The Invasion of Ukraine

[lpm]

The Azov Battalion needs to be eliminated after the war and its various murderers and criminals put on trial.

But it's a bit like the French Resistance working with a Communist cell. Use them to kill Nazis for now, round them up after you've won the war.

[Millennie Al]

Wow. Russia is large. Is that another thing you had the nerve to presume I did not know?

I didn't presume. I read the words you wrote. You quoted me and replied as follows:

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

It seems that you are now saying that your response was misleading as the first sentence of the quote was not at all inaccurate. Perhaps I need to point out that when you write a response I read it and understand it relates to the quoted material. If you mean it to relate to only part of the material, you can omit the unnecessary part or be explicit about what part your response relates to.

Vast tracts of land do not make modern equipment. Nor do mineral reserves. To make modern equipment requires tooling, and also electronics. Their existing manufacturing capability is built around the use of western/Taiwanese semiconductors. To make as much as an engine, they either need those semiconductors, or to revert to older designs that they will need to tool up to produce. Now lets say they manage to make steel and diesel engines, that's all you need for a tank, right? It's not.

To be useful, a tank needs a fire control computer. It needs radios. It needs night and thermal vision. None of that is possible with Russian domestic industry. Before long, we're going to be thinking of active protection systems as integral parts of tanks, just as armour and tracks are now, and they are right out without semiconductors.

Semiconductors such as are made by Mikron (https://www.mikron.ru/) in Russia? Why would they have difficulty sourcing things which are already made in Russia? And even if they needed a greater quantity or variety, countries such as China, India, and Malasia have chip fabs and are still selling to Russia.

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.

That isn't something that can be done on a short timescale at all, it just isn't.

And in the meantime Putin has to handle a population where more than half of adults are - or rather were - on instagram, that aspire to western cars and iPhones and all the other comforts of modern life and try and maintain control as the economy freefalls, and the key organising myth of Putin's political appeal - that he supposedly saved Russia from the economic chaos of the ninetoes - implodes.

So what you're saying overall is that sanctions render Russia thoroughly harmless, unable to make even the mundane products of everyday life, such as tractors. Yet you said earlier{

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.

as if military action beyond defeating the invasion is needed to prevent a repeat invasion.

Which is it? Russia would remain dangerous and military action would be required, or Russia would be incapable of a repeat and no action is required?

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.

This is utterly hilarious, it really is. You are so confident it is simple solely because you know f.ck all about what you are talking about.

Putin wants to take over Ukraine - in fact he's made it clear wants to take over quite a lot of Eastern Europe - so he gathers up his military strength to attack Ukraine. The west has been very weak on the issue, tolerating his previous aggressions, including his atrocities in Syria and his occupation of parts of Ukraine, so he thinks he will get away with it. So he does it. The problem for Putin is it doesn't go to plan. Perhaps he can get the plan back on track by further escalating? If he feels he can get away with it, he'll do it. If, however, he is aware that if he escalates, there will be a response, he has a problem. He doesn't want to escalate things all the way because he cannot win that way - other he loses in a conventional escalation, or everyone loses in a nuclear exchange. If he is worried that his escalation will be met with an escalation that is specific and defined, he may choose not to escalate - or if he does, and the response happens, he may choose not to do it again. It's all pretty standard stuff, all covered by the term escalate-to-deescalate that you, in your ignorant arrogance, evidently did not bother to look up.

I had read the referenced article in its entirety, which is why I could not understand your position and still don't. Your explanation is impossible to follow. You previously said:

For f.ck's sake, America, you are a nuclear power, you alone have a military that could wipe the floor with Russia in a conventional war, and are part of a major defensive alliance. Stop tiptoeing around Putin and holding aid back from Ukraine while his army and airforce butcher civilians.

and

Our ultimate goal should be to break Russia into pieces, with fredom for Tatarstan and all the other peoples subject to Russian oppression.

Yet the current Russian policy as stated in the article you refer to (https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russian ... heres-why/) is that nuclear weapons would be used in 'situations in which “the very existence of the state is under threat"'. Taken together, all you have said is not consistent.

[plodder]

I mean, great, Putin can't win, lovely. Except, what they actually do is destroy everything. It makes things like logistics for your army a bit less important.

But cool, rub on about whether inflatable helicopters can max out TR91-D plasma assault cannons like a table-top gamer, it's all very helpful.

I'm struggling a bit to see your point here, plodder. Do you mean
(a) Russia will win, because of their ability to destroy everything regardless of any logistical challenges, or
(b) It doesn't matter if Russia wins or loses, because they'll have destroyed everything anyway
?

It seems that in your own over-enthusiasm to play another card from your "references to m.st.rbation" deck you forgot to roll the Dice of Making Sense. Please move your left leg to the green circle of playing nicely with the other children. Thank you.

People here are nerding on about how many troops or tyres or ration packets will be needed to hold city X (and getting excited about Russia over-extending and having to give up) without remembering that city X won't continue to exist if things get too sticky. Russian strategy is to identify stubborn pockets of resistance and then systematically destroy the areas they are hiding in - even if this means bombing an entire city to rubble.

The whole "stop the first and last tank and the siege won't work because <technical data>" thing is absolutely adolescent and fair game for ridicule.

[jimbob]

I mean, great, Putin can't win, lovely. Except, what they actually do is destroy everything. It makes things like logistics for your army a bit less important.

But cool, rub on about whether inflatable helicopters can max out TR91-D plasma assault cannons like a table-top gamer, it's all very helpful.

I'm struggling a bit to see your point here, plodder. Do you mean
(a) Russia will win, because of their ability to destroy everything regardless of any logistical challenges, or
(b) It doesn't matter if Russia wins or loses, because they'll have destroyed everything anyway
?

It seems that in your own over-enthusiasm to play another card from your "references to m.st.rbation" deck you forgot to roll the Dice of Making Sense. Please move your left leg to the green circle of playing nicely with the other children. Thank you.

People here are nerding on about how many troops or tyres or ration packets will be needed to hold city X (and getting excited about Russia over-extending and having to give up) without remembering that city X won't continue to exist if things get too sticky. Russian strategy is to identify stubborn pockets of resistance and then systematically destroy the areas they are hiding in - even if this means bombing an entire city to rubble.

The whole "stop the first and last tank and the siege won't work because <technical data>" thing is absolutely adolescent and fair game for ridicule.

Nobody is saying that except in your imagination.

Pointing out that as far as Putin is concerned, there is a difference between capturing a place and keeping it and that the Russian military seems not to have learned lessons from the Second World War in the same area is valid.

Nobody is pretending that it's not a disaster for the inhabitants of Ukraine. But that's a given.

[jimbob]

And talking about whether Russia can feed its troops and service its weapons in the front is pretty important for discussing what is likely to happen. And what the prospects for peace are.

As well as assessing a lot of the propaganda.

Saying that it's hard to see how Putin achieves his stated aims because of x,y,z is difficult if you have an aesthetic objection to discussing the merits of arguments x,y, or z.

But I guess it does allow one to feel superior because one simply concentrates on the given that Russian atrocities are bad.

[lpm]

Plods, the only ways to stop city X from bring destroyed to rubble are

1) City surrenders
2) Ukraine surrenders
3) Counter attack by Ukrainian army
4) Prevent convoys of artillery shells from reaching the Russians besieging city X
5) Attack Russia economically so it can't manufacture more artillery shells or continue the war
6) NATO charges in to wipe out the invasion

Unless you can think of something else?

Most experts seem to believe 4 and 5 are working.

Presumably you think it should be 1 or 2. Which is a valid argument, but you're not bothering to make it.

Unfortunately Ukraine doesn't have enough forces for 3. They instead use counter attacks to prevent besieging forces from reaching cities Y and Z, knowing there are too many Russians in too many places to defend everywhere.

The west is ruling out 6 due to the risk that direct war on Russia will lead to nuclear war.

[EACLucifer]

And talking about whether Russia can feed its troops and service its weapons in the front is pretty important for discussing what is likely to happen. And what the prospects for peace are.

Absolutely. Political decisions need to be based on what is plausible and possible, and that means knowing what is happening, and understanding it.

As well as assessing a lot of the propaganda.

Including the defeatist "But they'll just blow up everything! Resistance is futile!" nonsense. Someone who can't even look at a discussion of what Russia is actually capable of without bursting into a fit of pathetic accusations and masturbatory references is in no position to make such pronouncements. The idea that supply chains are irrelevant to the massed use of artillery is quite spectacularly ignorant. Likewise Russian problems with kit procurement remain relevant - a Russian general and his staff were killed because the Ukrainians geolocated an unsecured call and attacked the location.

Saying that it's hard to see how Putin achieves his stated aims because of x,y,z is difficult if you have an aesthetic objection to discussing the merits of arguments x,y, or z.

But I guess it does allow one to feel superior because one simply concentrates on the given that Russian atrocities are bad.

You are absolutely right it is an aesthetic objection. Plodder, if you can't see a technical term relating to military matters without shrieking about w.nking, I suggest you refrain from reading threads where such discussions are essential to understand what is happening.

[EACLucifer]

In terms of concrete non-military assistance to Ukraine, synchronising their powergrid with the rest of continental Europe is a big one.

[Woodchopper]

In terms of concrete non-military assistance to Ukraine, synchronising their powergrid with the rest of continental Europe is a big one.

Here’s a source:

Engineers have linked Ukraine to an electricity grid spanning much of continental Europe, allowing the country to decouple its power system from hostile Russia, officials said Wednesday.

Belgium-based ENTSO-E, which represents dozens of transmission system operators in Europe, said the electricity grids of Ukraine and its smaller neighbor Moldova were successfully synchronized with the Continental European Power System on a trial basis.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-eu ... id-russia/

[plodder]

Plods, the only ways to stop city X from bring destroyed to rubble are

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about laughing at you lot playing armchair generals and getting excited over the capabilities of Spearman Thrusters and Covert Molesters and Hidden Penis Mines.

Lots of things in this thread are interesting, but none of us are remotely qualified to figure out how to stop Ukrainian cities from being destroyed - it looks like NATO's best generals don't know the answer to that one. Many people here are pretending to focus on the big picture but the mask keeps slipping. Seriously, join the TA or something if you need a fix of khaki.

[EACLucifer]

Plods, the only ways to stop city X from bring destroyed to rubble are

1) City surrenders
2) Ukraine surrenders
3) Counter attack by Ukrainian army
4) Prevent convoys of artillery shells from reaching the Russians besieging city X
5) Attack Russia economically so it can't manufacture more artillery shells or continue the war
6) NATO charges in to wipe out the invasion

Unless you can think of something else?

Most experts seem to believe 4 and 5 are working.

Presumably you think it should be 1 or 2. Which is a valid argument, but you're not bothering to make it.

Unfortunately Ukraine doesn't have enough forces for 3. They instead use counter attacks to prevent besieging forces from reaching cities Y and Z, knowing there are too many Russians in too many places to defend everywhere.

The west is ruling out 6 due to the risk that direct war on Russia will lead to nuclear war.

This is a pretty good summary. A few points regarding counterattack;

Localised counterattacks have been going on throughout the war, largely on the flanks of Russian lines of attack, effectively a combination of your list's 3 and 4.

Over the last few days, there's been reports of bigger counterattacks, including one in the Mykolaiv area.

Both the passage of time and Russian advances make their supply situation harder. Twice the distance effectively halves the rate a truck can provide supplies. Attacks by Ukrainians don't just destroy valuable military trucks, they also damage the roads, slowing down the rest, and force Russia to devote forces to escort convoys, which in turn adds to the amount of fuel they need to move.

The Ukrainian forces are growing in number due to the mobilisation of reserves, the international legion and the mobilisation of citizens in the territorial force, and in capability due to the provision of western arms.

We're already seeing some changes in tactics, eg Russian helicopters angling their rockets upwards, which gives them much better range at the cost of abysmal accuracy, which they do because they are wary of approaching targets directly.

There may come a point where the Ukrainians are able to begin a more general counteroffensive or counteroffensives.

[plodder]

As well as assessing a lot of the propaganda.

The most obvious bit of propaganda I can see is the one where everyone in the West is laughing at Russia for failing to defeat an enormous country in a week or so, when they are clearly making progress and it was always going to be a major endeavour. Don't see any discussion about that though.

[EACLucifer]

Something that I'm not sure everyone's realised that needs to be mentioned.

Verified Russian losses of equipment compared to comparable Ukrainian losses are approaching a four to one ratio.

Russia haven't even achieved things that appear to have been day one objectives - eg capture of Chernihiv. They are in their fourth week of a three day operation. This doesn't necessarily mean Ukraine will win, but it's time to pay attention to what's happening on the ground, not what people presumed would happen before the fighting started.

[lpm]

Plods, the only ways to stop city X from bring destroyed to rubble are

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about laughing at you lot playing armchair generals and getting excited over the capabilities of Spearman Thrusters and Covert Molesters and Hidden Penis Mines.

Lots of things in this thread are interesting, but none of us are remotely qualified to figure out how to stop Ukrainian cities from being destroyed - it looks like NATO's best generals don't know the answer to that one. Many people here are pretending to focus on the big picture but the mask keeps slipping. Seriously, join the TA or something if you need a fix of khaki.

You are revealing a lot about yourself. While saying nothing about the topic.

[plodder]

As well as assessing a lot of the propaganda.

The most obvious bit of propaganda I can see is the one where everyone in the West is laughing at Russia for failing to defeat an enormous country in a week or so, when they are clearly making progress and it was always going to be a major endeavour. Don't see any discussion about that though.

e.g. https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/st ... 2997174274

[plodder]

Plods, the only ways to stop city X from bring destroyed to rubble are

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about laughing at you lot playing armchair generals and getting excited over the capabilities of Spearman Thrusters and Covert Molesters and Hidden Penis Mines.

Lots of things in this thread are interesting, but none of us are remotely qualified to figure out how to stop Ukrainian cities from being destroyed - it looks like NATO's best generals don't know the answer to that one. Many people here are pretending to focus on the big picture but the mask keeps slipping. Seriously, join the TA or something if you need a fix of khaki.

You are revealing a lot about yourself. While saying nothing about the topic.

ah ok

[Gfamily]

As well as assessing a lot of the propaganda.

The most obvious bit of propaganda I can see is the one where everyone in the West is laughing at Russia for failing to defeat an enormous country in a week or so, when they are clearly making progress and it was always going to be a major endeavour. Don't see any discussion about that though.

e.g. https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/st ... 2997174274

I'm not seeing any "lols" in that tweet.

[EACLucifer]

As well as assessing a lot of the propaganda.

The most obvious bit of propaganda I can see is the one where everyone in the West is laughing at Russia for failing to defeat an enormous country in a week or so, when they are clearly making progress and it was always going to be a major endeavour. Don't see any discussion about that though.

e.g. https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/st ... 2997174274

You do realise that their statement is entirely congruous with the available information? Russia has lost, at an absolute minimum, two hundred and thirty three tanks. Their positions can be detected with satellite imagery available to amateurs. An entire community of open-source intelligence people is studying this war closely, and we can see where the Russians are, and what they've achieved.



For example, here we see Russian helicopters and trucks burning after a successful Ukrainian attack. This series of attacks destroyed at least sixteen Russian helicopters, and potentially damaged several more, as well as a significant number of trucks.

[lpm]

The most obvious bit of propaganda I can see is the one where everyone in the West is laughing at Russia for failing to defeat an enormous country in a week or so, when they are clearly making progress and it was always going to be a major endeavour. Don't see any discussion about that though.

An analogy that might help you understand is to compare to another major endeavour: building a house.

You can point to an extra row of bricks and say, look we're clearly making progress, the project is advancing.

But if the plan was to get that row of bricks done two weeks ago you are obviously behind.

And if you've spent £105k out of your £125k house building budget to get to this stage you are obviously in serious trouble.

There's a reason why everyone in the West is laughing at Russia. It's not for failing to defeat an enormous country in a week or so. It's for expending huge resources and only managing to incompetently lay a row of bricks. Achieving any major objective - capturing Kyiv or Odesa or a secure Sea of Azov land bridge - looks like it's going to be an impossible struggle for Russia. And the reason why lies in the stuff you are so against discussing.

[plodder]

I must have missed the bit where Putin made his timetable, objectives and budget public.

[plodder]

For example, here we see Russian helicopters and trucks burning after a successful Ukrainian attack. This series of attacks destroyed at least sixteen Russian helicopters, and potentially damaged several more, as well as a significant number of trucks.

at the risk of bordering on trolling, can you not see how this comes across?

[Stranger Mouse]

I must have missed the bit where Putin made his timetable, objectives and budget public.

It was on Russian state media but it was deleted so I can understand how you missed it https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-inva ... d-12553977

[jimbob]

I must have missed the bit where Putin made his timetable, objectives and budget public.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60562240

It applauds Russian President Vladimir Putin for solving the Ukraine "problem", saying that "Ukraine has returned to Russia" through military action. It suggests the author anticipated a rapid victory and the piece was published prematurely.

The article, published by the state-owned RIA-Novosti news agency on Saturday (26 February) and described by Christo Grozev of fact-checkers Bellingcat as "extremely shocking, even for Kremlin standards", was quickly deleted from its website.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051 ... 62336.html

From Google Translate

Now this problem is gone - Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be liquidated, but it will be reorganized, re-established and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world. In what borders, in what form will the alliance with Russia be fixed (through the CSTO and the Eurasian Union or the Union State of Russia and Belarus )? This will be decided after the end is put in the history of Ukraine as anti-Russia. In any case, the period of the split of the Russian people is coming to an end.

Note the use of the past tense

[Stranger Mouse]

In other news a reminder that to be a good liar you need a good memory

https://twitter.com/azeem/status/150442 ... 73606?s=21

[jimbob]

Of course this could all be 4D chess and Putin is (for reasons known to himself) trying to make Russia seem less capable than it had seemed a month ago.

For example, we can assume the intent of the paratroop (yes paratroop) attack on Kyiv airport was not to throw away an elite unit but to capture a bridgehead for a quick end to the war.

We can assume that Putin's denial of using conscripts in Ukraine one day, then admitting it within 48 hours was not planned.

Maybe Putin's idea of importing 16000 Syrian militants to Ukraine was always part of the plan. But I doubt it.