The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
It appears that the Russian response to Ukraine targeting their marine vessels is trashing Odessa and probably making good on Putin’s threat of cutting the country from the Black Sea. Port infrastructure has, of course, been targeted. Mainly, however, Odessa has been in the blackout for five days two days ago and the energy and other critical infrastructure has been hit consistently since.


Just as, or more, crucial, Russia has been making the bridges connecting southern Odessa region to Romania and Moldova inoperable. This is kind of a big deal for the region, as well as the country as a whole.


Again, these damaged bridges are kind of a quite big deal (makes one wonder why they weren’t brought down or made inoperable by the Russia long time ago and kept in such condition ever since).

On a personal note, my good friend’s father went back to his home in Odessa just a couple of months ago after spending 1.5-2 years here in Canada (in BC). He is in his late 70s, though you would not say the guy is more than 65 if you ever met him. But, I imagine, this shit can take years of one’s life in an instant. Sucks.

Some Ukrainians (mostly ultranationalists) suggest that Ukraine should invade Transnistria to take advantage of their bridge crossing over the river. Some suggest that would be perfectly legal too. For exmaple:

IMG_3258.jpeg

What makes this ludicrous idea funny is that these people with epic ingenuity do not seem to learn from past mistakes of “let’s invade and see what happens”. And there is a whole bunch of them posting this nonsense over the past 24 or so hours (the lemmings pick up the line as well and carry it around). Oh well, what are you gonna do.

In the meantime, SBU posted a video of hitting another Russian vessel in the Mediterranean.


The strategy is certainly going to work miracles. But it sure would be interesting to know how they managed the strike. There were reports with no confirmation that also a coastguard vessel was targeted by an aerial drone, as well as some other oil tanker on fire in the Black Sea (I don’t want to search for the links since these were not confirmed anyway and at least the latter is rather a very low probability event in my books).


The “interest-free loan”:


The first interest payment of €1B is due in 2027 and then it is €3B per annum from then on. How far does this loan get Ukraine? From the same article:

The war-ravaged country faces a budget shortfall of €71.7 billion next year and is in desperate need of funds to ensure its survival after Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to keep the conflict going on Friday.

Note that that number does not account for military assistance that Kyiv is now accustomed to. Good luck finding just about as much more needed for the next two years.

For those trashing De Wever, I think he is 100% right in his thought process. And according to the article cited below, polling suggests that 67% of Belgians support his train of thought as well (which is all that should count at the end of the day).


And this, basically, sums it up, in my opinion:

“Countries that live close to Russia … found it emotionally satisfying” to try to tap Russia’s frozen assets, De Wever told reporters after the summit. But “politics is not an emotional job,” and “rationality has prevailed.”

I am actually surprised they hammered out this €90B deal that they did. I can honestly say I did not expect it to happen this quickly!


Recommended reading:

 

rsemmes

Active Member
'A source in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said Friday’s attack was a “new, unprecedented special operation”.'
Great! Let's all do "unprecedented special operations".
“The enemy must understand that Ukraine will not stop, and will strike them anywhere in the world, wherever they may be,”
Then, Russia mustn't stop and hit them "anywhere in the world".
"this is an absolutely legitimate target for the SBU."
UK is providing weapons to Ukraine, UK is an "absolutely legitimate target" for Russia; as every ship and every rail line providing aid to Ukraine is. (I live in UK.)

Italy was sinking neutral ships during the Spanish CW, but there was a Non-Intervention Committee then. What's new?
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
I cannot understand where you seem to see that.
Well, why dont we take a look at precisely what you said, in post #13449:

rsemmes: "A country "on the verge of bankruptcy", maybe, shouldn't be "in the fight" for 2 more years. Even if its "friends" want to keep it there."

Bold is mine in order to emphasize this particular.

Your sentence questions to whether or not it is the UKR desire to fight RU, and instead slyly suggests that in facts its "friends" are the ones pushing UKR to fight.

UKR chose to fight in Feb.2022 before any meaningful aid was received. They continue to to choose to fight. They can choose to not fight at any time.

First, forget about “existence”; since 2022. The limited invasion made that point clear for everyone to see...
"Limited invasion ?" Can you explain how this invasion is limited ? Second-rate-Stalin wanted all of UKR under his control. The initial distribution of RU forces clearly shows that, be it by outight control, or installing a UKR puppet.

Even if still sounds great for propaganda purposes. Putin would have been quite happy with the existence of Ukraine under a puppet regime.
At least we can agree on that.

Mind, a Russian puppet regimen, not a Polish or NATO puppet regimen, obviously.
What exactly constitutes a "NATO puppet regime ? Is there such a thing ?

It is clear that Zelenki wants to fight,
Wrong. Its clear that UKR as a whole wants to fight. Otherwise, they wouldnt be fighting. That fact that most of the country isnt engaged in active combat doesnt change that. Most RU citizens arent fighting, so by your logic, its Second-rate-Stalin that wants the fight, not RU as a whole ?

We haven't stopped saying that we want Ukraine in the fight. Now, “These economic and military dividends justify Britain’s commitments not as altruism but as advancement of core national interests. “ That's RUSI, not me; and not only RUSI.
We want Ukraine to keep fighting, irrelevant of Ukrainian wishes.
What "we" want doesnt force the issue. If UKR didnt want to fight, the war would be over already. They choose to fight. You are conflating mutual self-interests with some shadowy conspiracy to somehow force UKR to fight against its wishes.

The fate of Ukraine is only relevant, never its “existence”, as long as it suits our interests.
Its fate and existence are tied together you know. It would suit our interests if we helped UKR or not. it makes no difference to what "we" want as long as UKR continues to not want to be part of RU.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
UK is providing weapons to Ukraine, UK is an "absolutely legitimate target" for Russia; as every ship and every rail line providing aid to Ukraine is. (I live in UK.)
China is proving support to RU. Is that a "legitimate target" ?

Answer: no. Neither side wants to escalate to that point.

So calm yourself, you are in no danger, despite the constant nuclear sabre-rattling by RU pundits.
 

crest

Member
Wrong. Its clear that UKR as a whole wants to fight. Otherwise, they wouldnt be fighting. That fact that most of the country isnt engaged in active combat doesnt change that. Most RU citizens arent fighting, so by your logic, its Second-rate-Stalin that wants the fight, not RU as a whole ?
What about the mass desertion problom the fact that in-order to recruit there literally dragging people off the streets, and critically the fact manpower is a massive problom for the Ukrainian armed forces.


Russia still manages to recruit with volunteers albeit it incentivise the prosses but nothe less it's hardly dragging people off the street or having major problems with keeping manpower on the the field or indeed having enough of it overall.

All hypothetical theories or polling data aside I think the true support of a nation in war can to a great deal be observed by the Army's they can field the how they Feild them and the general moral of that army. It's hard to hide the truth of those numbers were polling or theorising can be either faulty or deliberately misleading

It's also worth noting Russian forces are in the general on the attack, something that generally takes a higher unit moral to sustain in practice especially if as is the case those attacks need to be sustained over long periods of time and comes with significant casualties.
The fact the desertion rate is higher for the defender then the attacker in this case is I think a very troubling fact for the Ukrainian forces.
In short if the army itself is having problems with Feilding needed numbers keeping those on the Feild that are there and has issues with moral it's hard to believe that the country's population has massive support for the war. At least in context of that support actually contributing to the war efforts success. So sure Ukrainians may support the war ie. Victory but if there not willing to fight for it they are unlikely to achieve it
 
Last edited:

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
A look at the Great Ukrainian Defense Line:


I am wondering how viable this line really is. I believe the RU forces breached it for the first time when they overextended themselves at the Dobropilia salient.


Budanov’s assessment of the US intelligence support:

Kyrylo Budanov has outlined how critical U.S. intelligence support is for Ukraine’s defense. According to his assessment, even a termination of free access to optical satellite imagery would have serious consequences. Ukraine would lose approximately 15–17% of its operational capabilities. The impact of losing radar imagery would be even more severe. In that case, losses could reach around 46%, significantly complicating battlefield awareness and operational planning.


I remember dear Fred arguing that this was not the case and the Euros can fully replace it.


Edit: I noticed a couple or a few people mentioned China’s support of the Russian war efforts. I wonder if you guys considered the Chinese support of the Ukrainian war efforts and their most crucial component today: drones. A very short article on the subject:


An argument could be made that Ukraine would not be able to defend as it can now without the Chinese support of their (as well as others’) drone industry. In fact, without the Chinese drones and components, the war may have been long over. Mechanized attacks would still be a thing and they would be way more successful than the rare occurrences of them are today. Something to consider.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
...to Russia. Did I need to say that?
If I consider my neighbour's dog a threat, it is a threat to me. I doesn't matter what he thinks or what my/his second cousin thinks.
No, I understood perfectly.

And I laid out why it is untrue.

The person here who doesn't understand plain English isn't me.

You are blaming your neighbour's amiable pooch for your irrational fear.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
No, I understood perfectly.

And I laid out why it is untrue.

The person here who doesn't understand plain English isn't me.

You are blaming your neighbour's amiable pooch for your irrational fear.
I will take counsel on my judgement of my fears.
Not on yours.

Edit.
NATO shouldn't and cannot take any action against an invasion because Russia considers those fears irrational.
 
Last edited:

rsemmes

Active Member
Well, why dont we take a look at precisely what you said, in post #13449:

rsemmes: "A country "on the verge of bankruptcy", maybe, shouldn't be "in the fight" for 2 more years. Even if its "friends" want to keep it there."

Bold is mine in order to emphasize this particular.

Your sentence questions to whether or not it is the UKR desire to fight RU, and instead slyly suggests that in facts its "friends" are the ones pushing UKR to fight.

UKR chose to fight in Feb.2022 before any meaningful aid was received. They continue to to choose to fight. They can choose to not fight at any time.



"Limited invasion ?" Can you explain how this invasion is limited ? Second-rate-Stalin wanted all of UKR under his control. The initial distribution of RU forces clearly shows that, be it by outight control, or installing a UKR puppet.



At least we can agree on that.



What exactly constitutes a "NATO puppet regime ? Is there such a thing ?



Wrong. Its clear that UKR as a whole wants to fight. Otherwise, they wouldnt be fighting. That fact that most of the country isnt engaged in active combat doesnt change that. Most RU citizens arent fighting, so by your logic, its Second-rate-Stalin that wants the fight, not RU as a whole ?



What "we" want doesnt force the issue. If UKR didnt want to fight, the war would be over already. They choose to fight. You are conflating mutual self-interests with some shadowy conspiracy to somehow force UKR to fight against its wishes.



Its fate and existence are tied together you know. It would suit our interests if we helped UKR or not. it makes no difference to what "we" want as long as UKR continues to not want to be part of RU.
The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part...

You decided to start with the second part even when it starts with "Even if". I wonder if you should consider the first part, like the Americans and their "A well regulated militia... Start stashing pistols at home."
I don't question anything in my statement. I state, so I don't "suggest", I don't "push", that we want them to fight. Also, I haven't said anything about what Ukraine can/cannot choose.
I am starting to wonder if your point is to argue my points with the mighty sword of... Imagination.

Yes, a limited invasion, with less than 200.000 men and only on the western side of a huge country. A coup de main.

Now you should use your imagination. Puppet regime as one extremely friendly to NATO and/or unfriendly to Russia. Deploying NATO missiles in Ukraine, for example?
The point is not the second part, but what Putin wanted, would have been happy to achieve with that coup de main.

Ukraine as a whole wants to fight? That's simply delusional.

If you want to call RUSI "Wizards of Sion" with your "shadowy conspiracy"... I thinks that goes beyond imagination.
"Force", again?
We want Ukraine "in the fight". That is a fact, period. Not, against its wishes, "irrelevant of". Your imagination swinging wildly again? Ukraine hasn't stated any "not wishing" to fight, so my "irrelevant" was, obviously, hypothetical; that we want Ukraine fighting, is not.

"Fate and existence are tied together" but are not the same; and I didn't mention "fate". "Part of Russia"? Your imagination again? That is a maximalist statement that, after years of war, not even himself would believe; still useful for propaganda and negotiations.

I wonder if you are trying to argue my points or your imagination.
 
Last edited:

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
What about the mass desertion problom the fact that in-order to recruit there literally dragging people off the streets, and critically the fact manpower is a massive problom for the Ukrainian armed forces.
The manpower issues of UKR are well known and undeniable. Yet the army still fights. The country as a whole wants to resist RU. This may change in the future, but for now, UKR doesnt want to be RU.

Russia still manages to recruit with volunteers albeit it incentivise the prosses but nothe less it's hardly dragging people off the street or having major problems with keeping manpower on the the field or indeed having enough of it overall.
Money talks. Most of the contracts are in desperately poor areas. No one disagrees on this.

UKR fights for now. If the UKR govt sues for peace tomorrow, so be it. Its their choice.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part...

You decided to start with the second part even when it starts with "Even if". I wonder if you should consider the first part, like the Americans and their "A well regulated militia... Start stashing pistols at home."
...is this what passes for logic for you ? I struggle to parse what you are saying. English is not your first language. This isnt my fault.

I don't question anything in my statement. I state, so I don't "suggest", I don't "push", that we want them to fight. Also, I haven't said anything about what Ukraine can/cannot choose.
I am starting to wonder if your point is argue my points with the mighty sword of... Imagination.
Stop trying to be coy, and just come out and say it. The entire context of your original statement is designed to imply UKR is fighting against its own will, pushed along by shadowy conspiracies.

If you feel differently, here is your chance to state for the record, clearly:

Do you, rsemmes, believe that UKR is fighting RU of its own accord, and is not being forced to do so by western powers ?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Yes, a limited invasion, with less than 200.000 men and only on the western side of a huge country. A coup de main.
Most of the RU army, airforce and all of the Black sea navy. This is limited ? A coup de main, we can agree, but hardly limited in any extent. The only thing the RU havnt used is WMD.

Now you should use your imagination. Puppet regime as one extremely friendly to NATO and/or unfriendly to Russia. Deploying NATO missiles in Ukraine, for example?
Try learning English before you attempt to lecture me. You are conflating "friendly" and "puppet". Belarus is a puppet state of RU as they have no political indepedence. Lukashenko remains in power solely due to RU support. On the other hand Poland is not a "NATO puppet" as it has actual self governing.

See the difference ?

NATO missiles in UKR ? What are you talking about ?


Ukraine as a whole wants to fight? That's simply delusional.
Sure. Is the army actively resisting RU now ? <---- thats your answer.

We want Ukraine "in the fight". That is a fact, period. Not, against its wishes, "irrelevant of".
Which we agree on. So what ? Mutual interest is not the same thing as forcing UKR to fight.


"Fate and existence are tied together" but are not the same; and I didn't mention "fate". "Part of Russia"? Your imagination again? That is a maximalist statement that, after years of war, not even himself would believe; still useful for propaganda and negotiations.
Second-rate-Stalin disagrees with you.

I wonder is you are trying to argue my points or your imagination.
Trying to parse your obtuse language is more likely.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The manpower issues of UKR are well known and undeniable. Yet the army still fights. The country as a whole wants to resist RU. This may change in the future, but for now, UKR doesnt want to be RU.
Except the two aren't the same. Ukraine doesn't want to fight. But they don't want to be Russia, or even cede territory. At least according to the polls. Yes it's a paradoxical, almost schizophrenic position. But here we are.

Money talks. Most of the contracts are in desperately poor areas. No one disagrees on this.

UKR fights for now. If the UKR govt sues for peace tomorrow, so be it. Its their choice.
Don't confuse the government for the country.

Can you please show me the UKR strikes on Chinese shipments to RU ? Did I miss a UKR strike on a Chinese tanker ?
He's very clearly referring to the fact that Ukraine is striking civilian shipping that belongs to neutral countries. Whether they're Chinese specifically or not is unimportant. Either you're allowed to strike countries not in the fight or you're not. Ukraine has opened a problematic and dangerous door with this behavior. Depending on how exactly one looks at it, it amounts to state-sanctioned piracy, or even terrorism. And of course Russia has already mirrored their response.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Do you, rsemmes, believe that UKR is fighting RU of its own accord, and is not being forced to do so by western powers ?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO
What if we substitute “forced” with “encouraged with false expectations”? Whether the false expectations are known to be false by the encouraging parties or just a delusion I am not sure, but it does make a big difference.

Your overall point, however, is totally valid.

Most of the RU army, airforce and all of the Black sea navy. This is limited ? A coup de main, we can agree, but hardly limited in any extent. The only thing the RU havnt used is WMD.
To be fair, Russia hasn’t even come close to the level of mobilization that would be required to end the war quickly.

Also, as per the RUSI report on the RU air defense I cited recently, Russia has not used their newest GBAD missiles at all in this war (probbaly for a reason) and used their “second best” only on a few occasions. I right away thought of Armata tanks and the like, but those are RUSI’s claims.

And again, the war is still ongoing simply due to the epic fail in the initial planning by the Russians. And the support Ukraine had received, from d-day minus -insert number-, including intel and weapons. See what Budanov said about the intel alone, how it affects the situation today; I am assuming that the effects were even more significant back at the beginning and the outcome may have been very different had those circumstances were not the same.

Try learning English before you attempt to lecture me.
This simply seems to be an attack on the individual and not his argument. Also, a missed opportunity on your part to use:



You are conflating "friendly" and "puppet". Belarus is a puppet state of RU as they have no political indepedence. Lukashenko remains in power solely due to RU support. On the other hand Poland is not a "NATO puppet" as it has actual self governing.

See the difference ?
What about Kazakhstan? You definitely can say that Tokaev is in power solely due to the Russian direct open action during the coup attempt in the early 2022 (an action they never had to take in Belarus). Yet self-governed and not a puppet.

Sure. Is the army actively resisting RU now ? <---- thats your answer.
On this subject. I think I may have talked about it before, but Biletsky (of the Azov), I think it was, who said the other day that soon the number of deserters/AWOL will be higher than the number of personnel in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, or at least those fighting. There is also this great (but idiotic, in my opinion) narrative spread by the Ukrainians that the absolute majority of those deserters and AWOL are simply soldiers trying to switch from one unit to another. Well… (via Google translate from Ukrainian on both accounts)

Today, there are two categories of servicemen who go to the AWOL. In particular, those who have served for too long and those who have just joined the army. I think that this is 95% of all cases of AWOL. That is, people who are already tired, and no one wants to change the mobilization policy in the state. The state does not form a reserve. The second category is those who have just joined the army, in most cases, who have been busified. These people will extract the state's resources in the form of BZVP and material support, and then somewhere along the way to the military unit they run away.

Per Lutsenko from


The situation with mobilization evasion in Ukraine is critical, with 80% of conscripts fleeing training centers, and over time the number of evaders may equal the size of the active army.

From:


With AWOL numbers probably nearing or already over 400,000+, 80% of whom are running within days of mobilization… I don’t know man, but it certainly appears that the number of those who actually join the fight, whether they want to or not, is significantly lower than the number of those who neither want to fight nor do they join the fight.

To add, on that theory of “switching units”, the very units they are supposedly switching to are also depleted according to all reports that I read, with basically one exception - Magyar. And last month or the month before, Magyar himself posted that when they looked for people, something like 10,000 applied within a month. However, of the 10K, over 7 thousand were enlisted soldiers from other units. So less than 3K “new” applications to arguably the most successful (or definitely advertised to be so) unit that fights from “behind the frontline” for the most part. I highly doubt there are as many of those wishing to transfer to the assault units, be it Azov, or Skala, or whatever else (those being advertised as not less successful in what they do as well).

So yeah, I do think this is up for debate, at the very least, whether Ukraine as a whole wants to fight. Which is not the same as not wanting to be a “Russian puppet state” or whatever fears or convictions prevail.

[QUOTE="vikingatespam, post: 462610, member: 45428"Trying to parse your obtuse language is more likely.
[/QUOTE]
If you type enough on your phone, especially iPhone (my experience), you would know that “if” is often enough substituted for “is” and vice versa. I have no idea why (there are plenty of other examples). When I sometimes reread my own posts, I am “amazed” at some of the stuff that is written - missing words, words that do not belong, etc - ain’t no way I would write something like that (I think I mentioned it before). But I have never written a post here on the actual keyboard (don’t think I’d said that before). In fact, I don’t even know what this site looks like on a device with a proper OS - that is, a lap/desktop. So not everything is as it seems.


This is rather funny, in my opinion:


What Poroshenko said there, in short, without literal word for word translation, is that the Flamingo missiles do exist, by they do not work. They can fly and all but never hit targets. They do work in tandem with Neptune, as distractors. Neptune missiles manage to hit targets when they fly next to Flamingos (which is absurd because they fly at different speeds and trajectories -> hence my translation above as “in tandem”). He concludes that they are only useful when a Neptune needs to hit a target, otherwise not so much. But, he lastly says, psychological effect - he makes a gesture - is quite great.
 

Aleks.ov

New Member
Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, if this is the perception in russia, it’s understandable why the baltic countries would worry about being a potential next case under a Russian “Heim ins Reich” type rationale.
Am I correct in understanding that you drew a parallel between the Nazi doctrine and the protection of the rights of compatriots abroad (statelessness, language quotas, SS legionnaire marches, and much more)?
I doubt that. Russia is, in practical terms, a regional power focused on its immediate neighborhood, with limited ability to influence outcomes in the Americas. It doesn’t really matter on this issue in a way the US would have to worry about.
You may doubt whatever you like. To raise the costs for the US to unacceptable levels, a couple thousand 'geraniums' are enough. Simply, at the current stage of negotiations, this no one will do.
 
Last edited:

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
^ I think are way off, my man. The US does not give two shits about what Russia thinks about Venezuela. And you certainly overestimate the acceptable cost and the Geran UAV capabilities, to a laughable degree in the context you present it in.
 

personaldesas

Active Member
Except the two aren't the same. Ukraine doesn't want to fight. But they don't want to be Russia, or even cede territory. At least according to the polls. Yes it's a paradoxical, almost schizophrenic position. But here we are.
I dont claim to know anything about the sentiment or the mentioned polls, but in very general terms, a question like this depend on what those polls actually asked. In a way, there’s a big difference between “Do you personally want to fight in this war?” and “Do you want your country to fight in this war?”

Most people don’t want to fight a war themselves, with a high risk of death or life-altering injury. At the same time, they also don’t want to live under foreign rule or see their country dismantled. I see how those desires can coexist.

If people could avoid both outcomes, personal participation in combat and submission to foreign rule, many would obviously prefer that. That may be unrealistic or morally debatable, but I would not call it schizophrenic.
 
Last edited:

personaldesas

Active Member
Am I correct in understanding that you drew a parallel between the Nazi doctrine and the protection of the rights of compatriots abroad (statelessness, language quotas, SS legionnaire marches, and much more)?
No. That inference is yours, not mine. And frankly, it’s a cheap shot to conflate a comparison of justificatory narratives with a moral or ideological equivalence.

You may doubt whatever you like. To raise the costs for the US to unacceptable levels, a couple thousand 'geraniums' are enough. Simply, at the current stage of negotiations, this no one will do.
I think @KipPotapych has already addressed that point sufficiently.
 
Last edited:
Top