Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Skill and Chance]

Yikes, this sounds like the worst week for the Ukrainians since they defeated the Northern offensive. 

[Badger]

Amazing how much Kissinger has also destroyed his legacy

There was no "legacy" that he is creating or destroying. This is Kissinger being Kissinger even when he is 99 years old.

Nixon was a fantastic president on FP so yah that was part of his legacy

Millions of dead cambodians and Vietnamese disagree with you beep boop. But you've never let facts change your mind before, so why start now?

[Person Man]

Amazing how much Kissinger has also destroyed his legacy

There was no "legacy" that he is creating or destroying. This is Kissinger being Kissinger even when he is 99 years old.

Nixon was a fantastic president on FP so yah that was part of his legacy

Millions of dead cambodians and Vietnamese disagree with you beep boop. But you've never let facts change your mind before, so why start now?

It is what it is.

[Storr]

This change will be critical for Ukraine if Black Sea ports continue to be blockaded, which appears likely. Though more expensive and unable to fully match the tonnage Ukraine usually ships by sea, shipping grain by train (most likely to Polish Baltic Sea ports) is best option available.

Having one uniform track gauge will significantly save time, all other options take hours. From a wikipedia article about a Polish variable gauge system, the SUW 2000: "For a 32-wagon goods train it takes about 12 hours to cross the break of gauge using the bogie exchange facility. A transshipment involving unloading goods from one train and loading them onto another takes about 22 hours. If SUW 2000 II was deployed, the time taken for the crossing would be reduced to 4 hours."

It's easier to change a railroad from a wider track gauge to a smaller track gauge. This is because the narrower gauge uses locomotives and rolling stock which will fit in tunnels, bridges, stations, and other infrastructure of the wider gauged railway. That's why Ukraine is shifting gauge, instead of its western neighbors.

"Ukrzaliznytsia's operational director Vyacheslav Eremin noted that changing the track is "expensive, long and difficult, but necessary." According to him, the following stages are considered: Lviv-Kyiv, Lviv-Odesa, Lviv-Kryvyi Rih."


https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1529128834016202754?s=20&t=DGSpZE...

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1529371687019589632?s=20&t=XvuuaU...

[😥]

An editorial from European Pravda in response to a NYT article

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/05/25/7139970/

[Woody]

Confirmations of yesterday's RU advances.. Movenment north of Avdiivka now.. seems like Russians are going for small encirclements in different sections of the front. Russians are entering the Bakhmut-Lysychansk road (unsure if completely cut off).
https://mobile.twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1529250963839766528?cxt=HHwWgMC-gcf...

[Woody]

Bakhmut - Lysychansk road has been cut off

https://mobile.twitter.com/AggregateOsint/status/1529349260222812161?cxt=HHwWgsC...

[CumbrianLefty]

Yikes, this sounds like the worst week for the Ukrainians since they defeated the Northern offensive.  

Unfortunately, it does look like Russia has got their act together to a degree - though this was always likely to happen short of a complete disorganised rout.

However, the questions regarding the feasibility of substantial long term advances remain.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've been the most bullish person here on Ukraine's long-term prospects in this war. But if we see more of this week over the coming ones, I will find it hard to maintain such bullishness, probably.
Ukraine may have a numerical advantage or gain one soon, but said numerical advantage could not necessarily be as important to the outcome as I assumed.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I didn't post the Ukrainian claim when it first appeared, but there is now video evidence that Russia may be having a few problems with the (short-term) supply of tanks:

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1529404520828133380

They're better than nothing, but the bottom of the barrel is slowly being approached. The restoration of more modern tanks in deep storage is presumably too slow to keep up with the rate of losses and (at the start of the invasion) Russia had significantly fewer of these than their non-obsolete tanks.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-25/russia-reschedules-rate-meeting-for-this-week-during-ruble-rally

"Russia Set to Step Up Actions to Tame Rampant Ruble Rally"

In a story from Bizzaro world now Russia is concerned that RUB is too strong in a slap to Biden's prediction that he will "reduce RUB to rubble".  It seems the Russian Central Bank will most likely cut rates more to stem the RUB surge.

The RUB surge is understandable with improving terms of trade for Russia's natural resources export terms trade despite sanctions plus a collapse of Russian imports due to sanctions.  What the RUB surge does say is Russia's capital controls to avoid a capital flight from the Russian upper class does seems mostly successful.

[Skill and Chance]

I've been the most bullish person here on Ukraine's long-term prospects in this war. But if we see more of this week over the coming ones, I will find it hard to maintain such bullishness, probably.
Ukraine may have a numerical advantage or gain one soon, but said numerical advantage could not necessarily be as important to the outcome as I assumed.

Well, they have succeeded in preserving a free country, which is what matters most.  If this continues, they should consider a land deal in the east to end the war quickly.  Oil prices likely aren't coming down anytime soon, so the hope of Russia running out of money from the sanctions isn't really working out.  A long war on nearly equal economic footing is dangerous for Ukraine because of Russia's 3X population advantage.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've been the most bullish person here on Ukraine's long-term prospects in this war. But if we see more of this week over the coming ones, I will find it hard to maintain such bullishness, probably.
Ukraine may have a numerical advantage or gain one soon, but said numerical advantage could not necessarily be as important to the outcome as I assumed.

Well, they have succeeded in preserving a free country, which is what matters most.  If this continues, they should consider a land deal in the east to end the war quickly.  Oil prices likely aren't coming down anytime soon, so the hope of Russia running out of money from the sanctions isn't really working out.  A long war on nearly equal economic footing is dangerous for Ukraine because of Russia's 3X population advantage.

Well, re: territory and a peace deal, something pertinent to any peace deal is what Ukraine's view of what Ukraine giving up land is versus what Russia view of the same. Namely, if territorial things are part of it, then the matter of Crimea might be unavoidable.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1529440681793572867?s=20&t=XvuuaU...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1529440681793572867?s=20&t=XvuuaU...

Perhaps the least surprising thing Putin has done in this entire war.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1529407127466418176?s=20&t=XvuuaUqFG57f...

[Torie]

The Davos bash is  more like  a wake. And finally an article that has about the right quantity of Dommerism stirred into the mix, which is a lot. The whole system is kind of falling apart at the seams in a host of directions. And it is going to get worse before it gets better, a lot worse imo, with uninspired and mediocre leadership at best to cope with it all.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/25/ukraine-war-weighs-heavy-as-apocalyptic-mood-shrouds-davos

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1529232751987138561

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?
I'm probably overanalyzing this though. This is for morale, most likely.

[pppolitics]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?

The US should accidently misplaced a few nukes in Ukraine.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?

The US should accidently misplaced a few nukes in Ukraine.

That's not necessarily an atrocious idea. Ukraine being nuclear armed would help insulate it against Russian soft and hard power.

[AndyHogan14]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?
I'm probably overanalyzing this though. This is for morale, most likely.

One could argue that if Russia formally annexes all of the territory that it currently occupies, then they could (in their mind) use nuclear weapons. If Russia wants to use nukes, they will use nukes. Period.

With that said, Crimea will be the hardest of all the occupied territories to take back. However, I would prioritize Crimea over the Donbas for the reasons that I stated in a post above. If Donbas is lost, then Ukraine still has Russia on two sides, if Crimea remains under Russian control, then Ukraine has hostile powers on three sides.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?
I'm probably overanalyzing this though. This is for morale, most likely.

One could argue that if Russia formally annexes all of the territory that it currently occupies, then they could (in their mind) use nuclear weapons. If Russia wants to use nukes, they will use nukes. Period.

With that said, Crimea will be the hardest of all the occupied territories to take back. However, I would prioritize Crimea over the Donbas for the reasons that I stated in a post above. If Donbas is lost, then Ukraine still has Russia on two sides, if Crimea remains under Russian control, then Ukraine has hostile powers on three sides.

Virginia (the poster) told me that nukes were part of Russian defense doctrine for defending Russian territory. The Luhansk and Donetsk aren't really Russian in that sense, so I figured that Russia would be very likely to use them to stop a Ukrainian assault on Crimea, but not necessarily Luhansk and Donetsk, which are considered independent Republics by Russia.

[AndyHogan14]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?
I'm probably overanalyzing this though. This is for morale, most likely.

One could argue that if Russia formally annexes all of the territory that it currently occupies, then they could (in their mind) use nuclear weapons. If Russia wants to use nukes, they will use nukes. Period.

With that said, Crimea will be the hardest of all the occupied territories to take back. However, I would prioritize Crimea over the Donbas for the reasons that I stated in a post above. If Donbas is lost, then Ukraine still has Russia on two sides, if Crimea remains under Russian control, then Ukraine has hostile powers on three sides.

Virginia (the poster) told me that nukes were part of Russian defense doctrine for defending Russian territory. The Luhansk and Donetsk aren't really Russian in that sense, so I figured that Russia would be very likely to use them to stop a Ukrainian assault on Crimea, but not necessarily Luhansk and Donetsk, which are considered independent Republics by Russia.

Yes, but there have been rumors that Russia may try to formally annex Kherson and other parts of southern Ukraine. Would they then use nuclear weapons to stop Ukraine from retaking Kherson if they formally annex it? It is my view that if they want to use them, they will—whether that is for Kherson, Crimea, the Donbas it does not much matter.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's hard to see how Ukraine could regain Crimea. Doesn't he realize (and I was wrong about this) that Russia would use nukes to on Ukrainian armies that cross into the peninsula?
I'm probably overanalyzing this though. This is for morale, most likely.

One could argue that if Russia formally annexes all of the territory that it currently occupies, then they could (in their mind) use nuclear weapons. If Russia wants to use nukes, they will use nukes. Period.

With that said, Crimea will be the hardest of all the occupied territories to take back. However, I would prioritize Crimea over the Donbas for the reasons that I stated in a post above. If Donbas is lost, then Ukraine still has Russia on two sides, if Crimea remains under Russian control, then Ukraine has hostile powers on three sides.

Virginia (the poster) told me that nukes were part of Russian defense doctrine for defending Russian territory. The Luhansk and Donetsk aren't really Russian in that sense, so I figured that Russia would be very likely to use them to stop a Ukrainian assault on Crimea, but not necessarily Luhansk and Donetsk, which are considered independent Republics by Russia.

Yes, but there has been rumors that Russia may try to formally annex Kherson and other parts of southern Ukraine. Would they then use nuclear weapons to stop Ukraine from retaking Kherson if they formally annex it? It is my view that if they want to use them they—whether that is for Kherson, Crimea, the Donbas it does not much matter.

Ah. I guess they could. Which is horrifying, and should be horrifying, no matter what you think about this conflict in general or which side you are on.
If I had to explain the Russian willingness to incorporate them into their defensive strategy this readily (from my POV as a quasi-wannabe military analyst), it's because they simply have so many of them, going into the tens of thousands.