The Invasion of Ukraine

[Stranger Mouse]

This clip of an intercepted missile falling to earth is quite something https://twitter.com/dankaszeta/status/1 ... 70628?s=21

Do you know the context? The BBC report on the missile attack yesterday on that training camp near the Polish border said 30 air launched cruise missiles had been fired in the attack but most were intercepted. That struck me as remarkable but they didn't give any more detail.

I’m no expert but that actually sounds impossible to me. However, what I know about armaments and a fiver will get me a Starbucks coffee.

[EACLucifer]

This clip of an intercepted missile falling to earth is quite something https://twitter.com/dankaszeta/status/1 ... 70628?s=21

Do you know the context? The BBC report on the missile attack yesterday on that training camp near the Polish border said 30 air launched cruise missiles had been fired in the attack but most were intercepted. That struck me as remarkable but they didn't give any more detail.

I’m no expert but that actually sounds impossible to me. However, what I know about armaments and a fiver will get me a Starbucks coffee.

Cruise missiles are small, but they don't actually fly that fast. Systems designed to attack fighter jets have a chance against them, especially as most cruise missiles aren't designed to be stealthy.

[Stranger Mouse]

Interesting that the invaders keep firing their weapons in the air but it seemss to have absolutely no effect on the protesters. I hope they don’t decide to change their tactics to start actually shooting protestors.

https://twitter.com/julianroepcke/statu ... 43043?s=21

[Gfamily]

Interesting that the invaders keep firing their weapons in the air but it seemss to have absolutely no effect on the protesters. I hope they don’t decide to change their tactics to start actually shooting protestors.

https://twitter.com/julianroepcke/statu ... 43043?s=21

It gets personal if you can see your target, and esp if your target isn't a physical threat.

Maybe the local officers are concerned about war crime actions and are telling their soldiers to be threatening rather than lethal.

[Woodchopper]

Interesting that the invaders keep firing their weapons in the air but it seemss to have absolutely no effect on the protesters. I hope they don’t decide to change their tactics to start actually shooting protestors.

https://twitter.com/julianroepcke/statu ... 43043?s=21

It gets personal if you can see your target, and esp if your target isn't a physical threat.

Maybe the local officers are concerned about war crime actions and are telling their soldiers to be threatening rather than lethal.

There's that. In addition, killing unarmed protestors might well encourage the survivors to start planting bombs, shooting and all the other aspects of an insurgency.

[WFJ]

Interesting that the invaders keep firing their weapons in the air but it seemss to have absolutely no effect on the protesters. I hope they don’t decide to change their tactics to start actually shooting protestors.

https://twitter.com/julianroepcke/statu ... 43043?s=21

It gets personal if you can see your target, and esp if your target isn't a physical threat.

Maybe the local officers are concerned about war crime actions and are telling their soldiers to be threatening rather than lethal.

There's that. In addition, killing unarmed protestors might well encourage the survivors to start planting bombs, shooting and all the other aspects of an insurgency.

And the fact that most of the Russian soldiers are unlikely to be cartoonish evil villains. The biggest threats will probably be some jumpy kids who get scared when surrounded by protestors shouting a bit too loud.

[Martin Y]

And the fact that most of the Russian soldiers are unlikely to be cartoonish evil villains. The biggest threats will probably be some jumpy kids who get scared when surrounded by protestors shouting a bit too loud.

Indeed. Most soldiers most of the time don't really want to shoot their enemies let alone civilians, they'd rather just shoot at the enemy to frighten them and make them run away or give up. Most people need a lot of motivation before they can actually kill anyone.

[Bird on a Fire]

And the fact that most of the Russian soldiers are unlikely to be cartoonish evil villains. The biggest threats will probably be some jumpy kids who get scared when surrounded by protestors shouting a bit too loud.

Indeed. Most soldiers most of the time don't really want to shoot their enemies let alone civilians, they'd rather just shoot at the enemy to frighten them and make them run away or give up. Most people need a lot of motivation before they can actually kill anyone.

Yes, the Russian propaganda of "let's go liberate these guys from Nazis" is fairly incompatible with shooting protestors, even if lovely non-Nazi Mother Russia will happily threaten or arrest them.

To get kids to gleefully kill strangers you need to dehumanise them, eg for being the wrong ethnic group, or (in a few years) for being terrorist sympathisers.

[plodder]

And the fact that most of the Russian soldiers are unlikely to be cartoonish evil villains. The biggest threats will probably be some jumpy kids who get scared when surrounded by protestors shouting a bit too loud.

Indeed. Most soldiers most of the time don't really want to shoot their enemies let alone civilians, they'd rather just shoot at the enemy to frighten them and make them run away or give up. Most people need a lot of motivation before they can actually kill anyone.

If it carries on like this we'll start seeing some motivational methods being applied to the Russian troops.

[Woodchopper]

And the fact that most of the Russian soldiers are unlikely to be cartoonish evil villains. The biggest threats will probably be some jumpy kids who get scared when surrounded by protestors shouting a bit too loud.

Indeed. Most soldiers most of the time don't really want to shoot their enemies let alone civilians, they'd rather just shoot at the enemy to frighten them and make them run away or give up. Most people need a lot of motivation before they can actually kill anyone.

Yes, the Russian propaganda of "let's go liberate these guys from Nazis" is fairly incompatible with shooting protestors, even if lovely non-Nazi Mother Russia will happily threaten or arrest them.

To get kids to gleefully kill strangers you need to dehumanise them, eg for being the wrong ethnic group, or (in a few years) for being terrorist sympathisers.

Given the vast amount of destruction of civilian areas that has taken place in Ukraine, and before that in Syria and Chechnya, it appears that the Russian armed forces have ample people willing to commit atrocities.

[sTeamTraen]

Interesting that the invaders keep firing their weapons in the air but it seemss to have absolutely no effect on the protesters. I hope they don’t decide to change their tactics to start actually shooting protestors.

https://twitter.com/julianroepcke/statu ... 43043?s=21

At 0:06 when the firing starts one guy jumps a bit, but then starts filming. His daughter (?) just carries on as if nothing is happening. I would be running away as fast as possible (except that I wouldn't be taunting people with automatic weapons in the first place).

[Stranger Mouse]

Interesting that the invaders keep firing their weapons in the air but it seemss to have absolutely no effect on the protesters. I hope they don’t decide to change their tactics to start actually shooting protestors.

https://twitter.com/julianroepcke/statu ... 43043?s=21

At 0:06 when the firing starts one guy jumps a bit, but then starts filming. His daughter (?) just carries on as if nothing is happening. I would be running away as fast as possible (except that I wouldn't be taunting people with automatic weapons in the first place).

Yeah I’m pretty sure that 99% of Russian soldiers wouldn’t open fire on unarmed protesters but the 1% remaining when applied to over 100 thousand troops still leaves a non trivial chance of this type of thing ending badly at some point. Furthermore it only takes one person in the crowd opening fire at the troops for them to start firing back. It’s a metaphorical powder keg.

[Stranger Mouse]

Jesus. The courage. Read the thread and replies. Protestor crashes live Russian TV broadcast

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/15 ... 73446?s=21

[EACLucifer]

So the big current rumour is that Russia's begging China for help - specifically for help with MREs. MREs - aka Meals, Ready to Eat - nicknamed Meals Rejected by Everyone - are sealed military rations. Even in the west, they do not enjoy a particularly good reputation.

Among those that do eat various different nations ration offerings - lord alone knows why but such people do exist - Chinese examples are considerered particularly poor, including reports of mould on in-date rations and so on. Between this, documented corruption in Russian ration procurement, and reports of Russians looting foot and stealing chickens, it does not look good for Russia's ability to sustain its deployment in Ukraine.

[Grumble]

Jesus. The courage. Read the thread and replies. Protestor crashes live Russian TV broadcast

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/15 ... 73446?s=21

An editor at the station, or a sister station I guess, hence her access to the studio. Seems that most of the protestors I’ve seen in the last few days have been women. Is this because it is mainly women protesting or because this is what gets shared?

[Millennie Al]

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

This is so inaccurate it's actually quite funny

I see we'll have to do this the hard way. Lets take it one piece at a time.

1. Russia is a large country. It's the largest in the world, so presumably that qualifies as "large". Do you disagree?
2. It has plenty of natural resources. It has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second-largest coal reserves, the eighth-largest oil reserves, and the largest oil shale reserves in Europe. It also is in the top ten countries for production of gold, platinum, silver, copper, nickel, lead, bauxite, zinc, vanadium, cobalt, iron, ore, boron, molybdenum, sulfur, phosphate, gypsum, and salt. That presumably qualifies as "plenty". Do you disagree?
3. It has a large population. Its population is the nonth largest in the world. That presumably qualifies as "large". Do you disagree?

Following of from that, it has or would be able to develop the capability to manufacture what it needed in terms of things like tanks, missiles etc.

especially in response to my point that they can't even manufacture Ladas anymore - that's not a joke, that's the simple truth of the matter. Russian production is utterly meshed with Western suppliers, to the point they can't even make cars any more due to lack of semiconductors. Their attempts at making a domestic tractor for import substition ended up with them importing Czech parts kits and pretending it was domestic, and what they do make is made on now irreplaceable Western tooling.

Even if they cannot do so right now, once placed on a war footing they would develop (or, more likely revive) the ability. This seems to be an old argument in reverse. It used to be claimed that the British Empire was inherently technologically superior, but two world wars gave competitors the opportunity to show that they were just as good, and so nobody now believes it. Just as the British Empire could decline, Russia could advance. And an existential threat which can be easily portrayed as threatening outsiders is exactly the sort of thing to inspire it.

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?

They invaded a neighbour and lost a war against people the West was supplying with arms, funnily enough, and it almost certainly contributed an enormous shock to the Soviet psyche.
[/quote]

I presume you mean Afghanistan. That was at most a contributing factor to a process that was inevitable.

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?

Ukraine is fighting against our common enemy with our assistance - that makes them an ally.

No. That makes them useful. If they were an ally we would have some form of mutual agreement.

As for your second attempt at a point, NATO does not need to withhold aid to others for membership to be attractive - Article 5 is sufficiently important to countries threatened by Russian revanchist aggression that they have been eager to join.

Article 5 says:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The reason countries are eager to join is to avail themselves of that protection and mutual assistance. If they could rely on geing given assistence without joining, why would they join?

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.

Of course I've heard of the f.cking trolley problem you patronising bellend, and it's totally f.cking irrelevant in a situation where we are not dealing with known costs but with risks - unfortunately some people are stupid enough they cannot understand their are risks to inaction as well as risks to action.
[/quote]

You must be top quality spy material if you know so much and yet manage to concel it so well. As should be obvious from that problem, even in situations where the costs are perfectly known, people vehemently disagree on what is right and wrong. In real world situations, where the costs have to be estimated, it is completely unreasonable to expect people to both agree with your estimate of the costs and the correct action that follows.

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 posted a link to an article on Russia's doctrine in this area. Given that I am suggesting borrowing a Russian approach - escalate-to-de-escalate - you should probably assume I have, in fact, read up a bit on this.

You are sugggesting that we escalate. If Russia responds by further escalation (regardless of whether this is toi de-escalte or another reason), we then either back down or further escalate. Since you are so keen on escalation, I expect you'd favour further escalation, so we end up in a self-reinforcing sequence of escalation from both sides. This is so obvious I felt it better to assume you were ignorant.

[Woodchopper]

I see we'll have to do this the hard way. Lets take it one piece at a time.

1. Russia is a large country. It's the largest in the world, so presumably that qualifies as "large". Do you disagree?
2. It has plenty of natural resources. It has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second-largest coal reserves, the eighth-largest oil reserves, and the largest oil shale reserves in Europe. It also is in the top ten countries for production of gold, platinum, silver, copper, nickel, lead, bauxite, zinc, vanadium, cobalt, iron, ore, boron, molybdenum, sulfur, phosphate, gypsum, and salt. That presumably qualifies as "plenty". Do you disagree?
3. It has a large population. Its population is the nonth largest in the world. That presumably qualifies as "large". Do you disagree?

Following of from that, it has or would be able to develop the capability to manufacture what it needed in terms of things like tanks, missiles etc.

You're missing two vital variables, which are knowledge and skills. Perhaps Russia could develop a vibrant and autarkic technology industry, but that would take a long time. Too long to be of use in its war against Ukraine.

especially in response to my point that they can't even manufacture Ladas anymore - that's not a joke, that's the simple truth of the matter. Russian production is utterly meshed with Western suppliers, to the point they can't even make cars any more due to lack of semiconductors. Their attempts at making a domestic tractor for import substition ended up with them importing Czech parts kits and pretending it was domestic, and what they do make is made on now irreplaceable Western tooling.

Even if they cannot do so right now, once placed on a war footing they would develop (or, more likely revive) the ability. This seems to be an old argument in reverse. It used to be claimed that the British Empire was inherently technologically superior, but two world wars gave competitors the opportunity to show that they were just as good, and so nobody now believes it. Just as the British Empire could decline, Russia could advance. And an existential threat which can be easily portrayed as threatening outsiders is exactly the sort of thing to inspire it.

Perhaps that might happen, but if it were to empires rise and fall over decades, even centuries.

And to reiterate, you're using the wrong argument. Sanctions are not likely to have a rapid significant effect upon Russia's military capacity because Russia will probably still be able to obtain the technology it needs. It has enormous financial resources and long borders with some states that will be willing to turn a blind eye to smuggling (either through corruption or as a matter of policy) and others who are active supporters.

[Bird on a Fire]

Capital is quite an important resource for developing things as well, in my understanding, and from what I've heard Russia's struggling to access that a bit at the moment.

[lpm]

Wow, 3 Prime Ministers travelling to Kyiv to visit Zelensky in person. Pretty risky, seeing how badly Putin wants to take out Zelensky with a missile strike.

Poland's Morawiecki, Slovenia's Janša and UK's Johnson are the three brave enough to go.

[lpm]

Wait, should read Petr Fiala, Prime Minister of Czech Republic, instead of one of those.

[plodder]

Johnson's off to Saudi cooking up an oil deal. Yum! At least they're not crazy dictators who love bombing civilians.

[lpm]

That's unfair on Saudi. Bombing civilians isn't their first choice. They prefer to behead civilians with a sword.

[Bird on a Fire]

Not in Yemen.

[Woodchopper]

Not in Yemen.

Yes, indeed. Lots of bombing of civilians there. But by British made aircraft.

[Bird on a Fire]

Not in Yemen.

Yes, indeed. Lots of bombing of civilians there. But by British made aircraft.

Yep, and US-made cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

But those are brown civilians, not nice civilised European ones who matter.