Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Dereich]

Rybar reports that the Ukrainian offensive on the Kherson front today was repulsed.

We're not yet two days out from the announcement that Rybar (a vocally pro-Russian source, as a reminder) is being investigated and is subject to verification by the Russian state censor for posting too much negative information about the war. Right now of all times their posts should not be treated as objective or useful.

[Dereich]

From Pro-Russian source "Intel Slava Z" telegram

The impending attack on Kherson is the last attempt by Kiev to take advantage of the numerical advantage at the front. It is better for the peaceful civilians to leave, the Russian army will fight seriously this time!

Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the tactics of conducting SMO, it is obvious that this coincided with the appointment of a new commander - General Surovikin. We already wrote earlier that before the arrival of reserves and those mobilized from the regions of Russia to the front, Kiev has a very small window of opportunity to attempt a counterattack in the Kherson direction. It is the capture of Kherson, as the only regional center liberated by Russia, that the British and American "masters" set for Zelensky as the main task. And as reported, the “deadline” for this task is no longer measured in months, but in weeks. Obviously, Kiev will throw into battle all available reserves, while spitting on the lives of soldiers and officers. The war to the last Ukrainian will continue.

In this regard, it is worth noting once again that the decision to evacuate civilians and prepare Kherson for defense is the only correct one. The lives of citizens of the Russian Federation will be saved, and Russian troops will have the opportunity to build fortified areas and freedom of tactical maneuvers. It is possible that subsequently Kherson may also become a springboard for the further offensive of our army on the lands still occupied by Kiev.

So interesting to see that the Russians are still trying to push the line that the mobilization is scaring the Ukrainians into action. If there is a Ukrainian offensive in the works the reasoning is much more likely the one that practically everyone has been mentioning for months: the need to complete major operations before the weather makes offensives difficult. The Russians so very much want to believe that the Ukrainians have no agency; that they only act in response to their "masters" or in poorly thought out desperation tactics to stop Russia's newest plans that will (surely this time) win them the war.

[Dereich]

Its been said before, but this just emphasizes the pointlessness of the Russian missile strikes. Its not helping things on the ground; Kherson and their still painfully slow struggle to gain ground in Donetsk make that clear. Its not doing anything to force Zelensky to the negotiating table either. Russia is wasting some of its most valuable and limited resources so that they can do something, anything in reaction to yet more Ukrainian successes. Its all rather pathetic.

[Dereich]

Biden just said that preliminarily it looks like it "was unlikely to have been fired from Russia." That still leaves a lot of possibilities open, of course.

[Dereich]

No one actually thinks that the Russians can threaten Kyiv; they can't even capture Bakhmut.

[Dereich]

https://twitter.com/chris__759/status/1607828994551959553

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZT-wVnFn60

[Dereich]

RU has been escalating it's mini-offensives during these last few days in different parts of the front, most likely prepping up for spring. In under 24 hours they launched another "surprise" attack. This time towards Vuhledar, reaching it's outskirts for the first time.

So what is it going to be? Zaporozhye, Kharkiv, or Lviv/Kyiv through Belarus? You yourself have posted suggestions that Russia is planning some grand war-winning offensive on all of these routes this month. All during which Russia is STILL trying to advance towards Bakhmut, something you have been continuously posting about since May. Surely you must see that credulously posting literally anything that makes it look like Russia is about to achieve some success, virtually none of which appear to be accurate, erodes your credibility and discredits your judgment.

[Dereich]

But human waves win wars, don't you know?

If Russia is using human waves then why are the casualties at Bakhhmut of approximate parity ?

Because we don’t know if that’s true or not. Ukraine keeps their causality rates on the wraps pretty effectively

Wonder why.

Whether they lost 20 or 20,000 in an engagement it makes equally good sense to keep that number hidden. Same for the Russians, of course.

[Dereich]

Even if Bennett's story is true:
1) Why would Zelensky believe any promise from Putin? Putin has lied and broken promises repeatedly, especially on matters related to Ukraine.
2) Why would Zelensky believe Bennett? During the early days of the war, the thought was that he was trying to broker a ceasefire to enhance his personal standing and that of Israel, and even if he was acting in completely good faith, he would still have incentive to either lie or not tell the whole truth.

All reasonable points.  My point is that even if true Bennett could have kept the story to himself.  I would be curious about why Bennett made this story public and told it in a way that made Zelensky look bad.

It only looks bad if you consider Bennett and Putin to be as or more trustworthy than Zelensky, which no sane or thinking person should.

Sure, everyone has the right be believe who they want to believe.  My point is, of all the people in the world, why would Bennett choose to tell a story to make Zelensky look bad?  Putin and Zelensky clearly have incentives to make the other person look bad but why would Bennett want to jump into this?

Why would you assume that Bennett considered how it made Zelensky look at all? He's a now retired politician who wanted to make himself sound important by playing up his role in the biggest geopolitical incident of his time in office. The story as he told it is dramatic and puts him back in the spotlight. It was also told in the middle of a five hour interview. Ascribing greater political motive to an off-the-cuff story by a former politician seems pointless.

[Dereich]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

One needs only look to Woodbury's recent posts to know that the Russians are not willing to sit and fight a war of attrition around defensive positions and are instead preparing for some kind of major offensive to gain more territory. That article for some reason puts the agency for this war on the United States instead of the parties actually fighting. An end to the war as it currently stands is completely unacceptable to BOTH combatants and both are taking steps to change the status quo.

[Dereich]

Bakhmut will fall around mid-February (IMO).

https://twitter.com/War_cube_/status/1619666237860229121?cxt=HHwWgsDRpZX3mvosAAA...

Happy Mid-February!

[Dereich]

Bakhmut will fall around mid-February (IMO).

https://twitter.com/War_cube_/status/1619666237860229121?cxt=HHwWgsDRpZX3mvosAAAA

Happy Mid-February!

This isn't an own man. If you watch my later posts I predicted that Bakhmut might fall around mid to late February. Possibly extended to next month if AFU does small counter-attacks to the south of Ivanivske (Which I successfully predicted would happen).

Either way you realize that there is no strategic point to hold Bakhmut anymore (Except losing Siversk) for the Ukrainians. At this point it's politics the only reason they keep reinforcing this cluster of a city. You don't look a map and think this is an adventageous position to hold:

https://twitter.com/WarMonitor4/status/1626255805694758912

You can be mad all you want that the Russian army consistently underperforms your publicly shared expectations, the fact remains that you continue to crowd this thread with your overly rosy predictions for Russian military success only to have to continually revise them without admitting that you have been wrong. 

As for the actual strategic value of the city, I don't know enough to say you're right. It could be like Stalingrad in that regardless of whatever greater strategic value the city holds, the real importance of it is in how much the invader seems to care about taking it. Clearly the Russians will waste as many lives to capture the city as it takes, so if the Ukrainians think they benefit from keeping that battle ongoing I say more power to them.

[Dereich]

There were a lot of bad takes in the runup to the war, plenty of them can in this very thread. It really is remarkable how good US intelligence has been on Russia and its intentions.

Speaking of that, the one year anniversary of the war comes next week. Putin has his State of the Nation speech set for the 21st and I'd have to assume the war would be the big topic. What positive message could he plausibly make to the Russian people? Russia hasn't captured any cities of note since Lysychansk all the way back in July. I assume that the recent attacks on Vuhledar and intensification of the Bakhmut attacks (which appears to be the long awaited Russian offense) were to give him SOMETHING positive to point to, but with no results so far. Perhaps one of the reasons for the Ukrainians to keep Bakhmut is to deny the enemy any kind of success for their anniversary "celebrations"? I struggle to think of any way Putin will be able to argue that the war going forward will be quick, cheap, or painless. Even Russians won't accept minimal gains for endless casualties with no end in sight.

[Dereich]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1628116603073175555
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1628116605044506624

The analysis I've read has asserted that this is the big offensive that they've been planning for since mobilization and that there are no signs of any other large-scale offensive preparations elsewhere. The ISW has asserted as much in their daily reports and War on the Rocks did a nice short podcast on the subject a few days ago here. The expectation that they express there is that this offensive will, eventually, finally lead to the capture of Bakhmut. They also express their opinion there that Russia acting now does Ukraine a favor by reducing the risk of a Russian response when the Ukrainian spring offensive arrives. Overall, the last few weeks make me more confident than ever that the war, when it ends, will be on better terms for Ukraine than the lines stand right now.

[Dereich]

     Seems kind of ridiculous to cite an incomplete figure for Ukrainian military aid. What's the number if we do include those?

Its a very weird chart even beyond that Ukrainian aid number; why start the Vietnam War spending in 1965? Why end the Afghanistan spending in 2010? Why end Iraq spending in 2010? The only date that makes sense is Korea and even that could be argued over.  

[Dereich]

Russia has already won.

If its goal was destabilizing the post-WWII order with the US clearly at the very top, yes. But Russia has to do more than that to get a victory.

[Dereich]

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/volodymyr-zelensky-ukraine-oscars-appearance-russia-1235547499/

"Oscars Reject Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Bid to Appear on Telecast (EXCLUSIVE)"

Does not Zelensky have a war to run? How come he is constantly trying to show up at these types of events?

Because the military runs the war not him. Part of the reason Ukraine has done so well is the Zelensky let’s the military run the war while he goes abroad to build public support as opposition were Putin runs the military operations

It’s not altogether clear that this is the case, given that Zelensky appears to have sent fresh troops to Bakhmut over the objections of his generals, whilst Putin has clearly allowed commanders on ground more latitude in the last few months (for example, allowing Surovikin to withdraw from the symbolically important but difficult to support Kherson bridgehead). Ultimately, the political leadership sets the war goals and this has an inevitable impact on how the military ‘runs’ the war.

One of the problems for Ukraine is the, essentially political, need for it to demonstrate, for the benefit of NATO, that it is constantly on the advance and ‘winning’, which may well lead to some ill-advised offensives in the south without the equipment necessary to achieve serious gains, alongside the increasingly wasteful use of men and resources in Bakhmut.

"Had", I think. Surovikin was demoted, Gerasimov took direct control and some weeks afterwards, Russia abandoned the attritional strategy and began an offensive earlier than most analysts had expected (instead of after the spring rasputitsa).

Lee, Kofman and a few others have speculated that this happened because Gerasimov promised faster victories to Putin. Leadership micromanagement of generals takes place in most wars and is probably present to some extent on both sides.

What?? They never did anything like that? Did I miss something?

If you're talking about Kreminna (I assume you are), that was not an offensive, those were positional battles. If you're saying that was an offensive you're insane.

Russian forces bombard Ukraine's Bakhmut in major new offensive, NATO chief says


Russia begins long-feared winter counteroffensive in Ukraine


Along Ukraine's frontlines as Russia presses winter offensive


Russia’s emerging new offensive in Ukraine, explained by an expert

[Dereich]

https://www.rmf24.pl/raporty/raport-wojna-z-rosja/news-polski-ambasador-wywolal-burze-padly-slowa-o-wojnie-z-rosja,nId,6664830#crp_state=1

Polish ambassader to France says that if Ukraine loses the war then Poland will enter the conflict

If Poland enters the conflict, does this entail them getting NATO protection?

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Poland going to war would not constitute an armed attack requiring self defense. There would be no treaty obligations against it. They could call them all to consultation if they felt their "territorial integrity, political independence or security" were threatened, but that's it. I'm sure it would be understood that NATO would not stand by if the Russians tried to conquer Poland, but it wouldn't be out of treaty obligations.

[Dereich]

A few hundred pages back Torie said that he could measure how well the war was going for each side by seeing who was posting the most in this thread. By that measure the past week must have been especially dire for the Russians.

[Dereich]

It's official, Finland will be joining NATO with the last roadblock cleared.

Putin's elective invasion and occupation of Ukraine has effectively caused the opposite result of what he was attempting to stop.... the expansion of NATO closer to borders with Russia.

Finland won final approval on Thursday to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a major shift in the balance of power between the West and Russia that was set off by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Turkey’s Parliament, in a session that went deep into the night, cast the last vote needed for Finland’s entry into NATO, greatly enlarging the alliance’s border with Russia in a strategic defeat for its president, Vladimir V. Putin. In invading Ukraine last year, he made it clear that he was intent on blocking NATO’s eastward expansion.

With Turkey’s ratification, Finland now faces only paperwork to become a NATO member. There will be an exchange of letters and the filing of Finland’s accession documents, already complete, with the State Department in Washington. The United States serves as the depository of NATO under the alliance’s founding treaty.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/30/world/russia-ukraine-news

This is only true if NATO's expansion is actually a thing that Russia is concerned about as opposed to a thing they like to use as an excuse to justify their aggression. Since an unjustified war of conquest against Ukraine, even if it had been successful, would give a fraying and aimless NATO a new purpose to exist there is no reason to believe that that is actually something that Russia worries about.

[Dereich]

Wagner & Russian Army has reached the railway line, fighting currently going on near the railway station.

The AFU's presence in the city is now only measly limited to it's western district.

Hey Woody, do you think Putin will complete his conquest of Bakhmut before losing his land bridge to Crimea? Any predictions?

He won't. That opportunity is way past over now.

https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1645108874117017603?cxt=HHwWhsCzqcHzzNQtAA...

What does the fact that the Russians feel the need to build several extensive fortification lines across Northern Crimea mean in your estimation? Because to me, I can't imagine why they would waste so much time and effort building fortification lines to defend Crimea if they thought they were going to stop the Ukrainians north of Melitopol.

[Dereich]

Discord leaks reveal US warned Ukraine against defending Bakhmut.

Lots more in the article, especially from Ukrainian Commander Palisa regarding tactics and things that don't appear in the Russian propaganda themes accentuated by various Russian oriented bloggers, and perhaps even some simps posting on this various thread.

Months after dire warnings from Washington that Ukraine would not be able to hold Bakhmut against an onslaught of Russian mercenaries, Ukrainian forces still cling to the city’s western edge in what has stretched into the longest and most deadly fight of the war.

An assessment marked “top secret” cautioned that “steady” Russian advances since November “had jeopardized Ukraine’s ability to hold the city,” and Ukrainian forces would probably be “at risk of encirclement, unless they withdraw within the next month.”

The Ukrainian commander overseeing the fight for Bakhmut, Col. Pavlo Palisa, said he was never formally briefed on this U.S. intelligence or the recommendations on how to leverage the fight in Bakhmut for additional advantage.

Another document in the trove, a cache of sensitive materials leaked online through the messaging platform Discord, detailed ways Ukraine could use advanced munitions, information campaigns and counter-drone technology to “impose future costs” on Russian forces.

Palisa credited his ability to hold parts of the city for months longer than predicted to a combination of classic urban warfare and advanced drone reconnaissance, including layers of signal jamming.

After Russian forces breached Bakhmut’s perimeter, Palisa said he pulled his forces back into residential blocks, using rooftops as high ground and converting homes into antitank positions. Deeper inside the city, both sides began to rely heavily on reconnaissance drones for targeting and jammers to confuse the opponent’s navigation systems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/20/bakhmut-ukraine-war-leaked-documents/

Curious lack of Putin and Xi simps commenting on this. let alone usual solid posters providing comments.

What more is there for anyone to say? The battle of Bakhmut has been going on for eight months. Every point about the viability of holding Bakhmut, the risks therein, and any potential benefits to Ukraine in holding its positions has been argued, countered, counter-countered and so on dozens of times. This may be the first document about potential disagreements between US advisors and the Ukrainian General Staff on remaining in Bakhmut but I promise you there were other leaks on the matter months ago that were argued to death here.

[Dereich]

https://twitter.com/FT/status/1650911475618267164
Politicization of ICC backfiring with South Africa now saying they will quit the international court after the warrant that obliges its members to jail Putin if he visits their territories. Instead of bringing more places to their side, the Western desperation is pushing more places away from their organizations/influence instead, openly stimulating a global divide.

Notice how the current South African president is also more pro-western than previous ones and you get an idea of how broad this feeling is.

The BRICS summit in South Africa later this year apparently cannot be stopped.

So now holding Putin accountable for f**king war crimes falls under your Global South crap?

No doubt. The concepts of "international law" and "human rights" as they're understood today are meaningless in a truly multipolar world like the one that Red Velvet so desperately wants to emerge from all this.

[Dereich]

I can't believe Prigozhin is STILL allowed out there to put out these daily diatribes criticizing the war effort of a war that he's an active participant in. I guess the Russians letting open factions and rivalries (apparently) get in the way of the war effort at a crucial time is consistent with everything else we've seen from Putin's Russia. If Putin were to drop dead tomorrow who is supposed to keep Prigozhin, Kadyrov, Shoigu and all the other minor warlords united towards a common purpose without mass arrests and executions? Anyone?

[Dereich]

I'm surprised I've managed to beat Woodbury's take, which will quite obviously be that the heartless Ukrainian monsters blew up the dam to murder Russian civilians as revenge or something. This dam blowing up looks like a big deal and at this moment there are plausible cases for both Ukraine and Russia being the culprit to disrupt the other's plans. Either way, its going to be very bad for civilians on both sides of the river. Even if we don't have official word, I think a good indicator that it was actually Ukraine would be the use the floods and chaos to amphibiously cross the Dnieper.