The Invasion of Ukraine

[jimbob]

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.

As EALC says, Putin will ratchet up his demands. He's already claiming that economic sanctions are an act of war... presumably bombing the Czech Republic or using nerve agents in the UK are not.

[EACLucifer]

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.

Sure. Now go back and check what preceded the last world war.

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

Not as insane as letting Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes. We tolerated it with Moldova and Georgia and Syria and eastern/southern Ukraine, and election meddling and sabotage and assassinations, and now here we are. If he thinks this behaviour is tolerated, and if he succeeds in Ukraine, it will be Moldova next, or Georgia again, or Bosnia or the Baltics or Poland, and after that, it will be another one on that list, and so on until the line is drawn and enforced. Better to do it sooner than later, for so many reasons.

[WFJ]

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

Sure. Now go back and check what preceded the last world war.

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

Not as insane as letting Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes. We tolerated it with Moldova and Georgia and Syria and eastern/southern Ukraine, and election meddling and sabotage and assassinations, and now here we are. If he thinks this behaviour is tolerated, and if he succeeds in Ukraine, it will be Moldova next, or Georgia again, or Bosnia or the Baltics or Poland, and after that, it will be another one on that list, and so on until the line is drawn and enforced. Better to do it sooner than later, for so many reasons.

No one is saying Putin should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Not all actions need to be military. Blowing some big Russian steel in the Black Sea might excite adolescents with a fetish for strong thrusting displays of military might, but it does nothing to help Ukraine. It's just needlessly provocative and escalatory.

The sanctions and arms supplies to Ukraine are far more effective ways to damage Putin and weaken the Russian attacks than military power—short of direct engagement of Nato troops to protect Kyiv, which I think even the most Hawkish would not suggest. Thankfully, at the moment, Nato seems to be being led pretty sensibly, and not by 13-year old boys with their dicks in their hands.

[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.

As EALC says, Putin will ratchet up his demands. He's already claiming that economic sanctions are an act of war... presumably bombing the Czech Republic or using nerve agents in the UK are not.

Yes, he’ll ratchet up his demands. But at this point it’s up to Ukraine’s friends and allies not to flinch.

As for previous bombs or nerve agents, they aren’t necessarily an act of war. Intelligence agencies have been able to operate in a grey area that allowed them to do things like sabotage and murder without it being perceived as an act of war. That doesn’t mean they can get away with anything though.

[EACLucifer]

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

Sure. Now go back and check what preceded the last world war.

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

Not as insane as letting Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes. We tolerated it with Moldova and Georgia and Syria and eastern/southern Ukraine, and election meddling and sabotage and assassinations, and now here we are. If he thinks this behaviour is tolerated, and if he succeeds in Ukraine, it will be Moldova next, or Georgia again, or Bosnia or the Baltics or Poland, and after that, it will be another one on that list, and so on until the line is drawn and enforced. Better to do it sooner than later, for so many reasons.

No one is saying Putin should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Not all actions need to be military. Blowing some big Russian steel in the Black Sea might excite adolescents with a fetish for strong thrusting displays of military might, but it does nothing to help Ukraine. It's just needlessly provocative and escalatory.

The sanctions and arms supplies to Ukraine are far more effective ways to damage Putin and weaken the Russian attacks than military power—short of direct engagement of Nato troops to protect Kyiv, which I think even the most Hawkish would not suggest. Thankfully, at the moment, Nato seems to be being led pretty sensibly, and not by 13-year old boys with their dicks in their hands.

Ah yes, accuse people of being sexually excited by atrocities. What a wonderful reminder not to treat you with the slightest respect.

[Herainestold]

Ah yes, accuse people of being sexually excited by atrocities. What a wonderful reminder not to treat you with the slightest respect.

I agree. That was totally uncalled for.

[Millennie Al]

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.

Russia is a large country with plenty natural resources a large population. It would manufacture whatever it needed.

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

Neither the USSR nor the Warsaw Pact exist today. When did we wage war on them to achive this?

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.

Ukraine is not an ally. It is not a member of NATO and if NATO goes to war in support of Ukraine, why should other countries be members?

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.

Ethics is very much a matter of opinion. People have been arging about it for thousands of years and have not reached agreement. I suggest you start by reading about the Trolley Problem I expect you'll have a very definite opinion on it and be aghast that so many other people do not share it.

The problem with this approach is you evidently don't know a f.cking thing about the military situation in Ukraine.

Are you claiming to know better?

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.

Since you seem to be such an expert on Putin's thinking, can you explain under what circumstances he would order use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons? And what would be his reasoning?

[Pishwish]

You seem to have difficulty comprehending EACL's argument. He is saying that Russia cannot rearm in a couple of years because sanctions will trash its economy and supply chains. Russia is not going to magically restore its self-sufficiency in manufacturing, because its economy has been mismanaged for so long. This page of threaded tweets should give you some insight.

Just a hunch, but I'd say EACL has heard of the Trolley problem before.

Putin may, or may not follow Russia's military doctrine regarding use of nuclear weapons

[bob sterman]

As I've posted before - even without Putin being unstable / delusional - Russia's nuclear doctrine (not written by one person - link to an article about it posted by Pishwash in post above) specifically says they may use nuclear weapons in a limited/tactical manner "in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."

So even without Putin at the helm - if NATO forces were to enter Ukraine and start significantly engaging Russian forces (e.g. taking out air defences in Russia itself, destroying significant amounts of Russian ground forces) then this would likely fall under the remit of this doctrine.

With Putin of course - the range of circumstances they would be used will depend on his definition of "large-scale aggression" and "critical to the national security of the Russian Federation". Which could be quite broad.

When we hear Putin, or Russian spokespeople, describing possible NATO actions as "aggression" and talking about how they could threaten Russian security - they are talking about things that could be covered by this doctrine.

Personally, I think it's wishful thinking to assume they won't follow their doctrine - nuclear deterrence depends on an adversary having no doubt that you will use weapons under the circumstances under which you have said you will use them. What happens to Russia's strategic deterrence if they don't even use tactical nuclear weapons in the circumstances under which they have said they will use them?

[Stranger Mouse]

Poland must be getting edgy https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ai ... 022-03-13/

[lpm]

The only threat to us/our allies is from nuclear weapons.

We no longer need to fear an invasion of the Balts. Nato wins any conventional war easily, even without setting foot in Russia or attacking airbases inside Russia. Their military is unbelievably weak.

Realistically it would take a decade for Russia to change its culture and economic system away from feudalism/corruption. Then another decade to rebuild military strength. And this process isn't going to get started anyway, because Putin is entrenched in power.

We need to turn our attention to the next shitstorm on the horizon - the Middle East. The faster we end reliance on fossil fuels, the sooner we will be safe. Think how much happier we'll be when we don't care about Iran and Saudi.

[lpm]

You seem to have difficulty comprehending EACL's argument. He is saying that Russia cannot rearm in a couple of years because sanctions will trash its economy and supply chains. Russia is not going to magically restore its self-sufficiency in manufacturing, because its economy has been mismanaged for so long. This page of threaded tweets should give you some insight.

The tractor story in that thread is hilarious.

The old "Comrade, I want your next report to show monthly steel production at the Vladimir Lenin Iron Foundry has doubled" turns into "Show you have achieved import substitution for these essential products".

The modern military is the ultimate complex economic activity. Putin's mafia can't run it, yet can't risk letting talented people run it either. So for a couple of decades they've controlled it via mafia techniques, killing enemies and bribing incompetent people to churn out fictional achievements. Bringing in Wagner type mercenaries/psychos is the instinctive thing Putin & Co reach for - if things don't go well, bring in the thugs to frighten it back into shape.

Obviously a military run in this way will implode when it meets real resistance from a modern military force. But is good at firing artillery shells at a city and sending in roving murder squads.

[bob sterman]

We no longer need to fear an invasion of the Balts. Nato wins any conventional war easily, even without setting foot in Russia or attacking airbases inside Russia. Their military is unbelievably weak.

Not "airbases" but many Russian mobile anti-aircraft systems, parked in Russia, have a range of 100-200km or more.

NATO are not going to be carrying out major air operations in an area within range of those systems, without neutralising those systems. And they are not going to carry out significant ground operations without substantial air support.

Any significant conventional confrontation on the ground, close to Russian borders, will inevitably involve NATO strikes on Russian territory. NATO is not going to send its ground forces meandering around without close air support like the Russians do.

[lpm]

So why is Ukraine's airforce still flying?

Because the Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't being deployed properly.

Nato is defense only, which means its job is to destroy attacking armies. We are now in the age of drones. There's simply no way a convoy of Russian supply vehicles can reach even 20 miles inside Lithuania, say.

Obviously military commanders would prefer to hit targets inside Russia but in the west they answer to politicians. If they are told it's disallowed due to fears of nukes, they'll cope just fine.

[Sciolus]

We need to turn our attention to the next shitstorm on the horizon - the Middle East. The faster we end reliance on fossil fuels, the sooner we will be safe. Think how much happier we'll be when we don't care about Iran and Saudi.

Or the South China Sea. It may be easier to wean ourself off oil than cheap gear from China.

[bob sterman]

So why is Ukraine's airforce still flying?

Because the Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't being deployed properly.

Ukraine has been only conducting quite limited air operations - quite some way from the Russian border. So they are not in the air very often. Also a lot of reporting has suggested that the Russians are having difficulties coordinating complex offensive and defensive air operations (i.e. are at risk of "blue-on-blue" incidents with their air defences).

Doesn't change the fact - during a conflict NATO is not going to be flying aircraft around over the Baltics / Eastern Europe - within range of Russian S-300 and S-400 systems inside Russia unless those systems have first been neutralised.

Picking off a few tanks with drones is not going to stop a major advance into the Baltics. In the past couple of weeks NATO has been conducting civil air patrols in Eastern Europe with a rota of about 100 fighters - F-15, F-16, F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoons. Tanker aircraft are flying racetrack patterns throughout the day in the skies over Poland - refuelling them. NATOs defensive strategy currently depends on this overwhelming air power - it's up there for a reason.

If things turn ugly - and the Russians start engaging these NATO aircraft with their air defence systems (inside Russia) - then these air defence systems will be targeted very rapidly.

[Gfamily]

Interesting analysis of the 40 mile convoy of Russian military vehicles stalled outside Kyiv

https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1 ... 8777079808
No idea who the author is, but the interpretation seems credible

So, I reckon worth reading, but if time is short.
tl:dr
Spoiler:

It's a supply chain, and it being stalled has big implications for the Russian active units in the north of Ukraine

[lpm]

So why is Ukraine's airforce still flying?

Because the Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't being deployed properly.

Ukraine has been only conducting quite limited air operations - quite some way from the Russian border. So they are not in the air very often. Also a lot of reporting has suggested that the Russians are having difficulties coordinating complex offensive and defensive air operations (i.e. are at risk of "blue-on-blue" incidents with their air defences).

Doesn't change the fact - during a conflict NATO is not going to be flying aircraft around over the Baltics / Eastern Europe - within range of Russian S-300 and S-400 systems inside Russia unless those systems have first been neutralised.

Picking off a few tanks with drones is not going to stop a major advance into the Baltics. In the past couple of weeks NATO has been conducting civil air patrols in Eastern Europe with a rota of about 100 fighters - F-15, F-16, F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoons. Tanker aircraft are flying racetrack patterns throughout the day in the skies over Poland - refuelling them. NATOs defensive strategy currently depends on this overwhelming air power - it's up there for a reason.

If things turn ugly - and the Russians start engaging these NATO aircraft with their air defence systems (inside Russia) - then these air defence systems will be targeted very rapidly.

You cut my point that this is the age of drones.

And as a result your post is a waste of space.

All reconnaissance will done by a fleet of, say, 1,000 drones. Attacks on heavy armour will be done by NATO's fleet of, say, 200 predator type drones. Attacks on supply convoys can be done with an assembly of a few hundred other drones.

Ukraine has shown how, on European terrain, you hit the first and last tanks, then pick off the rest.

NATO is the defender. It doesn't need long supply lines. The invader has to keep those trucks rolling every day. If NATO won't move without air supremacy, why can Russian forces invade without air supremacy?

[lpm]

I bet armchair commentators keep calling changes barbed wire moments.

But could this be a barbed wire moment?

A simple and cheap technology, handled by everyday troops, combines with other changes to create a huge disconnect in military tactics. Barbed wire gets introduced and suddenly movement on the ground is terminated.

If war is won on logistics, and logistics means lorries on European roads (not open desert), and Amazon is messing around with drones to deliver consumerist tat, and real time intelligence can be beamed to every soldier's phone or watch, how can any invasion proceed past a certain resupply constraint? Has movement through an enemy's country now been terminated?

Under this hypothesis, Russian failure now isn't just crap tyres and reluctant conscripts. It's more fundamental. Ukraine probably has the best intelligence capabilites ever seen in a war and has the tools to exploit it.

[bjn]

I just read this Chinese opinion piece from someone who appears to be a senior Chinese policy wonk. It's completely self interested, but given that the blitzkrieg failed and the West's rapid and united reaction his opinion is basically China should now get the f.ck away from Putin and drop him like a hot potato.

China cannot be tied to Putin and needs to be cut off as soon as possible

China should avoid playing both sides in the same boat, give up being neutral, and choose the mainstream position in the world.

China should achieve the greatest possible strategic breakthrough and not be further isolated by the West.

To demonstrate China’s role as a responsible major power, China not only cannot stand with Putin, but also should take concrete actions to prevent Putin’s possible adventures.

[bob sterman]

You cut my point that this is the age of drones.

And as a result your post is a waste of space.

All reconnaissance will done by a fleet of, say, 1,000 drones. Attacks on heavy armour will be done by NATO's fleet of, say, 200 predator type drones. Attacks on supply convoys can be done with an assembly of a few hundred other drones.

The future will certainly be the age of drones. I don't question that. But we're not in the future yet and you can't stop a Russian invasion of the Baltic states with drones this week, this year, or next year. Nobody has sufficient numbers of the types that carry weapons.

Ukraine has managed to destroy a significant number of Russian vehicles using drones (as many videos on the web have shown) - but this hasn't prevented Russia inserting over 150,000 troops into their country, along with thousands of vehicles. And destroying a number of their cities.

NATO is the defender. It doesn't need long supply lines. The invader has to keep those trucks rolling every day. If NATO won't move without air supremacy, why can Russian forces invade without air supremacy?

Russia has shown it considers its infantry and vehicles to be much more expendable than NATO countries tend to. And it has over 30,000 tanks and armoured vehicles at its disposal to drive around Europe in.

NATO's supply line when in comes to extra tanks involves a scenic train ride across the US from the south west, and a nice atlantic cruise. Or you can fly them one at a time in C5 Galaxy. But no matter - one way or another a conflict would be over before they arrived from their tour of Europe.

[bob sterman]

Anyway, putting aside the drone vs tank tangent - the point I was trying to make is that any conflict between NATO and Russia in a country along the Russian border (e.g. the Baltics), will involve NATO striking mobile air defence systems inside Russian territory which means escalation.

Even if NATO just want to fly in some cargo aircraft carrying a bunch of little drones.

I didn't invent this concern - there's lots written about the issue...

The Russian Antiaccess/Area Denial Security Issue over Kaliningrad and the Baltics
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-B ... the-balti/

Russia’s surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) are also a threat to American military aircraft operating near the Baltics and Poland to thwart a Russian invasion of the Baltics. The largest threat to American military aircraft operating near Kaliningrad is the SA-21. This SAM system has a range of nearly 250 miles and can cover half of Poland, part of Germany, all of Lithuania, and most of Latvia. This system is also mobile, which will complicate targeting efforts to destroy it.

Rocket Artillery Can Keep Russia Out of the Baltics
https://warontherocks.com/2021/05/rocke ... e-baltics/

Additionally, any aircraft supporting the Baltic scenario — whether through strike operations or transporting reinforcements — would face a dangerous situation traversing within the range of Russian air defense systems. Russia’s forward deployment of its S-400 anti-aircraft systems into Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg creates an anti-access/area denial bubble that limits the alliance’s ability to leverage its aircraft for such an operation. NATO has to address this air-defense threat in some way or expect heavy losses.

Russia's Buildup Of S-400 Missile Batteries In Kaliningrad Is Freaking Out NATO
https://jalopnik.com/russias-buildup-of ... 1752792417

Because any aircraft flying within the S-400's reach is vulnerable to attack, NATO fighters flying over their own or friendly territory can be targeted and engaged by the S-400 system on a whim. As such, Russia could make a lot of trouble for aircraft around Kaliningrad if it so wishes.

[Herainestold]

Scary stuff.
Why is nobody looking at de escalating?
More weapons, more sanctions just means more dead, and higher chances of all of us being immolated.

How many days before Russian tanks roll into the Baltics? We need to get this stopped now.

[bjn]

Why don't you ask the Russians?

[headshot]

Scary stuff.
Why is nobody looking at de escalating?
More weapons, more sanctions just means more dead, and higher chances of all of us being immolated.

How many days before Russian tanks roll into the Baltics? We need to get this stopped now.

Cool. You should call Putin and tell him.