Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Zelenskiy: Ukraine losing up to 100 soldiers every day
Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has conceded that Kyiv’s forces are currently suffering up to 100 fatalities and 500 wounded every day.

In an interview with the US Newsmax television channel that aired yesterday, Zelenskiy said:

The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60-100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters.
Click to expand...
The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk, Zelenskiy added.
 
Pintu said:


"It would be arrogant and inappropriate to talk about war aims in this country. Only the Ukrainians and their President decide on the conditions for peace, @ZelenskyyUa! Our goal is that Putin doesn't win and Ukraine can defend itself."



We have been sending weapons to Ukraine since the beginning of the war, including heavy weapons. Gepard and Panzerhaubitze 2000 are nothing else. We coordinate closely with our partners and deliver what is useful - including the state-of-the-art IRIS-T system, which protects large cities from air raids.
Click to expand...

That's good messaging from Scholz for once.
 
Pintu said:
The historically Eurosceptic Danes are very likely to abolish their defense opt-out via referendum today. This is the first referendum related to the EU held in a member state since the biggest one (brexit).

The tweet refers of course to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Click to expand...


Update on this.

 
Mike Smalling said:
A complete no-brainer for me - voted yes. You only had to look at the politicians arguing for no, to know that you had to go the other way.
Click to expand...

What sort of politicians argued for "no"? Those towards the more extremes of both left and right?
 
Mike Smalling said:
A complete no-brainer for me - voted yes. You only had to look at the politicians arguing for no, to know that you had to go the other way.
Click to expand...
Haha. I watched TV2 briefly after 8. Looked like some funny meltdown from the Nej side.
 
GlastonSpur said:
What sort of politicians argued for "no"? Those towards the more extremes of both left and right?
Click to expand...
The party furthest to the left, Enhedslisten (The Unity List), and Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People Party, their politics are in the name). Probably a few other right wingers too, but those were the main ones.
 
shamans said:
Well, obviously if you stretch the impact out to decades it makes a difference, since even a million or two becomes compounding and so on but that's a pretty big assumption to make I think.

Again, western world may be powerful but countries like India and Serbia are not little satellite states like Belarus. China will be a big variable as well since I think 16% of their trade is with them. You start including developing nations like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the likes and it could be enough to sustain exports.
Click to expand...

Sanctions aren't just about limiting Russian exports. The bigger factors are limiting or stopping access to international financial systems and limiting Russian imports - especially their imports of things they need to keep their industries going.
 
GlastonSpur said:
What sort of politicians argued for "no"? Those towards the more extremes of both left and right?
Click to expand...

3 of the 13 parliament parties. 2 parties to the right and surprisingly only one among the far-left parties (Enhedslisten). Many small left parties actually endorsed the Yes.

And among the right-wing, there was something that surprised me. DKF (one of the "Tories" parties) supported the Yes. But their youth wing campaigned for "No".
 
Maagge said:
The party furthest to the left, Enhedslisten (The Unity List), and Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People Party, their politics are in the name). Probably a few other right wingers too, but those were the main ones.
Click to expand...

In other words, I'd guess the parties that far are more interested in damaging and undermining "the system" (including freedom and democracy) than they are in opposing Russian fascism.
 
GlastonSpur said:
In other words, I'd guess the parties that far are more interested in damaging and undermining "the system" (including freedom and democracy) than they are in opposing Russian fascism.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say they're interested in undermining the system. They just have two different reasons for wanting less EU. The vote doesn't really have much to do with the war anyway, although it was probably brought up due to the war as it would be easier to get it through now.
Enhedslisten is coming around to the idea of EU as they're more or less the most green party in parliament and have realised you need other countries onboard to combat climate change. Dansk Folkeparti are your usual nationalist ass hats.
 
GlastonSpur said:
In other words, I'd guess the parties that far are more interested in damaging and undermining "the system" (including freedom and democracy) than they are in opposing Russian fascism.
Click to expand...

No honestly, it was more about not sending Danish troops to fight operations in Africa and various other continents. Some are weary of Danish soldiers being sent to in foreign wars. Or at least it seems to me.
 
WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - The Biden administration plans to sell Ukraine four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones that can be armed with Hellfire missiles for battlefield use against Russia, three people familiar with the situation said.

The sale of the General Atomics-made drones could still be blocked by Congress, the sources said, adding that there is also a risk of a last minute policy reversal that could scuttle the plan, which has been under review at the Pentagon for several weeks.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...rones-ukraine-coming-days-sources-2022-06-01/
 
Question for any military hardware buffs. What are the US not sending? Seems like the Ukrainians are pretty tooled up and modernised. Other than aircraft, is there any specific “game changing” artillery system that the yanks/NATO have that is still blocked?
 
Spark said:
Question for any military hardware buffs. What are the US not sending? Seems like the Ukrainians are pretty tooled up and modernised. Other than aircraft, is there any specific “game changing” artillery system that the yanks/NATO have that is still blocked?
Click to expand...
Ukraine ain't getting the Patriot missile system.
 
Spark said:
Question for any military hardware buffs. What are the US not sending? Seems like the Ukrainians are pretty tooled up and modernised. Other than aircraft, is there any specific “game changing” artillery system that the yanks/NATO have that is still blocked?
Click to expand...
The issue is quantity rather than quality at this stage. Russia has a lot of scrap metal with which it can still pound their positions and cities to the ground and Ukraine can’t respond as they don’t have enough artillery.
 
Spark said:
Question for any military hardware buffs. What are the US not sending? Seems like the Ukrainians are pretty tooled up and modernised. Other than aircraft, is there any specific “game changing” artillery system that the yanks/NATO have that is still blocked?
Click to expand...
Agreed with @VorZakone about the Patriot system.

I’d be surprised to see them getting any of our Stryker / Bradley / Abrams as well.
 
Spark said:
Question for any military hardware buffs. What are the US not sending? Seems like the Ukrainians are pretty tooled up and modernised. Other than aircraft, is there any specific “game changing” artillery system that the yanks/NATO have that is still blocked?
Click to expand...
For me personally I'd have to say any of the CIWS stuff that we've not been hearing about from either side. Phalanx and that sort of thing - it's absolutely unbelievable what it can do. It's something that I'm sort of surprised we've not been sending to the Ukrainians as it's more of a defensive measure anyway, as well as being obsolete and superceded by a lot better modern stuff (micro missile systems I believe are the current zeitgeist, but I've not taken much interest for a while). I couldn't see Russia getting angry at us sending purely defensive systems, but they take time and training that we don't have right now I guess.
 
Raoul said:
The logic of the Kherson counter offensive (beyond reclaiming Kherson) is apparently to distract Russian advances in the east. Looks like its working in the south, but at the expense of a few towns in the east.
Click to expand...
The old adage of “defending everything means defending nothing” comes to mind.
 
Raoul said:
The logic of the Kherson counter offensive (beyond reclaiming Kherson) is apparently to distract Russian advances in the east. Looks like its working in the south, but at the expense of a few towns in the east.
Click to expand...
I read that Kherson is the only land west of the Dnipro that Russia controls, and that it was more strategically important than Severodonetsk, such that they were willing to "trade" them. They suggested Putin cared more about the headlines than the tactics.

Edit: from the ISW
"Moscow’s concentration on seizing Severodonetsk and Donbas generally continues to create vulnerabilities for Russia in Ukraine’s vital Kherson Oblast, where Ukrainian counter-offensives continue. Kherson is critical terrain because it is the only area of Ukraine in which Russian forces hold ground on the west bank of the Dnipro River. If Russia is able to retain a strong lodgment in Kherson when fighting stops it will be in a very strong position from which to launch a future invasion. If Ukraine regains Kherson, on the other hand, Ukraine will be in a much stronger position to defend itself against future Russian attack. This strategic calculus should in principle lead Russia to allocate sufficient combat power to hold Kherson. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen instead to concentrate all the forces and resources that can be scraped together in a desperate and bloody push to seize areas of eastern Ukraine that will give him largely symbolic gains. Continuing successful Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson indicate that Ukraine’s commanders recognize these realities and are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that Putin’s decisions have created.

The Ukrainian leadership has apparently wisely avoided matching Putin’s mistaken prioritization. Kyiv could have committed more reserves and resources to the defense of Severodonetsk, and its failure to do so has drawn criticism.[1] Ukrainian forces are now apparently withdrawing from Severodonetsk rather than fighting to the end—a factor that has allowed the Russians to move into the city relatively rapidly after beginning their full-scale assault.[2] Both the decision to avoid committing more resources to saving Severodonetsk and the decision to withdraw from it were strategically sound, however painful. Ukraine must husband its more limited resources and focus on regaining critical terrain rather than on defending ground whose control will not determine the outcome of the war or the conditions for the renewal of war."

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-31
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


God the Americans are driving me crazy! The entire point of a friggin nuclear deterrent is that the other side believe you might actually use it if provoked too far. If you're going to tell them in advance that you won't respond to a nuclear strike on an ally in kind, then you've just made it far more likely that they'll actually do it.

Also, how hard is the concept of 'Putin only recognizes strength' to grasp, really? Everyone is so busy tripping over their own asses trying to ensure they don't 'escalate' while he gets to do literally whatever the feck he wants. Genocide, mass torture, child rape, mass kidnap, wiping entire cities from the map, sure no problem at all, but hey we better not send him planes or else he'll get mad. We live in a truly contemptible age.
 
Kentonio said:
God the Americans are driving me crazy! The entire point of a friggin nuclear deterrent is that the other side believe you might actually use it if provoked too far. If you're going to tell them in advance that you won't respond to a nuclear strike on an ally in kind, then you've just made it far more likely that they'll actually do it.

Also, how hard is the concept of 'Putin only recognizes strength' to grasp, really? Everyone is so busy tripping over their own asses trying to ensure they don't 'escalate' while he gets to do literally whatever the feck he wants. Genocide, mass torture, child rape, mass kidnap, wiping entire cities from the map, sure no problem at all, but hey we better not send him planes or else he'll get mad. We live in a truly contemptible age.
Click to expand...

Would they even need nukes to wipe out Russian capability? Nuke for a nuke just escalates to end of the world scenaro's, so I imagine they'd resist that if all possible.

If Putin hypothetically detonates a nuke in Ukraine, its immediately world war. As in the entire world against an already weak Russia. Not just US/NATO, Japan, SK, Aus, Israel, etc. China/India would probably even step in. Anything to avoid seeing nukes just getting lobbed back and forth, they would have to do anything in their power to avoid US retaliating with a nuke, cos y'know... end of the world and stuff. There's also the internal factors in Russia.

I feel like they are just stating the obvious here.
 
Kentonio said:
God the Americans are driving me crazy! The entire point of a friggin nuclear deterrent is that the other side believe you might actually use it if provoked too far. If you're going to tell them in advance that you won't respond to a nuclear strike on an ally in kind, then you've just made it far more likely that they'll actually do it.

Also, how hard is the concept of 'Putin only recognizes strength' to grasp, really? Everyone is so busy tripping over their own asses trying to ensure they don't 'escalate' while he gets to do literally whatever the feck he wants. Genocide, mass torture, child rape, mass kidnap, wiping entire cities from the map, sure no problem at all, but hey we better not send him planes or else he'll get mad. We live in a truly contemptible age.
Click to expand...

This! Exactly this! I don't understand why Biden is so soft. I hated Reagan, but I wish we had someone like that vs Putin. And actually if we had Reagan, probably Putin wouldn't dare invade Ukraine in the first place. Unfortunately Biden gives the impression of a pacifist, and Putin does not respect pacifists.
 
Simbo said:
Would they even need nukes to wipe out Russian capability? Nuke for a nuke just escalates to end of the world scenaro's, so I imagine they'd resist that if all possible.

If Putin hypothetically detonates a nuke in Ukraine, its immediately world war. As in the entire world against an already weak Russia. Not just US/NATO, Japan, SK, Aus, Israel, etc. China/India would probably even step in. Anything to avoid seeing nukes just getting lobbed back and forth, they would have to do anything in their power to avoid US retaliating with a nuke, cos y'know... end of the world and stuff. There's also the internal factors in Russia.

I feel like they are just stating the obvious here.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't respond with a nuke and they shouldn't respond with a nuke. But Putin shouldn't be sure of that, it should remain a question mark in his mind and in the minds of the Russian leadership and military who would actually have to agree to carry out his order to launch it. Now its a known element, they know they can launch without any risk of immediate nuclear retaliation. That's dangerous. This is the kind of crap that is more likely to sleepwalk us into a nuclear exchange in the long term.

Putin is being given leeway that he shouldn't be given and treated like an irrational actor when his behaviour is perfectly rational when seen through the right mindset. Hitler pulled exactly the same crap in the 30's, ignoring conventions and recognized rules of order and law, because he knew his enemies would do whatever they could to prevent a full scale conflict. Which of course then ensured a full scale conflict was inevitable, because there's always a red line somewhere and when dictators keep winning they lose perspective of where the red line really is.
 
Beans said:
I read that Kherson is the only land west of the Dnipro that Russia controls, and that it was more strategically important than Severodonetsk, such that they were willing to "trade" them. They suggested Putin cared more about the headlines than the tactics.

Edit: from the ISW
"Moscow’s concentration on seizing Severodonetsk and Donbas generally continues to create vulnerabilities for Russia in Ukraine’s vital Kherson Oblast, where Ukrainian counter-offensives continue. Kherson is critical terrain because it is the only area of Ukraine in which Russian forces hold ground on the west bank of the Dnipro River. If Russia is able to retain a strong lodgment in Kherson when fighting stops it will be in a very strong position from which to launch a future invasion. If Ukraine regains Kherson, on the other hand, Ukraine will be in a much stronger position to defend itself against future Russian attack. This strategic calculus should in principle lead Russia to allocate sufficient combat power to hold Kherson. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen instead to concentrate all the forces and resources that can be scraped together in a desperate and bloody push to seize areas of eastern Ukraine that will give him largely symbolic gains. Continuing successful Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson indicate that Ukraine’s commanders recognize these realities and are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that Putin’s decisions have created.

The Ukrainian leadership has apparently wisely avoided matching Putin’s mistaken prioritization. Kyiv could have committed more reserves and resources to the defense of Severodonetsk, and its failure to do so has drawn criticism.[1] Ukrainian forces are now apparently withdrawing from Severodonetsk rather than fighting to the end—a factor that has allowed the Russians to move into the city relatively rapidly after beginning their full-scale assault.[2] Both the decision to avoid committing more resources to saving Severodonetsk and the decision to withdraw from it were strategically sound, however painful. Ukraine must husband its more limited resources and focus on regaining critical terrain rather than on defending ground whose control will not determine the outcome of the war or the conditions for the renewal of war."

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-31
Click to expand...

Its good to see the Ukrainians are fighting strategically and tactically - applying forces to repel Russian advances, then after inflicting losses, removing them so they can fight another day elsewhere. If the Russians tried the same, they would have probably cut their losses in half over the past 90 days.
 
Beans said:
I read that Kherson is the only land west of the Dnipro that Russia controls, and that it was more strategically important than Severodonetsk, such that they were willing to "trade" them. They suggested Putin cared more about the headlines than the tactics.

Edit: from the ISW
"Moscow’s concentration on seizing Severodonetsk and Donbas generally continues to create vulnerabilities for Russia in Ukraine’s vital Kherson Oblast, where Ukrainian counter-offensives continue. Kherson is critical terrain because it is the only area of Ukraine in which Russian forces hold ground on the west bank of the Dnipro River. If Russia is able to retain a strong lodgment in Kherson when fighting stops it will be in a very strong position from which to launch a future invasion. If Ukraine regains Kherson, on the other hand, Ukraine will be in a much stronger position to defend itself against future Russian attack. This strategic calculus should in principle lead Russia to allocate sufficient combat power to hold Kherson. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen instead to concentrate all the forces and resources that can be scraped together in a desperate and bloody push to seize areas of eastern Ukraine that will give him largely symbolic gains. Continuing successful Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson indicate that Ukraine’s commanders recognize these realities and are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that Putin’s decisions have created.

The Ukrainian leadership has apparently wisely avoided matching Putin’s mistaken prioritization. Kyiv could have committed more reserves and resources to the defense of Severodonetsk, and its failure to do so has drawn criticism.[1] Ukrainian forces are now apparently withdrawing from Severodonetsk rather than fighting to the end—a factor that has allowed the Russians to move into the city relatively rapidly after beginning their full-scale assault.[2] Both the decision to avoid committing more resources to saving Severodonetsk and the decision to withdraw from it were strategically sound, however painful. Ukraine must husband its more limited resources and focus on regaining critical terrain rather than on defending ground whose control will not determine the outcome of the war or the conditions for the renewal of war."

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-31
Click to expand...
Trying to occupy a town with symbolic meaning. Which war and dictator this reminds me of.
 
Russia is winning the economic war - and Putin is no closer to withdrawing troops

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin

The perverse effects of sanctions means rising fuel and food costs for the rest of the world – and fears are growing of a humanitarian catastrophe. Sooner or later, a deal must be made

----

I'm fairly ignorant on the issue of sanctions so would welcome any thoughts.

For me if a deal is struck (without it being a Ukrainian idea) then surely that is a massive victory for Putin and zero deterrence for his next imperial adventure?
 
Frosty said:
Russia is winning the economic war - and Putin is no closer to withdrawing troops

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin

The perverse effects of sanctions means rising fuel and food costs for the rest of the world – and fears are growing of a humanitarian catastrophe. Sooner or later, a deal must be made

----

I'm fairly ignorant on the issue of sanctions so would welcome any thoughts.

For me if a deal is struck (without it being a Ukrainian idea) then surely that is a massive victory for Putin and zero deterrence for his next imperial adventure?
Click to expand...
Isn't that a little simplistic? First, rising costs aren't just due to the war, inflation was happening already due to the pandemic supply chain issue and wasn't anyway expected to ease off very quickly.

Second, this seems rather short-term. Long-term, Russia can't keep cancelling out the effects of the sanctions (like the rate of the ruble), plus they are losing a lot of their oil and gas customers, which they won't all be able to replace at short notice.

So my interpretation for a while has been that, if NATO/EU are serious about the sanctions and their effect on Russia (which I am sure the US are, if simply from an adverserial point of view: finally bringing Russia to its knees), they just have to make sure Russia won't win in Ukraine (and stalling might be even better than defeat). Eventually, that will cripple the Russian economy, while NATO/EU countries will eventually have alternative sources for everything they're getting from Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.