The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

'Ukraine has been trying to show it can inflict significant damage on Russia, especially after U.S. President Donald Trump said that Zelenskiy did not "have the cards" in the negotiations.' Reuters.

What is the meaning of "significant" and what have Ukraine suffered? Who is winning the propaganda war?
I am curious about the angle of the camera, what were port defences doing? The camera-drone got there just seconds before the explosion? The mine-drone was waiting there, like those we have seen waiting by the roads? That would have been risky. Another case of Russian incompetence, more than of Ukrainian ability? First try or first successful after how many operations?

 

[swerve]

Will slaughtering Ukrainians in Donbass help not getting NATO closer?

So far, Putin's war has got NATO much closer. It's more than doubled Russia's border with NATO, & put a lot more of it close to St. Petersburg, for example. It's also put almost all of the coast of the Baltic in NATO hands, & all of its entrances in NATO territorial waters, & considerably increased the number of NATO troops & weapons near those borders. Very clever! All part of Putin's cunning plan, no doubt, & it's only cost hundreds of thousands of dead & injured, & vast amounts of money.

The whole thing shows that Putin's plans were based on delusions.

 

[rsemmes]

So far, Putin's war has got NATO much closer. It's more than doubled Russia's border with NATO, & put a lot more of it close to St. Petersburg, for example. It's also put almost all of the coast of the Baltic in NATO hands, & all of its entrances in NATO territorial waters, & considerably increased the number of NATO troops & weapons near those borders. Very clever! All part of Putin's cunning plan, no doubt, & it's only cost hundreds of thousands of dead & injured, & vast amounts of money.

The whole thing shows that Putin's plans were based on delusions.

Fine...
Keeping Ukraine as a non member. Russia hasn't invaded Finland again, not yet. There is no oil, Finland (and Greenland) are safe from US.
Hundreds of thousand of Ukrainians and a vas amount of EU money.

"Russia must understand there can be no reward for war and for killing."

No reward for aggression: Zelensky outlines key conditions for peace

President Volodymyr Zelensky said that many diplomatic processes regarding ending the war have intensified recently, but he emphasized that Russia must understand there can be no reward for war and for killing. — Ukrinform.

www.ukrinform.net

That is the whole point of war and aggression. Putin is not the only one delusional.

"UK spy chief says Putin is dragging out peace talks and wants to subjugate Ukraine" (Blaise Metreweli, new MI6 Chief)

UK spy chief says Putin is dragging out peace talks and wants to subjugate Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin is stalling efforts to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, and is testing the West with tactics that fall “just below the threshold of war,” the head of Britain’s MI6 spy agency said Monday.

www.pbs.org

At least since 2022, in Istanbul. Who is delusional?

"European leaders welcome 'significant progress' on Ukraine talks and set out key next steps, but 'nothing agreed until everything is agreed'."
Including NATO membership, I guess.
'Some of the specific ideas put forward in the statement include “sustained and significant support for Ukraine to build its armed forces,” at a peacetime level of 800,000 soldiers, “to be able to deter conflict and defend Ukraine’s territory".'
Is NATO providing volunteers too or only the money for those 800.000 men? Will EU pay for them until 2030 or until 2050? Forever?

European leaders propose ‘multinational force’ and hail ‘significant progress’ on Ukraine talks – as it happened

Statement suggests force to ‘provide robust support’ and enforce a potential peace deal in Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

On the other hand, "Everything went according to plan"; I think I read that before.

 

[personaldesas]

@rsemmes, can I ask this genuinely: do your arguments ever substantially go beyond whataboutism?

This thread isn’t about the U.S., EU hypocrisy, or whether other countries have committed crimes in the past. It’s about Russia’s war against Ukraine and its outcomes.

If the standard is that no action can be judged as a mistake or irrational because “someone else once did something similar”, then discussion here becomes pointless. Under that logic, nothing is ever a good or bad decision or outcome, and there’s nothing left to analyse.

So I’m trying to understand: are you arguing that Russia’s actions were strategically sound given the outcomes, or are you simply saying others are also doing mistakes? Because those are very different claims.

 

[rsemmes]

@rsemmes, can I ask this genuinely: do your arguments ever substantially go beyond whataboutism?

This thread isn’t about the U.S., EU hypocrisy, or whether other countries have committed crimes in the past. It’s about Russia’s war against Ukraine and its outcomes.

If the standard is that no action can be judged as wrong or irrational because “someone else once did something similar”, then discussion here becomes pointless. Under that logic, nothing is ever a good or bad decision or outcome, and there’s nothing left to analyse.

So I’m trying to understand: are you arguing that Russia’s actions were strategically sound given the outcomes, or are you simply saying others are also doing mistakes? Because those are very different claims.

Can't I add a touch of sarcasm? Your whataboutism, my hypocrisy? Just treat as humour, not as principles.
I am not setting standards. What standards, anyway?
Today, no one can say that they were sound. Russia had certain political goals, Russia has certain political goals. Ukraine does not belong to NATO.
Do I have to state that "others are also doing mistakes"? Putin plan was based on delusions or overoptimistic? Was the Robotine offensive based on delusions or overoptimistic? Kursk?

I could have said that military history shows that plans are based on delusions; accidentally, some of them work. I see his irony... Well, History is full of ironies.
It is hard to see this war as "different" or "special". At least, it is hard for me to see it.

 

[personaldesas]

If that’s your position, then you’re effectively saying there’s no point in analysing this at all, everything just reduces to “war is messy.”
That’s a valid stance, but then there’s nothing substantive left to debate.

 

[Feanor]

So getting slaughtered in Donbass will help them in resisting the evil west?

Remember, they don't see it that way. They see it as Russia winning. And in some sense it's true. When the recruiting strategy is voluntary enlistments, with financial inducements, anyone who doesn't want to fight generally doesn't have to.

Although the sinking of the submarine is successful and could lead to Russia deploying netting at harbour entrance ,these remote control vessels may easily deploy mines outside said protected harbour or other means to attack at last minute

It certainly doesn't look like the sub sank, or even took major damage. The blast hit the pier about 20m from the sub. The exact situation is unclear, and given the location of the explosion, it's possible the subs propulsion is damaged.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10248993.html

VK.com | VK

vk.com

VK.com | VK

vk.com

Colonelcassad

МО РФ показалы кадры с подводной лодкой, которую противник вчера пытался атаковать в Новороссийске. Подтверждено, что атака осуществлялось с помощью подводного дрона. В общем с перемогой у противника не сложилась.

t.me

On the subject of Kupyansk, the situation remains murky. Here's a video from Dec 15th with Russian soldiers demonstrating what appears to be fairly clear control of an area in the right shore. I've linked the suriyakmaps for that street below too, as well as a Ukrainian map site. The area is claimed in no-mans land. It's possible Russian soldiers took a pretty crazy risk making the video. It's also possible the area was recaptured by Russia, or that the video was shot in advance, though the soldier clearly states the date, and openly mocks Ukrainian claims of recapturing the town. Regardless of minor specifics, the situation for Russian forces on the right shore in Kupyansk remains bad. The only hope is that Ukraine's push eventually runs out of steam and Russia manages to hold on until then. The situation on the left shore has improved significantly, and if Russia can complete the capture of Kucherovka, we can consider the situation to be stabilized there (there being the left shore).

Оперативный простор

Штурмовики #6_армии ГВ «Запад» патрулируют Купянск Военнослужащие 121 мсп 6 А патрулируют улицы Купянска, на данном видео один из бойцов на маршруте патрулирования проходящим по Пляжному переулку в южной части города. Сегодня относительно спокойно – нарушителей порядка не выявлено...

t.me

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1V8NzjQkzMOhpuLhkktbiKgodOQ27X6IV&ll=49.70101206864616%2C37.616330813976155&z=17

Купянск Пляжный переулок, 4 на карте

Купянск Пляжный переулок, 4 на карте с подробным описание номеров домов, вид Пляжный переулок, 4 со спутника и фотографиями в онлайн

kartagoroda.com.ua

So far, Putin's war has got NATO much closer. It's more than doubled Russia's border with NATO, & put a lot more of it close to St. Petersburg, for example. It's also put almost all of the coast of the Baltic in NATO hands, & all of its entrances in NATO territorial waters, & considerably increased the number of NATO troops & weapons near those borders. Very clever! All part of Putin's cunning plan, no doubt, & it's only cost hundreds of thousands of dead & injured, & vast amounts of money.

The whole thing shows that Putin's plans were based on delusions.

Maybe delusions, maybe misinformation. We have public sources showing things reported to Putin like the capture of Kupyansk when even OSINT sources clearly show this isn't the case. It's possible he's personally delusional, but it's also possible he lives in an information bubble and what's reported doesn't particularly align with reality. It's one of the dangers of authoritarian government. I would certainly argue that the war was a big mistake on his part.

However that decision fork is behind us. The question becomes, what now. And the situation is that the level of expenditure in materiel and lives is sustainable for Russia for likely years to come. How many years is unclear, but at least a couple. It's unsustainable for Ukraine, who depends on foreign funds to keep their state budget afloat, nevermind the actual war effort.

EDIT: More images of the aftermath of the strike in Novorossiysk.

VK.com | VK

vk.com

 

[swerve]

Fine...
Keeping Ukraine as a non member. Russia hasn't invaded Finland again, not yet. There is no oil, Finland (and Greenland) are safe from US.
Hundreds of thousand of Ukrainians and a vas amount of EU money.

"Russia must understand there can be no reward for war and for killing."

No reward for aggression: Zelensky outlines key conditions for peace

President Volodymyr Zelensky said that many diplomatic processes regarding ending the war have intensified recently, but he emphasized that Russia must understand there can be no reward for war and for killing. — Ukrinform.

www.ukrinform.net

That is the whole point of war and aggression. Putin is not the only one delusional.

"UK spy chief says Putin is dragging out peace talks and wants to subjugate Ukraine" (Blaise Metreweli, new MI6 Chief)

UK spy chief says Putin is dragging out peace talks and wants to subjugate Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin is stalling efforts to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, and is testing the West with tactics that fall “just below the threshold of war,” the head of Britain’s MI6 spy agency said Monday.

www.pbs.org

At least since 2022, in Istanbul. Who is delusional?

"European leaders welcome 'significant progress' on Ukraine talks and set out key next steps, but 'nothing agreed until everything is agreed'."
Including NATO membership, I guess.
'Some of the specific ideas put forward in the statement include “sustained and significant support for Ukraine to build its armed forces,” at a peacetime level of 800,000 soldiers, “to be able to deter conflict and defend Ukraine’s territory".'
Is NATO providing volunteers too or only the money for those 800.000 men? Will EU pay for them until 2030 or until 2050? Forever?

European leaders propose ‘multinational force’ and hail ‘significant progress’ on Ukraine talks – as it happened

Statement suggests force to ‘provide robust support’ and enforce a potential peace deal in Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

On the other hand, "Everything went according to plan"; I think I read that before.

You're ignoring the most important thing here.

WHO INVADED WHO?

The countries giving aid to Ukraine are a messy coalition of democracies with different priorities, & are reacting to a situation which came as a surprise to almost all of them. Their responses require negotiation between multiple governments, & a lot of them have had changes of government since the war began. The Russians planned an attack on Ukraine, & one would expect them to have analysed the situation beforehand & prepared for the war. They're effectively led by an autocrat (the same one who started all this), who has no need to negotiate: he can just give orders.

You're not putting forward any coherent arguments at the moment. What's your point?

 

[crest]

So getting slaughtered in Donbass will help them in resisting the evil west?

I don't think they think of it in that exact context. I'm sure you understand that when a nation is at war the people understand there will be losses, and such a understanding is even more acceptable if the nation is winning said war. But overall yes willingness of the population to support the war does indeed reinforce the point that the Russian people are Infact invested to some degree at least actions that are regarded as those of a strong and independent nation. And that those characteristics are ones that are regarded as ones of national pride

 

[crest]

So far, Putin's war has got NATO much closer. It's more than doubled Russia's border with NATO, & put a lot more of it close to St. Petersburg, for example. It's also put almost all of the coast of the Baltic in NATO hands, & all of its entrances in NATO territorial waters, & considerably increased the number of NATO troops & weapons near those borders. Very clever! All part of Putin's cunning plan, no doubt, & it's only cost hundreds of thousands of dead & injured, & vast amounts of money.

The whole thing shows that Putin's plans were based on delusions.

There is no reason to believe that further nato expansion would not have happened anyways is there? After all Ukraine was never supposed to be part of NATO either. So from Russia's point of view it was a lose or lose less option. Have Ukraine as NATO for sure and potentially Finland later or have just potentially Finland later. It also needs to be taken into account that the nation's NATO has since expanded to are not really all that mush of a shock. As in there were decidedly pro western as it was. Or at least very unlikely to be pro Russian in any event. This prior to the reforms made under zelenski was not the case in Ukraine, Ukraine was untill then something of a buffer state for Russia so NATO was in terms of threat perception from Russia much more of a issue then finniland for example. There is of course alot more to this aswell eg. Military capabilities, relative diplomatic influence, even the fact Russian had made clear they would respond to such a action and the ramifications for it if it had not are factors worth of consideration I'll just say ect for the rest here

The jury is still out if it was a wise decision but there is a solid argument it was also a forced choice of bad or worse options. This was not a choice made in a vacuum after all

 

[swerve]

You're ignoring the fact that all the countries which have joined NATO have had to apply: NATO does not recruit. So why have they applied? Russian threats, or outright aggression. North wind & sun . . . . Russia had choices: be nice, or be nasty - & it has consistently chosen to be nasty. It has acted in a manner which has seemed calculated to make its neighbours afraid of it. Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia . . . . And it's supported separatist movements elsewhere, e.g. Estonia, though they've not got as far as taking up arms.

As for Finland & Sweden consider where joining NATO was on the political agenda in those countries before February 2022. It wasn't. Both had large majorities in favour of staying out, even after Russia's seizure of Crimea & the 2014 Donbas war. That changed only after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. They've joined NATO because Putin frightened them into it.

Russia has driven East European countries into NATO. If you wanted to design a Russian foreign policy aimed at strengthening NATO, it'd look very like what Putin's done. He's bullied & threatened, apparently trying to get cooperation inspired by fear. He seems incapable of understanding that there's any other way, & that frightened people might seek protection.

It's bizarre that there are people so blind as not to see this.

 

[crest]

I would argue that NATO does indeed recruit or at the very least accept applications with knowledge of there ramifications. After all being in NATO has alot of pre conditions that are relevant to a countries relations with Russia in particular. And both Europe and the west in non military areas. So no I'm not ignoring the process of joining NATO here intentionally, it's just that process is less relivent then the potential for it or the overall direction of the countries in question take in there policies as perceived by Russia as a factor for there actions in Ukraine.

The points to how Russia is perceived are as valid as my points to how Russia perceived the expansion and actions of others. And definitely a factor as to why NATO may have expanded but the question here is why Russia responded in the way it did. Yes they could have played nice as you say but ask yourself what does that mean from there perspective or simply listen to what they have been saying about that for a very long time because it's consistent and relivent. It's also why they chose to first threaten action then do the half measure before finally the full measure of invasion. Something itself a limited action in the bigger picture of course

And no they haven't applied at that point but from Russian perspective there was no reason to believe they would not eventually or even if not formally join side with NATO and Western policies overall. Again before zelenski Ukraine was a buffer for those results.

The idea that Russia chose war without there being a downside from there perspective of not choosing war is a very disingenuous and slanted way of looking at things. One may agree or disagree with the "rightness" of the action but to assume there was no practical reasoning behind it is rather naive. Indeed the long timeline and method of how Russia got to this point in and of itself is proof it was not a rash or impulsive choice

 

[swerve]

You really, really, don't get the point.

Russia has chosen aggression, when the choice was making friends or aggression. It hasn't tried to make friends, except with thuggish kleptocrats who'd depend on it for protection, & that's a patron/client relationship - & doesn't benefit the country as a whole.

The rational response to that for democratic neighbours of Russia is to seek protection from Russian aggression & interference & in their internal affairs.

Sensible Russian leaders should be able to work that out, & adjust their policies, but have chosen not to.

 

[crest]

You really, really, don't get the point.

Russia has chosen aggression, when the choice was making friends or aggression. It hasn't tried to make friends, except with thuggish kleptocrats who'd depend on it for protection, & that's a patron/client relationship - & doesn't benefit the country as a whole.

The rational response to that for democratic neighbours of Russia is to seek protection from Russian aggression & interference & in their internal affairs.

Sensible Russian leaders should be able to work that out, & adjust their policies, but have chosen not to.

I get it I'm saying there is a reason for this choice, what you consider friend making they considered surender. You applying what you think is right without any regard for how the other side sees it. You must see that dismissing there concerns as irrelevant because you agree with the things they don't agree with is in a nutshell the attitude that caused this whole thing. Could not we have just agreed to keep military forces out of Ukraine? Or indeed not put a anti Russian government in powere there? Sure we didn't tho this is the result. I'm not here to discuss if Russia is bad or if the west is right it's irrelevant,fact is this is why there is a war and it was also predictable the response from Russia measured and drawn out, in short its a choice they made in response it is both measured and with plenty of warning (read attempt to resolve otherwise). Not some random aggressive attempt to I don't know grow there empire or something as I guess is the implication of your argument. I don't actually know why you think they invaded btw just that you think it was wrong

Again the is not a policy they embarked upon its one they were forced into and honestly is one from all indications try would have preferred to avoid. But ultimately decided that it's was more detrimental to there nations security and independents to let pass without resistance. You don't think they why of that is relivent?

 

[personaldesas]

Maybe delusions, maybe misinformation. We have public sources showing things reported to Putin like the capture of Kupyansk when even OSINT sources clearly show this isn't the case. It's possible he's personally delusional, but it's also possible he lives in an information bubble and what's reported doesn't particularly align with reality. It's one of the dangers of authoritarian government. I would certainly argue that the war was a big mistake on his part.

In both scenarios, the result would be the same: Putin is acting on a distorted picture of reality. How confident we are that this is really the case?

The Russians planned an attack on Ukraine, & one would expect them to have analysed the situation beforehand & prepared for the war.

I still strongly suspect they expectedfor a short, decisive campaign rather than a prolonged, attritional war.

 

[rsemmes]

If that’s your position, then you’re effectively saying there’s no point in analysing this at all, everything just reduces to “war is messy.”
That’s a valid stance, but then there’s nothing substantive left to debate.

I cannot understand how that is what you see in my posts.
a/ War is murky.
b/ Would you care to analyse that angle I mentioned before? I don't know about the zoom, but the angle is low.
c/ Will the EU pay for those 800.00 men, if Ukraine can find them, until 2050?
...

You see what you want to see, don't blame that on me.