The Invasion of Ukraine

[Pishwish]

Obsolete drone crashes...in Croatia https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60709952 It looks like a typo sent a Ukrainian drone to the wrong location, though the Ukrainians have not said it is theirs. A bit disturbing that neither Hungarian nor Croatian air defenses detected it, shades of Mathias Rust landing a cesna in Red Square.

[monkey]

In other news, the Verkhovna Rada is warning that a Russian plane flew out of Belarus, over Ukraine's territory then turned back and attacked something in Belarus, suggesting they are attempting another false flag, this time to drag Belarus in.

Guardian feed quoting Ukraine’s state centre for strategic communications says it'll happen at 7:00 GMT

clicky

[Woodchopper]

Just because it shows up on flight tracking sites, doesn't mean it's real: Destroyed An-225, formerly the world's largest cargo plane, is showing on @flightradar24, callsign FCKPUTIN, circling Kyiv at 4,500ft.

https://twitter.com/paldhous/status/150 ... 10689?s=21

Fake data uploaded to Flightradar obvs.

[dyqik]

In other news, the Verkhovna Rada is warning that a Russian plane flew out of Belarus, over Ukraine's territory then turned back and attacked something in Belarus, suggesting they are attempting another false flag, this time to drag Belarus in.

Guardian feed quoting Ukraine’s state centre for strategic communications says it'll happen at 7:00 GMT

clicky

That's 19:00 GMT. I.e. in about 20 minutes.

[EACLucifer]

Further to my point re: chemical weapons - Every time Putin has escalated, it hasn't been because the west has escalated, it hasn't been because of provocation, it's because he's thought he can get away with it, and generally, he's been right. It's because every time he's done it in the past, the west has timidly backed away.

If we are serious about deterring the use of nuclear weapons, we must make it very clear that we will respond to chemical weapons immediately and effectively - something like if chemical weapons are used, we will sink one ship of the Black Sea Fleet, or launch one round of strikes on Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.

[EACLucifer]

In other news, the Verkhovna Rada is warning that a Russian plane flew out of Belarus, over Ukraine's territory then turned back and attacked something in Belarus, suggesting they are attempting another false flag, this time to drag Belarus in.

Guardian feed quoting Ukraine’s state centre for strategic communications says it'll happen at 7:00 GMT

clicky

That's 19:00 GMT. I.e. in about 20 minutes.

We'll find out soon enough then. There have been similar warnings in the past which came to nothing, followed by rumours of mutinous Belarusian troops.

[monkey]

In other news, the Verkhovna Rada is warning that a Russian plane flew out of Belarus, over Ukraine's territory then turned back and attacked something in Belarus, suggesting they are attempting another false flag, this time to drag Belarus in.

Guardian feed quoting Ukraine’s state centre for strategic communications says it'll happen at 7:00 GMT

clicky

That's 19:00 GMT. I.e. in about 20 minutes.

Yes, should have put the PM there.

If course, now the Ukrainians have gone "we know what you're up to" it might not happen then.

[jimbob]

Further to my point re: chemical weapons - Every time Putin has escalated, it hasn't been because the west has escalated, it hasn't been because of provocation, it's because he's thought he can get away with it, and generally, he's been right. It's because every time he's done it in the past, the west has timidly backed away.

If we are serious about deterring the use of nuclear weapons, we must make it very clear that we will respond to chemical weapons immediately and effectively - something like if chemical weapons are used, we will sink one ship of the Black Sea Fleet, or launch one round of strikes on Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.

I've just made a similar point on ISF.

Putting NATO troops on the ground in the uninvaded parts of Ukraine and stating that they would robustly defend themselves would be the "escalation to de-escalate" that Putin apparently believes in

[WFJ]

Further to my point re: chemical weapons - Every time Putin has escalated, it hasn't been because the west has escalated, it hasn't been because of provocation, it's because he's thought he can get away with it, and generally, he's been right. It's because every time he's done it in the past, the west has timidly backed away.

If we are serious about deterring the use of nuclear weapons, we must make it very clear that we will respond to chemical weapons immediately and effectively - something like if chemical weapons are used, we will sink one ship of the Black Sea Fleet, or launch one round of strikes on Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.

I've just made a similar point on ISF.

Putting NATO troops on the ground in the uninvaded parts of Ukraine and stating that they would robustly defend themselves would be the "escalation to de-escalate" that Putin apparently believes in

How do you both think that would actually work out?

You're Biden, you announce that any chemical weapon attack will result the sinking of a Russian warship. A few days later there are reports of gas attacks in Kyiv. Russia says that's crazy. It wasn't us. We haven't used any gas. If gas was used it was those crazy Nazis running Kyiv.

What then? Would you actually send drones into the Black Sea to attack the ship? If yes, what do you think Putin's next move would be? Apologise and leave Ukraine?

Thankfully, Biden seems to have more sense or at least be receiving better advice.

Chemical weapons, if they were used, would be a symbolic rather than an actual escalation. Nato destroying a ship to follow through with a dick-swinging threat would be a genuine escalation.

[raven]

While the convoy is stuck on roads and not moving, there's no real need to attack it heavily. And the more vehicles that are nominally serviceable, the more vehicles need fuel, food for crews, etc.

A tactic would be to use drones loitering for a while to attack the supply and repair vehicles trying to get things ready to move, and leave the armour in place to suck up more resources. Use the drones to also make sure that the front and rear of the convoy isn't cleared of broken down vehicles.

Basically, it looks like it's turned into a siege of the convoy.

And once the soldiers are sufficiently cold and hungry, see if you can get them to surrender. Then take them to a warm, safe place, give them good food, and let them phone their friends and relatives to tell them how the war is going and what nice people the Ukrainins are. Putin might be able to censor state media and things like Facebook, but cutting off all international phone calls would be impossible without doing far more harm to Russia.

The Ukrainians are sort of doing that. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60604952

Ukraine has sought to counter that propaganda with a powerful campaign of its own. A helpline called "Look for your own" (Ishchi Svoikh in Russian) was first advertised on day three of what Russia was describing as a "special military operation to demilitarise and denazify" the country. A companion Telegram channel carries photos of Russian POWs and casualties, and encourages worried relatives to get in touch.

But it won't convince everyone : Ukraine war: 'My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me'

[Millennie Al]

If we are serious about deterring the use of nuclear weapons, we must make it very clear that we will respond to chemical weapons immediately and effectively - something like if chemical weapons are used, we will sink one ship of the Black Sea Fleet, or launch one round of strikes on Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.

If we were foolish enough to make such an absolute threat, I expect some Ukrainian would use chemical weapons to trigger it. The big difference between chemical and nuclear weapons is that everyone knows that Ukraine has no nuclear weapons nor means to acquire them, so they can neither use them nor fake Russian use of them.

[Millennie Al]

The military objectives right now should be twofold; getting Russia out of Ukraine and stopping Russia from repeating this sort of thing in the future.

Those two are quite diferent goals. To achive the second you need to avoid achieving the first too quickly...
/quote]

This idea is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, there is no reason to think a slow defeat is necessarily more harmful than a quick one. If Ukraine is given enough assistance and is able to fight well enough to win, the Russians will probably be leaving a lot of equipment behind.

You need to be careful with the word "defeat". Defeat of Ukraine means the country is overrun and destroyed. Defeat of Russia means they lose men and equipment, but can rebuild, retrain, and try again in a year or two. As a major nuclear power, there is no practical way to defeat Russia.

Secondly, attrition works both ways, there is no reason to think a longer war is advantageous to the west militarily.

There is absolutely no way that Ukraine can "break Russia into pieces" or change it in the other ways you have suggested, so you must expect that NATO forces will get involved at some point. It is always an advantage to have fresh forces face an enemy which has been fighting for some time.

Thirdly it is unethical. Civilians are being killed right now, and will be for the duration of the war. Would you be able to look a Ukrainian in the face as you explain why their families should suffer for longer because you think it is in the west's strategic interest?

Ethics is a matter of opinion. And what I would be willing to do is no measure of whether a strategy will succeed or not.

Fourthly, it fails to account for knock-on effects. Russia and Ukraine are both major food exporters. Disruption to that could cause serious problems globally - famine, unrest, civil wars and so on.

Yet you fail to consider the knock on effects of Russia starting a nuclear war.

[discovolante]

While the convoy is stuck on roads and not moving, there's no real need to attack it heavily. And the more vehicles that are nominally serviceable, the more vehicles need fuel, food for crews, etc.

A tactic would be to use drones loitering for a while to attack the supply and repair vehicles trying to get things ready to move, and leave the armour in place to suck up more resources. Use the drones to also make sure that the front and rear of the convoy isn't cleared of broken down vehicles.

Basically, it looks like it's turned into a siege of the convoy.

And once the soldiers are sufficiently cold and hungry, see if you can get them to surrender. Then take them to a warm, safe place, give them good food, and let them phone their friends and relatives to tell them how the war is going and what nice people the Ukrainins are. Putin might be able to censor state media and things like Facebook, but cutting off all international phone calls would be impossible without doing far more harm to Russia.

The Ukrainians are sort of doing that. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60604952

Ukraine has sought to counter that propaganda with a powerful campaign of its own. A helpline called "Look for your own" (Ishchi Svoikh in Russian) was first advertised on day three of what Russia was describing as a "special military operation to demilitarise and denazify" the country. A companion Telegram channel carries photos of Russian POWs and casualties, and encourages worried relatives to get in touch.

But it won't convince everyone : Ukraine war: 'My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me'

Interview with Masha Gessen about that (and other stuff) here https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/opin ... essen.html

[plodder]

The Russian War Machine is grinding on - it's quite clear now that the battle is intended to be against the Ukrainian citizenry rather than its military. Putin can't take Ukraine so he intends to utterly break it and piss on the ashes - that's the only 'win' he can salvage.

Yeah, this is a very well-rehearsed playbook including purges of intellectuals and undesirables, extensive secret police, controlled media etc. Russia absolutely has the capability and skillset here.

[jimbob]

Further to my point re: chemical weapons - Every time Putin has escalated, it hasn't been because the west has escalated, it hasn't been because of provocation, it's because he's thought he can get away with it, and generally, he's been right. It's because every time he's done it in the past, the west has timidly backed away.

If we are serious about deterring the use of nuclear weapons, we must make it very clear that we will respond to chemical weapons immediately and effectively - something like if chemical weapons are used, we will sink one ship of the Black Sea Fleet, or launch one round of strikes on Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.

I've just made a similar point on ISF.

Putting NATO troops on the ground in the uninvaded parts of Ukraine and stating that they would robustly defend themselves would be the "escalation to de-escalate" that Putin apparently believes in

How do you both think that would actually work out?

You're Biden, you announce that any chemical weapon attack will result the sinking of a Russian warship. A few days later there are reports of gas attacks in Kyiv. Russia says that's crazy. It wasn't us. We haven't used any gas. If gas was used it was those crazy Nazis running Kyiv.

What then? Would you actually send drones into the Black Sea to attack the ship? If yes, what do you think Putin's next move would be? Apologise and leave Ukraine?

Thankfully, Biden seems to have more sense or at least be receiving better advice.

Chemical weapons, if they were used, would be a symbolic rather than an actual escalation. Nato destroying a ship to follow through with a dick-swinging threat would be a genuine escalation.

Which is why I said troops would robustly defend themselves, not attack on reports of atrocities.

To me this has parallels of the Bosnian (or possibly the Croatian) war in the early 1990s. NATO eventually had to act. It failed at first including Srebrenica, but later it stopped the war.

[WFJ]

Which is why I said troops would robustly defend themselves, not attack on reports of atrocities.

To me this has parallels of the Bosnian (or possibly the Croatian) war in the early 1990s. NATO eventually had to act. It failed at first including Srebrenica, but later it stopped the war.

That's effectively Nato's position. They have just put the line a few hundred kilometres further west on the border.

[EACLucifer]

Further to my point re: chemical weapons - Every time Putin has escalated, it hasn't been because the west has escalated, it hasn't been because of provocation, it's because he's thought he can get away with it, and generally, he's been right. It's because every time he's done it in the past, the west has timidly backed away.

If we are serious about deterring the use of nuclear weapons, we must make it very clear that we will respond to chemical weapons immediately and effectively - something like if chemical weapons are used, we will sink one ship of the Black Sea Fleet, or launch one round of strikes on Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.

I've just made a similar point on ISF.

Putting NATO troops on the ground in the uninvaded parts of Ukraine and stating that they would robustly defend themselves would be the "escalation to de-escalate" that Putin apparently believes in

How do you both think that would actually work out?

You're Biden, you announce that any chemical weapon attack will result the sinking of a Russian warship. A few days later there are reports of gas attacks in Kyiv. Russia says that's crazy. It wasn't us. We haven't used any gas. If gas was used it was those crazy Nazis running Kyiv.

What then? Would you actually send drones into the Black Sea to attack the ship? If yes, what do you think Putin's next move would be? Apologise and leave Ukraine?

The US have intelligence services that have been chillingly accurate so far - they don't need to rely on accusation and counter-accusation.

And if it actually happened, then what? Putin will be faced with the decision to escalate directly against a united NATO - which he cannot win - or back off from using chemical weapons again.

Thankfully, Biden seems to have more sense or at least be receiving better advice.

b.llsh.t. Ruling out a response in advance is tacit permission. Putin should be worried about the consequences of escalation, not safe in the knowledge that, yet again, the US won't do anything

Chemical weapons, if they were used, would be a symbolic rather than an actual escalation. Nato destroying a ship to follow through with a dick-swinging threat would be a genuine escalation.

"Chemical attacks would be symbolic and not escalation but destroying a in response ship would be a real escalation". I don't really need to respond to this, just to repeat it to show how utterly moronic it is.

[lpm]

We should remember Ukraine is not our formal ally. It is not in the EU. It is not in NATO.

However Russia is our enemy. A massive threat to us and our allies.

I'm afraid the brutal truth is the military is run by people with a lifetime of training to use human lives to achieve ends. That includes mass slaughter of civilians and nuclear war.

In the Pentagon there are decision makers deliberately using Ukrainian lives to weaken our enemy, and if Putin uses chemical weapons on a city they'd recognise it as good news for us.

[EACLucifer]

Those two are quite diferent goals. To achive the second you need to avoid achieving the first too quickly...
/quote]

This idea is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, there is no reason to think a slow defeat is necessarily more harmful than a quick one. If Ukraine is given enough assistance and is able to fight well enough to win, the Russians will probably be leaving a lot of equipment behind.

You need to be careful with the word "defeat". Defeat of Ukraine means the country is overrun and destroyed. Defeat of Russia means they lose men and equipment, but can rebuild, retrain, and try again in a year or two. As a major nuclear power, there is no practical way to defeat Russia.

Try again in a couple of years? And how, under the kind of sanctions they are under, will they be replacing their equipment? They can't even build Ladas anymore! And that's before one considers moral and political collapse, which, given the crippling sanctions and heavy losses, is quite probable.

I can assure you people were saying similar in 1988 about the USSR/Warsaw Pact in general.

Secondly, attrition works both ways, there is no reason to think a longer war is advantageous to the west militarily.

There is absolutely no way that Ukraine can "break Russia into pieces" or change it in the other ways you have suggested, so you must expect that NATO forces will get involved at some point. It is always an advantage to have fresh forces face an enemy which has been fighting for some time.

Not at the cost of an ally - your approach sacrifices Ukraine, which, aside from the indefensible human cost, also costs the west an army three times the size of the British army, just as appeasement of Hitler cost the allies the support of the Czech and Polish armies.

Thirdly it is unethical. Civilians are being killed right now, and will be for the duration of the war. Would you be able to look a Ukrainian in the face as you explain why their families should suffer for longer because you think it is in the west's strategic interest?

Ethics is a matter of opinion. And what I would be willing to do is no measure of whether a strategy will succeed or not.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of you placing a very low value on Ukrainian lives that you don't consider protecting them to be a worthy goal in its own right.

The problem with this approach is you evidently don't know a f.cking thing about the military situation in Ukraine. Russia are vulnerable, giving them time lets them re-organise some of their clusterfucks - not all of them, due to the effects of sanctions - but some of them, for example the extremely brittle BTGs.

Fourthly, it fails to account for knock-on effects. Russia and Ukraine are both major food exporters. Disruption to that could cause serious problems globally - famine, unrest, civil wars and so on.

Yet you fail to consider the knock on effects of Russia starting a nuclear war.

That is an absolute nonsense claim - the biggest risk of nuclear war right now lies with Putin thinking he can get away with using tactical nukes. It's a risk that remains for as long as the conflict goes on, which is why a quicker resolution is preferable, and if he gets away with using chemical weapons without meaningful response, it's a risk that gets radically worse.

[WFJ]

"Chemical attacks would be symbolic and not escalation but destroying a in response ship would be a real escalation". I don't really need to respond to this, just to repeat it to show how utterly moronic it is.

Shelling cities is already happening and killing unknown numbers of Ukrainians. This is clearly indefensible. Adding gas on top of is obviously also indefensible, but does not represent crossing a massive threshold in the danger Ukrainians face. It would be largely symbolic.

Risking igniting WW3 just because a bit of paper says that chemicals are a more naughty thing to do in war is dumb thing to gamble everybody's future on.

[EACLucifer]

"Chemical attacks would be symbolic and not escalation but destroying a in response ship would be a real escalation". I don't really need to respond to this, just to repeat it to show how utterly moronic it is.

Shelling cities is already happening and killing unknown numbers of Ukrainians. This is clearly indefensible. Adding gas on top of is obviously also indefensible, but does not represent crossing a massive threshold in the danger Ukrainians face. It would be largely symbolic.

Risking igniting WW3 just because a bit of paper says that chemicals are a more naughty thing to do in war is dumb thing to gamble everybody's future on.

And how well has appeasement gone over the last couple of decades? Tbe biggest nuclear risk is Putin thinking he can get away with it, and the most likely reason for him coming to that conclusion is getting away with crossing other thresholds because every time. We're here now because the "red lines" in Syria were made of f.cking tissue paper - the surest way to further escalation is to back down every time Putin escalates or threatens to escalate.

So stop bleating about "rIskiNG IGnItiNg wW3" and start thinking about how to actually prevent Putin from escalating that far.

[EACLucifer]

Ukraine is asking for S300 SAMs. A number of countries have them, including some NATO countries. Sending them is essential for keeping the Russian Airforce at bay, or at least forcing them to fly low and thus in range of MANPADS. Sending them, and bolstering those countries that send them with Western systems ought to be a no-brainer.

[Woodchopper]

A senior Russian official warned on March 12 that Moscow could target Western shipments of military equipment to Ukraine.

Speaking on state television, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow has warned the United States that it would see the deliveries of Western weapons to Ukraine as targets.

Ryabkov said Russia “warned the U.S. that pumping weapons from a number of countries it orchestrates isn’t just a dangerous move, it’s an action that makes those convoys legitimate targets.”

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-western- ... 49659.html

The key issue is where they might be targeted. If in Ukraine then nothing much has changed. If they are talking about shooting down NATO transport aircraft en route to air bases in Poland then it’s war.

I don’t think it’s a serious threat so I don’t think NATO should suspend arms supplies. Shows that the Russian government is getting rattled though.

[WFJ]

"Chemical attacks would be symbolic and not escalation but destroying a in response ship would be a real escalation". I don't really need to respond to this, just to repeat it to show how utterly moronic it is.

Shelling cities is already happening and killing unknown numbers of Ukrainians. This is clearly indefensible. Adding gas on top of is obviously also indefensible, but does not represent crossing a massive threshold in the danger Ukrainians face. It would be largely symbolic.

Risking igniting WW3 just because a bit of paper says that chemicals are a more naughty thing to do in war is dumb thing to gamble everybody's future on.

And how well has appeasement gone over the last couple of decades? Tbe biggest nuclear risk is Putin thinking he can get away with it, and the most likely reason for him coming to that conclusion is getting away with crossing other thresholds because every time. We're here now because the "red lines" in Syria were made of f.cking tissue paper - the surest way to further escalation is to back down every time Putin escalates or threatens to escalate.

So stop bleating about "rIskiNG IGnItiNg wW3" and start thinking about how to actually prevent Putin from escalating that far.

I think the first law of international diplomacy is do not start WW3.

Direct actions between nuclear states can only be economic or political (plus cyber attacks, although even those must be limited). Anything military is insanity.

[WFJ]

[edit/quote f.ck-up]