The Invasion of Ukraine

[monkey]

Well, we wouldn't want to end up like that Chernobyl place in Russia.

I can't tell if you saying Chernobyl is in Russia is a joke or a mistake.

What, too soon?

Thought that could refer to the in Russia bit, or the prospect of a nuclear power invading another country escalating a bit too far.

I'm sorry, I ruined your joke. I'll go fun sponge elsewhere.

[Bird on a Fire]

Ah. I was attempting to subvert the "What, too soon?" cliché - usually said after making a joke about a recent tragedy, or (more commonly) said ironically after making a joke about a historical tragedy - by referring to a place in Ukraine as being in Russia, implying that a Russian occupation of Ukraine is an inexorably arriving future event. The joke is, arguably, still quite tasteless.

That was the theory, not sure if it worked in practice. I hadn't really thought through alternative punchlines, so thanks for your ideas.

[warumich]

Lol I love this country, war is breaking out in Europe and the top trending Twitter topic is Doncaster Rovers.

I have nothing else to add good to see you again though Lucifer

[EACLucifer]

Russian embassy in Kyiv is burning documents tonight. Either that or the f.ckers have chosen a new pope.

[warumich]

Hold on, maybe I do; the Gazeta Wyborcza has been reporting from Russia over the last few weeks saying that many people there are scared of a war, or don't think it'll happen; today they ran a report on how people on message boards wrote they were ashamed of their county. For what that's worth.

It's mostly behind a pay wall and in Polish though, so I'm not 100% sure I get it right. It's quite probably saying the exact opposite.

There you go, another ace contribution from warumich.

[sTeamTraen]

A Cold War Steve classic https://twitter.com/coldwar_steve/statu ... 15876?s=21

Who's the bloke between Banks and Farage?

[Brightonian]

A Cold War Steve classic https://twitter.com/coldwar_steve/statu ... 15876?s=21

Who's the bloke between Banks and Farage?

Steven Seagal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Seagal

[sTeamTraen]

A Cold War Steve classic https://twitter.com/coldwar_steve/statu ... 15876?s=21

Who's the bloke between Banks and Farage?

Steven Seagal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Seagal

[Millennie Al]

Trying to make ordinary citizens suffer till they overthrow their horrible government doesn't seem to have worked well in Cuba, Iran, Vuvuzela, DPRK, etc etc.

There's also the moral dimension. If a kidnapper takes hostages, should the authorities threaten to sanction the hostages if they don't do enough to escape or fight (like happened on United Airlines Flight 93)?

[Woodchopper]

I'm just speculating, but here's a possible gameplan.

Russia attacks southeast from Kursk, Belogrod and Belarus, and Northeast from Crimea and across the Azov. Air and missile attacks destroy bridges over the Dnieper. The ultimate destination of the Russian units is Luhansk and Donetsk (with expanded borders) so they don't have to worry about long term occupation of hostile territory. By attacking the long way round they have an opportunity to destroy the Ukrainian army stationed on the front lines in the Donbas. Troops that stay in the trenches get surrounded, and those that try to retreat to Western Ukraine get attacked from the air. The troops may well be able to melt away into the countryside. But all unit cohesion will be lost and their equipment will be destroyed or captured.

Once a large part of the Ukrainian army has been destroyed Russia will find it much easier to control parts of Eastern Ukraine.

[EACLucifer]

Trying to make ordinary citizens suffer till they overthrow their horrible government doesn't seem to have worked well in Cuba, Iran, Vuvuzela, DPRK, etc etc.

There's also the moral dimension. If a kidnapper takes hostages, should the authorities threaten to sanction the hostages if they don't do enough to escape or fight (like happened on United Airlines Flight 93)?

Perhaps rather than sanctions, you should think of it as more of a blockade - the goal is to undermine the aggressor's ability to fight by depriving them of the resources they need to engage in aggression. In this instance, the targeted resource is money.

Meanwhile, the Russians are moving in multiple rocket launchers - BM21s, which have already fired on Ukraine, and even worse, TOS-1s. These are the sort of weapons that are used by people who either don't care at all about civilian casualties, or people who do care and want to cause them. The Russian position - as made clear by Lavrov - is they do not recognise even the idea of Ukrainian sovereignty.

If you haven't done so, you need to see Putin's speech. He made it extremely clear, he seeks to reinstate the Russian Empire, and that puts a target on numerous countries, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland among them. We've seen in Syria how Putin's forces fight, and it is not a pleasant sight. This is going to continue, sporadically, until he finds he cannot continue. It's not about NATO, or anything the west has done. When Putin first invaded Ukraine, it was a neutral country.

The choice is simple; either sanctions cripple Russia to the point the Russian military cannot operate or the Putin regime collapses, or more and more people will have to take up arms in an unequal struggle to defend their own homes.

[EACLucifer]

I'm just speculating, but here's a possible gameplan.

Russia attacks southeast from Kursk, Belogrod and Belarus, and Northeast from Crimea and across the Azov. Air and missile attacks destroy bridges over the Dnieper. The ultimate destination of the Russian units is Luhansk and Donetsk (with expanded borders) so they don't have to worry about long term occupation of hostile territory. By attacking the long way round they have an opportunity to destroy the Ukrainian army stationed on the front lines in the Donbas. Troops that stay in the trenches get surrounded, and those that try to retreat to Western Ukraine get attacked from the air. The troops may well be able to melt away into the countryside. But all unit cohesion will be lost and their equipment will be destroyed or captured.

Once a large part of the Ukrainian army has been destroyed Russia will find it much easier to control parts of Eastern Ukraine.

That feels worryingly likely. OSINT places a lot of their forces around Belgorod, I'd assumed their most likely immediate target was Kharkiv, just based on geography. I wouldn't be too surprised if they target long-term control of more than just Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, though. Bear in mind that their existing occupation is an occupation of hostile territory. In Syria, they've made a habit of targetting things that make civilian life possible, deliberately targetting hospitals and water treatment plants, and there is no reason to think they would behave differently towards Ukraine.

[lpm]

I'm just speculating, but here's a possible gameplan.

Russia attacks southeast from Kursk, Belogrod and Belarus, and Northeast from Crimea and across the Azov. Air and missile attacks destroy bridges over the Dnieper. The ultimate destination of the Russian units is Luhansk and Donetsk (with expanded borders) so they don't have to worry about long term occupation of hostile territory. By attacking the long way round they have an opportunity to destroy the Ukrainian army stationed on the front lines in the Donbas. Troops that stay in the trenches get surrounded, and those that try to retreat to Western Ukraine get attacked from the air. The troops may well be able to melt away into the countryside. But all unit cohesion will be lost and their equipment will be destroyed or captured.

Once a large part of the Ukrainian army has been destroyed Russia will find it much easier to control parts of Eastern Ukraine.

I don't think Luhansk and Donetsk are worth much, compared to Crimea. Who wants impoverished provinces?

The land bridge along the Sea of Azov is valuable, denying Ukraine Odessa and the entire coast even more so, and claiming Kyiv as part of Russia's ancient heritage fits with Putin's story telling.

I don't think he cares about long term insurgency. He wants an Ancient Rome-style triumph through Moscow and two crappy provinces won't give him that.

[Woodchopper]

I'm just speculating, but here's a possible gameplan.

Russia attacks southeast from Kursk, Belogrod and Belarus, and Northeast from Crimea and across the Azov. Air and missile attacks destroy bridges over the Dnieper. The ultimate destination of the Russian units is Luhansk and Donetsk (with expanded borders) so they don't have to worry about long term occupation of hostile territory. By attacking the long way round they have an opportunity to destroy the Ukrainian army stationed on the front lines in the Donbas. Troops that stay in the trenches get surrounded, and those that try to retreat to Western Ukraine get attacked from the air. The troops may well be able to melt away into the countryside. But all unit cohesion will be lost and their equipment will be destroyed or captured.

Once a large part of the Ukrainian army has been destroyed Russia will find it much easier to control parts of Eastern Ukraine.

I don't think Luhansk and Donetsk are worth much, compared to Crimea. Who wants impoverished provinces?

Yes, indeed. But he aim of what I suggested is to destroy a large part of the Ukrainian army. Once that has been accomplished Putin has a lot more freedom to slice and dice Eastern Ukriane.

The land bridge along the Sea of Azov is valuable, denying Ukraine Odessa and the entire coast even more so, and claiming Kyiv as part of Russia's ancient heritage fits with Putin's story telling.

I don't think he cares about long term insurgency. He wants an Ancient Rome-style triumph through Moscow and two crappy provinces won't give him that.

Yes, it would be valuable. But also more costly. To start with the land bridge would involve a new front line hundreds of kilometers long which would need to be stationed with troops.

If that's the aim it would be easier accomplished after the Ukrainian army to the east of the Dneiper has been destroyed.

[lpm]

I'm not an expert at invading and occupying a European country, never having done it myself.

But doesn't look hard to have a secure position along the Sea of Azov? Seize Donetsk and Luhansk in the east, use the Dnieper as the line in the west. Create a front line to the north, maybe an East-West line from that big reservoir on the map across to Donetsk (I'm English, it's my birthright to draw straight lines on maps and call them national boundaries).

If more ambitious, draw a line from Dnipro northwards and seize everything to the east.

I wonder if that Kerch Bridge is going to last five minutes...

[EACLucifer]

It's probably best to leave the strategic assessment to Ukraine's military. There a few key points, though;

The Russians have moved in far more units than are needed to secure the land they have already invaded and occupied, and it took a lot of planning and preparation to do so.

The Russians are firing on Ukraine-held parts of Ukraine, which they would not need to do to hold the land they have already invaded and occupied.

The Russian government has made it clear they do not recognise the concept of Ukrainian sovereignty.

The Russians have deployed area bobmardment weapons, with BM21s already firing and the particularly hideous TOS-1 also in advanced positions. The TOS-1 is only capable of firing incendiary warheads, the use of which in urban areas is a warcrime, and is built on an chassis that appears to be purpose-designed for urban warfare. They clearly don't have any qualms about civilian casualties, and may well seek to cause them deliberately, as they have in Syria.

[lpm]

It's probably best to leave the strategic assessment to Ukraine's military.

You're right. On consideration I do not have the skills, experience or sufficient knowledge to lead Ukraine's strategic assessments. Looking at the Google satellite view is likely to be inferior to actually visiting the place.

I've therefore written to the President of Ukraine, withdrawing my name from consideration for the position of Supreme Commander of Ukrainian Forces (SCUF). I do not know if they were intending to appoint me to this role. But I have made it clear that if offered I will not accept.

[Woodchopper]

I'm not an expert at invading and occupying a European country, never having done it myself.

But doesn't look hard to have a secure position along the Sea of Azov? Seize Donetsk and Luhansk in the east, use the Dnieper as the line in the west. Create a front line to the north, maybe an East-West line from that big reservoir on the map across to Donetsk (I'm English, it's my birthright to draw straight lines on maps and call them national boundaries).

If more ambitious, draw a line from Dnipro northwards and seize everything to the east.

I wonder if that Kerch Bridge is going to last five minutes...

The basic calculation is this. A Russian occupier needs to stop Ukrainian units and local partisans from moving around in the occupied areas and causing mayhem - eg laying mines, blowing things up, ambushing patrols or assassinating local leaders.

The occupier needs to seal the borders with strong points, fences, patrols etc. However all of that is a tempting target for enemy artillery. So as has happened in the Donbas the border becomes a system of trenches which protect the troops from shelling and snipers.

The occupier also needs to stop partisans operating in the occupied territory. That takes roadblocks, checkpoints, patrols etc. Think back to Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Both of those take lots of personnel, tens of thousands of them. And they are vulnerable to being shot or blown up.

[EACLucifer]

I'm not an expert at invading and occupying a European country, never having done it myself.

But doesn't look hard to have a secure position along the Sea of Azov? Seize Donetsk and Luhansk in the east, use the Dnieper as the line in the west. Create a front line to the north, maybe an East-West line from that big reservoir on the map across to Donetsk (I'm English, it's my birthright to draw straight lines on maps and call them national boundaries).

If more ambitious, draw a line from Dnipro northwards and seize everything to the east.

I wonder if that Kerch Bridge is going to last five minutes...

The basic calculation is this. A Russian occupier needs to stop Ukrainian units and local partisans from moving around in the occupied areas and causing mayhem - eg laying mines, blowing things up, ambushing patrols or assassinating local leaders.

The occupier needs to seal the borders with strong points, fences, patrols etc. However all of that is a tempting target for enemy artillery. So as has happened in the Donbas the border becomes a system of trenches which protect the troops from shelling and snipers.

The occupier also needs to stop partisans operating in the occupied territory. That takes roadblocks, checkpoints, patrols etc. Think back to Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Both of those take lots of personnel, tens of thousands of them. And they are vulnerable to being shot or blown up.

This is something the existing Russian army organisations might struggle with; their army is organised into Battalion Tactical Groups of about a thousand, with a very high proportion of armoured vehicles and artillery, which means they can potentially, in certain circumstances, punch above their weight compared to the (somewhat larger) American Brigade Combat Team, but it leaves them relatively short on infantry, and occupying a country takes infantry, for the reasons you have mentioned.

Predictably, Johnson has gone from talking tough to imposing some of the softest sanctions. Whether is on the take - or blackmailed - by the Russians or not he simply cannot avoiud the appearance of corruption on this issue, especially with things like dodging the post-Shkripal murder attempt meeting to go and meet with a former KGB man. Anyone with so much as a microgram of decency would resign to let someone less compromised handle the crisis, so we can assume he'll be staying on.

I've seen a Ukrainian journalist (Illia Ponomarenko - he's worth following) calling for Lend-Lease for Ukraine, and that would not only help them proerly arm the reservists they've just called up, and their home guard, but send a stronger message than sanctions alone. It's not exactly rare for western nations to have equipment stockpiled that they aren't currently using. As far as I'm aware, that includes American and British MBTs, and it simply isn't possible to ship too many anti-tank missiles to Ukraine right now.

[lpm]

Are we entirely 100% sure Ukraine doesn't have a nuclear warhead somewhere, hidden away at the collapse of the USSR?

What about other WMD? Did the USSR run any chemical/bio programs in Ukraine?

[El Pollo Diablo]

It's probably got some shonky nuclear power stations that they could make bang at any time

[tom p]

FWIW I think targeting governments, large corporations and oligarchs should be the starting point.

Trying to make ordinary citizens suffer till they overthrow their horrible government doesn't seem to have worked well in Cuba, Iran, Vuvuzela, DPRK, etc etc.

That'll be at least in part because for 3 of those countries there are still those who remember what the previous western-backed regimes were like.
If I was one such, I don't think I'd fancy a return to life under the shah or being america's playground with the mob running the show or having any one of a bunch of brutal CIA-backed fascist dictators.
Sanctions worked OK for sif ifrica though.

[Herainestold]

FWIW I think targeting governments, large corporations and oligarchs should be the starting point.

Trying to make ordinary citizens suffer till they overthrow their horrible government doesn't seem to have worked well in Cuba, Iran, Vuvuzela, DPRK, etc etc.

That'll be at least in part because for 3 of those countries there are still those who remember what the previous western-backed regimes were like.
If I was one such, I don't think I'd fancy a return to life under the shah or being america's playground with the mob running the show or having any one of a bunch of brutal CIA-backed fascist dictators.
Sanctions worked OK for sif ifrica though.

Ukranians may be happier as part of Greater Russia, than being ruled by a corrupt pseudo euro-democracy, beholden to American interests.

[tom p]

FWIW I think targeting governments, large corporations and oligarchs should be the starting point.

Trying to make ordinary citizens suffer till they overthrow their horrible government doesn't seem to have worked well in Cuba, Iran, Vuvuzela, DPRK, etc etc.

That'll be at least in part because for 3 of those countries there are still those who remember what the previous western-backed regimes were like.
If I was one such, I don't think I'd fancy a return to life under the shah or being america's playground with the mob running the show or having any one of a bunch of brutal CIA-backed fascist dictators.
Sanctions worked OK for sif ifrica though.

Ukranians may be happier as part of Greater Russia, than being ruled by a corrupt pseudo euro-democracy, beholden to American interests.

That "may" is doing quite a lot of work in your post

[lpm]

Better red than dead, as we responded to Protect and Survive leaflets back in the day.