Page 90 of 150
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:22 pm
by EACLucifer
Russia's State Duma appears to be laying down the legal groundwork for some level of mobilisation. This doesn't mean they'll necessarily go ahead with it, but it's worth noting.
This could mean increased conscription and the sending of Russian conscripts to Ukraine*, but this would be desperately unpopular in Russia. The war's fine if their kids aren't being sent to die. Remember that for every Muscovite killed, hundreds of Buryats and Tuvans die.
Putin's grip on power relies not on the traditional fascist idea of mass mobiliation of the population around fanatical ideology, but around mass demobilisation - the idea that most of the population are apathetic enough to consent to his rule. This framework is a very poor foundation for mobilisation.
Given the wording of the law, it could also be an attempt to force refuseniks to fight in Ukraine. At present, a significant number of Russian armed forces personnel are downright refusing to go to Ukraine. They either don't want to kill, or don't want to be killed, both entirely reasonable positions. Forcing them to Ukraine isn't going to result in troops willing to fight hard, and may lead to defections. While I suspect the overall number is pretty low, a few Russian personnel have defected to the Ukrainian side. Many may also be willing to surrender rather than fight, something Ukraine is trying to encourage by means of leaflets, a dedicated telegram channel etc as part of the "I Want To Live" campaign.
*They already are abducting men from the occupied territories, often by violent means, and conscripting them to face the guns of their own countrymen. This is, of course, a serious warcrime.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:47 pm
by Herainestold
Russian TV commentators muse about nuking Britain. Should have done it on Monday during the funeral.
Meanwhile on Russian state TV: State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulyov threatened Britain with nuclear strikes.
Host Olga Skabeeva said that Russia should have conducted a nuclear strike on Monday, since many important people were in attendance for the Queen's funeral.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 1416336385
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 3:43 pm
by Woodchopper
Herainestold wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:47 pm
Russian TV commentators muse about nuking Britain. Should have done it on Monday during the funeral.
Meanwhile on Russian state TV: State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulyov threatened Britain with nuclear strikes.
Host Olga Skabeeva said that Russia should have conducted a nuclear strike on Monday, since many important people were in attendance for the Queen's funeral.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 1416336385
Musing about nuking happens weekly on Russian TV.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:09 pm
by FlammableFlower
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:22 pm
Russia's State Duma appears to be laying down the legal groundwork for some level of mobilisation. This doesn't mean they'll necessarily go ahead with it, but it's worth noting.
This could mean increased conscription and the sending of Russian conscripts to Ukraine*, but this would be desperately unpopular in Russia. The war's fine if their kids aren't being sent to die. Remember that for every Muscovite killed, hundreds of Buryats and Tuvans die.
Putin's grip on power relies not on the traditional fascist idea of mass mobiliation of the population around fanatical ideology, but around mass demobilisation - the idea that most of the population are apathetic enough to consent to his rule. This framework is a very poor foundation for mobilisation.
Given the wording of the law, it could also be an attempt to force refuseniks to fight in Ukraine. At present, a significant number of Russian armed forces personnel are downright refusing to go to Ukraine. They either don't want to kill, or don't want to be killed, both entirely reasonable positions. Forcing them to Ukraine isn't going to result in troops willing to fight hard, and may lead to defections. While I suspect the overall number is pretty low, a few Russian personnel have defected to the Ukrainian side. Many may also be willing to surrender rather than fight, something Ukraine is trying to encourage by means of leaflets, a dedicated telegram channel etc as part of the "I Want To Live" campaign.
*
They already are abducting men from the occupied territories, often by violent means, and conscripting them to face the guns of their own countrymen. This is, of course, a serious warcrime.
Apparently "Voluntary surrender" will carry a 3-10 year prison sentence - an attempt to stiffen resolve?
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:16 pm
by Martin Y
Russia's attitude to Britain is weird. It's like they recognise how ridiculous it would be to imagine they could beat the US but they comfort themselves with talk instead about how they could destroy Britain. And I gather they like to mock Britain for foolishly imagining it still has an empire but it's really only with their Ukraine debacle that I've realised how very, very hard they're projecting on that topic.
While I was standing outside Westminster Abbey yesterday, it absolutely did cross my mind that some Russians would love to fantasize about dropping a nuke on it. And sure enough, they did, on national TV.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:27 pm
by Herainestold
The influence of ultra right wing military types and the psychology of Russia makes it more likely with each passing day.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:52 pm
by Woodchopper
‘Referendums’ on annexation by Russia to be held in Russian occupied provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/09/20 ... eferendums
Annexation would mean that Putin could claim that Russia is repelling an invasion. But I don’t know how many in Russia would buy it.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:04 pm
by Woodchopper
Implication of the annexation is that Russia would be at war rather than undertaking a special military operation.
That would mean that it could legally send conscripts (rather than coercing them into signing contracts).
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:15 pm
by EACLucifer
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:04 pm
Implication of the annexation is that Russia would be at war rather than undertaking a special military operation.
That would mean that it could legally send conscripts (rather than coercing them into signing contracts).
Though it doesn't mean much without people to train them, most of whom are either in Ukraine, wounded, captured or dead. The Russian military relies on sending recruits straight to units to train them, meaning they are in a very difficult position with this.
And as we've both noted, it's not necessarily going to go down very well domestically.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:17 pm
by jdc
Herainestold wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:27 pm
The influence of ultra right wing military types and the psychology of Russia makes it more likely with each passing day.
Their nukes have probably been stripped down and sold on ebay.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:48 pm
by Brightonian
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:52 pm
‘Referendums’ on annexation by Russia to be held in Russian occupied provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/09/20 ... eferendums
Annexation would mean that Putin could claim that Russia is repelling an invasion. But I don’t know how many in Russia would buy it.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:07 pm
by FlammableFlower
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:04 pm
Implication of the annexation is that Russia would be at war rather than undertaking a special military operation.
That would mean that it could legally send conscripts (rather than coercing them into signing contracts).
I thought that Russia had already annexed Crimea and Ukraine has successfully struck Russian military sites in Crimea. So that would undermine that argument, not that Putin/Russia Serbs to require a logically consistent argument for anything...
I might have the wrong end of the stick there though.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:13 pm
by EACLucifer
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:07 pm
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:04 pm
Implication of the annexation is that Russia would be at war rather than undertaking a special military operation.
That would mean that it could legally send conscripts (rather than coercing them into signing contracts).
I thought that Russia had already annexed Crimea and Ukraine has successfully struck Russian military sites in Crimea. So that would undermine that argument, not that Putin/Russia Serbs to require a logically consistent argument for anything...
I might have the wrong end of the stick there though.
Nope, you haven't got the wrong end of the stick. You are spot on. And every time the Russians have threatened things if the west does stuff (ie sending HIMARS) they've changed their tune the moment it's arrived. Currently they are whining and threatening re: MGM-140 ATACMS. If they are sent, the moment they are there and Russia will pretend they are no better than Ukraine's existing Tochka-Us.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:48 pm
by EACLucifer
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:07 pm
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:04 pm
Implication of the annexation is that Russia would be at war rather than undertaking a special military operation.
That would mean that it could legally send conscripts (rather than coercing them into signing contracts).
I thought that Russia had already annexed Crimea and Ukraine has successfully struck Russian military sites in Crimea. So that would undermine that argument, not that Putin/Russia Serbs to require a logically consistent argument for anything...
I might have the wrong end of the stick there though.
I'd add that all hell didn't break loose when Ukrainian helicopters conducted a treetop level raid on fuel storage in Belgorod, Belgorod Oblast, Russian Federation, so...
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:56 pm
by EACLucifer
Anyway, right now the Khuilo in the Kremlin isn't making an announcement - there's a broadcast of a concert that appears to be about celebrating Russian control over bits of the Caucasus.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:09 pm
by jimbob
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:56 pm
Anyway, right now the Khuilo in the Kremlin isn't making an announcement - there's a broadcast of a concert that appears to be about celebrating Russian control over bits of the Caucasus.
Strong Swan Lake vibes. And the TV executives *must* know it.
meanwhile on the referrenda
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... ptember-19
This approach is incoherent. Russian forces do not control all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Annexing the claimed territories of the DNR and LNR would, therefore, have Russia annex oblasts that would be by Kremlin definition partially ”occupied” by legitimate Ukrainian authorities and advancing Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian strikes into Russian-annexed Crimea clearly demonstrate that Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s illegally annexed territory do not automatically trigger Russian retaliation against NATO, as Simonyan would have her readers believe. Partial annexation at this stage would also place the Kremlin in the strange position of demanding that Ukrainian forces unoccupy “Russian” territory, and the humiliating position of being unable to enforce that demand. It remains very unclear that Russian President Vladimir Putin would be willing to place himself in such a bind for the dubious benefit of making it easier to threaten NATO or Ukraine with escalation he remains highly unlikely to conduct at this stage.
Their bolding
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:14 pm
by EACLucifer
jimbob wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:09 pm
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:56 pm
Anyway, right now the Khuilo in the Kremlin isn't making an announcement - there's a broadcast of a concert that appears to be about celebrating Russian control over bits of the Caucasus.
Strong Swan Lake vibes. And the TV executives *must* know it.
meanwhile on the referrenda
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... ptember-19
This approach is incoherent. Russian forces do not control all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Annexing the claimed territories of the DNR and LNR would, therefore, have Russia annex oblasts that would be by Kremlin definition partially ”occupied” by legitimate Ukrainian authorities and advancing Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian strikes into Russian-annexed Crimea clearly demonstrate that Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s illegally annexed territory do not automatically trigger Russian retaliation against NATO, as Simonyan would have her readers believe. Partial annexation at this stage would also place the Kremlin in the strange position of demanding that Ukrainian forces unoccupy “Russian” territory, and the humiliating position of being unable to enforce that demand. It remains very unclear that Russian President Vladimir Putin would be willing to place himself in such a bind for the dubious benefit of making it easier to threaten NATO or Ukraine with escalation he remains highly unlikely to conduct at this stage.
Their bolding
Indeed, and with the recent liberation of Bilohorivka - there's lots of Bilohorivkas, but this one's the same one as the famous battle where the Russians couldn't cross the Siverskyi Donets river - they don't control 100% of any of the oblasts in question, as Ukrainian troops have a toehold in Luhansk Oblast again, and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts never were fully occupied to begin with.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:29 pm
by jimbob
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:14 pm
jimbob wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:09 pm
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:56 pm
Anyway, right now the Khuilo in the Kremlin isn't making an announcement - there's a broadcast of a concert that appears to be about celebrating Russian control over bits of the Caucasus.
Strong Swan Lake vibes. And the TV executives *must* know it.
meanwhile on the referrenda
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... ptember-19
This approach is incoherent. Russian forces do not control all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Annexing the claimed territories of the DNR and LNR would, therefore, have Russia annex oblasts that would be by Kremlin definition partially ”occupied” by legitimate Ukrainian authorities and advancing Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian strikes into Russian-annexed Crimea clearly demonstrate that Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s illegally annexed territory do not automatically trigger Russian retaliation against NATO, as Simonyan would have her readers believe. Partial annexation at this stage would also place the Kremlin in the strange position of demanding that Ukrainian forces unoccupy “Russian” territory, and the humiliating position of being unable to enforce that demand. It remains very unclear that Russian President Vladimir Putin would be willing to place himself in such a bind for the dubious benefit of making it easier to threaten NATO or Ukraine with escalation he remains highly unlikely to conduct at this stage.
Their bolding
Indeed, and with the recent liberation of Bilohorivka - there's lots of Bilohorivkas, but this one's the same one as the famous battle where the Russians couldn't cross the Siverskyi Donets river - they don't control 100% of any of the oblasts in question, as Ukrainian troops have a toehold in Luhansk Oblast again, and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts never were fully occupied to begin with.
If Russia does try that, what is to stop the Ukrainian forces crossing the border into internationally-recognised Russia, in order to interrupt the supply lines at, say Valuysky?
Looking at the map
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/ ... 2C2022.png
, wouldn't that cause problems for a lot of the rest of the North?
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:38 pm
by Herainestold
Some discussion of Russia, doing the unthinkable, which becomes more likely each passing day
Matthew Kroenig writing for the Atlantic Council warns that a Russian nuclear strike ‘could cause a humanitarian catastrophe, deal a crippling blow to the Ukrainian military, divide the Western alliance, and compel Kyiv to sue for peace.’ But will it?
‘Let's make it super simple. Two ships, 50 launches of Zircon [missiles]—and there is not a single power station left in the UK. Fifty more Zircons—and the entire port infrastructure is gone. One more—and we forget about the British Isles. A Third World country, destroyed and fallen apart because Scotland and Wales would leave. This would be the end of the British Crown. And they are scared of it.’
More recently Gurulyov noted that Biden had warned Russia against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He observed that ‘we may use them but not in Ukraine.’ This time he made particular mention of strikes against decision-making centres in Berlin, threatening Germany with total chaos, along with his familiar theme of turning the British Isles into a ‘martian desert’ in 3 minutes flat.’ He added, oddly, that this could be done with ‘tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic ones,’ and, confidently, that the US would not respond. All this was linked to preventing NATO getting directly involved. ‘We shouldn’t be shy about it or fear it. … They should tuck their tails in and keep up yapping.’
Yet while the nuclear threats are directed against NATO countries rather than Ukraine, Ukraine is the reason why Russia is in trouble and which now seems to offer the most troubling scenario. Colin H. Kahl, under secretary of defense for policy, said in a statement to The New York Times that ‘Ukraine’s success on the battlefield could cause Russia to feel backed into a corner, and that is something we must remain mindful of.’ This point was reinforced by the deputy director of the CIA, David S. Cohen, urging not to ‘underestimate Putin’s adherence to his original objective, which was to control Ukraine’ or ‘his risk appetite
.’
https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nucle ... tter&sd=pf
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:04 pm
by EACLucifer
Herainestold wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:38 pm
Scaremongering and Russian propaganda snipped
Russia's not going to invite NATO to destroy them, not with conventional or nuclear weapons. Stop reprodusing nonsense.
And f.ck off, bootlicking tankie worm.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:15 pm
by EACLucifer
The Khuilo's speech has been postponed, and panic reigns supreme.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:31 pm
by jimbob
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:15 pm
The Khuilo's speech has been postponed, and panic reigns supreme.
It's a bold move by a master strategist to postpone a TV appearance that was announced at short notice - especially a few days after a reported* attack on his motorcade, a few days after his media has finally admitted a military disaster, and when there is speculation* about his health and grip on power.
*Doesn't matter if it's true - the rumours are out there and Putin needs to quash such rumours.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:57 pm
by Woodchopper
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:48 pm
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:07 pm
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:04 pm
Implication of the annexation is that Russia would be at war rather than undertaking a special military operation.
That would mean that it could legally send conscripts (rather than coercing them into signing contracts).
I thought that Russia had already annexed Crimea and Ukraine has successfully struck Russian military sites in Crimea. So that would undermine that argument, not that Putin/Russia Serbs to require a logically consistent argument for anything...
I might have the wrong end of the stick there though.
I'd add that all hell didn't break loose when Ukrainian helicopters conducted a treetop level raid on fuel storage in Belgorod, Belgorod Oblast, Russian Federation, so...
I’m assuming that the rumoured annexation and mobilisation are connected. The point isn’t to threaten Ukraine but to relieve Russia’s manpower shortages in the Donbas.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:07 pm
by EACLucifer
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:57 pm
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:48 pm
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:07 pm
I thought that Russia had already annexed Crimea and Ukraine has successfully struck Russian military sites in Crimea. So that would undermine that argument, not that Putin/Russia Serbs to require a logically consistent argument for anything...
I might have the wrong end of the stick there though.
I'd add that all hell didn't break loose when Ukrainian helicopters conducted a treetop level raid on fuel storage in Belgorod, Belgorod Oblast, Russian Federation, so...
I’m assuming that the rumoured annexation and mobilisation are connected. The point isn’t to threaten Ukraine but to relieve Russia’s manpower shortages in the Donbas.
That makes sense, yes. It's still not going to do much to improve their military situation. Sadly, it could well get a bunch of people with no desire to go off and invade anyone getting killed, just the same way as it has happened to men in the longer-term occupied areas.
Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:40 pm
by Herainestold
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:04 pm
Herainestold wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:38 pm
Scaremongering and Russian propaganda snipped
Russia's not going to invite NATO to destroy them, not with conventional or nuclear weapons. Stop reprodusing nonsense.
And f.ck off, bootlicking tankie worm.
Lawrence Freedman is a Russian propagandist? Who knew?
