The Invasion of Ukraine

[EACLucifer]

And what's the amphibious fleet doing wandering about? Why aren't they going ashore at Odessa or going home? Aren't they vulnerable out there?

Some of this looks like grandstanding or for propaganda purposes. Maybe not this, but paratroopers? Such airdrops do look impressive and bring back memories of 1930s propaganda reels but even by 1944, they were only useful in very limited roles due to their lack of mobility and heavy weapons when on the ground. There's a reason why airborne brigades in the West (and USSR) used helicopters.

Airdrops work if you can get ground troops to follow up very quickly. D-Day was a successful use of paratroopers. Crete was a nearly pure airborne operation and pretty much the only one that succeeded. However the German paratroopers were so badly mauled by the very tepid opposition that they never tried it again. Market Garden, that didn’t go so well.

This. The Hostomel attack was extremely risky, arrogant, one might say. Drop airborne infantry ahead of the advance, and send tanks to link up with them is the Operation Market Garden playbook. While a hell of a lot has changed since then, the fundamental problem for the attackers that they have to leave their heavy equipment behind and the defenders don't is still the same.

Stopping the initial Hostomel attack is one in the eye for the Russians, but they are still going to try and attack Kyiv with more conventional forces. Seeing a lot of reports of things like defenders blowing up bridges to slow the advance, which is no doubt why we saw the Russians including bridging equipment in their buildup.

Does anyone know if they actually used the bridge that kept appearing and disappearing on the Pripyat River just north of the border in the lead-up to their despicable invasion, or if it was just for practise?

[El Pollo Diablo]

Fair enough. Apologies for any transgression.

Quite alright, it's not something we've had to think about before.

[lpm]

The seem to have been slowed down on the western approach to Kyiv, both at Chernobyl and the airport. But they appear to be there now, plus on the eastern approach.

I guess they now bring in all their artillery and treat the city like Berlin.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Visit all the gay nightclubs?

[Woodchopper]

It feels odd that the Russian attack wasn't utter devastation on day 1.

Maybe that's because we're used to western airforces and cruise missiles destroying defences, then land troops charging with massive overwhelming strength? The west can't afford too many casualties because of popular opinion back home so only attack when there's total domination.

Russia had all these forces on the border but doesn't seem to have blitzkrieged.

The Hostomel airport has been recaptured by Ukrainian counter attack, according to reports, with the Russian airborne force scattered. That just never happens in an attack by the west on Iraq or wherever - any potential counter attacking threat is long since destroyed.

In terms of speed, you're probably thinking of Kuwait in 1991 or Kosovo in 1999. However, both of those are tiny territories which could be driven across over a couple of hours.

But in 2003 it took three weeks between the start if the invasion and US troops reaching Baghdad. Iraq was far bigger, the Iraqi forces did resist and the US was averse to casualties.

I agree that it is notable that Russia hasn't used a lengthy air campaign before invading.

I assume that this is firstly because they want to try to finish the mission before Ukraine could benefit from increased military aid. For example, shipping over thousands of anti-tank or anti-aircraft missile systems to Ukraine would hurt the invaders. Their dash for Kyiv appears to suggest that they are looking for a quick regime change before the rest of the world has time to react.

Secondly, Russia has developed high tech weapons but it it appears that it can't afford to procure very many of them for its armed forces. The US can afford to launch thousands of missiles and drop thousands of guided bombs. But the Russians probably don't have enough modern cruise missiles to be able to afford to use them in, say, a week long campaign (they won't want to use up too much of its stocks).

[Woodchopper]

Humans always gravitate to "one simple trick". The more complicated a thing is, the more we want it solved in a single sentence.

SWIFT is the current thing.

It would be useful to ban them and would inconvenience Russia, but it's just a messaging system. When you transfer £10m from HSBC to Barclays a SWIFT message goes with it, encoding all the useful information. All automated, nice and easy, if there's any problems someone can check the SWIFT and see where the money went.

Russian banks (and banks within Russia's sphere of influence) have replicated SWIFT with their own system. So transfers from Belarus to Russia would still be fully automated. And transfers from Russia to Switzerland would still happen - not having SWIFT would require a manual workaround but is not inherently prohibitive. Money launderers in particular are skilled at moving money between minor banks that have useless systems - in fact they set up these banks as fronts and rely on humans to do everything manually, rather than invest in automated IT. And Moscow does not have a shortage of money laundering experts...

I'm sure there are better actions than targeting SWIFT. I guess it's become symbolic but there's stuff that would hurt Putin more.

Yes, I agree. The main effect of trade sanctions is to make things more difficult. That can have an effect but it takes time, very likely far more time than Ukraine has. But as EACL pointed out, its a good idea to reduce Russia's capacity to wage war.

One effect of sanctions is that they can help to shore up the regime. What often happens is that when the population faces shortages the government and people connected to it are the ones that are in the best position to access needed goods. This gives them a new and powerful form of leverage that they can use to ensure compliance.

[EACLucifer]

It feels odd that the Russian attack wasn't utter devastation on day 1.

Maybe that's because we're used to western airforces and cruise missiles destroying defences, then land troops charging with massive overwhelming strength? The west can't afford too many casualties because of popular opinion back home so only attack when there's total domination.

Russia had all these forces on the border but doesn't seem to have blitzkrieged.

The Hostomel airport has been recaptured by Ukrainian counter attack, according to reports, with the Russian airborne force scattered. That just never happens in an attack by the west on Iraq or wherever - any potential counter attacking threat is long since destroyed.

In terms of speed, you're probably thinking of Kuwait in 1991 or Kosovo in 1999. However, both of those are tiny territories which could be driven across over a couple of hours.

But in 2003 it took three weeks between the start if the invasion and US troops reaching Baghdad. Iraq was far bigger, the Iraqi forces did resist and the US was averse to casualties.

I agree that it is notable that Russia hasn't used a lengthy air campaign before invading.

I assume that this is firstly because they want to try to finish the mission before Ukraine could benefit from increased military aid. For example, shipping over thousands of anti-tank or anti-aircraft missile systems to Ukraine would hurt the invaders. Their dash for Kyiv appears to suggest that they are looking for a quick regime change before the rest of the world has time to react.

Secondly, Russia has developed high tech weapons but it it appears that it can't afford to procure very many of them for its armed forces. The US can afford to launch thousands of missiles and drop thousands of guided bombs. But the Russians probably don't have enough modern cruise missiles to be able to afford to use them in, say, a week long campaign (they won't want to use up too much of its stocks).

Not going to link to any pictures, but pictures of the dead and captured show quite a lot of Russians without body armour at all, which might be removed from the wounded, but probably not from the dead. I think it was LPM who noted that they went in at dawn, not during the night. That might suggest something about their ability to equip large numbers of invaders with night vision equipment. I can't help but notice that the day the US originally suggested the Russians might go in was the 16th - a full moon.

[WFJ]

The Guardian is suggesting there are efforts to strip Russia of its Security Council seat, which seems a bit misguided if true.

[Woodchopper]

Not going to link to any pictures, but pictures of the dead and captured show quite a lot of Russians without body armour at all, which might be removed from the wounded, but probably not from the dead. I think it was LPM who noted that they went in at dawn, not during the night. That might suggest something about their ability to equip large numbers of invaders with night vision equipment. I can't help but notice that the day the US originally suggested the Russians might go in was the 16th - a full moon.

Yes, I agree. It does appear that they aren't widely equipped with night vision equipment and other things that US forces take for granted.

[Sciolus]

I agree that it is notable that Russia hasn't used a lengthy air campaign before invading.

I assume that this is firstly because they want to try to finish the mission before Ukraine could benefit from increased military aid. For example, shipping over thousands of anti-tank or anti-aircraft missile systems to Ukraine would hurt the invaders. Their dash for Kyiv appears to suggest that they are looking for a quick regime change before the rest of the world has time to react.

Secondly, Russia has developed high tech weapons but it it appears that it can't afford to procure very many of them for its armed forces. The US can afford to launch thousands of missiles and drop thousands of guided bombs. But the Russians probably don't have enough modern cruise missiles to be able to afford to use them in, say, a week long campaign (they won't want to use up too much of its stocks).

Also, an air campaign would be more likely to attract action from Nato than a ground campaign. See: recent talk about enforcing a no-fly zone.

[jimbob]

Humans always gravitate to "one simple trick". The more complicated a thing is, the more we want it solved in a single sentence.

SWIFT is the current thing.

It would be useful to ban them and would inconvenience Russia, but it's just a messaging system. When you transfer £10m from HSBC to Barclays a SWIFT message goes with it, encoding all the useful information. All automated, nice and easy, if there's any problems someone can check the SWIFT and see where the money went.

Russian banks (and banks within Russia's sphere of influence) have replicated SWIFT with their own system. So transfers from Belarus to Russia would still be fully automated. And transfers from Russia to Switzerland would still happen - not having SWIFT would require a manual workaround but is not inherently prohibitive. Money launderers in particular are skilled at moving money between minor banks that have useless systems - in fact they set up these banks as fronts and rely on humans to do everything manually, rather than invest in automated IT. And Moscow does not have a shortage of money laundering experts...

I'm sure there are better actions than targeting SWIFT. I guess it's become symbolic but there's stuff that would hurt Putin more.

Yes, I agree. The main effect of trade sanctions is to make things more difficult. That can have an effect but it takes time, very likely far more time than Ukraine has. But as EACL pointed out, its a good idea to reduce Russia's capacity to wage war.

One effect of sanctions is that they can help to shore up the regime. What often happens is that when the population faces shortages the government and people connected to it are the ones that are in the best position to access needed goods. This gives them a new and powerful form of leverage that they can use to ensure compliance.

The classic and to my mind, obscene, example wes Iraq in the late 1990s.

It was seemingly unsporting to bomb the Marsh Arabs but fine to use tanks.

And subject the country to sanctions whilst providing food aid to be distributed by the regime, which was waging war on subsets of the population

[Bird on a Fire]

The Guardian is suggesting there are efforts to strip Russia of its Security Council seat, which seems a bit misguided if true.

The permanent seats should all be abolished. What's the point of uniting nations if a handful of them, especially ones that in most cases have historically been very aggressive overseas, can veto democratic motions?

Imagine having a government where a bunch of unelected folk had permanent seats and could block legislation.

[noggins]

We have to at least try the harshest economic sanctions.

[EACLucifer]

The Guardian is suggesting there are efforts to strip Russia of its Security Council seat, which seems a bit misguided if true.

The permanent seats should all be abolished. What's the point of uniting nations if a handful of them, especially ones that in most cases have historically been very aggressive overseas, can veto democratic motions?

Imagine having a government where a bunch of unelected folk had permanent seats and could block legislation.

The entire UN is utterly unfit for purpose and has been for a long time.

[WFJ]

The Guardian is suggesting there are efforts to strip Russia of its Security Council seat, which seems a bit misguided if true.

The permanent seats should all be abolished. What's the point of uniting nations if a handful of them, especially ones that in most cases have historically been very aggressive overseas, can veto democratic motions?

Imagine having a government where a bunch of unelected folk had permanent seats and could block legislation.

I agree. There is no moral or fairness argument in favour permanent seats. They exist for practical reasons* to keep the more powerful states involved in the UN. Otherwise it will end up like the ICC where states like the US, Russia and Israel refuse to participate** so they can continue their crimes while "sh.t-hole little countries" get censured. That's why removing Russia would be misguided.

* and self-serving reasons for the powerful states.
** apparently they were all strongly against day-night tests and free-hits in ODIs.

[headshot]

There are reports coming out of Russian troops using Ukrainian vehicles and changing uniforms to enter Kyiv.

If true, that's a straight up war crime.

[tom p]

The Guardian is suggesting there are efforts to strip Russia of its Security Council seat, which seems a bit misguided if true.

The permanent seats should all be abolished. What's the point of uniting nations if a handful of them, especially ones that in most cases have historically been very aggressive overseas, can veto democratic motions?

Imagine having a government where a bunch of unelected folk had permanent seats and could block legislation.

The entire UN is utterly unfit for purpose and has been for a long time.

Well, the security council, anyway. Look at how they have let a bunch of fascist bullies get away with expanding and entrenching their occupation for the last 20 years only 1,000 miles south from where a different fascist bully is attempting to occupy territory now

[tom p]

The Guardian is suggesting there are efforts to strip Russia of its Security Council seat, which seems a bit misguided if true.

The permanent seats should all be abolished. What's the point of uniting nations if a handful of them, especially ones that in most cases have historically been very aggressive overseas, can veto democratic motions?

Imagine having a government where a bunch of unelected folk had permanent seats and could block legislation.

I agree. There is no moral or fairness argument in favour permanent seats. They exist for practical reasons* to keep the more powerful states involved in the UN. Otherwise it will end up like the ICC where states like the US, Russia and Israel refuse to participate** so they can continue their crimes while "sh.t-hole little countries" get censured. That's why removing Russia would be misguided.

* and self-serving reasons for the powerful states.
** apparently they were all strongly against day-night tests and free-hits in ODIs.

I did initially assume you meant that ICC

[Bird on a Fire]

There are reports coming out of Russian troops using Ukrainian vehicles and changing uniforms to enter Kyiv.

If true, that's a straight up war crime.

I'm pretty sure there are going to be reports of basically everything over the next few days. We should probably test anything that's not been verified by journalists with a pinch of salt.

[tom p]

There are reports coming out of Russian troops using Ukrainian vehicles and changing uniforms to enter Kyiv.

If true, that's a straight up war crime.

I'm pretty sure there are going to be reports of basically everything over the next few days. We should probably test anything that's not been verified by journalists with a pinch of salt.

Indeed.
and can I also make a humble plea for people to stop banging on about what the couple of dozen people in stop the war are saying.
Who gives a f.ck? These are not important people & their views are irrelevant (in case it had escaped anyone's attention, Jeremy Corbyn is no longer leader of the labour party and hasn't been for a couple of years). Coming into this thread and being shouty about them doesn't add to the sum total of human knowledge or happiness. It's just pointless venting. If wanna do that, please start a 'what sh.t are StW saying about Ukraine now' thread, or use the rants one.

[EACLucifer]

There are reports coming out of Russian troops using Ukrainian vehicles and changing uniforms to enter Kyiv.

If true, that's a straight up war crime.

I'm pretty sure there are going to be reports of basically everything over the next few days. We should probably test anything that's not been verified by journalists with a pinch of salt.

Indeed.
and can I also make a humble plea for people to stop banging on about what the couple of dozen people in stop the war are saying.
Who gives a f.ck? These are not important people & their views are irrelevant (in case it had escaped anyone's attention, Jeremy Corbyn is no longer leader of the labour party and hasn't been for a couple of years). Coming into this thread and being shouty about them doesn't add to the sum total of human knowledge or happiness. It's just pointless venting. If wanna do that, please start a 'what sh.t are StW saying about Ukraine now' thread, or use the rants one.

Says the whaboutist moron coming onto the thread to bang on about Iraq.

There's lots we can't do here. Permanently excluding the f.ckers who sucked up to Putin and his RT propaganda channel from left-wing movements is something we can do.

[headshot]

There are reports coming out of Russian troops using Ukrainian vehicles and changing uniforms to enter Kyiv.

If true, that's a straight up war crime.

I'm pretty sure there are going to be reports of basically everything over the next few days. We should probably test anything that's not been verified by journalists with a pinch of salt.

Yeah, good idea. It's why I'm staying off Twitter, this was reported on a main news site...though I now can't find it, so perhaps it was removed.

[EACLucifer]

There are reports coming out of Russian troops using Ukrainian vehicles and changing uniforms to enter Kyiv.

If true, that's a straight up war crime.

I'm pretty sure there are going to be reports of basically everything over the next few days. We should probably test anything that's not been verified by journalists with a pinch of salt.

Yeah, good idea. It's why I'm staying off Twitter, this was reported on a main news site...though I now can't find it, so perhaps it was removed.

There are photos that appear to pass muster of remains of rocket engines in civilian areas that are the sort used in cluster-bomb projectiles, which is a warcrime. There are reports from the Donbass of forced conscription of an occupied population, which is a warcrime. There's reports that some of those conscripted are minors, which is a warcrime. Deliberate targetting of hospitals, just like in Syria. That's a warcrime, too.

Whether or not every single report is true or not, they've definitely committed some actual warcrimes. Just like they did in Syria.

[Sciolus]

It would be helpful if people posting putative statements of fact could include links/references, so we can at least make a guess as to their reliability.

[EACLucifer]

And now it looks like the Russians have hit a Romanian vessel. Good to see their ability to discern neutral vessels hasn't improved since the Russo-Japanese war.