giving away territory to stop the killing
2. Or Putin deciding that he is going to give up his claim on Crimea and handing it back to zelenski

I am unfortunately thinking scenario 1 is a lot more likley
Click to expand...

Yeah but 2 isn't happening if Crimea is as pro-Russian as people say right? In any case as @Raoul has said it's difficult to have a truly free referendum under the circumstances. Crimea has been getting only the Kremlin's view of events for years. But I assume even the show of a referendum (one endorsed by Kyiv) might be required to overcome some legal hurdles with Ukraine official accepting Russian ownership. The previous referendum was obviously not endorsed or recognised by Kyiv.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
From a ukranian pov, accepting not being able to join NATO/EU seems suicidal long term. What else would Russia stop - even in the near future - from keeping pushing forward? They started in Crimea and now they keep pushing.
Click to expand...

At the very least they should retain the right to EU membership. After all it's not a military organisation and it makes Russia's "security concerns" spiel sound hollow.
 
Jotun said:
True. But I doubt it too. Those troops will not be particularly trained, low on morale. Plus mobilization for war in ukraine will be unpopular. That just might be his last move. He could reallocate existing forces, but that's risky too. He might lose in Syria. 'Stans might try to go independent. Really hard to get more manpower to Ukraine.



What is near future? But it's not unrealistic. Really optimistic scenario I give it two months. Micheal Kofman (he's been very on point so far) speculates that in three weeks, Russian military is spent. Then we might see ceasefire or counter offensive (that's the basis for really optimistic scenario).

If the FSB whistleblower account is true Russian economy is gone by June. They will not be able to support war. So in just optimistic scenario they are defeated by Fall.

Pessimistic scenario is Russia will take some cities, dig in and keep them occupied and war will keep going on for years, but eventually they'll have to leave or Ukrainians will slowly drive them out with significant casualties. Basically similar to Yugoslav wars. Honestly, I think Serbians/Yugoslavia had much better position in that war than Russians do now. And yet, Serbia/Yugoslavia achieved none of its political goals.

Finally, really pesimistic scenario. Russia manages to take Mariupol quickly. Maybe Kharkiv too, and then cuts off and encircles Ukrainians forces in the east and completely destroys them. They keep progressing in the south, eventually taking Odessa. Finally they split the country in half. Dig in and proclaim novorussya. Conflict goes on for years, even a decade, with western powers abandoning Ukraine and Russia dealing with massive insurgency. Basically we get middle east in europe. I find this scenario the most unlikely of all, but not impossible. It's the only way I see Russia getting anything out of it. It would not be worth it. Much better to settle for Crimea now.
Click to expand...

I think the last paragraph is the most likely scenario currently. Putin's not a person that admits defeat or shows weakness, the past two decades of war and murders have shown that, the only two scenarios that are possible with him there are 1) eventually taking Ukraine 2) someone topples the despot and ends the war.

I think the stalemate scenario could happen if the western allies keep pilling on the sanctions and provide more weapons. The news on the sanctions on oil/gas and potentially providing planes to Ukraine is promising and would tilt the scales in favour of Russia pulling out. But as it stands they can weather a longer than expected fight in Ukraine, even if it hurts them in the short-term, because Putin would demand so.
 
sun_tzu said:
Well there you go ... if you want to put a price in human life it seems its about half your gas bill
Click to expand...

Economical aspects play a major part in basically all wars ever fought. It's nothing new and no one should be surprised about this in a globalized world full of international interdependencies.
 
Jotun said:
True. But I doubt it too. Those troops will not be particularly trained, low on morale. Plus mobilization for war in ukraine will be unpopular. That just might be his last move. He could reallocate existing forces, but that's risky too. He might lose in Syria. 'Stans might try to go independent. Really hard to get more manpower to Ukraine.



What is near future? But it's not unrealistic. Really optimistic scenario I give it two months. Micheal Kofman (he's been very on point so far) speculates that in three weeks, Russian military is spent. Then we might see ceasefire or counter offensive (that's the basis for really optimistic scenario).

If the FSB whistleblower account is true Russian economy is gone by June. They will not be able to support war. So in just optimistic scenario they are defeated by Fall.

Pessimistic scenario is Russia will take some cities, dig in and keep them occupied and war will keep going on for years, but eventually they'll have to leave or Ukrainians will slowly drive them out with significant casualties. Basically similar to Yugoslav wars. Honestly, I think Serbians/Yugoslavia had much better position in that war than Russians do now. And yet, Serbia/Yugoslavia achieved none of its political goals.

Finally, really pesimistic scenario. Russia manages to take Mariupol quickly. Maybe Kharkiv too, and then cuts off and encircles Ukrainians forces in the east and completely destroys them. They keep progressing in the south, eventually taking Odessa. Finally they split the country in half. Dig in and proclaim novorussya. Conflict goes on for years, even a decade, with western powers abandoning Ukraine and Russia dealing with massive insurgency. Basically we get middle east in europe. I find this scenario the most unlikely of all, but not impossible. It's the only way I see Russia getting anything out of it. It would not be worth it. Much better to settle for Crimea now.
Click to expand...

Interesting post.

Regarding the bolded part - what are the similarities here? I mean, we saw massive ethnic cleansing, civil war etc, with NATO intervening because of the sheer brutality (and other things). Serbia/Yugoslavia didn’t reach their political goals because the world stopped them from reaching them, no?
 
MadMike said:
At the very least they should retain the right to EU membership. After all it's not a military organisation and it makes Russia's "security concerns" spiel sound hollow.
Click to expand...

well, joining EU would mean if Ukraine is attacked again, it'd trigger EU defense clauses, which would certainly mean NATO members, being involved, resulting in NATO itself being involved
 
Irwin99 said:
Hasn't he previously expressed admiration for Putin? I wonder what some of these people really think now? I hope there's a backlash against Farage, Le pen etc. but there probably won't be.
Click to expand...
No. I've never liked Hitchens but he isn't a Putin-admirer. He's a Russophile and critical of the West, but he's always condemned Putin's regime from what I've seen of him.
 
Jotun said:
Pessimistic scenario is Russia will take some cities, dig in and keep them occupied and war will keep going on for years, but eventually they'll have to leave or Ukrainians will slowly drive them out with significant casualties. Basically similar to Yugoslav wars. Honestly, I think Serbians/Yugoslavia had much better position in that war than Russians do now. And yet, Serbia/Yugoslavia achieved none of its political goals.
Click to expand...

This is an extremely complex issue, as there were three different wars being fought. Still to this day, people here are arguing whether Serbia even had thought-out political goals once things started.

However, to reply to what you said, I would say:

In Croatia, you are correct. The Croatian Serbs had an opportunity for huge autonomy and blew it. Utter disaster for Serbia/Yugoslavia, but even more so, for those people, who were expelled from Croatia.

In Bosnia, I would argue that the Bosnian Serbs did achieve their goal. The less said about the way they did it, the better.

In Kosovo, given how hostile the population there were towards Serbia, I would argue that Serbia had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
well, joining EU would mean if Ukraine is attacked again, it'd trigger EU defense clauses, which would certainly mean NATO members, being involved, resulting in NATO itself being involved
Click to expand...

Well, yes sort of. But only if a NATO country is attacked does the defensive partnership coming into play. For example if Ukraine was attacked then Germany and France (and the rest of EU) would have to declare war on Russia. But since they were not being attacked the rest of NATO (US, Canada, UK etc.) doesn't have to be involved legally. Also from the Russian perspective the difference is between having and not having American bases on their borders. That, I presume, matters a lot to them.
 
Enigma_87 said:
I'm not sure if they are that focused on Kyiv. Biggest goal is the south and Odessa. As you mentioned even if they breach the capital, maintaining control of it would be monumental task and they need to concentrate a lot of manpower there alone.
Click to expand...

They have massively focused on Kyiv, the 40km column is in the north not the south. They were literrally airdropping troops and vehicles there on the first few nights with massed helicopter support, along with infiltrations within the city doing what damage they could.

They have just come up against a brick wall, their attempts to surround the city have completely failed.

In comparison, they took their time getting to Mariupol and haven't touched Odessa yet. If the south is their biggest goal, it certainly wasn't plan A.
 
Geography is the obvious problem.
Russia doesn't want a country the size of the Ukraine as part of a NATO (an alliance that was specifically set up to oppose the former Soviet Union) on its doorstep. Ukraine is now a sovereign country and wants total autonomy/freedom from its massive neighbour (whose President still seems intent on building a new style Soviet Union).
If seems obvious that at some point for any sort of ongoing peace to have a chance to exist, that there would have to be some form of demilitarized zone, keeping both apart, its whereabouts (geographically) and how big would that have to be and who would oversee the demilitarization (presumably the UN) would be necessary.
Presumably when Putin captures/secures as much land as he thinks is necessary, he will come to the table.
 
MadMike said:
Well, yes sort of. But only if a NATO country is attacked does the defensive partnership coming into play. For example if Ukraine was attacked then Germany and France (and the rest of EU) would have to declare war on Russia. But since they were not being attacked the rest of NATO (US, Canada, UK etc.) doesn't have to be involved legally. Also from the Russian perspective the difference is between having and not having American bases on their borders. That, I presume, matters a lot to them.
Click to expand...

yeah, those American bases might be the much bigger factor, as in reality and regarding EU/NATO it wouldn't make much of a difference, even if there's some legal incongruence
 
Beans said:
If Russia do fall back, does Ukraine try to take Crimea back?
Click to expand...

Not unless the Putin regime collapses after failing in Ukraine and there's a momentary power vacuum between Russian governments to where the Ukrainians see a window of opportunity.
 
MadMike said:
Well, yes sort of. But only if a NATO country is attacked does the defensive partnership coming into play. For example if Ukraine was attacked then Germany and France (and the rest of EU) would have to declare war on Russia. But since they were not being attacked the rest of NATO (US, Canada, UK etc.) doesn't have to be involved legally. Also from the Russian perspective the difference is between having and not having American bases on their borders. That, I presume, matters a lot to them.
Click to expand...
I agree. NATO is dominated by the American military, and the US is Russia's historical and ideological adversary. So not allowing American bases in Ukraine is probably a big objective. However now that European countries have woken up from their peaceful slumber and are starting to bolster their military budgets, potential American involvement in a future conflict would likely not be necessary to deter Russian aggression.
 
Jotun said:
Pessimistic scenario is Russia will take some cities, dig in and keep them occupied and war will keep going on for years, but eventually they'll have to leave or Ukrainians will slowly drive them out with significant casualties. Basically similar to Yugoslav wars. Honestly, I think Serbians/Yugoslavia had much better position in that war than Russians do now. And yet, Serbia/Yugoslavia achieved none of its political goals.
Click to expand...
They had a better position because the Yugoslav army was predominantly Serb, and the West put an arms embargo on the area which meant Bosnians and others weren't able to arm themselves to defend themselves. Ukraine is getting weapons at least now, and they had a good sized army to start with.
 
Skåre Willoch said:
Interesting post.

Regarding the bolded part - what are the similarities here? I mean, we saw massive ethnic cleansing, civil war etc, with NATO intervening because of the sheer brutality (and other things). Serbia/Yugoslavia didn’t reach their political goals because the world stopped them from reaching them, no?
Click to expand...
A pretty massive difference to start is the world let them go on for 4 years and put an arms embargo on nations like Bosnia so we couldn't defend ourselves, while it didn't impact the Serbs as they had the Yugoslav army. They only stepped in when it became clear that they were committing genocide against Bosnians.
Here, despite not actively stepping in, they are at least sending weaponry and support to what is a decent sized army in the first place?

The similarities IMO are the ideologies in place. Putin doesn't think Ukraine should be a country and that the land belongs to Russia. Serbs had goals of a greater Serbia and felt that land belonged to them, that the Bosnian identity didn't exist and there was no place for them in their country, etc. So the core basis behind the attack is similar I'd say. There's similarities in the dominant super power just shelling cities and civilian buildings without care. The resistance is the biggest difference I'd say.
 
Skåre Willoch said:
Interesting post.

Regarding the bolded part - what are the similarities here? I mean, we saw massive ethnic cleansing, civil war etc, with NATO intervening because of the sheer brutality (and other things). Serbia/Yugoslavia didn’t reach their political goals because the world stopped them from reaching them, no?
Click to expand...

No. NATO did not intervene in Yugoslavia independence wars. Only in Kosovo war in 1999 (that's where you see the Serbian complaints about NATO).

Regarding similarities. Both conflicts were completely asymmetric. In prelude to the war JNA (yugoslav army) moved almost all weapons and arms to the Serbia, basically leaving Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia almost defenseless. They instigated local population to revolt supported by paramilitaries (similar to LNR and DNR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina.

To "stop the conflict" international community proclaimed embargo on all weapon sales. Basically Serbians had all the weapons and independence faction couldn't get any legally (that's why there are weapon smugglers though). At the time JNA had a reputation for being a powerful force even though dated. Another similarity with Russians. Basically, the mighty Yugoslav army was stopped by small arms infantry. I think it's a great example how determined defenders fueled by animosity can stop more powerful enemy.

Another similarity is propaganda. Much like Putin, Milosevic (Yugoslav/Serbian president) used propaganda of saving the Serbians (from Croats).

Here's where the similarities stop. Unlike Serbians and Croatians/Bosnians where animosity was mutual. Russians love Ukrainians. What I'm saying is Serbians were highly motivated to fight. Then there was of course a lot of motivated fighters that fought for preservation of Tito's Yugoslavia rather than Great Serbia. Russians don't know what they are doing in Ukraine and only part of their army that know what it's doing is artillery. Although to be frank, artillery is their main strength.

Basically, Yugoslavian army had motivated fighters, significantly bigger advantage in weapons and their enemies were not propped/supported up by west. Although, before the end of the war USA did support Croatian and Bosnian forces in an advisory role.

Oh, another similarity, much like Azov battalion for Ukraine, Croatia also had paramilitary forces with Neo-nazi symbolism, which was later absorbed into regular army.
 
rpitroda said:
Well in Big Bad Vlad’s mind, isn’t this all just friendly fire on his own cities currently dictated to by the criminal Zelinsky?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, but it's what Putin wants people to think. It's all about Putin fearing the spread into Russia of the example set by the existence of a free and democratic Ukraine. Everything else - e.g. concerns about NATO becoming a greater military threat to Russia if Ukraine is allowed to join them - is just smokescreen lies.

It's important for the West to be totally clear that this is about nothing else except freedom and democracy vs. control and repression.
 
nimic said:
My estimation of Anonymous has gone up by infinity. I'm sure they'll bring it back down again soon enough, but it's nice while it lasts.
Click to expand...

But it's good they stay vigilant.
Anonymous has always had an ebb and flow.

To be honest, lots of these individuals wind up working for the military intel agencies. Hopefully not as many go work for Putin as some have through the years.
 
bosnian_red said:
A pretty massive difference to start is the world let them go on for 4 years and put an arms embargo on nations like Bosnia so we couldn't defend ourselves, while it didn't impact the Serbs as they had the Yugoslav army. They only stepped in when it became clear that they were committing genocide against Bosnians.
Here, despite not actively stepping in, they are at least sending weaponry and support to what is a decent sized army in the first place?

The similarities IMO are the ideologies in place. Putin doesn't think Ukraine should be a country and that the land belongs to Russia. Serbs had goals of a greater Serbia and felt that land belonged to them, that the Bosnian identity didn't exist and there was no place for them in their country, etc. So the core basis behind the attack is similar I'd say. There's similarities in the dominant super power just shelling cities and civilian buildings without care. The resistance is the biggest difference I'd say.
Click to expand...
Jotun said:
No. NATO did not intervene in Yugoslavia independence wars. Only in Kosovo war in 1999 (that's where you see the Serbian complaints about NATO).

Regarding similarities. Both conflicts were completely asymmetric. In prelude to the war JNA (yugoslav army) moved almost all weapons and arms to the Serbia, basically leaving Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia almost defenseless. They instigated local population to revolt supported by paramilitaries (similar to LNR and DNR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina.

To "stop the conflict" international community proclaimed embargo on all weapon sales. Basically Serbians had all the weapons and independence faction couldn't get any legally (that's why there are weapon smugglers though). At the time JNA had a reputation for being a powerful force even though dated. Another similarity with Russians. Basically, the mighty Yugoslav army was stopped by small arms infantry. I think it's a great example how determined defenders fueled by animosity can stop more powerful enemy.

Another similarity is propaganda. Much like Putin, Milosevic (Yugoslav/Serbian president) used propaganda of saving the Serbians (from Croats).

Here's where the similarities stop. Unlike Serbians and Croatians/Bosnians where animosity was mutual. Russians love Ukrainians. What I'm saying is Serbians were highly motivated to fight. Then there was of course a lot of motivated fighters that fought for preservation of Tito's Yugoslavia rather than Great Serbia. Russians don't know what they are doing in Ukraine and only part of their army that know what it's doing is artillery. Although to be frank, artillery is their main strength.

Basically, Yugoslavian army had motivated fighters, significantly bigger advantage in weapons and their enemies were not propped/supported up by west. Although, before the end of the war USA did support Croatian and Bosnian forces in an advisory role.

Oh, another similarity, much like Azov battalion for Ukraine, Croatia also had paramilitary forces with Neo-nazi symbolism, which was later absorbed into regular army.
Click to expand...

Thanks, this is very informative.
 
Raoul said:
Not unless the Putin regime collapses after failing in Ukraine and there's a momentary power vacuum between Russian governments to where the Ukrainians see a window of opportunity.
Click to expand...
What would allow Russia to hold Crimea when/if they have to retreat elsewhere? Geography? Looks like a difficult place to invade, would need Patton and his amphibious assault teams like in Italy in WWII.

Obviously no one is trying to go into Russia proper with an army.
 
Beans said:
What would allow Russia to hold Crimea when/if they have to retreat elsewhere? Geography? Looks like a difficult place to invade, would need Patton and his amphibious assault teams like in Italy in WWII.

Obviously no one is trying to go into Russia proper with an army.
Click to expand...

Population is Russian ethnic and mostly pro Russia, at least it was before annexation. Who knows now. According to Ukrainian poster, there was always talk of them joining Russia or independence. But if Russian economy tanks, perhaps they might want to switch back to Ukraine. Otherwise, if Ukraine tries to invade it might become a reverse scenario. Where they get bogged down in hostile territory against local population.
 
Maticmaker said:
Geography is the obvious problem.
Russia doesn't want a country the size of the Ukraine as part of a NATO (an alliance that was specifically set up to oppose the former Soviet Union) on its doorstep. Ukraine is now a sovereign country and wants total autonomy/freedom from its massive neighbour (whose President still seems intent on building a new style Soviet Union).
If seems obvious that at some point for any sort of ongoing peace to have a chance to exist, that there would have to be some form of demilitarized zone, keeping both apart, its whereabouts (geographically) and how big would that have to be and who would oversee the demilitarization (presumably the UN) would be necessary.
Presumably when Putin captures/secures as much land as he thinks is necessary, he will come to the table.
Click to expand...

That's not the real issue at all. NATO was set up to defend against (not oppose) the Soviet Union - and a defensive alliance it remains. Neither Putin nor anyone else actually believes that NATO would ever invade a nuclear-armed, vast country like Russia. Putin's claim that NATO is a military threat to Russia is just a smokescreen lie.

He is concerned only about the spread into Russia of the example set by the existence of a free and democratic Ukraine. That's why he want to crush Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
shamans said:
Left it out because I wasn't replying to it. It's a subjective matter to say if they're accurate enough or not. Just yesterday CNN had a headline "Russia exhausted 95% of its troops".

Again, just seems to me like an easy way for the rest of the world to go to sleep easier thinking Ukraine is fighting back without actually committing to the fight. Saying "yeah, this sucks but we kinda don't wanna get our hands dirty. Sorry Ukraine, was nice knowing ya!" doesn't sound as good.
Click to expand...

So your opinion is we can't possibly know anything because no source is entirely reliable? That's absurd and aligns with what Putin wants people to believe. That's why they put out countless alternative stories for any atrocity or crime they commit. Bellingcat, to keep using them, had their research and documentation used in the official inquiry into the MH17 attack by Russian soldiers. They helped identify the two men responsible for trying to assassinate Sergei Skripal in the UK. They also identified the men responsible for poisoning Navalny.

What CNN was reporting was the US assessment that 95% of the troops Russia had assembled for the invasion had been moved into Ukraine. Today that's nearly 100%. They never said that, regardless of CNN's chyron, that Russia had used 95% of all of its armed forces.
 
Beans said:
If Russia do fall back, does Ukraine try to take Crimea back?
Click to expand...

I think this is a very good question. It's comparatively easy fighting the Russians if the population are on your side, probably a lot harder if they're not. So if the Crimeans are largely pro-Russia then maybe you'd just want to take a foothold in Crimea?

Armiansk, Krasnoperekopsk and Dzhankoi perhaps rather than trying to go all the way to Sevastopol? If you're very fair and provide economic opportunities to the local population you could hope that the goodwill would continue to spread and put you in a better position later.
 
TwoSheds said:
I think this is a very good question. It's comparatively easy fighting the Russians if the population are on your side, probably a lot harder if they're not. So if the Crimeans are largely pro-Russia then maybe you'd just want to take a foothold in Crimea?

Armiansk, Krasnoperekopsk and Dzhankoi perhaps rather than trying to go all the way to Sevastopol? If you're very fair and provide economic opportunities to the local population you could hope that the goodwill would continue to spread and put you in a better position later.
Click to expand...
Apparently, as Crimea is now cut off from Ukraine infrastructure living is very hard. So population might have incentive of coming back to Ukraine. On the other hand, they've been exposed to Russian propaganda for years now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.