The Invasion of Ukraine

[jimbob]

Belarusian foreign minister has just died suddenly. No indication yet as to whether it was falling out of a window natural causes, or natural causes natural causes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/be ... 022-11-26/

Now Lukashenko is supposedly in fear of his life: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/be ... r-AA14FtjV

Makei, the Belarusian foreign minister, was supposedly poisoned to keep Lukashenko in line. All feels a bit weak to me.

There's been an increase in Russian tanks and, notably, air defence moving into Belarus lately. Tanks I can understand - the Russian system relies on using existing troops for training recruits, a system that cannot really cope when the existing troops are all either in combat or lying face down in a mud filled crater just east of Bakhmut. The tanks are thus going so Belarusian troops can train the newly mobilised Russians. Air defence might be for the same reason, but god knows at this point. It's possible Russia's anticipating possible strikes against them in Belarus.

It could just be doctrinal rigidity.

The USSR sent SAMs including SA-7 (so no use except against aircraft) when invading Afghanistan.

[EACLucifer]

Now Lukashenko is supposedly in fear of his life: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/be ... r-AA14FtjV

Makei, the Belarusian foreign minister, was supposedly poisoned to keep Lukashenko in line. All feels a bit weak to me.

There's been an increase in Russian tanks and, notably, air defence moving into Belarus lately. Tanks I can understand - the Russian system relies on using existing troops for training recruits, a system that cannot really cope when the existing troops are all either in combat or lying face down in a mud filled crater just east of Bakhmut. The tanks are thus going so Belarusian troops can train the newly mobilised Russians. Air defence might be for the same reason, but god knows at this point. It's possible Russia's anticipating possible strikes against them in Belarus.

It could just be doctrinal rigidity.

The USSR sent SAMs including SA-7 (so no use except against aircraft) when invading Afghanistan.

That's a fair point. That said, there's also the point that if you don't send them, you are very vulnerable should someone intervene who has aircraft. Russia will be aware, for example, that the government in Poland is extremely hostile to them, and should a missile from Russian positions in Belarus hit Poland, airstrikes are a real possibility.

[Imrael]

I was wondering to what extent the paranoia about Nato is genuinely believed and relevant in the senoir officer corp. The SAM's might be going because they think a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is a real possibility - however unlikely that seems from our perspective.

Secondary possibilty is they are meant to restrict Ukrainian air force on cruise missile intercept duties for missiles launched from that direction. However, quick wiki suggests range of only 5Km, so doesnt seem to work.

[plodder]

I was wondering to what extent the paranoia about Nato is genuinely believed and relevant in the senoir officer corp. The SAM's might be going because they think a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is a real possibility - however unlikely that seems from our perspective.

Secondary possibilty is they are meant to restrict Ukrainian air force on cruise missile intercept duties for missiles launched from that direction. However, quick wiki suggests range of only 5Km, so doesnt seem to work.

Paranoia? NATO has armed Ukraine to the teeth. This is clearly a proxy war between Russia (+allies) and Nato (+allies).

[bjn]

I was wondering to what extent the paranoia about Nato is genuinely believed and relevant in the senoir officer corp. The SAM's might be going because they think a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is a real possibility - however unlikely that seems from our perspective.

Secondary possibilty is they are meant to restrict Ukrainian air force on cruise missile intercept duties for missiles launched from that direction. However, quick wiki suggests range of only 5Km, so doesnt seem to work.

Paranoia? NATO has armed Ukraine to the teeth. This is clearly a proxy war between Russia (+allies) and Nato (+allies).

There was the little thing that happened in 2014 where Russia took the Crimea from Ukraine by force, going back on all their promises about territorial integrity. Big bad NATO, naughty NATO, how dare they get Russia to invade Ukraine so that Ukrainians would want western assistance.

Its definitely a proxy war now, but one that Russia had the responsibility for starting.

[jimbob]

I was wondering to what extent the paranoia about Nato is genuinely believed and relevant in the senoir officer corp. The SAM's might be going because they think a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is a real possibility - however unlikely that seems from our perspective.

Secondary possibilty is they are meant to restrict Ukrainian air force on cruise missile intercept duties for missiles launched from that direction. However, quick wiki suggests range of only 5Km, so doesnt seem to work.

Paranoia? NATO has armed Ukraine to the teeth. This is clearly a proxy war between Russia (+allies) and Nato (+allies).

No.

NATO has been cautious in what it has supplied to Ukraine. Far too cautious in my view.

Aircraft like F-16s or longer range guided rockets would make a huge difference and end the war quicker.

[EACLucifer]

I was wondering to what extent the paranoia about Nato is genuinely believed and relevant in the senoir officer corp. The SAM's might be going because they think a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is a real possibility - however unlikely that seems from our perspective.

Secondary possibilty is they are meant to restrict Ukrainian air force on cruise missile intercept duties for missiles launched from that direction. However, quick wiki suggests range of only 5Km, so doesnt seem to work.

Paranoia? NATO has armed Ukraine to the teeth. This is clearly a proxy war between Russia (+allies) and Nato (+allies).

If NATO wanted to wage a proxy war, they would properly arm Ukraine, which they have not done. And they'd not put artificial restrictions on where they can be used that prevent Ukraine returning fire against artillery shelling their cities from beyond the Russian border.

And they'd have done it in 2014 rather than leaning hard on Ukraine to tolerate Russia's invasion and annexation.

[plodder]

Lots of different versions of proxy to go with your various forms of fierce disagreement there…

[Martin Y]

It's not obvious to me what use it is to decide whether or not this can be regarded as a proxy war. What changes if it is, or isn't?

Clearly Russia, not NATO or Ukraine, started it. The most you can really say about NATO is they gave Ukraine the means to stop Russia finishing it too.

Calling it a NATO proxy war just sounds like that Russian propaganda about the West fighting to the last Ukrainian, which suits the Russians as it dismisses the Ukrainians as having any agency or indeed legitimacy, as what they really need to learn is they're not a proper country with a proper language or anything like that. They're just a lesser kind of Russian, hypnotised by the evil West into forgetting who they really are. Maybe a harder slap will wake them up.

[plodder]

Sure but it’s NATO doing the slapping, right?

[Gfamily]

Sure but it’s NATO doing the slapping, right?

Are you doing this for a bet or something?

[plodder]

Sure but it’s NATO doing the slapping, right?

Are you doing this for a bet or something?

Getting replied to with condescending bollocks?

[Formerly AvP]

Sure but it’s NATO doing the slapping, right?

To avoid the risk of seeming condescending, could you explain what you mean by this? Is it, for instance, a serious statement or an ironic one? If it is serious, can you expand on what you mean by NATO 'slapping' Ukraine (as it seems to suggest)?
Cheers
AvP

[plodder]

Sure but it’s NATO doing the slapping, right?

To avoid the risk of seeming condescending, could you explain what you mean by this? Is it, for instance, a serious statement or an ironic one? If it is serious, can you expand on what you mean by NATO 'slapping' Ukraine (as it seems to suggest)?
Cheers
AvP

To me this is clearly a proxy conflict between NATO and Russia. Russia tried expanding towards NATO, NATO stepped in and said not on your nelly, and armed the hell out of the Ukranians. That's what makes it very politically different from Russian expansionism elsewhere.

The "it's NATO doing the slapping" comment is in reply to MartinY. Apologies if it's ambiguous - I'm saying NATO is slapping Russia rather than Russia slapping Ukraine.

[Bird on a Fire]

I was wondering to what extent the paranoia about Nato is genuinely believed and relevant in the senoir officer corp. The SAM's might be going because they think a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is a real possibility - however unlikely that seems from our perspective.

Secondary possibilty is they are meant to restrict Ukrainian air force on cruise missile intercept duties for missiles launched from that direction. However, quick wiki suggests range of only 5Km, so doesnt seem to work.

Paranoia? NATO has armed Ukraine to the teeth. This is clearly a proxy war between Russia (+allies) and Nato (+allies).

Hmm. Not sure proxy war is the right term:

A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

Seems pretty clear to me that both Russia and Ukraine are acting primarily of their own volition, as aggressor and defender respectively. Ukraine are mostly doing it with the supplies NATO let them have, but they'd do it anyway I'm sure.

As to whether a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is likely vs paranoia, there hasn't yet been a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine or Russia yet. I'd expect Belarus to be further down the list. Nevertheless it's perhaps not so remote a possibility that it's not worth defending against.

[EACLucifer]

As to whether a NATO armed intervention in Belarus is likely vs paranoia, there hasn't yet been a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine or Russia yet. I'd expect Belarus to be further down the list. Nevertheless it's perhaps not so remote a possibility that it's not worth defending against.

There's a couple of reasons it might be more likely than an intervention against Russia, or against Russian troops in Ukraine.

For the first issue, compared to a strike against Russia, there's the obvious point that there's less risk of triggering the sort of runaway escalation people are scared of.

And for both issues - strikes against Russians in Russia or Ukraine vs strikes against Russians in Belarus - there's the issue of munitions hitting NATO territory deliberately or otherwise. These might be launched in/over Russia or from the Black Sea in the case of cruise missiles, but there's also a lot of missiles launched from Belarus, and comparatively few from occupied Ukraine, where the artificial restrictions on the use of GMLRS to attack launch sites don't apply.

So with Belarus, there's a chance that a missile fired from Belarus might hit Poland, and Poland might feel a lot more relaxed about striking Russians in Belarus than in Russia.

Now it looks like that hasn't happened yet - the Ukrainian interceptor, while apparently launched against a Russian missile (as one would assume it would be) was the only munition in evidence at the impact site on the Polish border, with the Polish government saying they think the missile it was launched against went down in Ukraine.

[Formerly AvP]

Sure but it’s NATO doing the slapping, right?

To avoid the risk of seeming condescending, could you explain what you mean by this? Is it, for instance, a serious statement or an ironic one? If it is serious, can you expand on what you mean by NATO 'slapping' Ukraine (as it seems to suggest)?
Cheers
AvP

To me this is clearly a proxy conflict between NATO and Russia. Russia tried expanding towards NATO, NATO stepped in and said not on your nelly, and armed the hell out of the Ukranians. That's what makes it very politically different from Russian expansionism elsewhere.

The "it's NATO doing the slapping" comment is in reply to MartinY. Apologies if it's ambiguous - I'm saying NATO is slapping Russia rather than Russia slapping Ukraine.

Still not quite clear. You say "NATO armed the hell out of Ukraine". But the main contributions from NATO came after the Russian invasion, and do not include provision of perhaps the two most important systems in this context, modern Western fighter aircraft and modern Western tanks. I would have thought that, dispassionately, "arming the hell out of" would include thess systems.

And you say "NATO is slapping Russia rather than Russia slapping Ukraine." In what sense, exactly is Russia NOT 'slapping Ukraine', if such a term can be used for an armed invasion with all conventional arms systems at Russia's disposal, plus the use of war crimes and atrocities against Ukrainian civilians? In what sense is NATOs response comparable with the actions Russia initiated? Do not these events seem, shall we say, asymmetric?

[plodder]

Yes they’re asymmetric but when you account for the fact that in war there’s always an aggressor perhaps that’s irrelevant?

[dyqik]

Yes they’re asymmetric but when you account for the fact that in war there’s always an aggressor perhaps that’s irrelevant?

The aggressor here is Russia. The aggressor remains Russia. NATO was happy leaving Ukraine alone until Russia attacked it. It barely responded to Russia's first invasion of Ukraine.

So take your Russian propaganda elsewhere.

[Formerly AvP]

Yes they’re asymmetric but when you account for the fact that in war there’s always an aggressor perhaps that’s irrelevant?

So, just to be sure:
We are agreeing that Russia is the aggressor? And we are agreeing that Russia attacking civilian infrastructure like heating and water in a central European winter is asymmetric? And that these things, like war crimes and atrocities, are...wrong?
And that resisting these things is justified?

[plodder]

Yeah sure, of course. Do you agree that the only thing keeping Ukraine’s resistance going is support from NATO?

[plodder]

Yes they’re asymmetric but when you account for the fact that in war there’s always an aggressor perhaps that’s irrelevant?

The aggressor here is Russia. The aggressor remains Russia. NATO was happy leaving Ukraine alone until Russia attacked it. It barely responded to Russia's first invasion of Ukraine.

So take your Russian propaganda elsewhere.

I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. I just clarified an ambiguous post.

[bjn]

Yeah sure, of course. Do you agree that the only thing keeping Ukraine’s resistance going is support from NATO?

It’s not though. Those are individual countries doing it, not NATO. Some countries supporting Ukraine aren’t even in NATO, for example Australia.

Do you think it is a bad thing that nations are sending arms to resist Russia’s murderous invasion of Ukraine, because it sure looks like it.

[Martin Y]

Yeah sure, of course. Do you agree that the only thing keeping Ukraine’s resistance going is support from NATO?

No, in all seriousness the main thing keeping the Ukrainians going is a burning desire to kick the Russians the hell out of their country. What's making that possible in the way it's happening, rather than as an insurgency within a conquered country, is support from other countries, mostly but not entirely NATO members.

[EACLucifer]

Yeah sure, of course. Do you agree that the only thing keeping Ukraine’s resistance going is support from NATO?

Absolutely not. I suggest actually looking at what Ukrainians have to say about it. Western aid has helped them, but there's no way they wouldn't still be fighting either as an insurgency or still holding meaningful parts of the country and most of the arms they are using are ones they already had or captured from the Russians, despite the significant impact of certain Western systems.