The Invasion of Ukraine

[Herainestold]

Its the fog of war innit?

Nobody really knows what is going on, not even the generals on the ground. Information is third or fourth hand and is filtered. Most western media is very pro-Ukraine, and the stuff coming from the Russian side appears to be pure propaganda.

Its the same with the Russian war plan, we don't really know what they intended or how long they expected it to last. We see speculation by twitter experts and we take that as evidence. Its not, and we shouldn't pretend it is, but we don't have any actual evidence.

I think the Russians intended a quick campaign to seize the centres of power and destroy the Ukrainian army followed by a long occupation, which might go on for years, but would be sustainable. I remember reading some stuff about how some of the Ukrainian generals might defect to Russia with their troops.

In the first hours of the war the Russians tried to seize the Kiev airport and were repulsed and are still bogged down on the outskirts, so that kind of makes it seem like they were looking for a quick key victory to demoralize the Ukrainians and seize the initiative.

Now they seem intent on a war of attrition, whether that was their original plan or not, who knows?

I think they will proceed to destroy the cities and key infrastructure and then eventually leave. They don't want to be responsible for rebuilding it, they can't afford it, let the West do it. They don't want to garrison it with 100 000 troops, they will need those men for other special military operations.
If Ukraine is destroyed and demoralized and they agree to some kind of neutrality, that is a win in Putin's eyes.

I am just speculating like everybody else here, no point in getting all worked up about it. Its just a discussion forum on the interwebz.

[Herainestold]

It's hardly the only example. Have we been reading the same thread? I really don't think it's a mischaracterisation to say that people think Putin expected a rapid resolution to the invasion, that preparations were poor/non-existent, that he underestimated the task at hand, that he has bad/no advice, and that he might be getting old/crazy/ill.



Sure, as long as you f.ck off with the being angry b.llsh.t I have literally no idea what's upset you but this is a strange reaction to my post.

A rapid resolution to the invasion is not the same as taking control of the whole country. Preparations being poor is not the same as them being non existent. Underestimating the task at hand does not make him an idiot despite your efforts to make them the same thing. Even if he is old/crazy/ill or even if someone stated their opinion that he was this is not the same as him being an idiot.

This. He obviously thought he could seize Kyiv with a swift coup-de-main by airborne troops, who were meant to seize Hostomel and presumably allow heavier equipment to be airlifted in. The defence of Hostomel in the first days was absolutely vital to the defence of Kyiv and Ukraine as a whole.

That does not mean he thought he could conquer Ukraine in a few days - the shortest timescale I've seen suggested for that was purported captured planning documents suggesting fifteen days, which is still a ludicrously ambitious goal.

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with EACL.

[Stranger Mouse]

It's hardly the only example. Have we been reading the same thread? I really don't think it's a mischaracterisation to say that people think Putin expected a rapid resolution to the invasion, that preparations were poor/non-existent, that he underestimated the task at hand, that he has bad/no advice, and that he might be getting old/crazy/ill.



Sure, as long as you f.ck off with the being angry b.llsh.t I have literally no idea what's upset you but this is a strange reaction to my post.

A rapid resolution to the invasion is not the same as taking control of the whole country. Preparations being poor is not the same as them being non existent. Underestimating the task at hand does not make him an idiot despite your efforts to make them the same thing. Even if he is old/crazy/ill or even if someone stated their opinion that he was this is not the same as him being an idiot.

This. He obviously thought he could seize Kyiv with a swift coup-de-main by airborne troops, who were meant to seize Hostomel and presumably allow heavier equipment to be airlifted in. The defence of Hostomel in the first days was absolutely vital to the defence of Kyiv and Ukraine as a whole.

That does not mean he thought he could conquer Ukraine in a few days - the shortest timescale I've seen suggested for that was purported captured planning documents suggesting fifteen days, which is still a ludicrously ambitious goal.

And worth noting that this was the actual description of “the consensus view” on the forum before he started trying to weasel out of it.

I don't think "idiot" was meant to be a direct quote.

It does seem to me that the consensus view is that Putin launched a misguided invasion expecting to take over the whole of Ukraine with minimal resistance in the course of a few days without any preparation or capacity for a longer-term war of attrition.

Or, in other words, an idiot.

I don’t think this is a view anyone has expressed let along a plurality of the posters.
“Take over the whole of Ukraine….in the course of a few days” is not the same as “a rapid resolution to the invasion “
“Without any preparation “ is not the same as “with poor planning”

They make up bollocks then make up more bollocks to cover it up. Then use weasel words at every opportunity to make sure any chance of an interesting discussion is stamped out.

[Stranger Mouse]

Its the fog of war innit?

Nobody really knows what is going on, not even the generals on the ground. Information is third or fourth hand and is filtered. Most western media is very pro-Ukraine, and the stuff coming from the Russian side appears to be pure propaganda.

Its the same with the Russian war plan, we don't really know what they intended or how long they expected it to last. We see speculation by twitter experts and we take that as evidence. Its not, and we shouldn't pretend it is, but we don't have any actual evidence.

I think the Russians intended a quick campaign to seize the centres of power and destroy the Ukrainian army followed by a long occupation, which might go on for years, but would be sustainable. I remember reading some stuff about how some of the Ukrainian generals might defect to Russia with their troops.

In the first hours of the war the Russians tried to seize the Kiev airport and were repulsed and are still bogged down on the outskirts, so that kind of makes it seem like they were looking for a quick key victory to demoralize the Ukrainians and seize the initiative.

Now they seem intent on a war of attrition, whether that was their original plan or not, who knows?

I think they will proceed to destroy the cities and key infrastructure and then eventually leave. They don't want to be responsible for rebuilding it, they can't afford it, let the West do it. They don't want to garrison it with 100 000 troops, they will need those men for other special military operations.
If Ukraine is destroyed and demoralized and they agree to some kind of neutrality, that is a win in Putin's eyes.

I am just speculating like everybody else here, no point in getting all worked up about it. Its just a discussion forum on the interwebz.

I wouldn’t argue with most of this.

[Bird on a Fire]

A rapid resolution to the invasion is not the same as taking control of the whole country. Preparations being poor is not the same as them being non existent. Underestimating the task at hand does not make him an idiot despite your efforts to make them the same thing. Even if he is old/crazy/ill or even if someone stated their opinion that he was this is not the same as him being an idiot.

This. He obviously thought he could seize Kyiv with a swift coup-de-main by airborne troops, who were meant to seize Hostomel and presumably allow heavier equipment to be airlifted in. The defence of Hostomel in the first days was absolutely vital to the defence of Kyiv and Ukraine as a whole.

That does not mean he thought he could conquer Ukraine in a few days - the shortest timescale I've seen suggested for that was purported captured planning documents suggesting fifteen days, which is still a ludicrously ambitious goal.

And worth noting that this was the actual description of “the consensus view” on the forum before he started trying to weasel out of it.

I don't think "idiot" was meant to be a direct quote.

It does seem to me that the consensus view is that Putin launched a misguided invasion expecting to take over the whole of Ukraine with minimal resistance in the course of a few days without any preparation or capacity for a longer-term war of attrition.

Or, in other words, an idiot.

I don’t think this is a view anyone has expressed let along a plurality of the posters.
“Take over the whole of Ukraine….in the course of a few days” is not the same as “a rapid resolution to the invasion “
“Without any preparation “ is not the same as “with poor planning”

They make up bollocks then make up more bollocks to cover it up. Then use weasel words at every opportunity to make sure any chance of an interesting discussion is stamped out.

Have you confused me with somebody else? Why would I want to stamp out interesting discussion?

All I meant by "take over the whole of Ukraine" was "take over the bits that aren't Crimea and Donbas". Presumably that would take the form of capturing Kyiv and changing the government. I'm well aware that taking over a country doesn't mean stamping out every pocket of resistance.

And I did say "without any preparation [or capacity] for a longer-term war of attrition", rather than "without any preparation whatsoever", though I could maybe have written that more clearly. Would "with only inadequate preparation and capacity for a longer-term war of attrition" be a more accurate summary of the consensus view in your opinion?

Even if he is old/crazy/ill or even if someone stated their opinion that he was this is not the same as him being an idiot.

Sure - idiot was plodder's word, not mine. I was just saying to Gfamily that searching the thread for the word "idiot" might not quite capture the sentiment that plodder was referring to - there have been plenty of posts suggesting that Putin has f.cked up bigtime in various ways, which could colloquially be summarised as "an idiot" (especially by somebody trying to be provocative, as plodder generally is).

[Stranger Mouse]

Meh

[Grumble]

Pretty sure I’d use the words evil c.nt rather than idiot when describing Putin.

[Bird on a Fire]

Pretty sure I’d use the words evil c.nt rather than idiot when describing Putin.

They're not exclusive - somebody could be both.

[Stranger Mouse]

This is my type of propaganda

https://twitter.com/stratcomcentre/stat ... 46725?s=21

[Pishwish]

I thought that boaf was being needlessly offensive, untiI i got the pun. It will be interesting to see what the experts think, I thought the previous consensus was meh on hypersonic missiles. The cynic in me thinks that wars are like weapons showcases; Turkey is going to be selling lots of drones now and maybe Russia wants to salvage its reputation as a purveyor of high tech weapons.

Aren’t they using the missile as a weapon of terror? To intimidate and terrorise the general population hiding in bunkers (I take with a pinch of salt that they target only military targets) by making clear they have weapons that can’t be stopped by air defences. Same as chemical weapons- limited military effectiveness but big psychological impact on the citizenry.

Basically aren’t they just being c.nts?

This really isn't my area of expertise, but as far as I know you can call ordinary ballistic missiles hypersonic if you want to. (And bunker busters have been around since WW2). The general population is probably more likely to be killed by artillery or an unguided bomb than extremely expensive subsonic cruise missiles or "hypersonic" missiles. There is some speculation about the credibility of this attack, one source (that I am unfamiliar with) has cast some doubt on Russia's version of events (see update at the bottom of the article). I would like to see this confirmed by someone else, although I will admit that my first thought on seeing the video was "That looks like a poultry shed."

[jimbob]

I thought that boaf was being needlessly offensive, untiI i got the pun. It will be interesting to see what the experts think, I thought the previous consensus was meh on hypersonic missiles. The cynic in me thinks that wars are like weapons showcases; Turkey is going to be selling lots of drones now and maybe Russia wants to salvage its reputation as a purveyor of high tech weapons.

Aren’t they using the missile as a weapon of terror? To intimidate and terrorise the general population hiding in bunkers (I take with a pinch of salt that they target only military targets) by making clear they have weapons that can’t be stopped by air defences. Same as chemical weapons- limited military effectiveness but big psychological impact on the citizenry.

Basically aren’t they just being c.nts?

This really isn't my area of expertise, but as far as I know you can call ordinary ballistic missiles hypersonic if you want to. (And bunker busters have been around since WW2). The general population is probably more likely to be killed by artillery or an unguided bomb than extremely expensive subsonic cruise missiles or "hypersonic" missiles. There is some speculation about the credibility of this attack, one source (that I am unfamiliar with) has cast some doubt on Russia's version of events (see update at the bottom of the article). I would like to see this confirmed by someone else, although I will admit that my first thought on seeing the video was "That looks like a poultry shed."

It certainly didn't look like a buried ammunition bunker, because the explosion was far too small

[jimbob]

There are reports of panic buying and a Kremlin statement that panic buying is unnecessary.

Which to me doesn't seem as much like "never believe a rumour until it's officially denied" and more, " never hear a rumour until it's been officially condemned"

[Pishwish]

This guy has the exact location, you can see it on google maps.

A Russian friend told me people are panic buying sugar to make homebrew alcohol.

[Bird on a Fire]

This guy has the exact location, you can see it on google maps.

A Russian friend told me people are panic buying sugar to make homebrew alcohol.

If Western propaganda bots aren't pushing this line they've missed a trick Hope your friend is ok.

[bob sterman]

Very insightful analysis from Julia Ioffe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSNo2FPQDQw

In an interview for the FRONTLINE documentary “Putin’s Road to War,” journalist Julia Ioffe discusses Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — and why she believes the Russian leader is now “more dangerous than he’s ever been at any point in the last 22 years.”

“What he has opened up with this invasion is unthinkable,” Ioffe tells FRONTLINE. “And because he is losing and because the sanctions and the Ukrainians are humiliating him, because he is backed into a corner, he is the most dangerous he has ever been, because it is now existential for him.”

[jimbob]

Long twitter thread on Russian truck readiness

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status ... 5273183239

TLDR: Preventative maintenance is not anyone's job

[Allo V Psycho]

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/19/video- ... y-s-truman

Since December, the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, Carrier Air Wing 1 and its escorts have been operating in the Adriatic and Ionian seas launching 80 to 90 sorties a day as far north as Lithuania for a variety of missions with NATO-allied aircraft from Romania, France and Italy. Some fighters launched from Truman are training, while some are set to police NATO’s airspace and prevent Russian aircraft from violating those borders.

Article notes that although this is not a NATO Task Force, their aircraft are flying under NATO rules of engagement, not U.S. ones.

Full disclosure: I am a bathtub admiral, Yellow at the Mizzen.

[TimW]

Judging by this cover story from TASS, the Russians are thinking of using of chemical weapons:

MOSCOW, March 19. /TASS/. Nationalists are planning chemical attack in several Ukrainian regions in case Russian troops enter these territories, Mikhail Mizintsev, chief of Russia’s National Defense Management Center, said on Saturday.

"Nationalists have placed mines in ammonia and chlorine storage facilities at the Sumykhimprom chemical plant in Sumy in order to poison the Sumy region residents in case Russian troops enter the city," he said. "In the settlement of Kotlyarovo, Nikolayev region, militants of nationalist units are plotting a provocation with the use of toxic chemicals. For these ends, they have placed containers with toxic chemicals in the building of a secondary school, which will be exploded when Russian forces approach the settlement."

"We warn the entire civilized world and international organizations about the Ukrainian authorities’ cynical provocations, which, if realized, will be blamed on Russian troops as it has been done more than once," he stressed, adding that it is being done with the support from the United States and a number of countries of the European Union, which consider Ukraine as an instrument of anti-Russian policies.

[EACLucifer]

Judging by this cover story from TASS, the Russians are thinking of using of chemical weapons:

MOSCOW, March 19. /TASS/. Nationalists are planning chemical attack in several Ukrainian regions in case Russian troops enter these territories, Mikhail Mizintsev, chief of Russia’s National Defense Management Center, said on Saturday.

"Nationalists have placed mines in ammonia and chlorine storage facilities at the Sumykhimprom chemical plant in Sumy in order to poison the Sumy region residents in case Russian troops enter the city," he said. "In the settlement of Kotlyarovo, Nikolayev region, militants of nationalist units are plotting a provocation with the use of toxic chemicals. For these ends, they have placed containers with toxic chemicals in the building of a secondary school, which will be exploded when Russian forces approach the settlement."

"We warn the entire civilized world and international organizations about the Ukrainian authorities’ cynical provocations, which, if realized, will be blamed on Russian troops as it has been done more than once," he stressed, adding that it is being done with the support from the United States and a number of countries of the European Union, which consider Ukraine as an instrument of anti-Russian policies.

This kind of misinformation was pretty constant in Syria, it didn't necessarily precede attacks.

However, the US/Western approach to Russian/Assadist chemical weapons use in Syria was an utter failure, a different approach is needed here, and to work, it needs to be made clear in advance of any attack.

[Stranger Mouse]

New York Times video investigation

https://twitter.com/brenna__smith/statu ... 85089?s=21

[TopBadger]

Long twitter thread on Russian truck readiness

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status ... 5273183239

TLDR: Preventative maintenance is not anyone's job

Interesting conclusion... Ukrainian Army just needs to hold out long enough for Russia to run out of logistics vehicles, which at this rate is apparently only a few weeks away.

[EACLucifer]

Long twitter thread on Russian truck readiness

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status ... 5273183239

TLDR: Preventative maintenance is not anyone's job

Interesting conclusion... Ukrainian Army just needs to hold out long enough for Russia to run out of logistics vehicles, which at this rate is apparently only a few weeks away.

In practise, it's never that simple. However...

Ben Hodges wrote this article for the Center for European Policy Analysis on the 15th, explaining why he thinks the Russian campaign will soon culminate.

While the Institute for the Study of War published this article yesterday saying that it has culminated, and that the main Russian offensive to capture Kyiv, Khrakiv and Odesa and other cities has been defeated.

This does not mean that Russia has been defeated yet. What it means is that the initial Russian offensive has run out of steam and come to something close to a halt across most of Ukraine, and that they currently cannot easily restart it. To do so, they would have to regroup, re-organise and form new concentrations of forces, yet instead they are feeding reinforcements in in penny packets. In the absence of a new major push from the Russians, and the likely absence of a massive Ukrainian counter-attack, it's likely that the next part of the war will be attritional. That's bad for Ukrainian citizens, who will face continued attacks. Logistics will be very important for both sides, and it is vital that we continue to supply Ukraine arms and ammunition and other essential equipment, including rations, fuel and potentially vehicles. We also need to look very seriously at upping the manufacture of munitions in the west, so as not to deplete our own stocks too much when arming Ukraine, and so as to ensure a continued supply of arms to Ukraine.

Attritional warfare could be very challenging for the Russians, as they will see continued losses of equipment, especially vulnerable transport convoys. The Russians are digging in in places, but in many places they have long supply lines and they will struggle to secure them - against some of the new equipment the US are sending, it will effectively be impossible to secure them.

[jimbob]

Long twitter thread on Russian truck readiness

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status ... 5273183239

TLDR: Preventative maintenance is not anyone's job

Interesting conclusion... Ukrainian Army just needs to hold out long enough for Russia to run out of logistics vehicles, which at this rate is apparently only a few weeks away.

In practise, it's never that simple. However...

Ben Hodges wrote this article for the Center for European Policy Analysis on the 15th, explaining why he thinks the Russian campaign will soon culminate.

While the Institute for the Study of War published this article yesterday saying that it has culminated, and that the main Russian offensive to capture Kyiv, Khrakiv and Odesa and other cities has been defeated.

This does not mean that Russia has been defeated yet. What it means is that the initial Russian offensive has run out of steam and come to something close to a halt across most of Ukraine, and that they currently cannot easily restart it. To do so, they would have to regroup, re-organise and form new concentrations of forces, yet instead they are feeding reinforcements in in penny packets. In the absence of a new major push from the Russians, and the likely absence of a massive Ukrainian counter-attack, it's likely that the next part of the war will be attritional. That's bad for Ukrainian citizens, who will face continued attacks. Logistics will be very important for both sides, and it is vital that we continue to supply Ukraine arms and ammunition and other essential equipment, including rations, fuel and potentially vehicles. We also need to look very seriously at upping the manufacture of munitions in the west, so as not to deplete our own stocks too much when arming Ukraine, and so as to ensure a continued supply of arms to Ukraine.

Attritional warfare could be very challenging for the Russians, as they will see continued losses of equipment, especially vulnerable transport convoys. The Russians are digging in in places, but in many places they have long supply lines and they will struggle to secure them - against some of the new equipment the US are sending, it will effectively be impossible to secure them.

Yes, the West needs to help Ukraine as much as possible. I guess it would be less than I'd want - which at a minimum would be what this person who doesn't claim military expertise, but I get the impression he does work in a related field.

https://youtu.be/KJkmcNjh_bg?t=2746

[EACLucifer]

Interesting conclusion... Ukrainian Army just needs to hold out long enough for Russia to run out of logistics vehicles, which at this rate is apparently only a few weeks away.

In practise, it's never that simple. However...

Ben Hodges wrote this article for the Center for European Policy Analysis on the 15th, explaining why he thinks the Russian campaign will soon culminate.

While the Institute for the Study of War published this article yesterday saying that it has culminated, and that the main Russian offensive to capture Kyiv, Khrakiv and Odesa and other cities has been defeated.

This does not mean that Russia has been defeated yet. What it means is that the initial Russian offensive has run out of steam and come to something close to a halt across most of Ukraine, and that they currently cannot easily restart it. To do so, they would have to regroup, re-organise and form new concentrations of forces, yet instead they are feeding reinforcements in in penny packets. In the absence of a new major push from the Russians, and the likely absence of a massive Ukrainian counter-attack, it's likely that the next part of the war will be attritional. That's bad for Ukrainian citizens, who will face continued attacks. Logistics will be very important for both sides, and it is vital that we continue to supply Ukraine arms and ammunition and other essential equipment, including rations, fuel and potentially vehicles. We also need to look very seriously at upping the manufacture of munitions in the west, so as not to deplete our own stocks too much when arming Ukraine, and so as to ensure a continued supply of arms to Ukraine.

Attritional warfare could be very challenging for the Russians, as they will see continued losses of equipment, especially vulnerable transport convoys. The Russians are digging in in places, but in many places they have long supply lines and they will struggle to secure them - against some of the new equipment the US are sending, it will effectively be impossible to secure them.

Yes, the West needs to help Ukraine as much as possible. I guess it would be less than I'd want - which at a minimum would be what this person who doesn't claim military expertise, but I get the impression he does work in a related field.

https://youtu.be/KJkmcNjh_bg?t=2746

The distinction between the two approaches - increase the cost for Russia on the one hand and actually aim for a Ukrainian victory on the other - is important. I think we are now at the point where we can say the latter is possible. Not inevitable, not easy, but possible. If the next few weeks or so are largely attrition, then it is vital to get the Ukrainians what they need to gain an advantage in attritional warfare, and to stop the Russians gaining advantages. Above all, there is no point in half measures. Russia already hates us - they did before February and they certainly do now, so there's no reason to hold back military aid.

If they escalate against the west directly, they will be picking a fight they cannot win. And the idea that they have significant conventional capacity they have heretofore held back is not convincing. Just today, for example, they used what appeared to be a ballistic missile* against the vital strategic target of (checks notes)...Retroville Shopping Mall outside Kyiv.

*Could have been a cruise missile too, but it does not affect the point.

[Woodchopper]

Even if he is old/crazy/ill or even if someone stated their opinion that he was this is not the same as him being an idiot.

Sure - idiot was plodder's word, not mine. I was just saying to Gfamily that searching the thread for the word "idiot" might not quite capture the sentiment that plodder was referring to - there have been plenty of posts suggesting that Putin has f.cked up bigtime in various ways, which could colloquially be summarised as "an idiot" (especially by somebody trying to be provocative, as plodder generally is).

The word 'idiot' has different connotations. It can mean someone of low intelligence. But it can also mean a fool, someone who acts unwisely, perhaps due to pride, laziness or greed.

We've spent many years on this board and the last one discussing why intelligent people sometimes make bad decisions. Of course we'll need to wait for the historians to work out what actually happened. But in the mean time I'll suggest two explanations.

First, all leaders run the risk that they'll set up bureaucratic feedback loops in which people who agree with the leader get heard, and those who disagree are silenced. One argument against autocracy is that this tendency can be unchecked as dissenters get fired, jailed or killed. Without an independent and critical media and opposition parties its very easy for a leader surrounded by flatterer to become somewhat divorced from reality.

Secondly, no serving member of the Russian armed forces have ever been involved in a similar operation involving the invasion of a state. Since 1992 they've done counterinsurgency against separatists (Chechnya), intervened in civil wars in neighboring countries (Moldova, Georgia), assisted in a counter insurgency campaign at the invitation of the government (Syria), and seized parts of Ukraine while its government had collapsed. The last time the Soviet Union was involved in a contested invasion was Hungary in 1956 (Czechoslovalkia in 1968 doesn't really count as its armed forces didn't fight back). Someone who was 18 in 1956 would be in their early 80s by now. Anyone senior enough to be involved in planning will be long dead. So as far as an operation the size of the invasion of Ukraine goes, the only Russian knowledge comes from book learning and trying to learn lessons from other states. The Russians have been flat track bullies, effective at fighting against far weaker foes, but hitherto had never tried anything as large and complex as invading Ukraine.

So add those two together, and there is no one who can state from experience what should happen, and a leadership that rewards sycophancy, and we have the recipe for some bad decision-making.